On 3/30/2013 10:23 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

"J Herring" wrote in message
...


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.

Your wife does own a gun or did you get divorced?

Are you thinking community property?

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

"J Herring" wrote in message
...


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd
recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me
who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.

Your wife does own a gun or did you get divorced?

--------------------------------------------------

If your question was directed at me, I am not divorced. Married
happily for 43 years.

On 3/30/13 10:51 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

"J Herring" wrote in message
...


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.

Your wife does own a gun or did you get divorced?

--------------------------------------------------

If your question was directed at me, I am not divorced. Married
happily for 43 years.




My wife has absolutely no interest in firearms. She's shot my .22LR
pistol a couple of times out at the informal range, and I showed her how
to fire our "Anti Home Invader 12 Gauge," in case PsychoSnotty breaks in
for an illegal home invasion and I'm outa town. Told her to aim lower
than usual if it is PsychoSnotty.

Our first line of defense, though, is the alarm system. It's loud enough
to wake brain dead zombies.

On 3/30/2013 10:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 10:51 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

"J Herring" wrote in message
...


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.

Your wife does own a gun or did you get divorced?

--------------------------------------------------

If your question was directed at me, I am not divorced. Married
happily for 43 years.




My wife has absolutely no interest in firearms. She's shot my .22LR
pistol a couple of times out at the informal range, and I showed her how
to fire our "Anti Home Invader 12 Gauge," in case PsychoSnotty breaks in
for an illegal home invasion and I'm outa town. Told her to aim lower
than usual if it is PsychoSnotty.

Our first line of defense, though, is the alarm system. It's loud enough
to wake brain dead zombies.



You took mama out to man camp? Did you introduce her to Stumpy

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to
bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga.
Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too?

Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours?

-------------------------------------

Hmmmmmm. How did you know "Plume" is a woman?

How easily they give themselves away.

Like that you're a mental case. Yeah I agree.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:55:00 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:08:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:45:44 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:24:07 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with federal laws. Try to keep
up.

Holy Christ! It has everything to do with federal AND state laws. Try
not to be particularly stupid.

You cited it

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where does it say anything about federal laws. It says "No State..."

The FEDERAL law says "no state". Did you get through fourth grade?
Cause it's not obvious.

DOMA is not a state law. it is a federal law.

No state wrote DOMA

Nice try. That's not the subject of your recent bull****.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:18 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.

The liberals and progressives have shown thier true goal. They are all control freaks and
they can't stand individualism or liberty.

Stupid ****s like you have shown their true goal. Being stupid ****s.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:54:03 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:07:36 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:42:39 -0400, wrote:

You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your
way. We won't.


I guess you have never been through a divorce. You pretty much need a
lawyer familiar with the laws in the state you are divorcing in, just
to figure out who gets the "stuff" and how to legally convey it. If
kids are involved it gets way more complicated than that.

You don't need one. Sometimes its a good idea. Sometimes its
unnecessary.

I suppose if there are no assets no kids and you live in a state with
a very simple divorce procedure, you can get way with Kinkos blank
divorce petition but if there is any confusion at all about the
divorce, you will wish you had a lawyer.

Wishing and needing are two different ****ing things. You're really
being particularly stupid today.



There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration.

At a certain point, why would anyone enter into a contract that
involves 1100+ different laws without legal advice?
If Edie Winter had better legal advice, she would not have been
slammed with that huge tax bill.

So, blame the grieving widow. You're claiming what exactly? She should
just write off her dying wife? I guess so.

If she really had a million dollar inheritance coming (as indicated by
the $360,000 tax bill), she really should have sought legal advice and
engaged in some tax planning. It is simple logic.

Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain.

I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to
protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government.

What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert?

There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even
if you are not married.

Go for it. We're waiting...



So you can just forget about a simple flat tax and other wacko ideas.
The country has never worked that way and never will.
Just concentrate on waste and corruption.

As long as special interests still control congress, we will never
have a flat tax. I suppose you will be defending the carried interest
deduction next.


Nor should we. It's very regressive. It hurts those who can least
afford it. The rich do fine though.

It is all part of our 10,000 page tax code. 99% of it has nothing to
do with anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of those "loopholes" were
put in there to placate some special interest, usually a very rich
special interest.

So, when making things simpler and fair comes around, you're all for
it. Good. Just don't mention flat tax, as that is simple but it aint
fair.

For virtually everyone making less than about $150,000 a year, a flat
tax would be better.

No it wouldn't. It's class warfare..

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare

Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more.

Stupid like you don't get it.


We come full circle back to the idea that marriage is a simple
contract between anyone who wants to enter into it at that point don't
we?

That's fine with me.

Good deal. That is as it should be

Tell your right-wing buddies.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

Read some DeToqueville

You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the
population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you
pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private.

On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

Read some DeToqueville

You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the
population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you
pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private.



Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville.

It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion,
the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other
things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of
liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the
community which he lived."

If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion,
thanks to the radicalization of the right.