Leaving the community

AES/newspost wrote:

Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?

Using the definitions applicable at the time the Constitution was written, the 2nd
ammendment states that every citizen is allowed to own and carry arms because an
armed citizenry is necessary for the defense of the country. The word "militia" did
not begin to aquire it's current meaning of an adjunct of the U.S. military until the
War Between the States.

Even applying the current meaning of the word "militia", there is no requirement that
a citizen be a member of the militia to own firearms; just a requirement that the
government not prohibit that ownership.

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

You're overreacting - cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This community is a lot more diverse than you think it is. It's just
that some of us make it a point to keep religion and politics out of
it, because this isn't the right place. Everyone (myself included)
loses it sometimes, when something just can't be left unanswered, but
it's a bad idea. Best to leave it unanswered anyway, and killfile the
posters who keep doing it. The group becomes a lot easier to read,
and you don't miss much that's useful.

Speaking plainly, political and religious comments don't belong here,
and posting them here is uncivil at best. The nature of the political
and religious content on these newsgroups is probably less of a
reflection of the community as a whole and more a reflection of the
inability of those who express these ideas here to find the proper
place and keep it there. Any conclusions you might draw between the
tendency to post political and religious beliefs where they are
clearly inappropriate and the nature of those beliefs are up to you.

Michael

Frank Stutzman wrote:

In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids Congress from
passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;".

If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

The state has been "in the marraige business" for well over 1,500 years. Marraige is
a legal contract and has been ever since inheritance rights began to be important and
codified.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.

Give them time. As you point out, it's a poor sampling. I've known a number of gay
people, but few for very long. The one person that I've known for decades was married
and divorced. She is currently involved in her third lesbian relationship. If
marraige had been an option, she would have married and divorced her first lesbian
partner and be married to the third one now.

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

Personally, I would want a woman with a distinguished military combat
arms command or intel experience. A woman with either of those
backgrounds would eliminate most arguements.

Richard Russell wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

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


Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
about).

Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
don't have any problem with a woman president.
Rich Russell

Peter Duniho wrote:

...polls provide the information regarding what people believe.

Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
compiling the exit polling data?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Peter Duniho wrote:

But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the
whole, simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that
contradict everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay
attention to those reports when they were made.

So, just to confirm, you're saying that anybody voting for Bush failed to
pay attention or chose to ignore "the facts". How do you reconcile that
argument with this statement from the same post?:

I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with
Bush. That's fine.

If "that's fine", then why can't you just admit that 51% of the voters fully
understood what Bush did and still decided we're better off with him than
Kerry?

Man, talk about sour grapes...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


Using the definitions applicable at the time the Constitution was written, the 2nd
ammendment states that every citizen is allowed to own and carry arms because an
armed citizenry is necessary for the defense of the country. The word "militia" did
not begin to aquire it's current meaning of an adjunct of the U.S. military until the
War Between the States.

Specifically the meaning applicable to the Constitution is the "body of citizens
that might be called to serve in the military." The right to bear arms is
deemed as essential to US readiness.

The term "well regulated" doesn't mean full of government bureaucracy.
The term means ordered, methodical, uniform. It's a common construction
in the English at the time.

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige"
has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?
If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

No, we don't have a seperation of church and state. What we have is a right
for the people to express their own religous beliefs with no intervention by
the state.

"The People" have inserted religous tenants into virtually every law we
have. The People want marraige recognized by their governement and if the
governemnt didn't do so, The People would revolt.

Gay folks may revolt in the future but they simply don't carry enough
political clout to make changes to our way of life and our Constitution.

With the help of a couple of activist judges and elected folks, they may get
their way . . . In the future.

It damn sure ain't gonn happen during the next four years.

Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is
supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs
to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the
marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual
couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked?

No. That would be unenforceable. Besides, that would be my definition of a
"union" (which I don't necessairily have a problem with) instead of a
marraige. Folks usually get married with the intent of having kids. Some
don't. Their loss.

All that said, gay people (as a sociological group) aren't even looking for
the right to get married. They are looking for legitmicy and respectability
of the gay lifestyle. American's are coming around to it but just ain't
ready for that yet and the polls and numbers of laws enacted against it show
it.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a
government
absolutely no good.

Depends upon your definition of stable family.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.

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

--
Jim Fisher

Thank too! :-))


"John T" wrote in message
m...
"Roy Epperson" wrote in message
ink.net

Confirmed gun control is using two hands!

I thought it was "dead center mass"...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
...polls provide the information regarding what people believe.

Uh huh. Which polls are these?

A well-known, well-respected polling organization. Gallup. Maybe you've
heard of them?

Are they compiled by the same ones compiling the exit polling data?

Gallup is, I believe, one of the companies that do exit polling as well.

Pete