Leaving the community

Cecil Chapman wrote:

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.



But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

No need to restate what is commonly known by anyone at all literate
about the Constitution and those who wrote it.


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.


I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

You seem to be trying to interpret the Constitution in ways that the
authors never intended, and that is just as bad as trying to change it
outright.


But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

Yes, that is exactly what the founders had in mind. Can't you do a
little research on your own? The comments on the second amendment by
various folks involved with authoring the Constitution are easy to find,
assuming you really want to know the answer.


Matt

BINGO!!!
--
Jim in NC

Yep, Jim in NC, GOOD point!,,,, can YOU say WMD's?

--
--
=-----
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 -

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
om...
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.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia
WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their
decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

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.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who
have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place?

Do you remember this little event in US history called the Revolution? Of
course the founding fathers would want to afford the citizens the
opportunity to overthrow the government if need be. THEY HAD JUST DONE IT
AND WERE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW IT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN AGAIN! Consider
what was happening in other countries around that time. Sheesh, talk about
rational.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day? Exactly
what is useful about other political polls for that matter, unless you are
a democratic who can't think on his/her own and needs a poll to tell them
what to do. :-)


Matt


Democrats and Republicans will both heavily use the exit polls. In a couple
of months, a book about the size of a dictionary will come out with all the
exit poll data. Both sides will use the info to figure out why people voted
the way they did, and how they can use it to their advantage in the future.
Exit polls are very accurate when used properly.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...

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


I've already said. Please keep up. The poll is a fact.

The poll is not a fact. It is potentially a close approximation of a fact.


They are 100%
correct about the fact they represent.

They are almost never correct about the fact they are trying to represent.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

I understand, why. Often when people are confronted with the facts that
their feelings are colored by bigotry of one type or another, their first
impulse is to vehemently deny it.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

But they DON"T have equal rights. If their lifetime partner is in the
hospital they have NO legal visiting rights as a spouse would. When their
loved one dies they have NO right to insurance like a 'regular' spouse
would -despite spending decades together as a couple. The list goes on....
This is discrimination Jim and even though they may not be black still makes
it just as wrong and ugly. They don't even have the right to be buried with
their loved one. Sounds like a second class citizen to me, Jim!


Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Look above Jim,,,, you REALLY just haven't got a clue.... There are MANY
other rights that they don't have and it all comes from persons like you who
are so afraid that the existence of a gay couple might be a threat to your
sexual orientation or someone else's. Bigotry, Jim,,, not over color, in
your case, but the sexual preference of consenting adults. Why do you give
a flying fish (substitution here) ????? WHAT are you SO afraid of? Your
wife knows you are a straight man - are you afraid that if you agree that
others deserve civil right too, that somehow your sexual orientation will be
questioned? Balderdash!


Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes.

You're right (so far) about the married part, but I know a lesbian couple
who own a Piper Cherokee 140 (definitely a low-wing airplane). Wouldn't you
agree?

That's just
they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.

Bigotry is such an ugly thing,,,, it really doesn't suit, you, Jim. I
never in my wildest dreams pegged you as a bigot


--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but
for now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
activity' as the measure.

Here's hoping you have a clue.....

--
--
=-----
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 -

Is that right? The heterosexual divorce rate is about .40 percent. What
is it for homosexual marriages, Frank?

--
Jim Fisher

Hard to tell, Jim..... Bigots won't let them find out!

--
--
=-----
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 -
"

No, it is just different. Calling it aberrant puts the judgment
of 'improper' on it. Your opinions aren't axiomatic, Jim. Most
people in the US used to look on interracial marriage as
aberrant. Opinions have changed...not axiomatic.

Succinct and to the point! Most excellent reply!

--
--
=-----
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 -
"Terry Bolands" wrote in message
om...

mike regish wrote:

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.

Be careful with the words. "Assault weapon" and "assault-type weapon" are political
constructs. "Assault rifle" is a military definition.

First off, ammunition is divided by types. Pistol ammo is relatively short and has a
small powder charge. Carbine ammo is slightly longer and more powerful. Rifle ammo is
longer and more powerful than carbine ammo. Machine gun ammo is the most powerful of
the "small arms" ammo. Any weapon that uses a rifle cartridge is called a rifle, and
only rifles use rifle cartridges. So, by definition, an assault rifle uses rifle
ammo.

Then we get to the word "assault". In military parlance, an assault is an attack on
an objective. An assault rifle is a rifle designed to be used during the assault. By
definition, it is a relatively light weapon with a relatively short barrel, an
effective range of roughly 300 yards, and is capable of fully automatic fire. Most of
them are also capable of semi-automatic fire to save ammunition.

In the late '80s, organizations like HCI latched onto the term and began agitating to
ban "assault rifles". The problem was that these were already effectively illegal. It
took about five years, but they and the politicos came up with the term "assault type
weapons" to describe any semi-automatic weapon that resembles a true assault rifle.
As an example, the AR-15 is a semi that looks almost identical to the military M-16
(a full auto assault rifle). Where things really get confusing is with imported
firearms. The Kalashnikov company makes fully automatic AK-47s for military use and
semi-automatic versions for civilian sale, but both are called AK-47s.

Once they got a bill rolling in the Clinton administration, the politicos threw in a
number of extras (for example, "high capacity" magazines). That law recently expired.
The proposed "assault weapons" ban that recently failed to pass would have banned any
semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon, rifle and shotgun stocks with
"pistol grips", "high capacity" magazines, and a number of other items.

When Kerry says (as he did) "I have never been tempted to go hunting with a military
style assault weapon", I'm sure he's correct. Neither have I. But the implication
that his bill would have made these illegal is a lie. Military style assault weapons
are fully automatic and have never been available to the common U.S. citizen.

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

Earl Grieda wrote:

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

Look up "militia" in the OED for starters.

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