Maybe we need a new Constitutional Convention.

Schools can rent the building to a Church on a Saturday, but promoting prayer should not happen.
 
Yurt said:
it is not a strawman, i never claimed anyone argued this. it is a logical conclusion and threshhold upon with which we can fully discuss which arms you believe the government should not infringe upon your right to carry...

i think it makes a mockery of the 2nd amendmnet to claim that suitcase nukes deserve 2nd amendment protection....such weapons of mass destruction were not contemplated by the founders and you know it
Click to expand...

They couldn't foresee the power of corporations and television either, but you're a strict constitutionalist when it comes to free speech for corporations, protecting their right to buy elections.
 
Yurt said:
it is not a strawman, i never claimed anyone argued this. it is a logical conclusion and threshhold upon with which we can fully discuss which arms you believe the government should not infringe upon your right to carry...

i think it makes a mockery of the 2nd amendmnet to claim that suitcase nukes deserve 2nd amendment protection....such weapons of mass destruction were not contemplated by the founders and you know it
Click to expand...

putting aside the 'not contemplated' argument (because I dont' think it mattered to the founders anyway), my position is absolute because the millisecond you agree that 'yeah, nukes should not be allowed', you fall in to the trap of 'then reasonable regulation is necessary'. Then we get to spend years and years fighting over whether machine guns, saturday nite specials, urban environments, total bans, and licensing schemes........

i'm simply not up for that because there will always be the statists and totalitarianists that want to disarm me.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
is freedom and liberty not a concern now then?
Click to expand...

No it is a serious concern and its one side of the reasonableness equasion.

Just like when Bush promoted warrentless wire taps.... One side was freedom and liberty while the other was governments interest in providing for our safety!
 
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."

William Jefferson Clinton
Click to expand...

This is the eventuality when we allow governments and nanny staters to have power. Their sole purpose is to limit and/or remove our freedom. Will you let them?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
putting aside the 'not contemplated' argument (because I dont' think it mattered to the founders anyway), my position is absolute because the millisecond you agree that 'yeah, nukes should not be allowed', you fall in to the trap of 'then reasonable regulation is necessary'. Then we get to spend years and years fighting over whether machine guns, saturday nite specials, urban environments, total bans, and licensing schemes........

i'm simply not up for that because there will always be the statists and totalitarianists that want to disarm me.
Click to expand...

fair enough, but you realize the advocacy of such a plan could put suitcase nukes in all our hands....
 
AssHatZombie said:
They couldn't foresee the power of corporations and television either, but you're a strict constitutionalist when it comes to free speech for corporations, protecting their right to buy elections.
Click to expand...

No I am not... I belive in some regulation in those areas.
 
AssHatZombie said:
too much of a stretch. you're a fool and you know it.
Click to expand...

I dont belive so, if the government makes a law that provides for the reconisition of an establishment of religen..... even if that was not the intent... I believe they have "made a law"!
 
Lets go one by one...

Amendment I

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

The first, and likely the most important in the mind of those who made it the first...

Is this absolute? Can fed. government funding be used to promote prayer in school?
 
Jarod said:
Lets go one by one...

Amendment I

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

The first, and likely the most important in the mind of those who made it the first...

Is this absolute? Can fed. government funding be used to promote prayer in school?
Click to expand...



What is promote? Is allowing christians to pray at recess promotion?
 
AssHatZombie said:
What is promote? Is allowing christians to pray at recess promotion?
Click to expand...

I would say that allowing them to pray is not promoting but allowing for the free exersize thereof, but pushing or suggesting that they pray is promoting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top