This is why I H A T E partisan politics...
- Thread starter theclemsonkid
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
Where are the two issues? You only quoted a segment of bionic's statement.
The 2nd am., is not really meant to protect individuals, in my view. It is there to protect "the people" from an overbearing government.
Abortion rights and the right to marry for gays and lesbians. I am trying to gauge what matters more to specific individuals.. If you could only have one of those three, which would it be?
The 2nd am., is not really meant to protect individuals, in my view. It is there to protect "the people" from an overbearing government.
Abortion rights and the right to marry for gays and lesbians. I am trying to gauge what matters more to specific individuals.. If you could only have one of those three, which would it be?
I would say that federal government should stay out of both issues. For gays, I would probably say to give them a license, but do not require religious denominations to go against their belief system and force them to perform marriages.
If I had to choose legal abortions, gay marriage, or 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment for me. The 2nd amendment provides a society with the right to preserve our constitutional right to defend ourselves from a government run amok with power. Even if it would be a loosing battle. At stake is the liberty and freedom of all Americans. Personally,the abortion rights and gay marriage is not a personal crusade for me. Both are "NA" for me. LOL
If I had to choose legal abortions, gay marriage, or 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment for me. The 2nd amendment provides a society with the right to preserve our constitutional right to defend ourselves from a government run amok with power. Even if it would be a loosing battle. At stake is the liberty and freedom of all Americans. Personally,the abortion rights and gay marriage is not a personal crusade for me. Both are "NA" for me. LOL
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/380#post_3504131
Abortion rights and the right to marry for gays and lesbians. I am trying to gauge what matters more to specific individuals.. If you could only have one of those three, which would it be?
You sound like that German Commandant in Schindler's List. "Madam, you have two sons. One of them is going with us and will most likely die. You have to choose which one stays, and which one goes..." (something along those lines).
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/380#post_3504131
Abortion rights and the right to marry for gays and lesbians. I am trying to gauge what matters more to specific individuals.. If you could only have one of those three, which would it be?
You sound like that German Commandant in Schindler's List. "Madam, you have two sons. One of them is going with us and will most likely die. You have to choose which one stays, and which one goes..." (something along those lines).
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/380#post_3504131
Abortion rights and the right to marry for gays and lesbians. I am trying to gauge what matters more to specific individuals.. If you could only have one of those three, which would it be?
Simple. All three. Based on the history of our laws and protections of ALL of our citizens, there shouldn't be a choice. Period.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/380#post_3504131
Abortion rights and the right to marry for gays and lesbians. I am trying to gauge what matters more to specific individuals.. If you could only have one of those three, which would it be?
Simple. All three. Based on the history of our laws and protections of ALL of our citizens, there shouldn't be a choice. Period.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
here we go choosing 1 right out of three.
Like we have to choose.
Seems to me the constitution specifically forbids the federal government from any powers not specifically stated in the constitution.
Actually that was an initial argument against passing the bill of rights.
So to me if you have say three things to discuss, only the ones specifically given powers by the constitution can be controlled by the feds. anything not mentioned cannot.
Like we have to choose.
Seems to me the constitution specifically forbids the federal government from any powers not specifically stated in the constitution.
Actually that was an initial argument against passing the bill of rights.
So to me if you have say three things to discuss, only the ones specifically given powers by the constitution can be controlled by the feds. anything not mentioned cannot.
ironeagle2006
Active Member
Here is something to Think about the 3 Largest Mass Murders Ever Done in the USA Not ONE of them USED a so Called Assault Weapon. The 1938 School Bombing in MI the OKC Attack in 1995 the 9/11 Attacks Not ONE Freaking Gun was USED in any of those attacks. In 2 of them a Bomb of Diesel Fuel and Fertilezer was Used and in the Last one they used Box Cutters to Hijack Planes and Crash them into Buildings. Think about this also Before 1937 in Germany the Jewish People had the Right to Bear Arms after that they could not and 6 Million People were Led to the Gas Chamber because they could not Defend themselves. Why did the Japanese Empire after Pearl Harbor Not invade the USA Directly they could have with as Weak as we where. 1st they feared the 10 Million men that had Hunting Rifles in the Western States alone. There are more men that hunt in the USA than that are in the Armies of NATO and the old Warsaw Pact COMBINED.