Leaving the community

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

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.

assuming that they will answer truthfully each time....

--
Bob Noel

"David Brooks" wrote in message
SNIPPED
-- David Brooks

Don't go away mad! Just...

Bryan

Cowards runs...Real men stay and fight, Political preference withstanding.

On 11/6/04 11:39 AM, in article
, "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.

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.

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.

Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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

The problem is most people believe the populace is subservient to the
government which of course is 180 degrees out of whack. The constitution
provided for us to overthrow the government if necessary but most people are
totally incapable of comprehending the possibility.

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:Gh8jd.63382$R05.58068@attbi_s53...
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

"Assault weapon" is a term used by politicians to mean whatever they want it
to mean.. A wooden spoon or a bad fart can be an assault weapon. The whole
assault weapon think is nothing but nonsense politics and chest thumping.

Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
courses".

Well, welcome to the "Land of Useless Degrees" -- as the owner of an English
degree, I can sympathize....

;-)

You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth.

I wasn't mixing up anything -- I was simplifying for the sake of a Usenet
argument. If you want to get into macro-economic theory, most people here
(myself included) will quickly doze off.

The pseudo-"science" of economics is one of the main reasons I dropped my
Business major in my sophomore year. The only area of study I found that
was less scientific, perhaps, was sociology -- although it was a close race.

Let's keep it simple: People who work outside of the government pay all the
taxes that pay for the people's jobs who work INSIDE the government --
period. It doesn't much matter if it's stuff that SHOULD or COULD be done
by the private sector -- cuz it's just not happening.

Thus, any "taxes" paid by the people who work inside the government simply
don't exist, except on paper. It's all accounting smoke and mirrors.

What the government SHOULD do, to keep the system simple and honest, is to
simply pay their workers a straight wage, without any bogus taxes being
deducted. The only reason they DON'T do this, quite frankly, is that they'd
have to pay their workers (on paper) a good 20 to 30% less than their
equivalent job in the private sector.

This wouldn't help government recruitment, now would it?

Of course, when the public suddenly realized that these government workers
were taking home the exact same amount of money they were -- even though
they appeared to be paid 30% less -- the private sector workers might
finally realize just how unfairly they were being taxed.

This would soon lead to a popular (and probably violent) revolt -- which
isn't compatible with keeping the country running smoothly. Thus, the
ridiculous system of paying government workers 30% more -- just so they can
deduct 30% in taxes -- persists.

It's criminal. And it's the law.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho wrote:
So far, you've made no suggestions about why those polls are
significantly wrong, and as I've already pointed out, the chances of those
polls being correct are MUCH greater than the chances of them being
drastically incorrect.

So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?

Cecil Chapman wrote:

But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
that.

What caliber of round does an AK-47 shoot? Smaller than the average big
game round. Assuming the AK is fixed so it can only shoot semi
automatic you only dislike it because of how it looks.

*much* closer to the US and has a less imposing military. *Think* for a
moment and tell me it's logical for us to invade a hostile country half a
globe away for oil when we have oil exporters in our own hemisphere.

Since Iraq didn't even have a missile delivery system, much less the 'WMD's,
I don't even see how they could be viewed as a hostile threat to the U.S.
The hypocrisy I'm trying to point out is; Bush keeps telling us how we are
there to free the Iraqi's from repression (there is NO doubt, that many
dissidents were brutally treated),,, but what about the mass genocide that
is going on RIGHT NOW (and has been going on for some time) in parts of
Africa. Why aren't we saving them? Could it be that there country has no
economic benefits to offer us and that,,, after all,, it is "just" black
skinned people dying over there?

Your guy lost. By a significant margin. Get over it and go flying.

Significant margin? Not quite,,,, 51 to 48 percent is hardly a national
mandate - in fact it reveals a deeply divided country.

Not to worry,,,, Congress is investigating Halliburton as we speak.........
:0)

--
--
=-----
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 -

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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


The problem is most people believe the populace is subservient to the
government which of course is 180 degrees out of whack. The constitution
provided for us to overthrow the government if necessary but most people are
totally incapable of comprehending the possibility.

Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
a point where we must start again. I'll admit that I have a hard time
compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
keenly aware of this issue!


Matt