"get that crap off the lawn"...Oklahoma Supreme Court says...

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I agree with your point but let me add to this from the standpoint of a atheist/agnostic.

If a nativity scene or ten commandments on the courthouse lawn is allowed and there is no ulterior motive to push a purely religious agenda (and there are such in "SOME" of the 10 commandment cases IMO) in using the State for the purpose of evangelism and the whole display is paid for and maintain by private funds at no cost to taxpayers, I got no problem with that myself but I'm only speaking for me and not for something that proclaims itself a movement. Obviously others feel different.

Both the nativity and 10 commandments are a part of our western culture and tradition which both have impacted society and our norms. To ignore that is foolish but we also need to open the discussion up further and consider other cultural constructs that have equally impacted what we are and who we have become.

Besides, I like nativity scenes as you can stand there and point to different figures in the setting and say, "that was in the Gospel of Luke but that part came from Matthew. And neither Mark or John made any mention of any of this at all."

Neither did Paul for that matter.

And nobody made mention of the little drummer boy. Poor little fella!
;)
I don't really have a problem with any religious display on public grounds save for the exclusion of others. In fact I'd like to see displays of the Ten Commandments next to the other similar writings and an explanation of the differences. Or a nativity scene with one or more of the Virgin birth stories that were common in the Era of biblical writings. Of course if we went far enough, it would be a museum and an educational experience so most would avoid it.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
In fact I'd like to see displays of the Ten Commandments next to the other similar writings and an explanation of the differences.

Very much agree!

Same reason I'd like to see comparative religion taught and openly discussed but at least in the case of many monotheistic types, this idea is opposed and often harshly.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Comparative religion IMO opens up the idea of god not being a noun but instead a verb and that is a discussion very much worth having.
 

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
You clearly don't understand The Constitution, the three branches of government, or the judicial branch's role in relation to The Constitution.

I have read NOTHING into any part of The Constitution. One does not need to if they understand and respect what it actually says. The right to KEEP and BEAR arms is quite crystal clear. As is the rest of the document.
What "Well Regulated Militia" do you belong to?
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
You clearly don't understand The Constitution, the three branches of government, or the judicial branch's role in relation to The Constitution.

I have read NOTHING into any part of The Constitution. One does not need to if they understand and respect what it actually says. The right to KEEP and BEAR arms is quite crystal clear. As is the rest of the document.

The Supreme Court's extension and expansion of the original Constitution to individuals rights to own and bear arms makes conservatives happy.
Liberals whine about this all the time.
See! It works both ways.
 
Last edited:

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
A law against it violates The First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The right granted to me in the Constitution to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater seams to have been abridged somewhere along the line.
Don't recall a Constitutional Amendment taking that right away from me.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Very much agree!

Same reason I'd like to see comparative religion taught and openly discussed but at least in the case of many monotheistic types, this idea is opposed and often harshly.

While fascinating, we're not talking Comparative Religions 101. There should be zero display of religious items on public property and in public offices. The separation of church and state requires an outwardly secular government.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
While fascinating, we're not talking Comparative Religions 101. There should be zero display of religious items on public property and in public offices. The separation of church and state requires an outwardly secular government.
That's why I said it would turn into a museum. By the way, is there a comparative religion museum anywhere in the US?
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Here's the essence of why it's wrong. I'll go slow, so you can follow. In a nation that allows freedom of/from religion why does one religion get preferential treatment? The Ten Commandments are a Christian deal, and therefore, do NOT belong on any government property. I'm sure you'd be OK with recitations from the Koran plastered all over government facilities, right? There should be ZERO associations with religion(s) at government offices etc. None.

We are not a Christian monotheistic nation, but a polytheistic country where you can believe in anything you want. The intent of the founders was clear. Freedom of religion also equals freedom from religion, and church and state need to be separate entities, for obvious reasons, which, of course, are incomprehensible for you.

I'm waiting for the day when someone demands that their religious symbols be placed on government property. While I'm at it, "In God We Trust" needs to be removed from our currency.

Your opinion or whether or not a a certain religion gets special treatment, as well as your opinion on whether or not the Ten Commandments belong on government property are irrelevant. The Constitution trumps your opinions. But don't worry....activist judges are toting your line too.

I agree with your point but let me add to this from the standpoint of a atheist/agnostic.

If a nativity scene or ten commandments on the courthouse lawn is allowed and there is no ulterior motive to push a purely religious agenda (and there are such in "SOME" of the 10 commandment cases IMO) in using the State for the purpose of evangelism and the whole display is paid for and maintain by private funds at no cost to taxpayers, I got no problem with that myself but I'm only speaking for me and not for something that proclaims itself a movement. Obviously others feel different.

Both the nativity and 10 commandments are a part of our western culture and tradition which both have impacted society and our norms. To ignore that is foolish but we also need to open the discussion up further and consider other cultural constructs that have equally impacted what we are and who we have become.

Besides, I like nativity scenes as you can stand there and point to different figures in the setting and say, "that was in the Gospel of Luke but that part came from Matthew. And neither Mark or John made any mention of any of this at all."

Neither did Paul for that matter.

And nobody made mention of the little drummer boy. Poor little fella!
;)

Thats a good way at looking at the issue too.

Your implied expertise in the constitution is plagued by inaccuracies as usual.

You write this:

"The right to KEEP and BEAR arms"

you capitalize the T in the giving the sense that this is a stand alone sentence, and therefore has its own independent meaning.

But as we already discussed, that sentence does not exist in the second amendment as a STAND ALONE sentence, and it is merely a "fragment" of another sentence.

Recapping, the second amendment has a preamble,

A Well Regulated Militia, (comma) Thats called the subject. Then the COMMA, which means that everything after the preamble is QUALIFIES the preamble.

To you, english or punctuation doesnt exist

Lets read it together:

A Well Regulated Militia, (preamble/subject)(comma)
being necessary for the security of the state,(Qualifier of subject)(comma)
the right of the people to keep and bear arms,(Qualifier of subject)(comma)
shall not be infringed.(Qualifier of subject)(period)

TO people like you, you take the third fragment out of the entire sentence and give it a stand alone meaning and interpretation. You want to ignore the two commas in front of the fragment but want to include the last fragment into the third fragment.

In other words, you want us to believe that the third and fourth fragments are connected by the comma and apply to one another, but the first two fragments separated by a comma and in front of the third fragment have no connection.

This is the kind of lunacy of the those who think they can interpret verbage.

I will agree, that for now, guns are allowed by the states and the states can regulate them at will. But the second amendment isnt as clear as you would want to portray.

Thanks to gun lobbies, and republican leaning supreme court justices, you still have the right to own guns.

Someday , that might change. Who knows.

But like the second amendment, you dont understand or comprehend the 1st amendment either.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled, its interpretations are the same as mine and others, and it doesnt side with YOU or your thoughts regardless of what you think.

YOU are wrong on the issue and all the foot stomping in the world isnt going to change it.

Maybe an english lit class may help.

Let me leave you with this, and you tell me what I am talking about:

"Overpaid Union thug, a member of the teamsters, working for United Parcel Service, shall not be prohibited from driving a package car".

TOS.

So tell me genius.....how is someone supposed to simultaneously ***KEEP*** AND ***BEAR*** ARMS and not be allowed to own guns? Do you even stop and think things through at all before you come up with such garbage? LOL! You do realize that in colonial times the states had guns laws that required militiamen, or anyone able to serve as a militiaman, to own and keep their rifles at home? Of course you don't.


I don't really have a problem with any religious display on public grounds save for the exclusion of others. In fact I'd like to see displays of the Ten Commandments next to the other similar writings and an explanation of the differences. Or a nativity scene with one or more of the Virgin birth stories that were common in the Era of biblical writings. Of course if we went far enough, it would be a museum and an educational experience so most would avoid it.

That is an opinion and a good idea but not doing so still doesn't violate The Constitution.

What "Well Regulated Militia" do you belong to?

What is your favorite color? I am asking an irrelevant question because that is exactly what you did.

The answer though is none but I used to be in the Air National Guard. Although I'm quite sure the founders would be rather disappointed if they knew that some people actually think that we are supposed to keep our firearms under the lock and key of what has essentially become a supplemental entity to the very military arm of a federal government that could inflict tyranny upon the states.

The Supreme Court's extension and expansion of the original Constitution to individuals rights to own and bear arms makes conservatives happy.
Liberals whine about this all the time.
See! It works both ways.

The rights were already there.

The right granted to me in the Constitution to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater seams to have been abridged somewhere along the line.
Don't recall a Constitutional Amendment taking that right away from me.

If there isn't an actual fire and your sole purpose is to incite panic then you are barking up the wrong tree. I'd prefer that you were asked to leave but if it goes beyond that then once the damage is done you should be punished.
While fascinating, we're not talking Comparative Religions 101. There should be zero display of religious items on public property and in public offices. The separation of church and state requires an outwardly secular government.

That is your opinion. It isn't law. But as I said before...dont worry because your activist whacko judges agree.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Your opinion or whether or not a a certain religion gets special treatment, as well as your opinion on whether or not the Ten Commandments belong on government property are irrelevant. The Constitution trumps your opinions. But don't worry....activist judges are toting your line too.



Thats a good way at looking at the issue too.



So tell me genius.....how is someone supposed to simultaneously ***KEEP*** AND ***BEAR*** ARMS and not be allowed to own guns? Do you even stop and think things through at all before you come up with such garbage? LOL! You do realize that in colonial times the states had guns laws that required militiamen, or anyone able to serve as a militiaman, to own and keep their rifles at home? Of course you don't.




That is an opinion and a good idea but not doing so still doesn't violate The Constitution.



What is your favorite color? I am asking an irrelevant question because that is exactly what you did.

The answer though is none but I used to be in the Air National Guard. Although I'm quite sure the founders would be rather disappointed if they knew that some people actually think that we are supposed to keep our firearms under the lock and key of what has essentially become a supplemental entity to the very military arm of a federal government that could inflict tyranny upon the states.



The rights were already there.



If there isn't an actual fire and your sole purpose is to incite panic then you are barking up the wrong tree. I'd prefer that you were asked to leave but if it goes beyond that then once the damage is done you should be punished.


That is your opinion. It isn't law. But as I said before...dont worry because your activist whacko judges agree.

Hey Genius,

MILITIAMEN were REGULATED by the militia act of 1792. It defined WHO could be in the militia, WHO they took orders from, and WHAT types of weapons they could have.

This is an UNTRUE statement.

""or anyone able to serve as a militiaman"" ~ misinformed union thug..

The militia act was very specific WHO could possess guns and WHO could be in the militia. ONLY white men ages 18 to 45 could be in the militia or have guns in their possession (homes)

Minorities, women and OLD white guys older than 45 were not allowed to serve in the militia nor possess weapons of any kind.

As I tried to explain to you, the second amendment was WELL REGULATED by the militia act of 1792. Try reading it and understanding it.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

To gun owners, they believe that the founders wanted everybody to own guns, and this is a ridiculous concept considering that blacks were slaves and the founders were still fighting with the indians.

Its people like YOU that are trying to REWRITE the constitution.

You still cant explain how you get a "Stand Alone" interpretation out of the middle of a larger sentence in the second amendment.

Again, as was explained to YOU, the preamble was the MILITIA, that was to be WELL REGULATED IN DEFENSE of the State by the people of the States and that right to defense was NOT to be infringed.

HOW you get another interpretation of the second amendment is beyond explanation.

TOS.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Hey Genius,

MILITIAMEN were REGULATED by the militia act of 1792. It defined WHO could be in the militia, WHO they took orders from, and WHAT types of weapons they could have.

Yes a well regulated militia. That's a given but that proves what? Everyone that's ever read The Second Amendment knows that!!! What does that do to prove your theory that we can't have our own guns and keep them at home? Nothing is what. Keep and Bear arms is all that matters in that regard. Try and keep up.

This is an UNTRUE statement.

""or anyone able to serve as a militiaman"" ~ misinformed union thug..
The militia act was very specific WHO could possess guns and WHO could be in the militia. ONLY white men ages 18 to 45 could be in the militia or have guns in their possession (homes)

Minorities, women and OLD white guys older than 45 were not allowed to serve in the militia nor possess weapons of any kind.
The states at the time had various variations of the laws and were written at various times. Yes, some people were excluded in some states because they were deemed threats, unfit to serve, etc, etc.

https://www.saf.org/journal/16/ColonialFirearmRegulation.htm

The Militia Act of 1792 doesn't negate the fact that people were encouraged, and even required in some states, to keep and bear arms (at home).
As I tried to explain to you, the second amendment was WELL REGULATED by the militia act of 1792. Try reading it and understanding it.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

To gun owners, they believe that the founders wanted everybody to own guns, and this is a ridiculous concept considering that blacks were slaves and the founders were still fighting with the indians.

Its people like YOU that are trying to REWRITE the constitution.

You still cant explain how you get a "Stand Alone" interpretation out of the middle of a larger sentence in the second amendment.

Again, as was explained to YOU, the preamble was the MILITIA, that was to be WELL REGULATED IN DEFENSE of the State by the people of the States and that right to defense was NOT to be infringed.

HOW you get another interpretation of the second amendment is beyond explanation.

TOS.

You are so lost it's pathetic. Why don't you understand that it's physically impossible to KEEP and BEAR arms but not be able to own guns and/or keep them at home? Because you don't want to.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
Yes a well regulated militia. That's a given but that proves what? Everyone that's ever read The Second Amendment knows that!!! What does that do to prove your theory that we can't have our own guns and keep them at home? Nothing is what. Keep and Bear arms is all that matters in that regard. Try and keep up...

Yet even you must admit that the Second Amendment is open to some form of regulation.

As in, background checks, places you aren't allowed to bring guns in with you (banks, Federal buildings, etc.).

So, on some level, the Second Amendment isn't a blank check.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Yet even you must admit that the Second Amendment is open to some form of regulation.

As in, background checks, places you aren't allowed to bring guns in with you (banks, Federal buildings, etc.).

So, on some level, the Second Amendment isn't a blank check.
No I don't agree on that. I agree that militias are open to regulation as stated in the amendment. I don't even agree with most of the restrictions on guns thigh. The restrictions were a slippery slope and are what's lead us to this point and to this discussion.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
No I don't agree on that. I agree that militias are open to regulation as stated in the amendment. I don't even agree with most of the restrictions on guns thigh. The restrictions were a slippery slope and are what's lead us to this point and to this discussion.

Seriously?

You want no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever?

Open-carry, concealed-carry, rifles, handguns, blunderbusses, you're cool with everything? No limits?

I'm not a gun owner myself (Lord knows I don't need anymore hobbies), but if I was, I would support common-sense regulations on gun ownership.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Are you stating that your interpretation of the Second Amendment means that absolutely no regulations can be placed on gun ownership?

Help me out here.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
No I don't agree on that. I agree that militias are open to regulation as stated in the amendment. I don't even agree with most of the restrictions on guns thigh. The restrictions were a slippery slope and are what's lead us to this point and to this discussion.
You may not agree withb8t, but it's right there in the Constitution. Regulated by regulations also known as laws and in this case, gun laws. And like it or not, the US has a Long history of such regulation as TOS has pointed out.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
The first regulations on guns was the 1792 militia act itself. Defining clearly, what types of guns and ammo could be kept at home. "People" were not allowed to own whatever they wanted and they were subject to "military" service when directed or called up for duty.

Conscientious objectors was not added to the militia act until much later, and if a white man, between 18 and 45 refused service, they would be fined and imprisioned.

When the militia act was written, RELIGION was not even CONSIDERED. A persons religious beliefs had no place in the militia.

The second amendment was written by the first congress in late 1791 and the subsequent militia act was written in early 1792.

There can be no mistaking the second amendment in conjunction with the second amendment.

You refusal to believe it or understand it isnt something new. Gun owners want to believe whatever they want to believe, and likewise, they take or extrapolate something right out of the middle of a sentence and try to give it legs.

On one hand, overpaid union thug says that the constitution isnt a living breathing document, but on the other hand, he wants to change up the intention of the second amendment and expand its meaning beyond the qualifiers of the militia act.

If he wants to live his life according to the constitution without the ability to expand the intentions or build on its foundations, then he better turn in his gun collection and buy himself a musket, some flint, a backpack, some balls and a knife.

TOS.
 
Top