Leaving the community

"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.

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

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
. com...
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.

It is more than just handy. It ensures our other liberties.


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.

No ****. Crimes are committed by criminals. All the anti gun laws in the
world aren't going to stop them.

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're an idiot. Who are you tto make up this crap about what another
person needs or wants? Ownership is not the problem - it never was. The
problem is the criminals.


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.

I have an "AK-47" or rather the semi auto version from Romania. It is no
more lethal (in fact less so) than a decent hunting rifle. What people seem
to object to is the appearance of it. Do you have any idea what you are
talking about?


--
--
=-----
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 -

I used to have a girlfriend

I'll bet you did,,, and then she realized you were a racist and off she
went - there's not much tolerance out here for mindless intolerance

actually saw a black person was when
she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same syndrome.

Not so,,, our former mayor (who kept getting reelected until he ran against
term limits - he was one of our finest mayors and did great things for our
city) of San Francisco, was definitely quite black! Also, you've obviously
never been in San Francisco for any appreciable length of time,,, I grew up
here.

One of my wife's coworkers related a story where she was attending a college
in the South and was amazed to see on the public bulletin board notices
regarding KKK meetings. Being from L.A. and Northern California, she
developed friendships with the blacks on campus. Then one day, she invited
two of her black girlfriends over to her dorm room. Her roommate wouldn't
say a word but would just glare at her guests. After her guests excused
themselves (clearly made uncomfortable by her roommate), her roommate went
on and told her "Don't you EVER bring one of THEM in this room".

My wife's friend finished the last few months of her semester and
transferred, elsewhere.

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.

Wow,,, the 'Q' word rolls off of your tongue as the 'N' word, I'd guess.
What are you so afraid of? jeesh

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.

I assume you like women, right? Just today,,,, without acting on it,,, I
want you to think about relating sexually with other males ------ WHAT ?
You can't do it? Sure ya can,,, it's a flexible 'choice' according to you.
shaking my head

If you weren't so afraid of 'catching' being gay and actually spoke with
regular gay citizens, you would find that they are as hard-wired into their
sexuality as you are (presumably) to women. I just don't get your 'fear'.

Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive choice is probably not a good
idea for a pubescent child who is wrestling
with their own sexuality.

It's not being presented as an attractive or unattractive. Rather it is
being presented as yet another variation of human interaction and just as
valid as a relationship. Realistically, since there are people like you in
the world, why would anyone 'choose' (your word, not mine) to be gay - you
are made fun of, pointed at, called cruel names and in some parts of our
country killed by 'joe-bobs'. No one would CHOOSE to be gay, with all the
prejudice out there. They simply 'are' what they are. Just like you and I
can't 'help' our orientation.

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.

We bring him into the Castro, often, during celebrations and events. We
would no more leave our nine year old on the street corner in the Castro
anymore than we would leave him alone in any other part of town, by himself.
Though we HAVE left him (without second thought) in the company of Gay &
Lesbian friends without a concern, because we knew the persons he was with,
were fine people. I also want to point out that (with the exception of
Catholic Priests) the majority of child molesters of boys AND girls are
straight men married to women in heterosexual relationships.

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.

REALLY????, they suffer from mental problems after having been sexually
assaulted as a child by a man they have been taught to trust - MY
GOODNESS,,,, what IS wrong with them jeesh .... (just shaking my head at
your paragraph)

--
--
=-----
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 -

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Yeah,,, unlike you I'm not a fearful paranoid, crowding arms into his
basement because he is SO sure he is going to 'liberate' the world should
the government ever (however unlikely) turn against its' citizens.. With
the weaponry our government has, it would squash you like an insignificant
bug on the windshield before you could exhale.

--
--
=-----
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 -