Leaving the community

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vOqid.353905$MQ5.219330@attbi_s52...

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Bright? Yes, but that's a morally-neutral statement.

-cwk.

Earl Grieda wrote:


You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an organized
army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part of a United
States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US Army would
basically have a coup and take over the country. Every able bodied
adult male was considered to be the militia.

Dave Stadt wrote:



You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
WAG.

Science proves it. But, everything has to go right for the poll to
achieve that margin of error. First you must get a represenative random
sample. This rarely happens, there's always a little error here.
Second the questions must not be skewed one way or the other. Third,
the people must tell the truth. This also never happens. They always
give the margin of error when you see a poll, this is a theoretical
number that cannot be reached because no poll will ever be truly random,
somebody always lies, or says they're someone their not, etc. One of
the pollsters on TV this week said that to get the 850+ responses for a
+-3% poll they had to call over 10,000 people. With those kinds of
problems no way can a poll be anymore than a guess.

"m pautz" wrote in message
news:lTMid.48559$HA.35856@attbi_s01...

Wouldn't it be better to be a classical liberal and return to the
freedoms that our founding father's intended? There doesn't have to be a
choice between one of only two options.


You can. Vote Libertarian.

www.lp.org

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Earl Grieda wrote:


You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn
what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't
at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution
of these terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an
organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part
of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US
Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every
able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia.

I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person
making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion.

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

Earl G

Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Peter Duniho" writes:
"Newps" wrote:

Polls are facts about statistics.

A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.

The poll itself is a fact about the statistical sample taken. Which is
exactly what I said (though apparently not in a verbose enough way for some
of you).

If you feel you have some good reason to dispite the Gallup poll results,
I'm all ears. If all you can come up with is "well, there's a 0.000000001%
chance that the poll is incorrect", then while that may be perfectly true,
it's a pretty useless statement.

The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

My favorite statistics story: I was reading an article about
weather prediction in which NOAA claimed about 75% accuracy
in their predictions. You can say that tomorrow's weather
will be the same as today's and be about 90% accurate in most
parts of the world.

. . . I can no longer in good faith keep company with a group of
which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love . . .

I always understood that this group was international.

Tony

Exactly. "Well regulated" back then meant "well trained" .. trained in
the use of firearms... not regulated by government laws. If they felt like
more laws and regulations would enhance the "security of a free state"
then they would have created a bunch of laws right then and there.


Wizard of Draws wrote:

Your interpretation of "well-regulated" has been the subject of many
debates, and is very likely wrong. Google the term a bit and you'll see what
I mean.

In article ,
David Brooks wrote:
So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
better pilot.

If you want to enact change, you can't run away.

I'm in a rather strange political group, as none of the parties really
make sense to me. I believe in very wide personal liberty and equal
rights. Gays should be able to get married, people should be able to
own big scary guns as long as they don't shoot people with them, and
women should be able to choose what to do with their bodies.

I believe religious issues should not enter government at all, because
that is the only way to keep from legislating that religion's beliefs
over the common good. I wish it was stated in the Constitution that the
U.S. is a secular state that nevertheless welcomes its population to
hold whatever religious beliefs they wish.

However, I don't believe the Libertarian party isn't really a good fit
for me, because I don't believe that competitive pressure is enough to
keep businesses from doing anything they want to maximize their profit.
Somehow they need to be held accountable to certain social standards
(much like people are), and it has been quite obvious that the
population at large will not punish a company violating these standards
by not buying their stuff.

I don't know what this makes me - Libertarian, Green, Democrat, stinking
Liberal, perhaps a Commie Mutant Traitor? Definitely not a Republican
as that party currently stands.

I abhorred Bush and his policies, so I didn't vote for him. A lot of
people disagreed with me. While I think that's disappointing, storming
out isn't going to fix anything.

So if you want change, you need to work at it. Talk calmly and
rationally, and preferably face-to-face, with people who disagree with
you. Maybe you'll be able to convince them of some of your viewpoints.
(Maybe they'll be able to convince you of some of theirs!) Maybe if
enough people do this things will be different in two/four years.

But don't do it on this forum. My advice: when you see the beginnings
of a political or religious scuffle, do what I should have done instead
of writing all this - kill the subthread, move on with life.

-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing bdowning at lavos dot net