[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

This is the THIRD time, by my count, that you have accused those of us, who support the imam, as people who ALSO support the LOSS of your First Amendment rights to protest against it. Where in the hell are you getting that from? The same place smoothy gets his facts???? Dude!

excon

And I have been accused more than once of being against the 1st amendment for protesting the placement of the mosque. Where do you get that from ?

[excon]

Congress cannot make a law, but apparently local governments can.

Hello again, Rick:

NO, they can't. But, it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that GOVERNMENT thinks it CAN. That's why we have to be diligent against them, and not give them an INCH. I APPLAUD your pro lifers for seeking THEIR First Amendment rights, just like I applaud ANYONE who does that. Dissent is very patriotic.

No, I don't agree with their motives... What the HELL do motives have to do with Constitutional rights? That IS the central theme in this thread, isn't it? You should have Constitutional rights UNLESS I don't agree with your motives?? That ain't the way we do things here.

excon

[RickJ]

I'm in full agreement with you. I was just pointing out that the Constitution only says that Congress cannot make a law. It does not prohibit local governments from making laws.

We've all seen the Constitution interpreted in many different ways over the years. I love that we have it, but I hate that it is so open to the interpretations of whoever is in power at the time.

The founding fathers had slaves but now we say slavery is not legal.

The founding fathers did not agree with abortion on demand for any reason but now it's OK.

The founding fathers knew the value of carrying a loaded weapon but now that right has been severely limited and even prohibited in some states.

The list goes on and on.

[slapshot_oi]

@smoothy
You're getting into local law, I don't know jack about that, New York is the most litigious state in the nation, no doubt they'll have to do the red-tape dance to even start planning for this mosque. When I said they had the right, I meant freedom of religion. But, I'll stop arguing the legal battle because it's bound to get confusing.

@tom
You can protest, I never said you can't.

All I really wanted to say was my theory that this is just an opportunistic and acceptable way to vocalize opposition to Islam that everyone had but kept quiet about. It's like the surgeon who chose that career because he's actually sadist and loves to cut people.

[excon]

and I have been accused more than once of being against the 1st amendment for protesting the placement of the mosque. Where do you get that from ?

Hello again, tom:

It's quite simple. I've been saying it from the start. Everyone on your side says this: "I agree with their right to build it, BUT....."

If you EMBRACE the Constitution, there are NO buts. If you BELIEVE in the concepts outlined the Constitution, there are no buts. If you understand the reasons for our founding, there are no buts. If you believe that freedom is for EVERYBODY, there are no buts. And, there are especially, no lists.

As simple as I think it is, you don't. I haven't convinced you in ten years of the rightness of my ways, and I don't think I ever will.

excon

[excon]

I'm in full agreement with you. I was just pointing out that the Constitution only says that Congress cannot make a law. It does not prohibit local governments from making laws.

Hello Rick:

Yes it does. You're right, though, in that the Bill of Rights all by itself, only prohibits the FEDS from preying on its citizens. But, the Fourteenth Amendment took care of that bit of housecleaning...

Here's what it says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That clause, basically tells the states that the Bill of Rights applies to them too.

excon

[tomder55]

I haven't convinced you in ten years of the rightness of my ways, and I don't think I ever will

Correct you won't . Because it is not simply a matter of they have a right to build it therefore it should be built. The right to build has not been in dispute .

All I really wanted to say was my theory that this is just an opportunistic and acceptable way to vocalize opposition to Islam that everyone had but kept quiet about.

Stick around ;I have hardly been quite on the subject.
You said that you suspect that I oppose the building of all mosques ;and that is simply not the case .Then you implied that my opposition to it implicates me of being intolerant .

There is a continuous over the top theme in this thread (and also the arguments of Bloomberg and the President before he revised his comments ) that those who oppose it are against 1st amendment religious freedoms. It is not true ;an unfounded smear.

[RickJ]

Hello Rick:

Yes it does. You're right, though, in that the Bill of Rights all by itself, only prohibits the FEDS from preying on its citizens. But, the Fourteenth Amendment took care of that bit of housecleaning...

Here's what it says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That clause, basically tells the states that the Bill of Rights applies to them too.

excon

But that does not cover cities or townships or municipalities or even homeowner associations, right?

[excon]

But that does not cover cities or townships or municipalities or even homeowner associations, right?

Hello again, Rick:

Yes, it does. It covers EVERY government agency. Even HOA's, in some jurisdictions, have been declared quasi-governmental agencies (which they are), and have been ordered to follow "due process" of law.

excon

[smoothy]

@smoothy
You're getting into local law, I don't know jack about that, New York is the most litigious state in the nation, no doubt they'll have to do the red-tape dance to even start planning for this mosque. When I said they had the right, I meant freedom of religion. But, I'll stop arguing the legal battle because it's bound to get confusing.

I'm not very familiar with New York City law either, only to a small degree... and you are correct. I've heard getting anything actually done there takes major amounts of patience and perseverance.

But we can argue against it being built. It IS our constitutional right under the First amendment. And there is no exemption for Muslims or Mosques anywhere in the Constitution. And as I did mention. Construction can be blocked for anything without a need for anything to be against the law or code, just objections from neighbors. Remember the NIMBY acronym.

[RickJ]

Hello again, Rick:

Yes, it does. It covers EVERY government agency. Even HOA's, in some jurisdictions, have been declared quasi-governmental agencies (which they are), and have been ordered to follow "due process" of law.

excon

That is your interpretation. And I wish it were true but clearly it is not. It says Congress in one place and States in another... but it does not say cities, townships, etc... so we just have to live with that and fight it when local governments and agencies try to make laws that we believe are unconstitutional.

[excon]

The right to build has not been in dispute .

Hello again, tom:

What IS in dispute then. Should this ONE guy NOT do what the Constitution says he can do? No?? And, he shouldn't do it because YOU don't think he should? He shouldn't do it because MOST people don't think he should?? Really??

Do you view YOUR Constitutional rights the same way?? Are you are THAT cavalier about them?? Nahhh. You ain't.

I don't think you should own a gun. I think it's HIGHLY insensitive that you do. I'll bet I can find a MAJORITY of Americans who agree with me too. You going to throw out your guns?? HELL no you're not! Who're you trying to kid?

excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, tom:

What IS in dispute then. Should this ONE guy NOT do what the Constitution says he can do? No??? And, he shouldn't do it because YOU don't think he should? He shouldn't do it because MOST people don't think he should???? Really???

Do you view YOUR Constitutional rights the same way???? Are you are THAT cavalier about them??? Nahhh. You ain't.

I don't think you should own a gun. I think it's HIGHLY insensitive that you do. I'll bet I can find a MAJORITY of Americans who agree with me too. You gonna throw out your guns???? HELL no you're not! Who're you trying to kid?

excon

Hypothetically lets say legally someone could open a gay bar on the lot next to your house... Or a Dirty book store that's open 24 hours and did plan to do it.

Do you have the right to object to it? And why is that any different?

Assume You are say, a black Church... and the KKK wants to open a club next door to you. Flags, gas fired cross and all, do they have the right do do it? A Mosque next to ground zero is NO different that that would be.

[RickJ]

Hypothetically lets say legally someone could open a gay bar on the lot next to your house....Or a Dirty book store thats open 24 hours and did plan to do it.

Do you have the right to object to it? And why is that any different?

Yes we have the right to object. This is often how local zoning and licensing laws change in many areas.

[smoothy]

Yes we have the right to object. This is often how local zoning and licensing laws change in many areas.

And that is the point I was making. We DO have the right to block anything being built. Dirty book store or Mosque... even a Church which is frequently the case.

[Catsmine]

I'll bet I can find a MAJORITY of Americans who agree with me too.

Hi, Ex.

I'll take 20 bucks of that action. A majority of Americans disapprove of gun ownership? Doubtful.

[smoothy]

Hi, Ex.

I'll take 20 bucks of that action. A majority of Americans disapprove of gun ownership? Doubtful.

Exactly, only a majority of Democrats that think criminals have a constitutional right to not be shot and killed during a home robbery seem to believe that way.

I know Washington DC was one place that did and has charged homeowners with attempted murder for shooting and armed robber INSIDE their own home. But the criminal with a gun they legally could not own as a convicted felon was charged with a misdemeaner.

Luckily in most cases the Jury saw it differently.


Just one of many reasons you could not pay me to live in DC.

As a Virginian, I have the right to open carry a handgun or apply for a permit for Concieled carry (and get it) and even gasp... shoot and kill any sob that I catch breaking into my house... and not get charged with it.

Here you are allowed to defend yourself, your property and your family from criminals.

And nobody is "Alledgedly" robbing your house at 2 am. If I didn't invite them in... they are guilty of doing it and I can take any and all steps I deam necessary to defend myself, my property and my family. Up to and including lethal force.

A dead robber never repeats his crime again and never comes back for vengeance.

[excon]

Hypothetically lets say legally someone could open a gay bar on the lot next to your house....Or a Dirty book store thats open 24 hours and did plan to do it.

Do you have the right to object to it? And why is that any different?

Hello again, smoothy:

Assuming they met local zoning and building codes, I could certainly object, as you have here. Nobody suggested you didn't have a voice. But a voice is all it is. An opinion. You're welcome to it. But, as you said, it's LEGAL. Government ISN'T going to DO a thing about it. Nor should they?

Aren't you for a free market? If I didn't like the peep show next door, I could move. I don't want the government to solve all my problems... You don't, do you, as a small government tea partier, want the government to intrude on gay bars and dirty book stores??

excon

[excon]

Exactly, only a majority of Democrats that think criminals have a constitutional right to not be shot and killed during a home robbery seem to believe that way.

Hello again, smoothy and you too Cats:

You miss the point. A majority of people liking it, or not, DOESN'T change your right to own a gun. You HAVE that right. You HAVE it because you're a sovereign citizen of these United States. NOBODY can take it away from you. NOBODY. There's NO DOUBT that you believe it, too. You believe it, because it's TRUE. You don't CARE if it's insensitive, either. In fact, you're clearly PROUD that it IS. I don't blame you. That's FINE with me. You don't have to make excuses to ANYBODY about your motives for seeking your RIGHTS.

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello again, smoothy and you too Cats:

You miss the point. A majority of people liking it, or not, DOESN'T change your right to own a gun. You HAVE that right. You HAVE it because you're a soverign citizen of these United States. NOBODY can take it away from you. NOBODY. There's NO DOUBT that you believe it, too. You believe it, because it's TRUE. You don't CARE if it's insensitive, either. In fact, you're clearly PROUD that it IS. I don't blame you. That's FINE with me. You don't have to make excuses to ANYBODY about your motives for seeking your RIGHTS.

excon

Enjoy them while you can, Ex. If your guy Barry (can't say boy in this case) gets re-elected, odds are you won't have as many, such as what to buy with your own money.