Leaving the community

In article wBTid.1877$5K2.15@attbi_s03,
Brian Downing wrote:
However, I don't believe the Libertarian party isn't really a good fit
for me

"is really a good fit" is what I meant obviously.

Way to be double negative.

-bcd

Ah, what the Hell...

My opinion... As I have heard several political analysts mention,
today's losers are the moderate middle of the road voters who are
stuck between the ever increasing extreme views of the to parties in
our two party system. Except for a very few instances were are a two
party system that just lets others play in the pond.

As the right and left move farther apart the moderate can only pick
and choose those from either party who come closest to his ideals.
Unfortunately *both* parties take that vote to mean that individual
supports their party rather than *some* of the individual candidates
ideals.

That vote does not necessarily mean the voter supports that party's
stance on right-to-life/choice, firearms, religion, or even liberal,
or conservatism. Until the party's lean this they will probably
continue to move farther to the left and to the right.

As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
_every_able_bodied_adult_male.

Contrary to the doctrine of both Democrats and Republicans we of the
heartland do not like to be told what we can and can not do. We don't
like government messing with our guns, choices, or beliefs (what ever
they may be).

In present reality there are no other parties. Just the two big frogs
in a pretty big pond where the shores are getting farther apart by the
minute, with a lot of voters stranded on an island out in the center.
Maybe (*hopefully*) some one will come up with a meaningful party that
represents us. Still it would be nice is the two major parties moved
back to within at least casting distance.

Those two parties have changed places once with each now representing
what the other stood for in their beginnings. Will they continue
their divergence until both become meaningless extremes or will they
learn by past mistakes?

They each say they represent us. Yet, can a man who has lived in
luxury and who owns numerous multimillion dollar homes identify with
the family trying to pay off a small family home and has to borrow to
sent the kids to college? How can some one like that then represent
someone who lives a life so alien to them? How do we in aviation feel
about trial lawyers and in particularly those in tort law? I'd be
very uneasy about the prospect of one of *those* lawyers becoming
president.

From the other side, we are Christians of many sects, Jew, Hindu,
Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Islamic, and many, many others. How can
we expect to be represented by a born again Christian and wealthy
individual?

This is hardly a start on the issues as it'd take a thick book to list
them all and for each one, some one will have an answer. The problem
is they will not have an answer for all and most likely not even a
majority .

The point being, neither can fully represent the average individual.

That leaves those who do not completely embrace either the
Democratic, or Republican platforms as disenfranchised voters and
individuals that will end up with elected officials who really do not
properly represent them. These are the people who have to weigh the
issues by choosing which of their needs, wants, and beliefs are the
most important and the ones they will have to abandon. For either
party to take a vote as supporting their platforms is a grave mistake.

The rest of the world, who we have bailed out on a number of
occasions, sees us with a distorted view as we do them. Still, were
we to abandon them and tend only to our own internal needs the rest of
the world would slowly turn against us. Is it not better that we try
to stem the tide even though many disagree with us? Either way we go
we are going to gain enemies from within and without.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 11/5/04 9:35 PM, in article ,
"Roger" wrote:

As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
_every_able_bodied_adult_male.


The "well-regulated" portion of the amendment is the part that the
anti-gunners most commonly grasp at to justify their stance. They think that
they are just "regulating" a bit more, and after all, the amendment
specifically requires it, doesn't it?

The fact that they are unaware that the words used in the amendment don't
have the same meaning as they do today, illuminates quite nicely how
ignorant they are of history, the Constitution, and how little homework they
have done on the subject.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.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.

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.

--
--
=-----
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 -

The average citizen has NO need to have...

airplanes or chemistry sets or powerful computers or home weather stations or SUVs. The average citizen does not need seventeen different choices of toothpaste just on one aisle, and the average citizen most definately does not need a big mac.

And actually, a "well regulated militia" would come in handy at 38,000 feet were theere a dispute about who should fly the airplane.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
(note, replied to r.a.piloting, r.a.ifr, and r.a.student, but I don't follow the student group)

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

"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.

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

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

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.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

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.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "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"

--
If their intent was just that citizens had the right to bear arms, they
wouldn't have the line that comes before it. What is unreasonable about
that?

--
=-----
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 -