Speaking of guns and horses
 

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****!!!

Have someone hit and run you on a California freeway, and find out the
answer.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article 1317329478406410021.942927bmckeenospam-
, says...

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, 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.

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.

After all of your bull**** that has nothing to do with my statement, my
statement stands.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article 1445674800406409914.771138bmckeenospam-
, says...

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****!!!

Have someone hit and run you on a California freeway, and find out the
answer.

You simply call the cops, give them the license number, they go find the
car, see the damage, done. Been there done that.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article 622322287406409959.918120bmckeenospam-
, says...

"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?

Yes, a LOT more successful than you! And he was bright enough to listen
and understand scientific data, unlike you. He was also a crazy
crackpot.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:32:17 -0500, "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.

I know it wasn't me! And I knew Scott made that complaint, but I didn't read something close enough
to know that he didn't own a firearm.

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.

Making one agree to warrantless invasions of your property in order to get a permit *is* a
restriction.

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.

All of those requirements for buying a firearm are 'restrictions' also. A little review of UK
history will show how easily those 'restrictions' become the basis for confiscation.

Of course, the confiscation could happen only to law abiding citizens who didn't mind the
'restrictions'.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:34:50 -0500, 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?

LMAO!!!

That was a goodie!

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 21:20:51 -0500, 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 grew up with a single shot .22 I got when I was in 6th grade. Shot a lot of squirrels and rabbits
with that little bugger.

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 23:50:09 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"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, 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.


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.

The British like confiscating firearms.

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 622322287406409959.918120bmckeenospam-
, says...

"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?

Yes, a LOT more successful than you! And he was bright enough to listen
and understand scientific data, unlike you. He was also a crazy
crackpot.

Maybe more successful, but I did very well with my working life. If he was
such a crazy crackpot, why was he elected as a mayor, lt. Governor,
governor, senator, and still held in high esteem in Georgia. Now you, who
nobody knows, and is a Georgia crackpot of the first rank.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1445674800406409914.771138bmckeenospam-
, says...

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****!!!

Have someone hit and run you on a California freeway, and find out the
answer.

You simply call the cops, give them the license number, they go find the
car, see the damage, done. Been there done that.

Car not at home. What now?

Speaking of guns and horses
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1317329478406410021.942927bmckeenospam-
, says...

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, 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.

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.

After all of your bull**** that has nothing to do with my statement, my
statement stands.

What the hell, you dumbass. My explanation of Executive Branch leadership
voting, had everything to do with your statement.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:55:54 -0500, John H
wrote:

I grew up with a single shot .22 I got when I was in 6th grade. Shot a
lot of squirrels and rabbits
with that little bugger.

My first gun was a model 69 Winchester (22rf) and I still have it.
It has a box magazine either 7, 10 or 15 rounds.

My dad had lots of guns. So I did not buy my first firearm until after I
was married. Just used dads. First I bought was an Ithaca 20 Featherlite.
Liked dads so much, and he moved away, so had to have one.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:13:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.


That is not true at all in a state like Florida with about 100
different plate designs.


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.


So you had an eye doctor write a note. Does that say anything about
your ability to drive? The damned driver's test doesn't really
demonstrate that and you did it when you were in your teens.
Of course the basic driving lessons and the test teach nothing about
spin recovery, high speed braking, evasive maneuvers and the things
that help people avoid accidents in the first place.

People get old and reaction times slow, Ability to actually turn
around and look degrades (even if you have 20/20 vision) and that does
not address attention span, information overload and in some cases
dementia.
I see old farts around here who shouldn't even be driving a golf cart
and they have 300+ HP Cadillacs. It is one of the main reasons I got
rid of that Harley. I almost got hit a couple times just getting up to
DMV to get my motorcycle endorsement.
People can't see a motorcycle, even a full dress hog (3 headlights and
all) and they just pull out.

My mother had to get a new license when she was turning 90. Went with my
brother, who is on the same license cycle. Could have kicked my brothers
ass, for not asking the Dmv to driving test mom. Missed 2 on the written
and they gave her a 5 year license. No behind the wheel test. And she
drove bad at the last 2 years.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:11:48 PM UTC-5, BAR wrote:

Harry will have to call 911 before he uses Mr. 12 Gague.

Krause has no 12 gauge anything. His sweaty smell would drive away a Skunk.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:33:58 -0600, Califbill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:55:54 -0500, John H
wrote:

I grew up with a single shot .22 I got when I was in 6th grade. Shot a
lot of squirrels and rabbits
with that little bugger.

My first gun was a model 69 Winchester (22rf) and I still have it.
It has a box magazine either 7, 10 or 15 rounds.

My dad had lots of guns. So I did not buy my first firearm until after I
was married. Just used dads. First I bought was an Ithaca 20 Featherlite.
Liked dads so much, and he moved away, so had to have one.

That little .22 I had was my grandfathers. Don't know what happened to it. After my dad died, my mom
auctioned off everything in the house and moved to Seattle with the other brothers. I was in the
Army then. I think that rifle must've been sold in the auction - along with all my Lionel train
stuff that would probably be worth a small fortune today!

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/18/13, 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:55:54 -0500, John H
wrote:

I grew up with a single shot .22 I got when I was in 6th grade. Shot a lot of squirrels and rabbits
with that little bugger.

My first gun was a model 69 Winchester (22rf) and I still have it.
It has a box magazine either 7, 10 or 15 rounds.


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/18/13, 12:32 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:13:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.


That is not true at all in a state like Florida with about 100
different plate designs.


Actually, I am always surprised when I see a rear Florida plate on a
car. When we lived there, there were lots of cars with no plates or a
cardboard makeshift plate in the back window, or, funnier, a cardboard
sign in the back window announcing the plate had been stolen. If you saw
those same cars weeks later, the plates were still missing and the same
signs were in the back window.

It was a running joke...how do you tell if a driver is from Florida? No
license plates.


--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/18/13, 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:55:54 -0500, John H
wrote:

I grew up with a single shot .22 I got when I was in 6th grade. Shot a lot of squirrels and rabbits
with that little bugger.

My first gun was a model 69 Winchester (22rf) and I still have it.
It has a box magazine either 7, 10 or 15 rounds.


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

Sounds like something Don would say.

What the hell does 'bravery' have to do with hunting squirrels and rabbits? When you've not a lot of
money, squirrels and rabbits are a way to save on the food bill.

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:54:59 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

Certainly as brave as simply paying someone else to kill the animals
for you, butchering them, putting the meat on a foam tray, wrapping it
in plastic and putting it in the case at the store.

LOL!

Made me think of those poor little baby lamb legs from Australia.

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:00:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

That is not true at all in a state like Florida with about 100
different plate designs.


Actually, I am always surprised when I see a rear Florida plate on a
car. When we lived there, there were lots of cars with no plates or a
cardboard makeshift plate in the back window, or, funnier, a cardboard
sign in the back window announcing the plate had been stolen. If you saw
those same cars weeks later, the plates were still missing and the same
signs were in the back window.

It was a running joke...how do you tell if a driver is from Florida? No
license plates.


I agree. I call Florida "tags optional"
There is a trailer I see all the time around here with "lost tag"
pained on the back (no numbers) and when they repainted the
trailer.they just pained around the sign.

I believe it is because the tags are so cheap, it is not worth
pursuing people without them. Again pointing to the revenue aspect. If
you are in one of those northern states where tags are priced as a
percentage of the value of your car, they are very aggressive in
enforcement.

But LEO use the tags. They know all about you before they pull you over
because they've run your tag. As a matter of fact, I got pulled over one
time because the cop was one number or letter off. I knew I didn't do
anything wrong, and when the cop came up to the car, said, "stand up", I
did so, and he handcuffed me!!! Seems as though the tag similar to mine
was a wanted felon, so it was a felony stop for him. He ran the tag
number again because I didn't fit the description, plus me telling him
I'm not a criminal, and let me go, of course.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

Certainly as brave as simply paying someone else to kill the animals
for you, butchering them, putting the meat on a foam tray, wrapping it
in plastic and putting it in the case at the store.

Wait, they have to inject salt water and other chemicals in it first!!!

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/18/2013 9:54 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/18/13, 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:55:54 -0500, John H
wrote:

I grew up with a single shot .22 I got when I was in 6th grade. Shot a lot of squirrels and rabbits
with that little bugger.

My first gun was a model 69 Winchester (22rf) and I still have it.
It has a box magazine either 7, 10 or 15 rounds.


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

Sounds like something Don would say.

What the hell does 'bravery' have to do with hunting squirrels and rabbits? When you've not a lot of
money, squirrels and rabbits are a way to save on the food bill.

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


Having to feed yourself is not an adventure Harry has ever undertaken.
He's always found a sucker to do that, starting with his mama.

--
Americans deserve better.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/18/2013 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

Certainly as brave as simply paying someone else to kill the animals
for you, butchering them, putting the meat on a foam tray, wrapping it
in plastic and putting it in the case at the store.


That reminds me. I need to take something out of the freezer for supper.
Hope I don't get frostbite.

--
Americans deserve better.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

Hank© wrote:
On 11/18/2013 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

Certainly as brave as simply paying someone else to kill the animals
for you, butchering them, putting the meat on a foam tray, wrapping it
in plastic and putting it in the case at the store.


That reminds me. I need to take something out of the freezer for supper.
Hope I don't get frostbite.


Wife took some Yellowtail out last night. I am guilty of abusing the fish,
and hooking it. But I did have 5 Star Fish Processing cut and wrap and
freeze the fish.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:50:28 -0500, Hank© wrote:

On 11/18/2013 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.

Certainly as brave as simply paying someone else to kill the animals
for you, butchering them, putting the meat on a foam tray, wrapping it
in plastic and putting it in the case at the store.


That reminds me. I need to take something out of the freezer for supper.
Hope I don't get frostbite.

It takes a brave, brave man to risk getting meat from his freezer. Maybe you should let your wife do
it.

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

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/18/13, 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:35:30 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



But LEO use the tags. They know all about you before they pull you over
because they've run your tag. As a matter of fact, I got pulled over one
time because the cop was one number or letter off. I knew I didn't do
anything wrong, and when the cop came up to the car, said, "stand up", I
did so, and he handcuffed me!!! Seems as though the tag similar to mine
was a wanted felon, so it was a felony stop for him. He ran the tag
number again because I didn't fit the description, plus me telling him
I'm not a criminal, and let me go, of course.

It is typical that you start out with an assertion and then prove it
wrong.

You started with a guy involved in a hit and run accident properly
seeing and remembering a tag number of a car speeding away, then you
give an example of a cop who couldn't even get it right when he was
stopped behind you. ... and he is supposed to be a trained
professional doing his job calmly, not an untrained person who was
just in a car accident.

We all know the only purpose of license plates is to generate bucks for
the state, right, Greg? :)

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/18/2013 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:35:30 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



But LEO use the tags. They know all about you before they pull you over
because they've run your tag. As a matter of fact, I got pulled over one
time because the cop was one number or letter off. I knew I didn't do
anything wrong, and when the cop came up to the car, said, "stand up", I
did so, and he handcuffed me!!! Seems as though the tag similar to mine
was a wanted felon, so it was a felony stop for him. He ran the tag
number again because I didn't fit the description, plus me telling him
I'm not a criminal, and let me go, of course.

It is typical that you start out with an assertion and then prove it
wrong.

You started with a guy involved in a hit and run accident properly
seeing and remembering a tag number of a car speeding away, then you
give an example of a cop who couldn't even get it right when he was
stopped behind you. ... and he is supposed to be a trained
professional doing his job calmly, not an untrained person who was
just in a car accident.


Too many things wrong with kevins post to let it go... I will say, there
was no "wanted felon"... Why the hell would he pull someone over if it
wasn't the right plate... "Similar"? LOL.... That's just an excuse they
use to check out someone shady....

Anyway, around here they use plates for TAXES, period. Now when you go
to a local mall the cops have readers (hear that kevin, 21'st century
**** right here) on the front of their car and they just drive though
the parking lots scanning plates. If something comes up like an expired
reg, or insurance reported, you are screwed while you are sitting on
Santas lap...

Speaking of guns and horses
 

My, my L'il Snottie....aren't you a bit old to be sitting on Santa's lap?
What do you talk about...the first thing that pops up?

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/19/13, 6:53 AM, True North wrote:
My, my L'il Snottie....aren't you a bit old to be sitting on Santa's lap?
What do you talk about...the first thing that pops up?


Don. Please put these posts in context. Thanks.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

My post should have been in chronological order, right after KC..alias Ingersoll post.
He talks About getting a ticket while sitting on Santa's lap.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/18/13, 11:52 PM, KC wrote:


Anyway, around here they use plates for TAXES, period. Now when you go
to a local mall the cops have readers (hear that kevin, 21'st century
**** right here) on the front of their car and they just drive though
the parking lots scanning plates. If something comes up like an expired
reg, or insurance reported, you are screwed while you are sitting on
Santas lap...


It wouldn't surprise anyone here to learn you were screwed while sitting
on Santa's lap. How many times have you been ticketed while in the mall
because your car insurance had expired?

Yet another ID for rec.boats, eh? You tire of PsychoSnotty?

BTW, the spring semester at UCONN starts in about two months. Maybe you
could sell that motorbike and use the proceeds to send your daughter to
college. Storrs is what, about 25 miles away? How bad could tuition and
fees be for a commuting student?

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:35:30 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



But LEO use the tags. They know all about you before they pull you over
because they've run your tag. As a matter of fact, I got pulled over one
time because the cop was one number or letter off. I knew I didn't do
anything wrong, and when the cop came up to the car, said, "stand up", I
did so, and he handcuffed me!!! Seems as though the tag similar to mine
was a wanted felon, so it was a felony stop for him. He ran the tag
number again because I didn't fit the description, plus me telling him
I'm not a criminal, and let me go, of course.

It is typical that you start out with an assertion and then prove it
wrong.

You started with a guy involved in a hit and run accident properly
seeing and remembering a tag number of a car speeding away, then you
give an example of a cop who couldn't even get it right when he was
stopped behind you. ... and he is supposed to be a trained
professional doing his job calmly, not an untrained person who was
just in a car accident.

Oh, man........ I really expected you to think rationally, unlike Scotty
and Bill...

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:33:12 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/18/13, 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:35:30 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



But LEO use the tags. They know all about you before they pull you over
because they've run your tag. As a matter of fact, I got pulled over one
time because the cop was one number or letter off. I knew I didn't do
anything wrong, and when the cop came up to the car, said, "stand up", I
did so, and he handcuffed me!!! Seems as though the tag similar to mine
was a wanted felon, so it was a felony stop for him. He ran the tag
number again because I didn't fit the description, plus me telling him
I'm not a criminal, and let me go, of course.

It is typical that you start out with an assertion and then prove it
wrong.

You started with a guy involved in a hit and run accident properly
seeing and remembering a tag number of a car speeding away, then you
give an example of a cop who couldn't even get it right when he was
stopped behind you. ... and he is supposed to be a trained
professional doing his job calmly, not an untrained person who was
just in a car accident.

We all know the only purpose of license plates is to generate bucks for
the state, right, Greg? :)

Certainly in the states that tack on a huge excise tax every year.
It can be almost $600 a year in Indiana (one year old $42,000 car)

I already said, I think tags should be issued by insurance companies.
No insurance, no tag. That is far more relevant for most victims of
bad drivers than the tax stamp they have become. You would know
immediately which insurance company you should be calling and the cops
could more easily identify uninsured motorists.
The current DMV records are dreadfully inadequate for that. The
insurance company has no easy way to get the record updated when a
person drops or simply fails to pay their insurance. If it was
controlled by the insurance company, the tag would be made invalid in
the cops computer immediately.

I suspect we will all have transponders in our cars soon anyway and
the whole tag thing will be an anachronism. The cops will have the id
if every car and likely driver they get close to popping up on their
computer. They already have tag scanners that do that on the fender
but it is somewhat flawed by the artistic designs if the tags.

Here insurance proof is electronic. No insurance, no tag, don't even
have to show a paper copy. Insurance lapses, tag is deemed invalid, LEO
runs the tag, finds out that uninsured and therefore tag is invalid, go
to jail, car towed.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/19/2013 6:53 AM, True North wrote:
My, my L'il Snottie....aren't you a bit old to be sitting on Santa's lap?
What do you talk about...the first thing that pops up?


An old fart with a mind of an 8 year old. That Toronto mayor must be
your hero.

--
Americans deserve better.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/19/2013 6:54 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/19/13, 6:53 AM, True North wrote:
My, my L'il Snottie....aren't you a bit old to be sitting on Santa's lap?
What do you talk about...the first thing that pops up?


Don. Please put these posts in context. Thanks.

The bowlegged little dip**** doesn't know what you are talking about.

--
Americans deserve better.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/19/2013 7:14 AM, True North wrote:
My post should have been in chronological order, right after KC..alias Ingersoll post.
He talks About getting a ticket while sitting on Santa's lap.


There's no way you can justify being ignorant about this. Moron!

--
Americans deserve better.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/19/2013 7:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:


BTW, the spring semester at UCONN starts in about two months. Maybe you
could sell that motorbike and use the proceeds to send your daughter to
college. Storrs is what, about 25 miles away? How bad could tuition and
fees be for a commuting student?


While we're on the subject. Why did you let all of those fine schools in
the Northeast slip through your fingers? It's pretty obvious that your
choice, KCC, didn't prep you properly to be a contributor to society.
Life is all about choices and you made some bad ones.
--
Americans deserve better.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/19/2013 7:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/18/13, 11:52 PM, KC wrote:


Anyway, around here they use plates for TAXES, period. Now when you go
to a local mall the cops have readers (hear that kevin, 21'st century
**** right here) on the front of their car and they just drive though
the parking lots scanning plates. If something comes up like an expired
reg, or insurance reported, you are screwed while you are sitting on
Santas lap...


It wouldn't surprise anyone here to learn you were screwed while sitting
on Santa's lap. How many times have you been ticketed while in the mall
because your car insurance had expired?

Yet another ID for rec.boats, eh? You tire of PsychoSnotty?

BTW, the spring semester at UCONN starts in about two months. Maybe you
could sell that motorbike and use the proceeds to send your daughter to
college. Storrs is what, about 25 miles away? How bad could tuition and
fees be for a commuting student?



He needs to collect rent from 4 different "deadbeat renters" in 5 years
first.

One in five years is understandable. Maybe even two. But four in five
years seems a little unusual. Maybe there's something screwy with the
common denominator involved with these rentals.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/19/13, 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/19/2013 7:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/18/13, 11:52 PM, KC wrote:


Anyway, around here they use plates for TAXES, period. Now when you go
to a local mall the cops have readers (hear that kevin, 21'st century
**** right here) on the front of their car and they just drive though
the parking lots scanning plates. If something comes up like an expired
reg, or insurance reported, you are screwed while you are sitting on
Santas lap...


It wouldn't surprise anyone here to learn you were screwed while sitting
on Santa's lap. How many times have you been ticketed while in the mall
because your car insurance had expired?

Yet another ID for rec.boats, eh? You tire of PsychoSnotty?

BTW, the spring semester at UCONN starts in about two months. Maybe you
could sell that motorbike and use the proceeds to send your daughter to
college. Storrs is what, about 25 miles away? How bad could tuition and
fees be for a commuting student?



He needs to collect rent from 4 different "deadbeat renters" in 5 years
first.

One in five years is understandable. Maybe even two. But four in five
years seems a little unusual. Maybe there's something screwy with the
common denominator involved with these rentals.





If it is the house he used to live in before his daddy died and left him
a better house, it is understandable. The house I recall is in the
middle of an industrial sector, with all sorts of trash in the yard and
problems with electricity and water and probably heating, too. Wanna bet
there are rats, mold and roaches?

It's too bad the kid isn't going to UCONN or some other decent state
college in Connecticut. She could learn a useful trade and earn a good
living, something that ain't gonna happen with motorbike racing.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

In article ,
says...

On 11/19/2013 7:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/18/13, 11:52 PM, KC wrote:


Anyway, around here they use plates for TAXES, period. Now when you go
to a local mall the cops have readers (hear that kevin, 21'st century
**** right here) on the front of their car and they just drive though
the parking lots scanning plates. If something comes up like an expired
reg, or insurance reported, you are screwed while you are sitting on
Santas lap...


It wouldn't surprise anyone here to learn you were screwed while sitting
on Santa's lap. How many times have you been ticketed while in the mall
because your car insurance had expired?

Yet another ID for rec.boats, eh? You tire of PsychoSnotty?

BTW, the spring semester at UCONN starts in about two months. Maybe you
could sell that motorbike and use the proceeds to send your daughter to
college. Storrs is what, about 25 miles away? How bad could tuition and
fees be for a commuting student?



He needs to collect rent from 4 different "deadbeat renters" in 5 years
first.

One in five years is understandable. Maybe even two. But four in five
years seems a little unusual. Maybe there's something screwy with the
common denominator involved with these rentals.

Yes, exactly. I have an aquantence who bought six houses on the cheap.
Forclosures for the most part. He rents those houses and has for five
years total. I asked him the other day about deadbeats, and he's lost a
total of four months rent for six houses for five years.