iBoaterer wrote:
In article 695555588406074347.336773bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 579345792406067882.642720bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 14377863406053108.919177bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn,
and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure
sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in
the barn area.

Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of
firearms?

===

Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling.

Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction
or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause,
and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock
back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of
northeastern nanny state mentality run amok.

Yeah, what he said.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

It's the GOP that doesn't want progress.....

Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very
important to the Founders of this country.

So was witch hunting.

I don not know of any of the founders that were involved in witch hunting.
Maybe you can give a link.

Wait, are you trying to say that the founding fathers were personally
involved in everything that they subscribed to? Do you not think the
Pilgrims can be labeled as "founding fathers"? Have you never heard of
the Salem Witch trials?

The Pilgrims were not the founding fathers. And you realize the Pilgrims
at Plymouth, MA were two different groups that did not like each other?
And the Salem Witch Trials were more, a way too steal someone else's
property.

Who said they weren't "founding fathers"?

You are exercising your dumb a lot on this thread.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:31:43 -0600, Califbill wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:41:16 -0600, Califbill wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:00:12 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote:


The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this
would be acceptable is
unfathomable.


John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable
cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal
is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit
to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally
own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun
permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home
ahead of time.

If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is
that law to be enforced?

Here's an idea:

If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his
hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison.

Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you
go to prison.



Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for
negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law.

This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to
an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door
right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and
checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in".



I am not sure I would trust just any cop who knocked on my door

When I got my original machine gun stamp I did have an undersheriff
(2d in command for Lee County) make an appointment to interview my
wife and I and look at my gun safe.

That I can understand. Personally, I think retired Army officers should
be able to mount a Ma Deuce
on their hoods just to prevent assholish driving. I suppose cops should
be able to monitor the
installation and storage of same.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Not the officers. But the grunts are more familiar with weapons and should
have the right before some ossifer.

How about OCS graduates who've seen the best of both worlds. I could buy that!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Still an officer.

Damn! Honestly, they don't pour out whatever knowledge you've gained as an enlisted when you go to
OCS. ****, I was an SP5. I knew my artillery stuff pretty good!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

In article 575983701406142477.018685bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 695555588406074347.336773bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 579345792406067882.642720bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 14377863406053108.919177bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn,
and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure
sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in
the barn area.

Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of
firearms?

===

Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling.

Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction
or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause,
and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock
back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of
northeastern nanny state mentality run amok.

Yeah, what he said.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

It's the GOP that doesn't want progress.....

Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very
important to the Founders of this country.

So was witch hunting.

I don not know of any of the founders that were involved in witch hunting.
Maybe you can give a link.

Wait, are you trying to say that the founding fathers were personally
involved in everything that they subscribed to? Do you not think the
Pilgrims can be labeled as "founding fathers"? Have you never heard of
the Salem Witch trials?

The Pilgrims were not the founding fathers. And you realize the Pilgrims
at Plymouth, MA were two different groups that did not like each other?
And the Salem Witch Trials were more, a way too steal someone else's
property.

Who said they weren't "founding fathers"?

You are exercising your dumb a lot on this thread.

Well, no, I'm not. YOU are though.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:48:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:48:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:41:22 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

The Pilgrims weren't the "Founding Fathers".

They were "Flounder Fathers".

Sure they were founding fathers. What would make you think they weren't?
Is there some written classification regarding what is considered
founding fathers, or who gets to make that judgment?

===

The pilgrims were here almost 150 years before the declaration of
independence, revolutionary war and the writing/ratification of the
constitution. The people behind those actions are without doubt the
founding fathers.

Where is this definition of "founding fathers"?

===

I just gave it to you. Try to pay attention in class.

Oh, so YOU get to define the phrase, eh? The pilgrims definitely had an
impact on the founding of our county. They settled the area first and
established it as viable for western civilization. They created
covenants and laws and developed the area, and usually made inroads with
the local native population.

===

I would argue that although the pilgrims were among the first settlers
they had only a small impact on the country as we know it. There were
other groups right behind the pilgrims who were not religious zealots
and had much more pragmatic reasons for settling the country. Virginia
with its House of Burgesses certainly had much more influence on our
modern governmental institutions.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:48:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:48:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:41:22 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

The Pilgrims weren't the "Founding Fathers".

They were "Flounder Fathers".

Sure they were founding fathers. What would make you think they weren't?
Is there some written classification regarding what is considered
founding fathers, or who gets to make that judgment?

===

The pilgrims were here almost 150 years before the declaration of
independence, revolutionary war and the writing/ratification of the
constitution. The people behind those actions are without doubt the
founding fathers.

Where is this definition of "founding fathers"?

===

I just gave it to you. Try to pay attention in class.

Oh, so YOU get to define the phrase, eh? The pilgrims definitely had an
impact on the founding of our county. They settled the area first and
established it as viable for western civilization. They created
covenants and laws and developed the area, and usually made inroads with
the local native population.

===

I would argue that although the pilgrims were among the first settlers
they had only a small impact on the country as we know it. There were
other groups right behind the pilgrims who were not religious zealots
and had much more pragmatic reasons for settling the country. Virginia
with its House of Burgesses certainly had much more influence on our
modern governmental institutions.

But that doesn't mean that no one except the forgers of the Constitution
were "founding fathers".... The pilgrims had a big influence on the
framers, they were the first ones to draft covenants and laws! The
decisions of the pilgrims was true democracy in action. They wanted to
create a society in which their freedoms would survive without
persecution. The Mayflower Compact created the very government that
allowed the people to have a voice in state affairs! I'd say that is
quite an impact on "founding" our country and our values.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:34:02 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:48:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:48:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:41:22 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

The Pilgrims weren't the "Founding Fathers".

They were "Flounder Fathers".

Sure they were founding fathers. What would make you think they weren't?
Is there some written classification regarding what is considered
founding fathers, or who gets to make that judgment?

===

The pilgrims were here almost 150 years before the declaration of
independence, revolutionary war and the writing/ratification of the
constitution. The people behind those actions are without doubt the
founding fathers.

Where is this definition of "founding fathers"?

===

I just gave it to you. Try to pay attention in class.

Oh, so YOU get to define the phrase, eh? The pilgrims definitely had an
impact on the founding of our county. They settled the area first and
established it as viable for western civilization. They created
covenants and laws and developed the area, and usually made inroads with
the local native population.

===

I would argue that although the pilgrims were among the first settlers
they had only a small impact on the country as we know it. There were
other groups right behind the pilgrims who were not religious zealots
and had much more pragmatic reasons for settling the country. Virginia
with its House of Burgesses certainly had much more influence on our
modern governmental institutions.

You surely won't get any argument out of Loogy with that statement.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 11/14/2013 1:02 PM, John H wrote:


Damn! Honestly, they don't pour out whatever knowledge you've gained as an enlisted when you go to
OCS. ****, I was an SP5. I knew my artillery stuff pretty good!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




What were people like yourself who were enlisted and then earned a
commission called in the Army?

In the Navy it was "Mustanger"

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:15:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/14/2013 1:02 PM, John H wrote:


Damn! Honestly, they don't pour out whatever knowledge you've gained as an enlisted when you go to
OCS. ****, I was an SP5. I knew my artillery stuff pretty good!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




What were people like yourself who were enlisted and then earned a
commission called in the Army?

In the Navy it was "Mustanger"

We had no special name that I know of. I guess about the closest would be 'passed over' when it came
time for promotion to O-6!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:54:02 -0500, John H
wrote:

You surely won't get any argument out of Loogy with that statement.

===

You've got to be kidding. :-)

On 11/14/2013 6:11 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:54:02 -0500, John H
wrote:

You surely won't get any argument out of Loogy with that statement.

===

You've got to be kidding. :-)


LOL