|
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:11:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. === It's true. I've seen the documents which are all a matter of public record. My dear sir, surely you don't expect decent people to pry into the private affairs of others. Nor take as truth the mutterings of an admitted snoop? Please desist from this conduct. You are only serving to degrade this fine forum, dedicated to the love of boats. Oh, wait... We learned the value of a dossier on rec.boats posters from Harry himself. |
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... 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. No laws then, right? |
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... 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... Please show how your "taxes, healthcare, finance" has been "attacked because of your political views"... |
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:50:26 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... We don't want to have to obtain permission from the government to conduct the affairs of our daily lives. No laws then, right? That seems to be the standard line from all of you big government apologists. When someone complains about a bad law you claim they don't want any laws. Bear in mind "Jim Crow" and DADT were laws too. If you oppose them, do you oppose all laws? What in hell are you talking about "big government apologist"? You can't show anyone here one single thing that would make anyone think I'm that! Now, as for the rest of your comment, look at what BAR wrote. Read it, understand it. He stated above that he doesn't want to "obtain permission from the government to conduct the affairs of our daily lives". Those "permissions" would be LAWS. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright �2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com