More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/13 7:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:00:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'm hoping my ashes will be airdropped on the naked California gals who
sunbathe near Paradise Beach near Santa Monica.

=====

You should study French in the hope that your ashes could be dropped
on the naked European gals who sunbathe on the beaches at St Martins
and St Barths - overall a cut or two above the Californians and you
don't have all of that annoying "valley girl" talk.

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

Hopefully not dropped from a plane landing at the airport:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...IJ0F62og4&NR=1




We've been to many destinations in the Caribbean, including both parts
of Saint Martin, and we've been to Saint Barthélemy, too, in fact, on
the same trip. For many reasons, we prefer the Med and the Greek isles,
though I would enjoy a trip to Cuba. Love Cuban food, music, and
hopefully, once the Castro brothers are dead, the country can get with it.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article
,
says...

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

I'll try again and then drop the subject.

I don't advocate a background check for *every* transfer of a firearm
as you stated. Not necessary.
What I am advocating, much to the chagrin of some, is that a permit
be required to own a firearm, much like a license is required to drive
a car on public roads. The permit is *required* to be issued unless
an initial cursory background check reveals that you are a convicted
felon or person who is not legally permitted to own a firearm.
There's no violation of anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights. If you are not
legally prohibited, you will receive a permit.

Once acquired, the only "check" made is when you purchase a gun,
either through a dealer or private party, be it a sale or gift. The
check isn't a background check. The check is simply to ensure that
your permit is valid and you are who you say you are.

Very simple. Won't solve all the problems associated with criminals
acquiring guns, nor will it prevent a nut case from going on a rampage
and going on a killing spree. But it *will* help reducing the
number of guns in the hands of people who are prohibited from having
them without stepping on the toes of anyone's "Rights" under the
Constitution.

Personally, I'd also advocate that a safety course also be required to
obtain a permit but I realize that's asking too much for our
Constitutional experts to accept.

Might as well drop it now. You can't reason with dumb-
asses. Just use a 2x4 or axe handle.
As I've said before, registration doesn't bother me, or
most folks probably. The non-paranoids anyway.
And the supremes will find it constitutional.
Some states already require registration, and I don't see
the supremes overturning those laws.
But the scared dumb asses will go wild.
What else could you expect from people who think it's a
good idea to build a high enough wall to keep
international air traffic from entering American airspace
and landing at U.S. airports.
What, they never even heard of surface to air missiles?
Federal gun registration will happen when enough of the
old scared dumb asses die off. And we'll all be better
off for it.
Especially the old scared dumb asses dying off part.
I can wait. Or die first.
Doesn't matter, I'll die knowing it's gonna happen.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article ,
says...

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...

Speaking of taking someone "seriously", tell us more about that wall you
were talking about, you know, the Iron Curtain!!!!!!!!!

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 05:08:28 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


The requirements to simply "own" a firearm and the requirements to
own
and carry in public (concealed or open) are different.
A permit is required for concealed or open carry in most states.
It's
also why some (like MA) is a "may" and "shall" state as far as the
issuance of permits go. Neither violate anyone's right to own a
firearm. The only reason a permit will not be issued is if you have
a felony record and are legally not eligible to own one. *That* is
the purpose of a cursory background check. That's all. It's not to
"take away" your rights unless you deserve to have them taken.

Geeze. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

It is not hard for 'us people' to understand that you would like
background checks for *every*
transfer of a firearm, a la the Senate bill.

Many of 'us people' disagree. Some of us don't see the need for the
bureaucracy, the taxes, etc,
when the checks would not have prevented the atrocities that have
prompted all the demands for them.
Furthermore, I don't think it's anyone's damn business if I decide to
give my brother or grandson a
gun.

John (Gun Nut) H.

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

I'll try again and then drop the subject.

I don't advocate a background check for *every* transfer of a firearm
as you stated. Not necessary.
What I am advocating, much to the chagrin of some, is that a permit
be required to own a firearm, much like a license is required to drive
a car on public roads. The permit is *required* to be issued unless
an initial cursory background check reveals that you are a convicted
felon or person who is not legally permitted to own a firearm.
There's no violation of anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights. If you are not
legally prohibited, you will receive a permit.

Once acquired, the only "check" made is when you purchase a gun,
either through a dealer or private party, be it a sale or gift. The
check isn't a background check. The check is simply to ensure that
your permit is valid and you are who you say you are.

Very simple. Won't solve all the problems associated with criminals
acquiring guns, nor will it prevent a nut case from going on a rampage
and going on a killing spree. But it *will* help reducing the
number of guns in the hands of people who are prohibited from having
them without stepping on the toes of anyone's "Rights" under the
Constitution.

Personally, I'd also advocate that a safety course also be required to
obtain a permit but I realize that's asking too much for our
Constitutional experts to accept.


Again, why must I obtain a permit also known as approval in order to exercise my civil
rights. I have committed no crime.

The courts have told Maryland that they cannot require people to provide a good substantial
reason as to why they want to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article ,
says...

In article
,
says...


Geeze. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Tell me about it. Recently this thread turned to
building the Great Wall of Amerca, to keep out illegals.
A wall that can be seen from outer space probably.
I explicitly said that almost half of the illegals in
this country flew in to airports with legal visas.
The answer? Build a wall.
I don't expect ANYBODY to agree with anything I say.
But unless I'm here to call dumb asses dumb asses,
there's just no fun in it.

Scotty wants to build a 40,000 foot wall.....

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:32:58 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 05:08:28 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


The requirements to simply "own" a firearm and the requirements to
own
and carry in public (concealed or open) are different.
A permit is required for concealed or open carry in most states.
It's
also why some (like MA) is a "may" and "shall" state as far as the
issuance of permits go. Neither violate anyone's right to own a
firearm. The only reason a permit will not be issued is if you have
a felony record and are legally not eligible to own one. *That* is
the purpose of a cursory background check. That's all. It's not to
"take away" your rights unless you deserve to have them taken.

Geeze. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

It is not hard for 'us people' to understand that you would like
background checks for *every*
transfer of a firearm, a la the Senate bill.

Many of 'us people' disagree. Some of us don't see the need for the
bureaucracy, the taxes, etc,
when the checks would not have prevented the atrocities that have
prompted all the demands for them.
Furthermore, I don't think it's anyone's damn business if I decide to
give my brother or grandson a
gun.

John (Gun Nut) H.

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

I'll try again and then drop the subject.

I don't advocate a background check for *every* transfer of a firearm
as you stated. Not necessary.
What I am advocating, much to the chagrin of some, is that a permit
be required to own a firearm, much like a license is required to drive
a car on public roads. The permit is *required* to be issued unless
an initial cursory background check reveals that you are a convicted
felon or person who is not legally permitted to own a firearm.
There's no violation of anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights. If you are not
legally prohibited, you will receive a permit.

Once acquired, the only "check" made is when you purchase a gun,
either through a dealer or private party, be it a sale or gift. The
check isn't a background check. The check is simply to ensure that
your permit is valid and you are who you say you are.

Very simple. Won't solve all the problems associated with criminals
acquiring guns, nor will it prevent a nut case from going on a rampage
and going on a killing spree. But it *will* help reducing the
number of guns in the hands of people who are prohibited from having
them without stepping on the toes of anyone's "Rights" under the
Constitution.

Personally, I'd also advocate that a safety course also be required to
obtain a permit but I realize that's asking too much for our
Constitutional experts to accept.




Here's a way to garner support for the 'permit' idea.

Pass a law stating that a voter identification card can be used as a permit to buy a gun. Then do
the background check to ensure the individual is qualified to vote.

I'd go along with that in a heartbeat, and I'll bet a lot of Republicans would do likewise. Hell, a
law like that should make everyone happy. Probably put the NRA out of business.

John (Gun Nut) H.

I would be on-board with that.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

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

On 6/24/13 7:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

On 6/24/13 4:46 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

Wayne.B wrote:

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.

Unlike you, I don't need a really big old boat to compensate for a
really
small old dick.
-----------------------------------------

Nonesense. Wayne has a big old boat because he lives on it for 5
months
at a time and uses it to travel to places that most of us would
only
dream of navigating to. Everyone has their type of boating and
interests. Few do what Wayne does.




To each his own. What Wayne does for "five months at a time," indeed
for
the whole year, seems vacuous to me. To me, the idea of being *that*
retired with nothing really to do but putter around in a boat for
half
the year seems mindless and completely self-indulgent.

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

You sound a little envious to me. I know I am.
I had to go look up "vacuous" BTW.

So what are your "retirement" hobbies or interests, besides
spreading
your political, social and anti-business philosophies on a obscure
internet newsgroup?


Why would I be envious of a lifestyle I'd find boring?

I'm not retired. For fun and relaxation, I do some boating, some bike
riding, some traveling, some reading, some target shooting, some
getting
together with old friends. I have friends and colleagues in their 80's
who are still actively involved in their work. If I make it that far,
I
hope to be doing the same.

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

So why the negativity on what other people enjoy? Some would find
your "hobbies" boring.
As for continuing to work, go for it. But isn't that being a bit
self-indulgent as well? You seem to have made your mark and
apparently don't need the money.

Harry is still quite a bit light in satisfying his financial obligations to his creditors. We
would appreciate it if Harry would make us whole again by paying all of his back taxes in
full.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/2013 8:08 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

On 6/24/13 7:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

On 6/24/13 4:46 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

Wayne.B wrote:

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.

Unlike you, I don't need a really big old boat to compensate for a
really
small old dick.
-----------------------------------------

Nonesense. Wayne has a big old boat because he lives on it for 5 months
at a time and uses it to travel to places that most of us would only
dream of navigating to. Everyone has their type of boating and
interests. Few do what Wayne does.




To each his own. What Wayne does for "five months at a time," indeed for
the whole year, seems vacuous to me. To me, the idea of being *that*
retired with nothing really to do but putter around in a boat for half
the year seems mindless and completely self-indulgent.

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

You sound a little envious to me. I know I am.
I had to go look up "vacuous" BTW.

So what are your "retirement" hobbies or interests, besides spreading
your political, social and anti-business philosophies on a obscure
internet newsgroup?


Why would I be envious of a lifestyle I'd find boring?

I'm not retired. For fun and relaxation, I do some boating, some bike
riding, some traveling, some reading, some target shooting, some getting
together with old friends. I have friends and colleagues in their 80's
who are still actively involved in their work. If I make it that far, I
hope to be doing the same.

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

So why the negativity on what other people enjoy? Some would find your
"hobbies" boring.
As for continuing to work, go for it. But isn't that being a bit
self-indulgent as well? You seem to have made your mark and apparently
don't need the money.

His wife threatened to put him in the home if he stopped working.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/2013 8:23 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

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

On 6/24/13 7:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

On 6/24/13 4:46 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

Wayne.B wrote:

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.

Unlike you, I don't need a really big old boat to compensate for a
really
small old dick.
-----------------------------------------

Nonesense. Wayne has a big old boat because he lives on it for 5
months
at a time and uses it to travel to places that most of us would
only
dream of navigating to. Everyone has their type of boating and
interests. Few do what Wayne does.




To each his own. What Wayne does for "five months at a time," indeed
for
the whole year, seems vacuous to me. To me, the idea of being *that*
retired with nothing really to do but putter around in a boat for
half
the year seems mindless and completely self-indulgent.

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

You sound a little envious to me. I know I am.
I had to go look up "vacuous" BTW.

So what are your "retirement" hobbies or interests, besides
spreading
your political, social and anti-business philosophies on a obscure
internet newsgroup?


Why would I be envious of a lifestyle I'd find boring?

I'm not retired. For fun and relaxation, I do some boating, some bike
riding, some traveling, some reading, some target shooting, some
getting
together with old friends. I have friends and colleagues in their 80's
who are still actively involved in their work. If I make it that far,
I
hope to be doing the same.

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

So why the negativity on what other people enjoy? Some would find
your "hobbies" boring.
As for continuing to work, go for it. But isn't that being a bit
self-indulgent as well? You seem to have made your mark and
apparently don't need the money.

Harry is still quite a bit light in satisfying his financial obligations to his creditors. We
would appreciate it if Harry would make us whole again by paying all of his back taxes in
full.

They put capone away on tax evasion. I wonder why they haven't retired
Harry. Maybe his moll is chipping away at the debt.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/2013 6:23 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 6/24/13 4:46 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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

Wayne.B wrote:

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.

Unlike you, I don't need a really big old boat to compensate for a really
small old dick.
-----------------------------------------

Nonesense. Wayne has a big old boat because he lives on it for 5 months
at a time and uses it to travel to places that most of us would only
dream of navigating to. Everyone has their type of boating and
interests. Few do what Wayne does.




To each his own. What Wayne does for "five months at a time," indeed for
the whole year, seems vacuous to me. To me, the idea of being *that*
retired with nothing really to do but putter around in a boat for half
the year seems mindless and completely self-indulgent.

You obviously march to a different drummer. That's OK, but don't expect
*anyone* to follow you.