I disagree, we WERE built on the foundation of christainity ill of rights say "God-given Right" That implys that God and the morals of Chirstainity. We ARE however also a nation of tolerance and protect people to rights to believe in who or what they choose. The problem is the government, they are twisting and devaluing and eleminating our rights and taking away our freedom to religion. Christains are now the most prosecuted religion in the world. This America is not the America our forefathers planned for us.

So far the only true insults that have been thrown around are yours. You add nothing constructive and are merely a troll. Therefore I shall treat you appropriately by ignoring any further comment you have to make on any topic.

You'll think that until they take away your rights, and the men with guns come to your door.

Man how arrogant you are! "I***tic viewpoints", "ridiculous opinions" by whose standards? Yours? I think not. In your other post, you were concerned that you might be revealed for a fool. This post certainly comes close. You are not qualified to consider the quality of another person's viewpoint or opinion. I say this because your very statement alone means you think that anyone who's opinion or viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours is i***tic or ridiculous. That alone is grounds for making your viewpoint i***tic, and your opinion ridiculous.

"Sensible Rights"? By whose accounting? Yours? I think not! I challenge you to even define sensible rights, or to state what qualifications a right has for being sensible. You can't, that much I guarantee.



You cannot ask for an example, and then deliberately claim that one specific one cannot be claimed. That is a common liberal tactic. "Give me proof!...but you can't use this or this or this!" Typical. As for the right to bear arms, I already handled this one in another post elsewhere.

However, for the sake of this argument, let's start with the definition of Arms used during the day of our founding fathers to see how they understood it.

Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language
Arms. n.s. without the singular number. [arma, Lat.]
1. Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.
2. A state of hostility.
3. War in general.
4. Action; the act of taking arms.
5. The ensigns amorial of a family.

It is interesting to note that their idea of arms is as an offensive weapon, and also includes defensive armors. That means that the right to bear arms in the sense that they knew it was to gear up for war. Consequently, they would have included cannons, mortars and rockets (which were all known weapons of that day) in their definition of arms.

It is also interesting to note that our forefathers made no distinction of weapons in the Bill of Rights. The could easily have said "The right to bear arms of a personally carry-able nature." thus precluding the purchase of cannons and other "military" class weapons. The fact is that they considered al weapons to be military in nature. Their decision to not exclude weapons in the wording of the 2nd Amendment is deliberate. And that they also placed language saying that right "shall not be infringed" is also telling.

So, what part of "Shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand? The definition?

in·fringe [in-frinj]
verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or t***sgress
verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

Hmmm... so it means don't break or weaken the right to bear arms. It would appear to me then that any law restricting the purchase of any type of weapon, its magazine size, or even the type of ammunition would fit the definition of infringe. I suspect our founding fathers would agree. Especially since we have their writings on the subject, and the fact that they saw our very government as the likely enemy of the people.

As for other violations, there are so many, it's hard to know where to start! I think I'll let some of the others have a hand in so I will only bring out one of the obvious ones. Both freedom of speech and free exercise of religion is being attacked. As a christian, you are not allowed to speak out against hot-button topics like homosexuality. Anything you say is labeled h**e speech. I can go much further into this, but I'm more interested in what others have to say.

I will only tell you this. No single person, no organization, sets the Norm for a society. Only society in general sets norms. Those norms are expressed through demographics. Norms can change over time. At one point in our history, Christianity was the norm for our society. Now its prominence is not as strong. The point is that norms are demonstrated by the combined actions/opinions of an entire body of people. Every collection has a set of norms no matter how big or small. The norm we are talking about encompasses the entirety of the United States of America. Norms are not error prone as they are expressions of human behavior. So, lose the whole idea of anyone setting them; that dog don't hunt. You seem to have a very poor understanding of human behavior. How sad.

No, but I may label you "ignorant". It is clear that you haven't studied the Bible, otherwise you would not have said that next to last statement.

The fact is, that you know nothing of the koran. I too have read the koran. It does, as you say, define an entire system of governance. It is government, law, religion, economics all rolled into one. It also commands practitioners to bring jihad to the infidel (non-practitioners). It sanctions rape. It allows sanctions sodomy of children, going so far as to likening a young boy as to a fine pearl. Not only does it sanction murder, but it commands that you behead infidels how will not convert, or to make them s***es. There is little good to be found in Islam. It truly is a religion of h**e.

The Bible, on the other hand, gives historical accounting of the people of Israel, and the consequences of their failure to follow God's will. It also is the testimony of Christ who came to bring understanding of the Law of Moses and Aaron and the Prophets. Not just understanding, but completion of the law as well. His sacrifice and resurrection sealed the New Covenant he made with his followers, and those who follow them in following His teachings. I provided more evidence of this in another post discussing the two Commandments He gave. I'll let you find that and read it for yourself. The only other command He gave was to go into the world and make disciples of all men. His was a message of love and caring for your fellow man. If we all simply followed His teachings, and truly applied them to our lives, there would be no need for any further law as we would all be taking care of each others needs. There would be no poor.

I did warn that this topic requires knowledge of the subject matter. Do a little research...if for no other reason than to attempt to disprove me...then get back with me. Perhaps then I will decide if I think you truly ignorant. I won't call you a fool, because the Bible says not to call your brother (your fellow man) a fool. If you are behaving foolishly, I may say that you are behaving foolishly, but I'll never call you a fool.

You show you are grossly ignorant in that belief. The police themselves admit that they cannot help you if a crime is occurring...unless they happen to be right there as it is happening. In fact, the average response time varies from 30 to 60 minutes depending on circumstances and distance.

So, what do you do when it is your very government who is the enemy who is taking away your rights? Our founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment for the greatest protection of all. To fight against a tyrannical government. They believed it was the duty of the PEOPLE to take care of themselves. The only protection our government was to give was protection from other governments, hence a military. They gave us a limited form of government because they believed that the people should govern themselves. The government's role was only to step in when they failed to do so.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/we-are-above-the-law-of-the-land/

Yeah, this one is more rhetorical. However, it would appear that there are those who believe that they are.

I seldom like to mix religion with politics, but when discussing this particular topic, it is inevitable. Please bear in mind that the particular religion discussed in this topic views itself as a total governance system. It describes economics, religion, politics, indeed every facet of a person's day to day life.

Participants would be well advised to have studied this religion to some extent before commenting. Mere opinion will likely make you look foolish.