On 11/13/2013 5:17 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

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


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


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




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

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

Here's an idea:

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

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



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

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


That's fine, but suppose you *didn't* feel like having your house inspected? Should there be
consequences?


No, not under current law that requires a warrant and probable cause.
However, the point I was making about the selectman in Shrewsbury is
that it appears to be an attempt to further restrict gun permits. If
you don't agree to inspections up front ... no permit.



Who here do you consider a 'Tea Party' type - anyone who disagrees with the idea of warrantless home
searches?

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


The "Tea Party" and it's followers is such an emotionally charged issue
that I'll keep my opinions in terms of who here support it to myself.
All it causes is hate and discontent. We don't need any more of that.

I will say that some here present opinions and philosophies that are
stronger or closer to those of the Tea Party than others, at least the
way I interpret them.

I don't necessarily disagree with everything the Tea Party represents
either, BTW. I strongly disagree with the manner in which they have
tried to push their causes however.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:47:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/13/2013 5:17 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

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


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


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




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

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

Here's an idea:

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

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



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

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


That's fine, but suppose you *didn't* feel like having your house inspected? Should there be
consequences?


No, not under current law that requires a warrant and probable cause.
However, the point I was making about the selectman in Shrewsbury is
that it appears to be an attempt to further restrict gun permits. If
you don't agree to inspections up front ... no permit.



Who here do you consider a 'Tea Party' type - anyone who disagrees with the idea of warrantless home
searches?

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


The "Tea Party" and it's followers is such an emotionally charged issue
that I'll keep my opinions in terms of who here support it to myself.
All it causes is hate and discontent. We don't need any more of that.

I will say that some here present opinions and philosophies that are
stronger or closer to those of the Tea Party than others, at least the
way I interpret them.

It's very true that some here are more conservative than others here. I sure can't argue that.
Wondering whether I was a 'Tea Party' leaner, I went to their platform to see exactly what it was:

http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

I'd have to say that I agree with their ten core beliefs.

I don't necessarily disagree with everything the Tea Party represents
either, BTW. I strongly disagree with the manner in which they have
tried to push their causes however.

Ditto.

In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

On 11/14/2013 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency
of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.



Nothin left to do now but pick the bones and wait for the end.

On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency
of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.





You boys are decades behind the times.

When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid
a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and
good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them
until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able
on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same
sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child,
putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families,
and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it.

Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work
and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one
of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then
when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of
real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/14/2013 9:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency
of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.





You boys are decades behind the times.

When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid
a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and
good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them
until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able
on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same
sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child,
putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families,
and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it.

Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work
and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one
of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then
when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of
real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families.


How old were they when you abandoned them?

On 11/14/2013 9:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".
This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency
of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the
'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.





You boys are decades behind the times.

When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid
a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and
good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them
until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able
on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same
sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child,
putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families,
and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it.

Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work
and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one
of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then
when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of
real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families.



In our old fart days, that's what friends, family and grandparents were
for in many cases. I recall Navy wives taking turns watching kids so
the others could work or take care of errands. We are not talking about
educating future Einsteins in "Pre-Kindergarden" for cripes sake. It's
basically day care.

When our youngest came on the scene in the 1980's he went to a licensed
day care place so Mrs.E. could go back to work. We paid for it but it
was still affordable. You have to decide if the cost of daycare versus
what you make working makes sense. It's part of the responsibility of
having and raising kids.

I can also remember being five years old and being with my grandmother
while my mother went to work.

Now the federal government is going to fund daycare services with
taxpayer's money?

On Thursday, 14 November 2013 11:01:43 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2013 9:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/14/13, 8:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:





In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care".

This would, of course, require

government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency

of government handouts. In

other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.



It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the

'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays

any taxes.



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









We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves

because we had to work.











You boys are decades behind the times.



When my kids got to be preschool age, in the mid 70's, it cost $75 a kid

a week to send a kid to a licensed preschool with a quality program and

good teachers in our DC suburb, or about $600 a month for both of them

until one was old enough for public school kindergarten. It was do-able

on a middle class income. Nowadays, according to my neighbors, the same

sort of quality preschool is $1000 to $1200 a month for *one* child,

putting preschool out of the reach of most middle class income families,

and if they have two or three preschool kids, forget about it.



Public preschool allows both parents in a middle class household to work

and allows the parent in a single parent household to work. That's one

of the realities of life these days...it is much more expensive then

when you fellow old farts were raising babies, and incomes in terms of

real dollars have not kept pace for middle and lower income families.







In our old fart days, that's what friends, family and grandparents were

for in many cases. I recall Navy wives taking turns watching kids so

the others could work or take care of errands. We are not talking about

educating future Einsteins in "Pre-Kindergarden" for cripes sake. It's

basically day care.



When our youngest came on the scene in the 1980's he went to a licensed

day care place so Mrs.E. could go back to work. We paid for it but it

was still affordable. You have to decide if the cost of daycare versus

what you make working makes sense. It's part of the responsibility of

having and raising kids.



I can also remember being five years old and being with my grandmother

while my mother went to work.



Now the federal government is going to fund daycare services with

taxpayer's money?


For decades now, certain factions have been trying to get govt supplied daycare here.
At this point there are x number of positions available for low income families.
We had our two boys in a Pre School but had to pay the full price because of our combined incomes.

In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.

On 11/14/13, 9:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2013 8:18 AM, John H wrote:


In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require
government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In
other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes.

It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays
any taxes.

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




We used to call them "babysitters" and we paid for them ourselves
because we had to work.

Hell, now people use school as babysitters all of the time! I've seen
people get mad as hell around here because school was out for parent-
teacher conference day, or a furlough day, etc.



When both parents in a household have to work, days schools are closed
create havoc. And imagine the havoc it creates in a single parent
household where the mom has a ****ty job at Wal-Mart, eh?



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.