| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#10
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. |
| 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 | |||
Threaded Mode
