On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:27:03 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

They are AFTER YOU! Hide now.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:30:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:27 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

Because, of course, they intend to surround your house and tell you to
come out with your hands up, and they know you'll start shooting off
your mouth or your peashooter.

They're not going to tell him to come out. they're just going to burn
donw the ****ing house.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's
rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.


He's a ****ing lunatic. he heard it inside his head or from Glen Beck
(same thing).

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:32:46 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:29:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

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.


We have an amendment process for changing and amending the Constitution.
Getting rid of state's rights can be accomplished by following the
process. Also, a liberal Supreme Court that is as activist as the
current conservative Supreme Court could issue rulings that abrogate
more of what are considered state's rights.

The way we are going, the bill of rights will be reduced to free
speech for people rich enough to buy the TV time and not having
soldiers quartered in our homes.

Yeah, yeah, the apocolypse is coming any day now. What a moronic way
of thinking.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 4:48 PM, wrote:

The open question is whether "gay" is a protected class then isn't it?
That is the question Scalia asked the other day.
Are bigamists going to be the next protected class?
Why can't 3 people be married?
At a certain point people may even start questioning the "age of
majority/consent" that is an arbitrary number that is not even uniform
among the states.




Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

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.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:40:44 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

I would really like the government out of the marriage business
altogether. Marriage should be a church thing and all of the
government involvement should be by simple contract law.
Government regulation of marriage is really just church dogma,
legitimized at the point of a government gun. That is how we got to
outlawing gay marriage in the first place.

I agree with ths completely.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:38:25 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:44:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:44:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Sometimes they hit every number in the phone book, other times they
start with a prefix and hit all 10,000 numbers.

Did you READ the article?

Yes, it said nothing about the scope of the robocall campaign only
that people in Newtown got called. It didn't even say if they were
only people on the NRA donors list.



But they cannot do any wrong. The ****ing NRA are blood sucking scum
that only give a **** about where their next gun mouthful comes from.

What do you think of the local NAACP in Ohio who said that the girl was drunk and consented
to being raped?

http://www.ibtimes.com/steubenvilles...tim-was-drunk-
willing-exclusive-1149517

Don't know. Sounds like an odd viewpoint of a rape. Do you want me to
apologize for him? Looks like he's not in the role of president since
2010. So, basically, you're just blowing smoke.

On 3/28/13 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:56:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

I would really like the government out of the marriage business
altogether. Marriage should be a church thing and all of the
government involvement should be by simple contract law.
Government regulation of marriage is really just church dogma,
legitimized at the point of a government gun. That is how we got to
outlawing gay marriage in the first place.


Why should marriage be a church thing? Why shouldn't civil officials
perform marriages?

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

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

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.

=======

There is nothing antiquated about being concerned with big government.

On 3/28/2013 7:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

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.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

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

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.



Read up Dick... It's just coming out in hearings two days ago. Their
answer first is "we are just saving money by buying 5 years worth of
ammo instead of one year at a time"... The next question was if for just
plinking and practice, why all the expensive hollow point ammo... It
will come out Dick, I just pay a bit more attention to CSpan that most
here... mark my words...