More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

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.

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

That subject keeps bring brought up here by some. Personally, I have
no first hand knowledge of it and it's none of my business anyway.
I conduct any conversations with Harry with the same degree of respect
he affords me. Or try to anyway. Can't say the same for some
others.

I am really amazed at the polarization in our society now-a-days.
Every person is unique but few people act or behave uniquely. Those
who offer opinions or viewpoints on a controversial subject of a
current event status all seem to repeat the same talking points,
depending on their point of view.

The discussion I've been having regarding guns and permits is a good
example. It may surprise Bar, John H and a few others that I can see
their point of view ... and I am not suggesting they are wrong. My
opinion is just that ... an opinion ... but when something is broken
I try to find a fix if possible.
But all you seem to get in response is the same, tired arguments that
no fix is necessary.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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



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.

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

We are not exactly world travellers but have spent extensive time
living outside the US. I had one brief excursion to southeast Asia
in 1969 that only lasted 6 weeks, and spent a little over a week in
China (PRC) in 1986 but we lived in Italy for over two years and in
Puerto Rico for about the same. Loved Italy. Puerto Rico? Not so
much.

Had an interesting series of emails last December with a guy in Italy.
I was Christmas shopping on eBay and came across some custom made,
very beautiful pens that were made in a factory in Italy, not far from
where we had lived. Thought it would make a good gift for Mrs.E,
so I ordered one.

I was surprised to receive a personal email from the factory owner
thanking me for the order. One email exchange led to another and I
told him about our living not far from him, how our daughter was born
there and how much we had enjoyed his country back in the early 70's.
He responded with an invitation to visit again and he would make
arrangements for us to stay at a villa he owned, free of charge. He
was also very honest and talked about how much Italy has changed since
the 70's and how we probably wouldn't enjoy it like we did back then.
It was tempting, but I hate air travel and I'd rather retain the good
memories that we have.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/13 9:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:


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



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.

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

We are not exactly world travellers but have spent extensive time living
outside the US. I had one brief excursion to southeast Asia in 1969
that only lasted 6 weeks, and spent a little over a week in China (PRC)
in 1986 but we lived in Italy for over two years and in Puerto Rico
for about the same. Loved Italy. Puerto Rico? Not so much.

Had an interesting series of emails last December with a guy in Italy. I
was Christmas shopping on eBay and came across some custom made, very
beautiful pens that were made in a factory in Italy, not far from where
we had lived. Thought it would make a good gift for Mrs.E, so I
ordered one.

I was surprised to receive a personal email from the factory owner
thanking me for the order. One email exchange led to another and I
told him about our living not far from him, how our daughter was born
there and how much we had enjoyed his country back in the early 70's. He
responded with an invitation to visit again and he would make
arrangements for us to stay at a villa he owned, free of charge. He
was also very honest and talked about how much Italy has changed since
the 70's and how we probably wouldn't enjoy it like we did back then. It
was tempting, but I hate air travel and I'd rather retain the good
memories that we have.

I don't like air travel very much, either. We've been to Italy but only
for a few weeks. I'd love to live there for a while. There's so much
art, history and historical buildings and music that interest us.

When I was growing up in New Haven, we had a family friend who worked
for Sikorsky in Stratford. He was an engineer. Sikorsky got a huge
contract from the Italian government for copters. He went over there to
help set up their maintenance facilities, and spent three years in
Italy. He banked his salary in the states and lived off of a generous
per diem Sikorsky provided, and the Italian government provided him with
a villa and just about everything else his family needed.

My wife and I want to spend a month in Ireland sometime soon, she to
meet up with relatives, and me to spend some time with an old author
friend of mine who lives on Lough Owel and who keeps tempting me with
photos and stories about trout fishing.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Well, then, why have any laws at all?

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:21:40 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

Even jps and Boating... should love that idea.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:18:39 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

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.




Here. Problem solved. Now find a new excuse for name-calling.

About the only thing you've said that makes sense is, "Doesn't matter, I'll die..."

That's true.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:42:01 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:46:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

It's kind of sad when you live in a country that seems to have the money
to wage really stupid, unnecessary wars and to waste billions of dollars
on border fences that won't solve the problem but balks when it comes to
helping the disadvantaged reach their potential in terms of education,
job training, health care, housing and nutrition.

I would think a union man like you would want to keep all of that
cheap Mexican labor out.
This certainly puts you at odds with most union leaders.

Personally I have no problems with people who want to come here for
work. People who come here for welfare or to commit crimes should be
sent home and blacklisted.

I wonder at the hypocrisy of those who speak of better education while promoting the union and
liberal led inner cities with the poorest of education.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:54:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"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.

I good number of us submit to this voluntarily to get the right to
carry. I am exempt from background checks and waiting periods.

I also used to own a legal machine gun so I am no stranger to
background checks.

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

The requirements to simply "own" a firearm and the requirements to own
and carry in public (concealed or open) are different.

Guilty before charged. Also known as prior restraint.

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?

We don't want to have to obtain permission from the government to conduct the affairs of our
daily lives.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

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.

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

That subject keeps bring brought up here by some. Personally, I have
no first hand knowledge of it and it's none of my business anyway.
I conduct any conversations with Harry with the same degree of respect
he affords me. Or try to anyway. Can't say the same for some
others.

I have seen the informaiton in the various Florida County's criminal and civil court
information systems. Harry is a deadbeat, you would serve yourself well if you did a credit
check on him prior to engaging in any transations of any value.

I am really amazed at the polarization in our society now-a-days.
Every person is unique but few people act or behave uniquely. Those
who offer opinions or viewpoints on a controversial subject of a
current event status all seem to repeat the same talking points,
depending on their point of view.

I don't hate people who hold views, beliefs and opinions differnt from mine. I don't tell
them that their views, beliefs and opinions are wrogn. I do try and tell them about what I
believe are faults in their reasoning or background information. An example of this would be
your desire to stick your head in the sand like the proverbial Ostrich with regard to Harry's
financial responsibility problems. When someone, like Harry, is so damned adamanet about
funding social programs that his side of the political fence desires with tax money from
everyone else, it becomes a joke when it is found that Harry doesn't pay his taxes nor honor
his financial obligations. Harry is the epitome of do as I say and not as I do.


The discussion I've been having regarding guns and permits is a good
example. It may surprise Bar, John H and a few others that I can see
their point of view ... and I am not suggesting they are wrong. My
opinion is just that ... an opinion ... but when something is broken
I try to find a fix if possible.
But all you seem to get in response is the same, tired arguments that
no fix is necessary.

I am glad that you are able to see others points of view. What we can't understand is why you
believe that government approval is required to exercise your rights.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/2013 6:35 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:54:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"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.

I good number of us submit to this voluntarily to get the right to
carry. I am exempt from background checks and waiting periods.

I also used to own a legal machine gun so I am no stranger to
background checks.

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

The requirements to simply "own" a firearm and the requirements to own
and carry in public (concealed or open) are different.

Guilty before charged. Also known as prior restraint.

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?

We don't want to have to obtain permission from the government to conduct the affairs of our
daily lives.


And we don't want our taxes, healthcare, finance attacked because of my
political views...