a question for the atheists

I perfectly well understand your position but you don't seem to understand mine. I have never used my firearms to violate the rights of anyone and never will. If we can agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of people who would use them to violate the rights of others, then we should do so in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of innocent law biding citizens - like myself.

Are there any rights you would not allow government to violate? If the tables were turned and someone were arguing that you should lose some or all of the freedoms you actually cherish because of criminal actions perpetrated by someone other than yourself, I think you'd see where I'm coming from.

I believe I understand your stand better than you give me credit for.
I relate your strong feelings about your right to own a gun to my feelings about my right to make a decision about my own body, and not having either a government or religious bigots infringe on that right. And, because I value that right for myself, I also value it for other women.

Yet, I do realize that some women (as some gun owners) are NOT as responsible or as ethical about the choice they make about their own body or the potential life they can create. . .and that excess do take place (i.e., some women, although I believe they are few and far between, will choose to forego taking effective birth control and instead will rely on abortions for "birth control."). This part about "the right to choose" bothers me, but it doesn't mean that I would take away women's right to choose because of those few irresponsible women. So I am GLAD that SOME of the "right to choose" has been taken away, so as to limit the damage done by those irresponsible women, who, by convenience, might decide to wait until the embryo develops a brain stem to choose to terminate the pregnancy at a later stage. And. . .obviously, in spite of the abortion laws, there will ALWAYS be excess and criminals who will not follow the law.

I assume that you feel the same about your right to own a gun. And I assume that the number of killing that occurs because of the number of irresponsible gun owners bothers you as well. But you do not seem to be willing to accept ANY control to curb the incidence of "irresponsible gun owners." I may be wrong on this, but I don't think I have read any comments coming from you to resolve the obvious excess in gun ownership. Obviously, gun laws have worked in other countries (i.e., Switzerland and England). I am not talking about taking ALL guns away from responsible owners, but why not make it A LOT harder for anyone to get a license, why is it necessary for anyone who is not in a law enforcement role, to have a concealed weapon in a public place, while shopping with your children, while going to a theater? Why is it necessary to continue to allow those high capacity ammo magazine? If one holds dear his right to own a gun for DEFENSE, why would one need more than two rounds of ammos? Why would one be willing to take a driving, a written and even a vision test to obtain a driver license, and be willing to renew that driver license every 4 or 5 years, sometime (as for resident aliens), having to wait for 6 weeks prior to obtaining that renewed driving license, but be able to purchase a KILLING MACHINE at a gun show with no or minimal background check?

I would be interested in hearing your position on that. . .I mean. . .not JUST on your "right to own a gun," but on how much oversight on that right you would be willing to accept in order to make gun ownership less deadly to your fellow citizens. . .maybe to your own grand children!

By the way, as an after thought, I want to reaffirm that, although I STRONGLY value the right of all women to make their own decisions about their own reproductive role, I have been very fortunate to never have to be faced with the decision to terminate (or not) a pregnancy. And I owe this wonderful blessing in great part to my husband who, once we had the child we so much wanted, offered to have a vasectomy to avoid further pregnancies. The reason he "sacrificed" his right to have more children was because he already had 2 older boys from a previous marriage, and he was 11 years older than I was. We agreed that, if anything should happen to our couple, he already had three children, and he would not feel the need to have another child. But I was much younger and only had one child, so I may have wanted (if I remarried) to have another child.

As things turned out, we both decided that our little boy was too lonely as an only child in our home, and that we had the ability (mental, emotional, and economic) to raise another child, so we adopted a little Korean girl into our family.

But, even after all these years, I am so grateful to my husband for allowing me to be both a mother and a wife, without ever having to be concerned about an unwanted pregnancy! I wish more women were as fortunate!
 
Werbung:
I like your sig line. Many conservatives here hold the Constitution about as sacred as the Bible, but even George Washington (and obviously you) weren't convinced.

did the general foresee rhe need for amendments ? of course and so a deliberate process was included.

now wouldnt it be nice if that process was employed when a change is being considered ? that is what conservatives would like.
 
did the general foresee rhe need for amendments ? of course and so a deliberate process was included.

now wouldnt it be nice if that process was employed when a change is being considered ? that is what conservatives would like.

And it obviously is. . .after it is clear that the amendment is needed!

You do not think that every time an "idea" comes through someone's mind, it should immediately be proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, do you?
 
And it obviously is. . .after it is clear that the amendment is needed!

You do not think that every time an "idea" comes through someone's mind, it should immediately be proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, do you?

it would be fruitless but there is nothing stopping it. incorrect on the 1st sentence.
 
it would be fruitless but there is nothing stopping it. incorrect on the 1st sentence.

Would you clarify your statement of "incorrect on the first sentence?"

Or are you just short of words to describe what you really mean by the need to "amend the constitution" to get ANYTHING done in this country?
 
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

Yep. . .another instance where good old George couldn't even envision (and who could blame him!) that the US government would go to the extend of spending close to 700 billions a year (many time that of ANY other country on earth) to "defend" a country who has never been directly attacked, except by a group of 12 terrorists!

And that to counteract that "HUGE defense system," there wouldn't be enough firearms in the whole world IF that government wanted to IMPOSE something on its people!

So. . .you really think that there is anyway that your little handguns, semi-automatic weapons, and high power ammos magazines (even the rocket launchers that were turned into the LA police department just a few days ago in exchange for gift cards) would succeed where the whole Communist world failed?

You really think that the 1/2 the population of America (because, let's face it, only half of the population can ever agree on anything!) would successfully defeat the whole "US DEFENSE SYSTEM" because the other half doesn't agree with them?

Come on, Cashmcall. . .please use reality based, critical thinking in your comments!

IF the American people EVER wanted to have a chance to fight their own government with firearms, they should have, decades ago, refused to use their tax dollars to build the biggest war machine in the world!

And. . .what is really funny, it is that it is precisely the REPUBLICANS, GUN LOVERS, who insist in keeping this "HUGE WAR MACHINE" intact, in fact in INCREASING IT!

Maybe you should go see "Les Miserables!" This has been tried before by courageous people, real "FRENCH PATRIOTS," in early 1800's. . .I really recommend you go see that musical in the theaters, it is not only a piece of art. . .it is a piece of history that you may learn from.
 
Would you clarify your statement of "incorrect on the first sentence?"

Or are you just short of words to describe what you really mean by the need to "amend the constitution" to get ANYTHING done in this country?

your first sentence is incorrect meaning it was incorrect.
the government has passed laws that violate the Constitution representing a defacto change without the bother of employment of the amendment process. The judicial and executive branches are also guily of this so I'm not picking on one over the other.

there is no need to change the Constitution to get some/any thing done un less what it to be done violated the Constitution.

If you want to change something, do it the right way. how hard is that ?
 
Yep. . .another instance where good old George couldn't even envision (and who could blame him!) that the US government would go to the extend of spending close to 700 billions a year (many time that of ANY other country on earth) to "defend" a country who has never been directly attacked, except by a group of 12 terrorists!

And that to counteract that "HUGE defense system," there wouldn't be enough firearms in the whole world IF that government wanted to IMPOSE something on its people!

So. . .you really think that there is anyway that your little handguns, semi-automatic weapons, and high power ammos magazines (even the rocket launchers that were turned into the LA police department just a few days ago in exchange for gift cards) would succeed where the whole Communist world failed?

You really think that the 1/2 the population of America (because, let's face it, only half of the population can ever agree on anything!) would successfully defeat the whole "US DEFENSE SYSTEM" because the other half doesn't agree with them?

Come on, Cashmcall. . .please use reality based, critical thinking in your comments!

IF the American people EVER wanted to have a chance to fight their own government with firearms, they should have, decades ago, refused to use their tax dollars to build the biggest war machine in the world!

And. . .what is really funny, it is that it is precisely the REPUBLICANS, GUN LOVERS, who insist in keeping this "HUGE WAR MACHINE" intact, in fact in INCREASING IT!

Maybe you should go see "Les Miserables!" This has been tried before by courageous people, real "FRENCH PATRIOTS," in early 1800's. . .I really recommend you go see that musical in the theaters, it is not only a piece of art. . .it is a piece of history that you may learn from.
IMO we will never have to...As a Marine,I believe no Marine would fire on his own...As far as the war machine, there plenty of areas that they can cut....As Far as REAL FRENCH PATRIOTS as REAL AMERICAN I believe we have plenty and far better right here..
 
your first sentence is incorrect meaning it was incorrect.
the government has passed laws that violate the Constitution representing a defacto change without the bother of employment of the amendment process. The judicial and executive branches are also guily of this so I'm not picking on one over the other.

there is no need to change the Constitution to get some/any thing done un less what it to be done violated the Constitution.

If you want to change something, do it the right way. how hard is that ?


Okay, give me concrete examples of "laws that violate the Constitution."
And then, with those concrete examples, we can explore whether those were "mistaken changes" or just "trial changes" that would eventually (if they are successful) lead to an amendment of the Constitution.

I do not believe that, if you want to change something, you START by amending the Constitution. . . not before you KNOW through trial and error whether it would be BENEFICIAL to change the constitution!

But. . .let's look at "concrete" examples, so we can see what we are talking about.
 
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington
Do you have a good source for that quote? The following is what I found at the University of Virginia. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/union/state1.html Some blogs say that your quote was altered from Washington's original. This is an excerpt:
Washington's First Annual Message to Congress said:
Washington's First Annual Message to Congress 8 January 1790, New York City
.....
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to oeconomy.

There was reason to hope, that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our Southern and Western frontiers from their depredations. But you will percieve, from the information contained in the papers, which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union; and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.
....
Among other things, the phrase, " a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite", is missing from your quote. And "which would include their own government." was added.

Also it looks like here he is considering protection from Indians. Perhaps your version of the quote was also said by Washington, but you need to find a reputable source.
 
Do you have a good source for that quote? The following is what I found at the University of Virginia. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/union/state1.html Some blogs say that your quote was altered from Washington's original. This is an excerpt:

Among other things, the phrase, " a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite", is missing from your quote. And "which would include their own government." was added.

Also it looks like here he is considering protection from Indians. Perhaps your version of the quote was also said by Washington, but you need to find a reputable source.
No I don't...and I am checking right now...thank you...
 
IMO we will never have to...As a Marine,I believe no Marine would fire on his own...As far as the war machine, there plenty of areas that they can cut....As Far as REAL FRENCH PATRIOTS as REAL AMERICAN I believe we have plenty and far better right here..

Did you know my son is a Marine (former. . .at least).
And what is "his own?" Would a Marine fire at NO ONE who is an American Citizen? Or would a Marine fire at no one who believes as he does?

Would a Marine turn his back on his Commander in Chief and join a minority of the people who disagree with the Commander in Chief? Or would he protect his Commander in Chief from the guns of a minority of the People in this country who might disagree with the Commander in Chief and have vowed to "make him fail," and if that doesn't succeed, to "kill him and his family?"

When does a Marine stop being a Marine? When he gives up his uniform? When he sells his skills to the biggest offer (even if it is "Blackwood?" Or when he dies?

And. . .have you KNOWN a French Patriot? Have you seen one die to save his country from the Nazi invasion? Have you seen any French green beret fight side by side with the US Marines? Have you even EXPERIENCED the French patriotism?

Have you been, or do you know someone who has been do Algeria when Algeria claimed its independence? Have you seen those soldiers fight in the desert? What tells you they fought with less bravery than OUR soldiers in Iraq? My brother was one of those soldiers.

Do you have ANY IDEA of the role the FRENCH La Fayette had in OUR REVOLUTION?


How can you speak with such contempt about a culture and people you do not know but through "comic books" and "nasty jokes?"

Yep. . .I really think you might benefit from seeing "Les Miserables," that is. . .if you do not have the patience to read that amazing book written by Victor Hugo at the end of the 19th century!
 
ALL SOLDIERS ARE HEROES....AND IF YOUR SON IS A MARINE..When does a Marine stop being a Marine? When he gives up his uniform? When he sells his skills to the biggest offer (even if it is "Blackwood?" Or when he dies? ASK HIM

And. . .have you KNOWN a French Patriot? Have you seen one die to save his country from the Nazi invasionDid you see how many marines died to save France not even there own country? Have you seen any French green beret fight side by side with the US Marines to (AGAIN TO SAVE THEIR OWN COUNTRY)? Have you even EXPERIENCED the French patriotism? HAVE YOU?..YOUR THE ONE WHO GOES TO FAR..the french are wonderful, and my beloved MARINES SELL OUT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER
How can you speak with such contempt about athe UNITED STATES MARIMNE CORPWhich you obviously know nothing about..
 
Werbung:
Did you know my son is a Marine (former. . .at least).
And what is "his own?" Would a Marine fire at NO ONE who is an American Citizen? Or would a Marine fire at no one who believes as he does?

Would a Marine turn his back on his Commander in Chief and join a minority of the people who disagree with the Commander in Chief? Or would he protect his Commander in Chief from the guns of a minority of the People in this country who might disagree with the Commander in Chief and have vowed to "make him fail," and if that doesn't succeed, to "kill him and his family?"

When does a Marine stop being a Marine? When he gives up his uniform? When he sells his skills to the biggest offer (even if it is "Blackwood?" Or when he dies?

And. . .have you KNOWN a French Patriot? Have you seen one die to save his country from the Nazi invasion? Have you seen any French green beret fight side by side with the US Marines? Have you even EXPERIENCED the French patriotism?

Have you been, or do you know someone who has been do Algeria when Algeria claimed its independence? Have you seen those soldiers fight in the desert? What tells you they fought with less bravery than OUR soldiers in Iraq? My brother was one of those soldiers.

Do you have ANY IDEA of the role the FRENCH La Fayette had in OUR REVOLUTION?



How can you speak with such contempt about a culture and people you do not know but through "comic books" and "nasty jokes?"

Yep. . .I really think you might benefit from seeing "Les Miserables," that is. . .if you do not have the patience to read that amazing book written by Victor Hugo at the end of the 19th century![/quote
AND BY THE WAY..show me where I spoke with such contempt against the French..You have a serious problem with people not seeing things as they are...​
You seem to be a weak Charecter, You dish out abuse by the buckets here.. but you get more than a little upset when you get it bac​
k
 
Back
Top