|
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/2013 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. Nothin left to do now but pick the bones and wait for the end. |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/2013 9:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. You boys are decades behind the times. When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child, putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families, and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it. Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families. How old were they when you abandoned them? |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:
In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:33:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/13/2013 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Refer to John.. he has it... it's all leading to confiscation, the desired outcome. Problem is libs don't ever compromise, they just think they are smarter than you.. Oh, man, there goes that jawbone again! What a childish post. There's no way guns will ever be "confiscated" as long as the Constitution exists. What *will* happen over the years is a state by state tighter reign on types of permits, etc. I suspect concealed carry permits will become much more difficult to obtain in years to come. In this state the standard "for all lawful purposes" reason is no longer sufficient for a concealed carry permit in an increasing number of towns. You have to have more of a reason. You will still get a permit, but for home defense, hunting or target practice only and you will not be permitted to carry a concealed, loaded firearm. That will certainly reduce the number of firearms carried by law-abiding citizens. To say that guns will never be confiscated as long as the Constitution exists implies that bending of the Constitution cannot occur. We both know better than that. Britain provides an interesting example: From: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466 "Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit. After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber. Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison. The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. You boys are decades behind the times. When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child, putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families, and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it. Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/2013 9:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. You boys are decades behind the times. When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child, putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families, and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it. Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families. In our old fart days, that's what friends, family and grandparents were for in many cases. I recall Navy wives taking turns watching kids so the others could work or take care of errands. We are not talking about educating future Einsteins in "Pre-Kindergarden" for cripes sake. It's basically day care. When our youngest came on the scene in the 1980's he went to a licensed day care place so Mrs.E. could go back to work. We paid for it but it was still affordable. You have to decide if the cost of daycare versus what you make working makes sense. It's part of the responsibility of having and raising kids. I can also remember being five years old and being with my grandmother while my mother went to work. Now the federal government is going to fund daycare services with taxpayer's money? |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent- teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc. When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh? Erections have consequences. |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article ,
says... On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent- teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc. When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh? Erections have consequences. Good one! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 11:01:43 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. You boys are decades behind the times. When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child, putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families, and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it. Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families. In our old fart days, that's what friends, family and grandparents were for in many cases. I recall Navy wives taking turns watching kids so the others could work or take care of errands. We are not talking about educating future Einsteins in "Pre-Kindergarden" for cripes sake. It's basically day care. When our youngest came on the scene in the 1980's he went to a licensed day care place so Mrs.E. could go back to work. We paid for it but it was still affordable. You have to decide if the cost of daycare versus what you make working makes sense. It's part of the responsibility of having and raising kids. I can also remember being five years old and being with my grandmother while my mother went to work. Now the federal government is going to fund daycare services with taxpayer's money? For decades now, certain factions have been trying to get govt supplied daycare here. At this point there are x number of positions available for low income families. We had our two boys in a Pre School but had to pay the full price because of our combined incomes. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:06:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent- teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc. When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh? Erections have consequences. From the liberal perspective, the consequence is more handouts, higher taxes, bigger government, and more votes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/2013 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent- teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc. When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh? Erections have consequences. In Harry's case he ends up with a mess on his hands. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/13, 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent- teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc. When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh? Erections have consequences. I know you are just being humorous, but right-wing politicians and a couple of the right-wing "Bircher/TeaBaggers" here, such as Herring and Bert Robbins, make sort of similar implications, sometime with what they think is subtle language, but what they really mean is perfectly clear, e.g. "Why should they have a child, they're poor... "She can have her breast cancer treated at the ER... "Why does a poor family need a car, a television set, a phone, decent housing in a safe neighborhoor? After all, they're poor... "Let's continue to defund or underfund public school and shift the funds to church-related charter schools. Who does it hurt? Just poor families... "Those poor people have a lot of nerve wanting help with putting food on the table." And it doesn't matter if the "poor" family has working members or not...the hatred for them is there. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
In article ,
says... On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:06:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/14/2013 9:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote: In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves because we had to work. Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent- teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc. When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh? Erections have consequences. From the liberal perspective, the consequence is more handouts, higher taxes, bigger government, and more votes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Proves you know NOTHING about the "liberal perspective" other than what you've learned watching FOX. |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. |
Speaking of guns and horses
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! |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
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! |
Speaking of guns and horses
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" |
Speaking of guns and horses
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! |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. :-) |
Speaking of guns and horses
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 |
Speaking of guns and horses
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. :-) Good thing the iPad screen is semi water proof. |
Speaking of guns and horses
John H wrote:
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! I always heard of a Mustang Officer referring to the army. |
Speaking of guns and horses
iBoaterer wrote:
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. Under your supposition the writers of the Magna Carta are Founding Fathers. |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article 560080384406176244.219603bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: 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. Under your supposition the writers of the Magna Carta are Founding Fathers. Well, no, but I really should have expected some far-flung bull**** from you! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:52:56 -0600, Califbill wrote:
John H wrote: 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! I always heard of a Mustang Officer referring to the army. I've heard the term from Marines and Navy, but never the Army. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/14/13, 4:15 PM, 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" One of my uncles was an army mustang. He enlisted in the army right after Pearl Harbor, was regularly promoted, achieved the rank of sergeant, and after some sort of battlefield heroics was promoted to the rank of officer. He died in action about six months later. My mother, whose brother he was, told me about this, and she had correspondence she showed me that her father and mother received from the war department or the army or whomever that described his service, promotion to officer, death, et cetera. After the war, my mother and father met some soldiers from her brother's unit, and they all described him as a "mustang" officer, meaning someone promoted up from the ranks as a result of battlefield action. I was a young boy when my mother told me about this, and I don't recall any significant details. I never met that uncle because he died before I was born, but when my mother's mother died some years later, I attended the funeral and after she was buried, we walked over to part of the cemetery where the uncle's gravestone was. I seem to recall that there was a marker, but no body buried there, but I'm hazy on that. It was a really bad day, because of my grandmother's death and funeral. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/15/2013 8:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 4:15 PM, 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" One of my uncles was an army mustang. He enlisted in the army right after Pearl Harbor, was regularly promoted, achieved the rank of sergeant, and after some sort of battlefield heroics was promoted to the rank of officer. He died in action about six months later. My mother, whose brother he was, told me about this, and she had correspondence she showed me that her father and mother received from the war department or the army or whomever that described his service, promotion to officer, death, et cetera. After the war, my mother and father met some soldiers from her brother's unit, and they all described him as a "mustang" officer, meaning someone promoted up from the ranks as a result of battlefield action. I was a young boy when my mother told me about this, and I don't recall any significant details. I never met that uncle because he died before I was born, but when my mother's mother died some years later, I attended the funeral and after she was buried, we walked over to part of the cemetery where the uncle's gravestone was. I seem to recall that there was a marker, but no body buried there, but I'm hazy on that. It was a really bad day, because of my grandmother's death and funeral. That was a gripping story. Well written too. Thanks for sharing. -- Americans deserve better. |
Speaking of guns and horses
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 4:15 PM, 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" One of my uncles was an army mustang. He enlisted in the army right after Pearl Harbor, was regularly promoted, achieved the rank of sergeant, and after some sort of battlefield heroics was promoted to the rank of officer. He died in action about six months later. My mother, whose brother he was, told me about this, and she had correspondence she showed me that her father and mother received from the war department or the army or whomever that described his service, promotion to officer, death, et cetera. After the war, my mother and father met some soldiers from her brother's unit, and they all described him as a "mustang" officer, meaning someone promoted up from the ranks as a result of battlefield action. I was a young boy when my mother told me about this, and I don't recall any significant details. I never met that uncle because he died before I was born, but when my mother's mother died some years later, I attended the funeral and after she was buried, we walked over to part of the cemetery where the uncle's gravestone was. I seem to recall that there was a marker, but no body buried there, but I'm hazy on that. It was a really bad day, because of my grandmother's death and funeral. Sure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com