BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA

[Orval Fairbairn]

Bend over, here it comes again!

According to AOPA and EAA e-newsletters, a NY Congressman, aptly named
Weiner, proposes Dracinian measures against GA:


AOPA WORKS THE HILL TO DEFEAT 'RIDICULOUS' GA SECURITY BILL
The moment word first leaked out that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
wanted to impose security restrictions on general aviation that would
exceed even those of the airlines, AOPA's Legislative Affairs staff
sprung into action, lobbying against the bill. "This is preposterous,
unrealistic, and unnecessary," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "General
aviation is not a threat. The Transportation Security Administration
has already said so." Weiner's bill, H.R. 5035, would mandate the same
screening for all passengers and property aboard GA aircraft that is
required for the airlines. It would also prohibit any aircraft other
than an airliner from flying over cities with populations of 1 million
or more, or operating within 1,500 feet of any building. "In light of
everything that has already been done, requirements like those Rep.
Weiner would impose would kill all of general aviation," Boyer added.
AOPA has outlined its strong opposition to the legislation in meetings
with Republican and Democratic staff of the House aviation subcommittee.
The association is also using its extensive network of relationships
with key members of the subcommittee in fighting the bill.

[Roy Smith]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> Weiner's bill, H.R. 5035, would mandate the same
> screening for all passengers and property aboard GA aircraft that is
> required for the airlines.

Yeah, I got the EAA newsletter this morning too. Has anybody actually
seen the text of the bill? I tried to look it up, but can't find it.
There's a list of House bills on-line at

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/BillBrowse.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bi
lls&wrapperTemplate=BillBrowse_wrapper.html&billtype=hr

but it skips directly from HR-5025 to HR-5041. It's not on Thomas
(http://thomas.loc.gov/) either.

[W P Dixon]

Kinda reminds me of the other NY guy, Shumer? I guess that is how you spell
it. But anyway he does everything he can do to pass laws to take guns away
from law abidding citizens while he has 2 armed body guards with him 24
hours a day! Otherwise it is ok for his rich snobby butt to be protected by
a gun, but you are not supposed to be! This guy about GA will be the first
to use GA to his advantage whenever he gets a chance, but wants to
practically shut it down for everyone else. Does anyone else see a pattern
with the Democratic Party.
Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best to
take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating!


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > Weiner's bill, H.R. 5035, would mandate the same
> > screening for all passengers and property aboard GA aircraft that is
> > required for the airlines.
>
> Yeah, I got the EAA newsletter this morning too. Has anybody actually
> seen the text of the bill? I tried to look it up, but can't find it.
> There's a list of House bills on-line at
>
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/BillBrowse.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bi
> lls&wrapperTemplate=BillBrowse_wrapper.html&billtype=hr
>
> but it skips directly from HR-5025 to HR-5041. It's not on Thomas
> (http://thomas.loc.gov/) either.

[OtisWinslow]

The god damn Dems are our biggest enemy. They believe in freedom
and wealth for them only. They want our weapons taken away so
we can't fight back as they redistribute what we've worked for
to some lazy ass that won't work for their own. They scare me far more than
a bunch of
camel jockeys.


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Kinda reminds me of the other NY guy, Shumer? I guess that is how you
spell
> it. But anyway he does everything he can do to pass laws to take guns away
> from law abidding citizens while he has 2 armed body guards with him 24
> hours a day! Otherwise it is ok for his rich snobby butt to be protected
by
> a gun, but you are not supposed to be! This guy about GA will be the first
> to use GA to his advantage whenever he gets a chance, but wants to
> practically shut it down for everyone else. Does anyone else see a pattern
> with the Democratic Party.
> Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best
to
> take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating!
>
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > > Weiner's bill, H.R. 5035, would mandate the same
> > > screening for all passengers and property aboard GA aircraft that is
> > > required for the airlines.
> >
> > Yeah, I got the EAA newsletter this morning too. Has anybody actually
> > seen the text of the bill? I tried to look it up, but can't find it.
> > There's a list of House bills on-line at
> >
> >
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/BillBrowse.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bi
> > lls&wrapperTemplate=BillBrowse_wrapper.html&billtype=hr
> >
> > but it skips directly from HR-5025 to HR-5041. It's not on Thomas
> > (http://thomas.loc.gov/) either.
>
>

[Roger Long]

Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more
interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of their
homes.

Haven't you noticed that the silly flight restrictions, no recourse lifting
of pilot's licenses, etc. are all happening on a republican watch?

I'm not saying that it would be any better under a democratic administration
but that identifying this as connected with either party obscures the real
problems with our country and government.

Stupidity, grandstanding, and incompetence are entirely bipartisan.

--

Roger Long



"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
> The god damn Dems are our biggest enemy. They believe in freedom
> and wealth for them only. They want our weapons taken away so
> we can't fight back as they redistribute what we've worked for
> to some lazy ass that won't work for their own. They scare me far more
than
> a bunch of
> camel jockeys.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more
> interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of their
> homes.
>

How so?

[C J Campbell]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
> The god damn Dems are our biggest enemy. They believe in freedom
> and wealth for them only. They want our weapons taken away so
> we can't fight back as they redistribute what we've worked for
> to some lazy ass that won't work for their own. They scare me far more
than
> a bunch of
> camel jockeys.
>

What do you expect from a guy who has repeatedly claimed that he was in
Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968 listening to a talk by President Nixon?
(For the history impaired: there were no US troops in Cambodia in 1968 and
Johnson was President.) Well, you would expect that he would then have the
chutzpah to call Bush a liar. :-)

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more
>> interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of their
>> homes.
>>
>
>How so?
>
You must not be familiar with Virginia...where Adultery is still a felony,
and someone recently was prosecuted on such a charge.

....and where sodomy is still a crime, even between consenting adults in
the privacy of their bedrooms...

....and where the GOP has run the state treasury into the ground...

but I digress...

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[John Harlow]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more
>> interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of
>> their homes.
>>
>
> How so?

Bush's attempts to legislate morality.

[C J Campbell]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
> The god damn Dems are our biggest enemy. They believe in freedom
> and wealth for them only. They want our weapons taken away so
> we can't fight back as they redistribute what we've worked for
> to some lazy ass that won't work for their own. They scare me far more
than
> a bunch of
> camel jockeys.

In fact, what do you expect from a guy who claimed under oath that he raped,
pillaged, and burned, Genghis Khan style, whole villages, shot babies, made
necklaces of human ears, and cut off fingers? Must be interesting to explain
that to your wife: "Well, we were young and out just having a little fun.
Boys will be boys, you know." But then he testifies under oath that he knew
all the other GIs were doing it, too. Such omniscience! A guy like that
might even order his minions to forge some documents discrediting his
political opponents, though it is more likely he expects them to come up
with stuff like that on their own.

The Dems appear to have an office of dirty tricks that would have made Nixon
green with envy. They appear willing to stop at nothing in their effort to
seize power through intrigue and deception.

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
> Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more
> interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of their
> homes.

If that is the case, why is that every most major advocates of eugenics,
euthanasia, and rigidly enforced population control are Democrats? That
sounds like an awful lot of interference in the bedroom to me.

I suppose that Dems, who basically run the nation's schools, have nothing to
do with the fact that kids need a permission slip to take aspirin, but
parents are prohibited from knowing about their kids' abortions? Sounds like
a lot of interference in home life to me.

Interference in bedrooms and private family life? Let's see, you can't
discipline your own children any more, are suspect if you even try to teach
them your religious beliefs or moral standards, but you must constantly pry
into whether they are smoking. Naw, it wouldn't be the Democrats, would it?

[C J Campbell]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >>
> >> Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more
> >> interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of
> >> their homes.
> >>
> >
> > How so?
>
> Bush's attempts to legislate morality.

Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush's attempts to legislate morality.

What attempts?

[John Harlow]

>> Bush's attempts to legislate morality.
>
> Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> You must not be familiar with Virginia...
>

Somewhat, I've vacationed there several times.


>
> where Adultery is still a felony,
> and someone recently was prosecuted on such a charge.
>
> ...and where sodomy is still a crime, even between consenting adults in
> the privacy of their bedrooms...
>

When were these laws passed? Who controlled the government then and in the
intervening years?


>
> ...and where the GOP has run the state treasury into the ground...
>

How so?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Bush's attempts to legislate morality.
>>
>> Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

How is that an attempt to legislate morality?

[C J Campbell]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Bush's attempts to legislate morality.
> >
> > Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

This appears to be an attempt to prevent others from legislating morality,
or simply imposing their version of morality from the judicial bench.

[John Harlow]

C J Campbell wrote:
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>> Bush's attempts to legislate morality.
>>>
>>> Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
>
> This appears to be an attempt to prevent others from legislating
> morality, or simply imposing their version of morality from the
> judicial bench.


No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else choose
to marry.

This is but one example. From
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_3_62/ai_86048070

"In a related matter, the Bush administration proposed on February 26 a
total global ban on all experimentation in the field of cloning. Making no
distinction between therapeutic and reproductive research, the
administration's position has caused outrage among scientists. A
spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declared,
"It's bad enough that the administration would seek to impose its views on
the American people, let alone the entire world."
Bush has also asked for legislation that would pour millions of federal
dollars into abstinence-only education and efforts to encourage single
mothers to marry regardless of the circumstances--maneuvers which would have
his personal sectarian views on morality established into civic law. In his
State of the Union address, he expressed pride in the liberation of women in
Afghanistan; however, by announcing these initiatives, he hypocritically is
attempting to limit women's rights at home.

And these aren't Bush's only forays into the realm of public morality. His
administration previously challenged assisted suicide, put a hold on
international family planning funding, tried to remove birth control
coverage from federal employees' insurance plans, restricted stem cell
research, ended the Labor Department's "Equal Pay Matters" program, skipped
the international conference on racism, refused to continue the presidential
tradition of proclaiming Gay Pride Month, and passed legislation effectively
violating privacy and other freedoms."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
> marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else
> choose to marry.
>

It places no restrictions on who anybody can marry.

[Tom S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> In fact, what do you expect from a guy who claimed under oath that he
raped,
> pillaged, and burned, Genghis Khan style, whole villages, shot babies,
made
> necklaces of human ears, and cut off fingers?

Funny thing is, he never caught any of that on the movie camera he had with
him to re-enact his heroic exploits.
--------------------
“Mr. Memphis, believe me, it would be a lie if I didn’t tell you some years
back, Bob Lee had a problem with the bottle and had some wild times. He’s
always in pain, you know, because of the way he was hurt in the war. But I
believe Bob Lee has found himself in some way. All he wants from life is
freedom and to be left alone.”

“What about medals? Has he ever said anything about medals? Are medals
important to him?”

“To Bob Lee? Let me tell you something, son—were you in the war or
anything?”

“No sir, I wasn’t.”

“Well, son, the only people that are interested in medals are the ones that
are fixing to run for office some day. I went from one side of Burma to the
other with General Merrill’s Marauders in 1943 and 1944, and the only man I
ever saw who wanted a medal or cared about a medal later became the only
governor of Colorado to be impeached.

------------------

Stephen Hunter, “Point of Impact”, Bantam Books, 1993

[W P Dixon]

So the marriage Amendment is a law of morality? Funny I think of it as not
allowing the Federal Courts to make a national law saying we have to change
most churches religious beliefs. Seperation of church and state is not in
the Constitution, however it does say Congress shall pass no law
establishing religion. If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
that not establishing religion...and one that clearly a majority of
religious people do not agree with? I have nothing against 2 gays having a
civil union, but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs
and no government has the right to tell me that I have to accept it as
religion. But that is what the liberal courts intend on doing. To make a
person of religion accept an employee as married to a person of the same sex
is a violation of the biz owners right to practice his religion as he sees
fit. There is more to the issue than a gay's rights, there are everyones
rights to be considered.
And Constitutionally no one has the right to infringe on my religion, and
that IS what liberal courts and the Ted Kennedy's of the country intend on
doing.
Speaking of Kennedy, is it just me or what...but how do the people of MS
continue to vote a traitor "commie" (Kerry) and a man who should have went
to prison for manslaughter ( Kennedy) back into office time after time. Bush
can't make a decision on morals.....but it is ok for MA to make the decision
for the rest of the country?
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bush's attempts to legislate morality.
>
> What attempts?
>
>

[W P Dixon]

If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
that not establishing religion...and one that clearly a majority of
religious people do not agree with? Should have been if the courts tell us
what marriage "Will Be" ....I was typing one thing and thinking another!
HAHAHAHA
"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> So the marriage Amendment is a law of morality? Funny I think of it as not
> allowing the Federal Courts to make a national law saying we have to
change
> most churches religious beliefs. Seperation of church and state is not in
> the Constitution, however it does say Congress shall pass no law
> establishing religion. If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
> that not establishing religion...and one that clearly a majority of
> religious people do not agree with? I have nothing against 2 gays having a
> civil union, but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs
> and no government has the right to tell me that I have to accept it as
> religion. But that is what the liberal courts intend on doing. To make a
> person of religion accept an employee as married to a person of the same
sex
> is a violation of the biz owners right to practice his religion as he sees
> fit. There is more to the issue than a gay's rights, there are everyones
> rights to be considered.
> And Constitutionally no one has the right to infringe on my religion, and
> that IS what liberal courts and the Ted Kennedy's of the country intend on
> doing.
> Speaking of Kennedy, is it just me or what...but how do the people of
MS
> continue to vote a traitor "commie" (Kerry) and a man who should have went
> to prison for manslaughter ( Kennedy) back into office time after time.
Bush
> can't make a decision on morals.....but it is ok for MA to make the
decision
> for the rest of the country?
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Bush's attempts to legislate morality.
> >
> > What attempts?
> >
> >
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

W P Dixon wrote:

> but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs

So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others whom
they may marry?

Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns
the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it
as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare
legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended?

- Andrew

[Gig Giacona]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
> Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more
> interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of their
> homes.
>

Well Wiener, bills sponsor, is a Dem from NY.

[W P Dixon]

Well Andrew,
The point of my entire presentation was who is the government to intrude
on religion. The judges and congress do not tell people they can not wear
their headscarves, but however there have been rulings that say a teacher
can not wear a cross necklace in school...but the Star of David is ok. See
the point, it is christianity that is under attack. And sorry but I do not
know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok. The Holy Bible and the
Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a
minority tell the majority what the law will be....
So just trying to get you and anyone else to see there is alot more to
the issue than G. W. Bush trying to play morales police. He may just be
trying to stop a tyrannical judical system from doing what he has been
accused of. Read our Constitution the Judical Branch has NO AUTHORITY to
make laws but they insist on doing so. It is time to put the Constitution
ahead of the courts.
As for my religion I am an Independent, but the Bible I read is the KFV.
I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you
can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights of
freedom of religion? See the entire point is "It is not just a gay person's
rights at stake...it is the rights of every religious person that actually
believes the Bible." And in this country the majority is supposed to make
the laws. Dilemma isn't it!
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> W P Dixon wrote:
>
> > but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs
>
> So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others
whom
> they may marry?
>
> Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns
> the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it
> as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare
> legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended?
>
> - Andrew
>

[john smith]

This from a state whose tourism slogan is... "Virgina is for Lovers!"

Michael Houghton wrote:
> You must not be familiar with Virginia...where Adultery is still a felony,
> and someone recently was prosecuted on such a charge.
> ...and where sodomy is still a crime, even between consenting adults in
> the privacy of their bedrooms...

[Andrew Gideon]

W P Dixon wrote:

> And sorry but I do not
> know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok.

So? Why should "marriage" be defined by *any* one religion? Or should
"marriage" be defined as any religion permits? That is, should we permit
multiple marriages in the US as permitted by some religions?

> The Holy Bible and the
> Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a
> minority tell the majority what the law will be....

That's almost correct. The Bill of Rights, along with other measures, is
designed to prevent (as much as possible) a Tyranny of the Majority. W/o
this type of protection, we'd have nothing but glorified mob rule. If the
majority (let's say for the sake of argument: european descendants) decided
that a minority (again for the sake of argument: african descendants)
should work for free, then that would be permitted...absent rules which
limit the majority's ability to define law.



[...][i]
> I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you
> can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights
> of freedom of religion?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Should all people be prevented from doing
what is prohibited by your religion?

- Andrew

[john smith]

Wow! Sounds just like the job description for a polititian (regardless
of party affilliation)!

> In fact, what do you expect from a guy who claimed under oath that he raped,
> pillaged, and burned, Genghis Khan style, whole villages, shot babies, made
> necklaces of human ears, and cut off fingers? Must be interesting to explain
> that to your wife: "Well, we were young and out just having a little fun.
> Boys will be boys, you know." But then he testifies under oath that he knew
> all the other GIs were doing it, too. Such omniscience! A guy like that
> might even order his minions to forge some documents discrediting his
> political opponents, though it is more likely he expects them to come up
> with stuff like that on their own.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone else see a pattern
> with the Democratic Party.
> Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best to
> take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating!
>


Stop with this garbage about the Democratic party. Those wanting to take
our freedoms and everything else from us come from both parties so cut the
crap and be prepared to defend those rights from assault no matter which
party they come from.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> This from a state whose tourism slogan is... "Virgina is for Lovers!"
>

Well, New Jersey's slogan is "The Garden State."

[Peter Gottlieb]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> See
> the point, it is christianity that is under attack.

Oooook...

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
>> marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else
>> choose to marry.
>>
>
> It places no restrictions on who anybody can marry.


I sure hope you look out for other traffic better than you look out for this
country's freedoms.

Your politics gives you a whopping blind spot, and there is a torpedo
heading right toward you.

[W P Dixon]

Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC
"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Does anyone else see a pattern
> > with the Democratic Party.
> > Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best
to
> > take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating!
> >
>
>
> Stop with this garbage about the Democratic party. Those wanting to take
> our freedoms and everything else from us come from both parties so cut the
> crap and be prepared to defend those rights from assault no matter which
> party they come from.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:59:36 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote:

>If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
>that not establishing religion..

Yes, and our constitution prohibits this country from passing it AS
LAW.

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:59:36 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> > wrote:
>
>>If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
>>that not establishing religion..
>
> Yes, and our constitution prohibits this country from passing it AS
> LAW.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, if we pass
an amendment which makes the US a theocracy, a theocracy it will be.

The only real protection we have is that the threshold for passing an
amendment is set relatively high.

- Andrew

[Blueskies]

We have already crossed the line... The government already allows special privileges to 'married' couples that single
folks do not have. If marriage is as defined by 'religion', and the government freezes that definition into law, then
the government is establishing a religion - contrary to the constitution.

There should be no special government considerations given to 'married' folks, regardless of the institution that
defined the 'marriage.

But this is way OT....



Here is a sample letter someone passed my way:

Dear Congressman,



I just heard about H.R. 5053 introduced by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). I strongly request that you NOT support this
bill and actively seek to stop the passage of this bill in any form.



As a private pilot that understands general aviation I strongly disagree with the assumptions presumed by this bill.
This bill proposes to add SEVERE restriction to all aviation activity, exempting the airlines, in the name of furthering
security. Shamefully this bill again attacks general aviation which government and private security experts have
continually said does not present a significant threat.



This bill imposes major increases in government regulation and raises major costs for all parties involved. It will
also severely restricts use of major public and private infrastructure throughout the nation, 17,000 landing facilities
and more than 200,000 aircraft. Those numbers represent ENORMOUS investment of both public and private funds. Those
investments generate substantial business activity throughout our economy.



A bill like this does nothing to increase security but does further restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens. I
would ask that you not just work to keep America free, but work to keep in place the freedoms Americans treasure.



Thank you,

[Peter Gottlieb]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC

Being a veteran does not prove you have defended the Constitution. Your
words tell a lot about you.
Are you so blinded by your politics and religion that you do not see the
danger of your viewpoint?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> I sure hope you look out for other traffic better than you look out for
> this country's freedoms.
>
> Your politics gives you a whopping blind spot, and there is a torpedo
> heading right toward you.

You're mistaken, I have no blind spot.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Unfortunately, our Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, if we pass
> an amendment which makes the US a theocracy, a theocracy it will be.
>
> The only real protection we have is that the threshold for passing an
> amendment is set relatively high.
>

Doesn't matter. We can just ignore the Constitution or declare it to mean
something other than what it clearly states.

[Andrew Gideon]

Bryan Martin wrote:

> Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's true that most religions
> have adopted the concept of marriage and tacked on their various religious
> trappings and rites and ceremonies, but the core concept of marriage is a
> social convention regarding the care and raising of children. All of the
> tax breaks, insurance benefits and other various benefits associated with
> marriage exist for the purpose of easing the burden of raising children.

Ideally, this would have been true. If so, though, multiple marriages would
permitted. In fact, there's a fair chance that they'd be encouraged given
the greater redundancy involved in having more "parents".

[This is something of which I'm very aware when I'm flying, now that I'm a
parent myself.]

- Andrew

[Jeff Franks]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the
public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the
candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed
by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred
years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from
bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from
courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to
selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. "

Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the Athenian
Democracy.



I'd say we're about at the complacent stage.....



jf

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> >
> > Unfortunately, our Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, if we
pass
> > an amendment which makes the US a theocracy, a theocracy it will be.
> >
> > The only real protection we have is that the threshold for passing an
> > amendment is set relatively high.
> >
>
> Doesn't matter. We can just ignore the Constitution or declare it to mean
> something other than what it clearly states.
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
> exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from
the
> public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the
> candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the
> result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed
> by a dictatorship.
> The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred
> years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from
> bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from
> courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to
> selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy,
> from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. "
>
> Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the Athenian
> Democracy.
>
>
>
> I'd say we're about at the complacent stage.....

I'd vote for apathy.

>
>
>
> jf
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > online.com...
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, our Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, if we
> pass
> > > an amendment which makes the US a theocracy, a theocracy it will be.
> > >
> > > The only real protection we have is that the threshold for passing an
> > > amendment is set relatively high.
> > >
> >
> > Doesn't matter. We can just ignore the Constitution or declare it to
mean
> > something other than what it clearly states.
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter]

Jeff Franks wrote:

> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
> exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the
> public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the
> candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the
> result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed
> by a dictatorship.
> The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred
> years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from
> bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from
> courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to
> selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy,
> from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. "
>
> Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the Athenian
> Democracy.

Snopes (the Urban Legend site) lists this as probably a fictitious
quote. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp for details.

[Ernest Christley]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
>>exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from
>
> the
>
>>public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the
>>candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the
>>result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed
>>by a dictatorship.
>>The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred
>>years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from
>>bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from
>>courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to
>>selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy,
>>from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. "
>>
>>Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the Athenian
>>Democracy.
>>
>>
>>
>>I'd say we're about at the complacent stage.....
>
>
> I'd vote for apathy.
>

Apathy was killed by the Disco Fever in the 70's.

Did you not hear the wailing and nashing of teeth when they cut
welfare/job training to TWO YEARS. Poor seniors will all starve to
death if we dare cut into social security (ignoring the fact that
there's no way we'll be able to keep paying for it). And what are we
going to do if the FEDERAL government doesn't send money to teach little
Johny how to read?

Sorry. We're way into the dependancy zone, and with all the people
willing to give up every basic civil right to win some protection from
'terrorist' and 'drugs', I'd say we're falling over into the bondage region.


--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Frank Stutzman]

In rec.aviation.homebuilt Bryan Martin > wrote:

> The entire concept of marriage was created for the primary purpose of
> defining the legal and social responsibilities associated with the care and
> raising of children. All the other the other trappings of marriage are
> secondary to this primary function.

Ah. So those hetrosexual couples who can't/won't have children need to
turn in their licenses?

[Blueskies]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message et...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message ...
>> Does anyone else see a pattern
>> with the Democratic Party.
>> Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best to
>> take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating!
>>
>
>
> Stop with this garbage about the Democratic party. Those wanting to take our freedoms and everything else from us
> come from both parties so cut the crap and be prepared to defend those rights from assault no matter which party they
> come from.
>
>

I saw this on a bumper sticker:

Under the Republicans, man exploits man. Under the Democrats, it is just the opposite.

[Rutger]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Does anyone else see a pattern
> > with the Democratic Party.
> > Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best to
> > take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating!
> >
>
>
> Stop with this garbage about the Democratic party. Those wanting to take
> our freedoms and everything else from us come from both parties so cut the
> crap and be prepared to defend those rights from assault no matter which
> party they come from.

Problem is that the Dems are constantly fighting so hard to try to
remove from us one of the most important means by which we can defend
our rights. And yes, I *AM* referring to the RKBA.

[jls]

> >
> > Doesn't matter. We can just ignore the Constitution or declare it to
mean
> > something other than what it clearly states.

Which is just about wtf it has become -- a constitutional republic in name
only and in which the leaders have no inkling of the meaning of the
Constitution or the Federalist Papers. In 20 years I have watched in alarm
as courts redefined basic terms of law to mean something entirely different
from the definition intended. Both the left and right wing courts and
politicians are very clever and adept at it.

That's the reason why the creep flight surgeon who has made out the farcical
papers we have to sign to apply for our medicals has required us to say
whether we've been convicted of affray at 15 or joyriding at 17, or had to
attend driving school to get points off our driver licenses. And yes, the
Patriot Act is a misnomer. It's more appropriately called the Jackboot
Act.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Rutger" > wrote in message
om...
> RKBA.

I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?

[jls]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Rutger" > wrote in message
> om...
> > RKBA.
>
> I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?

No you won't.
>

He's talking about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms as
expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
absolute. The right has been tied to the state militias as not an
individual right. Of course, I agree with Jefferson's interpretation of
the right to bear arms, being as the government always moves to get too big
for its breeches and should sometimes be made to look down the business end
of a gun barrel. However, I don't think Jefferson anticipated that the
barrels of the people's guns are puny and minuscule compared to those of big
brother.

[John Harlow]

> Under the Republicans, man exploits man. Under the Democrats, it
> is just the opposite.

Hehe....

[Peter Gottlieb]

" jls" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Rutger" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > RKBA.
>>
>> I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?
>
> The right to keep and bear arms as
> expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
> absolute.

Now I feel stupid. Got the "RKBA" now, but what is a Scotus?

[J Beckman]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> " jls" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> >>
> >> "Rutger" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > RKBA.
> >>
> >> I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?
> >
> > The right to keep and bear arms as
> > expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
> > absolute.
>
> Now I feel stupid. Got the "RKBA" now, but what is a Scotus?
>
>

Supreme court of the united states...

Jay

[C J Campbell]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>>> Bush's attempts to legislate morality.
> >>>
> >>> Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?
> >>
> >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
> >
> > This appears to be an attempt to prevent others from legislating
> > morality, or simply imposing their version of morality from the
> > judicial bench.
>
>
> No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
> marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else
choose
> to marry.

As a Mormon, I find blaming this view on Bush as extremely laughable.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message >...
>
> I'd vote for apathy.
>

Nobody cares about apathy.

[Blueskies]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message om...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message >...
>>
>> I'd vote for apathy.
>>
>
> Nobody cares about apathy.


So what!

[jls]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> " jls" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> >>
> >> "Rutger" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > RKBA.
> >>
> >> I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?
> >
> > The right to keep and bear arms as
> > expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
> > absolute.
>
> Now I feel stupid. Got the "RKBA" now, but what is a Scotus?
>
>

Supreme Court of da US

[Blueskies]

" jls" > wrote in message ...
>
<snip>
>> > absolute.
>>
>> Now I feel stupid. Got the "RKBA" now, but what is a Scotus?
>>
>>
>
> Supreme Court of da US
>
>

Wouldn't that be SCODUS?

[jls]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> " jls" > wrote in message
...
> >
> <snip>
> >> > absolute.
> >>
> >> Now I feel stupid. Got the "RKBA" now, but what is a Scotus?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Supreme Court of da US
> >
> >
>
> Wouldn't that be SCODUS?
>
Oops, yep, you is right. And ain't you full o' wit this mornin'?

[Tim Ward]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > I'd vote for apathy.
> >
>
> Nobody cares about apathy.

Q: What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?






































A: I don't know, and I don't care

Tim Ward

[C J Campbell]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > I'd say we're about at the complacent stage.....
>
> I'd vote for apathy.

Who cares?

[Steve]

Whatever.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > >
> > > I'd say we're about at the complacent stage.....
> >
> > I'd vote for apathy.
>
> Who cares?
>
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, John Harlow says...
>>No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
>marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else choose
>to marry.

Then I suppose it's OK for someone to choose to marry young boys as NAMBLA
supports, or young girls ,or 2 women or 10 women or your favorite sheep
BAAAbara or a goat or your Sister etc. I wonder just who's business it is to
prevent those marriages or are all those marriages OK in your eyes ? Do you have
any boundaries? and if so why is it any of your damn business?

Chuck S

[G.R. Patterson III]

jls wrote:
>
> He's talking about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms as
> expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
> absolute. The right has been tied to the state militias as not an
> individual right.

As far as I know, this is not correct. The only statement of SCOTUS on this matter
with which I am familiar is a statement to the effect that "the right of the people"
definitely is an individual right. This is based on the fact that the only two other
places in the Bill of Rights in which this phrase occurs cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be interpreted otherwise. To what case are you referring?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Gilan]

you sure got that right. Liberalism is a mental disease. The libs are
destroying the country.


"OtisWinslow" wrote ...
> The god damn Dems are our biggest enemy. They believe in freedom
> and wealth for them only. They want our weapons taken away so
> we can't fight back as they redistribute what we've worked for
> to some lazy ass that won't work for their own. They scare me far more
than
> a bunch of
> camel jockeys.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> According to AOPA and EAA e-newsletters, a NY Congressman, aptly named
> Weiner, proposes Dracinian measures against GA:

Update off AOPA's web site --

AOPA fights to stop Weiner bill in its tracks

AOPA is fighting in the halls of Congress to make sure that the anti-general aviation
bill (H.R. 5035) introduced by New York Democratic Congressman Anthony D. Weiner
doesn't even get a toehold.

"We're using our professional Washington, D.C.-based legislative staff and our
personal, ongoing relationships with powerful members of Congress to drive a stake
through the heart of this ill-conceived bill," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "The
congressmen closest to aviation issues know exactly how AOPA members feel about this
legislation."

The first opportunity for the ill-advised security legislation to advance would be
this Wednesday when the House considers the "mark-up" of legislation implementing
recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. (A mark-up is the meeting of a
congressional committee to review and amend a bill before sending it to the full
House or Senate for consideration.)

Weiner could try to offer his bill as an amendment to that legislation, but AOPA has
lobbied hard — and will continue to do so — to prevent that.

On Sept. 8, the same day Weiner released his bill, an AOPA legislative affairs staff
member met with Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), a member of the House aviation subcommittee,
to express opposition to the bill. Graves, a pilot and AOPA member, confirmed he
would oppose the bill and made sure AOPA's staff had a copy of it, even before it was
publicly available.

AOPA also contacted subcommittee members Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) and Leonard Boswell
(D-Iowa), both pilots and AOPA members.

AOPA talked to the staff of aviation subcommittee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) and
Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.); with chairman of the full committee, Don Young
(R-Alaska); and with James Oberstar (D-Minn.), the ranking member. Any aviation
legislation ultimately has to be approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, chaired by Young.

"It was very clear from all of our contacts that there is significant opposition to
this bill within the committees," said Jon Hixson, AOPA vice president of Legislative
Affairs. With that kind of opposition, it would be very difficult for the bill to
advance.

But AOPA is keeping the pressure on. AOPA met with Weiner's staff on Sept. 9,
outlining the association's opposition to the bill and providing information on the
steps already being taken to secure general aviation, including AOPA's Airport Watch
program.

And AOPA is already talking to key contacts in the Senate, in an attempt to forestall
the introduction of a similar bill in that body.

"Weiner's bill would have to clear a lot of hurdles before it would even be
considered by the House," said Boyer. "There are significant checks and balances to a
piece of legislation like this — the subcommittee, full committee, full House — then
the same over in the Senate.

"With our long experience in lobbying Congress, we know when and how to target
politicians to express our position," Boyer added. "Rarely has AOPA ever been placed
in a position to bring in the full power of our 400,000 members to stop a bill on
either the House or Senate floor because we work at being effective well prior to
that point."

Weiner's bill would require the Transportation Security Administration to set up
airline-style passenger screening at every landing facility in the United States
(some 19,500) to screen every passenger boarding every general aviation aircraft
(more than 211,000) for every flight (more than 43 million per year). That means the
TSA would have to conduct an additional 108 million passenger screenings at more than
19,000 facilities where TSA today doesn't currently have any officers. (Data from
AOPA's 2004 Fact Card.)

But Weiner's bill doesn't stop there. It would also require every pilot of every
flight to remain "in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration regardless of
the altitude of such aircraft." That would increase the workload of air traffic
controllers by at least nine times, requiring the agency to significantly increase
the size of the workforce and to install new communications and radar equipment to
cover all the areas of the country.

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

[Roy Smith]

The full text of the bill finally showed up on Thomas. You can read it
by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and typing "HR-5035" into the "bill
number" box in the upper-left hand corner of the page. You can also see
it as a PDF by clicking on

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&
docid=f:h5035ih.txt.pdf

[Bingo]

You can do a search for Weiner and go to his website and send him an email
asking him what he is thinking. I just did.
What a knothead. He wants to make it illegal to fly within 1500 feet of a
building..............or over a city of more than 1 million population.
Jim
"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The full text of the bill finally showed up on Thomas. You can read it
> by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and typing "HR-5035" into the "bill
> number" box in the upper-left hand corner of the page. You can also see
> it as a PDF by clicking on
>
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&
> docid=f:h5035ih.txt.pdf

[Ernest Christley]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>>According to AOPA and EAA e-newsletters, a NY Congressman, aptly named
>>Weiner, proposes Dracinian measures against GA:
>
>
> Update off AOPA's web site --
>
> AOPA fights to stop Weiner bill in its tracks
>
> AOPA is fighting in the halls of Congress to make sure that the anti-general aviation
> bill (H.R. 5035) introduced by New York Democratic Congressman Anthony D. Weiner
> doesn't even get a toehold.


There goes them thar politician, catering to the special interest groups
agin!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[OtisWinslow]

I don't see anything confusing about the 2nd Amendment. Of course
the Libs will read it to their advantage.

It protects two things:

"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."

Now the Libs will have you believe that the only right we have is
to bear them collectively under the banner of a militia. Not so.

Otis "From my cold dead hands" Winslow









" jls" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > "Rutger" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > RKBA.
> >
> > I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?
>
> No you won't.
> >
>
> He's talking about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms as
> expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
> absolute. The right has been tied to the state militias as not an
> individual right. Of course, I agree with Jefferson's interpretation of
> the right to bear arms, being as the government always moves to get too
big
> for its breeches and should sometimes be made to look down the business
end
> of a gun barrel. However, I don't think Jefferson anticipated that the
> barrels of the people's guns are puny and minuscule compared to those of
big
> brother.
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Well of course! Since so many on the far left are actually socialist and
communist they do not want anyone to have a gun or have that right. That way
they can make rules as they see fit , not to mention take everything you
have worked for for the good of the masses. Who else throughout history
thinks that way? Stalin, Lenin, Mao..even Hitler banned guns!
"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
> I don't see anything confusing about the 2nd Amendment. Of course
> the Libs will read it to their advantage.
>
> It protects two things:
>
> "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."
>
> Now the Libs will have you believe that the only right we have is
> to bear them collectively under the banner of a militia. Not so.
>
> Otis "From my cold dead hands" Winslow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> " jls" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > >
> > > "Rutger" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > RKBA.
> > >
> > > I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?
> >
> > No you won't.
> > >
> >
> > He's talking about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms
as
> > expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
> > absolute. The right has been tied to the state militias as not an
> > individual right. Of course, I agree with Jefferson's interpretation
of
> > the right to bear arms, being as the government always moves to get too
> big
> > for its breeches and should sometimes be made to look down the business
> end
> > of a gun barrel. However, I don't think Jefferson anticipated that the
> > barrels of the people's guns are puny and minuscule compared to those of
> big
> > brother.
> >
> >
>
>

[Graham Shevlin]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:10:36 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote:

>Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC
fighting in the armed forces does not necessarily equate to defending
the Constitution. The contents of the Constitution are not affected by
Americans fighting overseas. What ultimately impacts the Constitution
is what happens in peacetime here in the continental USA.

[W P Dixon]

When you enlist in the US Armed Forces you swear to defend the Constitution
against all enemies foreign and domestic. Though it can surely be debateable
about all activity on foreign soil, I do agree with here at home. And here
at home is where that sacred document is constantly trampled on by leftist
and an out of control judicial system. But don't think I am just picking on
Democrats, because I for one feel the Patriot Act is the most Unpatriotic
Act I have ever heard of.
In Afghanistan our troops are protecting the Constitution because the
idiots that attacked us are imbedded there. Iraq is a toss up! HA Though we
were actually only in an official cease fire from the first Gulf War , and
Iraq did not want to follow their own agreements so we attacked them again.
However the First Gulf War was NOT RIGHT. First Kuwait is a kingdom , so we
can not use the defending democracy thing, and since we had no protectional
treaty with that kingdom it really was none of our biz! Alot of modern
Presidents have that problem of sending our troops were they should not be,
Republicans and Democrats. Myself I do not feel we should send US troops
anywhere that a formal Declaration Of War by Congress as established in the
Constitution has been passed.
The terrorists are definitely a threat to the US and our
Constitution..but the biggest enemies are the politicians that scare people
into thinking they have to take our freedoms to be safe from terrorists or
even crooks on our streets. just think we have a political party that
screams First Amendment rights whenever their side has anything to say ,
even when it is just a blatent lie. But they do not feel vets who speak out
against their side should have those same rights. This same bunch feels it
is necessary to ban weapons against the very fabric and heart of the Second
Amendment. I fear the leftist more than a rag headed suicide bomber!
And let us not forget The Constitution was not written in peacetime. Nor
should we forget that Abraham Lincoln was the first President to throw it
aside and declare "the first Presidential Powers Act". He had anyone against
the Union ( Abe's side of it) put in federal Prison with no charges being
filed and held indefinitely....he even had the entire MAryland legislature
put in prison because he was afraid they would vote to secede! I don't think
any President since FDR has actually asked for war the" Constitutional way".
So even in times of conflict our Constitution can be in danger from within
as well as a enemy on the outside.
Just things to ponder!
"Graham Shevlin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:10:36 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> > wrote:
>
> >Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC
> fighting in the armed forces does not necessarily equate to defending
> the Constitution. The contents of the Constitution are not affected by
> Americans fighting overseas. What ultimately impacts the Constitution
> is what happens in peacetime here in the continental USA.
>

[Morgans]

> However the First Gulf War was NOT RIGHT. First Kuwait is a kingdom , so
we
> can not use the defending democracy thing, and since we had no
protectional
> treaty with that kingdom it really was none of our biz!
??????????????????????????????

wow! What a spin.

We went to free "Kuwait", because the legal rulers asked the U.N. to do so.
It was a U.N. action.

Or do you not agree with our participation in the U.N.?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004

[W P Dixon]

Matter of fact I do not , this mess about the UN screwing us every chance
they get in Iraq is examples why. Oil for Food, Brie For Food,etc etc etc
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > However the First Gulf War was NOT RIGHT. First Kuwait is a kingdom , so
> we
> > can not use the defending democracy thing, and since we had no
> protectional
> > treaty with that kingdom it really was none of our biz!
> ??????????????????????????????
>
> wow! What a spin.
>
> We went to free "Kuwait", because the legal rulers asked the U.N. to do
so.
> It was a U.N. action.
>
> Or do you not agree with our participation in the U.N.?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004
>
>