In article ,
says...

"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?

You are trying to put lipstick on a pig!!

In article ,
says...

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.

Exactly!

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.

In article , says...

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



"Wayne B" wrote in message
.. .

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

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

====

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

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

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

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


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

Read some DeToqueville

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.

In article ,
says...

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

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

=====

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

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

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

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?

In article , says...

"J Herring" wrote in message
...


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

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


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

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

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

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.

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. ;-)