Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2nd to cover Illegals?
09-01-2015, 10:29 AM,
#1
2nd to cover Illegals?
***
Posts: 2,382
Threads: 376
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1
#1
I guess this is a new way to really start a WAR!

http://journaltimes.com/news/news-state-...touch=true
Reply
Find
Reply
09-01-2015, 12:01 PM,
#2
RE: 2nd to cover Illegals?
***
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 8
#2
Non-Citizens should not have the same rights as citizens, PERIOD. Anyone in our territory is subject to U.S. Law (Federal, State and Local).

I do not know where this idea surfaces that non-citizens have Constitutional rights. The founding fathers were clear about this in the Federalist papers debates.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper

I do not know where this idea surfaces that non-citizens have Constitutional rights. The founding fathers were clear about this in the Federalist papers debates.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Reply
Find
Reply
09-01-2015, 04:14 PM,
#3
RE: 2nd to cover Illegals?
***
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
#3
Just as bad as burka's now allowed on State ID card photos. Where does it end?? This is what I mean by keeping religious dogma's out of government rules. Like that Clerk in the news today, refusing to issue permits to LGBT couples, despite a ruling permitting it.
Reply
Find
Reply
09-02-2015, 06:53 AM,
#4
RE: 2nd to cover Illegals?
***
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 2
#4
(09-01-2015, 04:14 PM)ssphoto Wrote: This is what I mean by keeping religious dogma's out of government rules.

While there is some merit to this, i.e. some applicable means, if we took it to where you want we would not have the declaration or the constitution.

Separation of Church and state as it exists in the constitution means that government rules need to stay out of religious dogma, not the other way around.

That is a real difference and not one you want to change, if you want to keep your liberty.

Restraining religion in public places is so far down the scale of what is dangerous there is no need to even look at it now.

Restraining government is the #1 problem and poses the biggest threat to all of us.

As a Christian I don't fear the words, ideas, or dogma of Islam, radical or otherwise, I fear their swords, their guns, their fire, and a government that won't let me shoot them when they attack. And I fear the latter the most of all.
[Image: CatGun5_zpsxcamfme3.jpg]
(09-01-2015, 04:14 PM)ssphoto Wrote: This is what I mean by keeping religious dogma's out of government rules.
While there is some merit to this, i.e. some applicable means, if we took it to where you want we would not have the declaration or the constitution.

Separation of Church and state as it exists in the constitution means that government rules need to stay out of religious dogma, not the other way around.

That is a real difference and not one you want to change, if you want to keep your liberty.

Restraining religion in public places is so far down the scale of what is dangerous there is no need to even look at it now.

Restraining government is the #1 problem and poses the biggest threat to all of us.

As a Christian I don't fear the words, ideas, or dogma of Islam, radical or otherwise, I fear their swords, their guns, their fire, and a government that won't let me shoot them when they attack. And I fear the latter the most of all.
[Image: CatGun5_zpsxcamfme3.jpg]
Reply
Find
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Red Dot Arms Forum | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication