More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/23/13 4:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:16:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

That $9.00 price point was keystoned, so the stores were paying $4.50 a
shirt. The manufacturer was making a profit at $4.50 and the workers
were supporting their families.

===

Your math and/or word usage is incorrect. The manufacturer had
"revenue" of $4.50 a shirt. Profit is revenue minus expenses.
Expenses are considerable and consist of things like labor, raw
materials, energy, administration, amortization/depreciation of
machinery/property, etc.


Your reading skills are lacking. I didn't state the manufacturer was
making a profit *of* $4.50. I said he was making a profit *at* $4.50.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/23/13 4:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:16:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

That $9.00 price point was keystoned, so the stores were paying $4.50 a
shirt. The manufacturer was making a profit at $4.50 and the workers
were supporting their families.

===

Your math and/or word usage is incorrect. The manufacturer had
"revenue" of $4.50 a shirt. Profit is revenue minus expenses.
Expenses are considerable and consist of things like labor, raw
materials, energy, administration, amortization/depreciation of
machinery/property, etc.

What you'd like to see is a return to protectionism where artificial
barriers are created to foreign made goods: Duties, Tariffs, etc. It
turns out that protectionism is a two way street however and other
countries soon follow with their own trade barriers. In addition to
hurting our export markets/jobs, protectionism also results in
artificially high prices to US consumers - not only for imported
goods, but for goods produced here as well.

Be careful what you ask for or you might end up paying twice as much
for your next car and get an inferior product. Did you ever take any
courses in economics?



Did you ever take any courses in reading comprehension?

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/23/2013 4:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:16:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

That $9.00 price point was keystoned, so the stores were paying $4.50 a
shirt. The manufacturer was making a profit at $4.50 and the workers
were supporting their families.

===

Your math and/or word usage is incorrect. The manufacturer had
"revenue" of $4.50 a shirt. Profit is revenue minus expenses.
Expenses are considerable and consist of things like labor, raw
materials, energy, administration, amortization/depreciation of
machinery/property, etc.

What you'd like to see is a return to protectionism where artificial
barriers are created to foreign made goods: Duties, Tariffs, etc. It
turns out that protectionism is a two way street however and other
countries soon follow with their own trade barriers. In addition to
hurting our export markets/jobs, protectionism also results in
artificially high prices to US consumers - not only for imported
goods, but for goods produced here as well.

Be careful what you ask for or you might end up paying twice as much
for your next car and get an inferior product. Did you ever take any
courses in economics?

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. ;-)

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:25:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:44:22 -0400, John H
wrote:

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



"John H" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


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.


Who pays whom?

John H.

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

Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle
tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or
connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit
number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital
fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the
digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the
original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for
the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background
check verification.



If you sell a gun to your wife, who pays for the background check (s), and who gets paid?

See, the impetus for all the background checking paperwork and bureaucracy isn't the safety of the
citizens, it's bigger government and more taxes.

Which of the atrocities over the years would have been prevented with a background check? Would the
murder rate in Chicago or Detroit go down with more background checks?

I am not convinced.

John H.

Many places require that any transfer of a handgun (private gift or
sale) requires that the receiver of the gun must have a gun permit.

Background checks don't seem to work, because they only "apply" to the
lawful. By FAR, most of the gun violence is centered in large cities.

Could be, but many places don't require a permit, like Virginia.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:15:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:44:22 -0400, John H
wrote:

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



"John H" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


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.


Who pays whom?

John H.

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

Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle
tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or
connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit
number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital
fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds
the
digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches
the
original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for
the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant
background
check verification.



If you sell a gun to your wife, who pays for the background check
(s), and who gets paid?

See, the impetus for all the background checking paperwork and
bureaucracy isn't the safety of the
citizens, it's bigger government and more taxes.

Which of the atrocities over the years would have been prevented with
a background check? Would the
murder rate in Chicago or Detroit go down with more background
checks?

I am not convinced.

John H.

Many places require that any transfer of a handgun (private gift or
sale) requires that the receiver of the gun must have a gun permit.

Background checks don't seem to work, because they only "apply" to the
lawful. By FAR, most of the gun violence is centered in large cities.

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

This debate is getting tangle footed.

Here's what I would propose:

A background check is required to obtain a permit to own a handgun or
rifle.
Once issued, the only "check" required to purchase a firearm is to
ensure the permit is in good standing and the person buying the
firearm is who he/she claims to be. That's where the fingerprints
come in.

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


More bureaucracy, more taxes, bigger AFGE.

And it solves nothing.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:34:29 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:16:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

That $9.00 price point was keystoned, so the stores were paying $4.50 a
shirt. The manufacturer was making a profit at $4.50 and the workers
were supporting their families.

===

Your math and/or word usage is incorrect. The manufacturer had
"revenue" of $4.50 a shirt. Profit is revenue minus expenses.
Expenses are considerable and consist of things like labor, raw
materials, energy, administration, amortization/depreciation of
machinery/property, etc.

What you'd like to see is a return to protectionism where artificial
barriers are created to foreign made goods: Duties, Tariffs, etc. It
turns out that protectionism is a two way street however and other
countries soon follow with their own trade barriers. In addition to
hurting our export markets/jobs, protectionism also results in
artificially high prices to US consumers - not only for imported
goods, but for goods produced here as well.

Be careful what you ask for or you might end up paying twice as much
for your next car and get an inferior product. Did you ever take any
courses in economics?

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

(Couldn't help myself, Wayne.)

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

wrote in message ...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:44:22 -0400, John H
wrote:

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



"John H" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


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.


Who pays whom?

John H.

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

Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle
tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or
connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit
number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital
fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds
the
digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches
the
original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for
the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant
background
check verification.



If you sell a gun to your wife, who pays for the background check
(s), and who gets paid?

See, the impetus for all the background checking paperwork and
bureaucracy isn't the safety of the
citizens, it's bigger government and more taxes.

Which of the atrocities over the years would have been prevented with
a background check? Would the
murder rate in Chicago or Detroit go down with more background
checks?

I am not convinced.

John H.

Many places require that any transfer of a handgun (private gift or
sale) requires that the receiver of the gun must have a gun permit.

Background checks don't seem to work, because they only "apply" to the
lawful. By FAR, most of the gun violence is centered in large cities.

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

This debate is getting tangle footed.

Here's what I would propose:

A background check is required to obtain a permit to own a handgun or
rifle.
Once issued, the only "check" required to purchase a firearm is to
ensure the permit is in good standing and the person buying the
firearm is who he/she claims to be. That's where the fingerprints
come in.

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article om,
says...

On 6/23/2013 4:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:16:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

That $9.00 price point was keystoned, so the stores were paying $4.50 a
shirt. The manufacturer was making a profit at $4.50 and the workers
were supporting their families.

===

Your math and/or word usage is incorrect. The manufacturer had
"revenue" of $4.50 a shirt. Profit is revenue minus expenses.
Expenses are considerable and consist of things like labor, raw
materials, energy, administration, amortization/depreciation of
machinery/property, etc.

What you'd like to see is a return to protectionism where artificial
barriers are created to foreign made goods: Duties, Tariffs, etc. It
turns out that protectionism is a two way street however and other
countries soon follow with their own trade barriers. In addition to
hurting our export markets/jobs, protectionism also results in
artificially high prices to US consumers - not only for imported
goods, but for goods produced here as well.

Be careful what you ask for or you might end up paying twice as much
for your next car and get an inferior product. Did you ever take any
courses in economics?

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 lack of understanding about business is in abundant evidence in the court recods of
nearly every where he has lived and conducted business.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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...

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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...

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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!

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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. And of course your assumption I stated the shirt
manufacturer was making a $4.50 net profit on a $9.00 shirt.
Banisters...no wonder this country is ****ed. Have nice day.

More info.. not looking good...
 

F.O.A.D. wrote:
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. And of course your assumption I stated the shirt
manufacturer was making a $4.50 net profit on a $9.00 shirt.
Banisters...no wonder this country is ****ed. Have nice day.

Bankster...damned Siri ! 😄

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 24 Jun 2013 03:42:56 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

F.O.A.D. wrote:
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. And of course your assumption I stated the shirt
manufacturer was making a $4.50 net profit on a $9.00 shirt.
Banisters...no wonder this country is ****ed. Have nice day.

Bankster...damned Siri ! ?

========

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

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.

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

Good grief. So, criminals, rapists and serial murderers have a
*Right* to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

You make no sense. Again, I'll repeat, having to obtain a gun permit
and submit to a background check to ensure you are not one of the
above is *not* a violation of your Constitutional rights. Why is
this so hard to understand?

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.
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?

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/13 12:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 24 Jun 2013 03:42:56 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

F.O.A.D. wrote:
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. And of course your assumption I stated the shirt
manufacturer was making a $4.50 net profit on a $9.00 shirt.
Banisters...no wonder this country is ****ed. Have nice day.

Bankster...damned Siri ! ?

========

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.


Wayne's name calling in rec.boats is just another example of his
hypocrisy. He claims he wants posters in here to be behave decently,
but, of course, what he says he wants doesn't apply to him.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "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.

Jealousy for breakfast?

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 04:52:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"BAR" wrote in message
...

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.

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

Good grief. So, criminals, rapists and serial murderers have a
*Right* to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

You make no sense. Again, I'll repeat, having to obtain a gun permit
and submit to a background check to ensure you are not one of the
above is *not* a violation of your Constitutional rights. Why is
this so hard to understand?


Criminals, rapists and serial murderers won't be abiding by the law in any case.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

"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?

More info.. not looking good...
 

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



wrote in message ...

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



"BAR" wrote in message
m...


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.
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.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 04:52:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


Good grief. So, criminals, rapists and serial murderers have a
*Right* to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

You make no sense. Again, I'll repeat, having to obtain a gun
permit
and submit to a background check to ensure you are not one of the
above is *not* a violation of your Constitutional rights. Why is
this so hard to understand?


Criminals, rapists and serial murderers won't be abiding by the law in
any case.

John (Gun Nut) H.

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

I agree. So, how do they get their guns?

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

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.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/23/2013 11:13 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
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. And of course your assumption I stated the shirt
manufacturer was making a $4.50 net profit on a $9.00 shirt.
Banisters...no wonder this country is ****ed. Have nice day.


So you compensate for your small old dick with your big mouth. Got it.
That explains everything.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/24/2013 6:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 6/24/13 12:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 24 Jun 2013 03:42:56 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

F.O.A.D. wrote:
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. And of course your assumption I stated the shirt
manufacturer was making a $4.50 net profit on a $9.00 shirt.
Banisters...no wonder this country is ****ed. Have nice day.

Bankster...damned Siri ! ?

========

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.


Wayne's name calling in rec.boats is just another example of his
hypocrisy. He claims he wants posters in here to be behave decently,
but, of course, what he says he wants doesn't apply to him.

This is a perfect example of one of Harry's warts. Projecting his flaws
onto others.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"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