Leaving the community

But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
in times of threat.

I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo grin.

What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
that.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

The average citizen has NO need to have...

airplanes or chemistry sets or powerful computers or home weather stations or SUVs. The average citizen does not need seventeen different choices of toothpaste just on one aisle, and the average citizen most definately does not need a big mac.

And actually, a "well regulated militia" would come in handy at 38,000 feet were theere a dispute about who should fly the airplane.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
(note, replied to r.a.piloting, r.a.ifr, and r.a.student, but I don't follow the student group)

Cecil Chapman wrote:

But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
in times of threat.

I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo grin.

You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
is it?


What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
that.

Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
one means and force is the other.


Matt

My totally amazed comments are in you text...



"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
om...
No, I just don't see them the same way you do. You can SCREAM in capital
letters all you want and decide that I'm suffering from a terminal case
of
cognitive dissonance, but that's not a very mature response, now is it?


Naw,,, did NOT scream in capital letters grin!

Perhaps Republicans in Utah are just as touchy as liberals in Cambridge
and
Berkeley. All that ideological conformity makes these places into
ideological veal pens. God forbid you ever have to venture outside that
bubble.

Please don't even get me started on Berkeley (sometimes I wish they would
be
declared a separate state so that their questionable actions/ideas would
be
associated with Californians as a whole.

I was born in Chicago, but from 1 y.o. and on lived in San Francisco. I'm
fully aware that venturing outside California is quite different, but that
doesn't make the observation that bigotry exists any less true. I know
when
I've been in the South, I was surprised that many of the old attitudes
have
never left, just that they've gone a little more underground (regarding
blacks).

I used to have a gijrlfriend who was from SF and extremely liberal. I used
to kid her that the only time she ever actually saw a black person was when
she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same syndrome.

If you were to actually talk to a black person you would find that there is
far less prejudice in the South than in the North. Oh, you might see a
Confederate flag or two in the South but it is more a symbol of Southern
pride than racism. When civil rights came, Southerners adopted them far
quicker than did non-Southerners. Because white Southerners actually knew
black people. As I have discussed with some of my black friends, in the
South you know who doesn't like you because of your color. They flip you off
or yell at you, but you know who they are and you ignore them. But, in the
North (for example), everybody smiles and shakes your hand at the same time
they're putting restrictive covenants on their neighborhoods so black people
can't buy houses there, and they pass laws banning "alley basketball"
because they don't want black kids hanging out on their block.

And do you know where the new "Black Mecca" is? A place where the government
is predominantly run by blacks? A place where black business thrives? A
place where black Americans can live in peace, prosperity, and equality
alongside their black neighbors. It's Atlanta. That's in Georgia; about as
far "down South" as you can get. Yea, the South is a really prejudiced
place!




It IS like night and day between California and some other states
regarding attitudes towards same-sex unions - I was just trying to point
out
that having a gay person or couple in your neighborhood isn't going to
'turn
you' or your children gay. Just isn't going to happen. Not necessarily
true in your case,,, but I have noticed that those who are most vehement
against gays often turn out to be people who are struggling with their
certainty about their own sexuality.

Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in the
60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.




Unfortunately, the gay citizens that get the most tv coverage here in San
Francisco are those that are more flamboyant in costume and dress during
Gay
Pride celebrations. You'd find that most of the gay couples in our
neighborhood (as well as yours,,,, they likely stay 'hidden') just dress
like you and me, kiss a loved one on the way to work and aren't wearing
pink
feathered costumes and a headdress. :0) I guess all I was saying is that
I
don't understand the intolerance; I don't worry that my wife, my marriage
or
child are at risk because of Gay people. I WILL say that the only persons
that worry me most in regards to my 9 year old stepson are Catholic
Priests.
I DO keep my eye on them (though I understand that most are just fine -
but
I watch out as much as possible)... but that is another issue altogether.

At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
with their straight sexuality. Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive
choice is probably not a good idea for a pubscent child who is wrestling
with their own sexuality.

Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm sure
some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun things.

With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that a
lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems. I'll
agree that some may have stemmed from abuse, but a lot of these problems do
not. And you are dealing with a lot of "recovered memories" and other very
shaky memories. But any time "child molestation" comes into play there is
just no way for the accused to win.






--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...
I'm the original poster and I approve this response.

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...

freaks...... See this is what I mean about people like yourself,,,
they
don't see the connections between their own observations.

Just like David Brooks, who decided he can't even deal with being in
the presence of people who voted for Bush.

Best,
-cwk.

Isn't an assault weapon anything that holds over a certain number of rounds?
They can be, and usually are, semi-automatic. I've never heard of the
assault weapon as being only full automatic.

mike regish


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Bob Chilcoat wrote:

... no one NEEDs to own an assault rifle or machine gun for
personal use.

And the typical citizen cannot do so. Assault rifles and machine guns are
fully
automatic weapons and are restricted by legislation enacted in 1934. If
you want to
own one today, you have to obtain a permit from BATF for each weapon. This
requires
that you pass essentially the same investigations necessary to get a top
secret
security clearance and pay a hefty fee (in 1981, the fee was $600 per
weapon). Many
States also require a separate investigation and permit, and some States
will not
allow private citizens to own them at all.

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you take
two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two different
answers.

Not if you poll the same people. If you're going to argue variant versus
invariant, you need to hold ALL relevant factors invariant when you're
talking about invariant.

You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

Much better than yours though.

Huh? That's the best you could come up with?

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...] Yea, the South is a really prejudiced place!

It sure was in the 80's. I can't speak for the current atmosphere, but when
I lived in Virginia, the common refrain when a black man ran for governor
was "I'm not racist, but I just can't imagine one of THOSE people as
governor." Of course, that would never be said to the face of a black
person. But it was said, nevertheless.

The South has a much better handle on manners, and so the racism isn't
nearly as overt as it might be elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the South
isn't still affected by racism.

As far as your so-called examples of "northern racism" go, they are pretty
absurd themselves. I doubt you could present a single example of a
residential covenant that literally makes it "so black people can't buy
houses there", and while it wouldn't surprise me to find rules restricting
or even prohibiting basketball in alleys, you'd be hard pressed to prove to
me that those rules are about keeping blacks out of the alleys rather than
simply keeping loud groups of young people from annoying the neighbors.
It's a pretty racist attitude you've got there to think that only black kids
play basketball.

Your homophobic rants are even more ridiculous...I'm not even going to waste
time responding to them.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you take
two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two different
answers.


Not if you poll the same people. If you're going to argue variant versus
invariant, you need to hold ALL relevant factors invariant when you're
talking about invariant.

Maybe, maybe not. People are notoriously fickle. And even if you get
the same responses twice, it only tells you one thing: what those people
said at that instant. It doesn't tell you that much about the broader
population because of the biases we discussed earlier. And thus exit
polls are a complete waste of time because nobody cares what some subset
of the voters think.


You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

Much better than yours though.


Huh? That's the best you could come up with?



Beats "huh?"

Matt

Matt Whiting writes:
Earl Grieda wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote
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.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.

Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Do you own homework. And learn what common means. Pipers are common
light airplanes, yet they constitute far less than 50% of the fleet.

Cannon were so common that the colonists had to steal
them from the Brits for use in Boston and even then
didn't have much ammunition for them. It was a good
bluff, though, that worked.

"Homophobe"; the last refuge of the village idiot.

I've never heard an intelligent person use that term.





"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...] Yea, the South is a really prejudiced place!

It sure was in the 80's. I can't speak for the current atmosphere, but
when
I lived in Virginia, the common refrain when a black man ran for governor
was "I'm not racist, but I just can't imagine one of THOSE people as
governor." Of course, that would never be said to the face of a black
person. But it was said, nevertheless.

The South has a much better handle on manners, and so the racism isn't
nearly as overt as it might be elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the South
isn't still affected by racism.

As far as your so-called examples of "northern racism" go, they are pretty
absurd themselves. I doubt you could present a single example of a
residential covenant that literally makes it "so black people can't buy
houses there", and while it wouldn't surprise me to find rules restricting
or even prohibiting basketball in alleys, you'd be hard pressed to prove
to
me that those rules are about keeping blacks out of the alleys rather than
simply keeping loud groups of young people from annoying the neighbors.
It's a pretty racist attitude you've got there to think that only black
kids
play basketball.

Your homophobic rants are even more ridiculous...I'm not even going to
waste
time responding to them.

Pete