|
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. Whoops - she was taught how to clear a jam. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:44:43 -0400, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, J Herring wrote: 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. ========== Clearing jams, inspection, cleaning, unloading. A high percentage of accidental discharges occur during one of those four operations. From there you could go on to strategies for developing speed and accuracy, range practice, different types of guns, etc. She's got me for the cleaning. And, if the gun is not loaded, then the cleaning is not a safety issue. She was taught how to check for a round in the chamber or in the cylinder. Could she have been taught lots more? Sure - but she's not being taught to be an Infantryman. She's being taught how to safely use a firearm. She's sure not worried about speed or different types of guns. She needed the instruction on the guns we have - not someone's else's AR15. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:47:08 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:56:38 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: 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? I understand that DOMA has nothing to do with STATES denying equal protection. 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. Hence the 10th amendment. Dickbrain... DOMA is a FEDERAL law. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
"J Herring" wrote in message ... 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. ---------------------------------------------- Well, we'll have to disagree. If you think your wife (or anyone for that matter) "doesn't need" to know how to disassemble, clean, deal with jams (just call the RSO ???? ... I can't believe you said that) ..... then I'll have to make sure I never visit the range she shoots at. I bought some .380 "Snap-Caps" and spent an hour or so trying to intentionally cause a jam in both the Walther PPK/S and the S&W Bodyguard. I bought them purposely because they often don't work well in some gun models .... just like some manufacturer's live rounds don't always work well with certain gun models. I succeeded with the Walther, causing a Snap-Cap to become wedged and stuck in the chamber and the next Snap-Cap round in the magazine to jam up and out of place behind it. In this situation, the magazine could not be released (it was also jammed) and holding the slide back and shaking the gun or pushing at the jammed round would not clear it. I finally managed to get the jammed magazine round out, release and remove the clip, but the chambered Snap-Cap wouldn't drop out. It was jammed solid within the barrel. Finally got it out by lightly tapping on the "lead end" with one of my cleaning rods. I did this because a similar jam occurred the first time I used that gun, except it was with live ammo. It took two of us to clear it, one holding the slide back as far as it would go (it wouldn't lock) and the other pressing the magazine release button while tugging on the bottom of the magazine at the same time. I learned that the Walther doesn't like ammo manufactured by Independence. Since then I buy Winchester, Remington or Federal and have not had any problems. So what if something like this happened to your wife "on the range" and the RSO wasn't around? |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
"J Herring" wrote in message ... 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. --------------------------------------------- I have no desire to get into a ****ing contest with Scott. He has a habit of going into damage control mode following some post he makes that people take exception to. In this case, the thread was about the current ammunition shortage. He responds with, "Why do you think DHS is buying up *all* the ammo, some 1.6 billion" ..... insinuating that *that* is the reason for the shortage. He then provides a link to an article that doesn't support his statement at all. Yes, the DHS is buying up to 1.6 billion rounds over the next 4 to 5 years, but that is *not* what has caused the current shortage, as the article points out. But now he's focusing on the 1.6 billion purchase as being the subject of the thread. Whew. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
In article ,
says... On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:40:44 -0400, wrote: 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. Why? You think marriages should be conducted by lawyers? There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration. You want that all changed, as Greg appears to want? That's just radical libertarianism. The only question at hand now in DOMA is whether it violates equal protection. Of course it does. It was discriminatory and unconstitutional from the getgo. Nothing new either. Laws and actions denying equal protection to blacks, women, Japanese-Americans come to mind. Those were also corrected. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:45:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"J Herring" wrote in message .. . 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. ---------------------------------------------- Well, we'll have to disagree. If you think your wife (or anyone for that matter) "doesn't need" to know how to disassemble, clean, deal with jams (just call the RSO ???? ... I can't believe you said that) .... then I'll have to make sure I never visit the range she shoots at. I bought some .380 "Snap-Caps" and spent an hour or so trying to intentionally cause a jam in both the Walther PPK/S and the S&W Bodyguard. I bought them purposely because they often don't work well in some gun models .... just like some manufacturer's live rounds don't always work well with certain gun models. I succeeded with the Walther, causing a Snap-Cap to become wedged and stuck in the chamber and the next Snap-Cap round in the magazine to jam up and out of place behind it. In this situation, the magazine could not be released (it was also jammed) and holding the slide back and shaking the gun or pushing at the jammed round would not clear it. I finally managed to get the jammed magazine round out, release and remove the clip, but the chambered Snap-Cap wouldn't drop out. It was jammed solid within the barrel. Finally got it out by lightly tapping on the "lead end" with one of my cleaning rods. I did this because a similar jam occurred the first time I used that gun, except it was with live ammo. It took two of us to clear it, one holding the slide back as far as it would go (it wouldn't lock) and the other pressing the magazine release button while tugging on the bottom of the magazine at the same time. I learned that the Walther doesn't like ammo manufactured by Independence. Since then I buy Winchester, Remington or Federal and have not had any problems. So what if something like this happened to your wife "on the range" and the RSO wasn't around? The ranges at which we shoot have extremely knowledgeable safety officers. And, she doesn't go to a range without me. We have practiced with snap caps at home. She can disassemble the M&P 9 because I taught her how to do so. For the instructor to have taught each student how to disassemble and clean their own weapons would have been unreasonable. Anytime my wife is shooting someplace besides a range, I'll be there. I don't expect her to be an expert in firearms. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:45:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"J Herring" wrote in message .. . 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. ---------------------------------------------- Well, we'll have to disagree. If you think your wife (or anyone for that matter) "doesn't need" to know how to disassemble, clean, deal with jams (just call the RSO ???? ... I can't believe you said that) .... then I'll have to make sure I never visit the range she shoots at. I bought some .380 "Snap-Caps" and spent an hour or so trying to intentionally cause a jam in both the Walther PPK/S and the S&W Bodyguard. I bought them purposely because they often don't work well in some gun models .... just like some manufacturer's live rounds don't always work well with certain gun models. I succeeded with the Walther, causing a Snap-Cap to become wedged and stuck in the chamber and the next Snap-Cap round in the magazine to jam up and out of place behind it. In this situation, the magazine could not be released (it was also jammed) and holding the slide back and shaking the gun or pushing at the jammed round would not clear it. I finally managed to get the jammed magazine round out, release and remove the clip, but the chambered Snap-Cap wouldn't drop out. It was jammed solid within the barrel. Finally got it out by lightly tapping on the "lead end" with one of my cleaning rods. I did this because a similar jam occurred the first time I used that gun, except it was with live ammo. It took two of us to clear it, one holding the slide back as far as it would go (it wouldn't lock) and the other pressing the magazine release button while tugging on the bottom of the magazine at the same time. I learned that the Walther doesn't like ammo manufactured by Independence. Since then I buy Winchester, Remington or Federal and have not had any problems. So what if something like this happened to your wife "on the range" and the RSO wasn't around? BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you covered? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:58:51 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"J Herring" wrote in message .. . 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. --------------------------------------------- I have no desire to get into a ****ing contest with Scott. He has a habit of going into damage control mode following some post he makes that people take exception to. In this case, the thread was about the current ammunition shortage. He responds with, "Why do you think DHS is buying up *all* the ammo, some 1.6 billion" ..... insinuating that *that* is the reason for the shortage. He then provides a link to an article that doesn't support his statement at all. Yes, the DHS is buying up to 1.6 billion rounds over the next 4 to 5 years, but that is *not* what has caused the current shortage, as the article points out. But now he's focusing on the 1.6 billion purchase as being the subject of the thread. Whew. OK. ok. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:19:57 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:18:56 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:47:08 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:56:38 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: 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? I understand that DOMA has nothing to do with STATES denying equal protection. 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. Hence the 10th amendment. Dickbrain... DOMA is a FEDERAL law. 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. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:31:55 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:03:44 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Why? You think marriages should be conducted by lawyers? Divorces are conducted by lawyers, why shouldn't marriages be? It is the 2 sides of the same coin and represents about half of all marriages. You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your way. We won't. There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration. You want that all changed, as Greg appears to want? That's just radical libertarianism. The question is why there are that many discrimitory laws benefiting married people? It sounds like those evil churches influencing the government. Since there is very little uniformity among the states about who, how and what marriage even means, it is silly that we have that many laws about it. Those are federal laws, relating to taxation and fed benefits. Ever see the tax code? States generally follow federal law as to taxes/benefits related to marital status. Churches have nothing to do with it, except as they influence society. It's society's desires, forwarded via elected representatives, and the weight of the public sense on the SC that determines what's "discriminatory." Not you. Let me know when the SC deems the marriage exemption unconstitutional. 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. The only question at hand now in DOMA is whether it violates equal protection. Of course it does. It was discriminatory and unconstitutional from the getgo. Nothing new either. Laws and actions denying equal protection to blacks, women, Japanese-Americans come to mind. Those were also corrected. I agree DOMA is a violation of states rights and disrespecting the will of the people in those states who have decided that gay marriage is legal. Marriage is a state issue and has always been. The word is not even mentioned in the constitution. The federal government never had any business passing DOMA. Nobody cares about DOMA in relation to state rights except airheads. That's all bull****, no matter how the SC rules this time around. The real question is what happens when DOMA is struck down as I think it will be and the SCOTUS simply punts on Prop 8, letting the appeals court decision to strike it down, stand. That would leave such similar laws in other states in limbo. We may not be done with this. Of course not. The SC will eventually be forced to step up and declare discriminating against gay marriage unconstitutional under equal protection. Because that's what society will demand. The states will just fall into line, every single one of them. Gretwell needs to read the 14th again. Perhaps he'd like to tell us how the specific sections do or don't affect both fed and states? |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/29/13 8:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. Rachel Maddow has a Ph.D in political science from Oxford University. *You* were socially promoted out of high school. Your lunatic fringe sources of information are more than just questionable. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:27:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/29/13 8:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. Rachel Maddow has a Ph.D in political science from Oxford University. *You* were socially promoted out of high school. Your lunatic fringe sources of information are more than just questionable. Yeah, but she's a lesbian, so that's the end of that. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
"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. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability? Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage already caused by private citizen purchases? What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need? |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability? Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage already caused by private citizen purchases? What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need? I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:47:10 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability? Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage already caused by private citizen purchases? What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need? I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid. You don't have to say it. It's obvious. You are stupid. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/29/13 11:47 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability? Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage already caused by private citizen purchases? What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need? I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid. You don't seem capable of pedaling your canoe in either direction. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news on TV. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 7:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/29/13 11:47 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: 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. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability? Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage already caused by private citizen purchases? What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need? I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid. You don't seem capable of pedaling your canoe in either direction. You don't seem capable of paddling a course in any direction other than that charted for you by the democratic party or some union. God forbid you find the need to backpeddle or change direction. You'd be totally lost. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news on TV. Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time. Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more miserable. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:20:00 -0400, Hank© wrote:
On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news on TV. Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time. Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more miserable. It's called 'bitterness'. Damn shame. But, it happens. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 9:24 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:20:00 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news on TV. Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time. Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more miserable. It's called 'bitterness'. Damn shame. But, it happens. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Bitterness? I'm not the aging white guy whose beliefs and phobias are confronting him...you are. In anything or everything that matters, I'm very pleased not to be a hateful old fart like you, and scared stiff of blacks, latinos, strong women, gays, whatever. Fortunately, you right-wing assholes are dying faster than your breed stock can replace you. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
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. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
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. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphben...-for-homeland- security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/ Why does the DHS need armored vehicles? Why does the DHS need more ammo than what was expended in Iraq and Afghanistan combined? |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:10:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/30/13 9:24 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:20:00 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news on TV. Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time. Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more miserable. It's called 'bitterness'. Damn shame. But, it happens. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Bitterness? I'm not the aging white guy whose beliefs and phobias are confronting him...you are. In anything or everything that matters, I'm very pleased not to be a hateful old fart like you, and scared stiff of blacks, latinos, strong women, gays, whatever. Fortunately, you right-wing assholes are dying faster than your breed stock can replace you. Yup, that's what I'm talking about! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 10:23 AM, BAR wrote:
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. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphben...-for-homeland- security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/ Why does the DHS need armored vehicles? Why does the DHS need more ammo than what was expended in Iraq and Afghanistan combined? They heard there was a shortage and decided to stockpile for a rainy day. ;-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com