| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
On 4/23/13 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:25:00 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 11:51 AM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:14:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 10:40 AM, wrote: " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You seem to have left off some significant words there, fella. You don't mind leaving out "Congress shall make no law" when your local church wants to put a nativity scene in the park. Local churches can put up whatever they wish on church grounds or other private property. Government is not allowed to show preference for one religion over another. Erecting a nativity scene on public property violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the right-wing Supreme court has allowed some slippage in the recent decade. You are still left out some significant words How do you reconcile that with "Congress shall make no law"? This is not a law, it is only a public entity, a church or religious group, using public property. If you called it a demonstration they would be allowed to say or do just about anything they wanted to do. We had "occupy" demonstrators setting up all sorts of displays in our city park and they stayed there for weeks. Was the government "establishing" a war on corporations? There were more people offended by that here than any nativity scene would ever be. The words implicitly deny churches use of public property. Government cannot show preference to one religion over another. That's a clause closely connected to the "no law" language. Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Every year, for example, we get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such behavior is allowed. Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
On 4/23/2013 12:51 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/23/13 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:25:00 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 11:51 AM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:14:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 10:40 AM, wrote: " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You seem to have left off some significant words there, fella. You don't mind leaving out "Congress shall make no law" when your local church wants to put a nativity scene in the park. Local churches can put up whatever they wish on church grounds or other private property. Government is not allowed to show preference for one religion over another. Erecting a nativity scene on public property violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the right-wing Supreme court has allowed some slippage in the recent decade. You are still left out some significant words How do you reconcile that with "Congress shall make no law"? This is not a law, it is only a public entity, a church or religious group, using public property. If you called it a demonstration they would be allowed to say or do just about anything they wanted to do. We had "occupy" demonstrators setting up all sorts of displays in our city park and they stayed there for weeks. Was the government "establishing" a war on corporations? There were more people offended by that here than any nativity scene would ever be. The words implicitly deny churches use of public property. Government cannot show preference to one religion over another. That's a clause closely connected to the "no law" language. Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Every year, for example, we get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such behavior is allowed. Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby. It's hard to imagine why this has your panties in a wad. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/23/13 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:25:00 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 11:51 AM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:14:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 10:40 AM, wrote: " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You seem to have left off some significant words there, fella. You don't mind leaving out "Congress shall make no law" when your local church wants to put a nativity scene in the park. Local churches can put up whatever they wish on church grounds or other private property. Government is not allowed to show preference for one religion over another. Erecting a nativity scene on public property violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the right-wing Supreme court has allowed some slippage in the recent decade. You are still left out some significant words How do you reconcile that with "Congress shall make no law"? This is not a law, it is only a public entity, a church or religious group, using public property. If you called it a demonstration they would be allowed to say or do just about anything they wanted to do. We had "occupy" demonstrators setting up all sorts of displays in our city park and they stayed there for weeks. Was the government "establishing" a war on corporations? There were more people offended by that here than any nativity scene would ever be. The words implicitly deny churches use of public property. Government cannot show preference to one religion over another. That's a clause closely connected to the "no law" language. Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Every year, for example, we get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such behavior is allowed. Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
|
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:44:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: If you can extend "Congress" (meaning the US congress) shall make no federal law" to mean a city council can't allow a display on city property, I can't understand why "shall not be infringed" is not an absolute prohibition of any firearm law by any government entity. Infringe means destroy, shatter, crush. The current set of firearm regulations do not destroy, shatter or crush the ability to own firearms. in·fringe (n-frnj) v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es v.tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. In this context, the obsolete definition is most likely what the framers were talking about. Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Why not? Because the people have a Bill of Rights right to peaceably assemble. There is no Bill of Rights right to set up a religious display on public property; in fact, the state is not allowed to help promote religion, and a creche promotes religion. Isn't stopping it "prohibiting the free exercise of"? The government is no more establishing religion with this display than they are establishing nazism when they let the marchers walk in Skokie Every year, for example, we get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such behavior is allowed. Isn't the government that grants that permit "establishing" that religious belief? No, they are granting a parade permit. So why not a nativity display permit? Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby. Why not? Both represent deeply held personal beliefs. Because the religious crib scenes on public property promote religion, and such is not allowed. Says you. And the Constitution. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
On 4/23/2013 7:25 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:44:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: If you can extend "Congress" (meaning the US congress) shall make no federal law" to mean a city council can't allow a display on city property, I can't understand why "shall not be infringed" is not an absolute prohibition of any firearm law by any government entity. Infringe means destroy, shatter, crush. The current set of firearm regulations do not destroy, shatter or crush the ability to own firearms. in·fringe (n-frnj) v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es v.tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. In this context, the obsolete definition is most likely what the framers were talking about. Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Why not? Because the people have a Bill of Rights right to peaceably assemble. There is no Bill of Rights right to set up a religious display on public property; in fact, the state is not allowed to help promote religion, and a creche promotes religion. Isn't stopping it "prohibiting the free exercise of"? The government is no more establishing religion with this display than they are establishing nazism when they let the marchers walk in Skokie Every year, for example, we get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such behavior is allowed. Isn't the government that grants that permit "establishing" that religious belief? No, they are granting a parade permit. So why not a nativity display permit? Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby. Why not? Both represent deeply held personal beliefs. Because the religious crib scenes on public property promote religion, and such is not allowed. Says you. And the Constitution. No it doesn't... only to you haters.. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
In article ,
says... On 4/23/2013 7:25 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:44:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: If you can extend "Congress" (meaning the US congress) shall make no federal law" to mean a city council can't allow a display on city property, I can't understand why "shall not be infringed" is not an absolute prohibition of any firearm law by any government entity. Infringe means destroy, shatter, crush. The current set of firearm regulations do not destroy, shatter or crush the ability to own firearms. in·fringe (n-frnj) v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es v.tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. In this context, the obsolete definition is most likely what the framers were talking about. Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Why not? Because the people have a Bill of Rights right to peaceably assemble. There is no Bill of Rights right to set up a religious display on public property; in fact, the state is not allowed to help promote religion, and a creche promotes religion. Isn't stopping it "prohibiting the free exercise of"? The government is no more establishing religion with this display than they are establishing nazism when they let the marchers walk in Skokie Every year, for example, we get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such behavior is allowed. Isn't the government that grants that permit "establishing" that religious belief? No, they are granting a parade permit. So why not a nativity display permit? Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby. Why not? Both represent deeply held personal beliefs. Because the religious crib scenes on public property promote religion, and such is not allowed. Says you. And the Constitution. No it doesn't... only to you haters.. Yes it does, moron. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
|
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teamsters protect Boston bombing victim's funeral.
On 4/23/13 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:44:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/23/13 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: If you can extend "Congress" (meaning the US congress) shall make no federal law" to mean a city council can't allow a display on city property, I can't understand why "shall not be infringed" is not an absolute prohibition of any firearm law by any government entity. Infringe means destroy, shatter, crush. The current set of firearm regulations do not destroy, shatter or crush the ability to own firearms. in·fringe (n-frnj) v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es v.tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. In this context, the obsolete definition is most likely what the framers were talking about. Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Why not? Because the people have a Bill of Rights right to peaceably assemble. There is no Bill of Rights right to set up a religious display on public property; in fact, the state is not allowed to help promote religion, and a creche promotes religion. Isn't stopping it "prohibiting the free exercise of"? The government is no more establishing religion with this display than they are establishing nazism when they let the marchers walk in Skokie Every year, for example, we get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such behavior is allowed. Isn't the government that grants that permit "establishing" that religious belief? No, they are granting a parade permit. So why not a nativity display permit? Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby. Why not? Both represent deeply held personal beliefs. Because the religious crib scenes on public property promote religion, and such is not allowed. Says you. The answers you seek are in and around the Establishment clause, taking into account the right-wing supremes have weakened it a bit. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Palin's movie is bombing | General | |||
| r_Hunt_19_HMS Active in Boston Harbor, 19 July 1773, The Boston Tea Party is five months in the future_sqs | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| HMS Active in Boston Harbor, 19 July 1773, The Boston Tea Party is five months in the future_Geoff Hunt, 1990_sqs | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| J Ganz carpet bombing | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
