Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

As it seems this is where most of our confusion comes from, and is basses of so much discord, I think it would do good for everyone to be filled on the true intent of them. Given some back ground on why the founders seen fit to add them, and what lead up to their thinking behind the wording. I know I wasn't there, nether was any of us. Yet if we look at them, through the eyes of history, can we not find an intelligent, and logical reason behind them all?
Yes I understand this topic will drag the haters out of the wood work, so may I suggest that we all just ignore them.
Amendments 1 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.

It was common place in the early years Rome to demand that every one follow their ideas of how people should worship. This was followed through by almost every king, or leader of most every nation. We did have some that stood in deficient of the church of Rome, England, and so on. Many were put to death. The church in it's ever so narrow thinking, forced others to fall in line, or loss everything they had. In some cases they were deported. It was during a time like this that Christopher Columbus sailed on his voyage to find a new rout to the Indies.
Things had not changed must by 1700's. Having lived in a land where it was follow or suffer. The founders had little love for this form of law. If they removed from the government any power to force their ideas of religion on the people, they would free us from tyrants.
It has been left for us as a people to stand vigilant. Yet we have let our children down. My parents sat back and did nothing as prayer, was removed school. The salients was defining from religious leaders, and families as it became a crime to have a Bible in school. Still even more so as the government was emboldened by our lack of action. As they move ever closer to mandating what your leaders can, and can't teach from the their pulpits. They have called teachings from the Bible hate speech, and in Huston TX. even demanded all the note from pastors on their sermons. Thankfully many did not comply.
It is with in this frame work of understanding, that our founders, gave us this amendment. It was not a way to remove religion from ever aspect of life, rather it's intent was to remove government from every aspect of religious practice. Meant to insure that we had the right to speak of our own without reprisal from law.
What the haters of religion need to understand is that where your right to not hear it, attempts to over ride my right to speak, your rights end. You have the right to walk away, not pray, or look at Bible. You however don't have to right to infringe on my right to practice as I see fit.

badbobby Loc: texas

stand your ground Rainrider
most of us will stand with you

kankune Loc: Iowa

Amen Rainrider. Glad to have you here!!!

Oldsalt

Rain rider, if you want more information on the justification of the Constitution and the first ten Amendments,read "The Fedraalist". It is a group of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison to explain the Constitution and the Amendments to the people. They were published in the news papers of the time. You can't read it straight through, it is sectional. But it is a real good study guide to the Constitution and the Bill of rights. Why they are written as they are. It leaves little doubt as to their meaning or intent.

patron1

First, let me establish the fact that I advocate the establishment of the US Constitution for it's intended purposes.

The Constitution of the United States was originally established for the common good of a Christian nation, and the intent was good, which also allowed for the practice of other religions.

However, in my opinion, some of the Amendments to the US Constitution are very poorly written, and can be used against the Republic and the common good, including the 1st amendment.

For example, the 1st Amendment reads, in part, as follows:

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion."

Can anyone out there explain to me what in our constitution or anywhere in our volumes of law might counter the establishment of something like the Islamic religion, given it's tenets of the Quran and Sharia Law, which does not allow for the common good, especially if one is a Christian or not a Muslim?

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Excellent suggestion Oldsalt..!!!👏👏

It may be sectional but the writings are all a masterpiece!!! So much more understanding of our forefathers intent not to mention a glimpse into the men that wrote them!!!

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

There is also a free course on them through Hinsdale University that is excellent too.. I know I took it just to broaden my insight..

I recommend it to everyone..

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Well said, Rainrider!! Thank You..

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

As Islame can only exist with sharia being the only law, they would have to remove the law of the land. As the constitution is not just a law, rather the supreme law of this land, Islame would be forced to over through our government, or move on. In other words, Sharia, by it's nature, is contrary to every thing our constitution stands for. Thus, it's own intent sets it outside our law. There may be no amendment, or law stating this, yet it is true by default.

patron1

Sharia Law is a primary tenet of the Islamic RELIGION, without it there is no religion.

According to the 1st amendment, in affect, our government is prohibited from discriminating against any religion, plain and simple. The amendment makes no equivocation or exception for any religion.

With that in mind, I don't believe our Supreme court could make a ruling on a default basis. The rule of law, in this case would be in favor of the inflexibility of the 1st amendment and rule for islam. Especially if the Democrat's have anything to say about it.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

The 2nd amendment is by fare the most fought over, as to it's meaning. One that will most likely remain so until every word, or phrase has been beat down, rung out, and taken apart. Even then if one party or the other doesn't get the out come they want, they will seek a new way to interpret the following words.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Today the debate is whether or not this protect the rights of the individual or not. For those that say it doesn't they look only at the words regulated militia. Yet in WW2 the Japanese seen an invasion of the US as hopeless, if I remember this right they said, "There will a gun behind every blade of grass." That was due in part to the idea that the people would stand up and fight. Paid or unpaid, I know full well I would fight if any nation moved to invade us. There has also been some that say the USA has the largest unpaid standing army in the world. This is due to the fact there are so many guns in the hands of LAW abiding people.
When this was written, we must understand that this was the intent. Back then they know, as many do today, that a good hunter is a deadly advisory. They can track, stalk, and move unseen. At lest the better ones can. When we speak of troughs that are among the best, they can move through any terrain and leave no sign they had been there. They can work other hunters they don't know, and have the ability to form an army out of a hand full of men and women. They were called minute men.
The thing we need to ask is this. What if anything has changed? Can a hand full of men and women defeat a well trained and well armed military today? I would like to think they can. Yet when looking at the plains, tanks, and other technology they would face, it is some what questionable at best.
Yet when looks at the words, "The right of the people shall not be infringed", can we not see that this is talking of the people as well? If the people had no way to defend themselves, the government could, and I will say would take what evr they wanted from the people. The could and would place us in controlled cities, re-stick our movement, as well what how much of what we could have on hand. Government only respect us when they know they can not hold total control over us. Don't get me wrong, they will from time to time, push. If for no other reason than to see what we are willing to put up with. They have done so in Texas, Nevada, Idaho, and others I am sure.
Even when this was written there were people on both sides. Some want the government to hold full power over the militia and others didn't like this huge shift in power. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
I am in hopes that this will not in anyway bring discourse, though a good healthy debate is always nice. Hope to hear from you all.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

When looked at in that light you may well be right. However, when one looks at the heart of islame, it is clear they are in fact a governmental system, that has masked them self as a religion. It was with this understanding that in 1918 England forced the disbanding of the Ottoman. Under the treaty that was signed, they could no longer have a caliphate. that was the worst thing that could have happened to islame, they were left for the first time with out their government. Does this mean that they no longer followed the laws of said government? NO. It only means they would have to fight to re-establish said government. As they have been doing for almost 100 years now.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

When it comes to dealing the rights and wrongs of the second amendment, their are some that wish to push the right to own fully automatic weapons. As a man that believes we should have the right to bare arms, I can say that I see on reason to own anything of the kind. One shoot should be all you need to drop a dear, or elk. It is however a mater of choice.
So let me ask this. Am I the only one that wishes the people that are pushing to remove guns, would at lest get some kind of education about them, and the people that own them?
I am going to hold off on posting anything on the III amendment for now. As it seems I jumped the gun when I post the II. I do hope to hear from some of you on this. If not, we will move on.
Have a good day no matter.

Oldsalt

Rainrider, The 2nd Amendment was not written for hunting. As you so apply stated it was written for the defense of the people against the Government or outside invasion. And we are inder invasion right now from South of the boarder. People just don't want to see it. Any and all illeagal aliens are infact foriegn invaders and should be treated as such. We have gone along way from the poor Mexicans that are just trying to make a living. We have on our southern boarder a full on invasion, drugs, terrorists, and human trafficing. For several decades the boarder patrol have been handcuffed. Maybe now with this administration they will be able to do their job. If not maybe we will have to.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

One thing we can all agree on I hope is that if it comes down to forming a militia in short order, most hunters are well trained. In both weapons and tactics. True it would gorilla warfare, yet that is an effective means.
As for the invasion, we must keep Trump in our prayers, he will face opposition from the bleeding heart libs no matter what he does.

patron1

You are so right oldsalt. The United states is under invasion from south of the border, Mexico, et al. And to their credit, they are taking over California/the United States without firing a shot, not withstanding Hispanic gang memeber drive-by shootings.

Hispanic's are now the majority population in California and will be taking California back within the next 20 years. Hispanic's have established in-roads to politics where they will control Sacramento in short time. Both Bush and Obama were a big help in allowing this to happen. Obama, simply because he is a Left Wing Socialist Democrat, who did everything he could to destroy our country, and, I'm not sure why Bush was for open borders and amnesty, perhaps because his sister-in-law, Jeb's wife is Hispanic.