Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

I gave you NUMEROUS examples.

Again, you aren't even asking the right questions.

 

Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
I hope you enjoyed your time in the light because you're now headed back to the pit. Buh-bye.

 

You shouldn't really surrender that early.

There ARE hard questions.

You just picked some total duds.

 

Then those are not liberals.

 

That Christian Inquisition Agency crashing the internet again to keep liberal Christians all too dang lily brilliant white …...

 

How about the other way around?

 

Why not? Science can no longer be used to determine an individuals gender. Politics now allows that to be a choice.

 

I suppose there is always the possibility that one can interfere with the other. A religion can tell you how to think and act, though you can always ignore that part if you choose to. Most people don't follow every single thing in their religion. A lot of people I know are moderates that follow the core values alone, and not the details.

I'm not sure if you're being legitimate or comedic. I personally don't believe gender can be a choice, but some people do, and I guess I can respect that.

 

Apart from your invalid assumptions about how I might have acted in the 18th century, your comment proves the necessity for constitutions to be updated from time to time.

 

The idea that everything in the Bible is defacto the word of God is patent nonsense - unless you think God is some flip flopping contradictory genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

The idea that Republicans - especially the religious right - are followers of the teachings of Jesus in general relative to Liberals is also patent nonsense.

 

Read a bunch of posts before this and - well - neither side said much that made any reference to the central issue.

"Limitations to rights" "Does someone owning a gun harm someone" "Law is the Law" "Rule of Law" and so on.

The question here is one of "legitimacy of authority" - In a Constitutional Republic (based on the founding principles which detail how law and that constitution is supposed to be interpreted) does the Gov't have the legitimate authority to make Law X.

1) The Law is the Law - No kidding - Just because some court makes a law does not make that law not a violation of the legitimate authority of Gov't/court.

2) Limitations to rights. Gov't has no legitimate authority to make any law messing with individual liberty of its own volition - outside of its legitimate authority. The legitimate authority of Gov't is to punish (via law) actions related to direct harm - one person on another - (rape, murder theft and so on).

"We the people" have the power to authorize the Gov't to limit rights and freedoms/Liberty. The bar for such authorization is not 50+1/simple majority mandate. The bar is "overwhelming majority" - at least 2/3rds majority consent.

Simple majority mandate is considered "tyranny of the majority" in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism. If SMM was enough then there would be no point in putting individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

3) Does the act of owning a gun harm anyone. "does the act of owning a nuke harm anyone".

The right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the constitution. Banning this right is "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't - of its own volition.

Limitations to this right are not within the direct purview of Gov't. If the Gov't wants to make laws restricting firearm ownership it must appeal to "we the people" for a change to the social contract.

The bar - overwhelming majority - is no different than for any other law.

In the case of nukes - An overwhelming majority would readily agree that an individual owning a nuke represents such a threat to society that this activity should be banned - Gov't should be given power to punish those that would do or attempt to do such a thing.

Getting an overwhelming majority to agree that folks should not have sophisticated military equipment in general .. I do not think would be a problem.

Owning a gun ? I think the vast majority would agree that mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own a firearm. Beyond this and perhaps a few other specific examples - I do not think 2 out of 3 people would agree that gun ownership in general should be banned.

Regardless - that is the test of legitimacy for any law.

 

At least I have supported my proposition, ie, that the need to protect the state in our times via a professional military has nothing to do with a postulated universal right to bear arms. You make no effort to refute this.

But the 2nd does appeal to the need for "a well-regulated militia" as a basis for a universal right to bear arms, and as such this anachronism should be should be repealed immediately.

Not so, of course. The right to life, liberty, security and prosperity are fundamental and not exclusive to one-another.

Indeed - and I note this is why you accuse me of "hating freedom" - I would argue gun rights, abortion rights, marriage rights, and freedom of religion, etc, are secondary rights of lesser import to the fundamental rights outlined above, rights that are also the first rights outlined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the US constitution, namely, life, liberty; and pursuit of happiness (US) and security of person (UN).

[That's why I argue for abolishing the veto in the UNSC, for a world without the scourge of war; under this system, you can still vote on marriage rights, gun rights, etc, in your own nation, and the UNSC would have no interest in such matters ("secondary rights)". We are entering a new age in which competition resulting from resource scarcity and technological development will no longer require resort to arms.)

It is in fact you who disrespects rule of law on behalf of the well-being of the community via promotion of good relations between self-interested individuals (a principle I extend to international relations as noted above).

I have addressed it now. Your "right to bear arms" is not equal to the right to life, liberty, security and above poverty level participation in the economy. My contention is borne out by the first rights, ie, pre-eminent rights mentioned in the US constitution and the UN Declaration.

Hopefully you are responsible enough to ensure your children have no chance of gaining access to them. How many accidental deaths have occurred because of irresponsible ownership?

OTOH, if we want to promote the universal rights to life, liberty, security, and above poverty level participation in the economy, then other considerations ought to be pursued more vigorously than a postulated right to possess guns.

If it makes you happy (and to allow the board to move on), I'll answer no.....and be content to observe the ongoing US experience with its relatively lax gun laws, since I don't live in the US.

Meantime I'm more interested in effecting article 25 of the UN Declaration, ie, the universal right to above poverty level participation in the economy, in the context of rule of law promoting universal rights to life and liberty.

 

Is there anywhere outside of the 2nd amendment (which seems to me an anachronism) where it is mentioned in the Constitution?

 

You need it to be mentioned twice ? Regardless if you would have read and comprehended my post you would realize that it does not need to be mentioned at all in the constitution.

The gov't has no legitimate authority - of its own volition - to make any law that messes with individual liberty.

 

I understood the rest of your post (that's why I did not quote it fully); however I wanted to know (as a non US citizen) whether the US Constitution deals with a right to bear arms as being an intrinsic right, like the universally recognised rights to life and liberty.

In the 18th century, life and liberty in the American frontier were no doubt aided by free access to arms, but in modern times such unregulated ("shall not be infringed") status is arguably producing the opposite outcome.

 

Amendment 2: 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

here is the basic wiki explanation.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear armsand was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.[8]

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state

 

Article V of the Constitution provides for such, but our controlling political parties have found that filling the Courts with activist Judges who are willing to apply eisegesis to the words of the Constitution to be a much easier way to accomplish their agenda.
There is very little difference between the views of our political parties and the politicians who comprise them.

 

Like life and liberty there is an intrinsic right to self defense however that does NOT include a right to lethal weapons capable of killing a great many people in a short period of time.

The 2nd Amendment has been DISTORTED from it's original intention which was for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA to defend the independence of the states themselves. That extended to REGULATE individual firearms as proven in the original Militia Acts of 1792.

The gun of obsessed of today fallaciously believe that their right to have guns capable of mass murder is ordained by god.

 

Thanks for the various comments on the 2nd Amendment.

The wiki article on the (English) 1689 Bill of Rights reveals the influence of the subsequent legislations dealing with rights, eg, the American, French, UN Declaration and EU constitutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Amusingly, one of the provisions of the 1689 Bill outlaws the "keeping of a standing army, except by consent of parliament".
and another: "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law";

(Actually the first of these could apply with my proposed UNSC without veto!.....)

(King James II, deposed in the 'Glorious revolution' of 1688, was a catholic given to arbitrary persecution of Protestants).

All of which begs the question: from whence does "oppression" arise, in our modern 'liberal' democracies?

(My personal analysis: economic exclusion based on the self-interested impulse to protect the 'haves' from the 'have nots' , and the failure to recognise that such exclusion is no longer necessary).

"It's the economy, stupid".

 

When it comes to guns, "it's the stupid obsession"!

 

This is why we have an amendment process built into our constitution.

 

And we graciously accept your concessions of the points made with regard to same.

 

No reference to a profession military is relevant to a discussion involving the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, whether your are right or wrong, it means nothing.

Your opinion runs opposite to the law, and is thus irrelevant.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Until that point, the 2nd remains in place, protecting an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing you can do or say will change this.

And you seek to trample on the right to property and prosperity by forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights - that is, you seek to place people into a condition of involuntary servitude.
Thus, you hate freedom.

Your opinion here does not matter with respect to the rights held by the people under US law.

I see you cannot argue against the points made. I accept your concession.
Facts:
- Simple ownership/possession of a firearms harms no one
- Simple ownership/possession of a firearm places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
As such, under the premise and precedents set by 1st Amendment jurisprudence, the simple ownership/possession of a firearm by someone who holds the right to keep and bear arms cannot be constitutionally limited.

Yes.. by placing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.
Becasue you hate freedom.

 

The 2nd Amendment is all we need.

 

the founders were rich liberal atheists who led poor conservative christians into battle against england, so no they are separate but equal.

when you accept religion you accept weakness and honor, when you accept liberalism you accept strength and honor. unfortunately many cannot consent to either side and it is forced upon them.