Another shooting - San Bernadino California.

[Hetta]

An obvious call to restrict First Amendment rights in the work place. Perhaps the government can provide guidelines on what is or is not proper public discourse.

We can start at Universities.

The first amendment includes a little thing referred to as separation of church and state, which keeps the church out of the government work place. And I know it was intended to protect religion not government, so don't even bother with that. However, the work place is not for proselytizing, and nor should it be, under any circumstances.

 

[redleghunter]

All amendments are enumerated. The 18th Amendment was effectively rendered null and void by the 21st Amendment.

The first 10 amendments outline the specific prohibitions of government power on individual rights.

 

[bhsmte]

An obvious call to restrict First Amendment rights in the work place. Perhaps the government can provide guidelines on what is or is not proper public discourse.

We can start at Universities.

I have been in healthcare for a long time and at one of my previous employers, we fired a chaplain, because they were arguing with and pressuring other employees, to join his church and to convert to his religion.

We warned him twice to leave others alone and he kept doing it.

 

[redleghunter]

The first amendment includes a little thing referred to as separation of church and state, which keeps the church out of the government work place. And I know it was intended to protect religion not government, so don't even bother with that. However, the work place is not for proselytizing, and nor should it be, under any circumstances.

Where is it stated "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment? I don't see that. Nor do I see a prohibition for religious speech in the public. Nor a prohibition on evangelism.

The First Amendment is a prohibition on government restricting individual liberties.

If a boss has certain policies for the work place that is a private business matter.

The military has chaplains. Been there since George W.

 

[redleghunter]

Ah. More Ipsie dixit.

Sorry for the Thurgood Marshall.

He seemed to do that a lot.

 

[smaneck]

Well the 18th was not an enumerated right.

Nope, but it is an enumerated amendment. Otherwise we would call it the R Amendment.

 

[nightflight]

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/12/what-the-hell-just-happened-on-msnbc/418893/

lol

 

[redleghunter]

It was an Amendment to the Constitution -- yes or no?

It was repealed -- yes or no?

Any amendment can, with the consent of a sufficient majority, be repealed -- yes or no?

Do you want the same logic applied to the Bill of rights? If so it would be the first time individual liberties would be ceded to the federal government.

I refer you to the language of the Declaration of independence for consideration.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

New open carry law going into effect in 2016 for Texas.

http://www.kvia.com/news/open-carry...out-changes-in-texas-open-carry-laws/35867230

i find it amusing that the Democratic Party Controlled bastion called Pennsylvania has had open carry for decades.

i find it even funnier that for the most part a Democrat cannot get elected in Pennsylvania unless he or she is 1)Pro gun; 2)Pro life; 3)Pro union.

Life is interesting.

 

[interpreter]

It was an Amendment to the Constitution -- yes or no?

It was repealed -- yes or no?

Any amendment can, with the consent of a sufficient majority, be repealed -- yes or no?

The first thing we need to repeal is the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 that let Muslims in.

 

[smaneck]

Might as well repeal the 1st and 4th Amendments as well. The government will need unchecked power to search home and vehicles for guns. So that's two of the enumerated rights down the tubes.

And searching homes has what to do with the 1st Amendment?

Of course if we want to prevent the people from offending each other and not provoke each other to anger, you will have to modify the 1st Amendment to what the government believes is proper free speech.

If people weren't armed we wouldn't have to worry so much about offending one another.

What is shocking is most folks posting here would think the above is a grand idea.

Funny, I never saw anyone here suggest that doing away with the 4th or 1st Amendment would be a good idea.

Why? Some Western countries have already ceded their personal liberties to their government.

Most Western countries never had most of these rights to begin with. For instance, England has always had blasphemy laws. The right to bear arms grows out of the feudal system and applied only to the nobility. If the king took away a knight's right to bear arms you could be almost certain he was about ready to take his fife away as well. After all, the power of the aristocracy was based entirely on the fact they were supposed to be warriors. But yeah, in Germany you can't wear a swastika. And when you move to a new place you're supposed to register your change of residency. Germany has always been more authoritarian than the US. No one ceded anything.

Look at the history of autocratic and totalitarian regimes. What's one of the first things they strive for? Disarming their populace and controlling free speech.

And free speech entered into this conversation how?

As for gun control, every single democracy in the world has more controls on citizens access to deadly weapons than we have. I doubt if the Australians see their government as totalitarian.

 

[smaneck]

The first thing we need to repeal is the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 that let Muslims in.

Oh, you mean the law that allowed people of color to immigrate here instead of just white people?

 

[smaneck]

i find it amusing that the Democratic Party Controlled bastion called Pennsylvania has had open carry for decades.

But it doesn't apply to Philadelphia.

i find it even funnier that for the most part a Democrat cannot get elected in Pennsylvania unless he or she is 1)Pro gun; 2)Pro life; 3)Pro union.

In Mississippi a Democrat must be pro-gun and pro-life as well (though not pro-union.) I've never understood how they put those two together except in the words of the Melvina Reynolds song:

Holy, holy is the fetus
But babies once born are simply human
And if they die in the streets of Chicago
No one will notice but their mamas
And ain't that just like a woman.

 

[AnonymousRain]

The first 10 amendments outline the specific prohibitions of government power on individual rights.

The Constitution is a legal document designed to protect the people from the government. At least for now. *sigh*

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

A pity we learned that lesson the hard way regarding the 18th Amendment.

i fear an even more painful 'lesson' will be given if anyone is foolish enough to attempt to interfere with the rights under the first 10 amendments.

i pray that this 'lesson' does not have to happen so that those responsible for attempting to subjugate the
American Peoples into bondage will not be put against a wall to 'pose for rifle fire' if they're fortunate, or something worse if they're not.

 

[smaneck]

Considering the legislature approves a military budget each year it's not unconstitutional.

But they make multi-year contracts with the military industrial complex which is unconstitutional. And people get enlisted for multiple years as well, which is of questionable constitutionality. It is very clear that our Founding Fathers did not envision as standing army and believed it would lead only to tyranny.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause

 

[smaneck]

i fear an even more painful 'lesson' will be given if anyone is foolish enough to attempt to interfere with the rights under the first 10 amendments.

And what makes any of the first 10 more important than the 14th?

 

[interpreter]

Oh, you mean the law that allowed people of color to immigrate here instead of just white people?

We should continue letting in all the black Christians who want to come here, and ban all the black Muslims. Many (if not most) of the black Muslims in Africa are now radicalized and would like nothing more than to come here and kill some "infidels."

 

[smaneck]

Do you want the same logic applied to the Bill of rights? If so it would be the first time individual liberties would be ceded to the federal government.

An individual liberty is ceded to the government (on whatever level) every time a law is passed.

I refer you to the language of the Declaration of independence for consideration.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Didn't read anything about the right to bear arms there.

 

[smaneck]

We should continue letting in all the black Christians who want to come here, and ban all the black Muslims.

I see. So you only want religious discrimination and the 1st Amendment thrown out.

Many (if not most) of the black Muslims in Africa are now radicalized and would like nothing more than to come here and kill some "infidels."

Actually most African Muslims have no interest in the US period. The ones who have become radicalized came here as children and it was their experience here that radicalized them.