Ron Paul on the 2nd Amendment

imported post

SmallWhiteBox wrote:

Voting for any entity that bases part(s) of itself on any religious teachings, even if they match what you believe, is a very dangerous path. You cannot have an objective and equal government of the people if you do not separate state and religion.

Click to expand...

Why not? I don't think we can have an objective and equal government of the peopleso long as we are able to vote for president in thegeneral elections. Too many promises that should never be and it advocates corruption beyond comprehension. Probably why the founders had congress vote for president and not the people.

The so-called separation of church and state exists nowhere in the constitution or the declaration of independence. References to God exist in the declaration, on our money, and in the writings of most of the founders, among other places. If it wasn't unconstitutional after 1791, thenit isn't unconstitutional now.

Not one specific "religion" is mentioned or"established"but to discount all religion is to actuallyadovocate and establishthe religion of atheism.

imported post

I will be writing in Ron Paul, as will many of my friends. When CNN has to say that Paul got 5% of the vote, it is one more mention that spreads his, and our, message.

imported post

Manka Cat wrote:

I will be writing in Ron Paul, as will many of my friends. When CNN has to say that Paul got 5% of the vote, it is one more mention that spreads his, and our, message.

Click to expand...

But they won't say it. They'll just leave that 5% out...

imported post

Ron Paul. All the way.

I don't care what anyone says, I still talk to people about Ron Paul and try to learn this people about their future and the possiblity of becoming a slave to the government.

IMO, it's worse than zombie attacks.

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

SmallWhiteBox wrote:

Voting for any entity that bases part(s) of itself on any religious teachings, even if they match what you believe, is a very dangerous path. You cannot have an objective and equal government of the people if you do not separate state and religion.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Click to expand...

I think it would be pretty hard to abide by the first amendment if we passed laws based on Biblical teachings.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Click to expand...

re·spect·ing Function: preposition Date: circa 1611 1 : in view of : considering 2 : with respect to : concerning

Click to expand...

imported post

SmallWhiteBox wrote:

I think it would be pretty hard to abide by the first amendment if we passed laws based on Biblical teachings.

Click to expand...

Well, where do you think the concept of law derives? Religious principles perhaps?

Again, I will repeat that it appears that you arecondoning that the US government "establishes" the religion of atheism, which I feel is a violation of the first amendment (religion - body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, dictionary.com). I am not condoning the "establishment" (the recognition by a state of a church as the state church - dictionary.com)of any particularreligion or denomination, nor is the Constitution Party, which is what my post was originallydefending. As a matter of fact, the seven principles of the Constitution Partyare as follows:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

I don't see anything related to religious establishment whatsoever. I also don't think that the outright banishment of any religious principles or documentation in governmentis constitutional either. If you don't think the founders relied on their religious principles to help guide them whenwriting laws and governing, then I would think you would be totally mistaken. Read the Declaration Of Independence and tell me that...

Here is the preamble of the Pennsylvania Constitution..

WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

My .02.

imported post

There should be a smiley for, "I want to get involved in this OT discussion but I know I shouldn't"

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

There should be a smiley for, "I want to get involved in this OT discussion but I know I shouldn't"

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.

Perhaps there is another forum on the net somewhere where we could all go and have violent (figuratively speaking) discussion about all sorts of liberty and philosophy stuff, and not have to stay focused on just guns.

Maybe somebody could start one.

imported post

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

Click to expand...

What section of the Constitution would one read to find this?

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

There should be a smiley for, "I want to get involved in this OT discussion but I know I shouldn't"

Click to expand...

imported post

Ah! There we go.

imported post

I don't know, I kinda just wish we'd add an off topic political section to the forums here. This is a good group of people with similar interests who are capable of eloquently writing their political positions. I enjoy discussing all sorts of politics on this site.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

There should be a smiley for, "I want to get involved in this OT discussion but I know I shouldn't"

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.

Perhaps there is another forum on the net somewhere where we could all go and have violent (figuratively speaking) discussion about all sorts of liberty and philosophy stuff, and not have to stay focused on just guns.

Maybe somebody could start one.

Click to expand...

I agree. I was just contributing to athread thateveryone knew was off-topic and has gone to 2 full pages now. It was constitutionally related but in hindsight, I guess I shouldn't of because it was not 2nd amendment or OCfocused.

imported post

*

imported post

Ah, the wonders of self-moderation.

imported post

Pointman wrote:

The reasons I'm a member are: great moderators, great community, -> off-topic subjects are interesting instead of flame-fests <-, and people usually fight intelligently, not just make stupid statements.

Click to expand...

+1

I, like many people here, am not so much here for OC discussions as I am for the environment and people that make up this board. I like the way that people debate, and how flame wars are usually avoided. I like that I can't say something is fact without having to back it up, and I like that most people here feel the same way I do about a lot of things. OC is secondary, really.

imported post

Pointman wrote:

The reasons I'm a member are: great moderators, great community, -> off-topic subjects are interesting instead of flame-fests <-, and people usually fight intelligently, not just make stupid statements.

Click to expand...

Well said. Debates here are intelligent and spirited, not childish and meandering. There's a wealth of information in this community of super-informed super activists. You all rock!

imported post

ron paul is my president


i really wish ron paul and jesse ventura would run together


everyone here should go to the republican precinct meetings and influence the convention to nominate paul later this year. Lincoln was the front runner but they kept voting and voting till he eventually got the nomination. I am a delegate for ron paul here in ga :celebrate

imported post

The Constitution Party just picked their man: Chuck Baldwin.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=746

Mr. Baldwin has been a key figure in the Ron Paul Revolution for a long time. He's a logical, libertarian-leaning Christian just like Ron Paul. This is a man I can support. I hope ya'll will consider him too.