Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 6/26/2003 6:28:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 6:35:26 AM EDT by Phil_A_Steen]
Top Stories - AP Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy. The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex. Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court. The men "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he said. Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented. "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, have retreated from public view. They were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998. The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men having anal sex. As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts. Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well. The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas'. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists. Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that case — Bowers v. Hardwick — as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented. A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up. At the time of the court's earlier ruling, 24 states criminalized such behavior. States that have since repealed the laws include Georgia, where the 1986 case arose. Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued in legal papers, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices." The state had urged the court to draw a constitutional line "at the threshold of the marital bedroom." Although Texas itself did not make the argument, some of the state's supporters told the justices in friend-of-the-court filings that invalidating sodomy laws could take the court down the path of allowing same-sex marriage. The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:33:26 AM EDT
Sodomy..... I know you think it's very odd of me... but I enjoy the act of sodomy -Sebastian the Fox, from "Meet the Feebles"
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:34:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:39:12 AM EDT
How could anyone on this board not agree with the Court's decision? What goes on in the bedroom (between consenting adults) is NOT the government's business. PERIOD.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:41:20 AM EDT
Hopefully this will mean the VA sodomy law will go away soon too, it was far more broad then TX.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:46:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 5:26:28 AM EDT by Zaphod]
Originally Posted By Chimborazo: How could anyone on this board not agree with the Court's decision? What goes on in the bedroom (between consenting adults) is NOT the government's business. PERIOD.
View Quote
As much as I find male homosexual sex utterly revolting, [s]I agree with you, Chimbo. I see NOTHING in the Constitution that could be interpreted as restricting sexual activities between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms.[/s] OTOH, they'll still have to answer to the Big Guy, and His rulings are truly FINAL.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:47:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chimborazo: How could anyone on this board not agree with the Court's decision? What goes on in the bedroom (between consenting adults) is NOT the government's business. PERIOD.
View Quote
Roger that... Government has no business dictating what goes on between two legal age consenting adults. Just don't tell me I have to accept that 'lifestyle' as OK. Keep it in your bedroom and out of my face.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:50:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 5:27:10 AM EDT by Zaphod]
The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment.
View Quote
I wonder what happened to him? [s]Also, WTF was the brain-dead prosecutor doing going after something so INANE as two guys having anal sex in their bedroom? [Zaphod shakes his head] Meanwhile, rapists and murderers continue running free....[/s] The law is the law...
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:51:48 AM EDT
Don't let your homophobia drive you to agree with an intrusive nanny state law. You don't have to like gays or their behavior to believe that privacy should also apply to them. For the record, getting a blow job (married or not) here in VA is legally considered sodomy. This is yet another example of how people will accept and support a police state as long the state is enforcing views in agreement with their own.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:55:23 AM EDT
OK men, smoke 'em if you've got 'em.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:02:35 AM EDT
Just because it is between two consenting adults doesn't mean anything. If it is against the law, there is no sacred ground, like in a married couples bedroom. Do you support people that aphyxiate each other? do they have a right to that? what about people that damamge each other physically for sexual pleasure? I'm sure noone really cares about scratches and things, but if people are assaulting each other that is not protected under some "sanctity of the marriage bed" kind of nonsense. Most people don't really care what two consenting adults do, but the state is supposed to protect people from what the majority believes is wrong/ or damaging. That is what all of the laws for people that can't protect tnemselves are about- child protection laws, elderly, mentally retarded, etc.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:04:55 AM EDT
Does this mean the liberals will now respect my right to privacy? I doubt it.... They're into every aspect of my life from how I raise and educate my kids to how I save my money to what kind of gun/car/house I am allowed to own. GunLvr
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:10:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By danonly: Just because it is between two consenting adults doesn't mean anything. If it is against the law, there is no sacred ground, like in a married couples bedroom.
View Quote
You missed the point there buddy. The law was/is unjust, and went to the highest authority for discussion. If people simply followed the rules presented to them without questioning, we'd be in big trouble, as every assinine law that came from any Fed/State/Local legislature, would have to be followed lock stock and barrel without discussion and/or challenge. After all, it is the LAW, right.
the state is supposed to protect people from what the majority believes is wrong/ or damaging
View Quote
The Constitution has a bill or rights to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the masses. Always keep in mind, if the abolition and confiscation of "Assault Rifles" were put to a refferendum, we'd loose badly. If you believe in the above statement, you'd have to simply shrug your shoulders and move on, as the majority has decided.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:12:30 AM EDT
DriftPunch, you beat me to it ...
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:13:17 AM EDT
So does this ruling invalidate the laws of the other states too? Please remove your government from my bedroom. Thank you.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:14:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By Chimborazo: How could anyone on this board not agree with the Court's decision? What goes on in the bedroom (between consenting adults) is NOT the government's business. PERIOD.
View Quote
As much as I find male homosexual sex utterly revolting, I agree with you, Chimbo. I see NOTHING in the Constitution that could be interpreted as restricting sexual activities between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms. OTOH, they'll still have to answer to the Big Guy, and His rulings are truly FINAL.
View Quote
God judges Nations, as well as individuals. God judges BOTH more harshly if they were once His, in an effort to get them to return to Him!! A Nation that abandons God, is a Nation under judgement. Can you see that judgement on the US today?? [:D]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:16:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JohnGalt: DriftPunch, you beat me to it ...
View Quote
Me too. BTW, who are you? [;)]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:19:17 AM EDT
[b]Can you see that judgement on the US today??[/b] no.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:22:52 AM EDT
No matter what the 7 political appointees agree on, Deviance is still deviance.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:33:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 5:28:25 AM EDT by Zaphod]
Originally Posted By liberty86: God judges Nations, as well as individuals. God judges BOTH more harshly if they were once His, in an effort to get them to return to Him!! A Nation that abandons God, is a Nation under judgement. Can you see that judgement on the US today?? [:D]
View Quote
Oh, I have no doubt that God judges nations as well as individuals. However, I would suggest that since the Good Lord, in His infinite wisdom, gave man free will, He may, in fact, consider it a GOOD thing that this nation allows INDIVIDUALS to exercise that free will so long as their exercise thereof does not adversely affect ANOTHER individual. So, this nation has simply affirmed the order God put in place. Those who CHOOSE to pork/get porked up the wazoo will answer for it. I, however, will not put myself in God's place and state that He will DEFINITELY hold us, as a nation, to account for this decision. That decision, of course, is entirely up to Him. Again, I abhor homosexuality, especially in men. I find it revolting at best, but I tolerate it so long as it is not thrust into my face or those of my children. At that point, MY rights are being violated; MY children are being threatened, and all HELL WILL BREAK LOSE. Edited to add: Hielo is absolutely right. This decision does not change the FACT that homosexuality is STILL deviant behavior. [s]However, it is NOT the purpose of government to force an individual to live a virtuous life. It is the purpose of government to ensure that the rights of OTHERS are not infringed by the choice of an individual to do something that is non-virtuous. That's a BIG difference, but one that can be easily blurred in the emotions of the issue (whatever the issue).[/s]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:34:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 7:35:32 AM EDT by DriftPunch]
Originally Posted By hielo: No matter what the 7 political appointees agree on, Deviance is still deviance.
View Quote
That is mathematically true, as this behavior is indeed far removed from the "average". The assignment of morality is all relative. I worked with a guy who thought men wearing shorts was deviant behavior. The question is whether or not one has the right to be consentually deviant. You must be carefull with how you answer this question, as something you do on a regular basis, is likely considered deviant by someone somewhere. Guys, this smacks of selective outrage. I wonder if the same ones who went ape over the home schooling couple in MA being forced to have their children tested, are the same ones supporting this law being on the books.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:37:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 7:38:08 AM EDT by raven]
Originally Posted By hielo: No matter what the 7 political appointees agree on, Deviance is still deviance.
View Quote
If by deviance, you mean, their sexual behavior deviates from the majority, yes you're right. But who cares? Why should it be illegal? Should they go to jail for it?
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:38:38 AM EDT
By some definitions, sodomy is oral or anal sex between ANY two persons, same sex or not. I had no idea my state had laws against it. Lock me up while you still can, before I sodomize another unfortunate woman.[naughty]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:40:02 AM EDT
Well here in Illinois, Mayor Daley and Gov. Rod Blablowmebitch, should be happy, I have heard they are looking forward to fvcking us gun owners in the @ss for quite sometime. Doubt we will get a reach around on that deal....
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:41:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Originally Posted By danonly: Just because it is between two consenting adults doesn't mean anything. If it is against the law, there is no sacred ground, like in a married couples bedroom.
View Quote
You missed the point there buddy. The law was/is unjust, and went to the highest authority for discussion. If people simply followed the rules presented to them without questioning, we'd be in big trouble, as every assinine law that came from any Fed/State/Local legislature, would have to be followed lock stock and barrel without discussion and/or challenge. After all, it is the LAW, right.
the state is supposed to protect people from what the majority believes is wrong/ or damaging
View Quote
The Constitution has a bill or rights to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the masses. Always keep in mind, if the abolition and confiscation of "Assault Rifles" were put to a refferendum, we'd loose badly. If you believe in the above statement, you'd have to simply shrug your shoulders and move on, as the majority has decided.
View Quote
Dangit i was also thinking of adding ethical to my statement about believing things are wrong damaging. I do have a christian upbringing, and i think sodomy is flat wrong. I don't think there is any ethical basis for banning guns. How do you think the law was unjust? it invaded people's privacy? could you explain that a little Danny
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:45:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CosmicOne-Der: Well here in Illinois, Mayor Daley and Gov. Rod Blablowmebitch, should be happy, I have heard they are looking forward to fvcking us gun owners in the @ss for quite sometime. Doubt we will get a reach around on that deal....
View Quote
Yes, but we're not [i]consenting[/i]!
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:47:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: That is mathematically true, as this behavior is indeed far removed from the "average". The assignment of morality is all relative. I worked with a guy who thought men wearing shorts was deviant behavior. The question is whether or not one has the right to be consentually deviant. You must be carefull with how you answer this question, as something you do on a regular basis, is likely considered deviant by someone somewhere. Guys, this smacks of selective outrage. I wonder if the same ones who went ape over the home schooling couple in MA being forced to have their children tested, are the same ones supporting this law being on the books.
View Quote
If the assingment of morality or ethics is all relative, what do you base your morality on? In other words, anything is ok if it is my morality?
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:56:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By danonly:
View Quote
Dangit i was also thinking of adding ethical to my statement about believing things are wrong damaging. I do have a christian upbringing, and i think sodomy is flat wrong. I don't think there is any ethical basis for banning guns. How do you think the law was unjust? it invaded people's privacy? could you explain that a little Danny
View Quote
The antigunners find ways to say that owning guns is unethical [designed to kill].My freind and minister debate this almost every Sunday.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:56:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 7:57:42 AM EDT by 223-Buckaroo]
Regardless of your views on homosexuality, the Supreme Court's decision has a solid foundation. It's called the 14th Amendment:
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. [No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [red]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/red]
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:57:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 7:59:07 AM EDT by SPECTRE]
Dirty Sanchez here likes the decision. [img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030622/capt.1056243603.mexico_gay_pride_mo102.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:58:34 AM EDT
I'm guessing the state of TX used tax revenue to pursue the cause of gov't intrusiveness. Argh. As long as it's between consenting adults behind closed doors, it's none of the gov'ts (or anybody else's) business, IMO. Kevin
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:06:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: You missed the point there buddy. The law was/is unjust, and went to the highest authority for discussion. If people simply followed the rules presented to them without questioning, we'd be in big trouble, as every assinine law that came from any Fed/State/Local legislature, would have to be followed lock stock and barrel without discussion and/or challenge. After all, it is the LAW, right.
View Quote
yeah, and if all our laws were enforced, wouldn't the ones that were wrong get removed due to public outrage etc.?
The Constitution has a bill or rights to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the masses. Always keep in mind, if the abolition and confiscation of "Assault Rifles" were put to a refferendum, we'd loose badly. If you believe in the above statement, you'd have to simply shrug your shoulders and move on, as the majority has decided.
View Quote
I'm not sure if everyone in the US (citizens) voted that we would lose on the assault weapon confiscation
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:15:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Dirty Sanchez here likes the decision. [url]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030622/capt.1056243603.mexico_gay_pride_mo102.jpg[/url]
View Quote
THAT is PRECISELY what I will NOT ever "tolerate". PERIOD!
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:16:30 AM EDT
Which reminds me: Why do alternative lifestylists use ribbed condoms? To get better traction in the mud.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:23:27 AM EDT
i dont give a shit about what anybody does in PRIVATE what i am concerned about however, is that this ruling will bring us exponentially more "dirty sanchezs'" doing exponentially worse things out in full view just to rub it in everybodys face
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:27:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TexRdnec: ...."dirty sanchezs'" ....just to rub it in everybodys face
View Quote
Well, isn't that the point of a 'dirty sanchez'??? It's not officially a 'dirty sanchez' without the finishing move...
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:30:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By danonly: yeah, and if all our laws were enforced, wouldn't the ones that were wrong get removed due to public outrage etc.?
View Quote
Nope, because there could be no outrage, because that would imply a soft spot for those evil people breaking those statutes.
I'm not sure if everyone in the US (citizens) voted that we would lose on the assault weapon confiscation
View Quote
We can agree to disagree here. One of our biggest political mistakes is to believe that our numbers are greater than they actually are. Hell, we can't even get most hunters to agree that AK, AR, G3, or FAL ownership is a reasonable thing. To your other question: I think this was unjust, because it is a big time violation of privacy, not to mention equal protection. Another VA oddity, is that it is illegal for a married couple to have sex in any position other than missionary. You're committing sodomy in any other position. The government has no place in the home, much less in the bedroom. I'm stunned that people who get upset over potential trigger lock legislation, support consentual sodomy laws. Ethics and morals are always fluid. Even if you are Christian, you should believe this, as man is supposedly weak, right. Thus, what you find morally repugnant may not offend me in the least, and vice-versa. To think otherwise, is to believe we are much more homogeneous than we are.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:37:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 8:39:35 AM EDT by Winston_Wolf]
Originally Posted By raven: Sodomy..... I know you think it's very odd of me... but I enjoy the act of sodomy
View Quote
... doesn't it make your asshole sore?
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:44:55 AM EDT
Everytime SCROTUS cranks out a bunch of these decisions I just sit and shake my head. [b]the perverts and losers in this nation keep getting more rights while the rights and freedoms of decent, hard working law abiding citizens are gradually whittled away.[/b]That is what is scary about SCROTUS. FWIW, the TX law outlawed **homosexual** sodomy. The ramifications of this will be extreme to say the least. For those of you who agree with this decision wait and see what the fallout over the next 2 decades will be concerning this decision.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:45:15 AM EDT
............was referencing the picture. dont know what a dirty sanchez is, but more importantly i dont think i want to know either.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:46:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 8:47:10 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Sodomy, in the legal sense, means the touching of one person's genitals to another persons, anus, breasts, or mouth. So in many States oral sex is illegal. It also doesn't matter the sex of the people involved in the act, legally speaking in many of the States that have sodomy laws. Some States have more narrowly defined laws.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:47:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TexRdnec: ............was referencing the picture. dont know what a dirty sanchez is, but more importantly i dont think i want to know either.
View Quote
I figured that much, I was just taking advantage of your unfortunate choice of words.[;)]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:52:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Guys, this smacks of selective outrage. I wonder if the same ones who went ape over the home schooling couple in MA being forced to have their children tested, are the same ones supporting this law being on the books.
View Quote
I was one of the "apes." I will tell you homosexuality is just plain wrong. I agree with the court. Scott
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 8:56:44 AM EDT
The act of consensual sodomy in Virginia is a class 6 felony (class 1 being the highest, i.e. capital murder). I have only seen people charged with this in cases relating to prostitution.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 9:00:21 AM EDT
This is simply a "backdoor" (no pun intended) usurptation of the Constitution of the US. As clearly defined in the big C, States have the authority to legislate without interference from the fed.gov. The SCOTUS has, for the second time in a week, rewritten and/or disregarded the Constitution. I personally don't LIKE the sodomy laws, however I FIRMLY believe that States Rights trump this disgusting SCOTUS ruling. Again, this decision is MUCHO more than sodomy. Shall we kiss the Constitution goodbye, gentlemen? "Ya say ya want a revoluti..o..on, we..ee.ll" Yup, jest 'bout time.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 9:01:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 9:14:25 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By liberty86: God judges Nations, as well as individuals. God judges BOTH more harshly if they were once His, in an effort to get them to return to Him!! A Nation that abandons God, is a Nation under judgement. Can you see that judgement on the US today?? [:D]
View Quote
Oh, I have no doubt that God judges nations as well as individuals. However, I would suggest that since the Good Lord, in His infinite wisdom, gave man free will, He may, in fact, consider it a GOOD thing that this nation allows INDIVIDUALS to exercise that free will so long as their exercise thereof does not adversely affect ANOTHER individual.
View Quote
He does indeed want us to have "Free Choice", but what we, as a Nation, will "TOLERATE", determines the judgement. History is full of the ash heaps of nations who thought the loss of VIRTUE was no big deal. THAT is how the Virtue of individuals affects a Nation, and the other individuals in it. Do you think it stops here?? [:D] Pedophilia is next! [:D]
So, this nation has simply affirmed the order God put in place. Those who CHOOSE to pork/get porked up the wazoo will answer for it.
View Quote
So will we! Notice HIV affects more than just homosexuals now?? Thet's one of the prices we ALL pay, for "Tolerance".
I, however, will not put myself in God's place and state that He will DEFINITELY hold us, as a nation, to account for this decision. That decision, of course, is entirely up to Him.
View Quote
Well, if you read His word, He TELLS you he will "DEFINITELY" hold Nations accountable. He KEEPS His word!!
Again, I abhor homosexuality, especially in men. I find it revolting at best, but I tolerate it so long as it is not thrust into my face or those of my children. At that point, MY rights are being violated; MY children are being threatened, and all [red]HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE[/red]
View Quote
It already has....[chair]
Edited to add: Hielo is absolutely right. This decision does not change the FACT that homosexuality is STILL deviant behavior. However, it is NOT the purpose of government to force an individual to live a virtuous life. It is the purpose of government to ensure that the rights of OTHERS are not infringed by the choice of an individual to do something that is non-virtuous. That's a BIG difference, but one that can be easily blurred in the emotions of the issue (whatever the issue).
View Quote
As we can see with the spread of homosexual diseases, to the straight population, we ARE paying the price for our "Tolerance". [rolleyes] [b]John Adams June 21, 1776 "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. "The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." Abigail Adams "A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?....The Scriptures tell us "righteousness exalteth a Nation." [/b]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 9:03:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 9:04:43 AM EDT by jrzy]
[sniper2][img]http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/smilies3/smileysex2.gif[/img][50]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 9:13:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
I'm not sure if everyone in the US (citizens) voted that we would lose on the assault weapon confiscation
View Quote
We can agree to disagree here. One of our biggest political mistakes is to believe that our numbers are greater than they actually are. Hell, we can't even get most hunters to agree that AK, AR, G3, or FAL ownership is a reasonable thing.
View Quote
I agree with the hunters vs. black rifle owners, thats why i try to take my AR10 hunting as much as i can. I think we have great numbers- a vast majority even, but for all of those people to agree is another thing. I think most people think it is more about this gun or that gun instead of something in the constitution, though, as far as something getting banned
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 9:16:06 AM EDT
BTW, the Supremes over-stepped their jurisdiction, this is a State of Texas issue...Just like ABORTION![:D]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 9:19:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Originally Posted By danonly: yeah, and if all our laws were enforced, wouldn't the ones that were wrong get removed due to public outrage etc.?
View Quote
Nope, because there could be no outrage, because that would imply a soft spot for those evil people breaking those statutes.
View Quote
there is outrage, alot of times it just takes a long time for those that are outraged to influence those that are complacent. I think CC laws are an example, and Jim Crow(not just for blacks- see the Asian discrimination on the west coast for example) and people getting caught that were Nazis 40-70 years later or the attempts to get gold back from swiss banks also from Nazi germany, etc. It takes along time with lots of education/ explanation of why things need to change, but when it happens, it is cool to watch. Danny, which if i type it fast is Dammu ; )
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 9:31:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trippletap: The act of consensual sodomy in Virginia is a class 6 felony (class 1 being the highest, i.e. capital murder). I have only seen people charged with this in cases relating to prostitution.
View Quote
So, you could have become a felon--and lost your right to own guns--just for eating out your wife.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top