EBSB52

Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. Total lack of logic in that answer. If as the government you cannot look to a creator, there can be no rights under such a government granted by such a creator. And the total inconsistency in the words selected by the founding fathers and such an interpretation was what I was sarcastically pointing out. Whether or not there is a Creator has no influence whatsoever on whether the government should promote religion. You are confusing two totally separate issues. The religious right seem to convolute the two and refuse to allow them to be separate, then espouse the Constitution, which is a document that requires the separation of gov and religion. It's futile, the arguments will continue to circumvent the issues. There is religion and there is teh gov, the FF designed it so that the people could live their lives w/o the gov assigning a religion for the people to follow, or just making any religion to be part of the gov. The next argument might be one of asking why GOD is on our money if the FF didn't want the convolution of the two. Was GOD on the currency of the late 1700's? I don't know, I'm just asking. The current currency design isn't that old, so that might reflect the interests of other organizations. How about Confederate notes; did they refer to GOD? I don't know when they started them, just when they became obsolete. This would be an area of interest to help determine the tollerance level of what the FF meant and to what degree they meant for religion to be separate.

Okay. Inform me. Defend your President and his Adminastrations actions. What makes him different than the fascists? Give me some honest argument and examples, not the same conspiricy theory BS disregard. Do you stay informed? How much time do you devote each day to current events? Who was the last U.S. President to pardon a known convicted terrorist? If there is a legitimate reason these accusations don't make the mainstream media, I would love to hear what it is, but until I hear a substantial argument in Shrub's defense, I have to assume he has none. If I am wrong, by all means, bring the facts to our attention. But don't dismiss the question out of hand. Don't expect most people, in this forum or elsewhere, to understand Fascism. Also, don't expect more than one-liners from your post; the conservative agenda isn't willing to or feels they need to defend themselves. I've beat my head agaist a wall for years and have come to the conclusion that things will not change, but only exacerbate, so the answer is to leave. This countyr is bordering on being a piece of crap, so just get out. The cons here or elsewhere aren't going to reason what's going on and I guess they don't have to. As for America beingFascist, Imperialist, and even having shades of Communism and Naziism - of course. We have become what we defeated in WWII and the only way for it to end is the same way it ended with them; someone outside will have to kick our asses. I'm not hoping for it, I just want to leave so I don't have to care. The US was a great country before WWII, but now we have adopted the ills that drove us to rectify our then enemies. I think that how the world's different countries stay equalized; they take turns rising to power and keep each other in check. Look at the Romans, they rose to power and became complacent. The neo-Romans (US) has risen to power to become overbearing and hated by the world, so the next chapter is yet to be written.

Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. Total lack of logic in that answer. Who said faith must contain logic?

That is, whether the 14th Amendment forces the individual states to adhere to the 2nd Amendment. Sure, the 14th makes the US Const apply to the individual states. It doesn't give direct jurisdiction to the feds though, just makes the states accountable to adhere to USC rules. For the time being, the 2nd Amendment applies only to the Feds It is a federal document that applies to feds and is enforced to the states by the 14th, right? Of course it wasn't that way upon its writing, but in 1867 or whenever the 14th was adopted, the Const was only a federal document. It hasn't been done yet. Neither has the 3rd Amendment, the 7th Amendment, nor the Grand Jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment. So, until a Court actually incoporates it, states can infringe. What hasn't been done yet? The incorporation of the Const, or at least the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th? I thought the 14th stand-alone did that.

And Hilter was left saying, "Always a bride's maid, never a bride."

I'm not an English teacher, but it the provision itself an example of good English sentence? It seems like it should begin with because and use "is" instead of "being" Well, if you're referring to 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." Then they do start the sentence with, "A." But I agree..... they used to talk/write funny! OldEnglish is weird to me, but what do I know!

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ This is interesting. It basically illustrates that the the 2nd has more to do with the state having authority than does it refer to the individual ownership. It essentially excludes the feds from the equation, and that's about it. The case law shown talks about the type of weapon used to ensure the security of a free state, and excludes from protection status some weapons. I hate the ambiguity in the language, but am not going to fool myself into thinking the original writing guarantees me that I will be able to stuff a gun under my pillow or carry one in my car. Does being able to have a gun in my house\for protection of my house ensure the, "...security of a free State...?"

The first thought qualifies the second thought. If the FF had wanted unregulated arms, they would not have qualified the right. The first half of the sentence cannot be disregarded. Ya, the statement self-contradicts, just as is found in other amendments. How about rights to privacy; please find me the word, "privacy" in the Const? But the 4th appellate decisions are full of statements about expectations of privacy. The original writing of the Const is as useful as an old pair of shoes; they feel real comfy, but they are futile in most applications.

The founding fathers clearly said that arms should be regulated, even if the right of the citizens to possess them could not be infringed. No, they clearly said a well regulated militia. They also clearly said that the people should have the right to keep and bear arms. They did not mention that all arms should be regulated. People, however, try and insert that hidden meaning into it. There are two separate thoughts in that sentence both of which should not be infringed and are equally important. You can't keep one and take out the other. 1) Actually it's, "...shall not be infringed." Could, can, will, may, shall all have different connotations. It could easily be interpreted that the infringement not be violated by having to check in your weapons if it can interpreted that a telephonic warrant to forcibly draw blood on a DUI stop not be unreasonable. I'm not arguing with perspective; we're in agreement as to what we want the courts to do, but the language allows for the courts to emphasize the part about regulation and ignore the part about, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." If you don't think so, then research any stare decisis or one of many appellate court decisions.

The founding fathers clearly said that arms should be regulated, even if the right of the citizens to possess them could not be infringed. I replied b4 I read this, but it's true, the, "well regulated" is a timebomb waiting to explode.

I wasn't goig to answer your post, but I don't want anyone thinking that meant I agreed with you. I don't. Ok, is this neccessary? Is this issue about me or you or whether you aggre or not??? This illustrates your argumentative nature. I don't see language in the first amendment that says you can go to church on Sunday, or that you can use this website. Does that mean the first amendment doesn't protect those activities? Of course it isn't written prohibiting any of those actions, which further supports my point; the US Constitution IS what is established in appellate court decision. Show me 1 right that is spelled out in the Bill of rights that is verbatum a right that is tangibly spelled out . Unreasonable search and seizure; what is unreasonable? State-sponsored religion; what actions are considered state-sponsored? If the pledge utilizes the word, "God" and that pledge is read in a pulic school, is that state sponsoring religion? Right to counsel? If you get a dimestore lawyer, you have counsel, but is it what the forefathers meant? Is it what the justices interpret it to contemporarily mean? Is the death penalty cruel and unusual? If it is administered in probable error, is it cruel or unusual? See, I could go on forever, but unless you refer to amendments that deal with voting ages and term limits, these aren't tangible and clearcut, so interpretation is required. It sucks, but there was no way for the drafters to forsee all posibilities. If you don't see the direct link, then what does "the right to keep and bear arms" mean to you? What is included? It's fun to able to post partial snips when arguing, bot not honest. The entire passage reads: "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." Let me answer you question with a question: If you think the original writing of the 2nd allow you to own and keep firearms, then what does, "A well regulated Militia..." mean to you? If something is well regulated, then it is controlled as to the what and the where, right? So does that mean that at the very least we register all guns as to the owner and address to which they are kept? And at the other end we have them kept at state armories other than when the owners are hunting or target shooting? There is all kind of ambiguity in all of the Bill of Rights, and some of the subsequent amendments. Again, for the record, I am more pro-2nd than most members here.

True, and dissent from US Sup Ct decisions often end up as opinion in later cases. However, I do not see the direct language of the 2nd translating to mean I can stuff a gun under my pillow. I would argue and fight for the right to do so, but I don't see any direct language supporting that right. Therefore, the right is carried wholly with the appellate courts.

I think the powers of teh US knew what a joke they were at the time.

Russia is soooooo overrated. How can we bust on the quality of their products on one hand, worry about their military on the other?

well actually bill, we are further into the carnivore spectrum than our closest living relatives (chimps and gorillas) and they are omnivores, (although their physiology leans more heavily into the herbivore spectrum). But enough about Bush

Furthermore, I wonder if PETA has problems with grains and other foodstuffs that are protected by the wholesale slaughter of rodents. Millions of mice and rats, as well as birds and other insects, die slow and painful deaths from idustrial rodenticides designed to make them slowly dehydrate and bleed to death internally. That is a good argument, but it's the same as saying that ranchers die in the act of raising cattle, truckers are killed in the act of hauling meat to market, and loggers are killed in the act of producing wood, so if a human uses any of those that person must have no regard for other humans. I'm sure you'll poo-poo that idea, but it is very similar; incidental deaths of specific organisms. Our systems can handle both. I do not believe that obesity is linked to too much meat. You're joking, right? Likewise, bears plump up rather nicely regardless of whether they are eating plant or animal. Bears are either eating or sleeping. Also, hybernation reduces the metabolism of stored fat. On top of that, natures little creatures a systematically maimed, killed and tortured via farm equipment used to feed the voracious appetites of our vegetable-loving society. Where does factory farming come in? Lines of hundreds of animals waiting ot die every day at every plant. Those who eat vegetables contribute to this wholesale genocide, and there is no reason why we should not declare war on those who finance this barbarism. Funny parody, but untrue.

Actually, I think we're omnivores. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0006851.html I don't know much about PETA, but aren't they advocating the humane killing of animals, fish etc. rather than actually becoming vegetarian? They advocate militant vegetarianism/veganism. Their leader is a nutjob that has gone on record as saying a baby is no more important than a puppy or a kitten. What a whacko...... everyone knows a puppy is worth more.

This is exactly me.

I could never go Vegan, but have been vegetarian since 87 and I am 220 fairly muscular. Try telling Lawrence Phillips (former Nebraska running back) that vegetarians are pussies, but first let me dissassociate with you so i stay healthy. It's a myth that the lone act of vegetarianism or veganism leads to being anemic. Many Veges are enemic loking, but many are very tough people. There is a hate from the meat-eaters to veges, not sure why, I guess it's because the perception that veges look at them with judgment. As for rebuilding muscles, protein is available from peanuts and beans for starters. And milk is the universal protein fortified with vitamins. I wonder why after a big steak, all a person wants to do is sleep....... cause the ole bod is having a tough time pushing it through the intestines.

People are omnivores, ... I thought that until I tried to eat raw hamburger like dogs and cats can. I think it's safe to believe, based upon our digestive systems from our teeth to our intestines that we are primary herbivoires. Maybe eat fish raw, but red meat and pork... naw....we die.

BTW, that was his second murder attemot.

"Well presented", why do you think he was convicted? One of his down falls was the fact that his demeanor throughout the entire trial was solumn, closed and unemotional. I wouldn't call Scott well presented, actually his "presentation" worked against him. He jsut lost his wife and unborn child, show some emotion!!! ANy normal, innocent human being would have. The jury didn't convict him on his "good looks" they looked inside and saw the detached liar that he is.... In Italian we say.."chi tasse consente"..who stays quiet, accepts/agrees..Scott's good at that. In English we call that, "acquiescence."

IMO The RR administration put my tax money to good use. The soviet union couldn't keep up with our military spending and imploded on it self. R.I.P. Even if I entertain your concept that Soviet Russia was some kind of threat, when did Russia ever do anything to us? They were our allies in WWII and helped kick Germany's ass, so other than ideological reasons, what did they do? Cuban missle crisis maybe? Never a shot fired, was there? Furthermore, Russia was so overrated that the entire Cold War should be considered a joke.

He said that at the RNC acceptance speech in 2000, too. I guess being top of the agenda doesn't mean much. Affirmative Anyone can say anything but that doesn't mean anything does it. This is a non political statement remember slick willy never had sex with monica either SOS R.I.P. What chunky chicks Clinton boned has far less importance to most than the survival of SS... What chunky chicks Clinton boned has far less importance to most than the survival of SS...[/ Of course, but what is teh otehr side gonna gripe about with the only Dem in WH for the last 24 years: the economy?????

I'm not assuming anything! I know! Most people obey the laws that are too costly to get caught breaking and consciously break the small ones. The pendulum is swinging the other way finally! Secondly, it's not about punishment, it's about prevention. And last, firm and fair punishment prevents vigilantism. If someone freely murdered someone dear to me or if things got too out of hand where my family was no longer safe; I would be forced to take the law into my own hands. It is the government's solemn duty to fairly and firmly administer justice. ----------- Murders committed in a blind rage or a drunken blackout may not be prevented by capital punishment, but crimes of finance, which I believe this was, can be deterred by strong penalties. Or what they would cal, "pecuinary gain (money)." Was this about pecuinary gain? He would have had to pay child support if he left her, which is money, but I don't know of any life insurance policy he had onher. This isn't a classic case of pecuinary gain, which is an aggravating factor when deciding DP or not for the C.A. Do you have any empirical evidence of the impact of DP on deterrence? I also feel that most crime is thought about and the penalty weighed prior to being committed. Well, if the penalty is weighed then you just blew your deterrence argument. I think that Lacy and Conner's murderer thought that he would get away with it or that with a good lawyer he could pull an O.J. So he wasn't deterred by the notion he might get caught and sentenced? Does deterence even play in if people think tey can get away with it? So if all of these people are sure they will get away, then deterrence doesn't even enter the equation and is moot, right? A weak or impotent justice system causes err encourages people to commit crimes that normally they would be too afraid to commit. So you would rob a bank if the courts were soft on it? Me neither.