|
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
In article ,
says... In article , says... 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. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Why do you put up with having your 2A right infringed. Where in the US Constitution does it say that you have to obtain a permit to own arms. Years ago when we were wintering in Florida and Mrs.E's. horses had been transported down there, we received a letter from our home town indicating that a barn inspection had been conducted and her permit to have horses was renewed for another year. Mrs.E. was happy. I was ****ed. The barn had been secured for the winter. No horses. It's located on our property. It also contains a lot of fairly expensive equipment and gear. What right did a town official have to enter the barn without our knowledge or permission? I know it was harmless and for a specific purpose but still the idea that anyone ... town official or private citizen could enter whenever they felt like it got under my skin. To me, it's trespassing. I called the town hall and explained my concern. I wasn't an ass about it or anything but made the point that if it were anyone else, it would be considered a break-in, in my opinion. I asked them what would happen if we reported some equipment as being missing when we returned in the spring? I guess the town had never considered anything like that. Since then they always call the day before they would like to visit for an inspection. You should have reported it as a robbery. Doing such is a crime. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? Nobody is demanding that you change your toilets or replace all your light fixtures. You can use the old styles of each as long as you want until it's time to replace them. You won't be able to get 3 gallon per flush toilets or incandescent light bulbs that are 60 watts or more simply because they don't sell them anymore. (or won't starting in 2014). Nothing to do with "rights". |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:22:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? Nobody is demanding that you change your toilets or replace all your light fixtures. You can use the old styles of each as long as you want until it's time to replace them. You won't be able to get 3 gallon per flush toilets or incandescent light bulbs that are 60 watts or more simply because they don't sell them anymore. (or won't starting in 2014). Nothing to do with "rights". I busted the lid to one of my tanks, the 3 gallon type. Went to Home Depot to get a lid. None available. Figured I'd just buy a new tank for $60-70 or whatever. Nope - tank wouldn't work on the toilet bottom. Now I'm getting ****ed. Luckily, the old guy in the contractor's area gave me a name of a person who'd been collecting the old stuff. Cost me $50 just for a lid, but I was happy. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/13, 7:06 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/16/2013 12:12 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, 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 don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge. Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district. I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that. What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge? Breaking in at night? Where was that mentioned. You commented about answering the front door. It doesn't fit in with his Charles Bronson fantasy. He told his local I threatened to break down his door... When that was always his own foolish fantasy.... Like you say, he's got a Bronson complex for sure... You've made lots of threats here, and for years. No one is going to take you up on them. You're a little twerp with cancer and a heart condition. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 7:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/16/13, 7:06 PM, Charlemagne wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:12 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, 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 don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge. Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district. I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that. What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge? Breaking in at night? Where was that mentioned. You commented about answering the front door. It doesn't fit in with his Charles Bronson fantasy. He told his local I threatened to break down his door... When that was always his own foolish fantasy.... Like you say, he's got a Bronson complex for sure... You've made lots of threats here, and for years. No one is going to take you up on them. You're a little twerp with cancer and a heart condition. I;m gonna let this one slide. Snerk -- Americans deserve better. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 7:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. You agree with passing a background check, which is the precursor to a permit. Maybe it's semantics, but the "permit" is nothing but a card issued by the state police that says you had a background check and are authorized to purchase a gun. So, what's the big deal? Granted, in my state there are different types of permits with the Class A concealed carry (with no restrictions) technically being the "toughest" to get. It's all up to the local police department. They "may" issue it, depending on reason. The other permits are "shall", meaning they must issue a permit, again as long as your background check is clean. So far, I can buy any "nasty looking" assault type weapon I desire as long as it meets the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds or less and is a semi-automatic type. I just don't have any desire to own one. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 7:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. Well, if the rules were a little more stringent, Guys like krause might not slip through the cracks. Think about it. -- Americans deserve better. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 8:07 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/16/2013 4:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: Nope, you are lying again... a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) You don't know that... Peace Corps, or Military aren't the only ways to serve the public...you could be lying, but who am I to step on your ego trip? b. Doesn't own a firearm. You don't know that... and if you are wrong, you are a liar, again. Sucks that you have stooped to playing the progressive games here, develop a convenient narrative, and run with it...... c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Are you sure, you could be lying... but we have already established that you will stoop to that, just out of personal spite.. what a petty little man you are turning out to be... Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. And I still say, if my neighbor allows police to do illegal searches and seizures, they will think they can do it here too... So yes, it effects all of us if you let them break the law... That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. Oh, that's different.. but not quite how it went... big surprise, NOT! I earned my right to decide that. And I have a right to feel differently, without you krausing me with your cobbled together, holier than thou, narratives.... I am just repeating what you have said here in the past. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/13, 9:20 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:40:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/16/13, 8:34 PM, wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:58:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So far, I can buy any "nasty looking" assault type weapon I desire as long as it meets the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds or less and is a semi-automatic type. I just don't have any desire to own one. I agree, If all you can get is a 10 round magazine, why bother? Yeah, because bad shots need more than 10 rounds. Good shots only need one but I bet you do not have any single shot rifles. I have a single shot shotgun. H&R. Love it. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/16/13, 8:34 PM, wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:58:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So far, I can buy any "nasty looking" assault type weapon I desire as long as it meets the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds or less and is a semi-automatic type. I just don't have any desire to own one. I agree, If all you can get is a 10 round magazine, why bother? Yeah, because bad shots need more than 10 rounds. Not when their target is a large stump. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 8:40 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/16/13, 8:34 PM, wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:58:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So far, I can buy any "nasty looking" assault type weapon I desire as long as it meets the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds or less and is a semi-automatic type. I just don't have any desire to own one. I agree, If all you can get is a 10 round magazine, why bother? Yeah, because bad shots need more than 10 rounds. To do what? Do you have something other than target practice on your mind? -- Americans deserve better. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/16/2013 8:07 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/16/2013 4:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: Nope, you are lying again... a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) You don't know that... Peace Corps, or Military aren't the only ways to serve the public...you could be lying, but who am I to step on your ego trip? b. Doesn't own a firearm. You don't know that... and if you are wrong, you are a liar, again. Sucks that you have stooped to playing the progressive games here, develop a convenient narrative, and run with it...... c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Are you sure, you could be lying... but we have already established that you will stoop to that, just out of personal spite.. what a petty little man you are turning out to be... Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. And I still say, if my neighbor allows police to do illegal searches and seizures, they will think they can do it here too... So yes, it effects all of us if you let them break the law... That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. Oh, that's different.. but not quite how it went... big surprise, NOT! I earned my right to decide that. And I have a right to feel differently, without you krausing me with your cobbled together, holier than thou, narratives.... Your day sttarted out nicely. Why spoil it? -- Americans deserve better. |
Speaking of guns and horses
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:58:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So far, I can buy any "nasty looking" assault type weapon I desire as long as it meets the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds or less and is a semi-automatic type. I just don't have any desire to own one. I agree, If all you can get is a 10 round magazine, why bother? California bans a lot of the Black Guns. Now those that are legal have to have a mechanically pushed button to release the magazine. |
Speaking of guns and horses
HankĀ© wrote:
On 11/16/2013 7:32 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. Well, if the rules were a little more stringent, Guys like krause might not slip through the cracks. Think about it. In the Wild West days, the prisoner got his guns back as he left prison. He had paid his dues to society. |
Speaking of guns and horses
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2013 7:32 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. You agree with passing a background check, which is the precursor to a permit. Maybe it's semantics, but the "permit" is nothing but a card issued by the state police that says you had a background check and are authorized to purchase a gun. So, what's the big deal? Granted, in my state there are different types of permits with the Class A concealed carry (with no restrictions) technically being the "toughest" to get. It's all up to the local police department. They "may" issue it, depending on reason. The other permits are "shall", meaning they must issue a permit, again as long as your background check is clean. So far, I can buy any "nasty looking" assault type weapon I desire as long as it meets the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds or less and is a semi-automatic type. I just don't have any desire to own one. Maybe it is semantics. But I see a permit as more like a license to own a weapon. Which is contrary to my Constitutional interpretation. Maybe I hold the 2nd amendment higher as supposedly one of the signers of the Declaration of Independences is a relative. (Abraham Clark) they threw out a ruler, who tried to control the guns to prevent the Revolution. You realize that the first shots at Concord, were over the British trying to confiscate firearms. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/17/2013 12:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 7:32 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. Well, if the rules were a little more stringent, Guys like krause might not slip through the cracks. Think about it. In the Wild West days, the prisoner got his guns back as he left prison. He had paid his dues to society. Ya but Krausie has yet to pay his debt to society and by all appearances he doesn't plan to. Besides, he's nasty, crazy, and paranoid. -- Americans deserve better. |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article ,
says... On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. You should know better than to try to inject any sanity into Scotty's jawbone. |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article , says...
On 11/16/2013 12:12 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, 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 don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge. Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district. I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that. What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge? Breaking in at night? Where was that mentioned. You commented about answering the front door. It doesn't fit in with his Charles Bronson fantasy. He told his local I threatened to break down his door... When that was always his own foolish fantasy.... Like you say, he's got a Bronson complex for sure... Another delusional lie. |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article 748366794406340743.994699bmckeenospam-
, says... "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? Should anyone be able to keep dangerous chemicals such as Ricin? |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article , says...
On 11/16/2013 4:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: Nope, you are lying again... a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) You don't know that... Peace Corps, or Military aren't the only ways to serve the public...you could be lying, but who am I to step on your ego trip? Horse****, you are tall enough to pass the physical. b. Doesn't own a firearm. You don't know that... and if you are wrong, you are a liar, again. Sucks that you have stooped to playing the progressive games here, develop a convenient narrative, and run with it...... You said right here you don't own any guns. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Are you sure, you could be lying... but we have already established that you will stoop to that, just out of personal spite.. what a petty little man you are turning out to be... YOU said right here that you don't own any guns. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. And I still say, if my neighbor allows police to do illegal searches and seizures, they will think they can do it here too... So yes, it effects all of us if you let them break the law... He's not talking about illegal searches. If you allow it, it's not illegal. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. Oh, that's different.. but not quite how it went... big surprise, NOT! I earned my right to decide that. And I have a right to feel differently, without you krausing me with your cobbled together, holier than thou, narratives.... Get a spine, you midget. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/17/13, 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:44:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/17/13, 10:42 AM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:03:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? That is mostly about revenue for the state, along with tags. Bull****. What are tags for if it isn't just the tax stamp? If it was really about identifying the cars there would not be thousands of designs, making the state of origin virtually impossible to determine. It's not the plates that make the state hard to determine, it's the plate holders. If the license itself was any kind of actual qualification document the test would not be as superficial as it is and there would be ongoing re certification. My mother received a new license after she was dead, simply because she mailed in the check on her way to the hospital. The last time anyone actually evaluated her driving ability was that quick trip around the block and parking the car that passes for a test. My grandfather died in 1998 with a valid driver's license in his wallet and he took the only test he ever had to take in a brand new 1919 Chandler. He had been driving for years but the company made all of their drivers get licensed. Yada yada yada. I had to renew this year and was required to either have the results of an eye exam written on the application by my eye doctor or show up at DMV for an eye exam. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article ,
says... On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:44:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/17/13, 10:42 AM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:03:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? That is mostly about revenue for the state, along with tags. Bull****. What are tags for if it isn't just the tax stamp? If it was really about identifying the cars there would not be thousands of designs, making the state of origin virtually impossible to determine. I never asked a word about "tags". If the license itself was any kind of actual qualification document the test would not be as superficial as it is and there would be ongoing re certification. My mother received a new license after she was dead, simply because she mailed in the check on her way to the hospital. The last time anyone actually evaluated her driving ability was that quick trip around the block and parking the car that passes for a test. My grandfather died in 1998 with a valid driver's license in his wallet and he took the only test he ever had to take in a brand new 1919 Chandler. He had been driving for years but the company made all of their drivers get licensed. Okay, let's do away with tags, and driver's licenses. Someone rear ends you, they just leave, no harm no foul, right? |
Speaking of guns and horses
iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:44:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/17/13, 10:42 AM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:03:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? That is mostly about revenue for the state, along with tags. Bull****. What are tags for if it isn't just the tax stamp? If it was really about identifying the cars there would not be thousands of designs, making the state of origin virtually impossible to determine. I never asked a word about "tags". If the license itself was any kind of actual qualification document the test would not be as superficial as it is and there would be ongoing re certification. My mother received a new license after she was dead, simply because she mailed in the check on her way to the hospital. The last time anyone actually evaluated her driving ability was that quick trip around the block and parking the car that passes for a test. My grandfather died in 1998 with a valid driver's license in his wallet and he took the only test he ever had to take in a brand new 1919 Chandler. He had been driving for years but the company made all of their drivers get licensed. Okay, let's do away with tags, and driver's licenses. Someone rear ends you, they just leave, no harm no foul, right? They hit run you, and you get there plate number. Still hard to prove they hit you legally. |
Speaking of guns and horses
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 748366794406340743.994699bmckeenospam- , says... "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? Should anyone be able to keep dangerous chemicals such as Ricin? Is it illegal to possess Ricin? Or just to use it? And where is driving licenses a protected in the Constitution right? And Driver licenses and associated are a source of revenue for the states. Plus you need an ID. DMV for a license, or state issued ID. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
In article 1104217080406400135.015087bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:44:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/17/13, 10:42 AM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:03:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? That is mostly about revenue for the state, along with tags. Bull****. What are tags for if it isn't just the tax stamp? If it was really about identifying the cars there would not be thousands of designs, making the state of origin virtually impossible to determine. I never asked a word about "tags". If the license itself was any kind of actual qualification document the test would not be as superficial as it is and there would be ongoing re certification. My mother received a new license after she was dead, simply because she mailed in the check on her way to the hospital. The last time anyone actually evaluated her driving ability was that quick trip around the block and parking the car that passes for a test. My grandfather died in 1998 with a valid driver's license in his wallet and he took the only test he ever had to take in a brand new 1919 Chandler. He had been driving for years but the company made all of their drivers get licensed. Okay, let's do away with tags, and driver's licenses. Someone rear ends you, they just leave, no harm no foul, right? They hit run you, and you get there plate number. Still hard to prove they hit you legally. Oh, horse****!!! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/17/13, 12:20 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1104217080406400135.015087bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:44:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/17/13, 10:42 AM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:03:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? That is mostly about revenue for the state, along with tags. Bull****. What are tags for if it isn't just the tax stamp? If it was really about identifying the cars there would not be thousands of designs, making the state of origin virtually impossible to determine. I never asked a word about "tags". If the license itself was any kind of actual qualification document the test would not be as superficial as it is and there would be ongoing re certification. My mother received a new license after she was dead, simply because she mailed in the check on her way to the hospital. The last time anyone actually evaluated her driving ability was that quick trip around the block and parking the car that passes for a test. My grandfather died in 1998 with a valid driver's license in his wallet and he took the only test he ever had to take in a brand new 1919 Chandler. He had been driving for years but the company made all of their drivers get licensed. Okay, let's do away with tags, and driver's licenses. Someone rear ends you, they just leave, no harm no foul, right? They hit run you, and you get there plate number. Still hard to prove they hit you legally. Oh, horse****!!! Hey, comments like "horse****" do little to encourage further fun stuff from our lifelong fan of Crazy Zell Miller. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article 1542809174406399845.814004bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 748366794406340743.994699bmckeenospam- , says... "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, Hank© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? Should anyone be able to keep dangerous chemicals such as Ricin? Is it illegal to possess Ricin? Or just to use it? And where is driving licenses a protected in the Constitution right? And Driver licenses and associated are a source of revenue for the states. Plus you need an ID. DMV for a license, or state issued ID. All of that above has NOTHING to do with this thread. You and Scotty just change with the wind! Ricin and many, many other chemicals are illegal to possess without the proper permits, like gun ownership. There are lots of things not covered in the Constitution, dumbass. As a matter of fact, your right to vote for president isn't covered in the Constitution. |
Speaking of guns and horses
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1542809174406399845.814004bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 748366794406340743.994699bmckeenospam- , says... "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote: On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankĀ© wrote: On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury) has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners' homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are no means of enforcing these laws. Hmmmmm.... I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions here about horses, I realized something. A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at least in our town and many others. 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? I don't know. What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to ensure that you are using low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to inspect your light fixtures to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use. The issues is when do you stand up for your rights? There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and individual rights is only a fading memory. The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights" yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those rights. They just want them. Here's an example: We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who: a. Never served in the military or other public service organization like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be hatched here.) b. Doesn't own a firearm. c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm. Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights" because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws. That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their "rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that. I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe I've not been paying close enough attention. But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing whatsoever on the service they have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you letting whomever you want into your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an uninvited, warrantless search of my house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with some city council passing a law which made warrantless searches without cause possible. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott. Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you store them. If you don't agree ... no permit. That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would. I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been produced for over a hundred years. Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? Should anyone be able to keep dangerous chemicals such as Ricin? Is it illegal to possess Ricin? Or just to use it? And where is driving licenses a protected in the Constitution right? And Driver licenses and associated are a source of revenue for the states. Plus you need an ID. DMV for a license, or state issued ID. All of that above has NOTHING to do with this thread. You and Scotty just change with the wind! Ricin and many, many other chemicals are illegal to possess without the proper permits, like gun ownership. There are lots of things not covered in the Constitution, dumbass. As a matter of fact, your right to vote for president isn't covered in the Constitution. The president was not for the populace to elect, Dumbass. Was up to the states to appoint the electors. Was and still is up to the state on how they get their members to the Electoral College. You realize that the states elector does not have to actually vote for the one he is appointed to vote for. California, the elector is only required to vote for their person for the first two votes. Congress was for the people to choose. |
Speaking of guns and horses
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/17/13, 12:20 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article 1104217080406400135.015087bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:44:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/17/13, 10:42 AM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:03:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive? That is mostly about revenue for the state, along with tags. Bull****. What are tags for if it isn't just the tax stamp? If it was really about identifying the cars there would not be thousands of designs, making the state of origin virtually impossible to determine. I never asked a word about "tags". If the license itself was any kind of actual qualification document the test would not be as superficial as it is and there would be ongoing re certification. My mother received a new license after she was dead, simply because she mailed in the check on her way to the hospital. The last time anyone actually evaluated her driving ability was that quick trip around the block and parking the car that passes for a test. My grandfather died in 1998 with a valid driver's license in his wallet and he took the only test he ever had to take in a brand new 1919 Chandler. He had been driving for years but the company made all of their drivers get licensed. Okay, let's do away with tags, and driver's licenses. Someone rear ends you, they just leave, no harm no foul, right? They hit run you, and you get there plate number. Still hard to prove they hit you legally. Oh, horse****!!! Hey, comments like "horse****" do little to encourage further fun stuff from our lifelong fan of Crazy Zell Miller. You mean the Zell Miller, who is a lot more successful in life and writing? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com