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
We just need reasonableness to prevail...
We need reasonable restrictions on these "absolute" rights. The world is a dfferent place than it was in 1776.
Suitcase nukes were not a concern then.
Schools can rent the building to a Church on a Saturday, but promoting prayer should not happen.
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
how is that a law?
is freedom and liberty not a concern now then?
"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
Its not a law, but the funding of the Public schools is, and by extension all that is done by that funding "law" is part of that law.
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.
fair enough, but you realize the advocacy of such a plan could put suitcase nukes in all our hands....
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.
too much of a stretch. you're a fool and you know it.
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"!
Recognition, dont be obtuse, you knew the intent.
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?
What is promote? Is allowing christians to pray at recess promotion?
let me ask you something real quick. Do you believe in the framers vision of freedom in america?