Recent content by No Swansong

What evidence my friend? I've read accusations, I've not read of any actual evidence.

I didn't claim it is better. I claimed it is a right some have that U.S. citizens do not. The countries I have in mind are Brazil and Chile. Although I must correct my comment to change "explosives" which can mean many things to "Dynamite" and other like explosives.

While I don't actually consider myself distinctly liberal many others do so I will answer the original question. I am a religious pacifist, however I do advocate for a reasonably regulated 2nd Amendment. Of course the difficulty is coming to an agreement as to what is reasonable. What I might...

Some others would be polygamy, and unregulated private ownership of explosives (neither of which I support, just using them as examples).

That I would agree with at least generally.

Of course one must also consider what they can do that we can't. Simply having one freedom that they do not enjoy doesn't necessarily make us freer.

All citizens have a vested interest in how their government is run they are vested due to being not only taxpayers but also because they are subject to the government to which they are subject. All adult citizens should, as they do now, have the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Please...

I never claimed it wasn't. Is it safe then to assume that you oppose all laws regulating pharmaceuticals or illicit drugs such as Cocaine or Methamphetamine? Those are also human problems.

Sure you can. Your philosophy is problematic. I don't agree with sacrificing liberty in most cases but it can be done, and in some cases doing so can increase one's security.

Why should voting not be a constitutionally protected right?

You mean like when prohibition was repealed?

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation. For example the often touted laws against calling for violence against another is a reasonable regulation of the freedom of speech or the press depending upon how such a call was made. Forbidding human sacrifice is a reasonable regulation of the...

Except that it is not a response to "Is it a sin". It is a response to your comment. "Wrong again. Biblical law supersedes laws of men. And the items sworn upon when the oath is made are no more meaningless than using a picture of your mother in promising fidelity to your wife would be."

I've never been attacked by a Democrat, I have been by a Republican. I fully admit however that my experience certainly doesn't indicate a trend or a probability.

BTW thank you for posting this question. I have enjoyed reading the responses.