I have seen figures as high as 300,000,000 guns in this nation. Then consider 12,000 or so gun deaths a year with about 8,000 attributable to gang-bangers and you're left with a helluva low percentage. All other forms of homicide combined surpass guns. The left doesn't seem to get it.
They do get it, that is not the point of their rampage, control is what it is all about. They are authoritarians who believe they should dictate to others what they can do and own.
Providing an alternative viewpoint, or providing an objective summation of your position, is not "twisting and spinning". Clearly, you have no valid points to make and are choosing to believe that's somehow my fault, rather than reevaluating your position. I find that very childish.
Do you really believe those laws were based on religion, given that they exist in every country/religion/culture?
I believe a prohibition regarding murder and lies/perjury are mentioned in the Bible, perhaps even in the beginning and you, as a purist, would be for striking these religious, moral influences the state?
You're putting the cart before the horse. Those rules were in place before your religion existed. You cannot justify legislating a national religion and claim to give a crap about the Constitution.
Existing before God you say, hmmmm? No not national religion but the prohibition on murder and source it to Genesis...in the beginning after "Let there be light.".
I didn't say before God... I said before your religion. Whether more than one of those things exist is a topic for another thread. Only if you happen to believe in that book. Unfortunately for you, the 1A won't allow you to make your religion any more relevant to the legal system than any other.
It is not faith in an object. And yet Moses among other historical figures adorns the very hallowed building of our primary judicial structure...best work on removing that using your 1A, no?
"Among other historical figures"...? Please show the relevance this has to establishing laws founded on any one religion in preference to others.
Are you asserting that murder and bearing false witness were not known to be wrong before the time of Moses?
What is the source of Mosiac law? And don't say stone! If that source is timeless then your question is moot.
Much of it was already law, so I'm unsure of your point. Nor am I sure what this has to do with justification for ignoring the 1A. Nor am I sure why you believe you can be justified in "protecting the 2A" while justifying ignoring the 1A. Care to clarify any of that?
I, in contrast to the present presidential administration, its minions and supporters, will not ignore the Constitution. I support all the rights recognized as pre-existing, enumerated and implied in and by the Constitution and am compelled to call out the devilry of infringement when its ugly head creeps from the nefariously insatiable realm of despotic inspired gnashing, snatching and usurping of individual rights ...other than that I'm quite indifferent, actually.
I don't have a problem. And I am GLAD you are able to worship as you chose and I have NEVER even come close to posting anything that would make anyone think that because you choose to worship it would offend me so why do you even post this nonsense? AboveAlpha
Sure, but I still don't support it. I like guns, I don't care much about these people - so I dislike gun control. Pretty much as simple as that. Not concerned. I don't much care if you're accidentally shot. That's your problem, not mine.
Except that you believe a single religion should be legislated, thereby being made the state religion, in direct contradiction to the first amendment... Any Gish gallop or appeal to verbosity you attempt doesn't dodge that.
So sayeth one supportive of infringing the right to arms, the very right that played a key role in the American Revolution and the birth of this nation.
I've said that the 2A should be no more or less regulated than any other amendment. I now understand that you believe this translates as the 2A being totally dispensable, since you believe the others (particularly the 1A) are.
Dodge. You asked..........."Among other historical figures"...? Please show the relevance this has to establishing laws founded on any one religion in preference to others. You were given the answer Moses. You asked about laws. - - - Updated - - - They exists now. Moses predates their existence. - - - Updated - - - Where is such support in this thread?
Those traditions/laws predate Moses, so I don't know why you've arbitrarily picked out that point in history. How is it a dodge to point out that he was not the first to implement those rules? Please feel free to look at the posts on this thread yourself, starting with #328.
