In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I will not stand by while these PC, ACLU-card carrying, liberal, gun-grabbing, history rewriting, socialism promoting, moraless, unethical morons try to push their religion of anti-religion on America.
Yes you will, kingjoey...and for the same reason you'll remove your shoes and socks for airport security and pay taxes to provide health benefits to illegal immigrants...because YOUR government says YOU damn well better.
Chief Justice Roy Moore doomed the presence of the monument with his own statements on camera....had he made the arguement that it was an "Object of Historical significance", the tablets would probably still be there. He was offered legal counsul on how to approach this, but he refused.
Moore on the other hand used the occasion to make a series of religious statements that clearly indicated this to be a statement of his faith/beliefs in a public building.
Interesting enough, Gallup polls now are showing over 70% of people surveyed oppose the removal of the monument.
Yep, the gov't used to say that you had to quarter troops and pay taxes on sugar, stamp, and tea as well. Look what that got them. I'd sooner give this country back to the British than see it in the hands of the selfish and humanistic morons. A concept of a higher power and a general idea of right and wrong is not forced by the Constitution, but when you take those concepts out of the equation and everyone does what they think is right and considers themselves more important than all else then you lose the goal of maintaining the common good and having any sort of unity, stability or justice. Yep, that's all worthless though right? We need kids growing up without any moral upbringing, believing that they deserve everything and are above reproach or punishment. We need to ignore the 99% so that the 1% can call the shots. If we spent as much time raising our kids and helping our fellow man as we do trying to be PC or moving monuments we'd have a much better country for people of all beliefs. Everyone is out to further their own selfish agendas rather than further the good of brother and country which disrupts any chances of Americans remaining "United". I'm tired of people identifying themselves as Hispanic-Americans or African-Americans or even as the "far-right". To my fellow Americans and neighbors I am an American first which means I strive to maintain what this country stands for. I am a Christian/Mixed Ancestry/Conservative/Gun Owning/ Taxpaying/Voting citizen second which means I use my knowledge, means, and resources therein to promote the beliefs of the first. I don't condemn atheism or any other religion, but I will use whichever amendment I see fit to ensure that we all have the right to believe what we want. I have been avoiding flying for just these reasons, why should I support an industry that is aiding the violation of the rights guaranteed me? I will fly if I must, but the day I get strip-searched or held without a warrant will be the day I exercise my 1st Amendment rights to demonstrate against this injustice. If the gov't chooses to keep pissing on its constituents injustly then it'll be time to throw some tea in the harbor[;)]
Love them Beavers
SUPPORT THE I.N.S. , THE COUNTRY THEY SAVE COULD BE YOUR OWN
If we never had people like Judge Moore we might not have ever had a revolution and still be under British rule. Our forefathers who fought in the Revolutionary War for what they believed in were thought to be wrong by the majority of the colonists. If we had lost many of them would have hung. You have to admire a person that stands up for values and principles at the risk of losing his position as Chief Justice of his state.
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, not liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin, 1785
Go Blackiebooger! You are correct. I'm amazed at the anti God nuts in GunBroker discussion, don't they realize the christians are their only hope for the any gun rights at all.
Life was dam good in the past (before political correctness). Sounds to me like a whole bunch of you are not even in the right church here at gun broker! I think a big bunch of you would fit in nicely working for the ACLU.
I have listened to an awful lot of talking heads on the news channels pontificate on this offering their opinions. Just finished writing to Britt Hume at Fox asking when one of them was going to get around to looking at the Constitution and then read what the 90 men who wrote the First Amendment had to say about its meaning and then what type of laws they erected in their home state after drafting this amendment.
If they did, they would learn that:
The First Amendment was written to protect religious practices of the
people of the states. The Founders recognized that each of the 13 states was dominated by particular Christian denominations. The First Amendment states that the Congress cannot erect a national religion and force people to pay taxes to it as was/is the case in England. But, and don't take my word for it, read the Founders, they stated that this was not to be taken as a barrier against promoting Christianity in general which they most certainly did. The First Amendment, because they knew that Christian denominations were regional, was drafted to prevent factional disputes, took the national government out of the realm of being capable of favoring one Christian denomination over another. In short, the national government cannot interefere with the religious practices of the states or people (Thomas Jefferson reitterated this as well). Only Congress can make law and if they are forbidden by the Constitution to interfere with religion, which they are, then the Supreme Court has no role whatsoever in this issue. They can make no ruling with respect to Judge Moore of Alabama. In addition, no one has brought up how the Founders defined religion. They considered Christianity the only true religion hence when they say religion that is what they mean. For those who disagree, think about this:
1. Have you read what the Founders said and not those of us offering
opinions?
2. Could you oppose this because you oppose religion and or Christians
in general?
The first know what they need to do. The latter, you have to consider that you are supporting an unconstitutional interpretation of the Constitution to support your personal position which is precisely what the anti-gun crowd does. See where this is going?
Posted by cgcam: quote: Go Blackiebooger! You are correct. I'm amazed at the anti God nuts in GunBroker discussion, don't they realize the christians are their only hope for the any gun rights at all.
Life was dam good in the past (before political correctness). Sounds to me like a whole bunch of you are not even in the right church here at gun broker! I think a big bunch of you would fit in nicely working for the ACLU.
Mis-lead I think it is more of not always taking someone elses word for it as to what we should think or believe.Not bowing down to written revalation does not mean that a person does not believe in a Higher Power.Why should I have to follow this misguided power hungry judges advise as to what is right for me?And if I were not a Christian,and therefore not familiar with those possibly ficticious "commandments",would I receive a fair and impartial trial in his courtroom?Or would he bring his PERSONAL BELIEFS into play as part of the proceedings?And as for your statement about Christians being the only hope for gun rights,you are sadly mistaken.Since when did religous choice become a prerequisite for making laws regarding guns?
"Instant karma gonna get you,gonna knock you right in the head,better get yourself together,pretty soon you're gonna be dead" John Lennon
What we are seeing here is the adult equivelent of a kid finding out there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. It is very difficult to realize that long held beliefs have no basis in fact. The warm and fuzzy feeling of being protected and given gifts by a higher benevolent power are suddenly ripped away by reality.
History can really be distorted by the passage of time, especially thousands of years. Who is to say that the man who proclaimed himself the Son of God was not an ancient Charles Manson or a son of Sam? These two modern people claimed to hear voices and act with devine power.
Frankly, I don't really care what a person belives. My thoughts go with Jesse Ventura that religion is a sop of a weak mind.
While I don't think the energy that we are disapates upon death, I don't believe there is a hell unless we make it ourselves. For those Moslem Morons that think killing others will give them eternal peace, brothers, you have a debt to pay.
Anyway, the Bible ranks right up there with Grimms Fairy Tales as good family reading.
Please don't be stupid your whole life. You can no longer claim to be ignorant.
The First Amendment was written to protect religious practices of the
people of the states. The Founders recognized that each of the 13 states was dominated by particular Christian denominations. The First Amendment states that the Congress cannot erect a national religion and force people to pay taxes to it as was/is the case in England. But, and don't take my word for it, read the Founders, they stated that this was not to be taken as a barrier against promoting Christianity in general which they most certainly did. The First Amendment, because they knew that Christian denominations were regional, was drafted to prevent factional disputes, took the national government out of the realm of being capable of favoring one Christian denomination over another. In short, the national government cannot interefere with the religious practices of the states or people (Thomas Jefferson reitterated this as well). Only Congress can make law and if they are forbidden by the Constitution to interfere with religion, which they are, then the Supreme Court has no role whatsoever in this issue. They can make no ruling with respect to Judge Moore of Alabama.
BIngo!!But before reading the founders, specifically, how the 1st amendment was not a barrier for any government religious practice, one should read the 1st amendment, which as you have pointed out, barrs CONGRESS.
The feds were to stay out of the religious busines. THe people of the states were free to decide on matters of religion-at least that is what the constitution says.
It is interesting to note, that at the birth of the constitution, several states collected taxes for their respective churches, and several states had religious tests for those seeking positions in government. The words of the 1st amendment are crystal clear-but if we are going to pretend that there is doubt as to what those words say, one must wonder why "the founders" didnt pitch a fit because of the religious actions of state governments, if the 1st amendment BArred "RELIGIOUS PRACTICE ON THE STATE LEVEL. The founders did not have a fit, because it was clearly understood(they knew how to read back then) that the 1st amendment IN NO WAY barred the states from deciding on issues of religion-quite the opposite, it protected the rights of the states to decide on issues of religion.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once"
-David Hume
Firt off I believe that Supreme Court Justices or potential should be required to participate in study of all available documentation of and on the philosophy and lives of the writers of the constituition. I don't know how they can effectively interpret this document without intimate knowledge of the writers.
Second , there is a difference between the "Church" and "Religion". "Church" is the governing body while religion is the practice or belief. Prior to and at the time our constituition the "church" and the government of many European countries were hardy indistinguisable. In other words it it was the (corrupted) governing body of religion (church) that was the problem and not religion itself. In all likelyhood THIS is what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. Thus the term "separation of church and state" may be an accurate but it is more often to be interpreted as the "separation of religion and the state". The constitution indicates that the government shall not endorse a religion but does not define "endorsement" A conservative view would indicate that as long as the government does not specifically dictate a religious point of view on the people the two can intermix. The liberal point of view is that "any" reference to religion is a violation however this point of view fails to account for the fact that a large percentage of the writers were religious men. In effect what our judges are deciding is the definition of "endorse" and they have taken a very liberal, and I believe incorrect,interpretation.
Lastly, as someone else noted, apparently democracy no longer means that the majority rule because it seems like the minority are the only ones who get their way in this country. Be damn what everyone else wants.
Firt off I believe that Supreme Court Justices or potential should be required to participate in study of all available documentation of and on the philosophy and lives of the writers of the constituition. I don't know how they can effectively interpret this document without intimate knowledge of the writers.
Second , there is a difference between the "Church" and "Religion". "Church" is the governing body while religion is the practice or belief. Prior to and at the time our constituition the "church" and the government of many European countries were hardy indistinguisable. In other words it it was the (corrupted) governing body of religion (church) that was the problem and not religion itself. In all likelyhood THIS is what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. Thus the term "separation of church and state" may be an accurate but it is more often to be interpreted as the "separation of religion and the state". The constitution indicates that the government shall not endorse a religion but does not define "endorsement" A conservative view would indicate that as long as the government does not specifically dictate a religious point of view on the people the two can intermix. The liberal point of view is that "any" reference to religion is a violation however this point of view fails to account for the fact that a large percentage of the writers were religious men. In effect what our judges are deciding is the definition of "endorse" and they have taken a very liberal, and I believe incorrect,interpretation.
Lastly, as someone else noted, apparently democracy no longer means that the majority rule because it seems like the minority are the only ones who get their way in this country. Be damn what everyone else wants.
Ok ,I tried,I really did...but I can't ANYMORE.So you want to think that the constitution and the fathers were trying to keep religion out????????Then you obviously think that we need to throw out hmmmm,lets see about 160-200 years worth of Justices decesions.I have said it before and will say it again,....DO YOUR HOMEWORK...The Early Justices made the determinations and usually addedd where they got the biblical quote from...I guess then in YOUR line of reasoning then these decisions should all be reviewed and thrown out,gee can't help but wonder what that would do to your lets all get along society....If the Faith is a problem then the rest is as well,they go hand in hand folks....and the founders believed in living life with the bible,hand in hand,living a biblical life,making decisions based on it etc.etc.....and now it is ALL wrong?There is NO gray area here it is or isn't ,so where do we go now,throw out the laws based on biblical principle,the justices decisions,in fact the constitution itself and the Bill of rights......Throw it all out,after all they were all modeled with the bible in one hand,the pen in the other,oh and WHO am I to swear to in court?He who does not exist?/Nice world,be careful what you wish for folks.....YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT...Ok I am done ....L.H.
Actually, the court's decision to remove the offensive structure was probably the correct reflection of America's current judicial spirit. In its place, perhaps a granite or marble monument of a pile of aborted fetuses would be a more accurate and appropriate representation of the attitude of the court today. Should not monuments be concrete representatives of the ideals, and character of the community and serve to commemorate milestones in that society's development?
I think this whole affair serves to show without question where this society places its values. There is no place today in public schools and court houses for morality. What an archaic idea it is to remind folks, young and old, to behave...not to kill and steal...not to covet and lie...not to disrespect...not to hold self as all-important.
I think one test to see how well this is working is to look around. Visit a middle or high school campus, an athletic event, a shopping mall. Aren't folks nicer, more polite, more courteous? Aren't folks safer? Aren't there fewer rapes, murders, muggings, burglaries, car thefts? Its one thing to theorize about the benefits of "enlightened" government, but its a whole other thing to face the results in the community of that "enlightenment."
Yeah, let's go back to the good ole days when blacks were still slaves (slavery being supported by that wonderful bible document you are thrilled about), or back to the good ole days when people of Irish descent could not get a job because they were Irish, or back to the good ole days when Jews could not buy homes in the "good" neighborhoods or attend schools, etc. etc. etc.
We've matured as a nation, for today we only pick on the Muslims first, then the blacks, and lastly the Hispanics. The Jews and Irish lucked out--so far. [;)] And I don't think having silly public symbols make a difference in the behavior of people.
It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
Resident Pyrrhonist
Hairy....and I believe that you are wrong,I hope that we will not see which of us is right,but fear we will...I agree,Some people are as you say...SOME,the majority are sheep,whom are continuously swept up in whatever is hot at the time.I really believe you give man more credit than he deserves....I do not believe christandom has been perfect.....far from it ,in its blindness to what the bible intended has been wicked in its own right.I do not however believe that ,that negates what the bible intended....I can see that we will most likely NEVER agree on this,but would you go ahead and comment on the REST of MY post? Would you throw out all the decisions that were biblicly based etc.? And while we do not agree,know that I would fight like H**l for your right not to....and mine.L.H.
Comments
I will not stand by while these PC, ACLU-card carrying, liberal, gun-grabbing, history rewriting, socialism promoting, moraless, unethical morons try to push their religion of anti-religion on America.
Yes you will, kingjoey...and for the same reason you'll remove your shoes and socks for airport security and pay taxes to provide health benefits to illegal immigrants...because YOUR government says YOU damn well better.
Moore on the other hand used the occasion to make a series of religious statements that clearly indicated this to be a statement of his faith/beliefs in a public building.
Interesting enough, Gallup polls now are showing over 70% of people surveyed oppose the removal of the monument.
You can do rain dances, worship cows, or stone idols on your own property, no one will bother you.
He That Pays The Piper Calls The Tune.
Love them Beavers
SUPPORT THE I.N.S. , THE COUNTRY THEY SAVE COULD BE YOUR OWN
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, not liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin, 1785
Life was dam good in the past (before political correctness). Sounds to me like a whole bunch of you are not even in the right church here at gun broker! I think a big bunch of you would fit in nicely working for the ACLU.
Mis-lead
If they did, they would learn that:
The First Amendment was written to protect religious practices of the
people of the states. The Founders recognized that each of the 13 states was dominated by particular Christian denominations. The First Amendment states that the Congress cannot erect a national religion and force people to pay taxes to it as was/is the case in England. But, and don't take my word for it, read the Founders, they stated that this was not to be taken as a barrier against promoting Christianity in general which they most certainly did. The First Amendment, because they knew that Christian denominations were regional, was drafted to prevent factional disputes, took the national government out of the realm of being capable of favoring one Christian denomination over another. In short, the national government cannot interefere with the religious practices of the states or people (Thomas Jefferson reitterated this as well). Only Congress can make law and if they are forbidden by the Constitution to interfere with religion, which they are, then the Supreme Court has no role whatsoever in this issue. They can make no ruling with respect to Judge Moore of Alabama. In addition, no one has brought up how the Founders defined religion. They considered Christianity the only true religion hence when they say religion that is what they mean. For those who disagree, think about this:
1. Have you read what the Founders said and not those of us offering
opinions?
2. Could you oppose this because you oppose religion and or Christians
in general?
The first know what they need to do. The latter, you have to consider that you are supporting an unconstitutional interpretation of the Constitution to support your personal position which is precisely what the anti-gun crowd does. See where this is going?
Life was dam good in the past (before political correctness). Sounds to me like a whole bunch of you are not even in the right church here at gun broker! I think a big bunch of you would fit in nicely working for the ACLU.
Mis-lead I think it is more of not always taking someone elses word for it as to what we should think or believe.Not bowing down to written revalation does not mean that a person does not believe in a Higher Power.Why should I have to follow this misguided power hungry judges advise as to what is right for me?And if I were not a Christian,and therefore not familiar with those possibly ficticious "commandments",would I receive a fair and impartial trial in his courtroom?Or would he bring his PERSONAL BELIEFS into play as part of the proceedings?And as for your statement about Christians being the only hope for gun rights,you are sadly mistaken.Since when did religous choice become a prerequisite for making laws regarding guns?
"Instant karma gonna get you,gonna knock you right in the head,better get yourself together,pretty soon you're gonna be dead" John Lennon
History can really be distorted by the passage of time, especially thousands of years. Who is to say that the man who proclaimed himself the Son of God was not an ancient Charles Manson or a son of Sam? These two modern people claimed to hear voices and act with devine power.
Frankly, I don't really care what a person belives. My thoughts go with Jesse Ventura that religion is a sop of a weak mind.
While I don't think the energy that we are disapates upon death, I don't believe there is a hell unless we make it ourselves. For those Moslem Morons that think killing others will give them eternal peace, brothers, you have a debt to pay.
Anyway, the Bible ranks right up there with Grimms Fairy Tales as good family reading.
Please don't be stupid your whole life. You can no longer claim to be ignorant.
He That Pays The Piper Calls The Tune.
The First Amendment was written to protect religious practices of the
people of the states. The Founders recognized that each of the 13 states was dominated by particular Christian denominations. The First Amendment states that the Congress cannot erect a national religion and force people to pay taxes to it as was/is the case in England. But, and don't take my word for it, read the Founders, they stated that this was not to be taken as a barrier against promoting Christianity in general which they most certainly did. The First Amendment, because they knew that Christian denominations were regional, was drafted to prevent factional disputes, took the national government out of the realm of being capable of favoring one Christian denomination over another. In short, the national government cannot interefere with the religious practices of the states or people (Thomas Jefferson reitterated this as well). Only Congress can make law and if they are forbidden by the Constitution to interfere with religion, which they are, then the Supreme Court has no role whatsoever in this issue. They can make no ruling with respect to Judge Moore of Alabama.
BIngo!!But before reading the founders, specifically, how the 1st amendment was not a barrier for any government religious practice, one should read the 1st amendment, which as you have pointed out, barrs CONGRESS.
The feds were to stay out of the religious busines. THe people of the states were free to decide on matters of religion-at least that is what the constitution says.
It is interesting to note, that at the birth of the constitution, several states collected taxes for their respective churches, and several states had religious tests for those seeking positions in government. The words of the 1st amendment are crystal clear-but if we are going to pretend that there is doubt as to what those words say, one must wonder why "the founders" didnt pitch a fit because of the religious actions of state governments, if the 1st amendment BArred "RELIGIOUS PRACTICE ON THE STATE LEVEL. The founders did not have a fit, because it was clearly understood(they knew how to read back then) that the 1st amendment IN NO WAY barred the states from deciding on issues of religion-quite the opposite, it protected the rights of the states to decide on issues of religion.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once"
-David Hume
Second , there is a difference between the "Church" and "Religion". "Church" is the governing body while religion is the practice or belief. Prior to and at the time our constituition the "church" and the government of many European countries were hardy indistinguisable. In other words it it was the (corrupted) governing body of religion (church) that was the problem and not religion itself. In all likelyhood THIS is what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. Thus the term "separation of church and state" may be an accurate but it is more often to be interpreted as the "separation of religion and the state". The constitution indicates that the government shall not endorse a religion but does not define "endorsement" A conservative view would indicate that as long as the government does not specifically dictate a religious point of view on the people the two can intermix. The liberal point of view is that "any" reference to religion is a violation however this point of view fails to account for the fact that a large percentage of the writers were religious men. In effect what our judges are deciding is the definition of "endorse" and they have taken a very liberal, and I believe incorrect,interpretation.
Lastly, as someone else noted, apparently democracy no longer means that the majority rule because it seems like the minority are the only ones who get their way in this country. Be damn what everyone else wants.
Second , there is a difference between the "Church" and "Religion". "Church" is the governing body while religion is the practice or belief. Prior to and at the time our constituition the "church" and the government of many European countries were hardy indistinguisable. In other words it it was the (corrupted) governing body of religion (church) that was the problem and not religion itself. In all likelyhood THIS is what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. Thus the term "separation of church and state" may be an accurate but it is more often to be interpreted as the "separation of religion and the state". The constitution indicates that the government shall not endorse a religion but does not define "endorsement" A conservative view would indicate that as long as the government does not specifically dictate a religious point of view on the people the two can intermix. The liberal point of view is that "any" reference to religion is a violation however this point of view fails to account for the fact that a large percentage of the writers were religious men. In effect what our judges are deciding is the definition of "endorse" and they have taken a very liberal, and I believe incorrect,interpretation.
Lastly, as someone else noted, apparently democracy no longer means that the majority rule because it seems like the minority are the only ones who get their way in this country. Be damn what everyone else wants.
I think this whole affair serves to show without question where this society places its values. There is no place today in public schools and court houses for morality. What an archaic idea it is to remind folks, young and old, to behave...not to kill and steal...not to covet and lie...not to disrespect...not to hold self as all-important.
I think one test to see how well this is working is to look around. Visit a middle or high school campus, an athletic event, a shopping mall. Aren't folks nicer, more polite, more courteous? Aren't folks safer? Aren't there fewer rapes, murders, muggings, burglaries, car thefts? Its one thing to theorize about the benefits of "enlightened" government, but its a whole other thing to face the results in the community of that "enlightenment."
timbroman@aol.com
We've matured as a nation, for today we only pick on the Muslims first, then the blacks, and lastly the Hispanics. The Jews and Irish lucked out--so far. [;)] And I don't think having silly public symbols make a difference in the behavior of people.
It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
Resident Pyrrhonist