footlogicracing
PR Addict
Sorry, you're right. The Christian religion is predominant in the U.S. How many are truly Christian is debatable.
(ISIS) and US...
- Thread starter GeorgiePorgie
- Start date
hershey
PR Elite
NO, if they did it would be a much more peaceful place to live. Like Christianity it is a very peaceful religion. Dont brand an entire religion because of its extremists. Many a war have been waged in the name of Christianity over the years as well.
NQ1965
PR Elite
Have you ever just taken a really hard look at how they live over there?
There is like almost no capitalism and almost no schools or educational institutions. The natives of those countries breed ignorance and hide behind religion. They brainwash their offspring to think that it's honorable to die soldiering for a figment of their imaginations. Worse yet is the adults of those children will offer up their children for this purpose as well. How ignorant is that?
Ever think why is it that they don't wish to be a positive and productive society in the civilized World Community? Wouldn't and couldn't they benefit from it? How bout their children?
Foolish ignorance..... simple as that.
footlogicracing
PR Addict
I'm sorry, how does any of what you said relate to what I was talking about. All Muslims do not teach their offspring in this manner. You must understand that ISIS and terrorists alike are not the norm. They are radicals and extremists.
I suggest you also look up what true capitalism is. Not saying this to be mean spirited but it isn't what you think it is. A free market system is not true capitalism.
NQ1965
PR Elite
I may have used too broad a brush in my statement.
Agreed that not all Muslims act, teach or live this way. One can respect Muslims just the same as any other religion that they want to worship and believe in. And no doubt there are many well educated, peaceful, friendly and productive Muslims all over this world. And call it Free Market/Capitalism or whatever you like, it all comes down to being civilized, productive and helping grow and develope the society (or Village) that you live in. That whole region over there could benefit and I'm sure could offer a lot in return over time. The world is anxious and willing to help them as has been proven.
My comments are specific to the nature of this middle east conflict that we are once again being forced to deal with. Ignorance is the root I believe. It's not often that an individual born and raised in the middle east, that becomes well educated and somewhat cultured to the international community become these extremist-terrorrist.
It always stuns me when journalist show video footage of these terror groups in action. They finish every sentence by raising their gun in the air and claiming that their god will be victorious! Not the mindset of an educated, reasonable and mature people.
And you are correct in that it is being stated that this current extremist/terrorist group are waaaaay out there. Sounds to me like a club that Psychopaths can finally belong to where they fit in, and are attracting recruits from all over the world.
Agreed that not all Muslims act, teach or live this way. One can respect Muslims just the same as any other religion that they want to worship and believe in. And no doubt there are many well educated, peaceful, friendly and productive Muslims all over this world. And call it Free Market/Capitalism or whatever you like, it all comes down to being civilized, productive and helping grow and develope the society (or Village) that you live in. That whole region over there could benefit and I'm sure could offer a lot in return over time. The world is anxious and willing to help them as has been proven.
My comments are specific to the nature of this middle east conflict that we are once again being forced to deal with. Ignorance is the root I believe. It's not often that an individual born and raised in the middle east, that becomes well educated and somewhat cultured to the international community become these extremist-terrorrist.
It always stuns me when journalist show video footage of these terror groups in action. They finish every sentence by raising their gun in the air and claiming that their god will be victorious! Not the mindset of an educated, reasonable and mature people.
And you are correct in that it is being stated that this current extremist/terrorist group are waaaaay out there. Sounds to me like a club that Psychopaths can finally belong to where they fit in, and are attracting recruits from all over the world.
Last edited:
Say what? I think that I sort of like amendment 1 to the constitution that reads, with
respect to religion, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
What's not to like?
What I don't understand (here, have a piece of red meat) is why so many people
forget the first four words of amendment 2 - "A well regulated militia"
freeh
PR Founding Father
I don't think most people forget that part, but what is your point? Just say what you think. What is your interpretation of those 4 words?
Pretty much what it means and what, until an activist supreme court decided otherwise, it has always meant.
Or at least since the English Bill of Rights of 1689
Well regulated - to bring something under the control of authority. : to make rules or laws that control something
Militia - citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel
freeh
PR Founding Father
Why don't you just say that you don't think American citizens should own guns? Isn't that what you are really getting at?
Not sure what an English Bill of Rights has to do with the US though.
hershey
PR Elite
Read the third paragraph closely Sturd. It wasnt an "activist supreme court" that made the decision to give us the right to bear arms. It was however one that removed it from us in 1939. In 08 they gave it back to us. Read the reasoning for that.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Hellerchallenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved outMiller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Hellerchallenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved outMiller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
Clint1991
PR Addict
Way to do your homework there Hersey. Lol
dmx153
PR Founding Father
footlogicracing
PR Addict
If you look hard enough you can find information via the internet to support opinions and arguments on both sides of the issue. We all have our opinions and reasons for them.
hershey
PR Elite
Lol.....but the info I posted is fact about the laws and reasoning the court had for their decision, how is that an opinion or argument?
An argument is based on fact and yours is a good one. Nice google-fu.
It does (your argument), and I agree with it here at the very least, note that the supremos have not settled the issue. Regulation
of gun ownership, specifically background checks and limits on types of firearms, are still constitutional. I expect that could change
unless the makeup of the court changes.
Indeed, Wayne LaPierre once was for background checks for every gun sale
Although, the supremos just found background checks constitutional in a case involving a straw buyer.
I always laugh when people think they can read my mind but don't critically read what I wrote.
The second amendment, like a lot of the constitution and first ten amendments, was based
partly on British common law, including the Bill of Rights of 1689.
freeh
PR Founding Father
I understand the definitions you wrote just fine. I was just asking for your opinion in regard to the 2nd amendment, which you still have not provided. I realize you are just doing some fishing here, looking to get a rise out of people. I am simply trying to get you to answer a simple question with your own words. Simple, right?
Yes, very good. You paid attention in history class, or are bored enough to google your replies. We are talking about US laws though. There are many other precedents for US laws too.