@hammerogod right, which is why you enforce those laws as much as possible. There are ways around those laws as well that need to be shored up, such as gun shows. Also, those who supply criminals and mentally ill people with guns need to be punished very harshly. There was a case in my town in which a mentally ill person (he had been commited to a hospital for a year then released) was given an ak47 as a present from his father. He went on to use it to kill a police officer. Nuff said.
Here is another question: What is the definition of "Arms"? Is it only about guns? Could my Steak Knife be considered an "Arm"? How about a Baseball Bat? If Guns (the only thing that seems to be at issue when the 2nd amendment is debated) are banned and/or regulated out of existence what "Arm" is next? Golf Clubs? Glue Guns? Anything can be considered an "Arm' if it "Arms" you. A Sewing Needle in the eye is as effective an "Arm" as an Ak-47 is if the intent to do harm is there. Ban Hatred.
@hammerogod Most liberals believe that law abiding, mentally healthy people have the right to own several handguns and shotguns. But liberals are only asking that convicted criminals and mentally ill people be denied guns. Also, there is no need for machine guns. If you are worried about the government overpowering you, guess what? They have nukes, tanks, planes, and the Marines. A machine gun or two wont make any difference. If you need a machine gun to live in peace you are dead already
0:31 - It says "inalienable" Rights in the Declaration, not, as here stated, "individual". The Right to Bear Arms is an Alienable Right. That is, it may be denied one. What is more, it is State Law that supports these Rights, the very of concept of "having a Right" being that an Ability one might exercise is not in contravention of Social Convention to such a degree that those who may object are denied effectiveness under the Law.No Gun Laws were passed into Legislation until after the Civil War
@itsmichaeljohnson actually all animals developed their defenses over times so did the Earth's didn't start w/ an ozone layer & such GOD gave us ingenuity mayb u shuldnt live in a house either
First of all, gun rights are not natural rights, because our "faithful creator" did not "create" "Adam and Eve" with a holster at their sides.
You fucking religious fundamentalists are getting really retarded with this shit. I am pretty sure any person who is a logical thinker would realize that the DOI does not even hint at gun rights, and neither should the constitution.
to answer the question I thnk the rite to bear arms is GOD given.. every animal insect & plant has sum kinda defense mechanism including the earth to protect its self... for all the bible thumpers out there checkout the scripture that says: for everything theres a due season
@Juicelegend No, you are wrong. As I said earlier, "Adam and Eve" were not "created" with holsters at their sides.
WTF? Animals and the earth have defense mechanisms? Yeah, but they arent artificial. DUH!
Are you jealous that the earth can kill you in an instant, so you want to be able to kill someone in an instant too?
Did someone not get enough time with mommy and daddy, so now they are mad at the world? Sure sounds like it to me, especially when comparing gun rights to animal defense. Ha
This argument: Right to keep & bear arms by God or Constitution? God gives Mankind the right to keep & bear arms; self-evident by the governments and wars since time immemorial (beyond memory); but what governments create a ruling class and give themselves, as 1st citizens, the arms, and the 2nd & 3rd class people get nothing, for empowerment. Fascist statement, "I am alive today because arms are banned to the people": Already a lawyer saw bar and entered. God allowed, people dispossess.
What a complete moron! Is this a-hole really suggesting god gave man the right to guns. Does he mean the 'Thou shalt not kill' god? The Repubicans are completely insane.
@drizztmay Most of my arguments are incomprehensible? I've made two arguments: 1) Our rights didn't come from God, and 2) God didn't write the Constitution -- men wrote the Constitution. Our rights came from the men who saw fit to write them in our Constitution. Not God.
In fact, if you really want to get down in the weeds on this, the words "creator" and "god" appear in the Constitution exactly zero times. A "creator" is mentioned only one time -- in the Declaration of Independence.
Weapons are a purely reactionary human response. I find it hard to believe that any creator would specifically intended us to engage in violence in order to defend our selves. Especially from a creator that advocated "turning the other cheek."
What part of , "...endowed by their Creator..." don't you folks understand? Ever read the Federalist papers? The actual words of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson... and the list goes on? Too many of you have been brainwashed by the "progressive" case-law crowd and have done the "living-breathing document" pablum to the point where the Constitution means NOTHING.
@midwestcharm: your creator didnt give u the right to bear arms, as all he had to do was wink & the earth would be flooded & cities would turn to dust
idk about u, but i dont think ur creator 'forgot' to tell jesus to mention ppl should bear arms
"Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among G od's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death," Cornelius reading the Sacred Scrolls from PLANET OF THE APES.
WTF ever happen to separation of church and state? That's the best part about the USA. Not to mention Jesus wouldn't want people bearing arms against each other. This guy is an idiot, and was elected as such! Well done Iowa, good choice.
@baihbalm Nothing was ever said about jesus. Our constitution recognizes rights given to us by our creator, god, or whatever you want to call it. It has nothing to do with church and state, it is much bigger them any religion. I am agnostic and I understand that this question has nothing to do with jesus.
@JahRage So our creator gave us a right to bear arms, what are you talking about? Have you had a conversation with your creator in which he told you that your right bear arms was given to you by him/her/it/whatever. History shows that those who create the most powerful arms do NOT use it for defense, but to conquer and destroy other nations for fiscal gains and survivability. What does killing others for survivability and profits have to do with a creator. Seriously? This is silly.
@baihbalm Our creator gave us the right to defend ourselves silly, do you not agree with that? Your example only furthers my case. The people with the guns or any arms for that matter do not always have your best interest in mind. That is why we all have the right to have them ourselves, to DEFEND our lives and country. Even from our own government.
@JahRage No I don't agree with that friend. You need to separate yourself from society for a week or so. You don't have control, society gives you the illusion that you have control. Even those who have the power will lose it in time. Creators do not give you rights, they give you abilities. You don't have the 'rights' to do shit, you only have the ability to do it, or not. I'm not silly, I just don't understand what a creator has to do with your innate abilities developed over time.
@JahRage Exactly as worded in the dictionary-> Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon. While the concept is fundamental to civilized societies, there is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. You see... legal, social, or moral freedoms. WTF is a moral freedom, nobody can agree to what that is. rights=bullshit, either you can or cannot, simple.
The constitution and our government is a reflection of our values. If you start getting into where "rights" originate, etc. then you're just building a stupid strawman that doesn't mean anything.
Does a mass murderer have the right to life? to bear arms? freedom? Does a child have the right to buy an automatic weapon?
Based on Grassly's views anyone could reasonably argue that the "creator" gives them these rights under any circumstances not the law of the land.
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus: he said we were endowed by our CREATOR, meaning god, to have certain unalienable rights. then he inferred that to mean that it was the CREATOR'S intent & jefferson's too, that those rights meant guns.
grasseley doesnt know the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator w/ certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes." where does this lead to the 2nd amendmt? also, our country didnt go to war on the basis of the 2nd amendmt either.
i guess thepoliticalmoose was too stumped to answer your question & had to respond w/ an insult... typical brainwashed rightwing radio listerner probably
It's amazing, but there are lots of people in this country who believe that the Constitution was scribbled by God on two stone tablets and handed to George Washington, right after Jesus told him not to lie about chopping down the cherry tree.
Every once in awhile these nominess should just say, "Ya know, with all due respect, that question is just so stupid that it's not really worth answering."
@testing88534 - Okay I agree that the right to bear arms is important, but I think the Founders would have chafed at the idea of explicitly stating that everyone SHOULD bear arms, regardless of whether they want to or not. That's kind of like saying the gov't saying that we should buy health care, regardless of whether we feel like doing so.
@JBeatty17 You might be interested in reading about the Second Militia Act of 1792 where every able-bodied male was required to arm themselves and keep a certain amount of ammo and supplies on hand *at their own expense*. The act was passed by the 2nd Congress and signed by George Washington. Granted this wasn't 'everyone', and it's interesting to note the precedent of the federal government requiring citizens to purchase a good/service at their own expense.
@testing88534 This morning, in my house, my arms were bare as was my back. In that condition I vaguely resemble a bear (in the furriness factor). So, does that meet your criteria? Bear arms, bare arms, I'm so confused...
@xxxFaustusxxx - There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" - First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. To claim it doesn't exist demonstrates you have very little knowledge on the subject.
Also, no one is attempting to prohibit you from exorcising your religion.
I was just stating the ACTUAL law and what it said, not an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of the ACTUAL law, which merely states that CONGRESS shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, not that there is a wall between government and religion.
You should try to rent from Netflix "Our Godly Heritage" it is a short documentary about the subject...
Separation of church and state exists whether you agree with the interpretation or not, which refutes your original statement that it doesn't exist.
Also, how about addressing my other points? Many founding fathers opposed Christianity or were deists, treaty of Tripoli, Consitution not mentioning God once, etc...
It exists in precedent & interpretation, by activist judges, not law. The US Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. They writers of the US Constitution, didn't want the federal gov't to pick a national religion, or give priority to one vs. another. Not to remove the 10 Commandments from the walls of a courtroom, which has jack squat to do with making a law.
"In the year of our Lord" is actually in the US Constitution" technically.
I said "technically", so I'm not in disagreement with your statement there.
Law have been based on the 10 Commandments, maybe judges are trying to respect history by pay homage to some of the first recorded laws. Like it or not many of the founders if not all, had some ranging all the way up to much influence from the Bible...it is a part of History too. I'd say it is probably a personal choice of whoever decorated the courtroom.
Primers were based on religion for young children.
@colossus48: u mentioned 'in the yr of our lord' to infer that the constitution was connected to a RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMT, though in the FIRST amendmt, it says it will PROHIBIT itself from doing such
our constitution is not based on the 10 commandmts
ACTIVIST judges have it on their walls to show their ACTIVISM AGAINST the 1st amendmt & the REST of the constitution as it's their way of saying that their OWN RELIGIOUS ESTABLISMT'S CREEDS will supersede that of the constitution
@colossus48: now, if u were an honest xtian, u'd admit that u used that phrase 'in the year of our lord' in order to infer a religious connotation to the constitution or else there'd be no need for u to mention it as it doesnt look like xxxfaustusxxx ever referred to it either.
@colossus48: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" = ACTIVIST judges cant use an establishment of religion to infer his judicial decisions will be based on anything other than the constitution
@colossus48: they arent what? congress isnt the legislative branch? the founders didnt include deists & masonic believers? check the back of ur dollar bill for the masonic symbols.
judges are part of the judicial branch which is PART OF THE GOVT. they cant be ACTIVIST judges like u want that put up CREEDS OF RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMTS to supersede the constitution to which they are to rule in favor of OVER their own personal religious beliefs.
@colossus48: u've read the word 'congress' in the constitutional section referring to the CREATION OF LAWS, cuz CONGRESS is the ONLY branch that can ACTUALLY create laws. duh.
there are VARIOUS sections BECAUSE the constitution LISTS the LIMITED powers of EACH BRANCH. go chk it out for urself if u dont believe me...
if YOUR ACTIVIST judge doesnt like the fact that his emplymt PROHIBITS RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE then he should go be a private rent-a-job instead of getting $ from his GOVT PAYCHECK
@VerbotenDingleberry: the epa & other govt agencies are allowed to fine & tax according to the provisions of the constitution. same way as ur local dept of transportation decides to fine u for parking meter violations. they dont have to go to the city council or state legislature every time they give out tickets or put up more meters.
@colossus48: i mean, he should go be a private RENT-A-JUDGE INSTEAD of getting a govt paycheck - instead of working for an organization of which rules he'll publically flounce
@colossus48: the judges exist to determine if actions were in accordance w/ the law/constitution SOLELY, not to turn around & check out if the actions were in accordance w/ the 10 commandmts hung on the wall behind them.
the 10 commandmts in a GOVT bldg go against the govt's basis that it does NOT favor ANY religion. AND the judges are PART of the govt. that's where they get their PAYCHECKS from - THE GOVT. so they must follow govt dictates since they've got CONSTITUTIONALLY-GRANTED jobs
@colossus48: yes, when in american history, there were sharia-like towns where religious leaders would form tyrannical dictatorships over its populaces thereby denying freedoms & rights at the same time as imposing dictatorial laws & punishmts to all those who simply wanted a choice in religious freedoms & in their personal lives, even when it didnt harm others.
RELIGIOUS CREEDS hung in a GOVT BLDG go against the 1st amndmt cuz it's FAVORING a religious establishmt, whether xtian, muslim, hindu
@colossus48: deists' bible you mean? the masonic bible you mean?
if u knew US history, u'd know there was a reason why the 1st settlers came here -to escape a RELIGIOUS-BACKED GOVT. u'd also know why there were witch hunts/lynchings. u'd also know that there were many small towns controlled by various religious sects that DENIED various freedoms & rights to its citizens.
the founders knew their own history. that's why they didnt want any more religious nuts running govt, small or bit
@colossus48: actually, u'd have to include the actual religious inclinations of the founders, which included deism & masonic belief systems if u believe that religion had an influence in their creation of the constitution.
the majority in some states/counties/townships/villages HAVE ALREADY enacted laws that go against the civil rights & protections (legally & physcially) of those in the minority. the constitutuion/bill of rights were created to protect both the majority AND THE MINORITY
@colossus48: R U SERIOUSLY saying that congress is NOT govt? congress is the ONLY branch that CAN MAKE LAWS - NOT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, which can ONLY INTERPRET LAWS based on the CONSTITUTION -NOT the 10 commandmts.
the conflict lies in the inference that RELIGIOUS CREED will take any preference over CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. that will be a throwback to the pre-constitutional days when small town religious thugs in the US tryannized the masses based on personal beliefs rather than on DEMOCRATIC laws
@colossus48: there is NO LAWFUL STANDING for ANY CREEDS OF ANY RELIGION to be hanging in a SECULAR GOVT BLDG.
THE FIRST AMENDMT refers to 'congress' cuz it states WHICH PART OF THE GOVT MAKES THE LAWS- which is CONGRESS - not the judicial or executive branch...duh..
@colossus48: the 10 commandmts in a courtroom ARE A PERSONAL CHOICE BY AN ACTIVIST JUDGE- since NO CONGRESSS has ever made it a law to have one hung on ANY WALL in ANY GOVT BUILDING
yes, again, if religious reference were used in primers, then that's what the founders knew would lead to small-town thugs/despots/undemocratic, absolute rulers/sharia-type 'kings' ruling over the judicial processes, legislating laws, & governing based on sharia-type laws
Also the Founding Fathers referenced God plenty in their writings, I've heard that statement but never seen any evidence to back it up. However I've seen plenty of evidence to the Contrary.
Tripoli Treaty...that would be the same as saying we weren't founded on the muslim religion and thus aren't using Sharia Law. The wording therein falls in line with the 1st Amendment stating that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
A well known fact is that the majority of the country claim they are Christian, or they believe in God aka it is a Christian Nation, which is what anyone is talking about.
The founders were forming a Constitutional Republic, not a Theocracy, or a Judicial Tyranny for that matter... ;)
@colossus48: the wall betw govt & religion is states in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which means that the govt CANT be tainted by religion, since it says it CANT respect any religious establishmts
No I believe it just states that Congress can't make any law respecting an establishment of religion. Not gov't can't be tainted by religion. Just for clarification, it is pretty easy to determine what it means.
@colossus48: congress is the LAW-MAKING branch of the govt -that's why they call it the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
that means it's stated that it's inherent existance & purpose CANT INFLUENCED OR BE INFLUENCED by religious establishments
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -means that it CANT create laws in favor of nor in denial of religious practice
that's why there's TWO PARTS to that clause. one is PRO, the other is CON
wtf, the Decleration is not the consitution. It hold of course value, but it is in no way a systems of laws and rights :S, It is what they agreed on, so all of us could be happy and free. To tie it to a diety would only restrict the liberty of each individual in the United States of America.
God and Guns, the usual Republican appeal to their base. Obama spoke the truth during the campaign when he said that desperate people cling to them. Republicans use God and Guns as a distraction while they give away the wealth of the country to corporations.
@dylanw26 Sucks that you feel that way, cause if our founders felt the same we would not have a Constitution our the United States :/ And its because of folks like you that our rights are slowly being taking away.
@JahRage Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Our rights are being taken away because I realize that God didn't have anything to do with the founding of our nation? Is that what you're saying? God didn't write the Constitution. In fact there isn't the mention of a god or a creator in the Constitution. If God did write our Constitution, (or at the very least "grant" us our rights), then why did He only give us ten rights in the Bill of Rights?
@dylanw26 Nothing you said here has anything to do with what I said. When exactly did I say our imply that GOD wrote the Constitution or helped form our country? I didn't.
@JahRage Fair point. I guess I assumed that your comment "so government gives us our rights" was a direct response toward my comment that our rights have not come from God. So, apologies if I somehow misunderstood your point.
@JahRage And while I'm thinking about it ... Since God only saw fit to grant us ten rights, then why was it deemed necessary to amend the Constitution an additional 17 times?
@VerbotenDingleberry: age of slavery to the state has been seen in history before. noted examples are countries/small towns where religious leaders of various religions used sharia-type laws to control the populace in their domains
@rumpole33 Which is why the Constitution was necessary AND based (though not exclusively) on Christian principles, namely that God (use any name that makes you comfortable, I'm Buddhist and "God" doesn't bother me a bit) owns us, not other men. Our Rights are unquestionable and their *Origin* is what makes them so (see Bastiat, "The Law" among others). Read it, it's pretty clear.
the 1st amndmt was based on avoiding repeatition of known-history of religious tyranny by powers that be over unprotected masses
the constitution never refers nor infers that god owns us -rather it gives us rights & freedoms for us to decide on our own individual choices for such religious issues so long as it doesnt encroach on another person's choice as well
Anyone who believes the Constitution grants us Rights is not worth my time. You will never understand the problem and thus never arrive at a workable solution.
@VerbotenDingleberry: any self-claimed buddhist who says there's a god that 'owns' us isnt a real buddhist, but using it as fodder for a religious debate.
the constitution does gives us rights. to deny that is disingenuous.
u cant arrive at a workable solution if ur premise is that even something called THE BILL OF RIGHTS isnt connected to ANY RIGHT
@VerbotenDingleberry: i guess your xtian-primary school didnt teach u about US history in which religious tryants ruled small towns/counties inflecting punishments & denying rights to the citizenry, inclding witch hunts, lynchings, stockades, judgements w/o due process, unprotected overpowering control of how ppl should dress, eat, think, practice religion, what day of the wk or hour they had to be in church, shunning, scarlet letters, capital punishmts, etc.
@VerbotenDingleberry: u want sharia-law again? read the scarlet letter. or read about religious persecutions by govts in which ppl like u believed that religion allowed them to deny rights to ppl. not only in the US but in other parts of the world too. there's sharia-countries right now that will chop off body parts or kill women based on them saying what ur saying.. that 'god' owns us, thus 'god' allows for such severe punishmts & controls over the populace
Once again, all you've done is prove Men are flawed and that God is perfect. Do yourself a favor (and the rest of us if you vote) and read The law by Bastiat.
Until then, ponder this; If we ammended the Constitution to make Slavery Legal (again) would that mean those people had no right to their own lives?
Democracy is two Wolves and a Sheep voting on what's for dinner.
@VerbotenDingleberry: so u lied about being a buddhist? how very 'xtian' of u...
there is no god in buddhism. not even siddartha would claim to be a god. u'd know that if u were a real buddhist.
god has nothing to do w/ our constitution. that's just reality. go read it.
re slavery, slaveowners said their right to own & torture other humans were based on god having given whites more rights & superiority over others. they also claimed god in their basis that men had superiority over women.
@rumpole33 You know absolutely *nothing* of my religion. That much is clear. Buddah was asked about the existance of "god". Do you know his answer? Do you understand *why* he would answer as he did?
If you wish to use the law to take my Rights I will be forced to stop you. That's what this is really about; you wanting to use the Government to force your Morality on me at gunpoint. Period.
In your world there are no rights, just laws. Dictators love you guys.
@VerbotenDingleberry: i do know about buddhism, since i had to go to buddhist temple & schools when i was a kid. i still go to buddhist temples for familial events. i've also talked to several buddhist monks/preachers, including one of the highest ones here in los angeles. my own middle name is connected w/ buddhism.
so i know that not one of them would say that there is a 'god' that 'owns' us. nor that this 'god' would be the basis of all our rights.
@VerbotenDingleberry: the buddhist monks/preachers would also say that in this existance, it's man that makes the laws/rights - not any 'god.'
if u have any rights, then ur in luck. the govt will protect ur rights as accorded to by the constitution. if u were in a sharia-country like u want this one to be, then u'd be out of luck, since ur 'right' will be based on the personal beliefs of some religious headman, instead of those decided upon by secular democratic rights.
@rumpole33 What is the speed limit in front of your house? Is it the one posted on a sign or is it 299,792,458 meters/sec? Man makes no Laws, he makes suggestions.
@VerbotenDingleberry: fine, if ur so concerned about speed limits, then go get a ticket & argue to the judge that there is no man-made laws about such traffic violations.... tell them god told u so... and that he's ur lawyer....
@VerbotenDingleberry: ur the troll who thinks buddhism has a god that owns us. and saying man didnt make any laws nor rights to protect us from others subjugating themselves over us for whatever personal beliefs they have.
only a totally ignorant, uneducated redneck, bible-thumping, xtian fundamentalists would make up stuff about even the most basic concepts of buddhism like that
@VerbotenDingleberry: u want this govt to use sharia-laws, which is just based on YOUR morality dictating to others what THEY should believe, regardless of whether it's rational or not. remember it was the church who hunted down galileo who said it was a helio-centered solar system, regardless of all facts proven otherwise. sharia/xtian-laws in such a govt INHERENTLY can NOT use facts/rationale, since it's encoded by a limited set of words in religious texts from a culture 1000s yrs behind us
@VerbotenDingleberry: read the bill of rights & count how many rights u have. those rights are made into laws so that sharia/xtian/religious dictators canNOT take them away from us based solely on those such ppl's personal beliefs
@rumpole33 There are only three rights (one really, the rest follow logically); Life, Liberty and Property. That's the list. Had you read any serious works on this matter you would alredy be familliar with this concept. In demanding these rights for myself I am also demanding them for you.
Personal beliefs have almost nothing to do with this.
I'm not sure why this escapes you but if Men grant you Rights you don't really have any.
@VerbotenDingleberry: if u were in america, u'd know the list was 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness,' but that it's from the decl. of ind. (jly 4th anyone?), not the constitution.
i agree...ur personal belief in a god that 'owns' u & ur personal belief that he/she/it 'owns' the rest of us should have nothing to do w/ the constitution.
man granted u a right not to be sold into slavery. twas the slaveowners' god that told him different.
@VerbotenDingleberry: a sharia-law/religious country is like one BIG hungry wolf w/ 1000s of hungry cubs willing to destroy & eat anybody they consider sheep.... and all this WITHOUT even a vote...
@VerbotenDingleberry: if u were a buddhist, u'd know that there is no such thing as 'ownership' by any god
our rights are not unquestionable. it changes as society changes. that's why the constitution has amendmts added throughout these centuries. that's why we dont have slavery based on the idea that 'god' gave certain races power over others or even genders
the origin of these rights come from man as it's man who struggle to ensure rights for themselves to protect themselves
@VerbotenDingleberry: check out the BILL OF RIGHTS & start counting how many rights u have. and yes, twasnt god coming down w/ his quill pen righting them down. twas man.
hell is a state of mind. u'd know that if u were a real buddhist.
actually, hell is what we have when ppl use religious tyranny to subjugate others & when ppl like u even deny that man can create rights for themselves.
@dylanw26 That's not what the men who wrote the constitution said. Read the Federalis Papers and other original works rather than depend on the bullshit you've been told to believe.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. … Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? "
@VerbotenDingleberry I haven't been told to believe anything ... and if you want to talk bullshit just crack open a bible some time. Let's assume for a moment that your proposition that God has given us our rights is true. Fine. Then how did He do it? Please don't tell me God had a private meeting with Thomas Jefferson ...
@dylanw26 I provided one of a thousand quotes and told you where to look for the answer. And it's *so* simple; If you create something do you not own it?
BTW I'm Buddhist and our idea of God is very different from the Western idea. Another way of thinking about it is that we "own" ourselves (a gift from our "Creator" whoever/whatever that is) and therefor no one else can take our Life or the results of our works.
@VerbotenDingleberry I'm glad you said it's simple, because it is. It's plain as day. However, that doesn't explain how God gave us our rights. How can someone or some thing that doesn't exist create anything? So here's a bigger question: assuming your proposition is true and there is a Creator that created us and gave us our rights, then who or what created the Creator?
@dylanw26 I minored in Philosophy; let's skip the cute High School stuff. You know you can't prove (or disprove) the existance of something outside the Universe. Let's turn this around; if no one created us then how the hell am I here typing this message? More importantly what would be the implication that Man grants Rights? He can then take them away. You good with that? I could sure use your stuff. All I need is the votes to legally kill you and take it?
@VerbotenDingleberry The creation argument is a logical fallacy. Just because I am here does not prove or disprove the existence of a Creator. All it does prove is at one point my parents had indeed fucked. You are absolutely correct about one thing, though. Because Man had granted our rights, Man can just as easily take them away. I'm sure you will agree that the previous administration is an excellent example of that point.
@kakashi76767
The Brady Bill (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) already stipulates everything you mentioned.
It was enacted in 1993.
I could never afford a Machine Gun and never need one.
I have no desire to own or use a Fully Automatic firearm.
All of the things required to keep guns out of the hands of Criminals are already codified into Law.
Why are they not enforceable?
Simple answer...Criminals don't pay attention to the Laws that we Legal, Law abiding, Non-Offenders obey every day
hammerogod 3 months ago
@hammerogod right, which is why you enforce those laws as much as possible. There are ways around those laws as well that need to be shored up, such as gun shows. Also, those who supply criminals and mentally ill people with guns need to be punished very harshly. There was a case in my town in which a mentally ill person (he had been commited to a hospital for a year then released) was given an ak47 as a present from his father. He went on to use it to kill a police officer. Nuff said.
kakashi76767 3 months ago
@kakashi76767
I see your point.
The Laws MUST be enforced.
The last firearm I bought went from the shelf into my hand and out the door after I marked 10 boxes with a "No" and the seller made 1 phone call.
For someone like me that is common and should not surprise or alarm anyone.
However, I wondered how easily my Cousin, who has a history of Mental Illness and Violence, could have done the same thing.
Putting a Check Mark on piece of paper is not the same as a complete background check.
hammerogod 3 months ago
hammerogod 6 months ago
@hammerogod Most liberals believe that law abiding, mentally healthy people have the right to own several handguns and shotguns. But liberals are only asking that convicted criminals and mentally ill people be denied guns. Also, there is no need for machine guns. If you are worried about the government overpowering you, guess what? They have nukes, tanks, planes, and the Marines. A machine gun or two wont make any difference. If you need a machine gun to live in peace you are dead already
kakashi76767 3 months ago
Comment removed
hammerogod 3 months ago
0:31 - It says "inalienable" Rights in the Declaration, not, as here stated, "individual". The Right to Bear Arms is an Alienable Right. That is, it may be denied one. What is more, it is State Law that supports these Rights, the very of concept of "having a Right" being that an Ability one might exercise is not in contravention of Social Convention to such a degree that those who may object are denied effectiveness under the Law.No Gun Laws were passed into Legislation until after the Civil War
Lieu3C4 1 year ago
What a ridiculous question.
plevyman 1 year ago
@itsmichaeljohnson actually all animals developed their defenses over times so did the Earth's didn't start w/ an ozone layer & such GOD gave us ingenuity mayb u shuldnt live in a house either
Juicelegend 1 year ago
First of all, gun rights are not natural rights, because our "faithful creator" did not "create" "Adam and Eve" with a holster at their sides.
You fucking religious fundamentalists are getting really retarded with this shit. I am pretty sure any person who is a logical thinker would realize that the DOI does not even hint at gun rights, and neither should the constitution.
itsmichaeljohnson 1 year ago
This may just be the most retarded fucking cross examination I've ever heard.
According to republicans, the amendments are a result of divine right? What the fuck.
Mewstor151 1 year ago
Freedom vs Group Rights. Ill take my freedom, you all can let the government have you by the throat.
animan360 1 year ago
inalienable, dumbass.
bluescommander 1 year ago
FKN COMMIE NUT JOB!
treon123456 1 year ago
to answer the question I thnk the rite to bear arms is GOD given.. every animal insect & plant has sum kinda defense mechanism including the earth to protect its self... for all the bible thumpers out there checkout the scripture that says: for everything theres a due season
Juicelegend 1 year ago
@Juicelegend Just as long as people don't believe that a weapon is their one and only protection. Instead of understanding that it can protect them.
animan360 1 year ago
@Juicelegend No, you are wrong. As I said earlier, "Adam and Eve" were not "created" with holsters at their sides.
WTF? Animals and the earth have defense mechanisms? Yeah, but they arent artificial. DUH!
Are you jealous that the earth can kill you in an instant, so you want to be able to kill someone in an instant too?
Did someone not get enough time with mommy and daddy, so now they are mad at the world? Sure sounds like it to me, especially when comparing gun rights to animal defense. Ha
itsmichaeljohnson 1 year ago
The question was inane at best, asked by someone who couldn't even be bothered to remember the pertinent quote.
Let's face it, the 2nd amendment was a misguided piece of legislation, enacted at a time far removed from the present day.
If there has ever been a need for a militia to protect the citizens from tyranny it was when the government illegally invaded a sovereign state.
Not a peep from those who purport to speak for the constitution as written.
Bah!
wmg111 1 year ago
This argument: Right to keep & bear arms by God or Constitution? God gives Mankind the right to keep & bear arms; self-evident by the governments and wars since time immemorial (beyond memory); but what governments create a ruling class and give themselves, as 1st citizens, the arms, and the 2nd & 3rd class people get nothing, for empowerment. Fascist statement, "I am alive today because arms are banned to the people": Already a lawyer saw bar and entered. God allowed, people dispossess.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
ah listen to Grassley at :34. He obviously doesn't know what's in the Declaration of Independence. Or the Constitution.
mammers11 1 year ago
VOTE NO...WE DO NOT NEED KAGAN ON THE SUPREME COURT!!!
sellersdr 1 year ago
What a complete moron! Is this a-hole really suggesting god gave man the right to guns. Does he mean the 'Thou shalt not kill' god? The Repubicans are completely insane.
dtorfleming 1 year ago
wow....that guy jus literally made a mountain out of a mole hill....its written so jus follow it
1987Challenger3 1 year ago
@drizztmay Most of my arguments are incomprehensible? I've made two arguments: 1) Our rights didn't come from God, and 2) God didn't write the Constitution -- men wrote the Constitution. Our rights came from the men who saw fit to write them in our Constitution. Not God.
In fact, if you really want to get down in the weeds on this, the words "creator" and "god" appear in the Constitution exactly zero times. A "creator" is mentioned only one time -- in the Declaration of Independence.
dylanw26 1 year ago
OMG WTF?! at :50 he says the constitution isn't the law of the land, what the hell is he smoking???!!!
LightCodeDemonH 1 year ago
@LightCodeDemonH He said the Declaration of Independence. Pass the bong, man! I want to try some of that Willie Nelson too!
SySt3m 1 year ago
Weapons are a purely reactionary human response. I find it hard to believe that any creator would specifically intended us to engage in violence in order to defend our selves. Especially from a creator that advocated "turning the other cheek."
akfak0retlaw 1 year ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus: oh ok.... u were being sarcastic... yes, so i guess i'm not being smart, am i... lol.
rumpole33 1 year ago
What part of , "...endowed by their Creator..." don't you folks understand? Ever read the Federalist papers? The actual words of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson... and the list goes on? Too many of you have been brainwashed by the "progressive" case-law crowd and have done the "living-breathing document" pablum to the point where the Constitution means NOTHING.
musicpad1 1 year ago
GOD FTW
incognito9887 1 year ago
Jefferson's Wall will not be destroyed Mr. Grassley. Keep your religion away from our government.
Diatonic5th 1 year ago
Our Creator gives us the right to bear arms and the Constitution prevents the Government from taking them rights away
midwestcharm 1 year ago
@midwestcharm: your creator didnt give u the right to bear arms, as all he had to do was wink & the earth would be flooded & cities would turn to dust
idk about u, but i dont think ur creator 'forgot' to tell jesus to mention ppl should bear arms
rumpole33 1 year ago
"Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among G od's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death," Cornelius reading the Sacred Scrolls from PLANET OF THE APES.
WinterHaven 1 year ago
@WinterHaven: good quote
rumpole33 1 year ago
God, Guns and hate gays - it's the Republican way. It's like the KKK.
WinterHaven 1 year ago
@WinterHaven Except for that part about the KKK being the muscle behind the democratic party's hustle.
Now they're know as SEIU, AFL-CIO, ACORN, etc.
They also have a propaganda wing that goes beyond MSM known as MediaMatters, Move On, Think Progress, HuffPuff and the Kos.
incognito9887 1 year ago
we all know that the right to bear arms, means the right to hang a pair of arms that came from a bear onto your wall.
Accidente 1 year ago
WTF ever happen to separation of church and state? That's the best part about the USA. Not to mention Jesus wouldn't want people bearing arms against each other. This guy is an idiot, and was elected as such! Well done Iowa, good choice.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Nothing was ever said about jesus. Our constitution recognizes rights given to us by our creator, god, or whatever you want to call it. It has nothing to do with church and state, it is much bigger them any religion. I am agnostic and I understand that this question has nothing to do with jesus.
JahRage 1 year ago
@JahRage So our creator gave us a right to bear arms, what are you talking about? Have you had a conversation with your creator in which he told you that your right bear arms was given to you by him/her/it/whatever. History shows that those who create the most powerful arms do NOT use it for defense, but to conquer and destroy other nations for fiscal gains and survivability. What does killing others for survivability and profits have to do with a creator. Seriously? This is silly.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Our creator gave us the right to defend ourselves silly, do you not agree with that? Your example only furthers my case. The people with the guns or any arms for that matter do not always have your best interest in mind. That is why we all have the right to have them ourselves, to DEFEND our lives and country. Even from our own government.
JahRage 1 year ago
@JahRage No I don't agree with that friend. You need to separate yourself from society for a week or so. You don't have control, society gives you the illusion that you have control. Even those who have the power will lose it in time. Creators do not give you rights, they give you abilities. You don't have the 'rights' to do shit, you only have the ability to do it, or not. I'm not silly, I just don't understand what a creator has to do with your innate abilities developed over time.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@JahRage Exactly as worded in the dictionary-> Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon. While the concept is fundamental to civilized societies, there is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. You see... legal, social, or moral freedoms. WTF is a moral freedom, nobody can agree to what that is. rights=bullshit, either you can or cannot, simple.
baihbalm 1 year ago
What an insane question. Yes, God gave people guns, because that's what Jesus would've wanted?
p00lman 1 year ago
@p00lman
God gave you free will and you chose to be a slave!
BabyJustWin 1 year ago
@BabyJustWin Which god is that? Did he come to the door while I was on the crapper?
p00lman 1 year ago
Another Israeli spy & traitor!
Tressco 1 year ago
The constitution and our government is a reflection of our values. If you start getting into where "rights" originate, etc. then you're just building a stupid strawman that doesn't mean anything.
Does a mass murderer have the right to life? to bear arms? freedom? Does a child have the right to buy an automatic weapon?
Based on Grassly's views anyone could reasonably argue that the "creator" gives them these rights under any circumstances not the law of the land.
oolong2 1 year ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus: u think jesus went around inventing guns? really?
rumpole33 1 year ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus: he said we were endowed by our CREATOR, meaning god, to have certain unalienable rights. then he inferred that to mean that it was the CREATOR'S intent & jefferson's too, that those rights meant guns.
rumpole33 1 year ago
grasseley doesnt know the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator w/ certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes." where does this lead to the 2nd amendmt? also, our country didnt go to war on the basis of the 2nd amendmt either.
rumpole33 1 year ago
so god says no to abortions but yes to guns? oh ok...
lex811117 1 year ago
@lex811117 moron
ThePoliticalMoose 1 year ago
@ThePoliticalMoose god or me?
lex811117 1 year ago
@lex811117: lol@ "god or me?" heheh. good reply.
i guess thepoliticalmoose was too stumped to answer your question & had to respond w/ an insult... typical brainwashed rightwing radio listerner probably
rumpole33 1 year ago
@lex811117: neo-cons want guns to shot at ppl only after they're born. (see dick cheney)
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33 Thats what I am gathering from repubs.
lex811117 1 year ago
uh uh uh uh uh uh u look like a manbear pig, govt is all screwed up
sanchiano 1 year ago
That's right Grassely! I was born with an AK-47 in my hands! What fucking idiot!
wtfoof 1 year ago
So that Creator made you in his benevolent image so that you could pack heat and bust a cap in thine enemies hindquarters?
Can't logic be a precedent for attending these hearings?
extensiblelibrarian 1 year ago
It's amazing, but there are lots of people in this country who believe that the Constitution was scribbled by God on two stone tablets and handed to George Washington, right after Jesus told him not to lie about chopping down the cherry tree.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago 2
Umm, hasn't Grassley ever heard of, "Thou shalt not kill"?
You know, one of the Ten Commandments.
MamoDad 1 year ago
Every once in awhile these nominess should just say, "Ya know, with all due respect, that question is just so stupid that it's not really worth answering."
angusrocks6464 1 year ago 5
Who are these hicks??? They sound like the Taliban...
Francebrasil 1 year ago
My answer, I believe God and the Constitution intended for us to have Bear Arms in every household.
testing88534 1 year ago
@testing88534 - Okay I agree that the right to bear arms is important, but I think the Founders would have chafed at the idea of explicitly stating that everyone SHOULD bear arms, regardless of whether they want to or not. That's kind of like saying the gov't saying that we should buy health care, regardless of whether we feel like doing so.
JBeatty17 1 year ago
@JBeatty17 You might be interested in reading about the Second Militia Act of 1792 where every able-bodied male was required to arm themselves and keep a certain amount of ammo and supplies on hand *at their own expense*. The act was passed by the 2nd Congress and signed by George Washington. Granted this wasn't 'everyone', and it's interesting to note the precedent of the federal government requiring citizens to purchase a good/service at their own expense.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@testing88534 This morning, in my house, my arms were bare as was my back. In that condition I vaguely resemble a bear (in the furriness factor). So, does that meet your criteria? Bear arms, bare arms, I'm so confused...
kaysandesses 1 year ago
- Constitution = supreme law of the United States. God, Jesus, Christianity, not mentioned once.
- Treaty of Tripoli: "U.S is not in any sense a Christian nation"
- Separation of church and state
- First amendment: no establishing of religion
- No religious tests will be required
- Many of the founding fathers opposed Christianity, or were deists.
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago 16
@xxxFaustusxxx - There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" - First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. To claim it doesn't exist demonstrates you have very little knowledge on the subject.
Also, no one is attempting to prohibit you from exorcising your religion.
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx
I was just stating the ACTUAL law and what it said, not an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of the ACTUAL law, which merely states that CONGRESS shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, not that there is a wall between government and religion.
You should try to rent from Netflix "Our Godly Heritage" it is a short documentary about the subject...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48
Separation of church and state exists whether you agree with the interpretation or not, which refutes your original statement that it doesn't exist.
Also, how about addressing my other points? Many founding fathers opposed Christianity or were deists, treaty of Tripoli, Consitution not mentioning God once, etc...
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx
It exists in precedent & interpretation, by activist judges, not law. The US Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. They writers of the US Constitution, didn't want the federal gov't to pick a national religion, or give priority to one vs. another. Not to remove the 10 Commandments from the walls of a courtroom, which has jack squat to do with making a law.
"In the year of our Lord" is actually in the US Constitution" technically.
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: in the yr of our lord is a reference point to the date -NOT RESPECTING any establishment of religion
the 10 commandmts in a courtroom is a PERSONAL choice of an ACTIVIST judge- NOT A DECREE SANCTIONED BY LAW
US foundation/history is BASED on TRYING to get RELIGION OUT OF GOVT
our given freedoms INCLUDE freedom from RELIGION w/ govt backing
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
I said "technically", so I'm not in disagreement with your statement there.
Law have been based on the 10 Commandments, maybe judges are trying to respect history by pay homage to some of the first recorded laws. Like it or not many of the founders if not all, had some ranging all the way up to much influence from the Bible...it is a part of History too. I'd say it is probably a personal choice of whoever decorated the courtroom.
Primers were based on religion for young children.
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: u mentioned 'in the yr of our lord' to infer that the constitution was connected to a RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMT, though in the FIRST amendmt, it says it will PROHIBIT itself from doing such
our constitution is not based on the 10 commandmts
ACTIVIST judges have it on their walls to show their ACTIVISM AGAINST the 1st amendmt & the REST of the constitution as it's their way of saying that their OWN RELIGIOUS ESTABLISMT'S CREEDS will supersede that of the constitution
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
I mentioned that was in there as a technicality, nothing more.
Having the 10 Commandments on the walls of a courtroom is not in conflict with the 1st Amendment, so what are they acting against?
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: now, if u were an honest xtian, u'd admit that u used that phrase 'in the year of our lord' in order to infer a religious connotation to the constitution or else there'd be no need for u to mention it as it doesnt look like xxxfaustusxxx ever referred to it either.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@colossus48: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" = ACTIVIST judges cant use an establishment of religion to infer his judicial decisions will be based on anything other than the constitution
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
A.) They aren't.
B.) Judges aren't Congress, wasn't it you that helped to clarify the different branches of government?
C.) The 10 Commandments hanging on a wall, do not prohibit anyone's free exercise to their own religion.
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: they arent what? congress isnt the legislative branch? the founders didnt include deists & masonic believers? check the back of ur dollar bill for the masonic symbols.
judges are part of the judicial branch which is PART OF THE GOVT. they cant be ACTIVIST judges like u want that put up CREEDS OF RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMTS to supersede the constitution to which they are to rule in favor of OVER their own personal religious beliefs.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
They aren't basing their judgments off of anything other than whatever the law is that the defendant has been said to be in conflict with.
Have you read the term "The Gov't" in the 1st Amendment? I haven't, I've always read Congress, not "The Gov't"...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: u've read the word 'congress' in the constitutional section referring to the CREATION OF LAWS, cuz CONGRESS is the ONLY branch that can ACTUALLY create laws. duh.
there are VARIOUS sections BECAUSE the constitution LISTS the LIMITED powers of EACH BRANCH. go chk it out for urself if u dont believe me...
if YOUR ACTIVIST judge doesnt like the fact that his emplymt PROHIBITS RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE then he should go be a private rent-a-job instead of getting $ from his GOVT PAYCHECK
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
DUR DA DURDUR
DUR DUR DUR DUR DUR DUR
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: yeah, cuz u make the obvious totally oblivious
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
The EPA just "decided" Carbon was a poison and it had to be taxed. And only Congress can make laws? The level of your ignorance is simply staggering.
We're done here...
ROFLMAO!
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: the epa & other govt agencies are allowed to fine & tax according to the provisions of the constitution. same way as ur local dept of transportation decides to fine u for parking meter violations. they dont have to go to the city council or state legislature every time they give out tickets or put up more meters.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@colossus48: i mean, he should go be a private RENT-A-JUDGE INSTEAD of getting a govt paycheck - instead of working for an organization of which rules he'll publically flounce
rumpole33 1 year ago
@colossus48: the judges exist to determine if actions were in accordance w/ the law/constitution SOLELY, not to turn around & check out if the actions were in accordance w/ the 10 commandmts hung on the wall behind them.
the 10 commandmts in a GOVT bldg go against the govt's basis that it does NOT favor ANY religion. AND the judges are PART of the govt. that's where they get their PAYCHECKS from - THE GOVT. so they must follow govt dictates since they've got CONSTITUTIONALLY-GRANTED jobs
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
Dictates huh? You mean from a tyrannical dictatorship?
The 10 Commandments hanging on a wall don't go against anything in the US Constitution.
By the way, I'm done with this madness...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: yes, when in american history, there were sharia-like towns where religious leaders would form tyrannical dictatorships over its populaces thereby denying freedoms & rights at the same time as imposing dictatorial laws & punishmts to all those who simply wanted a choice in religious freedoms & in their personal lives, even when it didnt harm others.
RELIGIOUS CREEDS hung in a GOVT BLDG go against the 1st amndmt cuz it's FAVORING a religious establishmt, whether xtian, muslim, hindu
rumpole33 1 year ago
@colossus48: deists' bible you mean? the masonic bible you mean?
if u knew US history, u'd know there was a reason why the 1st settlers came here -to escape a RELIGIOUS-BACKED GOVT. u'd also know why there were witch hunts/lynchings. u'd also know that there were many small towns controlled by various religious sects that DENIED various freedoms & rights to its citizens.
the founders knew their own history. that's why they didnt want any more religious nuts running govt, small or bit
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
No the Christian Holy Bible.
Majority rules, you have the freedom to pick up and move if you just can't live with how the majority wants the local laws to be...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: actually, u'd have to include the actual religious inclinations of the founders, which included deism & masonic belief systems if u believe that religion had an influence in their creation of the constitution.
the majority in some states/counties/townships/villages HAVE ALREADY enacted laws that go against the civil rights & protections (legally & physcially) of those in the minority. the constitutuion/bill of rights were created to protect both the majority AND THE MINORITY
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
A.) Don't Omit the first word..."Congress" not "the gov't"
B.) As long as a person's free exercise isn't prohibited then there is no conflict...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: R U SERIOUSLY saying that congress is NOT govt? congress is the ONLY branch that CAN MAKE LAWS - NOT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, which can ONLY INTERPRET LAWS based on the CONSTITUTION -NOT the 10 commandmts.
the conflict lies in the inference that RELIGIOUS CREED will take any preference over CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. that will be a throwback to the pre-constitutional days when small town religious thugs in the US tryannized the masses based on personal beliefs rather than on DEMOCRATIC laws
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
Just because they are hanging in the courtroom doesn't mean they have any lawful standing.
Congress is within the whole Gov't but the whole Gov't isn't within the Congress. The Congress is specifically named, not the whole gov't.
And with that I'm truly done.
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: there is NO LAWFUL STANDING for ANY CREEDS OF ANY RELIGION to be hanging in a SECULAR GOVT BLDG.
THE FIRST AMENDMT refers to 'congress' cuz it states WHICH PART OF THE GOVT MAKES THE LAWS- which is CONGRESS - not the judicial or executive branch...duh..
rumpole33 1 year ago
@colossus48: the 10 commandmts in a courtroom ARE A PERSONAL CHOICE BY AN ACTIVIST JUDGE- since NO CONGRESSS has ever made it a law to have one hung on ANY WALL in ANY GOVT BUILDING
yes, again, if religious reference were used in primers, then that's what the founders knew would lead to small-town thugs/despots/undemocratic, absolute rulers/sharia-type 'kings' ruling over the judicial processes, legislating laws, & governing based on sharia-type laws
that's what the founders were AFRAID OF
rumpole33 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx
Also the Founding Fathers referenced God plenty in their writings, I've heard that statement but never seen any evidence to back it up. However I've seen plenty of evidence to the Contrary.
Tripoli Treaty...that would be the same as saying we weren't founded on the muslim religion and thus aren't using Sharia Law. The wording therein falls in line with the 1st Amendment stating that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48
I think we should clarify what exactly we are debating here.
It is my position that the United States is not a Christian nation, nor is it founded on Christianity.
What is yours?
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx
A well known fact is that the majority of the country claim they are Christian, or they believe in God aka it is a Christian Nation, which is what anyone is talking about.
The founders were forming a Constitutional Republic, not a Theocracy, or a Judicial Tyranny for that matter... ;)
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: the wall betw govt & religion is states in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which means that the govt CANT be tainted by religion, since it says it CANT respect any religious establishmts
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
No I believe it just states that Congress can't make any law respecting an establishment of religion. Not gov't can't be tainted by religion. Just for clarification, it is pretty easy to determine what it means.
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: congress is the LAW-MAKING branch of the govt -that's why they call it the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
that means it's stated that it's inherent existance & purpose CANT INFLUENCED OR BE INFLUENCED by religious establishments
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -means that it CANT create laws in favor of nor in denial of religious practice
that's why there's TWO PARTS to that clause. one is PRO, the other is CON
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
...and it doesn't. Due to the 1st Amendment.
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
there's TWO PARTS to it based on the word 'or.'
this phrase means the govt CANT make laws in favor or in disfavor to religious establishments
rumpole33 1 year ago
@colossus48: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
it's a TWO-PARTER so that the phrase & INTENT balances it out.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
Are you going off on tangents that no one is discussing...you are spouting a lot of irrelevance here...concerning anything I've said anyway...
colossus48 1 year ago
@colossus48: if ur going to use ONE-HALF of that phrase, then u shouldnt OMIT the OTHER HALF of it:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
rumpole33 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx
"Creator"
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
wtf, the Decleration is not the consitution. It hold of course value, but it is in no way a systems of laws and rights :S, It is what they agreed on, so all of us could be happy and free. To tie it to a diety would only restrict the liberty of each individual in the United States of America.
10thAngel 1 year ago 2
what the hell did that mean?
gevse 1 year ago
Iowans should be ashamed of this clown.
mammers11 1 year ago
@mammers11 I am ashamed of Chuck.
Ashamed enough that I won't be voting for him come November!
Arabesquian 1 year ago 2
God and Guns, the usual Republican appeal to their base. Obama spoke the truth during the campaign when he said that desperate people cling to them. Republicans use God and Guns as a distraction while they give away the wealth of the country to corporations.
MrCallipygous 1 year ago 2
Hate to break it to some of you, but our rights didn't come from God.
dylanw26 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@dylanw26 So government gives us our rights?
JahRage 1 year ago
@JahRage Yes. Men wrote the Constitution, not God. Our rights (which are really just privileges) came from the men who wrote the Constitution.
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26 Sucks that you feel that way, cause if our founders felt the same we would not have a Constitution our the United States :/ And its because of folks like you that our rights are slowly being taking away.
JahRage 1 year ago
@JahRage Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Our rights are being taken away because I realize that God didn't have anything to do with the founding of our nation? Is that what you're saying? God didn't write the Constitution. In fact there isn't the mention of a god or a creator in the Constitution. If God did write our Constitution, (or at the very least "grant" us our rights), then why did He only give us ten rights in the Bill of Rights?
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26 Nothing you said here has anything to do with what I said. When exactly did I say our imply that GOD wrote the Constitution or helped form our country? I didn't.
JahRage 1 year ago
@JahRage Fair point. I guess I assumed that your comment "so government gives us our rights" was a direct response toward my comment that our rights have not come from God. So, apologies if I somehow misunderstood your point.
dylanw26 1 year ago
@JahRage And while I'm thinking about it ... Since God only saw fit to grant us ten rights, then why was it deemed necessary to amend the Constitution an additional 17 times?
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26
If our rights don't come from the Creator then they must come from Man. Then we can count on you not to object when they're taken back by Man, right?
Good little serf.
Welcome to the Age of Slavery to the State. Thanks for leading us here.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: age of slavery to the state has been seen in history before. noted examples are countries/small towns where religious leaders of various religions used sharia-type laws to control the populace in their domains
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33 Which is why the Constitution was necessary AND based (though not exclusively) on Christian principles, namely that God (use any name that makes you comfortable, I'm Buddhist and "God" doesn't bother me a bit) owns us, not other men. Our Rights are unquestionable and their *Origin* is what makes them so (see Bastiat, "The Law" among others). Read it, it's pretty clear.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: it wasnt based on xtian principles or any other religion
the 1st amndmt was based on avoiding repeatition of known-history of religious tyranny by powers that be over unprotected masses
the constitution never refers nor infers that god owns us -rather it gives us rights & freedoms for us to decide on our own individual choices for such religious issues so long as it doesnt encroach on another person's choice as well
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
Anyone who believes the Constitution grants us Rights is not worth my time. You will never understand the problem and thus never arrive at a workable solution.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: any self-claimed buddhist who says there's a god that 'owns' us isnt a real buddhist, but using it as fodder for a religious debate.
the constitution does gives us rights. to deny that is disingenuous.
u cant arrive at a workable solution if ur premise is that even something called THE BILL OF RIGHTS isnt connected to ANY RIGHT
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
I blame public "education". Enjoy your serfdom.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: i guess your xtian-primary school didnt teach u about US history in which religious tryants ruled small towns/counties inflecting punishments & denying rights to the citizenry, inclding witch hunts, lynchings, stockades, judgements w/o due process, unprotected overpowering control of how ppl should dress, eat, think, practice religion, what day of the wk or hour they had to be in church, shunning, scarlet letters, capital punishmts, etc.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: u want sharia-law again? read the scarlet letter. or read about religious persecutions by govts in which ppl like u believed that religion allowed them to deny rights to ppl. not only in the US but in other parts of the world too. there's sharia-countries right now that will chop off body parts or kill women based on them saying what ur saying.. that 'god' owns us, thus 'god' allows for such severe punishmts & controls over the populace
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
ROFLMAO.
Once again, all you've done is prove Men are flawed and that God is perfect. Do yourself a favor (and the rest of us if you vote) and read The law by Bastiat.
Until then, ponder this; If we ammended the Constitution to make Slavery Legal (again) would that mean those people had no right to their own lives?
Democracy is two Wolves and a Sheep voting on what's for dinner.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: so u lied about being a buddhist? how very 'xtian' of u...
there is no god in buddhism. not even siddartha would claim to be a god. u'd know that if u were a real buddhist.
god has nothing to do w/ our constitution. that's just reality. go read it.
re slavery, slaveowners said their right to own & torture other humans were based on god having given whites more rights & superiority over others. they also claimed god in their basis that men had superiority over women.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33 You know absolutely *nothing* of my religion. That much is clear. Buddah was asked about the existance of "god". Do you know his answer? Do you understand *why* he would answer as he did?
If you wish to use the law to take my Rights I will be forced to stop you. That's what this is really about; you wanting to use the Government to force your Morality on me at gunpoint. Period.
In your world there are no rights, just laws. Dictators love you guys.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: i do know about buddhism, since i had to go to buddhist temple & schools when i was a kid. i still go to buddhist temples for familial events. i've also talked to several buddhist monks/preachers, including one of the highest ones here in los angeles. my own middle name is connected w/ buddhism.
so i know that not one of them would say that there is a 'god' that 'owns' us. nor that this 'god' would be the basis of all our rights.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: the buddhist monks/preachers would also say that in this existance, it's man that makes the laws/rights - not any 'god.'
if u have any rights, then ur in luck. the govt will protect ur rights as accorded to by the constitution. if u were in a sharia-country like u want this one to be, then u'd be out of luck, since ur 'right' will be based on the personal beliefs of some religious headman, instead of those decided upon by secular democratic rights.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33 What is the speed limit in front of your house? Is it the one posted on a sign or is it 299,792,458 meters/sec? Man makes no Laws, he makes suggestions.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: fine, if ur so concerned about speed limits, then go get a ticket & argue to the judge that there is no man-made laws about such traffic violations.... tell them god told u so... and that he's ur lawyer....
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33 Ah, I get now; you're a Troll. You're purposely being obtuse (no one is really this stupid). OK, we're done. See you at the polls...
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: ur the troll who thinks buddhism has a god that owns us. and saying man didnt make any laws nor rights to protect us from others subjugating themselves over us for whatever personal beliefs they have.
only a totally ignorant, uneducated redneck, bible-thumping, xtian fundamentalists would make up stuff about even the most basic concepts of buddhism like that
rumpole33 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: u want this govt to use sharia-laws, which is just based on YOUR morality dictating to others what THEY should believe, regardless of whether it's rational or not. remember it was the church who hunted down galileo who said it was a helio-centered solar system, regardless of all facts proven otherwise. sharia/xtian-laws in such a govt INHERENTLY can NOT use facts/rationale, since it's encoded by a limited set of words in religious texts from a culture 1000s yrs behind us
rumpole33 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: read the bill of rights & count how many rights u have. those rights are made into laws so that sharia/xtian/religious dictators canNOT take them away from us based solely on those such ppl's personal beliefs
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33 There are only three rights (one really, the rest follow logically); Life, Liberty and Property. That's the list. Had you read any serious works on this matter you would alredy be familliar with this concept. In demanding these rights for myself I am also demanding them for you.
Personal beliefs have almost nothing to do with this.
I'm not sure why this escapes you but if Men grant you Rights you don't really have any.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: if u were in america, u'd know the list was 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness,' but that it's from the decl. of ind. (jly 4th anyone?), not the constitution.
i agree...ur personal belief in a god that 'owns' u & ur personal belief that he/she/it 'owns' the rest of us should have nothing to do w/ the constitution.
man granted u a right not to be sold into slavery. twas the slaveowners' god that told him different.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: a sharia-law/religious country is like one BIG hungry wolf w/ 1000s of hungry cubs willing to destroy & eat anybody they consider sheep.... and all this WITHOUT even a vote...
rumpole33 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: if u were a buddhist, u'd know that there is no such thing as 'ownership' by any god
our rights are not unquestionable. it changes as society changes. that's why the constitution has amendmts added throughout these centuries. that's why we dont have slavery based on the idea that 'god' gave certain races power over others or even genders
the origin of these rights come from man as it's man who struggle to ensure rights for themselves to protect themselves
rumpole33 1 year ago
@rumpole33
So then, you propose that Rights come from Man? So man can take them at will.
Welcome to Hell, brother. Enjoy your stay.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry: check out the BILL OF RIGHTS & start counting how many rights u have. and yes, twasnt god coming down w/ his quill pen righting them down. twas man.
hell is a state of mind. u'd know that if u were a real buddhist.
actually, hell is what we have when ppl use religious tyranny to subjugate others & when ppl like u even deny that man can create rights for themselves.
rumpole33 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry Yes. Our rights came from the men who wrote the Constitution. God didn't write the Constitution.
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26 -- Source?
the82spartans 1 year ago
@the82spartans You need a citation to determine whether or not our rights have in fact come from God?
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26 That's not what the men who wrote the constitution said. Read the Federalis Papers and other original works rather than depend on the bullshit you've been told to believe.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. … Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? "
- Thomas Jefferson
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry I haven't been told to believe anything ... and if you want to talk bullshit just crack open a bible some time. Let's assume for a moment that your proposition that God has given us our rights is true. Fine. Then how did He do it? Please don't tell me God had a private meeting with Thomas Jefferson ...
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26 I provided one of a thousand quotes and told you where to look for the answer. And it's *so* simple; If you create something do you not own it?
BTW I'm Buddhist and our idea of God is very different from the Western idea. Another way of thinking about it is that we "own" ourselves (a gift from our "Creator" whoever/whatever that is) and therefor no one else can take our Life or the results of our works.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry I'm glad you said it's simple, because it is. It's plain as day. However, that doesn't explain how God gave us our rights. How can someone or some thing that doesn't exist create anything? So here's a bigger question: assuming your proposition is true and there is a Creator that created us and gave us our rights, then who or what created the Creator?
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26 I minored in Philosophy; let's skip the cute High School stuff. You know you can't prove (or disprove) the existance of something outside the Universe. Let's turn this around; if no one created us then how the hell am I here typing this message? More importantly what would be the implication that Man grants Rights? He can then take them away. You good with that? I could sure use your stuff. All I need is the votes to legally kill you and take it?
Think Harder.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry The creation argument is a logical fallacy. Just because I am here does not prove or disprove the existence of a Creator. All it does prove is at one point my parents had indeed fucked. You are absolutely correct about one thing, though. Because Man had granted our rights, Man can just as easily take them away. I'm sure you will agree that the previous administration is an excellent example of that point.
dylanw26 1 year ago
@dylanw26
"...the previous administration...", Ah, I get it now.
ROFLMAO! Whatever dude.
I'm glad you have all the answers and I hope all your wishes come true.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
@VerbotenDingleberry I never claimed to have all of the answers, I just simply pointed out the obvious.
dylanw26 1 year ago