lostboy

Now we will hear the predictable ... but guns are in the constitution. Yeah for a militia. Not for shooting up schools.

Now we will hear the predictable - "militia".

The US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the founders meant the citizens when they said "militia" in the Constitution. They didn't say army or navy, you know. A militia of citizens is necessary to maintain a free people, even against a government.

It was this militia that Paul Revere was part of. It was this militia that drove the King of England and his Redcoats off US soil. It was this militia that saw to it that the USA had it's freedom and autonomy. It was this militia that had the Tea Party in Boston Harbor.

Now many of us (about 100 million of us) look at places like the ME and the spillover into Europe and tell ourselves that shit isn't going to happen in our neighborhoods. That's true for now and for 100 years from now.

Some things are worth dying for and the members of this militia know that. Unfortunately, too many in the world have forgotten that except that our enemies haven't forgotten.

Freedom isn't free.

Cheers.

So that's the line of defence for this thread. Parsing the words of the 2nd Amendment and throwing in some grade school picture book 'history'. Revere's America is not Obama's America. SCOTUS interprets the constitution according to current values as well as historic values. Interpretations of words can change. It doesn't require much for the entire meaning of that particular phrase, so beloved of a vocal minority to be turned on its head. The sooner the better. Eight more years of a Democrat White House may even be enough to do the trick.

It was a gun free zone, and like most of these places that makes them a turkey shoot. Even the security guards were unarmed.

Didn't that moronic phrase get extinguished along side the confederate battle flag a few months ago? I guess not.

Not a normal way of life?

Gay people have been around since humans climbed down from the trees.

Attitudes towards homosexuality change from century to century and location to location.

The Spartan and Athenian phalanxes, which in their day, were unbeatable was mainly composed of homosexual couples who fought fanatically for each other.

Yes,but still not norm to be shirt lifters.

You have zero authority to declare what is or is not normal. You have the guts to say this in real life and face the consequences? I would doubt it.

Did Fox News say this was their official corporate stance on the issue? Some "contributor" makes a possibly boneheaded, possibly insensitive statement. Adult viewers can't deal with this without Big Brother stepping in?

It's a manufactured sh1tstorm whipped up by liberals to be used as a one size fits all attack on anyone concerned with mass Muslim Immigration.

P.s the intellectual dishonesty in condemning Tommy Robinson is disgusting. The EDL were never 'extreme right', the difference between them and the BNP was very clear to anyone who cared to look. Now with the EDL out of the way the danger of the BNP getting some traction is far greater. Good work libs, you are evidently incapable of seeing further than the end of your noses.

Did you watch the video? The man is deeply insulting and rude and makes threats to "come in their houses" and you seriously want to say that it is "disgusting" to condemn the party this man was leading?

The EDL may have not been as extreme as the BNP but that does not mean that they were not also extreme, in the past they have burnt anti-Nazi flags, appeared various times giving Nazi salutes, shot fire works at the police, smashed up high streets, beaten up Muslims and burnt down a Mosque. Clearly they are more of a center right group.

Robinson's actions were the equivalent of a rival opposition football supporter taking a 'victory lap' around the opponents home turf and getting in the faces of everyone. He was not in his community. He was a tourist. It may have been his mother's community when he was in short pants but it is not now. If he lived there as part of the community, he would get a very different response.

He was not just a tourist in that community, he is clearly recognisable and notorious for his views. You believe it appropriate for someone to enter another person's community and start slagging off at the residents there? What did he expect? If you are walking out of your local with the flag of St George tattooed on your posterior and some 'foreigner' comes up and gets in your face trying to convince you about the merits of the EU and multiculturalism, what would your response be?

There are people of many different races and religions living in the UK, and elsewhere. They have to live somewhere. They congregate in communities. Members of these communities, whether they are of the same race or creed, will be accepted as equals. People there just to sh** stir will get a different response.

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

It's a constitutional ammendment? Really?

So your saying sexual liberty trumps her the free exercise of her religion? Because since you bring up the U.S. constitution, perhaps you're familiar with the 1st ammendent. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Perhaps you are not familiar with the US Constitution. From Wikipedia:

"Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection."

As a government employee, the looney-tunes bigot has restrictions on here 'freedom' to impose her theocratic nonsense on other US Citizens. SCOTUS keeps ruling and the right wing crazies just keep ignoring.