T1B

Diego in Seattle wrote:Not suprising that the crowd that selectively forgets the part of the 2nd Amendment that goes "in order to form a well-regulated militia can't seem to acknowedge that privileges are protected by the Constitution just as much as rights.

maybe because it doesn't state it like that you fucking moron.

it doesn't say 'in order to form'. do you just add words in when quoting the Constitution whenever you feel?

dumbfuck.

when the people are afraid of the government, thats called tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people, thats called "LIBERTY",

every troll in here needs to understand this, cause without liberty, you may as well be dead.

poptart wrote:...so the next best thing is to maintain the obvious and rightful standard for the institution of marriage which existed LONG before the U.S. legislature came into being.

how far back are we supposed to go when determining which version of marriage is the "rightful standard?" i'll go with abraham.

Jesus verified the rightful standard when he spoke to the Pharisees as recorded in Matthew 19:3-8.

Matthew 19:4-5
"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

The only reason God allowed (but never blessed or called for them) variations was - "because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites" - v.8, "but from the beginning it was not so", emphasized Jesus.

Genesis 2:20-25 (one man, one woman, one flesh for life) was God's intention, as Jesus verified.

All variations, distortions, and perversion, came about after man's fall in Genesis 3 - including Abraham's (and many other's) multiple mates.

Jesus came, spoke of the correct restoration of marriage, and THAT has been the marriage standard recognized predominantly by western society since.

It is correct and rightful.

Toddowen wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:They did however mention that the People (aka "Militia") must have the ability to overcome any domestic standing army, and should have personal arms equivalent to those of any standing army that might be formed.

I don't know about that but the 2nd amendment is explicit in stating that the People armed are necessary to maintain order. Certainly our inner cities are in desperate need of armed citizens' militias to patrol the streets and keep their neighborhoods safe.

Exactly what is needed in these huge metro areas like LA, where only the criminals carry.


I don't think crime isn't likely to increase as a result of regulating some of the citizenry to carry a concealed weapon. Why can't they just allow this much?

I'll tell you why? because liberalism is a mental dis-order, thats why, COMMON SENSE shows us that in areas where hand guns are banned, like washington DC, the murder rate is sky high!!!! this is due to the fact that "good decent people" become "sitting ducks", if you will.

of course, liberals dont exhibit COMMON SSENSE, so it is what it is , go figure.