PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: NippleBoy on February 21, 2019, 11:33:54 AM
-
I'm very familiar with this landmark. Back in my younger years I drove past it all the time. I'm hoping the justices give a unanimous vote to keep it standing and set the precedent to stop tearing down history.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-if-world-war-i-memorial-peace-cross-can-stand
-
I dunno, a big religious symbol on government land smacks of violations of the first. And a total slap in the face to the Jews who got killed over there.
-
Ignorance of the Establishment Clause is why shit like this ever makes it to court.
“Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Full stop. That’s it.
It does not say the US must be free of religion, nor free of being offended.
-
Exactly. The cross was built using private funds, although it was taken over by the state when they became worried that it could fall down. Having a cross on public grounds does not establish a religion. Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Druids, and whatever else are free to put up their own symbols using their own funds, and I do believe that public lands can and should be made available to such use.
-
Ahh, I see. I didn't see that it was put up with private funds, though if it is maintained by the state then the state is participating in the establishment of a religion. If its maintained by private individuals then that argument is moot.
No, the first amendment does not mean the US has to be free of religion. That honor goes to China. It does mean that the government can't choose favorites, though.
-
Yeah, that last part is probably where the Supreme Court has to weigh in. When private individuals are no longer able to maintain the cross and its condition turns it into a public hazard, what should be done? I would say that the State has an obligation to maintain the cross or to demolish it. I suspect that maintaining the cross to protect the public is not establishing or endorsing a religion. On the other hand, if demolition is the State option I think that there are enough people out there who would step up and maintain it.
-
Ahh, I see. I didn't see that it was put up with private funds, though if it is maintained by the state then the state is participating in the establishment of a religion. If its maintained by private individuals then that argument is moot.
No, the first amendment does not mean the US has to be free of religion. That honor goes to China. It does mean that the government can't choose favorites, though.
What part of “Congress shall pass no law” is confusing to you?
-
What part of “Congress shall pass no law” is confusing to you?
Law of supremacy. Since Congress can't do it, State governments can't do it either. That means the State governments can't choose favorites either. Verboten. If someone wants to put up religious symbols on public land they have the first amendment to protect their right, and I'm all for it. If the good citizens of Maryland really want their cross they can privately raise the funds to maintain it. I will applaud their efforts. But their government's hands are tied, since that particular symbol is associated with one particular religion, and the State isn't allowed to choose favorites, again due to the First Amendment.
-
Law of supremacy. Since Congress can't do it, State governments can't do it either. That means the State governments can't choose favorites either. Verboten. If someone wants to put up religious symbols on public land they have the first amendment to protect their right, and I'm all for it. If the good citizens of Maryland really want their cross they can privately raise the funds to maintain it. I will applaud their efforts. But their government's hands are tied, since that particular symbol is associated with one particular religion, and the State isn't allowed to choose favorites, again due to the First Amendment.
Wrong. The Amendment requires that congress makes a law. I’m not quite sure why you keep ignoring that part. The words matter.
Picking and choosing favorites is not in the Constitution. That’s what you and others WANT it to say, but that’s not what it says.
-
"We feel and we recognize that a 40 foot tall Latin cross on government land broadcasts clearly that only Christian soldiers are being honored," Edwords said. "All veterans were not Christians. All veterans include Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, everybody."
He’s an idiot. NOT ALL VETERANS WERE CHRISTIANS. Moron.
-
Wrong. The Amendment requires that congress makes a law. I’m not quite sure why you keep ignoring that part. The words matter.
Picking and choosing favorites is not in the Constitution. That’s what you and others WANT it to say, but that’s not what it says.
Baloney. The first has been interpreted as a wall between Chirch and State since the time of Jefferson. Tons of precedent. Learn something about your own Republic.
-
Baloney. The first has been interpreted as a wall between Chirch and State since the time of Jefferson. Tons of precedent. Learn something about your own Republic.
No, you are again wrong. There is no separation of church and state. Read the Constitution. There is no "wall". I am NOT a religious person by the way.
-
No, you are again wrong. There is no separation of church and state. Read the Constitution. There is no "wall". I am NOT a religious person by the way.
Exactly right. And if/when the Supremes say there is (separation of Chirch(sic) and State), it is another example of the court legislating from the bench and interpreting it as to what they think it should say.
-
Baloney. The first has been interpreted as a wall between Chirch and State since the time of Jefferson. Tons of precedent. Learn something about your own Republic.
Hey dipshit. I’ve obviously read more about it than you.
What Jefferson wrote about separation of church and state was not authoritative. It was his opinion. Yet the mental midgets cling to it like grim death.
Madison Wisconsin is the home to the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation, the group of twerps who keep suing around the country to get religious symbols removed from the public and often private square.
Most towns and municipalities don’t have the money to fight such lawsuits, so they fold to the pressure.
By the way, most precedent has happened in the late 20th century and is full of misinterpretation of the very thing that you have done. It’s about time for the originality intent of the First Amendment to come back in vogue.
-
Mikey and his bullshit aside, the only mention of a 'wall' separating church and state, was in a LETTER written by Thomas Jefferson to a Christian College talking about the necessity of keeping the government out of the affairs of the church.
That letter has been brutally abused by assholes and liberals (I repeat myself) ever since.
Though... It is odd how progressive assholes fall all over themselves to embrace the WALL concept as long as it panders to their agenda.
Hypocrisy - It's Just For Liberals.
-
Hey dipshit. I’ve obviously read more about it than you.
What Jefferson wrote about separation of church and state was not authoritative. It was his opinion. Yet the mental midgets cling to it like grim death.
Madison Wisconsin is the home to the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation, the group of twerps who keep suing around the country to get religious symbols removed from the public and often private square.
Most towns and municipalities don’t have the money to fight such lawsuits, so they fold to the pressure.
By the way, most precedent has happened in the late 20th century and is full of misinterpretation of the very thing that you have done. It’s about time for the originality intent of the First Amendment to come back in vogue.
Nonetheless the precedent is that states are not supposed to participate or further religious interests, including a cross in Maryland.
I think you'll be thankful for this when religious minorities decide they want religious law to apply to adherents and non adherents in their communities. Separating Church and State is far more about protecting the Church.
The really sad thing is this issue is easily resolvable. The costs to upkeep a big cross can't be that high. Concerned citizen could band together, raise the needed capital and take over maintenance from the state. if no one is willing to take care of the thing how much do they really want it anyway.
-
In this context the cross isn’t even religious. It’s a symbol of the grave (i.e. dead and buried). It’s a symbol of remembrance and honor. It’s only a cross because it came down through western history where the majority were Christian and marked their graves with crosses when they marked them at all.
The complaint: “The Defendant’s ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross lacks a secular purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
WRONG. It’s nothing but a secular purpose.
-
In this context the cross isn’t even religious. It’s a symbol of the grave (i.e. dead and buried). It’s a symbol of remembrance and honor. It’s only a cross because it came down through western history where the majority were Christian and marked their graves with crosses when they marked them at all.
The complaint: “The Defendant’s ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross lacks a secular purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
WRONG. It’s nothing but a secular purpose.
Were it a secular purpose they could have used a secular symbol. A tank or a fighter jet on a pylon seem appropriate. And with a secular symbol state funding is slam dunk, those soldiers died for the state. But they chose a religious symbol, hence the problems today. I strongly object to paying for other people's religious symbols. Why should I have to pay my money towards something that not only do I not believe in but that also represents a millennium of repression of my people?
-
Were it a secular purpose they could have used a secular symbol. A tank or a fighter jet on a pylon seem appropriate. And with a secular symbol state funding is slam dunk, those soldiers died for the state. But they chose a religious symbol, hence the problems today. I strongly object to paying for other people's religious symbols. Why should I have to pay my money towards something that not only do I not believe in but that also represents a millennium of repression of my people?
Because, asshole, it’s NOT about you, it’s about them, and our country’s promise to honor our war dead. Our soldiers’ Religion was on their dog tags because it was that important. If they still has their head intact, they could hopefully identify their religion and bury them accordingly.
Check out the American Battle Monument Commission website to see which graves or memorials you wish to defile.
No one living today has the moral right to be offended by the memorials and graves of our war dead erected yesterday. Those that do are the weakest human beings ever to disgrace this nation.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190222/028d78331d81b96399e6f59589479092.jpg)
-
Were it a secular purpose they could have used a secular symbol. A tank or a fighter jet on a pylon seem appropriate. And with a secular symbol state funding is slam dunk, those soldiers died for the state. But they chose a religious symbol, hence the problems today. I strongly object to paying for other people's religious symbols. Why should I have to pay my money towards something that not only do I not believe in but that also represents a millennium of repression of my people?
I agree with you about not using my tax money to fund other people’s religious symbols. I also don’t want to fund their pet (fake) environmental projects, their abortions, their college loan, their cell phones and food stamps, hell 90% of my money is funding crap I disagree with. But I don’t mind funding a war memorial for dead vets, this thing isn’t pushing religion, it’s honoring our dead warriors.
But is it your position that you’re triggered when you see a cross? To you it represents the whole history of persecution of Jews? If so how do you go around town seeing churches? How do you watch vampire movies? Holding a cross up to a vampire isn’t symbolizing persecution of Jews; it’s symbolizing triumph of good over evil. Likewise that memorial isn’t symbolizing persecution of Jews any more than the local church steeple is; it’s symbolizing honor for our war dead - specifically those 49. And that’s all it means.
In one respect I do agree with you completely and that is we do need to be on guard about religious groups inserting themselves into governing bodies. The current threat is the push to implement sharia law - in places here in the states! These atheist groups need to pick their battles, and that is one I could get behind.
-
I agree with you about not using my tax money to fund other people’s religious symbols. I also don’t want to fund their pet (fake) environmental projects, their abortions, their college loan, their cell phones and food stamps, hell 90% of my money is funding crap I disagree with. But I don’t mind funding a war memorial for dead vets, this thing isn’t pushing religion, it’s honoring our dead warriors.
But is it your position that you’re triggered when you see a cross? To you it represents the whole history of persecution of Jews? If so how do you go around town seeing churches? How do you watch vampire movies? Holding a cross up to a vampire isn’t symbolizing persecution of Jews; it’s symbolizing triumph of good over evil. Likewise that memorial isn’t symbolizing persecution of Jews any more than the local church steeple is; it’s symbolizing honor for our war dead - specifically those 49. And that’s all it means.
In one respect I do agree with you completely and that is we do need to be on guard about religious groups inserting themselves into governing bodies. The current threat is the push to implement sharia law - in places here in the states! These atheist groups need to pick their battles, and that is one I could get behind.
But they won’t, Rush. You will not see the Freedom From Religion Foundation or any leftist group to touch a Muslim issue. It’s popular and accepted in today’s society to persecute Catholics and Christians; not so much with Muslims, despite their clear unwillingness to integrate into American society.
-
But they won’t, Rush. You will not see the Freedom From Religion Foundation or any leftist group to touch a Muslim issue. It’s popular and accepted in today’s society to persecute Catholics and Christians; not so much with Muslims, despite their clear unwillingness to integrate into American society.
Muslim radicalism is the current evil religion and the current one bent on world domination. All religions have done it. The Catholic Church with the inquisition was pure evil. Even the Jews, taking over lands belonging to “pagans” and killing them all. That may have been 3000 years ago but they did it all the same. The Buddhists do it, the Hindus do it, ALL religions do it or have done it. It’s what humans do when we sort into groups (us vs them). But right now the worst are the Muslims, and probably the reason groups like that won’t touch them is because they’ll be targets of violent retribution. It’s not the Christians today propagating this stuff though they have in the past. You can almost see the atheists’ point of view: Religion causes evil. Except they aren’t exactly correct. Humans do this evil because we are human and if not for religion we’ll make up some other excuse.
Atheism itself is no different. Radical atheists don’t actually want separation of church and state; they want the government to endorse and promote their “religion“ of no God(s).
-
-
Because, asshole, it’s NOT about you, it’s about them, and our country’s promise to honor our war dead. Our soldiers’ Religion was on their dog tags because it was that important. If they still has their head intact, they could hopefully identify their religion and bury them accordingly.
Got news dickwad. Some of those soldiers being memorialized were Jewish. how do you think that there families feel about that monument?
If it really is the state let them put up a monument that everyone can agree to, and not just one religion. Lots of militaria items that would be perfectly appropriate. Obviously you're perfectly happy with our government promoting the Christian religion, but lot son folks aren't.
-
I agree with you about not using my tax money to fund other people’s religious symbols. I also don’t want to fund their pet (fake) environmental projects, their abortions, their college loan, their cell phones and food stamps, hell 90% of my money is funding crap I disagree with. But I don’t mind funding a war memorial for dead vets, this thing isn’t pushing religion, it’s honoring our dead warriors.
If that's all it is why use a blatantly religious symbol?
But is it your position that you’re triggered when you see a cross? To you it represents the whole history of persecution of Jews? If so how do you go around town seeing churches? How do you watch vampire movies? Holding a cross up to a vampire isn’t symbolizing persecution of Jews; it’s symbolizing triumph of good over evil. Likewise that memorial isn’t symbolizing persecution of Jews any more than the local church steeple is; it’s symbolizing honor for our war dead - specifically those 49. And that’s all it means.
News flash, I had lots of older relatives who spit (on the ground) every time they saw a cross or passed a church. What happened to my people wasn't a very long time ago, and its already being forgotten by the goyim. However, all of the examples you've mentioned occur on private property. I would gladly die to preserve your (or anyone else's) right to worship as you see fit. But I do not want my government to promote your or anyone else's religion. All the other stuff you mentioned is part of the government's mission under the Constitution (or at least has been deemed so by someone). And there's lot so stuff the government does that I don't like. Wars, both real and trade. We're helping the Saudis commit genocide. Faith based initiatives that simply aren't effective. I could go on.
The Constitution specifies that the government will not establish a religion. That means they can't promote one. And that's a good thing. We have enough division in this nation as it is, throw in religious ones and it gets really heated really fast.
In one respect I do agree with you completely and that is we do need to be on guard about religious groups inserting themselves into governing bodies. The current threat is the push to implement sharia law - in places here in the states! These atheist groups need to pick their battles, and that is one I could get behind.
Why not? You apparently like having the State of Maryland promote Christianity by maintaining a cross. Why not have the State of Michigan promote Islam?
Better yet, why don't we just keep government out of religion, and let everyone worship as they please.
-
Got news dickwad. Some of those soldiers being memorialized were Jewish. how do you think that there families feel about that monument?
If it really is the state let them put up a monument that everyone can agree to, and not just one religion. Lots of militaria items that would be perfectly appropriate. Obviously you're perfectly happy with our government promoting the Christian religion, but lot son folks aren't.
If those families were upset, and I doubt that they were, those families should have protested or helped shape the memorial. The fact is the vast majority of those that died were Christian. The people at that time felt this was the best way to remember them. It would be sacrilege to remove it or change it at this point in time.
It is of no importance that it troubles you so greatly, or that you are projecting your feigned outrage into the families of the dead, who themselves are probably dead.
Get over yourself.
-
Got news dickwad. Some of those soldiers being memorialized were Jewish. how do you think that there families feel about that monument?
If it really is the state let them put up a monument that everyone can agree to, and not just one religion. Lots of militaria items that would be perfectly appropriate. Obviously you're perfectly happy with our government promoting the Christian religion, but lot son folks aren't.
I saw a Star of David among the crosses in the picture Stan posted. You don’t see Christians protesting them.
The whole point of resisting this freefall of “offenses” we’re in is that literally everything becomes offensive to someone. It’s interesting that Christians seem able to tolerate all kinds of public art and behavior because they realize this is a free country and they may not agree with everyone.
But, because there weren’t enough macro aggressions going around, the leftie hate mongers had to make up a new term, microaggression, to describe something that may or may not exist, and if it does exist it’s on a level barely detectable.
So your hypothetical “monument that everyone could agree to” means no monument at all.
Resist the Democrat cultural flatline!
-
Nonetheless the precedent is that states are not supposed to participate or further religious interests, including a cross in Maryland.
In general, I agree. What makes this case a little different is that the state of Maryland accepted care for this monument. Whether they did that properly or not, they now have a duty of care for the grounds and for the monument. It would be a betrayal of the trust the public placed in them to destroy it now. So we now have a conflict between a duty of adoption vs a minor first amendment case.
Yes, I did just call it a minor case. When Maryland took over this property, it was not uncommon for the government to have expressions of religion. Heck, when the Capitol was built, the chambers were used for worship services on Sunday. It's only been recently that there has been a push by leftist atheist to silence all public (and sometimes private) religious display.
If another group has a piece of land that is not being cared for with a non-Christian religious symbol on it, then I have no problem with a branch of a state government mowing the lawn there.
And does it matter whether the piece is a religious symbol or a religious sentimental piece from history? Having been raised in the south, I have a good understanding of the monuments to southern soldiers from the War. There is a strong religious element, of memory and memorial to why these statues were placed, of why any statue was placed - from Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville to the Iwo Jima memorial in DC to the Tomb of the Unknown Solider. At the core, these are all about belief too. Why are historical statues of any kind protected by law but this is not?
-
Nonetheless the precedent is that states are not supposed to participate or further religious interests, including a cross in Maryland.
I think you'll be thankful for this when religious minorities decide they want religious law to apply to adherents and non adherents in their communities. Separating Church and State is far more about protecting the Church.
The really sad thing is this issue is easily resolvable. The costs to upkeep a big cross can't be that high. Concerned citizen could band together, raise the needed capital and take over maintenance from the state. if no one is willing to take care of the thing how much do they really want it anyway.
What should be the new name of San Francisco? San Diego? Los Angeles? St Paul?
-
What should be the new name of San Francisco? San Diego? Los Angeles? St Paul?
And there you have it, folks. It never ends.
Stop. Just stop.
-
What should be the new name of San Francisco? San Diego? Los Angeles? St Paul?
Corpus Christi? ??? ::)
-
To be honest, I really hope the memorial stays up. I would just like to see a cabal of concerned citizens raise the resources and take over maintenance from the state. That way everyone paying for it will want it. Privately funded religious symbols are a welcome part of America. I simply object when the government gets involved.
-
To be honest, I really hope the memorial stays up. I would just like to see a cabal of concerned citizens raise the resources and take over maintenance from the state. That way everyone paying for it will want it. Privately funded religious symbols are a welcome part of America. I simply object when the government gets involved.
I object to a lot of things the government gets involved in. Actually, most things.
-
I've ascertained that Michael does not understand, "Shall make no law". Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
-
I object to a lot of things the government gets involved in. Actually, most things.
Yep. Let's start by getting government out of healthcare.
-
What should be the new name of San Francisco? San Diego? Los Angeles? St Paul?
San Francisco and San Diego names predate the U.S. and its constitution.
Los Angeles’ name predates its entry into the U.S.
St. Paul, where I was born, was originally called Pig’s Eye (Landing). Or rather a French version of that. A decent enough name, IMHO. But a stuck-up French priest insisted it be called something more saintly. Would be cool to see its name changed back.
Don’t know that U.S., state, or local governments have dictated names for all that many places - I believe they mostly just record and formalize place names that are set by locals; for the government to do otherwise would be to prohibit the free exercise of religion and speech.
-
I've ascertained that Michael does not understand, "Shall make no law". Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
Because that argument is short sighted. At some point folks start carrying out those laws, and sometimes they get it wrong. That’s one of the reasons we have courts.
-
Because that argument is short sighted. At some point folks start carrying out those laws, and sometimes they get it wrong. That’s one of the reasons we have courts.
And the Courts often get it wrong, or refuse to hear the cases which is a travesty.
-
And the Courts often get it wrong, or refuse to hear the cases which is a travesty.
According to you, someone with no training at all in legal matters or Constitutional law. One thing I always try to keep in mind when dealing with these things is the folks on the courts have mostly shown some degree of aptitude at that level.
I don’t agree that corporations are people or that money is expression, but I do recognize that the guys who made that decision do know a lot of stuff I don’t.
-
According to you, someone with no training at all in legal matters or Constitutional law. One thing I always try to keep in mind when dealing with these things is the folks on the courts have mostly shown some degree of aptitude at that level.
I don’t agree that corporations are people or that money is expression, but I do recognize that the guys who made that decision do know a lot of stuff I don’t.
How do you know I have "no legal training"? Or does it just make you feel better about yourself to be condescending. Yes, courts are politically motivated, and some are corrupt, and do sometimes get it wrong. Grow up.
-
How do you know I have "no legal training"? Or does it just make you feel better about yourself to be condescending. Yes, courts are politically motivated, and some are corrupt, and do sometimes get it wrong. Grow up.
When you see that four justices would have held that the RKBA is not an individual right, thats all you need to know that Steingar’s faith in judges is naive at best.
-
When you see that four justices would have held that the RKBA is not an individual right, thats all you need to know that Steingar’s faith in judges is naive at best.
Bingo! Also, the reason Roberts gave for ruling the way he did on Obamacare was admittedly not based in the law, but in emotion. He stated that publicly.
This blind faith Democrats have in government of which the Courts are a part is beyond me. Think for yourselves Libs!
-
Over the years I have noticed that the majority of airplanes are constructed in the shape of a cross. I believe we should ban them all to avoid offending non-Christian pilots and passengers.
-
Michael, why is our newest Muslim Congresswoman allowed to wear a Hijab? Is that not a religious symbol? Separation of church and state.
-
Michael, why is our newest Muslim Congresswoman allowed to wear a Hijab? Is that not a religious symbol? Separation of church and state.
Well, that's an easy answer. Because the government is not allowed to prohibit personal religious expression.
That really has nothing to do with the State of Maryland having accepted custodianship of a cross decades ago. The American Legion put it up, seems like they could step in and take care of the cross?
-
Arguments have been heard. This paragraph in the linked article stands out the most to me...
"The justices seemed to default to their previous approach of resolving such Establishment Clause appeals on a case-by-case basis, signaling they may avoid a broad ruling that would provide clear markers for similar legal disputes in the future."
I'm still hoping the final ruling will help protect monuments and statues from coming down nationwide just because a few people don't like them.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-appears-inclined-to-let-40-foot-peace-cross-stand-on-public-land
-
The tearing down of statues and renaming of landmarks, buildings, etc is so reminiscent of what the communist do when they take over.. Coincidence?
-
Complicating factors here - the cross was built with private funds and on private land over a hundred years ago. The State of Maryland acquired the land in 1961 through eminent domain when a road was built nearby.
The State of Maryland has made no effort to endorse religion. The acquisition of the land was the factor that brought the cross under its control. We must remember that the first Amendment is two sided - they cannot endorse, but they also cannot harm, they must remain neutral. In this case, the neutral course is doing nothing. To tear it down is a suppression.
Secondary question - is it permissible for the State to acquire land through eminent domain and then to remove all regions references from the land? The power that grants is chilling given the very weak controls over eminent domain.
At last, that is how I see it. We know the leftist leaning judges will say tear it down.
-
The tearing down of statues and renaming of landmarks, buildings, etc is so reminiscent of what the communist do when they take over.. Coincidence?
Same with the Taliban and ISIS. It’s the path of tyranny.
-
Same with the Taliban and ISIS. It’s the path of tyranny.
No, it isn't. Has anyone tried to tear down your Church? Is the state closing in on your house of worship? No, not in the least, and it never will. Hell, America might be the Great Satan in some Muslim lands, but Muslims have greater liberty to practice their religion here than any of those nations. Everyone can practice their religion. All we want is to keep Govco out. Yes, its in the Constitution.
I suspect you guys are looking for government approbation of religious practice. That's what state sponsored religious paraphernalia is. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should try Russia, the Russian Orthodox church actually has a big hand in running the place now. Enjoy yourselves.
-
No, it isn't. Has anyone tried to tear down your Church? Is the state closing in on your house of worship? No, not in the least, and it never will. Hell, America might be the Great Satan in some Muslim lands, but Muslims have greater liberty to practice their religion here than any of those nations. Everyone can practice their religion. All we want is to keep Govco out. Yes, its in the Constitution.
I suspect you guys are looking for government approbation of religious practice. That's what state sponsored religious paraphernalia is. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should try Russia, the Russian Orthodox church actually has a big hand in running the place now. Enjoy yourselves.
Once again Michael, please explain your interpretation of this "Congress shall make no law"
-
No, it isn't. Has anyone tried to tear down your Church? Is the state closing in on your house of worship? No, not in the least, and it never will. ...
Never is a very strong word
https://www.christianpost.com/news/city-of-houston-plans-to-bulldoze-two-churches-properties-to-sell-land-to-developers-congregations-file-lawsuit.html
https://www.wesh.com/article/orlando-drops-eminent-domain-action-against-church-moves-site-of-new-soccer-stadium/3821222
http://www.salemreporter.com/posts/150/salem-school-officials-invoke-power-to-force-church-land-sale
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/us/humble-church-is-at-center-of-debate-on-eminent-domain.html
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article221637700.html
https://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35198/
https://www.star-telegram.com/latest-news/article224701450.html
And that was just on the first 20 hits in Google, with lots of duplicate stories.
But that isn't the real story in this case, it's a side bar. The fact is, the State of Maryland acquired the land with a historic monument on it which is in the shape of a cross. The question - must the State now destroy the monument? I say the passive route is the correct one, because destruction cannot be construed as anything but suppression.
-
The tearing down of statues and renaming of landmarks, buildings, etc is so reminiscent of what the communist do when they take over.. Coincidence?
Anyone who can’t see the thin end of the totalitarian wedge in our country today isn’t paying attention.
Add to the statues and building and place names ...
States vowing to subvert Electoral College
MASS/MAINSTREAM MEDIA OPENLY DECEPTIVE AND ALIGNED WITH ONE PARTY
Open push for open borders to increase dependents and votes, hence power
Bakers and florists and photographers forced to lie or go out of business
Dysfunction elevated and glorified, normal, healthy, virtuous behavior vilified
Family members and friends silent on important issues “to get along” because liberals won’t talk
Restrictions on guns proceeding apace
False narratives such as global warming dunned into sheeple as a fear mongering money and power grab
Push for higher and higher taxes for weirder and weirder programs
24/7 portrayal of all leftist and globalist agendas as best “for the people”
Open disrespect of duly elected President at SOTU and every day in every way by resistance party with clear agenda to seize power by any means possible and NEVER relinquish it again
Blatant engagement and tacit approval of two-tiered justice system
Avowed socialists tripping over themselves to gain power through the presidency and in Congress
Sheeple/lemmings/anti-Constitution/anti-American Dem idiots handing power to the socialists
Rampant identity politics, projection by Dems of their own hate and bias and degeneracy onto conservatives
And more and more and more.
-
Lberalism equals censorship, voter intimidation, violence against anyone who dares to disagree, rewriting of history to suit stupid people....
-
No, it isn't. Has anyone tried to tear down your Church? Is the state closing in on your house of worship? No, not in the least, and it never will. Hell, America might be the Great Satan in some Muslim lands, but Muslims have greater liberty to practice their religion here than any of those nations. Everyone can practice their religion. All we want is to keep Govco out. Yes, its in the Constitution.
I suspect you guys are looking for government approbation of religious practice. That's what state sponsored religious paraphernalia is. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should try Russia, the Russian Orthodox church actually has a big hand in running the place now. Enjoy yourselves.
Hey, dipshit. The point was the destruction of monuments of the past, not our current churches of today. My factual assertion stands. Educate yourself in the things that you pretend to know, but clearly don’t have any idea.
https://youtu.be/g6SVJ0uPLUk
-
Once again Michael, please explain your interpretation of this "Congress shall make no law"
I'll explain that when you explain the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". And by the way, I already addressed this question. Honestly surprised you missed it.
-
I'll explain that when you explain the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". And by the way, I already addressed this question. Honestly surprised you missed it.
We've already done that over and over. You're just trolling. Try again.
-
We've already done that over and over. You're just trolling. Try again.
Don’t feed the moron.
He hasn’t the brains to understand things.
-
Don’t feed the moron.
He hasn’t the brains to understand things.
Why doesn't Number 7 ever fix his typos?
He keeps getting white out all over the screen
-
I'll explain that when you explain the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". And by the way, I already addressed this question. Honestly surprised you missed it.
A free state needs people who stand ready to assist in its defense against all enemies. The United States has formalized the militia into the organized militia, which we call the National Guard, and the unorganized militia, which is everyone else who is willing to stand in defense.
Because you may ask these people to engage in combat, it would be moral to allow them the best means to conduct that combat. If you constrain them and they die because you disallowed them the ability to fight, then their blood is on your head.
-
A free state needs people who stand ready to assist in its defense against all enemies. The United States has formalized the militia into the organized militia, which we call the National Guard, and the unorganized militia, which is everyone else who is willing to stand in defense.
Because you may ask these people to engage in combat, it would be moral to allow them the best means to conduct that combat. If you constrain them and they die because you disallowed them the ability to fight, then their blood is on your head.
That's your interpretation, which is fine by the way. All we have are the words they left behind, and its up to us to interpret them as we see fit. I have no doubt that those words refer to the citizen militias that fought the Revolutionary war and every war thereafter until we had a standing Army. That's my interpretation, which is just as valid.
The ones who's interpretation matters most are on the SCOTUS, and they see it your way, though the Heller decision really gave in to the gun control crowd. And a pity that is.
-
That's your interpretation, which is fine by the way. All we have are the words they left behind, and its up to us to interpret them as we see fit. I have no doubt that those words refer to the citizen militias that fought the Revolutionary war and every war thereafter until we had a standing Army. That's my interpretation, which is just as valid.
“Until we had a standing army”? I don’t see that in the 2nd. If you interpret it this way you’re adding stuff that isn’t there.
The ones who's interpretation matters most are on the SCOTUS, and they see it your way, though the Heller decision really gave in to the gun control crowd. And a pity that is.
Gun control crowd? How so? Keep in mind it’s early in the morning and my brain cells aren’t all firing.
-
That's your interpretation, which is fine by the way. All we have are the words they left behind, and its up to us to interpret them as we see fit. I have no doubt that those words refer to the citizen militias that fought the Revolutionary war and every war thereafter until we had a standing Army. That's my interpretation, which is just as valid.
The ones who's interpretation matters most are on the SCOTUS, and they see it your way, though the Heller decision really gave in to the gun control crowd. And a pity that is.
Regardless of how you interpret the part about the militia, you can't escape the part about "make no laws".
If you really feel the part about the militia is the over-riding and controlling factor here, then the only way I can see resolving this is through a Constitutional Amendment changing the wording of the Constitution itself. But in the meantime, how can you or anyone possibly saying that Congress making gun control laws is Constitutional?
-
Gun control crowd? How so? Keep in mind it’s early in the morning and my brain cells aren’t all firing.
I hope you don't have access to a gun right now then? :)
-
But in the meantime, how can you or anyone possibly saying that Congress making gun control laws is Constitutional?
It all falls back to the Heller decision, in which the justices said that governments couldn't forbid the possession of firearms "in common use", their phrasing, not mine. I think I understand the proviso, I don't think anyone wants highly destructive military weapons in the hands of the general public, at least that's what I'm assuming is behind the phrasing. But what's "common use"? An governmental entity can try and regulate the possession of any firearm by saying it falls outside of "common use". And therein lies the danger.
-
It all falls back to the Heller decision, in which the justices said that governments couldn't forbid the possession of firearms "in common use", their phrasing, not mine. I think I understand the proviso, I don't think anyone wants highly destructive military weapons in the hands of the general public, at least that's what I'm assuming is behind the phrasing. But what's "common use"? An governmental entity can try and regulate the possession of any firearm by saying it falls outside of "common use". And therein lies the danger.
It seems pretty obvious to me that "common use" relates to the "militia" phrase. Maybe that's why it was put in there, to keep the government from saying a firearm falls outside "common use" if a "militia" person (typical soldier) would carry it. It seems clear to me that the intent relates to whatever weapon a common foot soldier would carry, up to and including fully automatic rifles.
-
We don't need to justify the right to keep and bear arms to anyone including Michael who threw that out there to deflect and troll.
-
That's your interpretation, which is fine by the way. All we have are the words they left behind, and its up to us to interpret them as we see fit. I have no doubt that those words refer to the citizen militias that fought the Revolutionary war and every war thereafter until we had a standing Army. That's my interpretation, which is just as valid.
The ones who's interpretation matters most are on the SCOTUS, and they see it your way, though the Heller decision really gave in to the gun control crowd. And a pity that is.
Well, Congress also sees it that way or at least did see it that way before Democrats started demonizing guns. I think now, for the first time in history, Democrats actively believe that the 2nd Amendment should be removed from the Bill of Rights. Those who trade liberty for protection will find they have and do not deserve either.
I think Venezuela is just the latest proof of the first line. Before a dictator takes over, they always take the guns away because if they don't, The People will rise up. It is what King George tried to do in the American Colonies before the Revolution, to disarm the populace. If I were Trump, it would be the first thing I would do before I took power as El Supremo Orange President for Life. An armed person is a citizen. A disarmed person is a subject who cannot object.
If you believe the words don't mean the same thing, then the method to clarify that should be an Amendment. Otherwise, we cannot just change the meaning of words to fit our personal desires or the protections provided by the US being a Republic (a country rulesd by law) fail. The Constitution is the law and when you start independently changing the Law, you start breaking down the consistency of the rule of law and pretty soon everyone can do whatever they want and the Republic is dead. What if the President decided that law X really meant something different and just went off and did their own thing?
-
Sorry Michael. Your Jewish Bolshevik ancestry is betraying you. Who are The People? It's not the government's standing Army. It is us civilians. After the comma it says, the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Your next troll attempt will be to throw in Well Regulated. However, you already know that means well equipped, practiced and timed (drilled). In order to do that, THE PEOPLE must posses their own arms.
-
Sorry Michael. Your Jewish Bolshevik ancestry is betraying you. Who are The People? It's not the government's standing Army. It is us civilians. After the comma it says, the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Your next troll attempt will be to throw in Well Regulated. However, you already know that means well equipped, practiced and timed (drilled). In order to do that, THE PEOPLE must posses their own arms.
Anthony, you read me all wrong. I am as firm a firearm supporter as there can be. I do not at all believe in restricting another's rights just because they make you uneasy. Absent a cogent threat firearms do not present a salient danger. Currently the vast majority of firearm deaths (and I suspect injuries, though I haven't any data) come from people firing on those they know. About half of all firearm deaths are suicides. So long as that's the case I absolutely cannot condone any firearm control ordinances. Yes, there are catastrophes like the Pulse Nightclub and Sandy Hook. But those are outliers, and I don't think we should base legislation on outliers.
All that said, the Constitution says what is says and is open to interpretation. Right now I think the standing interpretation sucks, but that's what it is. It could easily get worse, way worse. Why firearm enthusiasts haven't banded together to pass a more straightforward amendment beats me.
I see great danger should the majority of firearm deaths ever become non familiars. At that point there will be a cogent reason for firearm control, and the Constitution gives the means to do so because of its ambiguous wording. Please don't tell me it isn't, it's there in black and white and I've read it just like you. As I said, these are words. Their interpretation is up to us. I would think that the third of the population the owns firearms could easily support and pass an amendment that is more clearly worded and less open to interpretation. I know you think there isn't any ambiguity, but the moment anyone finds some is the moment firearm rights are in danger.
-
I was getting ready to say, I'm pretty sure Michael supports the right to bear arms. I thought I'd remembered that.
-
It all falls back to the Heller decision, in which the justices said that governments couldn't forbid the possession of firearms "in common use", their phrasing, not mine. I think I understand the proviso, I don't think anyone wants highly destructive military weapons in the hands of the general public, at least that's what I'm assuming is behind the phrasing. But what's "common use"? An governmental entity can try and regulate the possession of any firearm by saying it falls outside of "common use". And therein lies the danger.
The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the USA. It is in common use and thus should be protected from any prohibitions under Heller. Yet the leftists still push “assault weapons bans.” Why?
-
The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the USA. It is in common use and thus should be protected from any prohibitions under Heller. Yet the leftists still push “assault weapons bans.” Why?
Two reasons. Leftists tend to be urban and people raised in the city don’t get exposure to guns as useful tools. Most of their exposure to guns is in movies and TV shows where only criminals and military or hero protagonists have guns. When you’re raised this way from birth you know no different. Assault weapons? Why, I can see on TV only mid eastern terrorists use those! You can’t possibly be up to any good with one of those! This is the useful idiot and sheeple position.
Second, the real leftists, the ones driving it ideologically, know damn well they’ll eventually need to disarm the citizenry if they’re going to implement socialism. Because socialism (aka leftism aka communism aka Marxism aka post modernism) requires forcibly taking one’s resources, ultimately at the point of a gun, and you can’t have your robbery victim armed. He might collectively revolt.
-
You gotta love all of the Hollyweird progressives that demand gun control, while making movies and cashing in million$ glorifying gun use.
Hypocrites all.
-
The vast majority of violent crime is committed by inner city Blacks, typically already with felony records where an already illegal handgun is used.
-
The vast majority of violent crime is committed by inner city Blacks, typically already with felony records where an already illegal handgun is used.
Black culture rejects gun ownership, for understandable reasons. During slavery and after, blacks were denied the right to bear arms and any black caught with a gun got in trouble, so parents taught their children to avoid guns and this was passed down through the generations until today. So the law abiding blacks do not own guns and cannot defend themselves against crime. Not only is most violent crime committed by blacks, most victims are also black. Blacks need a paradigm shift in their whole viewpoint; very difficult for them in the cities with their gun control laws, their culture of "guns are bad except on TV" and the mainstream media so very anti-gun.
The salvation of this nation might be in the hands of blacks; if they wake up and start supporting Constitutional values and quit voting for the left. The left knows this; this is why they keep pushing the "conservatives are racist" narrative.
-
You gotta love all of the Hollyweird progressives that demand gun control, while making movies and cashing in million$ glorifying gun use.
Hypocrites all.
Hollywood depiction of guns is downright evil - ALWAYS finger on the trigger. They know better. It's appalling. I hold them responsible for accidental discharges; if you see a gun you pick it up like you've seen it on TV a million times, unless you've been taught otherwise. Proper gun handling should be taught from kindergarten. Hollywood should be made by law to show finger OFF the trigger at all times until someone actually shoots.
-
Hollywood should be made by law to show finger OFF the trigger at all times until someone actually shoots.
This is actually not far-fetched. I believe that California sometime fairly recently (last five years?) came up with a law that demands that porno stars wear condoms when on camera. Interesting parallel with shooting.
Tim
-
Black culture rejects gun ownership, for understandable reasons. During slavery and after, blacks were denied the right to bear arms and any black caught with a gun got in trouble, so parents taught their children to avoid guns and this was passed down through the generations until today. So the law abiding blacks do not own guns and cannot defend themselves against crime. Not only is most violent crime committed by blacks, most victims are also black. Blacks need a paradigm shift in their whole viewpoint; very difficult for them in the cities with their gun control laws, their culture of "guns are bad except on TV" and the mainstream media so very anti-gun.
The salvation of this nation might be in the hands of blacks; if they wake up and start supporting Constitutional values and quit voting for the left. The left knows this; this is why they keep pushing the "conservatives are racist" narrative.
I really disagree with the idea that black culture rejects guns. Through the years I’ve seen many passionate arguments from blacks against gun control extremism. The impression I came away with is that blacks are keenly aware of their need to defend themselves and their families, and as a formerly persecuted class are quite interested in continuing to be able to do so.
-
Black Guns Matter
https://www.facebook.com/blackgunsmattermajtoure/
His mission is to educate (Democrats) in the cities about 2nd Amendment right and the reason behind it. Excellent. He also has some hard words about how Republicans have lost the ability to talk to people in Urban areas and they're probably well deserved.
-
Black Guns Matter
https://www.facebook.com/blackgunsmattermajtoure/
His mission is to educate (Democrats) in the cities about 2nd Amendment right and the reason behind it. Excellent. He also has some hard words about how Republicans have lost the ability to talk to people in Urban areas and they're probably well deserved.
As is this guy: https://blackmanwithagun.com/
-
I really disagree with the idea that black culture rejects guns. Through the years I’ve seen many passionate arguments from blacks against gun control extremism. The impression I came away with is that blacks are keenly aware of their need to defend themselves and their families, and as a formerly persecuted class are quite interested in continuing to be able to do so.
Not the majority; if they really cared they'd not keep voting Democrat. I think things are changing though, I hope so anyway. Historically it was very true, if they were pro-gun they kept their opinions to themselves. It was too risky back when they'd lynch you if you were caught with a gun. Gun control laws were initially for the purpose of targeting blacks. They still are; with the cost of getting permits, restrictions on firearms and ammo driving up prices, this is deliberately designed to make it more difficult for the poor (blacks) to own guns. The inner city Democrat blacks (who aren't criminals or take the risk just to defend themselves against gangs) are just following what came down to them from Grandma "Don't let whitey catch you with a gun."
Gun control laws are RACIST, always have been, still are, and it's brought to us by the left and the Democrats. I pray to God every day that blacks will red pill themselves en masse. People like my friend Kenn Blanchard (blackmanwithagun.com) and the blacks you are talking about who passionately support gun rights have their work cut out for them.
-
I pray to God every day that blacks will red pill themselves en masse.
As long as so many of them are lied to and falsely believe that the Republican party is just a step away from a Klan rally, it will never happen.
-
It stays!!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-says-peace-cross-war-memorial-can-stay
-
As long as so many of them are lied to and falsely believe that the Republican party is just a step away from a Klan rally, it will never happen.
How do we proactively fight that perception? It (the perception) won't go away on it's own and the media surely won't promote the idea that Rs are not a party of bigots but rather a party of self reliance. (or at least it used to be). I personally go out of my way to be kind to blacks. Not in a patronizing way, but in an uncompromising but honest and friendly sort of way.
-
It stays!!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-says-peace-cross-war-memorial-can-stay
Excellent, and nice that it was 7-2. Too bad Ruthie Buzzy and The Wise Latina think that the First Amendment guarantees freedom FROM religion. It should have been 9-0.
-
Excellent, and nice that it was 7-2. Too bad Ruthie Buzzy and The Wise Latina think that the First Amendment guarantees freedom FROM religion. It should have been 9-0.
No arguments from me. But still, 7-2 in this day and age is astounding.
-
Excellent, and nice that it was 7-2. Too bad Ruthie Buzzy and The Wise Latina think that the First Amendment guarantees freedom FROM religion. It should have been 9-0.
Ginsburg is a Far Leftist in the old Bolshevik tradition, and is a known Constitution hater. Sotomayor never met a left wing position she didn't like. I am surprised Kagan didn't vote with them. Evidently, these people have trouble reading words on a piece of paper.