U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-17-2009, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,910,279 times
Reputation: 967

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Even gays.


Constitution isn't fully realized if it doesn't apply to all. If gays want to have a life AS THEIR MAKER CREATED THEM, it's not my place (or anyone else's) to tell them how to live. Further, insist you should have god-like authority over gays, you should concomitantly take direct responsibilty for their lives by chaining yourselves together in perpetuity. I'm thinking you won't like that responsibility part.

Inherently flawed logic to ask any american ciitzen to vote if another american citizen MAY have american citizen rights. Those rights are theirs by virtue of being a citizen. This is a...
1. religous thing- Church doesn't want them there, Clergy are forbidden to perform services, understood. Religious are overstepping boundaries outside the church. Justice of the peace isn't their jurisdiction. There is no patent on marriage to insist proprietary rights. Marriage predates recorded time, word and ceremony. Enjoy your marriage, God bless, yours has nothing to do with theirs. Never did, never will. Be grateful for what is yours, and mind your porch.

2. homophobia thing- Tyranny of the majority isn't something founders embraced, but sought to protect against. "Leave them alone" means it is you who are overstepping boudaries via homophobia and imposing your observed religious law on others outside your faith.

That works for the taliban but not here. Would you force universal religious laws, we'd have to ban pork because that's what jews observe, cows because thats what hindus observe, and all meat because vegans believe it ought to be. Please do continue to observe your religious law in your own life with your own religious community. True christians deeply embrace personal responsibility. Compulsively peeking in others bedrooms makes you a _______?

Back to OP.

You didn't actually see me say a thing about me imposing gun restrictions. You only thought you did because you were gay hot headed leaping gay to wild gay conclusions. Go ahead, find the mirage.

I understand.
GUys always got whacked by the bikini chick with the sawed off shotgun running down her thigh in judgementals. Discernment.
I think you should go re read my first post that got you all twisted up. I said GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN THE AFFAIRS OF MARRIAGE, GAY OR STRAIGHT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO REASON TO BE THERE. That means, no government sanctioned marriage, union, ANYTHING. I would like the government to not support ANY of it, no tax breaks, no telling me who I can and cannot union with. NOTHING! I think you let your mind get clouded when someone posted something with the words government and gay, and went on the defensive. To me, Marriage is a religious issue, not a political one. Marriage is not a constitutional right, never was, never will be. Now, have I stated my opinion clear enough for you?

and on the OP's topic, The only restrictions should be, where one strips the rights of another IE criminal shooting an innocent civilian or committing other criminal acts. This is already law. The framers wanted us to have the same arms as a standard issue military member would have, to think otherwise goes against even the supporting documents to the second amendment, one in which I posted with my original post. Your post hinted at the restriction of standard issue military arms from the general population which would be an infringement of my second amendment rights.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2009, 06:58 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,973 posts, read 24,818,057 times
Reputation: 15600
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Even gays.


Constitution isn't fully realized if it doesn't apply to all. If gays want to have a life AS THEIR MAKER CREATED THEM, it's not my place (or anyone else's) to tell them how to live. Further, insist you should have god-like authority over gays, you should concomitantly take direct responsibilty for their lives by chaining yourselves together in perpetuity. I'm thinking you won't like that responsibility part.

Inherently flawed logic to ask any american ciitzen to vote if another american citizen MAY have american citizen rights. Those rights are theirs by virtue of being a citizen. This is a...
1. religous thing- Church doesn't want them there, Clergy are forbidden to perform services, understood. Religious are overstepping boundaries outside the church. Justice of the peace isn't their jurisdiction. There is no patent on marriage to insist proprietary rights. Marriage predates recorded time, word and ceremony. Enjoy your marriage, God bless, yours has nothing to do with theirs. Never did, never will. Be grateful for what is yours, and mind your porch.

2. homophobia thing- Tyranny of the majority isn't something founders embraced, but sought to protect against. "Leave them alone" means it is you who are overstepping boudaries via homophobia and imposing your observed religious law on others outside your faith.

That works for the taliban but not here. Would you force universal religious laws, we'd have to ban pork because that's what jews observe, cows because thats what hindus observe, and all meat because vegans believe it ought to be. Please do continue to observe your religious law in your own life with your own religious community. True christians deeply embrace personal responsibility. Compulsively peeking in others bedrooms makes you a _______?

Back to OP.

You didn't actually see me say a thing about me imposing gun restrictions. You only thought you did because you were gay hot headed leaping gay to wild gay conclusions. Go ahead, find the mirage.

I understand.
GUys always got whacked by the bikini chick with the sawed off shotgun running down her thigh in judgementals. Discernment.

How did this thread go from what it was to a gay rights agenda? Too many cocktails at the gay bar? Oh I know how, the whole world revolves around the gay agenda now. Even if they only represent an insignificant percentage of the population they scream real loud and attack anyone who doesn't approve so forget whatever you were talking about, if it ain't gay it ain't right!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,982,278 times
Reputation: 687
With some folks, they have to MAKE everything about them. Crazy.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 09:18 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,387 posts, read 8,898,448 times
Reputation: 4070
Default Update...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarthMother1951 View Post
HELENA—Secretary of State Brad Johnson joined the many other Montanans who have weighed in on the DC v. Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. A letter to the editor from Johnson appeared in today’s Washington Times, urging the court to protect an individual’s right to bear arms.

“This is an important issue for Montanans,” Johnson said. “Many of Montana’s elected officials spoke out on this issue; I am proud to be among them.”

The letter can be found at this link.

Johnson’s letter argued that Montana’s agreement with the United States to enter the union included Montana’s constitution at the time, which guaranteed the right of “any person” to bear arms. He urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montana’s Compact with the United States.

Many other elected officials around Montana have concurred in a statement of the same argument, in a bipartisan effort to defend Montanans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. The list of officials, as well as their resolution, can be found at: http://www.progunleaders.org.




Letter from the above link:

Second Amendment an individual right

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state

Helena, Mont.


http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

I might have to consider moving to Montana ESPECIALLY since this was the state that told Washington to *&%^ off with the REAL ID.

Montana people congrats you have leaders in power who have a spine.

You know Washington D.C. is stepping over it's bounds when you have states threatening to withdraw from the Union. If they do I will move there the next day. That's a promise.
Montana talks of leaving the Union over gun rights !

The Heller decision was passed down 9 months ago. It was pro-gun.

You can relax now.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 09:24 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
16,809 posts, read 13,622,772 times
Reputation: 15559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
Great post, the only thing I would change is the

"Our founding fathers gave us our rights,"

and change it to

the founding father recognized that ALL people were given inalienable rights by our creator
I could have phrased it that way, but since I was talking about the Constitution, and not the Declaration of Independence, I decided that the credit should go to a more Earthly source.. The Bill of Rights was put into effect because our Forefathers had suffered greatly at the hands of a powerful central authority, and they wanted to ensure that did not happen to their decendents. Thus,"to ensure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution, for the United States of America". Hey ya'll....we are that posterity! Lets start acting like it shall we! We owe those brave men that much , at least. It is right on the edge of treasonous, to even think about butchering the Constitution, in any way for any reason. Seems that some state governments actually recognize that fact. .

Last edited by NVplumber; 03-17-2009 at 09:25 AM.. Reason: typos
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,910,279 times
Reputation: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
With some folks, they have to MAKE everything about them. Crazy.
my intent was never to go down that path. But simply to state to the person I was responding to, that if inalienable rights which she applied to homosexuals was just that, inalienable. Why would it be ok to restrict second amendment rights, which are all in the same set of Inalienable rights.

our constitution is also a contract between the federal government and the states. It is agreed upon by both governmental agencies as the framework in which to construct the government as a whole. When the federal government decides that it will abide by these rules with the exception of this and that. It makes the contract between the two entities null and void. Why would you stick in say a contract for a job if they said, you have these responsibilities, and then 6 months later come back to add more responsibilities but lower the pay? you would not. Just as Montana has said, if you do NOT follow these rights outlined in the constitution, we are no longer contracted together.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,925 posts, read 13,814,189 times
Reputation: 3441
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post

How did this thread go from what it was to a gay rights agenda? Too many cocktails at the gay bar? Oh I know how, the whole world revolves around the gay agenda now. Even if they only represent an insignificant percentage of the population they scream real loud and attack anyone who doesn't approve so forget whatever you were talking about, if it ain't gay it ain't right!
Actually, per most studies on the topic, as much as 20% of the population is gay. WAAAAY more than most people realise -- because the vast majority of gays live like everyone else, and don't make a big deal about it. Of course just like with racial minorities, there are always a few bigmouths with chips on their shoulders, who aren't happy unless they're making a scene about how downtrodden they are. Meanwhile, all the ordinary normal folk who happen to be gay (or a racial minority, or whatever) are going about their normal lives, and cringing at the negative attention the freakazoids are generating.

Yeah, the loudmouth (of whatever type) often manages to get everyone to give in to his agenda... but that's OUR fault for enabling that behaviour. Unfortunately, politicians listen to the loudest, not the sanest, so we get stuck with special-interest laws like those against "hate speech" and "hate crimes" (and more recently, "animal rights" nuts have taken over that megaphone).

And it does go back to rights. Rights are for all citizens, not just for people YOU like, nor can they be abridged for people YOU dislike. Rights are the same for all, or they're not rights, they're privileges. And special privilege for SOME was one of the things the Founding Fathers sought to prevent.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 11:26 AM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,818,393 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
With some folks, they have to MAKE everything about them. Crazy.
You're quite correct. I'm not gay. I'm presuming I'm talking to other heterosexuals who are having some boundary issues.

The only way gay-- or all this other mishagosh-- is connected to guns; the constitution is to be fulfilled. This means even if you disagree with someone else's choices, you respect their right to live their lives without harassment.

It would appear too many Americans have gotten very confused about what their 'rights' means. Too many believe if they have rights, no one else ought to. Their rights ought to be protected, but no one else's ought to. Their free speech is important, but no one else. They can make a living, but they'll have a scorched earth policy behind them, making sure no one else can make a living. A country of entitled cats pitted against each other with polemic arguments that keep people stuck on stupid.

None of you appear to actually want to engage a word I've said meaningfully. We don't pay the bills of gays, we don't pay their taxes, it's their lives, it's none of our business. Insisting law exclude them from their rights to live makes them less responsible for their own lives and the bill of rights reduced to hypocrisy. Are you willing to pay that price? Shall we have competing factions of government programs to compensate for what should be as simple as leaving them alone?

I don't want to pay for stuck on stupid anymore.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 11:45 AM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,818,393 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
I could have phrased it that way, but since I was talking about the Constitution, and not the Declaration of Independence, I decided that the credit should go to a more Earthly source.. The Bill of Rights was put into effect because our Forefathers had suffered greatly at the hands of a powerful central authority, and they wanted to ensure that did not happen to their decendents. Thus,"to ensure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution, for the United States of America". Hey ya'll....we are that posterity! Lets start acting like it shall we! We owe those brave men that much , at least. It is right on the edge of treasonous, to even think about butchering the Constitution, in any way for any reason. Seems that some state governments actually recognize that fact. .
Something of a misnomer, what people call conservative nowadays. By definition it seeks to preserve. What they're attempting to preserve isn't the constitution, but a tumor of habits people got into as times changed so drastically.

There's a great deal of libertarian ideology I can get behind, but not all of it, and their delivery methods are sorely lacking. I can't register in that party as is. They are in large measure true conservatives. So is ACLU. They mean to realize the constitution fully. This document being as old as it is still isn't in effect 100% as far as I can tell. Are they radical? Yes, in some ways they are. The constitution itself is radical, drafted by liberals.

Guns, gays, blacks, whatever... don't start chit and there won't be chit. The constitution says so-- preserve it, abide it, making sure we're realizing it fully means all liberals, all conservatives, all moderates defend it equally.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 11:47 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
16,809 posts, read 13,622,772 times
Reputation: 15559
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
You're quite correct. I'm not gay. I'm presuming I'm talking to other heterosexuals who are having some boundary issues.

The only way gay-- or all this other mishagosh-- is connected to guns; the constitution is to be fulfilled. This means even if you disagree with someone else's choices, you respect their right to live their lives without harassment.

It would appear too many Americans have gotten very confused about what their 'rights' means. Too many believe if they have rights, no one else ought to. Their rights ought to be protected, but no one else's ought to. Their free speech is important, but no one else. They can make a living, but they'll have a scorched earth policy behind them, making sure no one else can make a living. A country of entitled cats pitted against each other with polemic arguments that keep people stuck on stupid.

None of you appear to actually want to engage a word I've said meaningfully. We don't pay the bills of gays, we don't pay their taxes, it's their lives, it's none of our business. Insisting law exclude them from their rights to live makes them less responsible for their own lives and the bill of rights reduced to hypocrisy. Are you willing to pay that price? Shall we have competing factions of government programs to compensate for what should be as simple as leaving them alone?

I don't want to pay for stuck on stupid anymore.
I unclear as to what you see as a solution to the "problem" you are speaking about. Do you feel the Constitution should be revised to recognize people based on lifestyle or sexual orientation? The Framers did not specifically recognize such things, as such was not considered a qualifying criteria of citizenship. However, they did speak of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in another document than the Constitution. I'm certain the intent of the Costitution be that it apply equally to all citizens of the nation, but I rather doubt they were considering that special consideration be granted any specific group because of lifestyle. By "special consideration" I mean specifically adressing that group by name.
It seems a small thing to just realize that the Constitution DOES apply equally to all citizens, as does the Declaration of Independence when the spoke of "Inalienable rights endowed by our creator" (yes it's a paraphrase but you get the point) and amongst those "rights" are "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That reads pretty broadly to me, and it stands to reason that interferance with an individuals choice of lifestyle could be covered under both documents as being improper, so long as that lifestyle does not deprive anyone else of the same rights. Sounds good to me.........
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top