Azalin

It's very hard in the year 2018 to see you invoke the concept of prayer and not see it as pushing religion.

Ah-HAH! Sorry. That just seemed appropriate.

If I called you a Goddamned idiot would that be a religious statement?

To be fair though, I was wrestling with others trying to read religion into my argument before he joined in.

It probably was me (but the context of what I was saying, whether due to my not making myself clear or to misinterpretation by the reader) may have been unclear.

I never said, or even implied, that the constitution is a religious document, and I never said it's unthinkable to change anything in it. It's already been amended twenty seven times. But there is a process, and that process prevents us from making on-the-spot changes in order to pass an otherwise unconstitutional law. That said, I would agree that there may be room for making changes to gun laws without violating the second amendment, but I am not an expert on the matter.

The only reason it's hard for you is because you are stubbornly refusing to accept the US Constitution for what it is. Ask yourself this: If constitutional liberty is not granted by the government, then what is it's source? That's as good an answer as I can come up with.

I've had him on ignore for several days now, so I didn't even see that he had latched onto my previous post. He's just trolling, so no replies will be met with anything substantive. That said, why is it that whenever anyone tries to point out the reasoning behind the immutability of constitutional liberties, the conversation then turns to religion? I'm honestly surprised at the level of ignorance on the subject.

I corrected you when you referred to the 2nd amendment as "what the people want". If you don't understand the source of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties, then fine. If you want to continue to characterize what I'm saying as having anything to do with religion, you do so at the continued promotion of your own ignorance. Laugh all you want. Then go read a book.

Stop making this a religious issue, and kindly stop making ridiculous presumptions about me. I am not talking about religion. I am not talking about my religious beliefs. I am not talking about (and care absolutely nothing for) "deliberations of the public %$#$ing square". I am talking about the constitution, it's guarantees, and exactly why they can not be infringed upon.

^%$# the public square. I'm talking about constitutional liberties. I don't care whether you or anyone else believes in God or not, and whether or not I do is irrelevant to the point. The American government does not grant us our liberty. They are bestowed upon us by the very fact that we exist. The constitution is a rein on the government's ability to infringe upon them.

You almost appear to be missing the point on purpose. Besides, we swear on a bible in court. Why would "quoting God" be so out of place?

RIP

Metal detectors at school entrances would probably help, at least as far as making people feel that schools are safer for their children. I'm not a gun person, I'm a civil liberties person. My point is that you can not pick and choose which constitutional liberties should be upheld and which should not. They are all sacred.

"Endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights...." It's right there in the documentation. I don't care what people laugh at, and I don't care what your own interpretation is. Our creator (which can mean God, random chance, evolution, whatever) is the source of our rights and no government has the ability to infringe upon them. Period.

Try to look at the bright side - their potential for providing us entertainment at their own expense looks pretty solid for anywhere between three and seven years to come. Let's just sit back and enjoy the show!

It's not a question of what "The People" want. It's what we've been endowed with by our creator. "What people want" has nothing to do with it. We defend it because nobody has the authority to take it away. Period.

I agree completely. It does little good to bring it up in the immediate aftermath of tragedies such as this, because emotions are understandably so high. Most people have a pretty weak understanding of our constitutional liberties - that they are bestowed by our creator, and can not be infringed upon. Most seem to think that the government grants us our liberty, and that it would be a simple matter for Washington to "fix the gun problem" if only the NRA wasn't serving the interests of the gun lobby and ignorant rednecks. What they do not stop to consider is that if the right to keep and bear arms is restricted by government action, then that sets the precedent for limiting other liberties as well. All of a sudden a lot of people who say things like "I don't see any need for normal people to own assault-type weapons" will find others saying things like "I don't see why anyone should be able to say things like that in public".

If you say so.

I was being facetious. You had credited Gorshin with the Joker, so I attempted to point out that inconsistency by tying Romero with the Riddler. But yes, they were indeed both superb in their respective roles.

Probably in the same place as that Cesar Romero loop of his Riddler laugh.

If I go see it, I'll be sure to word my opinion/critique so that it offends as many people as possible. Why? Because anyone who gives a %$#$ what I think about a %$#$ing movie really has bigger problems that I could ever trigger with anything I could ever say.

He's just your basic garden variety troll, who I find fits in nicely with the group I refer to as the Gator Brigade - those best ignored.