Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Most Important Freedom In The Bill Of Rights
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Red Blade
Apr 24, 2013, 9:47:37 PM4/24/13
to
http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-the-bill-of-rights/
Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual disarmament
treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill of
Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
Independence.
While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and bear
arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange, but
the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
Freedom of Religion.
Americans stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not because it
is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
would be no freedom.
Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of religion.
The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
Judeo-Christian creation myths, and eliminating even a moment of silence
for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
2. Islam, which believes not in freedom, but theocracy. The sinful and
unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined in
the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
no desire to tailor it for one.
As we can see, when people do not believe in freedom, they do not work for
freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
--
Red Blade
President of alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, & talk.politics.misc
Fanfiction Committee Chairman of alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead
www.libertycolumns.com
www.danq.co
Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual disarmament
treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill of
Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
Independence.
While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and bear
arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange, but
the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
Freedom of Religion.
Americans stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not because it
is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
would be no freedom.
Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of religion.
The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
Judeo-Christian creation myths, and eliminating even a moment of silence
for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
2. Islam, which believes not in freedom, but theocracy. The sinful and
unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined in
the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
no desire to tailor it for one.
As we can see, when people do not believe in freedom, they do not work for
freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
--
Red Blade
President of alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, & talk.politics.misc
Fanfiction Committee Chairman of alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead
www.libertycolumns.com
www.danq.co
deep
Apr 24, 2013, 9:55:57 PM4/24/13
to
Kicking Ass and Taking Names
Apr 24, 2013, 11:15:42 PM4/24/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:47:37 -0400, Red Blade
<pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
<pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>word true and who are using every possible devious method to force
>their superstition and mythology on the rest of us.
There you go . . . I fixed the text for you.
You're welcome.
STEADY EDDY
Apr 25, 2013, 12:27:55 AM4/25/13
to
On Apr 24, 6:47 pm, Red Blade <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
> http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
turn off the Rush Limpballs show and do some thinking of your own.
> http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
SaPeIsMa
Apr 25, 2013, 7:47:02 AM4/25/13
to
"Red Blade" <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
It was in part about self-defense
But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
> While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and bear
> arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange,
> but
> the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
> Freedom of Religion.
>
Only if you believe in putting the cart before the horse
> Americans stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not because it
> is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
> did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
> would be no freedom.
>
> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of
> religion.
> The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
> biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
> religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
> Judeo-Christian creation myths, and eliminating even a moment of silence
> for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
>
Superficila trappings
> 2. Islam, which believes not in freedom, but theocracy. The sinful and
> unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
> their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
> Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
> Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined
> in
> the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
> apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
> is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
> places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
> cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
> no desire to tailor it for one.
>
Ironically, Islam has NO PROBLEM with the use of force against not only
non-muslims, but muslims as well.
I'll repeat the part that is importatn
Islam has no problme with the use of force against....
How do you defend yourself agaisnt such use of force, if you are disarmed
and helpless ?
> As we can see, when people do not believe in freedom, they do not work for
> freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
> in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
> freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
>
Funny
So tell us how you can protect ANY freedom, such as that of speech,
religion, if you don't have any way to protect yourself from the tryranny of
those who would silence you ?
How do you defend yourself against such use of force, if you are disarmed
and helpless ?
Without the ability to protect yourself from tyranny, you have nothing .
Your only choice is accepting being a slave, subject to a tyranny.
And you will find yourself “free” to bend your neck and pray, just before it
gets cut off.
The Romans had one part of it right
“Para Bellum, si vis Pacem”
“If you want peace, prepare for war.”
The other part is the one that goes
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares,
will end up plowing for those who did not..”
Next time put the horse BEFORE the cart..
news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-the-bill-of-rights/
>
> Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> disarmament
> treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> of
> Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
> quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> Independence.
>
The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
>
> Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> disarmament
> treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> of
> Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
> quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> Independence.
>
It was in part about self-defense
But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
> While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and bear
> arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange,
> but
> the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
> Freedom of Religion.
>
> Americans stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not because it
> is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
> did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
> would be no freedom.
>
> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of
> religion.
> The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
> biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
> religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
> Judeo-Christian creation myths, and eliminating even a moment of silence
> for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
>
> 2. Islam, which believes not in freedom, but theocracy. The sinful and
> unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
> their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
> Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
> Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined
> in
> the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
> apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
> is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
> places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
> cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
> no desire to tailor it for one.
>
non-muslims, but muslims as well.
I'll repeat the part that is importatn
Islam has no problme with the use of force against....
How do you defend yourself agaisnt such use of force, if you are disarmed
and helpless ?
> As we can see, when people do not believe in freedom, they do not work for
> freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
> in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
> freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
>
So tell us how you can protect ANY freedom, such as that of speech,
religion, if you don't have any way to protect yourself from the tryranny of
those who would silence you ?
How do you defend yourself against such use of force, if you are disarmed
and helpless ?
Without the ability to protect yourself from tyranny, you have nothing .
Your only choice is accepting being a slave, subject to a tyranny.
And you will find yourself “free” to bend your neck and pray, just before it
gets cut off.
The Romans had one part of it right
“Para Bellum, si vis Pacem”
“If you want peace, prepare for war.”
The other part is the one that goes
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares,
will end up plowing for those who did not..”
Next time put the horse BEFORE the cart..
Klaus Schadenfreude
Apr 25, 2013, 8:03:52 AM4/25/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:55:57 -0600, deep wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>Wow. The irony here is almost too much to stand.
TRANSLATION: Dudu can't think of a cognizant argument to put forth. As
usual.
I'm surprised you didn't call him insane, though.
<SNIP>
>>
>Wow. The irony here is almost too much to stand.
usual.
I'm surprised you didn't call him insane, though.
Lee
Apr 25, 2013, 11:00:17 AM4/25/13
to
SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Red Blade" <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
> > http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-t
> > he-bill-of-rights/
> >
> > Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals
> > in Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> > disarmament treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
> >
> > Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment,
> > the right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of
> > the Bill of Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not
> > merely about self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government
> > tyranny, frequently quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in
> > the Declaration of Independence.
> >
>
> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
It was never about personal self defense either.
> "Red Blade" <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
> > http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-t
> > he-bill-of-rights/
> >
> > Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals
> > in Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> > disarmament treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
> >
> > Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment,
> > the right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of
> > the Bill of Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not
> > merely about self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government
> > tyranny, frequently quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in
> > the Declaration of Independence.
> >
>
> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
Ron
Apr 25, 2013, 11:19:27 AM4/25/13
to
On Apr 25, 6:47 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
"The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about self-defense.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army. A
citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
defense against foreign incursion.
The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States;"
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny "
That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
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.
The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army. A
citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
defense against foreign incursion.
The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States;"
Lee
Apr 25, 2013, 11:26:39 AM4/25/13
to
>
> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of
> religion. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans
> United are the biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes,
> attempting to dig up religious gravestones in military cemeteries,
> banning teaching of Judeo-Christian creation myths,
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Apr 25, 2013, 11:24:16 AM4/25/13
to
Red Blade <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote on Wed 24 Apr 2013
06:47:37p
> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> of Rights.
The Founders considered it the most important such that they made it the
First Am... oh wait...never mind.
When are you delusional gun-fondling members of the right-wing filth going
to carry on with that civil war you want to fight again????
I'd like to take out about three dozen of you on the first day, and then
lead a brigade to clean out a half a state of you in the days following.
Yes, the fitness of the species can be improved considerably in episodic
ways.
> While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and
> bear arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound
> strange, but the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the
> 1st Amendment: Freedom of Religion.
Now look! Your whole thesis of this giant steaming pile of Usenet post has
been up-ended by your failure to get what the First is all about.
It's freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion.
The government doesn't secure the liberty of idiots who choose to fall
victim to superstitious belief systems.
It secures against the infestation of these parasites to use government
power to impose a belief system.
> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of
> religion.
So now you offer in detail your proof that you don't understand shit about
the First. Was anyone surprised you would come to this point?
[massive evidence of ignorance flushed]
Is this supposed to be the Daily Dose of Stupid on the interwebs? Or is it
supposed to be another post?
--
The Enraged Apostate
Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
06:47:37p
> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> of Rights.
First Am... oh wait...never mind.
When are you delusional gun-fondling members of the right-wing filth going
to carry on with that civil war you want to fight again????
I'd like to take out about three dozen of you on the first day, and then
lead a brigade to clean out a half a state of you in the days following.
Yes, the fitness of the species can be improved considerably in episodic
ways.
> While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and
> bear arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound
> strange, but the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the
> 1st Amendment: Freedom of Religion.
been up-ended by your failure to get what the First is all about.
It's freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion.
The government doesn't secure the liberty of idiots who choose to fall
victim to superstitious belief systems.
It secures against the infestation of these parasites to use government
power to impose a belief system.
> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of
> religion.
the First. Was anyone surprised you would come to this point?
[massive evidence of ignorance flushed]
Is this supposed to be the Daily Dose of Stupid on the interwebs? Or is it
supposed to be another post?
--
The Enraged Apostate
Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
Red Blade
Apr 25, 2013, 1:25:20 PM4/25/13
to
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Ron wrote:
>
> That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
>
> 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.
>
> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army. A
> citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> defense against foreign incursion.
>
Oh, it's the National Guard argument again.
>
> That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
>
> 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.
>
> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army. A
> citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> defense against foreign incursion.
>
The question is not whether the militia was federalized into the National
Guard, but whether the Founders wanted to outlaw well-regulated militias
(or the the right to keep and bear arms) at all.
SaPeIsMa
Apr 25, 2013, 4:45:47 PM4/25/13
to
"Lee" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:goCdncfo1uuy1uTM...@giganews.com...
When teaching history, it's very difficult to not teach about myths that
humans did and do believe.
Many of the great lessons of history are actually myths themselves.
In effect, if you do not teach the myths, you MUST ignore human history and
evolution through the generations.
No wonder, ignorant pinkies are well... so ignorant and unable to avoid
the mistakes of the past.
news:goCdncfo1uuy1uTM...@giganews.com...
humans did and do believe.
Many of the great lessons of history are actually myths themselves.
In effect, if you do not teach the myths, you MUST ignore human history and
evolution through the generations.
No wonder, ignorant pinkies are well... so ignorant and unable to avoid
the mistakes of the past.
SaPeIsMa
Apr 25, 2013, 4:49:02 PM4/25/13
to
"Lee" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqOdnfMB0J2c2OTM...@giganews.com...
++ <START UNSNIP>
++
++ It was in part about self-defense
++ But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
++
++ <STOP UNSNIP>
+++++++++++++
>
>
> It was never about personal self defense either.
>
LOL
>
> It was never about personal self defense either.
>
You had better go back and read what the framers had to say about what the
2nd Amendment was about, BEFORE you make such a stupid and ignorant
declaration
But feel free to give us some quotes from the Framers that support your
claim..
Take as many screens as you need.
Start here: -------------->
RD Sandman
Apr 25, 2013, 5:05:19 PM4/25/13
to
"Lee" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:hqOdnfMB0J2c2OTM...@giganews.com:
RKBA was......and the Second Amendment is protecting that RKBA.
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman
You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.
news:hqOdnfMB0J2c2OTM...@giganews.com:
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman
You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.
RD Sandman
Apr 25, 2013, 5:09:40 PM4/25/13
to
Ron <ronea...@att.net> wrote in
news:df149139-a7db-4d27...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about self-defense.
> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny "
>
> That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
>
> 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.
>
> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
Technically, it still doesn't.
A
> citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> defense against foreign incursion.
Yes, because the anti-federalists feared a strong central government.
> The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
Yes, in Article I.
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
> the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>
> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
> into the actual Service of the United States;"
And when called into service of the state they are the militia of, their
commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general of that
state.
It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
service.
Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the Second
Amendment needed?
news:df149139-a7db-4d27...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about self-defense.
> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny "
>
> That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
>
> 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.
>
> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
A
> citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> defense against foreign incursion.
> The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
> the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>
> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
> into the actual Service of the United States;"
commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general of that
state.
It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
service.
Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the Second
Amendment needed?
Ron
Apr 25, 2013, 5:41:03 PM4/25/13
to
On Apr 25, 4:09 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
I answered that question. Read my first post.
RD Sandman
Apr 25, 2013, 6:08:18 PM4/25/13
to
Ron <ronea...@att.net> wrote in
news:736c691d-e11a-448f...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 25, 4:09�ｿｽpm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote
>> innews:df149139-a7db-4d27-981b-9ce62b792c2
> 7...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. �ｿｽIt was in part about
post. ;)
news:736c691d-e11a-448f...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 25, 4:09�ｿｽpm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote
> 7...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. �ｿｽIt was in part about
>> > self-defense. But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
>> > "
>>
>> > That's an odd statement. �ｿｽThe Second reads:
>> > "
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> > The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
>>
>> Technically, it still doesn't.
>>
>> �ｿｽA
>> > 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.
>>
>> > The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
>>
>> Technically, it still doesn't.
>>
>>
>> > citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
>> > defense against foreign incursion.
>>
>> Yes, because the anti-federalists feared a strong central government.
>>
>> > The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>>
>> Yes, in Article I.
>>
>> > "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
>> > the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>>
>> > "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,
>> > and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
>> > Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
>> > the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
>> > Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>>
>> > "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
>> > the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
>> > called into the actual Service of the United States;"
>>
>> And when called into service of the state they are the militia of,
>> their commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general
>> of that state.
>>
>> It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
>> service.
>>
>> Now, think about this. �ｿｽWith what you listed above, why was the
>> > citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
>> > defense against foreign incursion.
>>
>> Yes, because the anti-federalists feared a strong central government.
>>
>> > The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>>
>> Yes, in Article I.
>>
>> > "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
>> > the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>>
>> > "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,
>> > and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
>> > Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
>> > the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
>> > Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>>
>> > "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
>> > the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
>> > called into the actual Service of the United States;"
>>
>> And when called into service of the state they are the militia of,
>> their commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general
>> of that state.
>>
>> It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
>> service.
>>
>> Second Amendment needed?
>>
>> --
>> Sleep well, tonight.....
>>
>> RD (The Sandman
>>
>> You can be young without money, but you
>> can't be old without it.
>
>
>
>
> "Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the
> Second Amendment needed? "
>
> I answered that question. Read my first post.
How long you been on Usenet? I don't feel like searching for your first
>>
>> --
>> Sleep well, tonight.....
>>
>> RD (The Sandman
>>
>> You can be young without money, but you
>> can't be old without it.
>
>
>
>
> "Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the
> Second Amendment needed? "
>
> I answered that question. Read my first post.
post. ;)
SaPeIsMa
Apr 26, 2013, 9:41:26 AM4/26/13
to
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1AD90193...@216.196.121.131...
equipped with "high-power sniper rifles" outnumber the US military.
>
>> A citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
>> defense against foreign incursion.
>
> Yes, because the anti-federalists feared a strong central government.
>
>> The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>
> Yes, in Article I.
>
>> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
>> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>>
>> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
>> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
>> the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
>> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
>> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>>
>> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
>> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
>> into the actual Service of the United States;"
>
> And when called into service of the state they are the militia of, their
> commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general of that
> state.
>
> It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
> service.
>
> Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the Second
> Amendment needed?
>
The problem is that most people don't actually think about what they quote.
news:XnsA1AD90193...@216.196.121.131...
> Ron <ronea...@att.net> wrote in
> news:df149139-a7db-4d27...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>> "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about self-defense.
>> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny "
>>
>> That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
>
> Technically, it still doesn't.
>
As a matter of fact, every fall, deer hunters in just 4 states (out of 50),
> news:df149139-a7db-4d27...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>> "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about self-defense.
>> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny "
>>
>> That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
>
> Technically, it still doesn't.
>
equipped with "high-power sniper rifles" outnumber the US military.
>
>> A citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
>> defense against foreign incursion.
>
> Yes, because the anti-federalists feared a strong central government.
>
>> The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>
> Yes, in Article I.
>
>> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
>> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>>
>> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
>> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
>> the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
>> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
>> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>>
>> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
>> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
>> into the actual Service of the United States;"
>
> And when called into service of the state they are the militia of, their
> commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general of that
> state.
>
> It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
> service.
>
> Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the Second
> Amendment needed?
>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Apr 26, 2013, 9:52:31 AM4/26/13
to
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
[chuckle]
Lee
Apr 26, 2013, 11:05:41 AM4/26/13
to
graduate school exams like beliefs in talking
snakes and worldwide floods and 6000 year old
universe.
Lee
Apr 26, 2013, 11:07:48 AM4/26/13
to
Second Amendment instead of letting the NRA tell
you what it says.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Apr 26, 2013, 11:08:38 AM4/26/13
to
all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
But that's what you've been fed.
Ron
Apr 26, 2013, 11:14:50 AM4/26/13
to
On Apr 25, 5:08 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote innews:736c691d-e11a-448f...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote innews:736c691d-e11a-448f...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 4:09 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote
> >> innews:df149139-a7db-4d27-981b-9ce62b792c2
> > 7...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 4:09 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote
> >> innews:df149139-a7db-4d27-981b-9ce62b792c2
> > 7...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > self-defense. But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
> >> > "
>
> >> > That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
> >> > "
>
>
> >> > 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.
>
> >> > The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
>
> >> Technically, it still doesn't.
>
> >> > 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.
>
> >> > The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
>
> >> Technically, it still doesn't.
>
> >> A
>
> >> > citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> >> > defense against foreign incursion.
>
> >> Yes, because the anti-federalists feared a strong central government.
>
> >> > The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>
> >> Yes, in Article I.
>
> >> > "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
> >> > the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>
> >> > "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,
> >> > and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
> >> > Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
> >> > the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
> >> > Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>
> >> > "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
> >> > the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
> >> > called into the actual Service of the United States;"
>
> >> And when called into service of the state they are the militia of,
> >> their commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general
> >> of that state.
>
> >> It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
> >> service.
>
>
> >> > citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> >> > defense against foreign incursion.
>
> >> Yes, because the anti-federalists feared a strong central government.
>
> >> > The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>
> >> Yes, in Article I.
>
> >> > "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
> >> > the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>
> >> > "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,
> >> > and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
> >> > Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
> >> > the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
> >> > Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>
> >> > "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
> >> > the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
> >> > called into the actual Service of the United States;"
>
> >> And when called into service of the state they are the militia of,
> >> their commander will be the governor, lt governor or adjutant general
> >> of that state.
>
> >> It is referred to as the "Two hats" depending on who called them into
> >> service.
>
> >> Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the
> >> Second Amendment needed?
>
> >> --
> >> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> >> RD (The Sandman
>
> >> You can be young without money, but you
> >> can't be old without it.
>
> > "Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the
> > Second Amendment needed? "
>
> > I answered that question. Read my first post.
>
> How long you been on Usenet? I don't feel like searching for your first
> post. ;)
>
> --
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman
>
> You can be young without money, but you
> can't be old without it.
"I don't feel like searching for your first post."
DUUUUHHHHH....it's the first post in this string.
> >> Second Amendment needed?
>
> >> --
> >> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> >> RD (The Sandman
>
> >> You can be young without money, but you
> >> can't be old without it.
>
> > "Now, think about this. With what you listed above, why was the
> > Second Amendment needed? "
>
> > I answered that question. Read my first post.
>
> How long you been on Usenet? I don't feel like searching for your first
> post. ;)
>
> --
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman
>
> You can be young without money, but you
> can't be old without it.
"I don't feel like searching for your first post."
RD Sandman
Apr 26, 2013, 2:32:33 PM4/26/13
to
Ron <ronea...@att.net> wrote in
news:b4273052-1f98-4c23...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 25, 5:08 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote
>> innews:736c691d-e11a-448f-a5f8-ac7774b191c
> c...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
Thanks,.....just wanted to make sure before I went looking. ;)
news:b4273052-1f98-4c23...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 25, 5:08 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote
> c...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
RD Sandman
Apr 26, 2013, 2:33:56 PM4/26/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:kle06e$asp$4...@dont-email.me:
That could be, but the real reason is that the Army is funded from
Congress to Congress......unlike the other branches.
news:kle06e$asp$4...@dont-email.me:
Congress to Congress......unlike the other branches.
Lee
Apr 26, 2013, 2:40:09 PM4/26/13
to
truth and the rest are patent lies? How
do you tell which is which, and how to
teach that to students?
Liberal Here
Apr 26, 2013, 2:45:14 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 25, 7:47 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
each state to maintain them. Why? Because the founding fathers saw
standing armies as making it too easy for corrupt leaders (ie., kings
**AND** presidents) to invade other countries for fun and profit (see:
Bush 1/2). By keeping the army at the state level, an American
president needed Congress to nationalize all state militias into being
the federal army (see: Section 8 Powers of Congress)....this ties
neatly to the need for official declarations of war BY CONGRESS!
One of the first bills passed by the US Congress was the definition
what each state was required to do in setting up state militias:
equipment..standardization of ranks and unit sizes...to enable the
integration of militias from all the staes into a coherent national
army.
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
>
> > Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> > Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> > disarmament
> > treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> > Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> > right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> > of
> > Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> > self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
> > quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> > Independence.
>
> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
> It was in part about self-defense
> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
IDIOT! It was about a well-regulated militia and as the obligation of
> > Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> > Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> > disarmament
> > treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> > Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> > right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> > of
> > Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> > self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
> > quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> > Independence.
>
> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
> It was in part about self-defense
> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
each state to maintain them. Why? Because the founding fathers saw
standing armies as making it too easy for corrupt leaders (ie., kings
**AND** presidents) to invade other countries for fun and profit (see:
Bush 1/2). By keeping the army at the state level, an American
president needed Congress to nationalize all state militias into being
the federal army (see: Section 8 Powers of Congress)....this ties
neatly to the need for official declarations of war BY CONGRESS!
One of the first bills passed by the US Congress was the definition
what each state was required to do in setting up state militias:
equipment..standardization of ranks and unit sizes...to enable the
integration of militias from all the staes into a coherent national
army.
Red Blade
Apr 26, 2013, 3:26:05 PM4/26/13
to
one any different?
RD Sandman
Apr 26, 2013, 5:08:50 PM4/26/13
to
Liberal Here <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:55a4b4f2-6050-4ef7...@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Excuse me, but the national militia is taken care of in ArticleI, section
8 and clauses 15 and 16. The Second Amendment was about protecting the
RKBA of the citizens for the militias of the several states.
Why? Because the founding fathers saw
> standing armies as making it too easy for corrupt leaders (ie., kings
> **AND** presidents) to invade other countries for fun and profit (see:
> Bush 1/2).
Or to be overreaching and take away the sovereignty of the state. The
anti-federalists were afraid of the national government setting up a
standing army or select militia and letting the state militias die
through neglect.
By keeping the army at the state level, an American
> president needed Congress to nationalize all state militias into being
> the federal army (see: Section 8 Powers of Congress)....this ties
> neatly to the need for official declarations of war BY CONGRESS!
>
> One of the first bills passed by the US Congress was the definition
> what each state was required to do in setting up state militias:
> equipment..standardization of ranks and unit sizes...to enable the
> integration of militias from all the staes into a coherent national
> army.
The federal government set up what IT wanted out of the state militias.
State militias have different agendas than the national militia does.
The authority for arming the national militia is in ArtI(8)(16). The
arming of the state militias was the RKBA of its citizens. The reason
for the Second Amendment was to protect the RKBA of the citizens from
infringement by the federal government as that was the pool the state
militias were drawn from.
news:55a4b4f2-6050-4ef7...@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
8 and clauses 15 and 16. The Second Amendment was about protecting the
RKBA of the citizens for the militias of the several states.
Why? Because the founding fathers saw
> standing armies as making it too easy for corrupt leaders (ie., kings
> **AND** presidents) to invade other countries for fun and profit (see:
> Bush 1/2).
anti-federalists were afraid of the national government setting up a
standing army or select militia and letting the state militias die
through neglect.
By keeping the army at the state level, an American
> president needed Congress to nationalize all state militias into being
> the federal army (see: Section 8 Powers of Congress)....this ties
> neatly to the need for official declarations of war BY CONGRESS!
>
> One of the first bills passed by the US Congress was the definition
> what each state was required to do in setting up state militias:
> equipment..standardization of ranks and unit sizes...to enable the
> integration of militias from all the staes into a coherent national
> army.
State militias have different agendas than the national militia does.
The authority for arming the national militia is in ArtI(8)(16). The
arming of the state militias was the RKBA of its citizens. The reason
for the Second Amendment was to protect the RKBA of the citizens from
infringement by the federal government as that was the pool the state
militias were drawn from.
SaPeIsMa
Apr 27, 2013, 7:33:19 AM4/27/13
to
"Liberal Here" <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a4b4f2-6050-4ef7...@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
# IDIOT!
There is no need to introduce what you are BEFORE you start posting
It will prove quite evident as we go along
#
# It was about a well-regulated militia and as the obligation of
# each state to maintain them.
That was a JUSTIFICATION, you idiot
Go read what the Framers had to say a bout it
Scalia did a good job of summarizing in in Heller.
# Why? Because the founding fathers saw
# standing armies as making it too easy for corrupt leaders (ie., kings
# **AND** presidents) to invade other countries for fun and profit (see:
# Bush 1/2).
How about those Presidents like
Kennedy and Johison with reagards to Vietnam
Truman and Korea
FDR and Europe and Asia
Wilson and Europe
etc
Your grasp of history seems very limited.
#
# By keeping the army at the state level, an American
# president needed Congress to nationalize all state militias into being
# the federal army (see: Section 8 Powers of Congress)....this ties
# neatly to the need for official declarations of war BY CONGRESS!
Meanwhile right under your nose the Feds are building small standing armies
under the OIGs of various departments
Tell us why the Dept of Education needs a SWAT team ?
#
# One of the first bills passed by the US Congress was the definition
# what each state was required to do in setting up state militias:
# equipment..standardization of ranks and unit sizes...to enable the
# integration of militias from all the staes into a coherent national
# army.
And ironically, Miller declared that military weapons are the most protected
for citizen ownership
As I wrote
There is no reason to declare that you are an idiot.
We can tell from your post.
news:55a4b4f2-6050-4ef7...@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 25, 7:47 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
>
> > Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> > Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> > disarmament
> > treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> > Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> > right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> > of
> > Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> > self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny,
> > frequently
> > quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> > Independence.
>
> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
> It was in part about self-defense
> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
#
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
>
> > Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> > Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual
> > disarmament
> > treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> > Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> > right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
> > of
> > Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> > self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny,
> > frequently
> > quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> > Independence.
>
> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
> It was in part about self-defense
> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
# IDIOT!
There is no need to introduce what you are BEFORE you start posting
It will prove quite evident as we go along
#
# It was about a well-regulated militia and as the obligation of
# each state to maintain them.
That was a JUSTIFICATION, you idiot
Go read what the Framers had to say a bout it
Scalia did a good job of summarizing in in Heller.
# Why? Because the founding fathers saw
# standing armies as making it too easy for corrupt leaders (ie., kings
# **AND** presidents) to invade other countries for fun and profit (see:
# Bush 1/2).
How about those Presidents like
Kennedy and Johison with reagards to Vietnam
Truman and Korea
FDR and Europe and Asia
Wilson and Europe
etc
Your grasp of history seems very limited.
#
# By keeping the army at the state level, an American
# president needed Congress to nationalize all state militias into being
# the federal army (see: Section 8 Powers of Congress)....this ties
# neatly to the need for official declarations of war BY CONGRESS!
Meanwhile right under your nose the Feds are building small standing armies
under the OIGs of various departments
Tell us why the Dept of Education needs a SWAT team ?
#
# One of the first bills passed by the US Congress was the definition
# what each state was required to do in setting up state militias:
# equipment..standardization of ranks and unit sizes...to enable the
# integration of militias from all the staes into a coherent national
# army.
And ironically, Miller declared that military weapons are the most protected
for citizen ownership
As I wrote
There is no reason to declare that you are an idiot.
We can tell from your post.
SaPeIsMa
Apr 27, 2013, 7:35:57 AM4/27/13
to
"Red Blade" <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
news:klek69$v7i$1...@dont-email.me...
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, Lee wrote:
>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:39 -0500, "Lee" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any
>>> means >> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or
>>> practice of >> religion. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation,
>>> and Americans >> United are the biggest repeat offenders. Removing
>>> nativity scenes, >> attempting to dig up religious gravestones in
>>> military cemeteries, >> banning teaching of Judeo-Christian creation
>>> myths,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should the government be teaching ANY creation myth?
>>>
>>> Right. they should only teach accepted theories.
>>>
>>> "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing prepares students for college and
>> graduate school exams like beliefs in talking
>> snakes and worldwide floods and 6000 year old
>> universe.
>
> Teaching creation myths from other cultures do. Why is the Judeo-Christian
> one any different?
>
> --
So let's see the current "non religious" belief of how the universe was
>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:39 -0500, "Lee" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any
>>> means >> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or
>>> practice of >> religion. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation,
>>> and Americans >> United are the biggest repeat offenders. Removing
>>> nativity scenes, >> attempting to dig up religious gravestones in
>>> military cemeteries, >> banning teaching of Judeo-Christian creation
>>> myths,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should the government be teaching ANY creation myth?
>>>
>>> Right. they should only teach accepted theories.
>>>
>>> "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing prepares students for college and
>> graduate school exams like beliefs in talking
>> snakes and worldwide floods and 6000 year old
>> universe.
>
> Teaching creation myths from other cultures do. Why is the Judeo-Christian
> one any different?
>
> --
created is called the Big Bang Theory and goes like this
"First there was nothing.
Then there was an explosion and the unversed was created.."
Ironically, that sounds just like a variant of the Judeo-Christian Creation
myth found in Genesis.
I guess they should stop teaching the Big Bang Theory in Physics next..
SaPeIsMa
Apr 27, 2013, 7:36:36 AM4/27/13
to
John
Apr 28, 2013, 6:45:01 PM4/28/13
to
Red Blade wrote:
> http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-the-bill-of-rights/
> http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-the-bill-of-rights/
>
> Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual disarmament
> treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill of
> Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
> quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> Independence.
>
> Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
> Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual disarmament
> treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill of
> Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
> self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
> quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
> Independence.
>
> While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and bear
> arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange, but
> the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
> Freedom of Religion.
>
> arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange, but
> the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
> Freedom of Religion.
>
> Americans stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not because it
> is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
> did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
> would be no freedom.
>
> is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
> did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
> would be no freedom.
>
> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of religion.
> The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
> biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
> religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
>
> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of religion.
> The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
> biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
> religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
> Judeo-Christian creation myths, and eliminating even a moment of silence
> for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
>
> for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
>
> 2. Islam, which believes not in freedom, but theocracy. The sinful and
> unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
> their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
> Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
> Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined in
> the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
> apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
> is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
> places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
> cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
> no desire to tailor it for one.
>
> unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
> their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
> Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
> Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined in
> the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
> apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
> is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
> places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
> cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
> no desire to tailor it for one.
>
> As we can see, when people do not believe in freedom, they do not work for
> freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
> in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
> freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
>
Without the 2nd amendment, the first and all the rest would be long gone.
> freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
> in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
> freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
>
Message has been deleted
Red Blade
May 3, 2013, 11:04:01 PM5/3/13
to
Mr. B1ack
May 4, 2013, 12:26:02 AM5/4/13
to
that proports to call itself a "science" course.
BTW ... 'genesis' has it all wrong. In the beginning there
was nothing here at all - not even 'the deep' (space). Then
came 'light', then much later our sun, and the earth came
around after that after lots of asteroids were done bumping
into each other.
weezer919.com
May 4, 2013, 1:59:37 AM5/4/13
to
Please Visit My Website ...... http://weezer919.com/ ......
weezer919.com ......
It Is Safe ...... It Is Designed To Wake You Up ......
Just Imagine What Would Happen If You Bitchslapped A Zombie ......
Stole His Television Set ......
And Forced Him To Read Kurt Vonnegut ......
weezer919.com ......
It Is Safe ...... It Is Designed To Wake You Up ......
Just Imagine What Would Happen If You Bitchslapped A Zombie ......
Stole His Television Set ......
And Forced Him To Read Kurt Vonnegut ......
weezer919.com
May 4, 2013, 2:00:20 AM5/4/13
to
Chris Tolles: Evil Scumbag
May 4, 2013, 11:02:21 AM5/4/13
to
On Apr 26, 11:07 am, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
> > "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hqOdnfMB0J2c2OTM...@giganews.com...
> > > SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> > >>"Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
You have to read it in context with what "the militia" means. It
meant that every able-bodied person needed to be armed.
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
> > "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hqOdnfMB0J2c2OTM...@giganews.com...
> > > SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> > >>"Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
meant that every able-bodied person needed to be armed.
SaPeIsMa
May 4, 2013, 11:45:25 AM5/4/13
to
"Red Blade" <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
news:km1tka$4bn$1...@dont-email.me...
And why ?
Maybe before you prove even further what an idiot you are, you should do
some reading to reduce your ignorance level
Start with "The Science of God" by Dr Gerald Schroeder.
<http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ScienceGod.aspx>
Schroeder by the way, was a physicist who earned his BSc, MSc and PhD from
MIT, where he also taught 5 years
<http://www.geraldschroeder.com/About.aspx>
SaPeIsMa
May 4, 2013, 11:47:09 AM5/4/13
to
"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
news:m639o8dgur4oh8hmk...@4ax.com...
So basically you're trying to nit-pick the details, which by the way are
unclear and speculative on BOTH sides of the argument,
A fools errand if ever there was one.
news:m639o8dgur4oh8hmk...@4ax.com...
unclear and speculative on BOTH sides of the argument,
A fools errand if ever there was one.
Mitchell Holman
May 4, 2013, 12:12:01 PM5/4/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:km3aem$b8u$2...@dont-email.me:
Either the Genesis details are right
or they are wrong.
Or maybe they are both, to hear the
fundies tell it.....
Adam and Eve created together
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in
the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them.
But later on..............
Adam created alone.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Eve created alone.
Gen:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken
from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto
the man.
news:km3aem$b8u$2...@dont-email.me:
or they are wrong.
Or maybe they are both, to hear the
fundies tell it.....
Adam and Eve created together
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in
the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them.
But later on..............
Adam created alone.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Eve created alone.
Gen:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken
from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto
the man.
Message has been deleted
Mitchell Holman
May 4, 2013, 2:03:46 PM5/4/13
to
dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote in news:20130504132931.219
$v...@newsreader.com:
> It's a charming mythology. A bunch of desert nomads moved into the
> civilized world and adopted their creation myth. It's natrual to look
at
> life and wonder where it came from. Luckily we have the science and
> technology that teaches us the real story of creation.
What is scary is teaching fable as fact.
http://io9.com/louisiana-senators-vote-to-keep-creationism-in-science-
488898583
$v...@newsreader.com:
> civilized world and adopted their creation myth. It's natrual to look
at
> life and wonder where it came from. Luckily we have the science and
> technology that teaches us the real story of creation.
What is scary is teaching fable as fact.
http://io9.com/louisiana-senators-vote-to-keep-creationism-in-science-
488898583
Rep. Michelle Presnell (R-Burnsville)
May 4, 2013, 2:16:09 PM5/4/13
to
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> > >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:39 -0500, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com>
>
> > > Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> > wrote: >>
>
> > >> >> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> > >> >> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any
> > >> means >> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or
> > >> practice of >> religion. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion
> > Foundation, >> and Americans >> United are the biggest repeat
> > offenders. Removing >> nativity scenes, >> attempting to dig up
> > religious gravestones in >> military cemeteries, >> banning teaching
> > of Judeo-Christian creation >> myths,
>
> > >> > Why should the government be teaching ANY creation myth?
>
> > >> Right. they should only teach accepted theories.
>
> > >> "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
>
> > > Nothing prepares students for college and
> > > graduate school exams like beliefs in talking
> > > snakes and worldwide floods and 6000 year old
> > > universe.
>
> > There's a perfect example of your lack of education. You think that
> > all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
>
> So part of the Bible is the factual
> truth and the rest are patent lies? How
> do you tell which is which, and how to
> teach that to students?
Your message has been preferred to various newsgroup service providers
>
> > >> >> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> > >> >> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any
> > >> means >> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or
> > >> practice of >> religion. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion
> > Foundation, >> and Americans >> United are the biggest repeat
> > offenders. Removing >> nativity scenes, >> attempting to dig up
> > religious gravestones in >> military cemeteries, >> banning teaching
> > of Judeo-Christian creation >> myths,
>
> > >> > Why should the government be teaching ANY creation myth?
>
> > >> Right. they should only teach accepted theories.
>
> > >> "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
>
> > > Nothing prepares students for college and
> > > graduate school exams like beliefs in talking
> > > snakes and worldwide floods and 6000 year old
> > > universe.
>
> > There's a perfect example of your lack of education. You think that
> > all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
>
> So part of the Bible is the factual
> truth and the rest are patent lies? How
> do you tell which is which, and how to
> teach that to students?
as a violation of terms of service. It is just as blastphemious as if
you had trampled on a crucifix or cursed God as the apostrate Julian
did by laying on his back and exposing himself to God after God told
him to cover up his nakidness.
In addition we Christians here in North Carolina are in the process of
passing legislation to prevent athists, muzzleums, and herreticks such
as yourself from entering our state.
Rep. Michelle Presnell (R-Burnsville)
May 4, 2013, 2:28:17 PM5/4/13
to
On Apr 26, 11:05 am, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:39 -0500, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> > >> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any
> > means >> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or
> > practice of >> religion. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation,
> > and Americans >> United are the biggest repeat offenders. Removing
> > nativity scenes, >> attempting to dig up religious gravestones in
> > military cemeteries, >> banning teaching of Judeo-Christian creation
> > myths,
>
> > > Why should the government be teaching ANY creation myth?
>
> > Right. they should only teach accepted theories.
>
> > "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
>
> Nothing prepares students for college and
> graduate school exams like beliefs in talking
> snakes and worldwide floods and 6000 year old
> universe.
I found this debate because I wanted to read about God, guns, and
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:39 -0500, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
> > >> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any
> > means >> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or
> > practice of >> religion. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation,
> > and Americans >> United are the biggest repeat offenders. Removing
> > nativity scenes, >> attempting to dig up religious gravestones in
> > military cemeteries, >> banning teaching of Judeo-Christian creation
> > myths,
>
> > > Why should the government be teaching ANY creation myth?
>
> > Right. they should only teach accepted theories.
>
> > "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
>
> Nothing prepares students for college and
> graduate school exams like beliefs in talking
> snakes and worldwide floods and 6000 year old
> universe.
guts.
But sattanical types like you has to spread your religion of hate
against Christinanity.
The Bible, public schools where prayers was said, and God prepared me
with an excellent education, thank you very much. I see from serfing
around here that you have made a specktickle of yourself preaching
hersies against the inerrunt word of God. May the Lord have Mercy on
Your Sole.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
SaPeIsMa
May 4, 2013, 4:57:04 PM5/4/13
to
"Mitchell Holman" <nomailerizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1B67140AA530...@216.196.121.131...
YOU IDIOT !
Since when is Genesis supposed to be a minute description to the smallest
detail of what happened ?
Are you really this stupid ?
>
> Or maybe they are both, to hear the
> fundies tell it.....
>
>
<Yawn>
Amazing how the atheists need to build strawman arguments to support
their claims
news:XnsA1B67140AA530...@216.196.121.131...
Since when is Genesis supposed to be a minute description to the smallest
detail of what happened ?
Are you really this stupid ?
>
> Or maybe they are both, to hear the
> fundies tell it.....
>
>
Amazing how the atheists need to build strawman arguments to support
their claims
Mitchell Holman
May 4, 2013, 7:25:48 PM5/4/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:km3sj6$tmb$1...@dont-email.me:
Take that up with your creationist friends.
"All things in the universe were created and made
by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week
described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus
20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical,
and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or
development that involve evolution in any form are
false."
http://www.icr.org/tenets/
news:km3sj6$tmb$1...@dont-email.me:
"All things in the universe were created and made
by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week
described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus
20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical,
and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or
development that involve evolution in any form are
false."
http://www.icr.org/tenets/
Mr. B1ack
May 4, 2013, 10:31:24 PM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 4 May 2013 10:47:09 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
If you don't have the details right then
you have no argument, no case. And gee,
you'd expect "Revealed TRUTHS" to have
all the details straight, wouldn't you ? :-)
wrote:
you have no argument, no case. And gee,
you'd expect "Revealed TRUTHS" to have
all the details straight, wouldn't you ? :-)
Mr. B1ack
May 4, 2013, 10:43:28 PM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 11:12:01 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net>
wrote:
Heh, heh ... sometimes you'd think they'd
re-discovered quantum indetermincy - true
and false, there and not there ... all at
the same time :-)
It's called 'desperation'.
> Adam and Eve created together
>
>Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in
>the image of God created he him; male and female
>created he them.
>
>
> But later on..............
>
>
>
> Adam created alone.
>
>Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust
>of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
>breath of life; and man became a living soul.
>
> Eve created alone.
>
>Gen:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken
>from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto
>the man.
Well, Woman #1 was supposedly Lillith - who just
did NOT get along. Eve was the (dumbed-down)
replacement. :-)
Of course the paleontological and DNA evidence
completely screw this 'origin' story ... showing
a broad-based family tree and a fair amount of
incest between them all - eventually consolidating
into what we call the 'modern human' around 250ky
ago. Oh wait ... then there were some contributions
by horny neanderthals much later on, possibly some
from homo erectus too, especially in asia.
LOTS of 'Eves', LOTS of 'Adam's' - and nothing
remotely resembling a "Start" point ; no line in the
sand demarking 'human' from 'not human'. Hell, 'human'
doesn't even have real meaning NOW. There are no
'standard humans' ... it's a rats-nest of genotypes
and phenotypes.
wrote:
re-discovered quantum indetermincy - true
and false, there and not there ... all at
the same time :-)
It's called 'desperation'.
> Adam and Eve created together
>
>Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in
>the image of God created he him; male and female
>created he them.
>
>
> But later on..............
>
>
>
> Adam created alone.
>
>Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust
>of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
>breath of life; and man became a living soul.
>
> Eve created alone.
>
>Gen:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken
>from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto
>the man.
did NOT get along. Eve was the (dumbed-down)
replacement. :-)
Of course the paleontological and DNA evidence
completely screw this 'origin' story ... showing
a broad-based family tree and a fair amount of
incest between them all - eventually consolidating
into what we call the 'modern human' around 250ky
ago. Oh wait ... then there were some contributions
by horny neanderthals much later on, possibly some
from homo erectus too, especially in asia.
LOTS of 'Eves', LOTS of 'Adam's' - and nothing
remotely resembling a "Start" point ; no line in the
sand demarking 'human' from 'not human'. Hell, 'human'
doesn't even have real meaning NOW. There are no
'standard humans' ... it's a rats-nest of genotypes
and phenotypes.
JohnJohnsn
May 4, 2013, 11:39:26 PM5/4/13
to
On Apr 25, 10:19 am, Ron <roneal1...@att.net> wrote:
>> non-muslims, but muslims as well.
>> I'll repeat the part that is importatn
>> Islam has no problme with the use of force against....
>
>> How do you defend yourself agaisnt such use of force, if you are disarmed
>> and helpless ?
>> So tell us how you can protect ANY freedom, such as that of speech,
>> religion, if you don't have any way to protect yourself from the tryranny of
>> those who would silence you ?
>
>> How do you defend yourself against such use of force, if you are disarmed
>> and helpless ?
>> Without the ability to protect yourself from tyranny, you have nothing .
>> Your only choice is accepting being a slave, subject to a tyranny.
>> And you will find yourself “free” to bend your neck and pray, just before it
>> gets cut off.
>
>> The Romans had one part of it right
>> “Para Bellum, si vis Pacem”
>> “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
>> The other part is the one that goes
>> “Those who beat their swords into plowshares,
>> will end up plowing for those who did not..”
>
>> Next time put the horse BEFORE the cart..
>
> "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about self-defense.
>
> 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.
>
> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
> A citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> defense against foreign incursion.
>
Nevertheless:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,..."
[...]
"The (Second) Amendment’s prefatory clause (A well regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...)
announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope
of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s
text (...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed) and history demonstrate that it connotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms."
— District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370)
>
> The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
> of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>
> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
> of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
> called into the actual Service of the United States;"
>
However, the above regards "the Militia" when it is in service to the
federal government (in modern times: in Title 10 status); to-wit:
"governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States" and "when called into the actual Service of the United
States;" not when they are in service to their respective states'
governments (Title 32 status).
Moreover, though; the above only relates to that portion of "the
militia" which "wear three hats: civilian, state military and federal
military"; to-wit: the Army and Air National Guards; and not to the
remainder of "the Militia" as defined in Title 10 USC § 311(b)(2):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
In the case above, the "all able-bodied males [and now females under
the Equal Rights Amendment] at least 17 years of age and...under 45
years of age" is the _mandatory_ membership age range and doesn't
preclude voluntary membership by persons 45 and older.
And does this sound like "militia service"?
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
--Thomas Jefferson
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your
constant companion of your walks.”
--Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to his nephew Peter Carr; 19 Aug
1785
---
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of
the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's
too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big
picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the
same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
--Alan Morton Dershowitz, Liberal lawyer, jurist, and political
commentator
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under
any government, no matter how popular and respected,
is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not
to say that firearms should not be very carefully used,
and that definite safety rules of precaution should not
be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear
arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard against tyranny which
now appears remote in America, but which historically
has proved to be always possible.”
--Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN), February, 1960
>
>
> On Apr 25, 6:47 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>http://libertycolumns.com/2013/04/24/the-most-important-freedom-in-th...
>
> On Apr 25, 6:47 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:kla1pp$e2d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>> Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
>>> Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual disarmament
>>> treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
>>> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
>>> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
>>> of Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
>>> self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
>>> quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
>>> Independence.
>
>> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
>>> Over the past few months, we have had several gun control proposals in
>>> Congress, accompanied by the United Nations national/individual disarmament
>>> treaty and a media marathon of man-made violence.
>
>>> Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the 2nd Amendment, the
>>> right to keep and bear arms, is the most important Amendment of the Bill
>>> of Rights. They point out that the 2nd Amendment is not merely about
>>> self-defense or hunting, but as a check on government tyranny, frequently
>>> quoting the statements by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
>>> Independence.
>
>> The 2nd was NEVER about hunting.
>> It was in part about self-defense
>> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny
>
>
>>> While the 2nd Amendment may function this way, the right to keep and bear
>>> arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange,
>>> but the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
>>> Freedom of Religion.
>
>> Only if you believe in putting the cart before the horse
>>> arms is not the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This may sound strange,
>>> but the keystone of the Bill of Rights is actually part of the 1st Amendment:
>>> Freedom of Religion.
>
>
>>> Americans stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not because it
>>> is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
>>> did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
>>> would be no freedom.
>
>>> Americans stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not because it
>>> is the law of the land, but because they believe in freedom. If Americans
>>> did not believe in freedom, they would not insist on freedom, and there
>>> would be no freedom.
>
>>> Right now there are two major threats to freedom of religion:
>
>>> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
>>> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of
>>> religion.
>>> The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
>>> biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
>>> religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
>
>>> 1. Modern atheism, which uses not only the court system but any means
>>> necessary to eliminate public display, discussion, or practice of
>>> religion.
>>> The ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Americans United are the
>>> biggest repeat offenders. Removing nativity scenes, attempting to dig up
>>> religious gravestones in military cemeteries, banning teaching of
>>> Judeo-Christian creation myths, and eliminating even a moment of silence
>>> for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
>
>> Superficila trappings
>>> for private prayer in any religion, are notable instances in this group.
>
>
>>> 2. Islam, which believes not in freedom, but theocracy. The sinful and
>>> unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
>>> their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
>>> Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
>>> Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined
>>> in the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
>>> apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
>>> is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
>>> places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
>>> cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
>>> no desire to tailor it for one.
>
>> Ironically, Islam has NO PROBLEM with the use of force against not only
>>> 2. Islam, which believes not in freedom, but theocracy. The sinful and
>>> unethical behaviors broadcasted from the Left Coast provide credence to
>>> their theocratic agenda. As the enabler of sin and unethical behavior,
>>> Muslim leaders often teach that freedom must be eliminated from America.
>>> Islam has no room for freedom, only the theocratic legal system outlined
>>> in the Quran. Unlike the Bible, there is no room for interpretation or
>>> apologies for a theocratic past, and also unlike the Bible, their religion
>>> is eternally mandated through force. Many people have been killed, many
>>> places have been destroyed, and many things have been censored. Islam
>>> cannot exist in its entirety under a free society, and Muslim leaders have
>>> no desire to tailor it for one.
>
>> non-muslims, but muslims as well.
>> I'll repeat the part that is importatn
>> Islam has no problme with the use of force against....
>
>> How do you defend yourself agaisnt such use of force, if you are disarmed
>> and helpless ?
>
>>> As we can see, when people do not believe in freedom, they do not work for
>>> freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
>>> in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
>>> freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
>
>> Funny
>>> As we can see, when people do not believe in freedom, they do not work for
>>> freedom, and they neither have nor want freedom. The basis for all freedom
>>> in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion - the freedom to believe in
>>> freedom, and to ensure that freedom remains the law of the land.
>
>> So tell us how you can protect ANY freedom, such as that of speech,
>> religion, if you don't have any way to protect yourself from the tryranny of
>> those who would silence you ?
>
>> How do you defend yourself against such use of force, if you are disarmed
>> and helpless ?
>> Without the ability to protect yourself from tyranny, you have nothing .
>> Your only choice is accepting being a slave, subject to a tyranny.
>> And you will find yourself “free” to bend your neck and pray, just before it
>> gets cut off.
>
>> The Romans had one part of it right
>> “Para Bellum, si vis Pacem”
>> “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
>> The other part is the one that goes
>> “Those who beat their swords into plowshares,
>> will end up plowing for those who did not..”
>
>> Next time put the horse BEFORE the cart..
>
> "The 2nd was NEVER about hunting. It was in part about self-defense.
> But it's MOSTLY about "self-defense" against tyranny "
>
> That's an odd statement. The Second reads:
>
>
> 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.
>
> The emergent US at that time did not have a large standing army.
> A citizen staffed "well regulated Militia" was allowed to provide
> defense against foreign incursion.
>
Nevertheless:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,..."
[...]
"The (Second) Amendment’s prefatory clause (A well regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...)
announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope
of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s
text (...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed) and history demonstrate that it connotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms."
— District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370)
>
> The Constitution outlines the function of that Militia.
>
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
>
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
> of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
>
> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
> of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
> called into the actual Service of the United States;"
>
However, the above regards "the Militia" when it is in service to the
federal government (in modern times: in Title 10 status); to-wit:
"governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States" and "when called into the actual Service of the United
States;" not when they are in service to their respective states'
governments (Title 32 status).
Moreover, though; the above only relates to that portion of "the
militia" which "wear three hats: civilian, state military and federal
military"; to-wit: the Army and Air National Guards; and not to the
remainder of "the Militia" as defined in Title 10 USC § 311(b)(2):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
In the case above, the "all able-bodied males [and now females under
the Equal Rights Amendment] at least 17 years of age and...under 45
years of age" is the _mandatory_ membership age range and doesn't
preclude voluntary membership by persons 45 and older.
And does this sound like "militia service"?
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
--Thomas Jefferson
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your
constant companion of your walks.”
--Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to his nephew Peter Carr; 19 Aug
1785
---
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of
the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's
too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big
picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the
same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
--Alan Morton Dershowitz, Liberal lawyer, jurist, and political
commentator
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under
any government, no matter how popular and respected,
is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not
to say that firearms should not be very carefully used,
and that definite safety rules of precaution should not
be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear
arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard against tyranny which
now appears remote in America, but which historically
has proved to be always possible.”
--Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN), February, 1960
Red Blade
May 5, 2013, 8:50:00 PM5/5/13
to
when it comes to abiogenesis, only proven fact is legal to teach while
history is censored.
SaPeIsMa
May 5, 2013, 11:20:03 PM5/5/13
to
"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
news:o1hbo81mv90qbfb3m...@4ax.com...
few millennia of oral transfer without some loss of data and compression
along the way.
SaPeIsMa
May 5, 2013, 11:23:07 PM5/5/13
to
"Red Blade" <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
news:km6ugu$bio$1...@dont-email.me...
The supposedly "scientific" theory of the creation of the Universe is
First there was nothing
Then a big explosion
And voila the universe was created..
Sounds pretty much like Genesis to me..
I guess that means that the Big Bang Theory is not illegal too..
<Atheists are such morons>
Mitchell Holman
May 6, 2013, 12:26:15 AM5/6/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:km77gs$nks$1...@dont-email.me:
So the parts of the Bible you like are
factually correct and the rest is "allegory"
and "translation error" and "misinterpreted".
Do you really think you are the first
Cafeteria Christian?
news:km77gs$nks$1...@dont-email.me:
factually correct and the rest is "allegory"
and "translation error" and "misinterpreted".
Do you really think you are the first
Cafeteria Christian?
Gary DW
May 6, 2013, 2:18:27 AM5/6/13
to
In article <km3ael$b8u$1...@dont-email.me>, SaPe...@gmail.com says...
Ahem... http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/mark_perakh/Schroeder_Genesis.htm
Vice-President Joe Biden
May 6, 2013, 5:22:22 AM5/6/13
to
United States v. Emerson, 46F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D.Texas 1999)
A restraining order was imposed on defendant Timothy Joe Emerson
during a divorce proceeding, and later he was indicted for possessing
a firearm while under the restraining order in violation of of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). Does that statute violate Emerson's Second
Amendment right to bear arms? Held Yes. There are two camps of Second
Amendment thought: the "collective rights" or "states' rights" camp,
and the "individual rights" camp. Textually, the Second Amendment
seems to be talking about individual rights, with the militia clause
explaining the reason for the individual rights. Historically it seems
the intent of the framers to grant individual rights: James II in
England had stopped Protestants from owning weapons, and Parliament
passed the English Bill of Rights in 1689 giving back this right; in
the colonies individual bearing of arms was a crucial part in winning
the Revolution; even federalist arguments from James Monroe during
ratification of the Constitution saw a need for the right to bear arms
as a "human right". Structurally, the amendment is placed in the Bill
of [Individual] Rights, not a list of states' rights. Judicially, the
Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the collective/individual
right Second Amendment issue. Prudentially, a social cost argument
doesn't hold sway, as Constitutional provisions should be upheld even
when they have high social costs. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is
unconstitutional because it allows a judge to arbitrarily take away an
individual's Second Amendment right without referring to past crimes
or criminal tendencies for the future.
Mr. B1ack
May 6, 2013, 7:41:46 AM5/6/13
to
You mean "mythological bullshit" ...
Oh well, I guess we could throw in some
of the Hindu/Vedic mythological bullshit
just for fun. The kiddies oughtta find
the blue gods kinda fun. Maybe some tales
of the great Zeus in electrical engineering
class too.
Oh wait ... I'll bet you meant some OTHER
mythological bullshit entirely, didn't you ?
The *right* mythological bullsit ... :-)
Mr. B1ack
May 6, 2013, 7:43:29 AM5/6/13
to
On Sun, 5 May 2013 22:20:03 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
Only idiot literalists try to foist
this mythological bullshit on everyone
in the first place. Find a mirror and
then throw stones at the image you see.
this mythological bullshit on everyone
in the first place. Find a mirror and
then throw stones at the image you see.
Mr. B1ack
May 6, 2013, 7:53:28 AM5/6/13
to
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:26:15 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net>
wrote:
The problem with religions is that - and
the HRCC realized this early, and burnt
many 'heretics' because of it - if it's
not ALL absolutely correct then ALL of
it is in doubt. Religions rely on one
'revealed truth' as a foundation for
others, which are the foundation for
others .... and so forth. It's kinda
the 'chain logic' issue.
Science ALSO relies on well-verified
facts as a foundation for new theories,
new research, better facts. Thing is,
if one of those 'foundation stones' is
discovered faulty, scientists happily
abandon the whole chain of faulty logic
and start a better one. Science IMPROVES ;
religion, however, is STUCK in its rut.
And it's gotten to be a really really
DEEP rut at this point ...
wrote:
the HRCC realized this early, and burnt
many 'heretics' because of it - if it's
not ALL absolutely correct then ALL of
it is in doubt. Religions rely on one
'revealed truth' as a foundation for
others, which are the foundation for
others .... and so forth. It's kinda
the 'chain logic' issue.
Science ALSO relies on well-verified
facts as a foundation for new theories,
new research, better facts. Thing is,
if one of those 'foundation stones' is
discovered faulty, scientists happily
abandon the whole chain of faulty logic
and start a better one. Science IMPROVES ;
religion, however, is STUCK in its rut.
And it's gotten to be a really really
DEEP rut at this point ...
Liberal Here
May 6, 2013, 1:51:10 PM5/6/13
to
On May 4, 12:26 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 23:04:01 -0400, Red Blade
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
> >On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:35:57 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 23:04:01 -0400, Red Blade
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
> >On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:35:57 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >>news:klek69$v7i$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> >>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> >>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
assert.....one point I've always been curious about (okay, not
***ALWAYS***, just once I began to comprehend this stuff) is why would
quantum mechanics be able to act in a way that creates the universe?
IOW, why would/how could QM exist if the universe did not? Perhaps the
explanation is that QM doesn't exist in our universe but has effects
in it the way gravity is thought to leak out of our universe. And a
similar leakage from another brane may be the nature of dark matter.
> came 'light', then much later our sun, and the earth came
> around after that after lots of asteroids were done bumping
> into each other.
fairy. Mysteries abound.
Liberal Here
May 6, 2013, 2:02:03 PM5/6/13
to
On May 4, 11:02 am, "Chris Tolles: Evil Scumbag"
But only as part of a well-regulated militia. There were federal laws
passed that stipulated the obligations of every state to form said
militias and maintain them.
passed that stipulated the obligations of every state to form said
militias and maintain them.
Liberal Here
May 6, 2013, 2:05:52 PM5/6/13
to
On May 4, 4:57 pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <nomailerizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:XnsA1B67140AA530...@216.196.121.131...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote in
> "Mitchell Holman" <nomailerizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:XnsA1B67140AA530...@216.196.121.131...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:km3aem$b8u$2...@dont-email.me:
>
> >> "Mr. B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote in message
> >>news:m639o8dgur4oh8hmk...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 23:04:01 -0400, Red Blade
> >>> <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:35:57 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 23:04:01 -0400, Red Blade
> >>> <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:35:57 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >>>>>news:klek69$v7i$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:39 -0500, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
physics.
>
> Are you really this stupid ?
>
>
>
> > Or maybe they are both, to hear the
> > fundies tell it.....
>
> <Yawn>
> Amazing how the atheists need to build strawman arguments to support
> their claims
willing for kill for if others don't accept their beliefs.
Liberal Here
May 6, 2013, 2:09:41 PM5/6/13
to
On May 5, 11:23 pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
Conveniently ignoring other potential explanations such as String
Theory.
> Sounds pretty much like Genesis to me..
> I guess that means that the Big Bang Theory is not illegal too..
>
> <Atheists are such morons>
And religious wackos are free entertainment.....
> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:km6ugu$bio$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 4 May 2013 10:45:25 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
> news:km6ugu$bio$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 4 May 2013 10:45:25 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >>news:km1tka$4bn$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:35:57 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >>>> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:35:57 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> >>>>news:klek69$v7i$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:39 -0500, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:05:41 -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
Theory.
> Sounds pretty much like Genesis to me..
> I guess that means that the Big Bang Theory is not illegal too..
>
> <Atheists are such morons>
Message has been deleted
SaPeIsMa
May 6, 2013, 3:32:23 PM5/6/13
to
"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
news:oo5fo81ns9fadihc5...@4ax.com...
1) trying to foist anything
2) I"m not a literalist when it comes to the OT.
I'll leave you to throw rocks at yourself or your reflection.
SaPeIsMa
May 6, 2013, 3:33:54 PM5/6/13
to
"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
news:gs5fo8p6km5uh0pr5...@4ax.com...
ignorant and bigoted nonsense
<flush>
SaPeIsMa
May 6, 2013, 3:36:43 PM5/6/13
to
"Liberal Here" <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdac842d-ae37-419a...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
#
# Since it became the Jewish, christian, and muslim starting point for
# physics.
When did that happen ??
(other than in your deranged fantasies)
>
> Are you really this stupid ?
>
>
>
> > Or maybe they are both, to hear the
> > fundies tell it.....
>
> <Yawn>
> Amazing how the atheists need to build strawman arguments to support
> their claims
#
#
# Odd how fanatical believers don't really believe in what they're
# willing for kill for if others don't accept their beliefs.
There you go with another strawman
poor baby...
Time to flush you with the other turds
news:bdac842d-ae37-419a...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
# Since it became the Jewish, christian, and muslim starting point for
# physics.
When did that happen ??
(other than in your deranged fantasies)
>
> Are you really this stupid ?
>
>
>
> > Or maybe they are both, to hear the
> > fundies tell it.....
>
> <Yawn>
> Amazing how the atheists need to build strawman arguments to support
> their claims
#
# Odd how fanatical believers don't really believe in what they're
# willing for kill for if others don't accept their beliefs.
There you go with another strawman
poor baby...
Time to flush you with the other turds
SaPeIsMa
May 6, 2013, 3:38:21 PM5/6/13
to
"Liberal Here" <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:066e6639-8227-4ab6...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
# Conveniently ignoring other potential explanations such as String
# Theory.
Didn't ignore it dummy.
And I don't have to list EVERY possible theory to satisfy the idiots
> Sounds pretty much like Genesis to me..
> I guess that means that the Big Bang Theory is not illegal too..
>
> <Atheists are such morons>
# And religious wackos are free entertainment.....
#
There you go projecting again
Definitely time to send you down he pipe of stupidity
<flush>
Vice-President Joe Biden
May 6, 2013, 4:03:57 PM5/6/13
to
Amendment, as well as the Supreme Court rulings in District of
Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago, which overruled the
poorly-articulated 1939 Supreme Court opinion, U. S. vs. Miller.
It is plain and clear from the writings of the Founders and other
influential political philosophers of the period who discussed the
right to keep and bear arms that this was a basic INDIVIDUAL right to
keep and bear arms for self-defense, not a states' right or group
right, or right that may be asserted only as the member of a militia,
or standing army. This right pre-existed the Constitution and it
guaranteed every individual in the USA a fundamental individual right
to keep and bear arms for self-defense. See _Heller_ and _McDonald,_
as cited above, for details.
Mr. B1ack
May 6, 2013, 5:09:56 PM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 6 May 2013 14:33:54 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
If you can't take the spankings then
don't peddle stale old mythological
nonsense.
don't peddle stale old mythological
nonsense.
Mr. B1ack
May 6, 2013, 5:52:06 PM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 6 May 2013 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Liberal Here
<liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 5, 11:23 pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>
<liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 5, 11:23 pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>
>> As I wrote elsewhere
>> The supposedly "scientific" theory of the creation of the Universe is
>> First there was nothing
>> Then a big explosion
>> And voila the universe was created..
>
>Conveniently ignoring other potential explanations such as String
>Theory.
CAREFUL there ! String theory is about as
>> The supposedly "scientific" theory of the creation of the Universe is
>> First there was nothing
>> Then a big explosion
>> And voila the universe was created..
>
>Conveniently ignoring other potential explanations such as String
>Theory.
close to "religion" as you can get (except
maybe M-Theory). Only a handful of 'priests'
can wrap their brains around that super-dense
math at all - so we have to take their word
for everything. There's also a convenient
lack of experimental evidence or even any
idea about HOW to prove any of it experimentally.
Just because someone can write some elegant math
doesn't mean it describes anything real.
Late last year, the folks at CERN did some
experiments that SHOULD have pried-open any
4th dimension just a tad, enough so it'd
have a tangible effect on the behavior of
the particles involved. Nada. This is very
worrisome because string and M theory both
require lots of higher dimensions in order
to work ... 9 and 10 (plus time) respectively.
If we can't even demonstrate the tiniest
speck of a mere 4th dimension at energies
above where it should appear ... BIG problem.
Now maybe someone miscalculated how much energy
it takes to pry up a bit of 4th dimension ...
forgot to take the resistance or energy-absorbsion
of even higher dimensions into account or something.
Maybe not. Maybe there ARE NO 'higher dimensions'
and we're stuck with three (plus time).
Wolfram published a thick tome some years ago
that looked at physics from the perspective of
cellular automata ... concluding that if the
stuff of space acted like zillions of little
computation cells that interacted with each
other according to a relatively limited set
of rules you COULD see things like gravity
and protons and such appear as emergent
properties of those interactions. It's sort
of a weird way of looking at string theory.
Of course WHAT is the "stuff of space" and why
does it act like computational cells ? These
questions are unanswered.
One hopeful thing to it all however ... you MIGHT
be able to make it all work in just THREE dimensions
(plus time). The 'cells' or whatever you want to
call them would be tiny, down near the Planck length
(as are 'strings') but they may be the real stuff
everything's made of (including the illusion of
'empty space').
If we can't find 4th+ dimensions then we'll
have to re-do theoretical physics to fit the
universe we DO have.
Frankly, it all has a slight odor of 'virtual
machine' if you ask me ... no 'programmer' is
required of course (and there'd be the question
of who programmed the programmer and such if
there was).
Just envision a big jar packed full of teenie
weenie wiggly nanobots making harmonies as
they interact. We, space, matter ... we are
the songs they collectively make. Or 'noise',
depending on how charitible you're feeling :-)
>> Sounds pretty much like Genesis to me..
>> I guess that means that the Big Bang Theory is not illegal too..
>>
>> <Atheists are such morons>
>
>And religious wackos are free entertainment.....
making critical policy decisions for everyone
else ....
Oglethorpe
May 6, 2013, 8:36:02 PM5/6/13
to
news:XnsA1B7EDBD53397...@216.196.121.131...
The Bible is a bookj of fables. No more or less han Aesop's Fables.
Mitchell Holman
May 6, 2013, 7:24:43 PM5/6/13
to
"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in
news:jOWdnUoL3JLKrRXM...@mchsi.com:
Small wonder "SaPeIsMa" can't defend his
faith, or even say what it consists of.
news:jOWdnUoL3JLKrRXM...@mchsi.com:
faith, or even say what it consists of.
Oglethorpe
May 6, 2013, 9:29:18 PM5/6/13
to
news:XnsA1B8BA9DE22DF...@216.196.121.131...
Small wonder what a complete ass you are.
Mitchell Holman
May 6, 2013, 7:39:44 PM5/6/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:km90fi$ep4$1...@dont-email.me:
Tell us your opinion of the OT then.
news:km90fi$ep4$1...@dont-email.me:
SaPeIsMa
May 6, 2013, 8:07:25 PM5/6/13
to
"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:ueydnZ2Aw5VOoRXM...@mchsi.com...
Notice that the silly git presumes that I'm a Christian
news:ueydnZ2Aw5VOoRXM...@mchsi.com...
0 new messages