dmcoco84

Generally speaking, without healthcare, people don't live very long. Quade... Nancy Pelosi said after signing the HC bill: We will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country. So, basically... if people aren’t healthy, then they therefore are less able to “pursue happiness.” So, health care is needed... and government run health care, will insure health, and therefore increase liberty. Do you agree with her? What does, “the pursuit of happiness” mean? And here too, we can stick with Benjamin Franklin.

Interesting... you speak so negatively about them... yet you clearly have no clue. What makes you think he hasn't studied their on-line resources or watched numerous Tea Party rallies both on cable and YouTube? Cause I read his posts about the Tea Party... in this thread and others... or am I supposed to have ESPN and read his mind to get additional information? Or... is it that you do, both, know what the Tea Party stands for... and you simply continue the talking points because no one here has been able to fully and effectively stand up to you yet? Spelling

And I would be glad to, be more specific. And we can start with Social Security... not only plans, but some history as well. We can all imagine we are huddled up for a nice fireside chat as we do... yeah, yeah? Sweet!

Interesting... you speak so negatively about them... yet you clearly have no clue. However, if I obtained my information from the major news networks and/or blogs like the Huffington Post... I wouldn’t really understand them either. No, I’m sorry... that is Incorrect. No titles are needed in the answer. True... ok, lets use Benjamin Franklin. True as well... you then have to ask if they are a, “compassionate conservative”... AKA... Progressive Republicans, like John McCain.

Again... your words are a complete mischaracterization of not only their message, but of the guiding principles that the Tea Party holds. I don’t think you know what you are talking about, Bill. So, prove me wrong... What does it mean to desire small and limited government? Simple question... simple answer too.

Simple questions... Bill, since you feel you know conservatives and the tea party, so well... I have a, simple question for you. When a person says that they desire small government... sometimes said, small and limited government, what do they mean? Because if you are making this determination on your comments above and below… then, I don’t think you know. But you are right, 62% of “the Tea Party” do not support cuts to Medicare or Social Security. (Stossel) But there is a reason for that... unfortunately for you, it isn’t hypocrisy. But it makes sense, if you understand history.

I'm waiting.... What is Progressivism?

Sigh... you make me sick dude. Seriously! How about this... after you give me a definition of progressivism, and you explain why you have the tread on me rattlesnake under your name... a question you continue to avoid... I'll be glad to answer your question. Though I will be posting about the "religion of America," first.

Quade.... care for a common sense answer? No one should be taxed as high as they are taxed... if government was responsible, the amount of tax dollars necessary to support federal, state and local governments would easily be cut in half. The problem is not with the rich, it is with those spending money that is not theirs. Human nature... people tend not to care about things or take care of things that they don't have to work for. If everyone were taxed appropriately, AND THE POOR WERE NOT GIVEN FREE MONEY, we wouldn't be having this idiotic argument. As well as individuals like Jon Huntsman would have 10X the amount of money to support charities, and his cancer hospital that is 100% free. Instead, those "evil rich people" like Mr. Huntsman, WHO GREW UP POOR, are raped of their money that they could use to create jobs, support charity and make the world a better place... instead of idiot politicians wasting that money... and the majority of the time its on things that are not even constitutional. Did you know that Jon Huntsman took out loans for millions, and put up the majority of his personal wealth to garentee those loans to ensure his commitments to charities because he didn't have the cash that he had pledged to them. Yup, so evil... what a horrible rich person! This whole Bush tax cuts argument is complete bull shit. Taxes are too high... and government is wasteful. Saul Alinskey... "Criticize, marginalize, and demonize," the Rich. Are there bad rich people, yup, there are bad middle class and bad poor people too. And we are all taxed to heavily. Well... not the poor, at the moment... technically. If not for the amount I am taxed, I would most definitely be more than happy to give more of my money to charity. Instead, i mostly just give my time... like Habitat for Humanity. Something that I did for quite a while... and I hope to start once again after I finish school. P.S. I only read the initial thread. And I will only be reading comments after my post. So if someone already voiced this... +1. P.S.S. I'm waiting for an answer in Lucky's poll thread. What is your definition?

I think a better title would be... "of the century." And I would vote for Woodrow Wilson: Before he took office our armed forces were desegregated. When he took office, he re-segregated them. He also segregated the post office and was the first to require a photograph with applications, which made it easier to do so. He also fired all blacks holding federal positions, except for 1. I sure didn't learn that in high school... did anyone else? I've had to do quite a bit of reading to learn that. Oooooh and thats just the racism part... there is so much more about this evil man who was an enormous believer in eugenics. For one, he was jailing americans for speaking out against him. FDR did that too. For those who laughed when i said Teddy was a progressive... oh just you wait. Everything that Clinton, both Bush's, Carter and Obama did and are doing... they looked at the mistakes of the Wilson and FDR administrations. As well as started using the tactics of Saul Alinskey... has anyone here read Rules for Radicals? If not... its on amazon, definitely recommended, that is if you would like to understand their tactics, and end goals. "The ends justify the means." And one of his favorite tactics to destroy an opponent... "Criticize, marginalize, and demonize." They are all progressives... but for that to make sense, you have to understand what progressivism is. We'll get there... but first, I still have to post about the "religion of America." Till then... BSBD!

The Koran is a drug and Islam is collapsing... Racist Muslim Hater!? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAHEVx6a8k&feature=related And a follow up... for a laugh. http://weaselzippers.us/2010/07/30/saudi-arabia-town-realizes-theyve-been-praying-in-wrong-direction-for-10-years/

It’s been a while... I know. Sorry... I’m aaallllmost done with my Paramedic. It didn’t take long, but in this time I figured out how to answer. And I have also learned a great deal more about history... true history... corrections for the revisionist history I was indoctrinated with... But it will take me some time to write it up. Soon... D

Do you know who, Hitler, learned all about propaganda from...? Woodrow Wilson! Did you know that we had a desegregated military before Wilson... When he came into office, he re-segregated the military and civil services. He reduced the number of blacks in the federal government too... wicked racist. Wow, fantastic! Why don’t we learn more about Woodrow Wilson in public school? Actually that’s a rhetorical question... I know why. Coco

Yea, true, go ahead and just disregard that entire line about Blackstone. I was copying right from the book, word for word... that came in the preceding introductions, but is not really important. The point can be understood without it. Yup... the rest of it too, right from the book. Looks a lot better organized differently... can’t really do that on here... oh well. Oh but it’s very important. Ok... the problem I see is, you don’t understand what a right is. Lets refresh. If your rights do not come from God, if there is no god... rights come from government. Meaning, regardless of any governmental system... you have no true rights, because those who determine rights, can also take rights away. What is the backing, the strength, of a piece of paper listing rights signed by MEN... without God? Rights... come from our humanity... they come from our existence. So here... right off the bat! Healthcare... is not a right. Healthcare is a good. Like shoes, a necktie, or a gym membership. Healthcare is something that is paid for by an individual or on behalf of an individual. The pursuit of truth, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to worship or not to worship, the right to privacy, the right to be left alone... from the government as well as the bad people... these are rights that come from our humanity... they come from God. Benjamin Franklin had terrible problems with kidney stones, and he took opium for the pain. Why didn’t he want healthcare in the Constitution... because it isn’t a right. He actually raised money himself and opened a free hospital... private charity... and he was told he would fail. He had the right to try... and the right to fail... but he didn’t fail. All Men Are Created Equal... YES... but they don’t stay equal. We are equal at birth in our rights from God... all men are not created “monetarily” equal. We are born equal... but we don’t end equal. Actually, I have, its all right there... you just need to read critically. What I posted is the same reasoning that Thomas Jefferson used... I’ll be glad to post my sources, once I get to, the “religion of America.” Until then, do you need me to break it down for you into simpler terms? And I’m not being a smart ass. Do you need me to explain how the laws of the Republic were determined through our rights under Natural Law? Like Murder... Let me say this also... on a scale of 0 to 180 degrees... 0 being what the Founders set up for us, what they understood and wanted for America... and 180 is the complete opposite. We are about 150 degrees off... they would not recognize this government. For one... Case Law, precedents... NEVER! Leave that to Europe. That started in the 1920’s and came out of Harvard. The Founding Fathers never wanted law to be based on other’s interpretation of what the constitution says... All Laws Should Be Measure Against the Constitution... Against God’s Law. D

I wish those were my words... I can no more “prove” there is a creator, a God... than you can “prove” there isn’t one. You today, cannot prove there is no God... and neither could Einstein, which is why he was agnostic. As said above, he believed in a God of design... but not of one who could divinely intervene into daily life. In that line of thinking alone... Natural Law applies. See... you are stuck in a, religious, mindset... that, like with Moses, God has to manifest and present the information to humans... not so with REASON, as understood by Cicero and our Founding Fathers. How does my response lead to me be admitting NL is a religious sham...? Which religion would that be exactly? Sigh... a religious sham... are you serious? D

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson Obama is the reincarnation of Woodrow Wilson... with the perfected tactics of FDR. Bush is more like McCain’s hero... Teddy Roosevelt. Those who do not learn from history... or in America’s current situation, know their history... are doomed to repeat. Coco

Ok... whatever. Nightingale... your thoughts? Since you are agnostic and a lawyer... and I'm sure you'll use reason and actually read the information before posting... D

1st PRINCIPLE The Only Reliable Basis for Sound Government and Just Human Relations Is Natural Law Most modern Americans have never studied Natural Law. They are therefore mystified by the constant reference to Natural Law by the Founding Fathers. Blackstone confirmed the wisdom of the Founders by stating that it is the only reliable basis for a stable society and a system of justice. Then what is Natural Law? A good place to seek out the answer is in the writings of one of the American Founders’ favorite authors. Marcus Tullius Cicero. The Life and Writings of Cicero It was Cicero who cut sharply through the political astigmatism and philosophical errors of both Plato and Aristotle to discover the touchstone for good laws, sound government, and the long-range formula for happy human relations. In the Founders’ roster of great political thinkers, Cicero was high on the list. Dr. William Ebenstein of Princeton says: The only Roman political writer who has exercised enduring influence throughout the ages is Cicero (106-43 B.C.).... Cicero studied law in Rome, and philosophy in Athens… He became the leading lawyer of his time and also rose to the highest office of state [Roman Consul]. ....Yet his life was not free of sadness; only five years after he had held the highest office in Rome, the consulate, he found himself in exile for a year. ....Cicero nevertheless showed considerable personal courage in opposing the drift towards dictatorship based on popular support. Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C., and a year later, in 43 B.C., Cicero was murdered by the henchmen of Anthony, a member of the triumvirate set up after Caesar’s death. So out of Cicero’s maelstrom of turbulent experience with power politics, plus his intense study of all forms of political systems, he wrote his landmark book on the Republic and the Laws. In these writings Cicero projected the grandeur and promise of some future society based on Natural Law. The American Founding Fathers obviously shared a profound appreciation of Cicero’s dream because they envisioned just such a commonwealth of prosperity and justice for themselves and their posterity. They saw in Cicero’s writings the necessary ingredients for the model society which they eventually hoped to build. Cicero’s Fundamental Principles To Cicero, the building of a society on principles of Natural Law was nothing more nor less than recognizing and identifying the rules of “right conduct” with the laws of the Supreme Creator of the universe. History demonstrates that even in those nations sometimes described as “pagan” there were sharp, penetrating minds like Cicero’s who reasoned their way through the labyrinths of natural phenomena to see behind the cosmic universe, as well as the unfolding of their own lives, the brilliant intelligence of a supreme Designer with an ongoing interest in both human and cosmic affairs. Cicero’s compelling honesty led him to conclude that once the reality of the Creator is clearly identified in the mind, the only intelligent approach to government, justice, and human relations is in terms of the laws which the Supreme Creator has already establish. The Creator’s order of things is called Natural Law. A fundamental presupposition of Natural Law is that man’s reasoning power is a special dispensation of the Creator and is closely akin to the rational and reasoning power of the Creator himself. In other words, man shares with his Creator this quality of utilizing a rational approach to solving problems, and the reasoning of the mind will generally lead to common-sense conclusions based on what Jefferson called “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (The Declaration of Independence). Let us now examine the major precepts of Natural Law, which so profoundly impressed the Founding Fathers. Natural Law is Eternal and Universal First of all, Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” Then he says: True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions… It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment. In these few lines the student encounters concepts which were repeated by the American Founders a thousands times. The Law of Nature or Nature’s God is eternal in its basic goodness; it is universal in its application. It is a code of “right reason” from the Creator himself. It cannot be altered. It cannot be repealed. It cannot be abandoned by legislators or the people themselves, even though they may pretend to do so. In Natural Law we are dealing with factors of absolute reality. It is basic in its principles, comprehensible to the human mind, and totally correct and morally right in its general operation. To the Founding Fathers as well as to Blackstone, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Cicero, this was a monumental discovery. The Divine Gift of Reason To Cicero it was an obvious and remarkable thing that man had been endowed with a rich quality of mind that does not exist among other forms of life except in the most miniscule proportions. Between man and other creatures there is a gigantic gap insofar as mental processes are concerned. Cicero as well as the Founders viewed this as a special, divine endowment from the Creator. Cicero wrote: The animal which we call man, endowed with foresight and quick intelligence, complex, keen, possessing memory, full of reason and prudence, has been given a certain distinguished status by the Supreme God who created him; for he is the only one among so many different kinds and varieties of living beings who has a share in reason and thought, while all the rest are deprived of it. But what is more divine, I will not say in man only, but in all heaven and earth, than reason? And reason, when it is full grown and perfected, is rightly called wisdom. Therefore, since there is nothing better than reason, and since it exists both in man and God, the first common possession of man and God is reason. But those who have reason in common must also have right reason in common. And since right reason is Law, we must believe that men have Law also in common with the gods. Further, those who share Law must also share Justice; and those who share these are to be regarded as members of the same commonwealth. If indeed they obey the same authorities and powers, this is true in a far greater degree; but as a matter of fact they do obey this celestial system, the divine mind, and the God of transcendent power. Hence we must now conceive of this whole universe as one commonwealth of which both gods and men are members. No prophet of the Old Testament or the Gospel teachers of the New Testament ever said it any better. The First Great Commandment Cicero had comprehended the magnificence of the first great commandment to love, respect, and obey the all-wise Creator. He put this precept in proper perspective by saying that God’s law is “right reason.” When perfectly understood it is called “wisdom.” When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called “justice.” When people unite together in a covenant or compact under this law, they become a true “commonwealth,” and since they intend to administer their affairs under God’s law, they belong to his commonwealth. Thus Cicero came to what Jews and Christians call the first great commandment. It will be recalled that a lawyer tried to discredit Jesus by asking him, “Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Of course, there were hundreds of commandments, and the question was designed as a clever stratagem to embarrass Jesus. But Jesus was not embarrassed. He simply replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.” The lawyer was amazed by this astute and ready response from the Galilean carpenter. But Jesus was not through. He added: “And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40) The astonished lawyer simply replied: “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth!” Jesus had picked out what he considered to be the foremost commandment of Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and then selected what he considered to be the second most important commandment clear over in Leviticus 19:18. The Second Great Commandment It is interesting that Cicero, without being either a Christian or a Jew, was able to discover the power and fundamental significance of obedience, not only to the first great commandment, but to the second one as well. His great mind instinctively led him to comprehend the beauty and felicity of what Jesus had identified as the second great commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Dr. William Ebenstein comments on this rather fascinating insight among Cicero’s writings by saying: There is another note, too, in Cicero that points forward, toward Christianity, rather than backwards, to Plato and Aristotle: Cicero’s consciousness of love as a mighty social bond. Cicero raises this point in connection with his discussion of Justice. He points out that Justice is impossible except under the principles of God’s just law... “For these virtues originate in our natural inclination to love our fellow-men, and this is the foundation of justice.” So to Cicero, the glue which holds a body of human beings together in the commonwealth of a just society is love - love of God; love of God’s great law of Justice; and love of one’s fellow-men which provides the desire to promote true justice among mankind. All Mankind Can Be Taught God’s Law or Virtue Cicero projected throughout his writings a particularity optimistic view of the potential improvement of human beings by teaching them the elements of virtue through education. He wrote: Out of all the material of the philosophers’ discussion, surely there comes nothing more valuable than the full realization that we are born for Justice, and the right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow men... However we may define man, a single definition will apply to all. This is a sufficient proof that there is no difference in kind between man and man... IN FACT, THERE IS NO HUMAN BEING OF ANY RACE WHO, IF HE FINDS A GUIDE, CANNOT ATTAIN TO VIRTUE. Legislation in Violation of God’s Natural Law Is a Scourge to Humanity We cannot complete our review of Cicero’s discourse on Natural Law without including his warning against legislators who undertake to pass laws which violate the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Cicero wrote: But the most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations... What of the many deadly, the many pestilential statutes which nations put in force? These no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly. For if ignorant and unskilled men have prescribed deadly poisons instead of healing drugs, these cannot possibly be called physicians’ prescriptions; neither in a nation can a statute of any sort be called a law, even though the nation, in spite of being a ruinous regulation has accepted it. All Law Should Be Measured Against God’s Law Cicero then set forth the means by which people may judge between good and evil laws. All laws must be measured by God’s Law, which is described by Cicero as follows: Therefore Law [of the Creator] is the distinction between things just and unjust, made in agreement with that primal and most ancient of all things, Nature; and in conformity to Nature’s standard are framed those human laws which inflict punishment upon the wicked and protect the good. Cicero also emphasized that the essence of an evil law cannot be mended through ratification by the legislature or by popular acclaim. Justice can never be expected from laws arbitrarily passed in violation of standards set up under the laws of Nature or the laws of the Creator. Here is his argument: But if the principles of Justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace. But if so great a power belongs to the decisions and decrees of fools that the laws of Nature can be changed by their votes, then why do they not ordain that what is bad and baneful shall be considered good and salutary? Or, if a law can make Justice Injustice, can it not also make good out of bad? Cicero’s Conclusion It was clear to Cicero as he came toward the close of his life that men must eliminate the depravity that had lodged itself in society. He felt they must return to the high road of Natural Law. They must pledge obedience to the mandates of a loving and concerned Creator. What promise of unprecedented grandeur awaited that future society which would undertake it! He wrote: As one and the same Nature holds together and supports the universe, all of whose parts are in harmony with one another, so men are united in Nature; but by reason of their depravity they quarrel, not realizing that they are of one blood and subject to one and the same protecting power. If this fact were understood, surely man would live the life of the gods! The American Founders believed this. They embraced the obvious necessity of building a highly moral and virtuous society. The Founders wanted to lift mankind from the common depravity and chicanery of past civilizations, and to lay the foundation for a new kind of civilization built on freedom for the individual and prosperity for the whole commonwealth. This is why they build their system on Natural Law. Examples of Natural Law It may be surprising, even to Americans, to discover how much of their Constitution and their lifestyle is based on principles of Natural Law. For example: The concept of UNALIENABLE RIGHTS is based on Natural Law. The concept of UNALIENABLE DUTIES is based on Natural Law. The concept of HABEAS CORPUS is based on Natural Law. The concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT is based on Natural Law. The concept of SPERATION OF POWERS is based on Natural Law. The concept of CHECKS AND BALANCES to correct abuses by peaceful means is based on Natural Law. The right of SELF-PRESERVATION is based on Natural Law. The right to CONTRACT is based on Natural Law. The concept of JUSTICE BY REPARATIONS or paying for damages is based on Natural Law. The right to BEAR ARMS is based on Natural Law. The principle of NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is based on Natural Law. These few examples will illustrate how extensively the entire American constitutional system is grounded in Natural Law. In fact, Natural Law is the foundation and encompassing framework for everything we have come to call “People’s Law.” This is precisely what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These well-remembered phrases from America’s initial charter of liberty are all primary pre-suppositions under the principles of Natural Law. D

I don’t need more time... I am giving Billvon time, because he answered the wrong question. Billvon, do you wish to respond, about Natural Law? Or no? Anything in that book?

Yea, I can admit I was wrong, to a degree... you can indeed own a firearm, its just ridiculously difficult and is an extreme invasion of personal privacy, by American standards. In speaking to UK BASE friends I knew it was, possible, but the circumstances for owning one were so extremely limited, which is why the majority of the population do not own a firearm... which is why I said what I said. So, if you’re not police or some form of security... not a hunter (do they even still allow any of that there? Serious question... cause Cast Sunstein is trying to end hunting here... and fishing... yea... Nudge... hmm, no thanks Cast), and if self-defense is not adequate? Well, what is the point of a gun? What is legitimate sporting? Is it just a wording game? I say I wanna be a good target shooter and shoot every weekend... spend all my money on bullets. Is that good enough? Well... let’s give time for an explanation on Natural Law... I’m patient. And with the proper explanation, it will clarify your twisting of my words. Natural Law is God’s Law. It has everything to do with God... just not religion. Separation of “church” and “state”, yes... but you can't separate God from the Republic... because your unalienable rights come from God... Natural Law. Religion is essential to maintaining a moral and virtuous Republic. Any religion... and to the founders, it was the “religion of America.” Regardless of their own, “personal” religions... It’s going to come, I promise... but for now... billvon, the mic is all yours bro. Cicero and Natural Law...? D

Yup... you got me! I'm just a dumb dumb dummy... I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about. Sigh... damn, you really put me in my place. Yeeeeaa, NO. First of all... I did say I was quite busy and wished I had more time to post, did I not? Thankfully, I completed all my paramedic field requirements on Sunday... and completed a shit load of Patient Assessment reports yesterday. Big relief to be done! Now I just have to study for National Registry testing... but I’ll have much more time now, since the majority of my free time will not longer be spent in a fire house. Ok... guns in the UK. Lets go back to that beloved wiki: To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defense has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued. Wow! That sounds like your country is bursting with freedom! Here in Virginia... I can go down to the gun shop right now, and be home with a Glock in about 30 min. A quick background check is required, to ensure I have neither broken the laws of the Republic, nor the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, but that’s it... and I can also keep it loaded under my pillow if I so please. It is an individual's right... not a privilege. If I violate the law or some else’s rights, than that changes. Unlike you, we are innocent until proven guilt. The VA Tech shooting never would have happened had warning signs been followed. He had every right to purchase a gun... he had violated no laws. Did he need serious help long before the incident, and was it wildly obvious? Yup! And I don’t agree with licensing of any kind. Why? Because then the tyrant knows where all the guns are... that is the reason for the second amendment. It was out of fear of an oppressive government... but self-defense is more than reasonable here also. The Encyclopedia of Religion... hmm. Philosophical speculation... okay... whatever. That entire paragraph is irrelevant to the subject at hand... and after reading it many times, I can find so many things problematic with it... but again, irrelevant, because... “In discussions of Cicero and religion…” See, right there is the problem... Religion. As said above... religion, whether it is ancient or modern, is a way to interpret god, a creator, a higher power of some form. You don't need religion to have God, or Gods. One can, speculate, about the existence of God, without having a structured system of ideas and/or beliefs... a religion. Your next three paragraphs... interesting that you decide to continue on about Cicero and, religion, when I clearly brought him up in regards to Natural Law... and nothing you posted had anything to do with Natural Law. People do write different things, at different periods in their life. Trying closer to his death... and focus on Natural Law. Have you read it? What does it say about Natural Law? If it says nothing... it’s incomplete and a complete waste of time... and I would also question its validity. While you try again... I’ll start typing as well... about Natural Law. Oh and, just a side note... Natural Law has nothing to do with Christianity. D

All in due time... And my last post was not a response... just an observation. D

Are you and dreamdancer roomates? D

My questionable logic...? Hehe... well, the things I have spoken about here, is the logic of the Founders. I’m glad you think you are smarter than them... I’m not. And most of your questions are already answered... no one knows... we have finite minds. What created the creator, what created the singularity within the “big bang”, those are both infinite answers... can’t help ya... wish I knew. I’m not worried about the specifics till death, but I am concerned with Natural Law... history and preserving the Republic. One place... America... as a Republic... before Teddy, Wilson and FDR. Are you kidding? We are ending in tyranny right now... but it can be stopped. You are not allowed to own a fire arm... plain and simple. Yet you used too... Our Founders gave us the constitution... so that we would never again need to pick up muskets. However, if needed... they gave us the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves. I don’t need a 50cal... my glock and AR-15 are just fine. Two things you can’t own where you live. Riiight? Nope... read the words of the Founders. Without an educated public, the Republic will fail... the constitution is only a document, its takes the power of the people, to protect it. If the people don’t know what their rights are... or how to protect the constitution... those in power, will completely disregard it. Patriot Act? Bush? Obama? Yeeaaaa... However, up until right before those things, the King “possessed great power over their parliaments,” essentially being oppressive either way. As my 8th grade English teacher would say... when someone asked a stupid question... reading is fundamental. Both are oppressive... Because a majority ruling by your parliament, can take away any of your “rights.” Not here... congress cannot take away any rights, they have no power... the people have the power. Nor can congress create rights... rights only come from God... rights come from our humanity. Care to tell me what is going on Greece right now? And how they just lost their voting rights within the EU... hmmm... they now have no right to vote... taken by a majority vote of other Parliamentary Democracies... Interesting...