• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Carry Measure . . . Senate to vote . . . ' Road Runner ' homepage

Chaingun81

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
581
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Article IV Section 1 provides:

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



I wonder why more people aren't pointing to this. It's either too obvious to be seen or more complicated than it appears.


That right there. It's already on the books (just like 2nd amendment), government just ignores it when it's convenient to do so.
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

Who are they hurting stylez?

Hmm, good question.

Does bestiality actually hurt the animal?

Wow, how off topic can this general discussion forum get?
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

thx997303 wrote:
Who are they hurting stylez?

Hmm, good question.

Does bestiality actually hurt the animal?

Wow, how off topic can this general discussion forum get?
That's all he does. Trolls are like that.

While I see the states rights issue, I do believe that the 2nd is something that a state can't "decide" not to abide by, unless they want to secede from the union. If they can successfully do that, then by all means, don't follow the 2nd. Until then, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole affects them.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

FogRider wrote:
Chaingun81 wrote:
Il_Duce wrote:
The "Gay Marriage" vote is actually one worth voting for.
Riiiiight. What's next - people who like to @#$% animals will be able to marry their pets too?
Wow. This is still considered a valid argument against gay marriage?
Actually, I'm not aware of any valid arguments.

I have yet to come across one that doesn't fail when examined.

The closest I have heard is that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage (a religious function) in the first place. Then again, that's my position, and I feel morally obligated to support gay marriage while government is still doing so.
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
The closest I have heard is that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage (a religious function) in the first place.
This I can see. But from what I can tell, for the most part it's really not. The religious part is unnecessary to be legally married. You can still go into a church and have a ceremony without it legally meaning a thing (many gay people do this very thing). But I have never been able to see a good reason for the state to be able to say "Ok, you two people can legally be a couple and have all the legal benefits that apply, but you two can't because you have matching genitalia."

And no, saying gay people can have a "civil union" but hetero people can have a "marriage" is not a good compromise. "Separate but equal" has never been right.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Of course it is. First, it gives "licenses" for "marriage", and then it gives privileges to those who get the license.

You might as well call it a civil union since "marriage" is in fact a religious function, but either way government has no business denying equal privileges to every citizen, regardless of whether he personally shares the religious belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman. The Constitution requires as much.

However, since government has no business saying word one about any religious tenet (like marriage), privileges shouldn't be granted to any couple based on it. Even for hetero couples the government should only grant privileges (if any) for unions, not "marriages".

But I consider whether government should be involved with a religious function a distinct issue from whether privileges should apply to all persons regardless of sexual orientation (or any other number of characteristics).

Edit: Make no mistake, marriage is a religious concept regardless of whether or to what extent government involves itself with it.

Allow me to demonstrate:

I am not a religious person. And so, concomitantly, I place no value in any concept of "marriage". If two people choose to form a union, they may do so with equal permanence without any sort of ceremony whatsoever. (In fact, this isn't so uncommon as some would like to have us believe.) But the value of the act is totally dependent upon that placed in it by the participants, and so it is ultimately of their own creation.

Now, you could argue that such a union is, by definition, a "marriage". And in common law it might be. But in the popular conception, where marriage occurs after a ceremony or some other "official" act of recognition, it is clearly not.

And so you can see that whether one has any faith in the ceremonies or official recognitions that represent "marriage" may be wholly an issue of religious belief.

It's also something of a cultural norm, but since when did those have significant weight, or did government become involved in them? Not wearing hats indoors also used to be a cultural norm. :quirky
 

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
imported post

So, what did I gain or lose, my permit for Al. allows me to carry in several states, I don't know all of them, but I know I can carry in in the states closest to me already, those are the one's I care about , cause I go in and out of those states from time to time, did I just lose my right to carry in those states. Whats going on with this bill, I can't make sense of it.
 

Il_Duce

Banned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
303
Location
, ,
imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:
Il_Duce wrote:
The "Gay Marriage" vote is actually one worth voting for.
Riiiiight. What's next - people who like to @#$% animals will be able to marry their pets too?

I hadn't realized that animals were consenting adults with full rights under the Constitution.

Does this mean it's okay for me to take my cat to get his drivers' license now?

Oh... Shit, he needs a social security number, too! Hmm... this could get expensive...
 

Il_Duce

Banned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
303
Location
, ,
imported post

Mr.Advocate wrote:
So, what did I gain or lose, my permit for Al. allows me to carry in several states, I don't know all of them, but I know I can carry in in the states closest to me already, those are the one's I care about , cause I go in and out of those states from time to time, did I just lose my right to carry in those states. Whats going on with this bill, I can't make sense of it.
Nothing changed. Go to bed.
 

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
imported post

Il_Duce wrote:
Mr.Advocate wrote:
So, what did I gain or lose, my permit for Al. allows me to carry in several states, I don't know all of them, but I know I can carry in in the states closest to me already, those are the one's I care about , cause I go in and out of those states from time to time, did I just lose my right to carry in those states. Whats going on with this bill, I can't make sense of it.
Nothing changed. Go to bed.
huh, going to bed,has nothing to do with the topic there I|_Duce, what's all of this up roar over having the right to carry state to state if nothing changed, please humor me.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

thx997303 wrote:
Who are they hurting stylez?

Hmm, good question.

Does bestiality actually hurt the animal?

Wow, how off topic can this general discussion forum get?
Animals aren't adults, therefore you can do whatever you want to them, per the spanking thread logic used by your side.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Mr.Advocate wrote:
Il_Duce wrote:
Mr.Advocate wrote:
So, what did I gain or lose, my permit for Al. allows me to carry in several states, I don't know all of them, but I know I can carry in in the states closest to me already, those are the one's I care about , cause I go in and out of those states from time to time, did I just lose my right to carry in those states. Whats going on with this bill, I can't make sense of it.
Nothing changed. Go to bed.
huh, going to bed,has nothing to do with the topic there I|_Duce, what's all of this up roar over having the right to carry state to state if nothing changed, please humor me.
The "uproar" is that the amendment to change law to allow national reciprocity failed. In some circles, this was desired. In others, it is not. Presently, I am on the fence on this one. Part of me hopes that national reciprocity passes, so that CCW from state to state is not such a trial. Another part of me wishes that CCW was not such a privilege.

Even if the amendment (or one of the three or more bills) to allow CCW reciprocity passed, from what I can tell, it only meant that one state permit would allow CCW in each state, according to the regulations (other than issuing regs) of the state you are standing in at any given time. I see this as simply expanding the areas a permittee can carry concealed. This still leaves much room to loosen regulations, but could be viewed as one step closer to "privilege" status. It is tough to call at the juncture.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
Even if the amendment (or one of the three or more bills) to allow CCW reciprocity passed, from what I can tell, it only meant that one state permit would allow CCW in each state, according to the regulations (other than issuing regs) of the state you are standing in at any given time. I see this as simply expanding the areas a permittee can carry concealed. This still leaves much room to loosen regulations, but could be viewed as one step closer to "privilege" status. It is tough to call at the juncture.
Exactly. By passing a law that says states have to honor carry permits, you've giving further validity to the permits, and, even worse, taking for granted that such a law should even be necessary.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
thx997303 wrote:
Who are they hurting stylez?

Hmm, good question.

Does bestiality actually hurt the animal?

Wow, how off topic can this general discussion forum get?
Animals aren't adults, therefore you can do whatever you want to them, per the spanking thread logic used by your side.
I support gay marriage, so could you stop talking about it? You just infect the discussion with the inherent stupidity of ALL of your "arguments". The next thing we know, you'll be claiming that gay marriage is "normal", but polygamy ISN'T... with of course no logical reason WHY. Nothing you ever say attains, much less surpasses, the intellectual level of Fred Phelps.

Children have a SUBSET of the rights of adult HUMANS.

Animals have NO rights.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Deanimator wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
thx997303 wrote:
Who are they hurting stylez?

Hmm, good question.

Does bestiality actually hurt the animal?

Wow, how off topic can this general discussion forum get?
Animals aren't adults, therefore you can do whatever you want to them, per the spanking thread logic used by your side.
I support gay marriage, so could you stop talking about it? You just infect the discussion with the inherent stupidity of ALL of your "arguments". The next thing we know, you'll be claiming that gay marriage is "normal", but polygamy ISN'T... with of course no logical reason WHY. Nothing you ever say attains, much less surpasses, the intellectual level of Fred Phelps.

Children have a SUBSET of the rights of adult HUMANS.

Animals have NO rights.



Hey captain strawman, where in my post did I mention gay marriage?

Where did I mention polygamy?

Under what authority do you declare animals to have NO rights?

lulz now you're the master of what rights children do and don't have. They're almost real people. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Top