Jump to content
The First Amendment does NOT guarantee the separation of Church and State. That phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. It's origin is in a series of correspondance between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association. Their intent, at least form my perspective, was not merely to keep the church out of the state, but also to keep the state of out the church, as they'd seen the Church of England cease being a religious body and become a political power.
The first amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religion, and from interferring in a citizen's free practice of their own religion. Here's the text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis added)
In the Declaration of Independence, we are given a long list of abuses by the reigning government of the time. The author goes so far as to say that if a govenrment becomes destructive of the rights and liberties of the people, then it is the duty of the people to throw off that government and establish a new one. We have a system that allows us to do that by voting, but we also have to be aware that our own federal government is not immune from becoming the tyrannical beast that Britain had become. The military answers to the government, and unless you have military commanders willing to disobey orders and turn on their superiors, then it's unlikely that the military would be of much help in the situation described.
I don't believe the 2nd Amendment refers to the national military for a number of reasons, some of which date to after the writing of the Constitution. For one, each state had its own militia during the early days. A national military force came later. Currently, the military cannot be used within the national borders to enforce state or federal laws, thanks to the Posse Comitatus Act. So if a state government became tyrannical, we'd be hard-pressed to find Constitutionally authorized means of using the American military to make a change.
Our founders didn't envision a lot of things, like the level of technology we have now. Since they did not foresee it, does that mean that the Constitution does not protect it? I hope not, because that opens the door for some sneaky and shady dealings that would be harmful to the citizens of this country.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That's the second amendment. Now, you can say that the founders placed it there for the direct purpose of allowing the people a way to fight tyranny, both foreign and domestic, but that goes to interpretation.
One can only assume that the GDP was trying to bring in the celebrity aspect of it. Why? They'd have to tell you. This was a genuine human interest story, with most readers concerned about the health of the worker. But there's also the real estate speculation market to consider, and surely there's someone out there more concerned with house prices than another person's well-being.
Kevin, if you saw the time-lapse radar Sunday morning, you would've seen that the storms basically generated over Lake Lanier and moved south. They did not start in another state or another part of Georgia to allow for tracking. No weatherman can predict the type of storms we had Sunday morning. The best case scenario for that is to react as promptly as possible. Even then, almost everyone is alseep at 3am, so there's not much that can be done.
I live in Flowery Branch and got over 7 inches of rain. It was not predicted, because no one, not even the computer models, foresaw the type of storm-generation and slow moving training that occurred. But, nice try on trying to blame the weatherman.
I keep hearing people cryig out for someone to be jailed for this, yet these same people never mention on what charges. BuzzG - What charge should those involved be tried and incarcerated on?
Note that I'm not trying to put down the cause, I'm just saying that it's one thing to cry for someone to go to jail. It's another to have factual reasoning behind your cries.
Bri - The governor has said others are welcome to donate material. If these materials found their way into the rooms would be another matter. But given the predilection of atheists to attack Christianity more than any other religion (at least in this country), do you yourself think that Mr. Buckner would react the same way if he found those books?
A few thoughts:
Why does it seem like it's always a current or former official with an Atheistic group making these complaints? It gives off the impression that atheists are very angry with even the thought of the possible mention of a divine being in the public sphere?
How did a single citizen complaint lead to such a knee-jerk overreaction by a state official? Are we that PC-sensitive that we now kowtow to lone citizen complaints?
A question for Mr. Buckner: Would you have similarly complained if you'd instead founr a copy of the Q'uran, the Vedas, or the Torah in your room?
I'm not completely aware of Romney's immigration stance, but my understanding was that he supported legal entry into the US. (It seems to me that Romney supported the registration of illegals with the government, and the subsequent payment of taxes, but no preferential treatment over thos legally applying.) Ergo, it seems to be Ms. Cepeda's contention that the entirety of the Hispanic voting bloc supports illegal immigration, as they would oppose Romney (although she does couch this argument with some nice talking points). Not terribly surprising, given the number of liberals I've come in contact with who favor open borders.
She also says that many Hispanics view the GOP has xenophobic and as actually looking on Hispanics as inferior. From where is this point drawn? I've watched a lot of political coverage in my life and don't ever recall any Republican politician making it publically known that they view Hispanics as inferior beings. Try as the left might to demonize the Tea party, or the GOP, or conservative libertarians, the charges tend not to stick because they were straw man arguments to being with.
Kevin - The GOP is not the only political party that "tries to uphold our Constitution regardless of ethnic group." Ever heard of the Libertarians? We're a group that truly believe the law should be applied equally (while also believing that the government should be smaller and everyone should have more personal freedom).
We should blame the gun manufacturer because someone made a concious choice to carry it into a movie theater? I'm assuming you're referencing Aurora. So you think that the gun manufacturer should be held accountable for that? What if someone decided to drive their Honda Civic through a group of bicyclists? Do you blame Honda for that?
I won't disagree that safety measures should be taken. Again, that goes to education. Many people are not properly trained on how to use, store, and clean firearms. I grew up around them. I learned early on that guns are dangerous, but they also serve a purpose. We used them for hunting. We had them for self-defense, should the need arise. Thankfully, it never did.
I'd be willing to bet that more people dies every year as a result of alcohol, tobacco, and driving than as a result of firearms. The only difference is the media rarely gives the attention to the first three as it does the last one. Look at a place like Chicago. Incredibly restrictive gun laws. Yet, Chicago has terrible gun crime. Compare that with places that have more open gun laws and see the difference. You'll never stop accidents from happening. People will accidentally shoot each other. Likewise, people will accidentally hit each other with their cars, or they'll accidentally drink too much. When a drunk driver hit someone else with their car, do we now blame Budweiser and Jagermeister? When someone makes the conscious decision to smoke three packs a day, knowing the risks, do we still blame Marlboro? Or do we ever begin demanding accountability and responsibility from the person doing these things?
Last login: Wednesday, May 22, 2013