On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

On 4/22/13 5:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?


Nope.

On 4/22/2013 5:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?


Yes, harry is one of those... Just like WBC...

In article ,
says...

On 4/22/2013 5:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?


Yes, harry is one of those... Just like WBC...

Do you not support someone's, anyone's constitutional rights?

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

On 4/23/13 8:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?


It is Constitutional to peacefully protest any government action, but I
think it is disgusting, even though it is legal, to protest at the
funeral of a soldier killed in action.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

You left out some VERY important words. But, what I am saying is that
you can't cherry pick. If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it. But you don't want that. You want to use the parts
that appeal to you, and not the parts that don't appeal to you.

Here are some very important rulings regarding the 2nd amendment:

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court
ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its
existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the
powers of the National Government."

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled
that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This
ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on
whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective
militia right

A "militia" isn't one person.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it.


===

The constitution *is* the law of the land and the people who wrote it
were a lot smarter than some of today's wannabe interpreters.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it.


===

The constitution *is* the law of the land and the people who wrote it
were a lot smarter than some of today's wannabe interpreters.

I wholeheartedly agree! Therefore, you can't cherry pick which passages
you want upheld because you want them upheld, and deny the ones you want
to deny.

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it.


===

The constitution *is* the law of the land and the people who wrote it
were a lot smarter than some of today's wannabe interpreters.

I wholeheartedly agree! Therefore, you can't cherry pick which passages
you want upheld because you want them upheld, and deny the ones you want
to deny.

Which ones are those who are not of your vien of thought not wanting to ensure?