On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:19:04 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/29/2013 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Many police departments have had armored vehicles for decades. Even our
local sheriff's department has one. I asked a deputy once why...and he
said it was a crowd attractor at fairs and other venues where his
department tries to reach out for recruits.

Police departments also have access to the same light arms assault
rifles the military uses, and the same sniper rifles.

It is just an indication that the cops have more money than they know
what to do with

I don't know much about the drones, but I'm sure police departments with
lots of wide open spaces could use some of the unarmed variety to help
in search and rescue.
Of course this could bring up some alarming 4th amendment issues.
My real fear with these drones is that they will just be loitering
over people's houses looking for amusing things the cops can laugh
about.
What would you do if there was a drone hovering 50 feet over the pool
were your teenaged daughters were playing?





Same as the x ray vans. There are over 500 vans in the US, controlled by
law enforcement and private orgs. A congressman trying to get a list of
who bought and is operating those vans was turned down by the
manufacturer. The congressman feels as I do that it's important for
Americans to know who and why is looking at them through what opaque
structure?

Also, to reinforce this... you're absolutely RIGHT! You should avoid
the dentist, since he's sending your vital toothdecay statistics to
FEMA. And, they are opening up camps for people who have excessive
tooth decay. When the hygenist sucks the spit out of your mouth, she's
collecting your vital fluids. Be worried. Very worried!

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:03:41 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:43:47 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:16:22 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:07:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.

These two cases have nothing to do with any such action. A lot of
"reasons the way things are" have to do with antiquated views and
fear. That argument doesn't stand for very long.

Actually the decision overturning DOMA may end up citing the 9th and
10th amendment.

SCOTUS tea leaves are hard to read...

Maybe, but it seems more likely it'll be 14:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

That is a 10th amendment issue.

I suppose someone might try to apply the 14th amendment like they do
in the drug war.
The federal government says a state can not deny you the right to rot
in a federal prison for having a state sanctioned medical marijuana
joint.

Come on. Don't stretch too much, you'll hurt yourself.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:48:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:42:57 -0400, wrote:


I agree but the same thing happened with interracial marriages. Some
states allowed it some didn't. Eventually, that changed. Change should
be slow if possible.

So we should go slow on gay marriage? I am trying to understand where
you are going with this.

I think that's the way things work at least at the SCOTUS way of
thinking.

I imagine polygamy will be next. If we are truly going to embrace the
GBLT community we can't ignore the "B"s
Bisexuals should be able to have one each shouldn't they?

I have no objection, but just because you "imagine" doesn't make it
likely.

17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

On 3/29/13 2:58 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:46:27 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:


17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

How about the rights of gun owners?



The "rights" of gun owners are not unlimited, and can and should be
closely regulated.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:44:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

Which part of "No state shall make or enforce any law..." are you
having trouble with?

The 14th amendment is NOT about federal laws.

But states DO make laws.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:57:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:44:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

Which part of "No state shall make or enforce any law..." are you
having trouble with?

The 14th amendment is NOT about federal laws.


It's about equal protection. That's what it says. The states are not
allowing such protection. Which part of equal protection don't you
understand?

Striking down DOMA means that the states can decide for themselves
about marriage. That was the case in other situations, and that will
be the case here.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:19:30 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:06:47 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:44:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The issue with DOMA is not the state making a law that infringes on
the right of a citizen, it is the state writing a law that gives the
citizen more rights and the federal government taking that right away.

It's denying rights on a FEDERAL level.. DOMA IS A FEDERAL LAW. Equal
Protection under the law. That's being denied. D'oh.

Which part of "No state shall make or enforce any law..." are you
having trouble with?

The 14th amendment is NOT about federal laws.

But states DO make laws.

Exactly and the 10th amendment protects the rights STATE laws convey.
That is why DOMA would be tossed as a 10th amendment issue.
New York recognized Edie's marriage and the federal government did
not, with no constitutional authority to regulate marriage in any way.

There are multiple issues with it, but it comes down to equal
protection. But, of course, you are a legal scolar, as well as a PhD
in physics, astrophysics, and metaphysics, so we all defer to you on
all subjects.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:58:30 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:46:27 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:


17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

How about the rights of gun owners?

How about them? Do gun owners have rights over my right to safety or
my freedom to speak or that of the press?

I said "in this manner" that of prejudice and unreasoned fear.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:00:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/29/13 2:58 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:46:27 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:15:34 -0400, wrote:


17 years ago, I doubt anyone would have seriously believed we would
have a discussion like this on gay marriage.
You did look at that vote in congress didn't you? It was a filibuster
proof majority in the senate and a big majority of the house.

It lost in lefty California when they passed prop 8.

So, times don't change and certainly people's attitudes don't? Prop 8
didn't pass by much, but that's not the point. Again, you can't remove
rights from a particular class of people in this manner... read up.

How about the rights of gun owners?



The "rights" of gun owners are not unlimited, and can and should be
closely regulated.

He doesn't care about anyone besides himself.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:15:58 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing.
How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down
range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require
a lot more time.

-----------------------------------------------------

Much more time in handling, loading, firing and cleaning of different
popular gun types.
Much more on general awareness of things like how far a round travels
for different gun types.
How to properly and safely "carry".
How to safely deal with jammed guns or "stovepipes".
Review of pertinent laws related to gun ownership and transfers.
Much more range time and instruction, especially for those who are new
to guns.

Finally, there should be a test. A real one, not a phony self
correct, self grade type thing like the one I took.

I can probably think up a few dozen more.

My oldest son and his wife both received their LTC in Massachusetts
before relocating to South Carolina.
Neither of them had any experience at all with guns. They took a
course that lasted for a month, meeting two or three times a week. 20
hours of instruction, then they spent 3 Saturdays at a range shooting
under instruction for a couple of hours each day.

When I took the course, it was one morning ... four hours of
"instruction" and one hour at the range. He covered the basics that
any idiot would know. The state has a checklist of items to be
covered, from handling guns to road rage. In many cases the
instructor just read the checklist off to us so he could claim he
covered them all.

I've learned more by reading by myself and from talking to experienced
gun owners at the range I belong to.

Experience is a great teacher. You covered a lot of items there...many of which she has no need to
know, like 'safely carry' (she's not), cleaning (which would have to include disassembly), dealing
with jams (call the Range Safety guy), and 'much more range time and instruction'. If she wants to
be a good shot with various weapons and be able to disassemble and reassemble then perhaps you're
right. But, she certainly doesn't *need* all that to be comfortable with loading and shooting a
weapon - safely. The pertinent laws were part of the class. She fired a revolver (.38 Special) and
an M&P 9mm. She has no need to learn about a lot of different weapons and ammunition.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.