They Are Going After The Churches:

[Sparko]

Of course I know that. That was already understood (or expected to be understood by you). "No religion" is the single largest voting block.

yeah if you arbitrarily divided up the religious voting blocks and leave the "non religious" as a single block. Do you think that being "non-religious" means that they will all vote the same for the same reasons? That they are even actually "non-religious" as in not believing in God and not just "I don't think about it much and don't go to church, but yeah I believe in God" and other sects of "non-religious"?

That poll is a complete joke. No wonder you like it.

[Mountain Man]

Where are those well regulated militias and why don't only they have guns?

I asked, "Do you even understand what a militia is and why our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that anybody who wanted to keep and bears would be allowed to do so?"

Your response: "Duh aaaah uuuhhh *snort* "

I'll give you a hint: Anybody at any time can be part of a militia, and militiamen are expected to provide their own weapons.

Is that enough for you to figure out the rest, or do I need to spoon-feed you and wipe your chin afterwards?

[The Thinker]

No Homer, this is black and white thinking. They did not want a National Church, but states were free to organize these things as they saw fit. My state for instance had a tax supported Church, as did other states. Virginia, though men like Washington did wanted it, decided not to have such a state sponsored Church. It was left up to the states, not the Federal Government.

And Virginia didn't have one because of Jefferson, who was the main influence on the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. He wrote the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom:

......our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it.....


We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

If a state has an official religion then the 1st amendment is almost meaningless. I would be forced to support a religion I have no control in. It's big government in its worst form.

Again, what are the Constitutional grounds for telling any business or church who they have to serve, hire or what accommodations they need to make?

Well, this is not covered directly in the Constitution as far as I know. We have things like the Civil Rights Act.

Nonsense and you know it, you suggested that Jefferson wrote the First Amendment, but he didn't. You didn't even know he was in France. So the "wall of separation" is merely his opinion on what it means.

Your answer is utter nonsense. I explicitly stated Madison wrote the first amendment, not Jefferson, but you only read what you want to read. I literally wrote:


(Madison wrote the 1st amendment, Jefferson inspired the establishment clause in it among other things.)

Oh and I was well aware he was in France. That's an irrelevant point.

[The Thinker]

I asked, "Do you even understand what a militia is and why our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that anybody who wanted to keep and bears would be allowed to do so?"

Your response: "Duh aaaah uuuhhh *snort* "

I'll give you a hint: Anybody at any time can be part of a militia, and militiamen are expected to provide their own weapons.

Is that enough for you to figure out the rest, or do I need to spoon-feed you and wipe your chin afterwards?

So where does it say non-militia members can own weapons?

[Cow Poke]

So where does it say non-militia members can own weapons?

Where does it say that ONLY "militia members" can have weapons?

[The Thinker]

yeah if you arbitrarily divided up the religious voting blocks and leave the "non religious" as a single block. Do you think that being "non-religious" means that they will all vote the same for the same reasons? That they are even actually "non-religious" as in not believing in God and not just "I don't think about it much and don't go to church, but yeah I believe in God" and other sects of "non-religious"?

That poll is a complete joke. No wonder you like it.

Dividing them up was the whole point. That's what a voting block is. Voting blocks do not mean every one votes the same way, it means tendencies among them to vote a certain way. Did you really think I was trying to say that non-religious people outnumber all religious people? Only a fool would interpret me that way. And they are not arbitrarily divided up. They are divided up based on denomination. I should have figured a retard like you wouldn't get it. Next time I will try to remember the intellect on this site is jr high school level.

[Sparko]

So where does it say non-militia members can own weapons?

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

[The Thinker]

Where does it say that ONLY "militia members" can have weapons?

The part I bolded.

[The Thinker]

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

Oh you conveniently leave out the part you don't recognize. Seems like you're a hypocrite to me.

[Mountain Man]

So where does it say non-militia members can own weapons?

Are you really this stupid? Really?

[Cow Poke]

The part I bolded.

Not in the post to which I responded.

Please try again.

[The Thinker]

wow.

militias were made up of citizens, who could be called up at a moment's notice. they were not supplied guns by the state, but expected to maintain their own, and not be restricted from having them in their homes.

the founders had won a war with England by utilizing citizens armed with their own weapons - and rightfully foresaw that it might be necessary in the future to do the same thing.

"when in the course of human events...." (does that sound remotely familiar?)

Agreed. That ignores the point. Guns were for well regulated militias.

[The Thinker]

Not in the post to which I responded.

Please try again.

Look back at my other post. You know where it is.

[The Thinker]

I think they call it the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning-Kruger effect pretty much sums all most of the theists on this site.

[Cow Poke]

Agreed. That ignores the point. Guns were for well regulated militias.

Nope. "Well regulated militias" were the reason given for "the people" to have weapons in their homes. If there needed to be a "call up", they didn't want the additional time and expense of issuing weapons. They could easily add 'non members' as needed.

Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of 'the Minutemen'.