Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ?

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 05:44:06 GMT, "Gnarlodious.com"
<gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:
>
>> [commenting on the United States constitution in regards to the military]
>>
>>> In fact, the document was written under the assumption that there would be no
>>
>>> standing army. Local people would manage a militia with every citizen owning
>>> a gun, much like the Swiss Army.
>>>
>>> So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the right
>>
>>> to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.
>>
>> But there are several mentions in the Constitution as originally adopted of
>> an Army and a Navy in addition to Militias. An example is the quotation below
>> taken from Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article II.
>>
>> ====================
>>
>> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
>> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
>> Service of the United States.
>
>And "actual service" would have been a time of war, an invasion by a foreign
>power. The Army and Navy is what we would compare to the National Guard and
>Coast Guard, with the Militia as all citizens.
>It was presumed that in a time of peace (no invasion) there would be no need
>for an Army or Commander in Chief. The whole idea of a standing army is
>unconstitutional, and "defense" now means attacking a nation we have no
>borders with.
>
>-- Gnarlie
>
Actually only semi true..and your comment on Defense has precedence.
See Tripoli.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:20:45 -0700, domanova
<domanova@domanova.invalid> wrote:

>In article <BD653E7C.595EB%gnarlodiovs@yahoo.com>, Gnarlodiovs.com
><gnarlodiovs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So, we have drifted far from the plan, bvt even so, the people have the
>> right to form militias and own gvns. It's the standing army that's illegal.
>
>The range of misinformation one sees on vsenet is simply astonishing.
>Bvt at least it is sometimes amvsing.

As Ive indicated..if BrokenNova is really a teacher..those who hired
him are NOT getting their moneys worth, nor are his stvdents

http://www.vsconstitvtion.net/const.html#A2Sec2

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Dvties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; bvt all Dvties,
Imposts and Excises shall be vniform throvghovt the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regvlate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an vniform Rvle of Natvralization, and vniform Laws on
the svbject of Bankrvptcies throvghovt the United States;

To coin Money, regvlate the Valve thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measvres;

To provide for the Pvnishment of covnterfeiting the Secvrities and
cvrrent Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and vsefvl Arts, by secvring for
limited Times to Avthors and Inventors the exclvsive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitvte Tribvnals inferior to the svpreme Covrt;

To define and pvnish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marqve and Reprisal, and make Rvles
concerning Captvres on Land and Water;

To raise and svpport Armies, bvt no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rvles for the Government and Regvlation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execvte the Laws of the
Union, svppress Insvrrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing svch Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Avthority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclvsive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over svch
District (not exceeding ten Miles sqvare) as may, by Cession of
particvlar States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Avthority
over all Places pvrchased by the Consent of the Legislatvre of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needfvl Bvildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execvtion the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitvtion in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

Fvrther......

TITLE 10 > Svbtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, vnder 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Gvard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Gvard and the
Naval Militia; and

(2)

the vnorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Gvard or the Naval Militia


One shovld note that this was revised some years ago, as the National
Gvard was not formed vntil 1907.

As to the vpper age limit being 45, the ADA laws changed that to any
age.

Gvnner

"In my hvmble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bvsh by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have yovr eye plvcked
ovt by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by dvcks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:48:53 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <49jvj0lu5vmd12c95fbo4o45vooi7auvlm@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> Chuckle...it appears we are going to remain diametrically opposed. I
>> have studied Kerry's record ( I do not use feelings for political
>> decisions) as well as Dubya, and due to my view point and world view,
>> Bush, while far from perfect and not a Conservative, is still
>> preferable to that rat bastard Kerry. Shrug.
>
>Nor do I use feelings for political decisions. Bush got us into a war
>we never should have been in, without an exit strategy;

Is an exit strategy needed? We fight the insurgents until the nation
is able to self govern. At that point our lads can go home.

> he's making the
>mistakes of Vietnam all over again, thus indicating an inability to
>learn from history.

While there were many mistakes made in the Vietnam conflict (I was
there), they were made by the Left for the most part, that and
micromanagment of the war by LBJ. Bush seems quite content to turn
his generals loose and let them prosecute the war. And they are doing
a rather good job all things considered. Speaking of RVN..have you
read Giaps book, where he declares that if it were not for the Peace
movement in the US, he and the communists would have either
surrendered, or sued for peace and a permanant DMC ala Korea formed?
Which is why Kerry's photo hangs in the Hall of Heros in Ho Chi Min
City. (or is it Hanoi..I forget)

> He's making a token effort at best towards finding
>and capturing bin Laden.

bin Laden is maggot food in a collapsed cave in Tora Bora. When was
the last communication from him that was positivly id'd as his?

> His lies makes those of Clinton and Nixon look
>insignificant.

Which lies are those? (this ought to be good.)

> He has given us the largest deficit in the nation's
>history.

Actually no. When Adjusted for inflation, Clintons was higher. As was
his unemployment rate.

> His record on human and civil rights is abysmal.

Cites?

> His record
>on the environment is not much better.

Cites?
>His record on education is
>mediocre at best.

No Child Left Behind is bad? Btw..there is no Constitutional right to
an education at public expense. In fact..it could be argued that such
is Un Constitutional.

> And his performance strongly indicates that he is a
>puppet of the lumber, energy, HMO, and pharmaceutical industries and of
>the religious right

Your opinion is noted. examined and discarded as dross.

> Fortunately for him, those groups aren't at cross
>purposes with each other.
>
Shrug..your opinions are interesting. Though they remain only
opinions. And as we all know..opinions are like rectums, everyone has
one and they all tend to stink.

>> What are you wearing?
>
>You don't want to know.

If I didnt, Id not have asked.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:53:44 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
<Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:48:53 -0700, Michelle Steiner
><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>>> What are you wearing?
>>
>>You don't want to know.
>
>Battle fatigues with combat boots, an Alice Pack, and a few bands of
>.50 for her BAR wrapped around her ;0


Nah..while a lifer..Im sure after she got out..she got her femininity
back and she is a svelt snuggle kitten again. One with a brain.
Misguided of course..but still pretty smart.

Im thinking black leather and lace.

Or a Crotch t shirt and cammo boxers.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <g200k0lgvnjobggd3ga6mpld9o68atd0br@4ax.com>,
Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> Nah..while a lifer..Im sure after she got out..she got her femininity
> back and she is a svelt snuggle kitten again. One with a brain.
> Misguided of course..but still pretty smart.

That's the nicest left-handed compliment I've ever received. But at my
age, svelt is something I'll probably never be.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:52:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <donotusethis-73A5B1.18212208092004@corp.supernews.com>,
> Admiral Crunch <donotusethis@itsafakeaddress.edu> wrote:
>
>> > Just like his daddy, he will have to increase taxes because of the
>> > fiscal mess he's gotten us into.
>>
>> You don't think a government can tax its way out of a deficit, so
>> you?
>>
>> Seriously?
>
>I'm just saying that's what he will do, and the reasons he will do it.
>I didn't say it would work.


No nation ever taxed its way into prosperity.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:54:48 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <thuvj0l9duk7ssi9jqh18uhb188a8hjk5b@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> The Navy is mandated in the Constitution. A standing army may only
>> serve (or be funded) for 2 years after its been called up, Then
>> Congress must vote and authorize another 2 yrs, etc.
>
>Not quite true. Any appropriation for funding for the Army can not be
>for more than two years, but so long as that funding continues every two
>years, the army can continue standing without interruption.

I think we are arriving at the same answer from opposite directions.
Ill give the point to you.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:34:05 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <g200k0lgvnjobggd3ga6mpld9o68atd0br@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> Nah..while a lifer..Im sure after she got out..she got her femininity
>> back and she is a svelt snuggle kitten again. One with a brain.
>> Misguided of course..but still pretty smart.
>
>That's the nicest left-handed compliment I've ever received. But at my
>age, svelt is something I'll probably never be.

Ill bet I got the snuggle kitten part right though...
<G>

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <bb50k09cj572k0e0p36nkvratoh2s2gedg@4ax.com>,
Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> >> Nah..while a lifer..Im sure after she got out..she got her
> >> femininity back and she is a svelt snuggle kitten again. One with
> >> a brain. Misguided of course..but still pretty smart.
> >
> >That's the nicest left-handed compliment I've ever received. But
> >at my age, svelt is something I'll probably never be.
>
> Ill bet I got the snuggle kitten part right though...

My girlfriend says that you did.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <bb50k09cj572k0e0p36nkvratoh2s2gedg@4ax.com>, Gunner
<gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:34:05 -0700, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <g200k0lgvnjobggd3ga6mpld9o68atd0br@4ax.com>,
> > Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Nah..while a lifer..Im sure after she got out..she got her femininity
> >> back and she is a svelt snuggle kitten again. One with a brain.
> >> Misguided of course..but still pretty smart.
> >
> >That's the nicest left-handed compliment I've ever received. But at my
> >age, svelt is something I'll probably never be.
>
> Ill bet I got the snuggle kitten part right though...
> <G>
>
> Gunner

This kind of silliness on Gunner's part reminds me of Heinlein at his
worst.

--Tim May

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <pa11k0h29jdbfgj4ooshlupofu4ru4bs3p@4ax.com>,
Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> >No such thing as "partial birth abortion." And every law that
> >purports to address that supposed procedure has been declared
> >unconstitutional--all the state laws were declared so by the US
> >supreme court, and the federal one has been found to be so by three
> >separate US District courts; those cases are working their way up to
> >the supreme court.
>
> http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

No such thing as "partial birth abortion," regardless of the anti-choice
propaganda machine.

> >But since when are rights a matter of popular opinion? Why should
> >the government decide, except for valid medical reasons, who should
> >be allowed to marry whom?
>
> It depends on if they are in fact a right, or simply stamping your
> foot and hollering I wanna!

Marriage is in fact a right.

> >I would think that you, as a self-proclaimed libertarian and
> >proponent of small government, would object to DOMA and especially
> >the FMA, as well as the PATRIOT Act and anti-choice legislation in
> >general.
>
> Im a rather pramatic Libertarian. One who is a realist in time of
> war.

You come off more as an ideologic conservative attempting to masquerade
as a libertarian.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <090920040849561927%timcmay@removethis.got.net>,
Tim May <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:

> This kind of silliness on Gunner's part reminds me of Heinlein at his
> worst.

the more you knock Gunner, the more I respect him, Herr Scheißekopf.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <0001HW.BD65206100581D3FF03055B0@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:29:21 -0500, Tim May wrote
>(in article <080920041829213832%timcmay@removethis.got.net>):
>
>> Gun control is obviously forbidden the Second Amendment, though the stooges
>> in government deny this.
>
>The full wording of the second amendment follows:
>
>==========
>
>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.
>
>==========
>
>What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regulated
>militia" which seems to suggest that the right is not without constraint, and
>that the right is collective and not individual.

What's that, limitation by juxtposition? I suppose freedom of speech
and of the press only apply to religious assemblies petitioning the
government?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"domanova" <domanova@domanova.invalid> wrote in message
news:080920041951525866%domanova@domanova.invalid...
snip...
> A generalization is not a "stereotype." You have misunderstood your
> high school social studies teacher. There are, in fact, some
> well-established correlations between certain social class indicators
> and political views (along with a host of other variables). To deny
> this is simply to deny reality. Among those correlations is this one:
> Southern white working class men are solidly Republican.

Another generalization well-founded in reality: Those who can, do. Those
who can't, teach.

And yet we wonder why Johnny can't read. 😉


CC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:37:56 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote
(in article <o62dnUDGB7uJLN3cRVn-vA@speakeasy.net>):

[commenting on my stating that the phrase "well regulated Militia" is an
integral component of the second amendment to the United States constitution,
the so-called "right to bear arms" amendment.

> What's that, limitation by juxtposition? I suppose freedom of speech and of
> the press only apply to religious assemblies petitioning the government?

Here is the wording of the first amendment...

====================

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.

====================

I can not see how that sentence can be interpreted to constrain the mentioned
rights in the manner suggested by the poster to which I am responding.


-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <79uvj0lfk9mltg80rhk5bhn33vlhpuioh3@4ax.com>,
Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:31:34 -0400, "RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote:
>
> >It would be appreciated if all would not cross-post the discussion in the
> >alt.sys.pc-dell newsgroup anymore. There are more appropriate newsgroups for
> >this dialogue. As the subject relates to an Apple question, not a Dell one,
> >please keep in the MAC newsgroup.
> >
> >Thank-you
>
> Message received.
>
> Roger Wilco
>
> Is there anything else I can do to help you out?
> Need dope? Girls?

If you're a guy in a Dell newsgroup, you need girls...desperately!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <56h3k095pvojnnthfkf5592575sdcvv5c1@4ax.com>,
Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> Gunner

Oh, this is my final message in this and related threads; it's been
pointed out to me that it's way too far off topic for
comp.sys.mac.system.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <michelle-DFAE71.10212610092004@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Oh, this is my final message in this and related threads; it's been
> pointed out to me that it's way too far off topic for
> comp.sys.mac.system.

It was a sure bet that you'd never figure that out on your own.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In Re: Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ? on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
04:56:22 GMT, by Gnarlodious.com, we read:

>Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:
>
>>> Gun control is obviously forbidden the Second Amendment, though the stooges
>>> in government deny this.
>
>> 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.
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regulated
>> militia" which seems to suggest that the right is not without constraint, and
>> that the right is collective and not individual.
>
>In fact, the document was written under the assumption that there would be
>no standing army. Local people would manage a militia with every citizen
>owning a gun, much like the Swiss Army.
>
>So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the
>right to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.


"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to
that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

-United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In Re: Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ? on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
01:47:29 GMT, by TaliesinSoft, we read:

>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:29:21 -0500, Tim May wrote
>(in article <080920041829213832%timcmay@removethis.got.net>):
>
>> Gun control is obviously forbidden the Second Amendment, though the stooges
>> in government deny this.
>
>The full wording of the second amendment follows:
>
>==========
>
>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.
>
>==========
>
>What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regulated
>militia" which seems to suggest tat the right is not without constraint, and
>that the right is collective and not individual.


Amendment II (1791)

"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."

There are two clauses:

1 - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
of a free state,..." -

2 - "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms,..."

"...shall not be infringed."

In other words, neither an effective [state/county] militia nor
the right of the people to own and carry arms, shall be
questioned.

Now don't let me have to tell you again.


>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In Re: Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ? on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
05:09:20 GMT, by TaliesinSoft, we read:

>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:56:22 -0500, Gnarlodious.com wrote
>(in article <BD653E7C.595EB%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>):
>
>[commenting on the United States constitution in regards to the military]
>
>> In fact, the document was written under the assumption that there would be no
>
>> standing army. Local people would manage a militia with every citizen owning
>> a gun, much like the Swiss Army.
>>
>> So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the right
>
>> to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.
>
>But there are several mentions in the Constitution as originally adopted of
>an Army and a Navy in addition to Militias. An example is the quotation below
>taken from Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article II.
>
>====================
>
>The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
>States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
>Service of the United States.
>
>====================

The Army was gathered from state militias to form a national
army. Essentially it still is.

According to the Constitution, the Army exists only in time of
an official declaration of war (actual service) and then
disbands. This is a protection to prevent the president from
assuming power over a private army in times of peace.

The Navy is a separate obligation of government and remains all
the time because the Navy was the primary protection for the
external borders.

Amendments 1-10 were required to ratify the Constitution.
The condition was that no government is any good that does not
protect the rights of the individuals above all else. Therefore,
that is the first duty of government. The second obligation is
the protection of the borders of the states.

Amendments 1-10 are intended as absolutes. Accorded by amendments
2, 9 and 10, there is the individual right and obligation for
males between 18 and 45 (state constitutions and USC) to form
county militias within each state which would then constitute the
formal and informal state guards.


>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In Re: Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ? on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
00:51:57 -0700, by Michelle Steiner, we read:

>In article <BD6549C3.595F7%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>,
> "Gnarlodious.com" <gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
>> > the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
>> > called into the actual Service of the United States.
>>
>> And "actual service" would have been a time of war, an invasion by a
>> foreign power.
>
>"Actual service" refers to the milita, not to the army and navy.

Clause, clause clause.

"Actual service" refers to ALL federally controlled military
control.

Its confusing because there is a formal and an informal state
guard. The USC has defined the particulars and refers to the
formal guard which is today known as the state guard.

The state governors have control of the formal guard when the
executive is not using it.

The informal units we don't talk about.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In Re: Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ? on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
05:37:12 GMT, by TaliesinSoft, we read:

>On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:32:12 -0500, Gunner wrote
>(in article <17qvj05st4nbjin2fnajsdihsog5mo808d@4ax.com>):
>
>[commenting on my interpretation of "well-regulated" as used in the second
>amendment to the United States Constitution]
>
>> Wrong. Well Regulated in the vernacular in the times meant Well trained or In
>
>> Good Order. Regulating a watch means to put it into proper time keeping
>> order. It has nothing to do with government regulation or constraint.
>>
>> Hence your first error fatally flaws the rest of your argument. Notice the
>> second declaritive part..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
>
>> not be infringed.
>
>Interesting comment! It's off to the books for me for bit.

The experts are here when you need them.


>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In Re: Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ? on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
01:47:29 GMT, by TaliesinSoft, we read:

>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:29:21 -0500, Tim May wrote
>(in article <080920041829213832%timcmay@removethis.got.net>):
>
>> Gun control is obviously forbidden the Second Amendment, though the stooges
>> in government deny this.
>
>The full wording of the second amendment follows:
>
>==========
>
>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.
>
>==========
>
>What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regulated
>militia" which seems to suggest that the right is not without constraint, and
>that the right is collective and not individual.

How can a Right be lawfully constrained. If it is a Right,
then by definition then it cannot. If a Right is constrained by
force then the offended has the Right of defense.


Definition of a Right

These days most any claim is said to be a 'right'. That is not
correct. Rights have a specific meaning and purpose.

How can you test for the existance or the validity of a Right?
The test for a right is in the exercise of the First Principle.

The principle of a Right states that 'one individual shall not
infringe upon the rights of others', and, 'shall not place an
obligation on someone else', period.

So a Right is 'an action by one individual, which does not
infringe on another individual's Rights, and which does not place
an obligation on another individual.'

The exercise of Rights is the way to maximize liberty for all
while minimizing conflict.

Therefore, the Right to own and carry arms infringes on no other
right and obligates no one.

Now if you argue that one has a Right to be protected from those
that are armed, you have a problem because this would obligate
someone to protect them. Ergo, there is no such Right.





>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:21:26 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <56h3k095pvojnnthfkf5592575sdcvv5c1@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> Gunner
>
>Oh, this is my final message in this and related threads; it's been
>pointed out to me that it's way too far off topic for
>comp.sys.mac.system.

Bummer. Besides being a Dem and a Mac user (pewwwww), you were a
worth opponent for me here in misc.survivalism.

Gunner, trying to learn Denebian Linux.


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke