really wonder what is wrong with people

[UtahPete]

I absolutely agree with the 2nd amendment and am a strong believer in it. I also have not issue with the 3rd amendment. Both of those support the my point of a state sanctioned church at the time and their desire to not allow that in the colonies. Beyond that, I am not sure what your point is with tying the 2nd amendment to separation of church and state.

Just that both should be read in the context of the times when they were enacted, not be distorted by special interests to attempt to apply them in today's world.

It's okay. Let it go.

 

[Bob Denman]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that second point. People have carried separation of church and state in an unintended direction. I believe the intent was the government may not institute a sanctioned religion such as was the case in England at the time. Anyway, not trying to start a religious discussion here.

:agree: :clap: :2thumbs:

 

[RinconRyder]

this is flag burning in VA.

http://www.fox8live.com/story/35768...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

This isn't vandalism - it's arson.

 

[Lew L]

It's arson...........

The PoPO could identify----- if they wanted to!!!!

Kaos

 

[ARtraveler]

this is just a thought, if the cops find this guy, or someone knows him, what you do is give him a blanket party. that is you put a blanket over his head from behind so he doesn't know who the people are. then you knock him out, or tie him up but keep his head covered. never use your names. then put a pair of flag pants or shorts on him, then light them and walk away like he did. now i never said this, of offered any ideas on here.

I see nothing....I hear nothing....I can't read your post either. Did you scramble what you wrote? :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

 

[BitSlayer]

Just that both should be read in the context of the times when they were enacted, not be distorted by special interests to attempt to apply them in today's world.

It's okay. Let it go.

I still don't understand your rationale for the linkage. All three of these were put in place to limit government control over your life. The second amendment was so arms could not be taken away from ordinary citizens. The reason for that is plainly stated in the opening of that amendment; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". Not much to distort there. Our founders wanted to ensure ordinary people could be armed. Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to James Madison; "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." This is the exact reason the far left wants to implement strict gun control and remove the ability to "take arms" and enact "the spirit of resistance" when needed.

The third amendment was put in place for a very similar reason. In England ordinary people had no choice if the military wanted to acquire your home for housing. It was a definite form of tyranny that our founders wanted to make sure was not duplicated in our new country and under our new constitution.

They were strong believers of a small centralized federal government with most rights/authority pushed down to the state where "we the people" could maintain the actions of those who would legislate the laws.

Again, how that applies to your original argument alludes me. However, if you want the last word, please do so as this is going nowhere fast...