Constitutional Carry Petition.

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I never said atheism was not a religion, nor did I state that I was or believed in an Atheist way. I would consider myself a believer in the church of "I don't know". I would be interested to see the examples of 10's of millions of people killed at the hands of atheists (not trying to be sarcastic just have no clue at all about this).

For examples, just look up the death tolls that can be attributed to the Nazi's and communists. I've seen estimates that claim something like 100 million people have been killed by communist regimes across Asia, Europe, Africa, etc. either directly such in the case of Pol Pot or indirectly by the famines caused by Stalin's and/or the Chi-comm's policies.

 

[the1kidd03]

GREAT points. Plus Atheism IS a religion, so is a "lack" of religion otherwise known as Humanism or "logic."

Not ENTIRELY

Atheists, agnostics, humanists, and "deism" are all quite different. Certainly not worthy of being categorized the same...

 

[the1kidd03]

You are quite incorrect. The founders tried very hard to keep government out of religion. Not vice versa.

I'm curious to hear you expound on this...

 

[the1kidd03]

I would consider myself a believer in the church of "I don't know".

That wouldn't be atheist. That would be more agnostic.

 

[saiga12boy]

Did you mean to say
"Unrestricted guns from the age of 1 without a license"
as in you are against a one year old from having a firearm?


---
Last I checked you had to be "of age" in order for the the majority of the rights in the constitution to apply.

ie.
Can't vote until you are 18
Defends of the state is by every able man and/or women (that typically means adults)
etc.

In my petition I said for the age limit to not Exceed 18 not for the age limit
to not exceed age 1.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm curious to hear you expound on this...

I'd suggest this. It's more of an arguement against the misconception of the separation of church and state dogma, but it could apply, I think.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

 

[the1kidd03]

I'd suggest this. It's more of an arguement against the misconception of the separation of church and state dogma, but it could apply, I think.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

Thanks. I'll review it a little later.

I often hear the argument due to terms such as "god" being used, but people fail to realize that term had been used for centuries merely to identify an "all powerful creator/being/deity" of no specific belief system. Only relatively recently has Christianity staken claim to that term as the "name" of their "god" which creates confusion for many.

 

[arthrimus]

I won't say the bolded statement is "wrong" in a literal sense, but rather in an ethical sense. Anyone considering themselves a "patriot" should agree that it is your right to love whoever you wish, whether your personal moral/religious views agree are irrelevant because it is NOT YOUR right to choose what's right for OTHERS. THAT is the purpose of this country no matter how you wish to interpret/impose your difference of opinion.

"Marriage" in a legal sense, should not matter. Any priveledges given to one CATEGORY of free people and not another IS discrimination. There should be no place where religion controls law and/or visa versa. Your freedom to CHOOSE for YOURSELF without ill effects from others is what this country is supposed to be about. TOO many people, both religious and not, have lost sight of that fact.

You clearly missed the majority of my post. I did not say anything about anyone not having a right to love anyone else. Are you suggesting that a basic requirement of a loving relationship is marriage? That's kind of silly when you consider the countless couples who have lived in committed, loving relationships for decades without need for a legal document to validate their relationship.

I never claimed that love was only allowed to those who follow a religion of some sort. I also never suggested that any two people regardless of gender shouldn't be allowed to hold a ceremony, or even label their relationship as a marriage. I only suggested that the LEGAL definition be eliminated. This is the least discriminatory position, because it does not enforce any definition at all. It does not legally validate anyone's opinion on the issue, that is the opposite of discrimination.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Not ENTIRELY

Atheists, agnostics, humanists, and "deism" are all quite different. Certainly not worthy of being categorized the same...

Hence the exact reason that I did not group them together.

Thanks. I'll review it a little later.

I often hear the argument due to terms such as "god" being used, but people fail to realize that term had been used for centuries merely to identify an "all powerful creator/being/deity" of no specific belief system. Only relatively recently has Christianity staken claim to that term as the "name" of their "god" which creates confusion for many.

"God" vs "god"

One is a proper noun, the other is not. You're out of your league, Kidd

Don't make me break out a YHWH on your ass!

 

[the1kidd03]

You clearly missed the majority of my post. I did not say anything about anyone not having a right to love anyone else. Are you suggesting that a basic requirement of a loving relationship is marriage? That's kind of silly when you consider the countless couples who have lived in committed, loving relationships for decades without need for a legal document to validate their relationship.

I never claimed that love was only allowed to those who follow a religion of some sort. I also never suggested that any two people regardless of gender shouldn't be allowed to hold a ceremony, or even label their relationship as a marriage. I only suggested that the LEGAL definition be eliminated. This is the least discriminatory position, because it does not enforce any definition at all. It does not legally validate anyone's opinion on the issue, that is the opposite of discrimination.

I don't see how you derived what you did from my post...
But I think we are pretty much saying the same thing. I just failed to adequately explain my thoughts...

 

[Napalm217]

While I think something like this is a good idea it will never really get any kind of traction with the government, sort of like the petitions to secede

 

[the1kidd03]

GREAT points. Plus Atheism IS a religion, so is a "lack" of religion otherwise known as Humanism or "logic."

Hence the exact reason that I did not group them together.



"God" vs "god"

One is a proper noun, the other is not. You're out of your league, Kidd

Don't make me break out a YHWH on your ass!

You categorized atheists (indirectly) with that of "humanists" (quoted above) which lead way to my statement.

I understand your point about a noun vs "not" but I disagree with the recent claiming of that term as a name because it leads to such confusion. Too many (especially Christians) don't recognize or realize the difference.

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the matter, but I have studied under a few "experts." I guess I could say I'm "well read" at best on it. Although, I can view it from a completely objective perspective since I'm agnostic and don't subscribe to any faith.

LOL "YHWH" ???

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The only thing I compared about Atheism and Humanism is that they are both considered to be nonreligious in nature but they are in fact included in definitions of religion.

Otherwise I'm just busting your balls.

ETA: YHWH is what the Hebrew monks who copied what we know of today as the Old Testament by hand wrote becuase they were scared to death (literally) of taking the LORD's name in vain.

They took out the vowells of Yahweh translated to "I am that I am" which is the only name God actually picked out for himself when he talked to Moses.

Consequently during the dark ages when reading and foreign language understanding was at it lowest in Europe Germanic monks took Adonai's vowells and put them into YHWH and a few mispronounciations later we have: Jehovah.

 

[the1kidd03]

The only thing I compared about Atheism and Humanism is that they are both considered to be nonreligious in nature but they are in fact included in definitions of religion.

Otherwise I'm just busting your balls.

Yeah I know, but how would you define "atheists" as a religion? Is it not part of a religion to believe in some sense, at least the existence of a deity, whereas atheists do not believe in any deity?

 

[arthrimus]

I don't see how you derived what you did from my post...
But I think we are pretty much saying the same thing. I just failed to adequately explain my thoughts...

You bolded one of the opening statements in a much larger argument, commented on it, and offered no recognition to the rest of the argument which pretty much backed up your position as well. Forgive me for going on the defensive, it just seemed that you had gotten caught up on one statement, and missed the actual point of the argument.

Looking a what you said a second time, I kinda see what you were doing. I apologize if I overreacted.

 

[the1kidd03]

ETA: YHWH is what the Hebrew monks who copied what we know of today as the Old Testament by hand wrote becuase they were scared to death (literally) of taking the LORD's name in vain.

They took out the vowells of Yahweh translated to "I am that I am" which is the only name God actually picked out for himself when he talked to Moses.

Consequently during the dark ages when reading and foreign language understanding was at it lowest in Europe Germanic monks took Adonai's vowells and put them into YHWH and a few mispronounciations later we have: Jehovah.

Learn something every day...

 

[the1kidd03]

You bolded one of the opening statements in a much larger argument, commented on it, and offered no recognition to the rest of the argument which pretty much backed up your position as well. Forgive me for going on the defensive, it just seemed that you had gotten caught up on one statement, and missed the actual point of the argument.

Looking a what you said a second time, I kinda see what you were doing. I apologize if I overreacted.

No offense taken.

Communication is ONLY 7% from the ACTUAL words being used.(the rest is in physical expressions and verbal tones)..making misunderstandings highly likely and unavoidable when only reading text.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Yeah I know, but how would you define "atheists" as a religion? Is it not part of a religion to believe in some sense, at least the existence of a deity, whereas atheists do not believe in any deity?

The base definition of religion has nothing to do with deity or a belief in an afterlife.

Details of belief as taught or discussed.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

This is how I see the marriage issue;
When I got married, 20 years ago, I made a commitment to God, and my wife, and everybody who attended our wedding. I did not make a commitment to the state or federal gov't. I saw having to get a marriage license from the state as a worthless piece of paper that was nothing more than a receipt stating I paid their tax.

The gov't does not validify my marriage. I do get certain rights from the recognition of my marriage by the state, such as the ability to make medical decisions at a hospital if my wife is in need of care and incapacitated, and I get possession of all her assets if she dies and we don't have a will. However, we do have wills, living wills, and legal powers of attorney's written up just in case. We don't technically need them, but we don't want to leave anything to chance-or-bureaucrat.

That being said, anybody, regardless of their relationship to whomever, or regardless of their 'orientation', can do exactly the same thing as we have done, and get the same rights and powers allowed by law. They don't need the 'state license' any more than I did.

I know and am close friends with people of many persuasions, including some with a different orientation than myself. Most of these people that I know are professionals, not what you would call "radicals". I have discussed the issue of gay marriage with them, and they mostly don't care. They don't need the gov't to recognize their relationship any more than I do.

This is not a religious issue, per-say. It is with me, because being a Christian, I believe that it is a commitment I have made, to God. But that's my business, and nobody else's. If someone else has a different religious belief or none at all, they don't have to agree with me or recognize the legitimacy of my marriage. In the same manner, I have no ill-will to someone who is in a committed relationship with anyone else, regardless of whether or not I agree with their lifestyle choices. I don't have to recognize the legitimacy of their relationship either. That's none of my business.

It is actually a very small (but loud) minority of the homosexual community that is pushing for a national gay marriage law. It's my belief that the reason they are pushing this, is not to get the legal benefits I have listed above, but to make the rest of society say "OK, we recognize your lifestyle choice as normal". The bottom line is, IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS.

So many people try to make people like me (that is that have an opinion that is based on their own personal religious beliefs), look like 'haters' because we might dissagree with someone's choices. However, nobody calls out those peole as 'haters', for dissagreeing with our religious beliefs. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Just because I follow my religion, does not mean I am condemming someone else for their choices. To the contrary, my teachings tell me that I have no right to judge anyone one else. That's just not my job. The only thing I am to do is to love other people, & help other people, especially if they are in need.

Bottom line: According to our constitution, the entire nation should be allowed to carry firearms, if they are a "Legal Person", and that has nothing to do with gay (or other) marriage.

 

[saiga12boy]

This is how I see the marriage issue;
When I got married, 20 years ago, I made a commitment to God, and my wife, and everybody who attended our wedding. I did not make a commitment to the state or federal gov't. I saw having to get a marriage license from the state as a worthless piece of paper that was nothing more than a receipt stating I paid their tax.

The gov't does not validify my marriage. I do get certain rights from the recognition of my marriage by the state, such as the ability to make medical decisions at a hospital if my wife is in need of care and incapacitated, and I get possession of all her assets if she dies and we don't have a will. However, we do have wills, living wills, and legal powers of attorney's written up just in case. We don't technically need them, but we don't want to leave anything to chance-or-bureaucrat.

That being said, anybody, regardless of their relationship to whomever, or regardless of their 'orientation', can do exactly the same thing as we have done, and get the same rights and powers allowed by law. They don't need the 'state license' any more than I did.

I know and am close friends with people of many persuasions, including some with a different orientation than myself. Most of these people that I know are professionals, not what you would call "radicals". I have discussed the issue of gay marriage with them, and they mostly don't care. They don't need the gov't to recognize their relationship any more than I do.

This is not a religious issue, per-say. It is with me, because being a Christian, I believe that it is a commitment I have made, to God. But that's my business, and nobody else's. If someone else has a different religious belief or none at all, they don't have to agree with me or recognize the legitimacy of my marriage. In the same manner, I have no ill-will to someone who is in a committed relationship with anyone else, regardless of whether or not I agree with their lifestyle choices. I don't have to recognize the legitimacy of their relationship either. That's none of my business.

It is actually a very small (but loud) minority of the homosexual community that is pushing for a national gay marriage law. It's my belief that the reason they are pushing this, is not to get the legal benefits I have listed above, but to make the rest of society say "OK, we recognize your lifestyle choice as normal". The bottom line is, IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS.

So many people try to make people like me (that is that have an opinion that is based on their own personal religious beliefs), look like 'haters' because we might dissagree with someone's choices. However, nobody calls out those peole as 'haters', for dissagreeing with our religious beliefs. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Just because I follow my religion, does not mean I am condemming someone else for their choices. To the contrary, my teachings tell me that I have no right to judge anyone one else. That's just not my job. The only thing I am to do is to love other people, & help other people, especially if they are in need.

Bottom line: According to our constitution, the entire nation should be allowed to carry firearms, if they are a "Legal Person", and that has nothing to do with gay (or other) marriage.

Exactly. The government has NO business meddling with marriages.