More info.. not looking good...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:18:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:02:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

You obviously have not been keeping up with the current news on this
subject.


You mean the "news" that gets a different spin about once a week?

"The government is not spying on you"
"Well not that much"
"Well maybe a lot but only if you look suspicious"
"No we can't define who is suspicious"

Hey, if you're a law-abiding citizen, what do you have to fear?

(...in a sarcastic tone of typing.)

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...


Actually, I was being sarcastic in my earlier comment. I keep hoping
folks will look at Greece and
see just what this dependence on the government can do. But, I've a
feeling most of those
'dependant' are watching something besides the news and never reading
a paper.

John H.

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

John there's an old saying that goes something like this:

"It's much more difficult to take something away from someone than to
have never given it to them in the first place"

I think our generation is having the most difficulty accepting the
changes that are taking place. We can remember how it "used" to be.
The younger generation (who really are the ones that matter now)
don't realize what has happened.
They're more interested in what they get for free or what they are
"entitled" to. I see this all the time in the attitudes of young
people. I am not blaming them. It's just the way they are being
indoctrinated into society.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/22/2013 3:32 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...



Speaking of memories. Do you still have that beer that you dispense by
the thimblefull?;-)

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

The first bottle was finished off. Someone gave me a second one a
couple of years later. I never opened it and gave it away along with
every drop of booze we had when we were running a sober house here for a
while last year. Didn't want you know who to become tempted.

Good stuff though.

http://www.internetwines.com/rws28347.html

Say no more. really.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:48:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .


Actually, I was being sarcastic in my earlier comment. I keep hoping
folks will look at Greece and
see just what this dependence on the government can do. But, I've a
feeling most of those
'dependant' are watching something besides the news and never reading
a paper.

John H.

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

John there's an old saying that goes something like this:

"It's much more difficult to take something away from someone than to
have never given it to them in the first place"

I think our generation is having the most difficulty accepting the
changes that are taking place. We can remember how it "used" to be.
The younger generation (who really are the ones that matter now)
don't realize what has happened.
They're more interested in what they get for free or what they are
"entitled" to. I see this all the time in the attitudes of young
people. I am not blaming them. It's just the way they are being
indoctrinated into society.

I see my sons-in-law busting their butts, along with my daughters. Most of the folks living around
me now are of that generation. Only a few of us old farts here. Those folks are busting their butts
also, I know of no stay-at-home moms here. Both adults work.

So maybe it's the generation after that, or, more than likely, the multi-generations of inner-city
folks who've been on the dole for a long time.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...


So maybe it's the generation after that, or, more than likely, the
multi-generations of inner-city
folks who've been on the dole for a long time.

John H.


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

It *is* the generation after. It would be your grandkid's
generation. Don't know what they call it.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...



"Califbill" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most states
you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the big
deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and
buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes.
It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check each
time.

---------
that’s if you have or can get a permit to carry. Near impossible in
most of
California. Some counties are easier, but every urban county is about
99.9%
no!

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

That's what Massachusetts was like about 15 years ago. Permits for
hunting rifles and handguns for target practice or competition
shooting were approved but very few concealed carry permits (Class A)
were allowed. Class B permits were the best you could expect which
are typically for home defense only or for range shooting and does not
allow concealed carry in public. How the allowed firearms were
transported to and from the hunting area or shooting range was highly
regulated (disassembled and in a locked case, transported preferably
in the trunk of your car).

Massachusetts remains a "may issue" state for handguns and a "shall
issue" state for long guns (rifles). The local police department in
your town makes the determination of what type of permit you can get.
But people started challenging the authority of the towns and their
police chiefs to be so restrictive in the types of permits issued.
Lawsuits were filed and won. Slowly, most of the towns and cities
began approving concealed carry permits but often with specific
restrictions.

I was fortunate. The officer who interviewed me knew me .... or *of*
me for reasons I won't get into, but I was granted an unrestricted
Class A permit which allows me to own and conceal carry any handgun
(on the approved MA list or grandfathered) and to own any rifle,
including the high capacity assault types that are so controversial.
The only type of firearm I can't legally own with the permit I have is
a machine gun or sawed off shotgun. I have no interest in the
assault rifles (although they are a blast to shoot).

I understand that unrestricted Class A permits are again starting to
get more difficult to get lately, probably due to all the media
attention on gun control. A couple of towns are trying to ban
firearms period. Areas in Boston are becoming particularly tough.

One thing my town had changed was the reason for applying for a
permit which was traditionally, "For all lawful purposes". They no
longer accept that as a reason. You must have specific reasons to
justify a concealed carry permit.


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

Calif. only requires permits for CC. No permit needed to own most guns.
Have to have proof you owned, and registered your pre-ban AR type rifle.
Why are they called assault weapons? They look like a military rifle, but
are just a semi-automatic rifle. Just like lots of other hunting looking
rifles. No full or 3 round burst mode settings.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 6/22/2013 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


You are talking about universal registration, not background checks.
Otherwise there is no "paper trail".

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

Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal"
meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way.
Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase.

The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy
or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time
you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they
actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the
permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you
purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in
good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no
warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes.


The only way you can enforce a universal background check for private
transfers is to have universal registration. That is what they are not
telling you.


Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the
laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register... Then
of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These
people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two party
system...

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

What group of people hate America? Also what group hated America in
1984 and in 2006?


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

The fence is a waste of money! The Iron Curtain did not stop all
crossings, and they guarded that with mines and machine guns. Just bring
back a Bracero Program. Work permits. The Mexican's like Mexico, they hate
their government, but they love their country. They just want work to
survive, and not enough work in Mexico. Bring in a Work Permit for Non-
college graduates, and the problem will be cured. We already have a Work
Permit program to keep down engineering salaries (H-1 Visa). Why not a
guest worker program for all workers? Install a guest worker program,
change the laws that if you are here illegally 6 months after the guest
worker program is implemented and you are not registered, you never get a
permit. IF you are here illegally, then your child born in the USA is not a
citizen. You are not supposed to be here, so why get an great reward for
that illegality?

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article
,
says...

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:01:24 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.

Bull****
I just oppose laws that are ineffective in preventing the sale of guns
to people who are not supposed to have them and only affect law
abiding citizens.

-----------------------------
Questions for you:

1. How are law abiding citizens negatively affected?
2. If you sold one of your guns to an unknown person, wouldn't you
like to know that person is going to be as responsible as were?
3. Don't you think that ensuring that the gun you sell or transfer
isn't to a felon or otherwise not authorized to receive the gun is a
responsible act of law abiding citizen gun owner?

And I think "boater" is a little overzealous in his accusations. I
doubt very much that you want to be able to sell your guns to
terrorists, criminals and psychopaths.

Sure he does. It's clear as day. How could you conclude
otherwise? And he has never denied it.
Because he can't. He's taken that position, and won't
leave it. Above, he just clearly danced to his position
again, then crouched and huddled.
Got nothing to do with me being "overzealous."
It's just simple facts.
Which, he whimpers, are "bull****."

So why not have universal
background checks to give you a least some peace of mind that you
acted responsibly as a gun owner and also acted responsibly as a gun
seller or transferer?

You're wasting your time. He's a gun nut. Best to talk
with him about solar power, pontoon boats and such.
He seems perfectly reasonable except for his gun nuttery.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"John H" wrote in message
...


Actually, I was being sarcastic in my earlier comment. I keep hoping
folks will look at Greece and
see just what this dependence on the government can do. But, I've a
feeling most of those
'dependant' are watching something besides the news and never reading
a paper.

John H.

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

John there's an old saying that goes something like this:

"It's much more difficult to take something away from someone than to
have never given it to them in the first place"

Social Security is a prime example.

I think our generation is having the most difficulty accepting the
changes that are taking place. We can remember how it "used" to be.
The younger generation (who really are the ones that matter now)
don't realize what has happened.

They are slowly catching on. When they spend $100,000 to $200,000 for a college education and
fine out that the only jobs available are part time menial jobs that cannot support their
educational expenses or the life that they expected they are going to go one of two ways,
unemployed or very ****ed offf.

They're more interested in what they get for free or what they are
"entitled" to. I see this all the time in the attitudes of young
people. I am not blaming them. It's just the way they are being
indoctrinated into society.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:57:29 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I think you are convincing me that the universal background check
idea
presented by the Democrats is
more and more an invasion of privacy, and a means to grow the
government (and liberal voting base).

John H.

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

I don't need to convince you. You were already convinced.


Not true. I initially was in favor of background checks, until I
read some of the paragraphs in the
Democrats proposal.

Also, the rationale 'Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear'
causes me to rethink the issue. That
phrase is simply used too often. I was surprised to see you fall
back on it.

John H.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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

And? What does a background check have to do with this?

Why should I have to prove my innocence before I exercise one of my civil rights?

You *do* realize (don't you?) that Constitutional/Bill of Rights
experts, lawyers and judges are still scratching their heads and asses
trying to figure out what exactly is meant by both the Second
Amendment and your quoted text from the Forth.

The Second amendment is a check and balance on the governments tendency to overreach.

The fouth amendment is a check on the governments tendency to overreach.