Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:27:03 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

They are AFTER YOU! Hide now.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:30:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:27 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

Because, of course, they intend to surround your house and tell you to
come out with your hands up, and they know you'll start shooting off
your mouth or your peashooter.

They're not going to tell him to come out. they're just going to burn
donw the ****ing house.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.


He's a ****ing lunatic. he heard it inside his head or from Glen Beck
(same thing).

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:32:46 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:29:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


We have an amendment process for changing and amending the Constitution.
Getting rid of state's rights can be accomplished by following the
process. Also, a liberal Supreme Court that is as activist as the
current conservative Supreme Court could issue rulings that abrogate
more of what are considered state's rights.

The way we are going, the bill of rights will be reduced to free
speech for people rich enough to buy the TV time and not having
soldiers quartered in our homes.

Yeah, yeah, the apocolypse is coming any day now. What a moronic way
of thinking.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 4:48 PM, wrote:

The open question is whether "gay" is a protected class then isn't it?
That is the question Scalia asked the other day.
Are bigamists going to be the next protected class?
Why can't 3 people be married?
At a certain point people may even start questioning the "age of
majority/consent" that is an arbitrary number that is not even uniform
among the states.




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

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

I agree but the same thing happened with interracial marriages. Some
states allowed it some didn't. Eventually, that changed. Change should
be slow if possible.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:40:44 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:

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

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

I would really like the government out of the marriage business
altogether. Marriage should be a church thing and all of the
government involvement should be by simple contract law.
Government regulation of marriage is really just church dogma,
legitimized at the point of a government gun. That is how we got to
outlawing gay marriage in the first place.

I agree with ths completely.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:38:25 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:44:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:44:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Sometimes they hit every number in the phone book, other times they
start with a prefix and hit all 10,000 numbers.

Did you READ the article?

Yes, it said nothing about the scope of the robocall campaign only
that people in Newtown got called. It didn't even say if they were
only people on the NRA donors list.



But they cannot do any wrong. The ****ing NRA are blood sucking scum
that only give a **** about where their next gun mouthful comes from.

What do you think of the local NAACP in Ohio who said that the girl was drunk and consented
to being raped?

http://www.ibtimes.com/steubenvilles...tim-was-drunk-
willing-exclusive-1149517

Don't know. Sounds like an odd viewpoint of a rape. Do you want me to
apologize for him? Looks like he's not in the role of president since
2010. So, basically, you're just blowing smoke.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/28/13 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:

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

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

I would really like the government out of the marriage business
altogether. Marriage should be a church thing and all of the
government involvement should be by simple contract law.
Government regulation of marriage is really just church dogma,
legitimized at the point of a government gun. That is how we got to
outlawing gay marriage in the first place.


Why should marriage be a church thing? Why shouldn't civil officials
perform marriages?

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:07:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

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.

These two cases have nothing to do with any such action. A lot of
"reasons the way things are" have to do with antiquated views and
fear. That argument doesn't stand for very long.

=======

There is nothing antiquated about being concerned with big government.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/28/2013 7:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.



Read up Dick... It's just coming out in hearings two days ago. Their
answer first is "we are just saving money by buying 5 years worth of
ammo instead of one year at a time"... The next question was if for just
plinking and practice, why all the expensive hollow point ammo... It
will come out Dick, I just pay a bit more attention to CSpan that most
here... mark my words...

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/28/2013 7:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.



Read up Dick... It's just coming out in hearings two days ago. Their
answer first is "we are just saving money by buying 5 years worth of ammo
instead of one year at a time"... The next question was if for just
plinking and practice, why all the expensive hollow point ammo... It will
come out Dick, I just pay a bit more attention to CSpan that most here... mark my words...

Snerk. They're going to arm the drones circling your house.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On 29 Mar 2013 04:12:56 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/28/2013 7:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.



Read up Dick... It's just coming out in hearings two days ago. Their
answer first is "we are just saving money by buying 5 years worth of ammo
instead of one year at a time"... The next question was if for just
plinking and practice, why all the expensive hollow point ammo... It will
come out Dick, I just pay a bit more attention to CSpan that most here... mark my words...

Snerk. They're going to arm the drones circling your house.

Circling inside his empty head.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:16:22 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:07:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

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.

These two cases have nothing to do with any such action. A lot of
"reasons the way things are" have to do with antiquated views and
fear. That argument doesn't stand for very long.

Actually the decision overturning DOMA may end up citing the 9th and
10th amendment.

SCOTUS tea leaves are hard to read...

Maybe, but it seems more likely it'll be 14:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:59:42 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:07:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

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.

These two cases have nothing to do with any such action. A lot of
"reasons the way things are" have to do with antiquated views and
fear. That argument doesn't stand for very long.

=======

There is nothing antiquated about being concerned with big government.

The finding of unconstitutionality of DOMA would be directly in line
with that philosophy.

In fact Kennedy is strongly in favor of state's right and in favor of
equal protection.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:42:57 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:11:32 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 4:48 PM, wrote:

The open question is whether "gay" is a protected class then isn't it?
That is the question Scalia asked the other day.
Are bigamists going to be the next protected class?
Why can't 3 people be married?
At a certain point people may even start questioning the "age of
majority/consent" that is an arbitrary number that is not even uniform
among the states.




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

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

I agree but the same thing happened with interracial marriages. Some
states allowed it some didn't. Eventually, that changed. Change should
be slow if possible.

So we should go slow on gay marriage? I am trying to understand where
you are going with this.

I think that's the way things work at least at the SCOTUS way of
thinking.

I imagine polygamy will be next. If we are truly going to embrace the
GBLT community we can't ignore the "B"s
Bisexuals should be able to have one each shouldn't they?

I have no objection, but just because you "imagine" doesn't make it
likely.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:40:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:11:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message


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


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


This "guy" does sound like Plume. He showed up here opening up on me
with his first post, pretty much where Plume left off.

I said that not long after it showed up here. Same key phrases, same old BS. It's just another sock back with a different name, and attempting (poorly) to re-invent itself. A third-rate troll at best.

It's kevin, it's harry, it's plume..... look out behind you...... BOO!

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

Cite, Mr. Insanity? I didn't think so.....

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.

He's insane, that bull just somehow makes it to his brain. He'll offer
up no evidence, just excuses watch!

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/28/2013 7:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.



Read up Dick... It's just coming out in hearings two days ago. Their
answer first is "we are just saving money by buying 5 years worth of
ammo instead of one year at a time"... The next question was if for just
plinking and practice, why all the expensive hollow point ammo... It
will come out Dick, I just pay a bit more attention to CSpan that most
here... mark my words...

cite?

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/28/2013 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:11:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"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?


This "guy" does sound like Plume. He showed up here opening up on me
with his first post, pretty much where Plume left off.


And plume showed up less than 24 hours after loogie left... And loogie
is kevin, there you go.

And so is Harry. It's kevin, it's harry, it's plume. Hey, maybe they're
all double super secret agents working for the agency that is buying all
of the guns and armored vehicles that you've insanely dreamed up!!!

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/13 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

Cite, Mr. Insanity? I didn't think so.....



Well, you have to give Snotty credit for being an out of control paranoid.

Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our
local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he
said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his
department tries to reach out for recruits.

Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault
rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.

I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with
lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help
in search and rescue.

Perhaps someday PsychSnotty will find himself in a shoot-out with the
local gendarmes. The family might try to escape through the back door on
that "motobike" they keep in the kitchen.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/13 8:34 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/28/2013 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:11:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"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?


This "guy" does sound like Plume. He showed up here opening up on me
with his first post, pretty much where Plume left off.


And plume showed up less than 24 hours after loogie left... And loogie
is kevin, there you go.

And so is Harry. It's kevin, it's harry, it's plume. Hey, maybe they're
all double super secret agents working for the agency that is buying all
of the guns and armored vehicles that you've insanely dreamed up!!!


I thought you got promoted to "triple" secret agent, once you learned
that new special secret handshake and got your "full patch" tattoos.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/13 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our
local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he
said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his
department tries to reach out for recruits.

Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault
rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.

It is just an indication that the cops have more money than they know
what to do with

I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with
lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help
in search and rescue.
Of course this could bring up some alarming 4th amendment issues.
My real fear with these drones is that they will just be loitering
over people's houses looking for amusing things the cops can laugh
about.
What would you do if there was a drone hovering 50 feet over the pool
were your teenaged daughters were playing?




I'd figure the guys in the copter were horny.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/2013 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our
local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he
said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his
department tries to reach out for recruits.

Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault
rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.

It is just an indication that the cops have more money than they know
what to do with

I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with
lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help
in search and rescue.
Of course this could bring up some alarming 4th amendment issues.
My real fear with these drones is that they will just be loitering
over people's houses looking for amusing things the cops can laugh
about.
What would you do if there was a drone hovering 50 feet over the pool
were your teenaged daughters were playing?





Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by
law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of
who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the
manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for
Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque
structure?

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Friday, 29 March 2013 12:19:04 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 3/29/2013 11:14 AM, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:







Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our

local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he

said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his

department tries to reach out for recruits.



Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault

rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.



It is just an indication that the cops have more money than they know

what to do with



I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with

lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help

in search and rescue.

Of course this could bring up some alarming 4th amendment issues.

My real fear with these drones is that they will just be loitering

over people's houses looking for amusing things the cops can laugh

about.

What would you do if there was a drone hovering 50 feet over the pool

were your teenaged daughters were playing?











Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by

law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of

who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the

manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for

Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque

structure?


What do you think they'll see when they 'look at you'??
A stunted little wacko doing his best to avoid a haircut and a real job.
You should be more concerned that they might be developing mind reading capabilities.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/13 11:19 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:


Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by
law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of
who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the
manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for
Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque
structure?

Law enforcement uses them to scan cars for bombs. D'oh.
I did hear, though, that 20 of the vans circle your house and emit
X-rays so as to sterilize you.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Friday, 29 March 2013 13:11:52 UTC-3, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/29/13 11:19 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:





Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by

law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of

who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the

manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for

Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque

structure?



Law enforcement uses them to scan cars for bombs. D'oh.

I did hear, though, that 20 of the vans circle your house and emit

X-rays so as to sterilize you.


Now that would be a real community service.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/13 12:28 PM, True North wrote:
On Friday, 29 March 2013 13:11:52 UTC-3, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/29/13 11:19 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:





Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by

law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of

who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the

manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for

Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque

structure?



Law enforcement uses them to scan cars for bombs. D'oh.

I did hear, though, that 20 of the vans circle your house and emit

X-rays so as to sterilize you.


Now that would be a real community service.


Indeed...improving the gene pool, as it were.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/29/2013 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our
local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he
said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his
department tries to reach out for recruits.

Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault
rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.

It is just an indication that the cops have more money than they know
what to do with

I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with
lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help
in search and rescue.
Of course this could bring up some alarming 4th amendment issues.
My real fear with these drones is that they will just be loitering
over people's houses looking for amusing things the cops can laugh
about.
What would you do if there was a drone hovering 50 feet over the pool
were your teenaged daughters were playing?





Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by
law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of
who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the
manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for
Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque
structure?

Hooboy, here he goes, more insanity!!!!

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:14:26 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our
local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he
said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his
department tries to reach out for recruits.

Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault
rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.

It is just an indication that the cops have more money than they know
what to do with

I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with
lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help
in search and rescue.
Of course this could bring up some alarming 4th amendment issues.
My real fear with these drones is that they will just be loitering
over people's houses looking for amusing things the cops can laugh
about.
What would you do if there was a drone hovering 50 feet over the pool
were your teenaged daughters were playing?




The whole world, fortunately, is not quite as paranoid as you and your
fellow Foxites.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:19:04 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/29/2013 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our
local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he
said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his
department tries to reach out for recruits.

Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault
rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.

It is just an indication that the cops have more money than they know
what to do with

I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with
lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help
in search and rescue.
Of course this could bring up some alarming 4th amendment issues.
My real fear with these drones is that they will just be loitering
over people's houses looking for amusing things the cops can laugh
about.
What would you do if there was a drone hovering 50 feet over the pool
were your teenaged daughters were playing?





Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by
law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of
who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the
manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for
Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque
structure?

Also, to reinforce this... you're absolutely RIGHT! You should avoid
the dentist, since he's sending your vital toothdecay statistics to
FEMA. And, they are opening up camps for people who have excessive
tooth decay. When the hygenist sucks the spit out of your mouth, she's
collecting your vital fluids. Be worried. Very worried!

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:03:41 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:43:47 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:16:22 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:07:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

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.

These two cases have nothing to do with any such action. A lot of
"reasons the way things are" have to do with antiquated views and
fear. That argument doesn't stand for very long.

Actually the decision overturning DOMA may end up citing the 9th and
10th amendment.

SCOTUS tea leaves are hard to read...

Maybe, but it seems more likely it'll be 14:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

That is a 10th amendment issue.

I suppose someone might try to apply the 14th amendment like they do
in the drug war.
The federal government says a state can not deny you the right to rot
in a federal prison for having a state sanctioned medical marijuana
joint.

Come on. Don't stretch too much, you'll hurt yourself.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:48:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:42:57 -0400, wrote:


I agree but the same thing happened with interracial marriages. Some
states allowed it some didn't. Eventually, that changed. Change should
be slow if possible.

So we should go slow on gay marriage? I am trying to understand where
you are going with this.

I think that's the way things work at least at the SCOTUS way of
thinking.

I imagine polygamy will be next. If we are truly going to embrace the
GBLT community we can't ignore the "B"s
Bisexuals should be able to have one each shouldn't they?

I have no objection, but just because you "imagine" doesn't make it
likely.

17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/13 2:58 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:46:27 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:


17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

How about the rights of gun owners?



The "rights" of gun owners are not unlimited, and can and should be
closely regulated.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:44:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

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.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

Which part of "No state shall make or enforce any law..." are you
having trouble with?

The 14th amendment is NOT about federal laws.

But states DO make laws.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:57:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:44:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

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.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

Which part of "No state shall make or enforce any law..." are you
having trouble with?

The 14th amendment is NOT about federal laws.


It's about equal protection. That's what it says. The states are not
allowing such protection. Which part of equal protection don't you
understand?

Striking down DOMA means that the states can decide for themselves
about marriage. That was the case in other situations, and that will
be the case here.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:19:30 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:06:47 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:44:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

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.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

Which part of "No state shall make or enforce any law..." are you
having trouble with?

The 14th amendment is NOT about federal laws.

But states DO make laws.

Exactly and the 10th amendment protects the rights STATE laws convey.
That is why DOMA would be tossed as a 10th amendment issue.
New York recognized Edie's marriage and the federal government did
not, with no constitutional authority to regulate marriage in any way.

There are multiple issues with it, but it comes down to equal
protection. But, of course, you are a legal scolar, as well as a PhD
in physics, astrophysics, and metaphysics, so we all defer to you on
all subjects.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:58:30 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:46:27 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:


17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

How about the rights of gun owners?

How about them? Do gun owners have rights over my right to safety or
my freedom to speak or that of the press?

I said "in this manner" that of prejudice and unreasoned fear.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:00:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/29/13 2:58 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:46:27 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:


17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

How about the rights of gun owners?



The "rights" of gun owners are not unlimited, and can and should be
closely regulated.

He doesn't care about anyone besides himself.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:15:58 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing.
How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down
range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require
a lot more time.

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

Much more time in handling, loading, firing and cleaning of different
popular gun types.
Much more on general awareness of things like how far a round travels
for different gun types.
How to properly and safely "carry".
How to safely deal with jammed guns or "stovepipes".
Review of pertinent laws related to gun ownership and transfers.
Much more range time and instruction, especially for those who are new
to guns.

Finally, there should be a test. A real one, not a phony self
correct, self grade type thing like the one I took.

I can probably think up a few dozen more.

My oldest son and his wife both received their LTC in Massachusetts
before relocating to South Carolina.
Neither of them had any experience at all with guns. They took a
course that lasted for a month, meeting two or three times a week. 20
hours of instruction, then they spent 3 Saturdays at a range shooting
under instruction for a couple of hours each day.

When I took the course, it was one morning ... four hours of
"instruction" and one hour at the range. He covered the basics that
any idiot would know. The state has a checklist of items to be
covered, from handling guns to road rage. In many cases the
instructor just read the checklist off to us so he could claim he
covered them all.

I've learned more by reading by myself and from talking to experienced
gun owners at the range I belong to.

Experience is a great teacher. You covered a lot of items there...many of which she has no need to
know, like 'safely carry' (she's not), cleaning (which would have to include disassembly), dealing
with jams (call the Range Safety guy), and 'much more range time and instruction'. If she wants to
be a good shot with various weapons and be able to disassemble and reassemble then perhaps you're
right. But, she certainly doesn't *need* all that to be comfortable with loading and shooting a
weapon - safely. The pertinent laws were part of the class. She fired a revolver (.38 Special) and
an M&P 9mm. She has no need to learn about a lot of different weapons and ammunition.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.