Leaving the community

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.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net...

To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the country
got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was generating
trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what swelled
federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with millions of
taxpayers carrying forward losses.

Which would explain why he pushed a taxcut package on calculations
based on those surpluses.

tb

Steve Fleischer wrote:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:30:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

Nothing wrong with weapons - it's the folks that carry 'em that scare me.
C'mon, admit it, who wishes the 172 had a ball turret? ;-)

There've been many times I've wished my truck had those little guns that Bond's Aston
Martin had. Even been some times I've felt they should be standard equipment on all
cars traveling the Garden State Parkway.

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

Martin Hotze wrote:
I really don't care what you do over there with your guns. You use them for what
they are designed :-)
we here in Europe don't have these weapon problems like you have ... there must
be something wrong with us :-)

You also do not have the freedoms we have. Americans have paid dearly for them
and are not laize fair about giving them up.

Prisons have a ZERO weapons policy yet they are some of the more dangerous
(and depressing) places on earth.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:14:39 GMT, kontiki
wrote:

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
I'll even concede percussion-cap muzzle-loaders and paper cartridge
breach-loaders, but no one NEEDs to own an assault rifle or machine gun for
personal use.

Then to apply your logic to aviation "no one NEEDs to own an airplane or
or especially a restored military aircraft for personal use."

Don't think the two can be compared. Guns are for killing, or at
least that's the reason they were invented. Airplanes are for
transportation, or at least that's why they were first invented.

Military airplanes are airplanes first, weapons second: they must fly
(transportation) to where they discharge their weapons.

Corky Scott

Then sell your car(s) and your airplane... and your snowmobile... boat too.
Lawnmower and chainsaw while you are at it. Of course you won't need
medicine or anything made of plastic either.

Sell it all and move to the wilderness in a tent and live totally off the
land then I might take your rant seriously. Most American voters felt that
Kerry's campaign speeches (Vs. his actions and lifestyle) demostrated the
same level hypocracy.

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Chris

Judah wrote:

snip


No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there
was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there
was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public was
left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without change,
and not much else.

I think you've hit it exactly right.

If there is one thing I that both sides agree on it is the lack of real,
open discourse on real issues. The "two party" system is really just one
big self serving machine.

One thing that will improve the situation is for all of us "we the people"
to work to allow more third party ideas into the debate. It does us all a
great disservice when not all the voices are heard.

I heard some good ideas from several of the third party candidates (and some
pretty looney ones too). Injecting them into the mix might have forced
Kerry/Bush to be more specific. It certainly would go a long way to
"un-polarizing" the country.

snip

--
Frank....H

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Well, Kerry has supported several pieces of legislation that closed large areas to
hunting of any sort. In addition, logging tends to open up areas for hunting -- I
used to hunt an area in Georgia that was periodically logged for paper pulp. We used
the logging roads to get in. I expect the hunting would have been pretty lousy for a
few years after they cut, though.

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

Cecil Chapman wrote:

snip

?, gay marriage

He stated he was against 'gay marriage' - but in favor of civil unions
that allowed long-time gay couples the right to visit their partner in the
hospital, claims to benefits, etc. This is something that I would think
any reasonable person would think a long-time couple would be entitled to
(regardless of the sexual orientation. You know the funny thing about this
kind of bigotry is that it reminds me of what we would hear in the 60's
"Can't let 'coloreds' have any rights and god-forbid they should be
allowed
to marry white-folk". Jeesh,,, doesn't anyone EVER learn from the lessons
of the past.

snip

You're right in your sentiments but like many, misguided by the hype.

It's time we owned up to the real issue(s). It's not about "gay marriage",
it's about whether or not one should be able to marry the one he/she loves.
It's also about whether or not the government should be in the marriage
business at all.

In that regard the Bush campaign clearly clouded the issue. Kerry never said
he was for "gay marriage". Just for civil unions ( a legitimate role for
government considering the way benefits are doled out) and against a
constitutional ammendment. But, just like the Iraq-9/11 connection, most
people believe what they want to.


--
Frank....H

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
[x-posting deleted]

Chris E wrote:

Similarily the 1st amendment provides right
to free speech to make remarks about all kinds of issues, not just
certain
issues that some folks feel ok.


So then walk into a crowded theater and shout "fire". Then let's check
your
right to free speech again. :-)


That has been the key exception to the rule for a very long time.

Next...