The Texas state Senate approved a bill on Thursday that would require public schools in the Lone Star state to prominently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

The legislation, which passed the chamber with a 17-12 vote entirely along party lines, next heads to the state House of Representatives.

State Sen. Phil King (R), who authored the measure, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that such displays of the Ten Commandments acknowledge “the role that fundamental religious documents and principles had in American heritage and law.”

The Republican lawmaker noted that his new legislation comes in direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision last June in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

In the case, the justices sided with a high school football coach who was conducting prayers with students during and after games and threw out the Lemon Test, which was previously used to evaluate whether legislation violates the Establishment Clause.

“This legislation only became legally feasible with the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Lemon Test,” King said at the committee hearing. “I think this would be a good healthy step for Texas to bring back this tradition of recognizing America’s religious heritage.”

Another bill passed in the Texas state Senate on Thursday would allow school districts to require campuses provide a “period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text on each school day.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) touted both bills as part of the fight for “religious liberty in Texas.”

“Allowing the Ten Commandments and prayer back into our public schools is one step we can take to make sure that all Texans have the right to freely express their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Patrick said in a statement.

“I believe that you cannot change the culture of the country until you change the culture of mankind,” he added. “Bringing the Ten Commandments and prayer back to our public schools will enable our students to become better Texans.”

A growing number of elected Republicans are increasingly questioning the separation between church and state.

Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert (R) faced backlash last June when she said she was “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”

“The reason we had so many overreaching regulations in our nation is because the church complied,” Boebert said at the time. “The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also suggested last July that the GOP should embrace Christian nationalism, or the ideology that the U.S. is a Christian nation and should make laws rooted in Christian values.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...post-ten-commandments-in-public-schools/

Be Damned the constitution!

Not the entire constitution. I mean they still believe in the second amendment.

Yes and they can thank all those dead children for defending their right to bear arms.

Just like some don't believe in the second but fall all over themselves whining about the first when they feel wronged.

Too many people think their freedom is the only freedom and if they don't like what you do you shouldn't.

No I don't think they should be required to display religious text in classrooms, those should be allowed for a specific lesson.

I believe in the second amendment. I don't believe that twisting it into something that gives carte blanche on everything is included in it however.

So you don't believe in the plain text of the second amendment. You believe in your specific interpretation of it. You are exactly the type of person that doesn't believe in the "entire constitution". Deflect and move those goal posts, you are the person you were talking about.

Yet you believe in your interpretation of it. As an example. Somehow you seem to think that somewhere in that second amendment there's some right to own 30 round magazines. Somehow it seems you feel that infringes on your right to keep and bear arms. That's exactly what you accuse others of. An interpretation that's clearly not a part of the second amendment. You can't claim you're promoting the plain text of the second amendment when you are twisting it to include things it clearly doesn't say.

I believe the words "shall not be infringed" mean exactly what they say. I don't be you have a right to "own 30 round" magazines. I believe you have a right to own as large of magazines as you wish to own. Why are 30 rounds so scary to you? Would you be ok with 29? You continue to use arbitrary reasons to deny what the plain text says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Oddly it doesn't say "except for".

You don't believe in the constitution as it is written, you believe in only the part that suit you. You are the problem you whine about.


On edit One other thing. And see if you can keep up on this.

I don't think the constitution GIVES me anything, especially with the second amendment. You obviously do not understand what a right is. The constitution PROTECTS the rights I HAVE. It does not GRANT me the rights. It is there to keep the government from stepping on MY rights. Until you understand that, you will always be anti-constitution and will always rationalize away rights you find distasteful.

The amount of rounds in your magazine holds does not infringe on your ability to keep and bear arms. It does not prevent you from owning such a weapon or bearing it at any point in time.

Like I said, that's your interpretation of it. Exactly the same as you claim others are doing. Your opinions are no more or less valid than that of others. And that's all it is, your opinion.

And the second amendment still doesn't have the word "except" in it.

You think 30 is too much. NY thinks 8 is too much. Do you see how this infringes? When it more than 1 round at a time too much?

You can rationalize all you like, you still are anti-constitution. You just don't like to believe it.

I do not see how it infringes on a persons right to keep and bear arms. That's a pretty basic and easy to understand statement. You like to preach that anyone who disagrees with you is anti second amendment but the actual wording of the second amendment doesn't back you up on that. Expanding your opinion by adding into it what you think it means doesn't make it true or correct.

Which part of the second amendment doesn't back up "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is no "except" in there. There no "other than" there is no "unless someone is scairt of it" in there.

You continue to try and rationalize away what the amendment says because you do not believe in the constitution or the processes. SCOTUS has called "shall not be infringed" an unqualified command. That means it doesn't have qualifiers such as "if it makes you feel better". It is a direct command that infringement "the action of limiting or undermining something." is not allowed.

This is simple. This is basic. You are too arrogant to allow others freedom you don't believe in. You do not believe in the constitution and you should point that finger at you. You don't like it so it can't be.

It is simple and it is basic. Nothing about a magazine with a lesser capacity prevents you from owning, keeping or bearing arms. Once again anyone who doesn't see this 100% your way you claim is anti second amendment. You state that there isn't an "except" in there. There also isn't an "includes" in there which adds stipulations about a totally different topic which isn't in the second amendment. This is what you're attempting to do.

Thankfully the court has ruled several times that having a different choice does not negate other choices. Just because judaism exists doesn't mean you can't be catholic (this is the argument you are trying to make).

There is an include. It includes arms. Magazines are part of arms. You continue to rationalize this as a privilege. You are wrong. Everything that is arms is included, except the parts that are in the exception clause.

Do us a favor, you own what you think you need and the rest of us can do the same. See how easy that is. If 30 round (or 100 round) magazines scare you don't own them.

There is no such thing as a plain text reading of the 2nd amendment. It require an interpretation as written and that is what we have been doing for the past 100 years.

Machine guns were not available at that time.

There is also a fight about the comma.

And there were no phones to be protected by the 4th.

Oh wait, almost forgot. The first machine gun was invented in 1722. That was 70 years before the constitution. Also, it says arms, not muskets, not swords, not knifes.

Well we can leave the machine guns to the well regulated militia.

Let's recap here. According to you every American has the "right" to keep and bear firearms with "no exceptions". I mean it's a right which is something you don't have to earn or purchase. According to your logic poverty is a restriction to that right. I mean everyone shouldn't have to be a person of means to exercise their constitutional rights, correct? Or is that actually an exception of which you claim there aren't any? According to your logic when followed to its full meaning the government should be providing guns and ammunition to every America citizen who wants one because we can't allow the fact they can't afford one to be some exception to deny them of their constitutional right. I mean if you're going to step in it, step all the way into it.

And for someone that is so firm in their beliefs you don't seem to have a lot of ground to stand on here. Does limiting the amount a magazine holds prevent you from owning that gun? No it does not. Does it prevent you from keeping that gun? No it does not. Does it prevent you from using that gun as it pertains to hunting, shooting or to defend yourself with that firearm? No it odes not.

Your retort? "Does it scare you?"

The Miller decision suggests arms that are covered by the second amendment protections are ones that are useful to military use. So that would cover machine guns.

Heller tells us that the individual right to keep arms is unconnected to militia service.

These rulings are part of SCOTUS precedent now. Believing in the constitution requires understanding that all three branches are co-equal and a check on the others. Again, you either believe in the constitution or you don't.

Nah, FrankZ is fine with the mass shootings.

But he has a problem with “You shall not Murder”

What a stupid thing to say.

And look at you trying to twist words. Poverty does not factor into this. The government cannot infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Your means to do so are not the government. You've just created the second stupidest* argument against second amendment rights I have heard. To add to that, the second doesn't imply you MUST keep and bear arms. I've never told anyone that they must own anything. This is another straw argument that is nonsense.


"Does limiting the amount a magazine " Magazines are arms.
Infringe - "the action of limiting or undermining something."

Yes, it very much means that limiting magazines is an infringement.

*the first stupidest argument was in the MDGA floor when some random assemblycritter suggested the thrird amendment allows limits on the second amendment due to troops carrying arms and no one can be forced to quarter troops. Yes, they said that.

I am not fine with murder, mass or otherwise. Period.

To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense, insulting and beneath contempt.

Yet you are fine with everyone running around with their own personal arsenal.

The fact that young children are murdered in their classroom is acceptable under the guise of a constitutional right for someone to bear arms.

A paradox of oxymorons. Makes no sense at all.

Rights are not absolute. That has been established many times before.

I am fine with people keeping and bearing arms. I am not ok with murder. No one has the right to murder someone.

It makes sense, especially when you understand there are more ways to murder someone than guns. Just because someone owns a gun does not make them a murderer.

I've never advocated anything but personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership and use. I have never advocated murdering people.

That's some trash right there.

Another reason to not take you seriously.

I'd think a statutory requirement to display scripture would be challenged somewhere by someone thru the legal process.

As for nothing infringing on the right to bear arms - rocket launchers are "arms" - surface to air missiles are "arms" - mortars are "arms" .... the second amendment doesn't specify "guns" or "firearms" .... are people actually advocating for those weapons as well as fully automatics?

If everyone did their best to follow the 10 commandments, the world would be a much better place.

Show me the well regulated militia again?

This is true. It would also be true to say that if everyone did their best to follow the five precepts of Buddhism the world would be a better place. There's probably other religious scripture that contains healthy guidelines or laws or whatever you want to call them. None of that makes it justifiable to require the ten commandments to be displayed in public schools.

Much like parting the Red Sea.

While that's certainly true I'm not sure what that has to do with this. Many religions have their own religious texts they believe in and follow. I'm sure most if not all of them have some moral guidelines within those texts. We have laws on the books that make many of the commandments the law of the land.

What Texas is deciding to do is favor the religious text they believe in, the Bible, which is strictly a Christian teaching to display, placing it above every other religious text or teaching. Forcing this text into the public school system to display their preferred religious text upon people of other faiths and religions not to mention those with no faith or religion. The separation of church and state seems pretty clear here.

So you have decided that poverty is the single infringement exception to allowing Americans to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, just like that!

You could have stopped right there, because I didn't look into it any further than that.

I understand that you didn't. I wasn't trying to suggest that you did. That does not however mean that responding in a manner that goes a little deeper than the surface is a bad thing.

Going deeper than the surface in this forum isn't good for your health.

Sometimes that seems to be the case. I've seen many times that indicates it may raise people's blood pressure and temporarily impact their emotional stability.

No I haven't. You tried to put forth some stupid argument then blame it on me. This is your usual tactic.

Poor people can own all the guns they wish, if they acquire them. Not having money is not the government infringing on your rights.

Much like, maybe like, not just like.

The government sets the minimum wage at below poverty level which directly creates a situation where people can't afford guns. Therefore the government has set forth guidelines and laws which prevent people from being able to afford guns. Infringement.

It's a line of rationalization that does not have much logic, so you would be better off to give it up.

Food, shelter, and work are more important than guns when you are poor.

You continue to lean on a stupid straw argument. This is not surprising.

Does the government force anyone to work a minimum wage job? This is not like communism where you work the job you are told with the compensation you are given. People can go out and get a better job.

But since you want to play this stupid game. Mandatory fees disenfranchise the poor. Mandatory training (and costs) disenfranchise the poor. Mandatory licensing disenfranchise the poor. (ETA) Handgun rosters disenfranchise the poor due to cheaper guns being disallowed.

Hey, if you can make up a straw man argument that having a magazine that holds 15 rounds instead of 30 rounds somehow prevents you from keeping and bearing firearms, I decided to walk through that door with you. I mean why do you think you're the only one that has the right to make a stupid straw man argument?

Lol waiting for the whatabout response.

Really hard to argue. I just wish we could get some of these evangelical preachers to understand and follow that thinking. They talk it, but clearly don't seem to lead that life.

Except I have defined the word "infringe" and compared it to your statement. You can seek it out, but the gist is the word limit is part of the definition of infringe and you keep using the word limit.

So you are the only one slinging straw in your ridiculous assertions.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no need to "whatabout". It is an invalid contention to start with that is heaped with rediculousness.

Lol .. you never disappoint.

Nothing about having 15 rounds in a magazine or whether you have 30 rounds in a magazine infringes on what is guaranteed in the second amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." What you are attempting to do is go beyond those boundaries into include something that it does not say.

Magazines are part of arms. At least we finally got you to realize the operative clause. Baby steps I suppose. Freedom is scary for some.

And you still can't help admit that a 15 round magazine does not prevent you from keeping and bearing arms.

See there's you issue. You still don't understand the word infringe and its definition. Being forced to use 15, or 10, or 6, round magazines is an infringement.

Here's your issue. Bearing arms is the ability to use a weapon to shoot, hunt or protect yourself with. You wish to expand the word infringe to include things the second amendment doesn't include. I understand what infringe means. I also understand that having less rounds in a magazine doesn't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

No my problem is you cannot understand what infringe means. You have yet to define it, you have yet to demonstrate you know what it means. You continue to demonstrate you think it means something else. Also, you skipped the "keep" part. Which has been defined by the court as owning AND purchasing, purchasing or making. Can't own something if you can't acquire it.

Arms includes parts to make the arms. Certain arms require magazines. Magazines are part of arms. Your argument is following the traditional liberal argument that ammunition isn't protected so that can all be banned then you can have ALL the useless guns you wish.

Again, you slag off on people for not believing in the constitution when it is rights you agree with, and when it isn't you don't believe in the constitution. You are the person you rail about. Go yell at yourself in the mirror now.

You keep trying to expand on what is included in those infringements to things it obviously doesn't say. There's a huge difference in saying ammunition isn't included because I agree with you that it is, and claiming that it protects you to the point of having 30 rounds of ammo in a magazine. It seems you have somehow missed that those aren't the same thing.

I'm not the one inventing rights that the constitution doesn't give by claiming it does. You can have the gun. You can fire the gun. You can have the ammunition for the gun. None of that includes having 30 rounds in your magazine.

Limiting a magazine size does not infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. You have explained that multiple times in multiple ways. Someone either doesn't want to accept what is a very black and white debate - especially for someone that appears to be something of an originalist ... or they just want to fight.

I don't keep expanding anything. I said magazines are arms. Parts of arms are arms. This is you not understanding what constitutes arms isn't the things YOU are ok with.

Why not 16 round magazines? How about 20? 25? 29?

I have 2 x 10 round magazines that came with a rifle, every other magazine for the ARs is 30 rounds.

When you ignore what the word infringe means you might be right. But you also ignore the definition of the word. But obviously I am the one you refer to when saying "someone doesn't want to accept what is a very black and white debate", yet it is pretty obvious that I am the one that understands what words mean.

"the action of limiting or undermining something." - infringement.

There you go, definitions are your friend. Well, not your friend since the words meaning doesn't match your desire to limit what arms people may have.

Common sense knows no place within you. Maybe you should go back over the thread and read it slowly. I doubt that will help but it's worth a try.

You and the fall back to the crutch of common sense.

Define the work "infringement" for me.

No-one is infringed upon to BEAR ARMS by infringing on their magazine capacity. You can bear arms with a single shot pistol. You can bear arms with a 12 round magazine. The right to bear has not been infringed. The two things are separate and different.

By having the speed limit at 70 mph - no one is infringing on your right to drive a car. Which is what your argument would mean.

By legally only allowing you to have one wife - no-one is infringing on your right to marriage. Lord knows why anyone would want more - but ... you get the point.

Since you wish to try and move goal posts to make some point. I don't see a need for speed limits. If you operate a vehicle you should be able to do so and incur the penalties for failure to be safe with it.

I don't care how many wives (or husbands) you have. Have at it. It is a religious based restriction mostly that is just habit.

If one limits the right to keep and bear arms, one has infringed upon that right. Again there is a word there that has a definition. All your hand waving doesn't change that.

Interesting you mention 12 rounds, pit mentions 15. I assume you both think that is adequate and thus "common sense". Might wanna get your stories straight (I think daddy Bloomberg is at 10 BTW).

I guess the Texas senate would have to approve posting the religious law and guidance of Islam in public schools as well. We can’t be teaching a religion to Muslim and Buddhist students without teaching and posting religious laws representing all. Why does just the Christian religion get approvals like this and not any other religion? After all public schools are not just attended by Christians.

You seem to be struggling - there is no goal post moving. There are examples for you in the form of analogies. That's pretty common in any discussion. And your "should" - and "have at it" in response do not in any way address the point made.

If someone limits the speed you drive - they do not infringe your right to actually drive a vehicle. Full stop. If someone limits the capacity of your magazine - they do not in any way shape or form restrict or infringe on your right to carry, bear and fire your arms.


Having said that - this is my interpretation of what is written. Funny how an originalist can one day determine that what's written in the constitution means only what's written - and on another day and subject decide to read between the lines and add much more than what is actually written. Your opinion extends the definition of what's written considerably.

As for your attempt to suggest Pit and I are on the same page or have a story - you are mistaken. I'm simply stating my opinion. I picked a random number - it was not a number to suggest that's too high or a good limit. It was a random number.

The only struggle is trying to make you understand the simple meaning of a word. One you continue to ignore because the definition doesn't suit. I also do understand analogies, they can be useful but in this case they are poorly suited to the task. The right to keep and bear arms was specifically protected by the founders. It is not granted by the constitution but it was specifically protected as a "the government can't limit this" type thing. Marriage was not, nor was driving. I do believe both of those to be rights implicitly protected by the 9th, but the right to keep and bear arms is EXPLICITLY protected. That really take it to a different level. Just like your right to free speech. You can talk to people in a room, you have no need to be able to broadcast your speech to millions.

If you would. Define "arms".

[DELETED] Not worth the effort.

So when you don't like the topic (Ten Commandments) just hijack the thread.

No, he still doesn't get it. He is trying to base his argument on the word infringe when nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about how many rounds of ammo your magazine can hold. Having 15 round magazines does not infringe on your right to keep or bear arms. Everyone understands what infringe means but he obviously can't seem to understand what those constitutional guarantees actually include what they don't include. You gave perfect examples in comparison and rather than address them he sidestepped them.

No he clearly understands what the words mean. You tried to sell us that poverty was the government infringing. You are clearly not qualified to speak on this after that nonsense.

Magazines constitute part of arms. That shall not be infringed. Heller clearly tells us that having an alternative means does not allow other means to be infringed.

And you continue to not understand preexisting with rights. The 2A is there to stop the government not the people. It only protects that preexisting right to arms, it does not grant it.

And you can bear arms without having a 30 round magazine. I mean if you wish to speak about an arbitrary number.

And you act like infringe means something other that what I've shown you multiple times. When you limit you infringe. That is the core of the definition of the word.

Yap more now. You are still wrong. When you can define simple words let us know. It'll be step forward for you.

It seems you are the only one having that problem here. If that's the case why not 50 or 100 round barrel magazines? Why not make all automatic weapons as easy to buy as any other weapon? Do you think any "limit" is acceptable?

I am very happy to let this go - because people can and do disagree all the time without an endless back and forth.

With that said - infringe does/can mean to limit and restrict in some way. 100%.

But when you restrict the size of a magazine - you do not prevent or infringe on someone's ability to own, bear or fire/use their arms. To suggest that it does would be to suggest that any size magazine (that is not limitless) means a persons arms are infringed upon.

Not allowing someone to own a fully automatic weapon does infringe. Restricting access to surface to air missiles does infringe. Those are types or armaments, and they are restricted. If you are campaigning for unrestricted magazine size presumably by extension of the way you interpret the 2nd amendment - you must also be campaigning for unrestricted access to any type of weapon? It couldn't be any other way.

As I said - to me it's simple and it's what the constitution actually says. Extrapolating the definition of what is said to try and argue that limiting magazine is an infringement of the right to bear arms is a stretch but you are welcome to your opinion.

I want a tank in my front yard to deter the neighbors and to use on the 4th of July....

A fully automatic 50 caliber should do the job.

Not having one of these clearly infringes on my 2nd amendments rights.... right??

I would imagine that depends on who you ask.

No, not allowing citizens to purchase them if they wish infringes on your rights. Not owning one is not the infringement.

I have no issues with people owning machine guns.

I have no issues with people being allow to own belt fed machineguns. Why would think 100 round magazines are an issue?

People owned cannon during the founding, I'm ok with that as well.

I GOTTA GET ME 3 OR 4 OF THOSE.

As I said - your welcome to your opinion. I can't even begin to imagine how much worse the country would be if people were legally allowed to own and keep machine guns and cannon.

If we stop blaming tools and try to fix the people problem that could make things better.

There is the family of the bank shooting it Texas a couple of weeks ago. The mom and dad were interviewed this morning on the Today Program. They appeared to be god fearing people. Seemed caring and right minded parents who loved their son.

They appear to have tried everything they could think of to help their son. In fact, they thought they had it under control.... Then Boom. He buys an AR-15. It took him roughly 30 minutes to buy it.. 30 MINUTES... yes, you read that correctly.

So with all due respect about helping those that have problems, I call BS.

Here's a kid (25 years old by the way), who was supported and loved and treasured by his parents.. He had a job that he was successful at. He had a girlfriend. He had problems but was being treated for them.

So for you or anyone else to say, just fix the people and all will be better? That's just not enough. You/we have to do it all. Restrict who can get a gun (any gun) and help those we can.

Both or nothing. Thus far, the right seems only to want to do NOTHING

So they worked with medical personnel to have him involuntarily committed to a mental health facility? That would become a prohibitor for purchase.

That sounds like it was lifted straight out of some NRA literature or some online gun advocacy group. They are good at those sort of things - one I will always remember is "Criminals prefer victims without guns".

How many legally purchased fire arms currently are in the hands of criminals, gangs and persons mentally unfit to own them do you think? The idea that you can "fix people" - and by extension "fix society and societies problems" is misguided or arrogant. When this topic was discussed before and largely it was agreed that mass shootings and gun violence is a factor of more than ONLY the proliferation of guns and the gun culture in the USA - Pit asked some hard questions about how and what you do to actually "fix people". At that point people stopped wanting to discuss those issues. But is it a State problem? Federal? Community based / Church based? If you want to fix people and society - do you want to spend tax dollars fixing those at the bottom who might be hardest to impact?

I mean it sounds good and it sounds catchy.... I think the devil is in the details and being realistic.

I'd much rather tax dollars be spent fixing the people issue instead constantly trying to disarm citizens that want to protect themselves. But that is not politically viable. Hen you are is a eople issue your voter base gets offended. It is far more politically convenient to blame a totem.

So you have a solution - but no opinion or actual means, suggestions or comment on how to achieve your solution, instead going back to politics as being the issue.... so you realize that means you have no solution right?

What's odd is they have been screaming about mental health and fixing the mental health issue for decades now. While the very people they keep electing have done nothing to fix mental healthcare.

To be fair - the same could be said about most topics and most campaign issues that either party says they are fighting for or going to fix.

I never claimed to have a solution. I said I was good with tax dollars being spent trying to solve the mental health issue. I also pointed out the political hurdle. I don't know what a solution to the mental health issue looks lime, but I'd be much better exploring that then just blaming a tool. In the long run helping people get better is better for everyone. Just blaming, and banning, arms does help those that still need help.

Again, if you don't like the topic of the thread, which is about the 10 commandments, then turn it into a second amendment conversation.

Actually the turn was calling out Pits dislike for people that doesn't believe in the constitution when he doesn't.

Actually it's about people making false claims that it protects things it does not protect.

Nah, you pontificate from an extreme ideological position that is unreasonable.

Good luck with that philosophy of fixing the people problem, we have always had people issues and wishing it away is not going to happen.

You fail to realize that guns are used as offensive weapons, not just for the protection of themselves. And how many rounds does one need to provide protection of self and property? At some point that self protection device becomes a offensive threat to others.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthre...t-ten-commandments-in-public#Post2012311

Do you forget there is a record of what is said?

.


Copy and highlight the part that "falsely claims it protects things it does not protect" or swallow your idiotic pride and own your nonsense.

Thus far the only poster who has stated they think that all the nonsense isn't coming from you, is you.

Because everyone else is eating popcorn and watching you get destroyed.

By thinking people should be able to own machine guns?

Typical. You cannot refute what was said so you make it some sort of attack.

Again, point out the part where I said what you claimed I said. Oh you can't it doesn't exist. Yet another lie on your part. Shocked face and all.

Oh look, you deflected. Can't prove what you said so shift topic.

Obviously context is not your strong suit.

Obviously proving your assertions is not yours.

Did you or did you not post this?


Who is lying again?

You are. I never claimed to not say that.

Now revisit https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthre...t-ten-commandments-in-public#Post2012809 and prove your assertions.

This is your solution that is not a solution. How quickly you forget what you write I guess?

I've proven it over and over again. There is no protection involving how many rounds a magazine can hold. Having less then 30 rounds in your magazine in no way prevnents you from keeping or bearing arms. As such that is not protected by the second amendment.

No, you've asserted it over and over. With no regard to word means and historical jurisprudence. Those are vastly different things.

And you continue to ignore very important words. Restricting freedoms does not lead to liberty.

No, that is not. That is a different perspective. I don't know how to fix the people problem, but I belive this is a people problem not a tool problem.

So somehow your assertions mean more? I think not.

I'll ask again, how in any way does having a lower capacity magazine prevent or infringe on anyone from having "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?

When you make accusations you cannot prove then dodge and squirm, yes.

You first, prove what you said or admit lying. Not here to dance to your stupid drum.

What is it exactly that you claim you wish me to prove? You often times come here for nothing more than do this dance. You spend a remarkable amount of time doing it to turn around and claim that's not what you're here to do.

While I do not see eye to eye with Frank I will chime in here since you opened the door. Frank is right with what he says about the way you post. You have these types of fights with a lot of posters. That should tell you something.

As for the topic of the thread… This is stupid. It will be struck down as unconstitutional after costing taxpayers millions of dollars. It is just being done to win votes imo

It tells me that those who disagree with me love to get into it with me and I don't back away from it. So you think the name calling isn't an attempt to start fights? Sure, I'll go toe to toe with anyone, any time. But I'm not the only one. Do you think calling anyone who disagrees with you "libtards" isn't trying to start a fight? People get what they ask for.

And you you or don't you agree that anyone qualified to purchase a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic machine gun or not? Try to stay focused.

I don’t use that word. I’m pretty sure only a couple of people do that are on here. I only can name one, and that is Eve. Pretty sure she would call me one as well even though I’m a middle of the road kinda guy. When it comes to Frank, he doesn’t really name call except for calling you a joke. That was wrong imo. I was suspended once for calling Vers an ass, so I know firsthand it’s wrong.

Full disclosure…I know Frank somewhat and I consider him a friend. Well at least as much as one can over the internet. I don’t jump in too often during these kind of beefs but did because you invited it. You two can now go back to your bickering over the second amendment and your continued hijacking of this thread. Not that I care.

The door I opened was in regards to people agreeing with Frank on his position that the second amendment includes unlimited rounds in your magazine and that people have the right to own machine guns is okay. That was the context of the comment.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Franks has called me a liar over and over again along with a coward and I could go on. But if these are the things you wish to ignore and uphold while pointing the finger directly at me that's up to you. But you have certainly decided to skirt around a lot of what is going on here.

Do I have to post it thrice?

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthre...t-ten-commandments-in-public#Post2012809

You made assertions, you were wrong. You then ignore that you were wrong so you can go on and fight about other things.

I call you a liar because you have said, on more than one occasion, that I said something when I clearly demonstrated I didn't. You also have said you didn't say things when I clearly demonstrated you did.

Telling untruths is lying. You have lied, and you continue to do so because actual facts don't support your what you want to see.

Sorry, I was talking about the shooting at a bank in Kentucky.. My bad

Oh what the hell is wrong with you anyway... Commitment wasn't called for or they'd have done it.

It sounds like you want to put people away rather than make it harder for those out there that need help to get a gun. Sorry Frank but that is just NUTTY thinking. Backwards Thinking.

What the hell is wrong with you? Don't address mental health issue but whine that people with mental health issues can get guns. Oh yeah, the only viable solution is to collect all the guns and melt them down, maybe make a peace fountain.

If you take guns from people, the people suffering from mental illness are still suffering. But forbid no one blame an inanimate tool. Yep, the gun whispers to you ya know. What's wrong with me? What is wrong with you that you would rather people continue to suffer in silence (or not so much silence when they go suicide and take people with them).

Pffftttt I'm saving up for a F-15EX fighter Jet.

Who didn't address mental health....Geez Frank, not I know why you and Pit get into it.. You can't read

Nothing in the constitution protects how many rounds your magazine can hold. And all of the things in what you just quoted are true. Denying your own actions is also a lie.

jc

I don't think the 10 commandments should be taught at schools unless it's a class learning about religions (all major religions). I know schools don't teach about religions in general, but maybe they should given that its part of many people's lives. Also, it would help with context in their world history classes.

I see it much like a lot of subjects people rail for and against. There is no reason that classes in things like CRT, religion and others can't be made elective courses. Not required but available for students and their parents who wish for their children to take them. I'm not for forcing religion or something like CRT on anyone's children. I'm also not for either side saying since they don't want it to be taught to their children, nobody else has the right for their children to take a class in that subject.

I have a very pragmatic perspective on CRT and other topics.

It is often said that the winners are the ones that get to write the history. The 1619 Project and CRT is a different perspective of that history, in this case, written from the black perspective. Different viewpoints and perspectives from history are supposed to be part of a dialogue. You can choose to accept it or not. That is why it is a dialogue.

From what I know, CRT is really not taught much in high school and if it is, its part of an AP course which is by its nature an elective. Now we don't always like our past, we can talk about Poll Taxes, red-lining housing, the Tuskegee experiment, the crack cocaine laws and other Jim Crow era or Plessy versus Ferguson type strategies. Separate, but not really equal.

It happened elsewhere, and the black community was not alone. We can talk about the Trail of Tears for native Americans, or the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Again it is a dialogue.

Yeah, sometimes the winners do awful and brutal things. Why do we call whitewash after all? Although I once thought that was just cheap lime paint, maybe it is not.

Also, when these items are discussed, we need to put that in context as well, Since the beginning of time, the winners were brutal. Vikings, Romans, Genghis Kahn, British, etc. etc.

I could back that... don't mind those classes being an elective.... but frankly, I hope our school systems can just do better about teaching the basics... we need to get better at Math and Science...

I am an engineer, and although think they are important, there is more to life than Math and Science...

There are a lot of areas where we don't do well, Basic Economics, Civics and Nutrition/Health are areas where we could add some benefit.

The lack of focus on PE and the arts such as band bother me as well.

A fairly smart kid can go through high school unchallenged. There needs to be challenges to provide a developing mind the opportunity to think.

I agree and I'm not sure why it has become such a problem over time. Sometimes I think it's due to holding classes back to conform with students who have more trouble learning, which prevents those who could be progressing faster from moving on in subjects.

Probably... I feel teachers don't have a chance... and end up teaching down to the bottom few... and are forced to pass kids who shouldn't be passed....

so far I feel my boys have done well in public school... and hope they continue to do well... but feel that at some point (maybe junior high or high school) I'll have to switch them to a private school to continue having them challenged in various subjects...

Holy Crap, the world must be on fire... Geez,, I actually agree with Eve.... Yikes,, someone pull my liberal card quick,, before I become a conservative again.... Yikes....HELP ME.

You mean basics like readin, righten, and rithamatic?

Well lets see

Reading.... nope not or cursive. Kids can't even read the constitution .... FAIL
Writing.... nope they don't teach writing cursive either...... FAIL
Arithmetic .... unless you consider letting kids use calculators for tests and wasting 2 pages of paper to show how 1+1=2 then .... FAIL

I think people misunderstand the word "writing" when it comes to this topic. Cursive is penmanship, not actual "writing" in education. There is no need to waste time on teaching cursive when almost everyone does the majority of their writing on electronic devices. True "writing" is being able to effectively communicate through the written word. Formulating coherent sentences that accurately portray one's thoughts and ideas so that others can readily understand them. Educators are failing at that, too. However, I think that most of the blame goes to the students because very few want to invest the time and concentration to work on the craft of becoming an excellent writer. Hell, look at some of our posters. It takes some time to decipher their messages. Jackson, who posts in the PFF and is always trashing Watson, is a prime example. He literally belittles others for their lack of intelligence while writing incoherent sentences w/terrible mechanics.

I haven't been here in forever.. and I see it took exactly 2 posts for this article about posting the 10 commandments to become a gun control argument. Good to see some things never change. I'm sure Jesus is most pleased that the 10 commandments will be posted in schools, that's what he has wanted all along.. <sarcasm> <rolleyes>

As per usual anything to distract from the issue at hand. As David Byrne would say, "Same as it ever was."

You do realize it was you that did that right?

I posted about people on the far right being selective about which portions of the constitution they believe in and which ones they dismiss.

Yer far right now?

It can be hard to keep up with the moving goal posts and daily deflection.

And your typical off topic response. I would have expected no less.

Right it's my fault you posted off topic in thread you started so you could complain about other people postings being off topic while continuing to be off topic.

This is like 4D chess level stuff.

Mmmm hmmmm......

We disagree on many things, but you are one of the few objective posters in this forum. Most of the Right has been chased off the board due to constant harassment and the left thinks it's their right to insult, belittle, and attack anyone who dares to venture an opinion that is not completely in line w/their beliefs.

But, but , but isn't it the right who claimed the left were the snowflakes? Nobody "ran them off". I understand however you love to play the victim card.

Texas bill that would have required Ten Commandments in schools fails

A Texas House bill that would have required the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms failed Tuesday after missing its deadline.

The bill, which passed in the Texas Senate, would have required a poster with the Ten Commandments that was big enough for anyone in the classroom to see and read.

The legislation passed the Senate in April and was required to be voted on in the House by Tuesday night, or else it would be dead for this session, which is set to conclude next Monday.

Although House lawmakers did not bring up the bill for a vote, it sparked a vigorous debate about the separation of church and state and what is acceptable inside public school classrooms.

The bill was part of a broader push to increase religion in schools. Another pending bill would employ chaplains to work in schools in the 2023-24 school year.

The push for more religion in schools comes after the Supreme Court ruled last year in favor of a football coach who prayed at the 50-yard line with his players.

https://thehill.com/homenews/educat...uired-ten-commandments-in-schools-fails/

This isn't about Florida but does show a continuation of how tax payer funded schools are being more and more impacted by religion when they clearly weren't meant to be.

Oklahoma school board approves what could be the 1st taxpayer-funded religious school in U.S.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A state school board in Oklahoma voted Monday to approve what would be the first publicly funded religious school in the nation, despite a warning from the state’s attorney general that the decision was unconstitutional.

The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 to approve the application by the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma to establish the St. Isodore of Seville Virtual Charter School. The online public charter school would be open to students across the state in kindergarten through grade 12.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond had warned the board that such a decision clearly violated the Oklahoma Constitution.

“The approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers,” Drummond said in a statement shortly after the board’s vote. “It’s extremely disappointing that board members violated their oath in order to fund religious schools with our tax dollars. In doing so, these members have exposed themselves and the state to potential legal action that could be costly.”

The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State vowed in a statement Monday to take “all possible legal action to fight this decision.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State denounced the board’s approval.

“It’s hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation’s first religious public charter school,” the group’s president and CEO Rachel Laser said in a statement. “This is a sea change for American democracy. Americans United will work with our Oklahoma and national partners to take all possible legal action to fight this decision and defend the separation of church and state that’s promised in both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...IUXDwKl3o9J3G8Z_dqlPCODGGBaQ9G_W83ytgFKo

Public education must end!!! School choice for parents is what is needed. If you want your child to attend a Christian school, a Catholic school, or a different school that is your choice as a parent. When public education is using our tax dollars to fund education to move an agenda and promote the alphabet people and their sexual deviance then our tax dollars should not be involved. I would much rather my tax money be used to further school choice.

And this is now how it's being spun when it comes to teaching children they should accept and be kind to all humans regardless of their differences. Of course when you claim everyone who does not share your view of sexuality as a "deviant" that helps explain a lot. It's much like the attack about teaching students the full and accurate history of America. I'm sure you don't like that either.

It is not accurate history. It is agenda driven propaganda. Maybe if it tried to tell the real truth it would educate our children which party created the KKK. The Democrats did. And as the South grew more conservative it grew less racist. Those are facts. I bet that agenda driven propaganda leaves those details out though.

More facts to consider. If strict gun laws really worked Chicago and New York would have much less gun violence.

That there are only 2 genders. Science supports that. That is called...Wait for it.... Biology.

Thank you Betsy DeVos.

The FACT that about half the guns used in the commission of gun crimes in Chicago came from outside the state and are being brought in from states with far more relaxed guns laws disproves your very premise. Trying to act like the Democratic party and the Republican party are what they were in the mid 1800's is a false reality and of course even you know that. Claiming telling the entire history of our nation is agenda driven propaganda is only further proof of what lengths some people will go to in order to continue it remain hidden.

And let me ask you, what does science or anything else for that matter, have to do with teaching children to should understand that certain groups who identify differently are a part of our society and no matter what, we should treat them all with common decency? Or is that something you propose we not teach our children too? You know, kindness?

I guess since the best you can do is label them as deviants pretty much explains that already.

So, answer me this. If those guns are coming from areas of the country with more relaxed gun laws than Chicago and they don't have the gun violence Chicago has. What is the difference? By your premise those bad places that have more relaxed gun laws should have the same gun violence that Chicago has. But they don't. What is the difference?

I treat everyone I meet with the loving kindness of Christ. I have taught my Children to do the same. I don't understand why I have to celebrate or learn about who people choose to sleep with. That is sick. The alphabet people want us to accept their lifestyle while they trample on the rights of our wives and daughters' privacy. They push their agenda on all of our children. I believe that two consenting adults have the right to sleep with whoever they want. Just don't flaunt it to my children. It is a sinful act plain and simple and has no right to be taught or pushed in school grades K thru 12. Adults are given the right to sin all they want. God gave everyone freewill to determine who they want to serve. God or themselves.

Population density.
It's not that hard to figure out.

Yep our population is pretty Dense

Could you please explain what you mean by alphabet people? Never mind. I know now. It's a slur for the LGBTQ community. I find your transphobic message to be quite disturbing.

Lock them all up. Theo-fascists. They’re trying desperately to indoctrinate the children. Gotta keep those numbers up or the gravy train is over. It’s shameful and damn sure unconstitutional.

School choice is a good thing. Make all schools compete to be better than they are today. I think this is a step in the right direction.

Public funding of religion with tax payer dollars is wrong.

No more wrong than other things public is funding. Killing babies, the alphabet people propaganda in school etc.... School choice is a good thing.

You have been brainwashed. there is a clear separation of church and state. At least supposedly. As far back as 1962 the SCOTUS determined that even prayer in schools was a violation........

Court has declared that prayer in public schools violated establishment clause. As early as Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court declared that public prayer in public schools violated the establishment clause.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1518/prayer-in-public-schools

I know that goes against your "feelings" but publicly funded schools are not a religious indoctrination system that is to be supported by public tax payer funds.

Well as a Country we should progress. Having Religion funded in public school and giving parents choice is progress. Much better than using public tax dollars funding the murder of babies without parents knowledge. Or having an alphabet agenda transition children without parents knowledge. Progress is parents choice. Also our founding Fathers put the clause of separation or church on state to keep the state out of the church.

Put prayer back in school, put the ten commandments back in school, teach the Bible as history and watch society improve. Anytime in history when a society turned to God in prospered. Turn away from God and it eventually fell.

Whose religion? Christians? What about Jewish publicly funded schools? Muslim schools as well? Better build a special room for their prayer rug storage. What about schools for Satanism? You do realize that religious freedom is law as well, right? You can't pay for schools that sponsor "your religion" unless you're willing to sponsor schools of all religions.


Do you mean like the crusades? Or do you mean like The Roman Empire which was also very religious? You see, religion is only as good as the people are that run it. Look at how the catholic church covered up the sexual abuse of children. The southern Baptists did the exact same thing. Millions of people have been killed on the name of God and religion.

I think your description represents a fantasy land you only wish or believe existed. Religions on this earth are run by men. Those men are no less flawed than any other men. And as such often times religion is just as evil in some cases as it is good. People's tax dollars should not be funding the indoctrination of people into "your religion".

You my friend are delusional. I understand you worship yourself and not God. That is your choice. History has proven time and time again when nations fall away from God they are taken over or taken into exile. Sexual deviants in the mainstream are usually the last chapter in the existence of those nation. Yes, I have no problem if taxpayers funded school systems that were religion based. I don't have a problem what religion either. At least if they stand for something they will have some kind of decency. Today, we have little to no decency. It would be much better than our current public school system that has been corrupted by the teacher's union.

I'm as God fearing Christian. The book I read tells me to love my neighbor as myself. It doesn't quantify that they must be Christian, can't be gay or trans. It just tells me to love them. And it certainly does not tell me to label them as perverts, sexual deviants and other derogatory terms. In case you missed it, that's not what love looks like.

You've totally ignored all of the wars, murders and deaths which were done in the name of God. What he did warn us about were false prophets. The kind that tells us we must accept what they're teaching us because that's what God told them to. A lot of those people are lying and you were warned. Once again, millions have been killed in the name of God and you sound much like what I think it sounded like during the Salem Witch trials. Jesus never told you to hate and persecute sinners no matter what sin you feel they have committed. And he never said to blindly believe what a religion is telling you to believe.

FORCING religion on others is never a good thing. Indoctrinating public school kids into Christianity Is deplorable. Fascists.

And YOU calling it progress is the most upside down pitiful logic I’ve ever seen! Dragging people back to the stone ages with a ridiculous belief system based on superstition and invisible friends in the sky is progress? You need to read more.

OCD- you're correct- America has never been based on any ONE religion- the Christian right wants everyone to think Christianity is/was only religion the founding fathers pledge themselves too- several were deists, we've had Jews, Muslims, Eastern religions among us from the beginnings. I want great schools educating Americans- stats show best educations are gained in Catholic/ Protestant church schools AND it ain't close. Millions of Americans have abandoned public schools because the education stinks- clothes, disrupting class, and pride weeks are very important, but basic thinking and learning isn't. I taught in HS and quit due to school politics. Jesus did say love your enemies- that's extremely hard calling-----other places in good book tell us not to associate with evil ones- we can do both. Peace.

Yet "their enemies" are being targeted.

People will post the 10 commandments then turn around and not follow most of it.

It's a lot like the constitution that way. You know, the only part that counts is the second amendment.

This is what happens when church and state come together. Things we shouldn’t forget.





https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-report-details-church-state-collusion-on-indigenous-schools

And it's they who talk about "indoctrination". Let me quickly explain something. If teachers actually had the ability to indoctrinate their students, far more people in society would know the difference between, "there, their and they're" as well as the difference between "to, too and two".

We have seen what actual indoctrination looks like and the false flag they crying about now is exactly that.

They don’t want US on the left to indoctrinate their kids… that means stop exposing their kids to higher ideas, literature, and facts from the real world and not the myths and misinformation GOPers live within. No, they want to make sure all of our kids are indoctrinated into their hoopleheaded way of thinking.

I've said it before, if teachers had the ability to indoctrinate kids, all Americans would know the difference between "there, their and they're" as well as "to, too and two". Teachers can't even get them all indoctrinated to learn that in many cases.