Forget about religion, The First Amendment for the most part got rid of religion. The First Amendment is not about the separation of church and state. Look up the definition of the word Religion and then look up the def of that word.

 

I am now not quite sure what constitution you are reading now.

The First Amendment if anything allowed more religious freedom, it never got rid of religion. Now let me introduce to you the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It states the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, lets talk about a specific part of the First Amendment which specifically addresses religion, this specific part of the First Amendment is actually broken into two different clauses. These clauses are referred to as the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause is the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

And the free exercise clause is the following:

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now there is your separation of church and state. It is stated in the establishment clause. Because Congress cannot make one religion precedent over any other religion. In other words, Congress cannot make one religion the religion of the USA.

And as for your idea that the First Amendment for the most part got rid of religion, did the complete opposite with the free exercise clause. Because Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of any religion.

You are really making me worried if you even know what you are talking about. If you have ever actually read the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. And if you even comprehend what is stated in these documents of historical value.

 

You're still trying to talk to a person who is insisting that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are a single document, and that the Bill of Rights is a separate document?


I mean, really?

 

Okay, I see your point. Here is what I see. He was trying to use corporate law to describe government, which does not work, because government does not even compare to a corporation. So by using the logic of corporate governance, he was trying to argue the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution being a single document.

And as far as Bill of Rights being a separate document, I can see that argument. Yes, even though the Bill of Rights did eventually become part of the US Constitution by ratification. The Bill of Rights were created on September 25, 1789; after the US Constitution was created on September 17, 1787.

But as everyone is taught that the Bill of Rights are part of the US Constitution, and because the first ten amendments which make up the Bill of Rights are on the US Constitution, then it is also correct to state that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the same document.

It just depends in which way you see it.

 

WHAT THE FUCK ???? YOUSE GUYS NUTS?

How about you people get some common sense.If not all get together in the Arizona desert and shoot it out.

Hunters don't need automatic weapons, they are not accurate, they spray. A good bolt action with a scope is accurate and deadly. Ban the automatics and big magazines. Shit guys, if you can't hit a deer with the first shot, you should head back to the practice range.

You need to require someone wanting to buy a gun get a license FIRST. If it takes a week or two to check people out, so be it. You should need a gun license to buy ammunition. Suppose one of the nut bars blows away your kid at school???? Well ????

People who act like the shooter did at school should have their name in a Central Registry. The school and the Campus Police would have had to report him.

Guns should be locked up ! Got one your grandfather brought back from WWII, lock it up, it will probably blow back in your face if you try to fire it. Remember you need a license to buy bullets and reloading stuff.

Need protection from intruders ? Get a German Shepherd ! Dogs don't like intruders, intruders don't like dogs. [A proven fact!]

Want to buy a gun at a gun show, make sure you got your license first.

It appears here you have four types of people here.

1] I got a right to own a gun, I don't care about the nut bars, or that little girl for that matter. I shouldn't have to get a license, it's my right.

2] We should ban all guns! Sorry Kimiko, but we can't have people who can't get their pants on properly, writing laws.

3] Get a license, prove to the authorities you deserve to own one. That young fellow at the shooting who kept his gun hidden showed he probably deserved to own one. [kept the local cops from shooting him too !]

4]I want to argue with somebody and insult all who don't agree with me. Who cares if the Constitution was written with a quill pen or a Bic? You can't spell? Everybody has a right to their own opinion, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and yours stinks. The case in Arizona is not the thing to argue about guys.

You already got a gun? Ok, you get a license under the Grandfather clause. [For those of you who don't know what it is, it has nothing to do with your offspring. It is an exemption granted to those who already have a gun.] But you must be checked out.

I have not read all postings, but to say you don't need gun laws because criminals will find a way to get them, so gun laws won't stop crime is bullshit. Where I come from, Ontario, Canada if you are caught with a hand gun you are in deep shit. Carrying a plastic replica with the required orange paint on the barrel painted over? More deep shit! Point it at a cop and you could be shot.

License to carry? Probably not too many of those around here. I read an article twenty years ago that said in all of Ontario there were only thirty people with a license to carry a concealed pistol.

If you don't agree you should need a license to keep guns out of the hands of nut bars, maybe you are one of the nut bars.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I live in Ontario Canada, have guns and a gun license.

That's my two cents worth, now let's talk about sex !!

 

Are you going to law school? Your educational studies. I failed to get you to see past a few pages of paper. I will try something else.

 

I am sure after Katrina, no one in New Orleans questioned why do you need a semi-automatic weapon. The firepower of a Glock revolver is by no means sufficient to protect yourself, your family and your livelyhood when the government has failed.

 

No, I am not going to law school. I am double majoring in criminal justice and psychology. But in many of my criminal justice classes, we have to learn a lot about the law, and all the different types of laws that exist.

 

criminal justice as far as forensic science or law inforcement

 

Well, you cannot do forensic science with criminal justice alone, and there are a multitude of different jobs that lie within the are of forensic science. If you want to do forensic science, you would have to major in different academic fields, all depending on the job within forensic science you would be interested in pursuing.

As for the criminal justice I am currently studying, it is for a BS in CJ. But I am also getting a BS in Psychology. Guess you can say it is towards the law enforcement side, but could easily switch to the forensic science side if I chose to do so, due to getting a BS in Psychology as well.

 

???

You cant get military grade weapons in the USA without a federal firearms license. You can buy an AR-15 or AK-47 with a background check, but these are not military grade. They are semi auto weapons used for target shooting, and often varmint hunting. The .223 caliber (used in most AR-15) is great for long shots on coyote, ground hog, etc. Yes these guns can be modified to fire full auto but the ATF would be on you so fast you would have a chance to hide it. These weapons are not manufactured to be full auto anyway, and would not stand up to that type of use for long. I own several guns, I have an AR-15 and a few pistols. I personally carry a handgun every where it is legally allowed. I have a concealed carry permit and I am responsible. I believe in the right to defend myself if need be. I dont have a desire to hurt anybody, but if I am put in the situation to where I have to protect myself or someone else I will do it. I also believe that if guns are taken away the only people to have them will be criminals. You can come to the USA with little worry, you are more likely to be killed in the car on the way.

 

I started out as a firefighter/medic and studied forensic fire science. I was fascinated on how and why the fire started. I started using the forensic approach to study human suffering. I went on to study electrical engineering and use it to study failure analysis.

Criminal Justice is based on closed end questions, psychology is based on open end questions. These degrees will allways be in conflict, "conflict theory". Criminal Justice, LAW, is in black and white. This has caused many problems because nothing will ever be in black and white. Forensic's is the continuous asking of questions. In philosophy, great thinkers never stop asking questions like Thomas Paine. In philosophy their are no right or wrong answers. Everything is open ended. I don't see the Constitution in black and white and froma philosophy point of view the Constition is a human being. This is way the Constition is considerd a living breathing human being.

You have to get the book, The Invisible Gorilla. This will help alot in both your degree's.

 

I will take your book recommendation advice and check it out, see if I would be interested in reading it. As for helping my degrees, I am almost done, so only thing that will help me now is a lot of coffee and a lot less sleep.

 

Iowa is now a carry weapon state as of 1/1/11

 

The book is a must read, it is based on Psychology.

 

Again I feel compelled to point to the Federal firearms act regarding actual machine guns...not the civilian leagal military lookalikes. By applying these same standards to all firearms the ability of the average nut bag with a bad haircut to get a weapon becomes very very difficult. The owners of federaly licensed firearms have commited enough crimes with those weapons to almost require one hand to count them all since the 1930's. Seems like the system works to me....

 

The Problem with "gun rights"

Here's the real problem with "gun rights" in the US and its a real simple one. The problem is that while all US citizens have a constitutional right to own guns not all people have the sense and training to be responsible enough to have a gun.

A perfect example of that is the two California High School students who were accidentally shot yesterday when another student with a gun in his backpack dropped it on his desk and the gun accidentally discharged hitting one student in the head and the other one in the neck with a single bullet.

There can hardly be anything more stupid than to carry a loaded gun anywhere except in plain sight and holstered. And what can be more irresponsible than to carry a loaded gun into a public place; i.e. see Tea Party members.

Add to that the people (both men and women) who psychologically see a gun as the all powerful phallic symbol, the ones who buy into the false myth of the Cowboy and his six gun, and the asshole per capita ratio of people who want to get their 15 minutes of fame with a gun, and its no wonder we have such a gun problem with this country.

We've got the right to own guns but not the responsibility that comes with them. And that is a very big and deadly problem.

 

Wow, I almost completely agree with you on this.

Responsibility is more than just a word, accountability is likewise.

 

Yes, but try and get Gun Safety classes to be taught in your local High School and watch the liberals scream!

 

That's bullshit. Can you show me an example of liberals opposing gun safety classes in high school or any other place?