Leaving the community

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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:aWrid.54917$R05.7099@attbi_s53...
....

The real analysis would be to determine what percentage of each state's
tax receipts were generated by people who work for the government, or who
are on the government dole.

Since people being paid by the government ... do not generate any income
in the purest sense...


That is not true.

If the government did not pay a food inspector, it would add substantial
costs for YOU, in order to keep your customers safe. If the government did
not operate an organized welfare system, the destitute would be parked on
your doorstep looking for handouts... or stealing from your customers,
costing you extra security and lost business. If the government didn't
keep the terrorists out, they would obviously be driving up Riverside Drive
right now, with a substantial consequence on your income.

In effect, government payees generate additional income for YOU, by helping
to reduce your costs in many ways. It would cost you a bundle if you tried
to achieve and maintain the same standard of life without any of them.

"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

Cecil Chapman wrote:
Guns
He's a hunter,

John Kerry quote. "I take my trusty double barrel 12 gauge, I sneak
around on my belly, I play the wind, you know, I love deer hunting."
Anybody who has actually hunted deer knows what a fool this is.



I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
bowhunter). Just because one doesn't support ownership of AK-47's and
public access to armor-piercing bullets doesn't make one an enemy to gun
ownership. In fact, his record as a senator reveals that he has
consistently supported appropriate gun ownership. I own two shotguns and a
couple of rifles - don't hunt, but skeet and target shoot. Even still, I
just don't think the average citizen needs armor-piercing bullets or AK-47's
(unless you live in remote parts of Alaska grin)/.

He has voted against guns every chance he's had.


, taxes

Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for the
wealthy,


Kerry would whack small businesses with his tax the rich mentality.


, the UN.


YIKES! Please tell me that you have most of your teeth

All, actually.


and that you don't
play 'Dueling Banjos' along some remote bayou?

Never been to a bayou.


The United Nations is
LEFTIST?

Leftist would put it too far to the right. They are communistic.


Do you even know the history and original purpose of the United
Nations?

Yes, if we could get back to that I would be fine with it.


What was wrong with having a consensus (and some
help) before blundering into Vietnam... OOPS I mean Iraq?

There's nothing wrong with it. But the right thing to do was go into
Iraq, if the France and Germany still want to screw Iraq on the oil for
food program that's of little consequence to our decision making.

Matt Whiting wrote:




Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
winter?

Montana is over 700 miles from east to west by road. You can move to
any climate you want here, just about. Here in Billings we are in a
bananna belt. Often gets in the 50's during the winter. Go up on the
highline(US2) and it is bitterly cold during winter.


My grandfather always said that the cold winters "kept the
riff-raff out" and I'm beginning to think he was right. :-)

We have our fair share of riff-raff. Remember the Freemen? The
Unabomber? You can walk into the woods here and disappear.

"John T" wrote in message
m...
So, just to confirm, you're saying that anybody voting for Bush failed to
pay attention or chose to ignore "the facts".

I'm not saying at that all. You need reading lessons, I guess.

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?

Why would I admit something that's not true? 51% did not act as you claim.
Extrapolating from the Gallup data, 18% of the voters fully understood what
Bush did and still decided we're better off with him than Kerry. 33% did
not fully understand what Bush did and yet made the same decision.

Pete

Cecil Chapman wrote:

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
ban that,


I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses?

Do you even know what a Mauser is?

Matt Whiting wrote:



He's only a hunter when there is a camera around.

What's really funny was how god damned stupid he looked in his tan color
Carhart coat he wore the last few weeks of the campaign. Trying to pass
himself off as some kind of working stiff. Damn thing was so new and
stiff it would stand up by itself on the floor. He looked like an idiot
in that thing. Like Dukakis in the tank fer christ sake.