On 6/23/2013 5:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:07:32 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did.
Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one
side to the other we have now here...

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

The "Iron Curtain" was a wall?


The part around East Berlin sure as hell was. Much of the rest was barbed wire and land mines, with
guard posts in sight of each other all along the East-West German border.

John (Gun Nut) H.


I see the "no ways" are playing semantics but my "point" was
indisputable...

On 6/23/13 7:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 6/23/2013 5:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:07:32 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did.
Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one
side to the other we have now here...

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

The "Iron Curtain" was a wall?


The part around East Berlin sure as hell was. Much of the rest was
barbed wire and land mines, with
guard posts in sight of each other all along the East-West German border.

John (Gun Nut) H.


I see the "no ways" are playing semantics but my "point" was
indisputable...

Your "point" seemed to be that the Iron Curtain was some sort of
physical wall the Soviet Union erected on the borders between some of
its client states and the west. No one who knows anything considered the
Iron Curtain such a wall. It was not a physical wall.

The Berlin wall separated free West German Berlin from the communist
parts of Germany.

It's not semantics in this case.

On 6/23/2013 5:51 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:30:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 6/23/13 8:22 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

They all missed my point. The point is like gun control... if we let
them give citizenship, without *first* securing the border, the border
won't get secured. There will be financing delays, lawsuits, and just
"rules" made by administration officials that delay or sink the security
end of the bill asap.... It's just the way things go in Washington, the
Dems make promises "if" the repubs will just cave and of course like in
84 and the fence in '06... All we will end up with in millions of new
dem voters....

Scotty O'reilly speaks!!

It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the
U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of
China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached
many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the
righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the
wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism.

Got to get serious about those who climb the fence.

John (Gun Nut) H.


Can't even take folks seriously who think a wall would do less than we
are doing more. It defies logic... sure, hire all the new govt workers
but give them "all" the tools to do the job... That's all I am saying. A
decent wall and a few drones would do a lot but they really don't want
to stop all those voters from coming in until they destroy the two party
system... Then like so many monopolies in the past, they will shut the
borders hard, both ways...

On 6/23/13 7:30 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 6/23/2013 5:51 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:30:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 6/23/13 8:22 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,

says...

They all missed my point. The point is like gun control... if we let
them give citizenship, without *first* securing the border, the border
won't get secured. There will be financing delays, lawsuits, and just
"rules" made by administration officials that delay or sink the
security
end of the bill asap.... It's just the way things go in Washington,
the
Dems make promises "if" the repubs will just cave and of course
like in
84 and the fence in '06... All we will end up with in millions of new
dem voters....

Scotty O'reilly speaks!!

It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the
U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of
China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached
many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the
righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the
wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism.

Got to get serious about those who climb the fence.

John (Gun Nut) H.


Can't even take folks seriously who think a wall would do less than we
are doing more. It defies logic... sure, hire all the new govt workers
but give them "all" the tools to do the job... That's all I am saying. A
decent wall and a few drones would do a lot but they really don't want
to stop all those voters from coming in until they destroy the two party
system... Then like so many monopolies in the past, they will shut the
borders hard, both ways...


What you are suggesting is simply a modern day version of what East
Germany did to keep its people from "emigrating" to the West, except, of
course, your goal is to keep Mexicans out, not in.

The United States as East Germany. What a concept.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:02:37 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I am not advocating a background check every time you buy a gun.
The
background check is done once to obtain a permit.


Why should I have to obtain a permit in order to exercise one of my
civil rights?

Do you advocate a permit for speaking freely?

Do you advocate a permit for going to church?

Do you advocate a permit for registering to vote.

The issue is one not having to ask permission to provide yourself with
the means to protect
yourself. ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed.

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

A requirement to obtain a gun permit with an accompanying background
check does not infringe on your rights. Your interpretation of the
2nd Amendment suggests that *everyone*, regardless of age and
including convicted felons should be able to own a gun, no questions
asked. Furthermore, it would seem that current laws that prevent them
from owning a gun are unconstitutional as are firearms laws in many
states that already require a permit and background check, based on
your logic.

As for your other questions, give me a break, will ya? Comparing
gun ownership and it's responsibilities with the right to attend the
church of your choice is a pretty stupid argument against gun permits
and background checks. Plus, I'll repeat again, having to obtain a
permit is *not* a restriction of your rights.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 6/23/13 7:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 6/23/2013 5:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:07:32 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did.
Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from
one
side to the other we have now here...

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

The "Iron Curtain" was a wall?


The part around East Berlin sure as hell was. Much of the rest was
barbed wire and land mines, with
guard posts in sight of each other all along the East-West German
border.

John (Gun Nut) H.


I see the "no ways" are playing semantics but my "point" was
indisputable...

Your "point" seemed to be that the Iron Curtain was some sort of
physical wall the Soviet Union erected on the borders between some of
its client states and the west. No one who knows anything considered
the
Iron Curtain such a wall. It was not a physical wall.

The Berlin wall separated free West German Berlin from the communist
parts of Germany.

It's not semantics in this case.

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

The term "Iron Curtain" was coined by Winston Churchill in 1946
shortly following WWII. It metaphorically represented the Soviet
Union's attempt to present political impediments to the West to "peer
in" to their controlled territories and countries and to try to
prevent any attempts to loosen the Soviet's control on them. It
certainly was not a physical curtain or wall. The Berlin Wall was
different, as you say, although it became a symbol of the overall
"Iron Curtain" philosophy. Construction of the Berlin Wall didn't
start until 1961.

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:45:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
om...

On 6/23/13 7:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 6/23/2013 5:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:07:32 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did.
Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from
one
side to the other we have now here...

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

The "Iron Curtain" was a wall?


The part around East Berlin sure as hell was. Much of the rest was
barbed wire and land mines, with
guard posts in sight of each other all along the East-West German
border.

John (Gun Nut) H.


I see the "no ways" are playing semantics but my "point" was
indisputable...

Your "point" seemed to be that the Iron Curtain was some sort of
physical wall the Soviet Union erected on the borders between some of
its client states and the west. No one who knows anything considered
the
Iron Curtain such a wall. It was not a physical wall.

The Berlin wall separated free West German Berlin from the communist
parts of Germany.

It's not semantics in this case.

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

The term "Iron Curtain" was coined by Winston Churchill in 1946
shortly following WWII. It metaphorically represented the Soviet
Union's attempt to present political impediments to the West to "peer
in" to their controlled territories and countries and to try to
prevent any attempts to loosen the Soviet's control on them. It
certainly was not a physical curtain or wall. The Berlin Wall was
different, as you say, although it became a symbol of the overall
"Iron Curtain" philosophy. Construction of the Berlin Wall didn't
start until 1961.



Yes, again you are correct...but did you see the 'wall' up close, or the fences and minefields?
Those, with the guards, were a real 'iron curtain', and not just metaphorically.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 18:03:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

Speaking of great cars - that new Jetta TDI is an absolute joy to drive. Around town my wife is
getting 34 mpg.

=========

VW makes nice cars but we need a stronger dollar to bring the pricing
back down out of the stratosphere.

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:51:30 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

You're pretty goode at taking the wind out of his sails. There's no
wonder why he calls you all sorts of silly names. ;-)

====

Harry's name calling stems from his insecurity and self esteem issues.
It's an attempt to boost himself up by putting everyone else down.

In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:02:37 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I am not advocating a background check every time you buy a gun.
The
background check is done once to obtain a permit.


Why should I have to obtain a permit in order to exercise one of my
civil rights?

Do you advocate a permit for speaking freely?

Do you advocate a permit for going to church?

Do you advocate a permit for registering to vote.

The issue is one not having to ask permission to provide yourself with
the means to protect
yourself. ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed.

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

A requirement to obtain a gun permit with an accompanying background
check does not infringe on your rights. Your interpretation of the
2nd Amendment suggests that *everyone*, regardless of age and
including convicted felons should be able to own a gun, no questions
asked. Furthermore, it would seem that current laws that prevent them
from owning a gun are unconstitutional as are firearms laws in many
states that already require a permit and background check, based on
your logic.

As for your other questions, give me a break, will ya? Comparing
gun ownership and it's responsibilities with the right to attend the
church of your choice is a pretty stupid argument against gun permits
and background checks. Plus, I'll repeat again, having to obtain a
permit is *not* a restriction of your rights.

Why do I have to ask the government to allow me to exercise my god given rights?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.