Gun Control......

[AllieBaba]

The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit a national religion and the Second Amendment does nothing more than protect a national, or collective, right to keep and bear arms.

Or, rather, the first amendment provides individuals the right to worship as they please, and to maintain arms.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

Or, rather, the first amendment provides individuals the right to worship as they please, and to maintain arms.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

The Government arrested them for taking it ACROSS state lines.

So???

 

[Gunny]

Or, rather, the first amendment provides individuals the right to worship as they please, and to maintain arms.

Oh? There's a new First Amendment? One that allows me to worship as I please AND TO MAINTAIN ARMS?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

So???

Look retard, keep up with the thread or don't post your ignorant crap. I am not going to explain to you what is in black and white in this thread already. LEARN to read and comprehend the written word.

This is gonna be another one of your " you don't have to do it." followed by " I never said that" lines isn't it you dumb shit?

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt has babbloniously blustered:

Look retard, keep up with the thread or don't post your ignorant crap. I am not going to explain to you what is in black and white in this thread already. LEARN to read and comprehend the written word.

This is gonna be another one of your " you don't have to do it." followed by " I never said that" lines isn't it you dumb shit?

And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is what would happen. These kinds of people are so predictable. They thrive on making bold and sweeping generalizations, but when called upon the carpet to examine into their ranting, the foundation crumbles, along with their veracity; and, we find that their equivocations are just that; just blowing smoke and eating crow; and enjoying their favorite dish: SMOKED CROW

 

[Glimmer Twins]

t is...nonsense to suggest that the lawmakers gave the government general power over religion in the original unamended Constitution.

It may have been an incorrect interpretation, but it wasn't nonsense. Many people, including at least one who actually helped framed it, believed the no religious test clause implied that the government had general power over religion.

In a February 29, 1788 letter to James Madison, Edmund Randolph, who became the first Attorney General of the United States, wrote, Does not this exception as to a religious test imply that the Congress, by the general words, has power over religion?

During the Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Federal Constitution, Edmund Randolph, who was a delegate to the general convention that framed the Constitution, made a speech that contained the follow remarks regarding "the [Constitution's] exclusion of the religious test" as "an exception from the general power of Congress [over religion]"

Freedom of religion is said to be in danger. I will candidly say, I once thought that it was, and felt great repugnance to the Constitution for that reason. I am willing to acknowledge my apprehensions removed; and I will inform you by what process of reasoning I did remove them. The Constitution provides that "the senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It has been said that, if the exclusion of the religious test were an exception from the general power of Congress, the power over religion would remain. I inform those who are of this opinion, that no power is given expressly to Congress over religion. The senators and representatives, members of the state legislatures, and executive and judicial officers, are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution. This only binds them to support it in the exercise of the powers constitutionally given it. The exclusion of religious tests is an exception from this general provision, with respect to oaths or affirmations. Although officers, &c., are to swear that they will support this Constitution, yet they are not bound to support one mode of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect. It puts all sects on the same footing. A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States! How many different sects will be in Congress! We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in Congress! And there are now so many in the United States, that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America? If Congress should be as wicked as we are foretold they will be, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most, of the religious sects in America.

-- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution ;Elliot's Debates, Volume 3; Tuesday, June 10, 1788.​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt has babbloniously blustered:

And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is what would happen. These kinds of people are so predictable. They thrive on making bold and sweeping generalizations, but when called upon the carpet to examine into their ranting, the foundation crumbles, along with their veracity; and, we find that their equivocations are just that; just blowing smoke and eating crow; and enjoying their favorite dish: SMOKED CROW

Your ignorance is astounding. You can not even keep up with a simple thread like this, do explain to us how your stupidity is someone else's fault you moron.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt has cacophoniously cackled

Your ignorance is astounding. You can not even keep up with a simple thread like this, do explain to us how your stupidity is someone else's fault you moron.

Was that a SNIVEL???

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt has cacophoniously cackled

Was that a SNIVEL???

Go away troll. Or actually discuss whats being discussed you fucking retard.

 

[indago]

Ol' Eatmor Crow has sanctimoniously sassed:

Go away troll. Or actually discuss whats being discussed you fucking retard.

Oooooo! Touchy touchy, did we touch a little nerve there, did we? Maybe another Dish'OCrow would help, you know, your favorite: SMOKED CROW...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ol' Eatmor Crow has sanctimoniously sassed:

Oooooo! Touchy touchy, did we touch a little nerve there, did we? Maybe another Dish'OCrow would help, you know, your favorite: SMOKED CROW...

You have nothing, that would be why you are trolling. You have no input on the issue so instead make ignorant personal attacks just because your a retard. Keep proving how stupid you are.

 

[indago]

Ol' Eatmor Crow has churlishly chortled

You have nothing, that would be why you are trolling. You have no input on the issue so instead make ignorant personal attacks just because your a retard. Keep proving how stupid you are.

"Look retard, keep up with the thread or don't post your ignorant crap. ...you dumb shit?"

Well, looky here what I found: an "ignorant personal attack". Let's see, who did post this tripe; ah, yes; it was Ol' Eatmor Crow who began this diatribe.

And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is what would happen; so predictable. Ol' Eatmor Crow thrives on making these bold and sweeping generalizations, but when called upon the carpet to examine into his ranting, the foundation crumbles, along with his veracity; and, we find that his equivocations are just that; just blowing smoke and eating crow; and enjoying more of his favorite dish: SMOKED CROW



-

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ol' Eatmor Crow has churlishly chortled

"Look retard, keep up with the thread or don't post your ignorant crap. ...you dumb shit?"

Well, looky here what I found: an "ignorant personal attack". Let's see, who did post this tripe; ah, yes; it was Ol' Eatmor Crow who began this diatribe.

And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is what would happen; so predictable. Ol' Eatmor Crow thrives on making these bold and sweeping generalizations, but when called upon the carpet to examine into his ranting, the foundation crumbles, along with his veracity; and, we find that his equivocations are just that; just blowing smoke and eating crow; and enjoying more of his favorite dish: SMOKED CROW



-

You have yet to learn how the quote system works and have YET to actually address anything on substance in this thread. You are a troll and cockroach , around my parts we stomp on your type as fast as we find them.

Your entire participation here as been one personal attack after another, you have not addressed anything of substance yet, when given the hint to do so you just continued your personal attacks. You are a waste of space. I suspect the better part of you was left in the bed sheet your daddy used to strain you threw.

 

[indago]

Ol' Eatmor Crow has pompously pontificated

Your entire participation here as been one personal attack after another, you have not addressed anything of substance... (and other and sundry aberrations, ramifications, fixations, lamentations, hallucinations, and incantations)

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you are rambling; conjuring up a hero image of yourself, and deluding upon surreal occurrences. You really should seek help; and, it is only a few mouseclicks away; the PSYCHIATRY section on the internet. There you can sit down and have a nice, quiet chat with the men in the white coats while dining on tears and crow, and you can delude yourself into believing that it is white wine and escargot.

 

[LOki]

It may have been an incorrect interpretation, but it wasn't nonsense. Many people, including at least one who actually helped framed it, believed the no religious test clause implied that the government had general power over religion.

In a February 29, 1788 letter to James Madison, Edmund Randolph, who became the first Attorney General of the United States, wrote, Does not this exception as to a religious test imply that the Congress, by the general words, has power over religion?

During the Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Federal Constitution, Edmund Randolph, who was a delegate to the general convention that framed the Constitution, made a speech that contained the follow remarks regarding "the [Constitution's] exclusion of the religious test" as "an exception from the general power of Congress [over religion]"

Freedom of religion is said to be in danger. I will candidly say, I once thought that it was, and felt great repugnance to the Constitution for that reason. I am willing to acknowledge my apprehensions removed; and I will inform you by what process of reasoning I did remove them. The Constitution provides that "the senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It has been said that, if the exclusion of the religious test were an exception from the general power of Congress, the power over religion would remain. I inform those who are of this opinion, that no power is given expressly to Congress over religion. The senators and representatives, members of the state legislatures, and executive and judicial officers, are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution. This only binds them to support it in the exercise of the powers constitutionally given it. The exclusion of religious tests is an exception from this general provision, with respect to oaths or affirmations. Although officers, &c., are to swear that they will support this Constitution, yet they are not bound to support one mode of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect. It puts all sects on the same footing. A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States! How many different sects will be in Congress! We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in Congress! And there are now so many in the United States, that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America? If Congress should be as wicked as we are foretold they will be, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most, of the religious sects in America.

-- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution ;Elliot's Debates, Volume 3; Tuesday, June 10, 1788.​

The "religion test" is not a part of the 1st Amendment. Go ahead, check it out.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

The "religion test" is not a part of the 1st Amendment. Go ahead, check it out.

I thought the issue was whether it was nonsense for some to read the no religious test clause in the proposed Constitution to imply that the government had general power over religion.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

One error would be that shotguns, including short barreled ones can be argued to have been used especially in trench warfare. But that is fine, the ruling is reasonable. It allows the Government reasonable restrictions on WHAT one can own, but does not allow banning of weapons that are "military" in nature, as in the so called old Assault Weapon ban that specifically banned MILITARY style weapons.

Where did the lawmakers grant the U. S. Government any authority whatsoever over "arms" or "weapons?"

 

[Glimmer Twins]

Has anyone ever heard a liberal justify federalized abortion "rights" based on a technical reading of the Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--Ninth Amendment
​

Under the common law at the time the Constitution was made there was a right to abortion up until the "quickening."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where did the lawmakers grant the U. S. Government any authority whatsoever over "arms" or "weapons?"

They have, as in the case of all "rights" the power to control it in the interest of safety and implementation. Or are you now going to argue you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater and not be charged with a crime? Every right has limits. In the case of weapons the limits apply to interstate travel and in some cases license requirements.

You may want to check out the Weaver case, the Federal Government tried to rail road him on sawed off shotguns and failed. He never crossed a State line and was tricked into making it.