Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Who was it that said they wouldn't confiscate your guns over a little depression - or in this case a little anxiety? NY has been busy confiscating guns since their SAFEact passed. They took thus guy's because ge once took a little anti-anxiety meducation, which apparently is a violation.

Judge orders guns returned to Amherst man mistakenly identified as violating the SAFE Act - Buffalo

Really? Taking a half a Xanax could lead to confiscation in NY? What's next, enjoying a glass of wine?

---

Careful with what you say. Since he was a permit holder then you are not allowed any alcohol while carrying. There is zero tolerance for that. But no where in the article and most importantly was it shown that his lawyer fees were paid for by the State / County that created the problem in the first place. They did address his possible redress in the federal courts but what has happened and going to happen on a nationwide basis can be a nightmare for those involved and a god send to lawyers looking to make a few bucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Gosnell was performing legal abortions while the state turned their head, so apply that to your don't expect me to trust your relatives logic.

Otherwise gotta agree with caldad, choice and freedom to libs tends to be only those choices and freedoms they agree with.

---

I question that legality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

It is the narrowmindedness of the politicians we have today as well as the special interests that have infected the system like a virus. It is truely a shame that we have long term politicians because it keeps the fresh ideas from coming forward. I believe the fore fathers never invisioned lifetime politicians. I truely believe they were meant to live under the laws they created rather then be exempt. That alone has created mass animosity for government rule as well as bred a huge mistrust in the way things are handled.

Honest debate should always start by looking at the real problem and not those guided by party lines. Education for the law makers should be paramount to any issue taking place that is up for vote. Emotion drives many issues. But when you react purely on emotion then you subvert the greater good.

Just look at how the gun debate is being handled and the parade of victims being passed in front of our eyes to twist reality. We all need to stand strong and peer through the fog so we may sift the information with clear vision for the future.

---

Lawmakers don't listen to constituents, they listen to donors who have lobbyists, mostly former lawmakers. That a damn shame in my opinion. One would hope our lawmakers were already properly educated before we elect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I question that legality.




Lawmakers don't listen to constituents, they listen to donors who have lobbyists, mostly former lawmakers. That a damn shame in my opinion. One would hope our lawmakers were already properly educated before we elect them.

---

Properly educated is a base term. Just look at how many rumors I have tried to dispel in this thread alone and all of us are aducated people at our own level. What Im calling for is education of the matter at hand no matter what that is. If it is up for a vote it should be by an informed decision and not just by some lobby of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Of course it was a flaw in their thinking. This was always going to happen given enough time. Of course it gave rise to numerous possibilities. Do you think they were promoting some sort of ideological position? Like science it was an ongoing ended experiment.

Tut

---

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." George Washington.

Does that mean only Christian morality? Atheist need not apply?

I didn't say that.. they said a religious and moral people. One can be religious and still reject a creator god. Just ask the Hindu and Buddhist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." George Washington.

---

I think there is inadequate space to discuss the separation of religion and morality as per the quotes. If indeed, they can be separated at all.

The Enlightenment gave rise to the possibility that ethics and theology could be distinct. What we have is a history of human knowledge (rightly or wrongly) being the foundation of a society.

We have all testified here that when push comes to shove religion is made to fit the science of law and politics. That's the tradition we have inherited from the Enlightenment. The whole idea is to prevent the sciences from fitting the religion.


P.S.

In case someone reminds me. I know this has very little to do with the current thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." George Washington.

---

Tom look at what you have just posted, in defending your second amendment you are assuming your nation comprises a moral and religious people, the fact is that in many respects it is far from that allowing permissiveness and licentuiousness under the rights conferred by that same constitution and even your founders said It is wholly inadequate to the government of such circumstances

Those pillars that Washington spoke of have been eroded and therefore obviously need to be reinforced by other means

I am not ready to abandon the constitution .Like I already stated is that people who lose their liberty due to the effects of societal moral decay are ripe for the next Napoleon. Rather I'll continue to state my case that the direction the nation has turned is the wrong one.

Let me remind you that Napoleon, despite his adventurism and despotism, reformed the laws and that his system remains today. One should not fear reform and even complete change

Yeah nothing like a military dictatorship to restore order... and you ask why we want to keep our 2nd amendment rights.. why we don't want a national registry of gun owners .

I hope we have gotten way past that civil war stuff in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I hope we have gotten way past that civil war stuff in America.

---

Most of us have... a lot of one certain ethnic group seem to have a problem doing that for the most part.

I was born a Yankee but I've spent nearly all of my adult life in the south... so I relate to the Rebels far more than I do to the north.

And there are far too many northern liberals that can't get past it and let us southerners have our Rebel flag... probably because they still fear the south...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah nothing like a military dictatorship to restore order... and you ask why we want to keep our 2nd amendment rights.. why we don't want a national registry of gun owners .

---

You don't want responsibility you don't honestly think that you could successful resist the military with small arms do you? This is civil war thinking

Quote:

---

I hope we have gotten way past that civil war stuff in America.

---

Well Tal I don't think you have, not as long as people like Tom are around

And I still question just how passionate the military would be about suppressing their fellow Americans in the just cause of protecting our freedom from a repressive government.

Hello again,

There's an argument to be made about the second Amendment. It SHOULD be made between intelligent human beings who are GROUNDED in reality... But, when ONE side says they need their guns to defend themselves against the U.S. Army, the conversation has gone off the rails..

And then to THINK that the US Army would JOIN that rebellion is nuts, nuts, and even more nuts than that.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

There's an argument to be made about the second Amendment. It SHOULD be made between intelligent human beings who are GROUNDED in reality... But, when ONE side says they need their guns to defend themselves against the U.S. Army, the conversation has gone off the rails..

And then to THINK that the US Army would JOIN that rebellion is nuts, nuts, and even more nuts than that.

excon

---

Ex I agree with you this is civil war thinking, and so is the idea that citizens will support the army in resisting an invader effectively. Actually what is needed is that such people get out of the way

Hello again, Steve

Quote:

---

And I still question just how passionate the military would be about suppressing their fellow Americans in the just cause of protecting our freedom from a repressive government.

---

Do you question how passionately we went after Tim McVeigh? What makes YOU think YOUR rebellion is going to any more popular than HIS was??

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve

Do you question how passionately we went after Tim McVeigh?? What makes YOU think YOUR rebellion is going to any more popular than HIS was???

excon

---

Ex there is some sort of ego thinking operating here, the vigilante, the spirt of Zorro, of Batman even, but they are all in their head or even worse

Hello again, clete:

Quote:

---

Ex there is some sort of ego thinking operating here, the vigilante, the spirt of Zorro, of Batman even, but they are all in their head or even worse

---

Couple things... I don't doubt the military WOULD act against a repressive government. But, a government that elects its president and debates the passage of laws pursuant to its RULES, isn't repressive... It's not even close. George W. Bush taking away our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights was MUCH closer to REPRESSION than ANYTHING Obama is doing...

On the other hand, maybe we need to see one side WHIPPED up on real good before we can get something done... I'm ready to go.

Excon