Following your logic:<br><br>The constitution states no establishment of religion. This inherently implies a wall of separation, since anything less than such a wall would indeed be an establishment of religion. I can't think of anything that might break such a <i>wall of separation</i> that would not be an <i>establishment of religion</i>. Perhaps someone could think of something, but I'm pretty sure it would be negligible.<br>
<br>Do you still think that the constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state? How can church and state be anything but separate and still not be establishing religion?<br><br>-Reggie<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:02 PM, lfalen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
The 2nd Amendment states people have the right to bear arms. It does not spell out what arms. Semi-automatic rifles are arms under any reasonable definition. I am not an arms expert, but I think a lot of weapons used by people to hunt or for self protection are semi- automatic. Perhaps some one with a knowledge of weapons can provide a breakdown on all the different types of weapons.<br>
<br>
Roger<br>
<div class="im">-----Original message-----<br>
From: Reggie Holmquist <a href="mailto:reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu">reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu</a><br>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:15:07 -0700<br>
To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">> Strange, I don't see anything in there about semi-automatic rifles. I<br>
</div><div class="im">> guess, by your logic, there is no right to bear semi-automatic rifles.<br>
> After all, the clause ensuring government shall make no establishment of<br>
</div><div class="im">> religion does not ensure a wall of separation between church and state,<br>
> right? It has to be explicitly stated in the constitution for it to be<br>
> interpreted as such, according to you. Or does it only have to be<br>
> explicitly stated if it is something a liberal supports, and need only be<br>
> implied if it is something a conservative supports?<br>
><br>
> -Reggie<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Joe<br>
</div>> > 2nd Amendment<br>
> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,<br>
<div class="im">> > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."<br>
> > That is what the Constitution says, which I support.<br>
</div><div class="im">> > Roger<br>
> > -----Original message-----<br>
> > From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
</div><div class="im">> > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:47:53 -0700<br>
</div><div class="im">> > To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance<br>
> ><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> > > No where in the constitution does it say that individuals have a right to<br>
> > bear semi-automatic rifles.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > So you must be for gun control, Roger!<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > > The First Amendment<br>
> > > > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or<br>
> > prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of<br>
> > speech,or of the press,or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and or<br>
> > to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."<br>
> > > > No where is there any thing said about the separation of church and<br>
> > state. What it says is that no state religion is to be established and that<br>
> > every one has the right to express their religious beliefs or lack there of.<br>
> > The "separation of church and state" comes from an article written by Thomas<br>
> > Jefferson in which he said "There should be a wall of separation between<br>
> > church and state" ,but it no where in the Constitution.<br>
> > > > Roger<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > -----Original message-----<br>
> > > > From: "Art Deco" <a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a><br>
> > > > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:24:30 -0700<br>
> > > > To: "Vision 2020" <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> > > > Subject: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> LEONARD PITTS JR.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> We don't deserve this<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,<br>
> > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> - from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States<br>
> > That's for Christine O'Donnell.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she<br>
> > asked last week, drawing gasps and astonished laughter from an audience of<br>
> > law school students.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Chris Coons, her Democratic opponent for a Delaware Senate seat,<br>
> > replied that in asking the question, O'Donnell shows "fundamental<br>
> > misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment<br>
> > establishes the separation ..."<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> O'Donnell wasn't buying it.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> "The First Amendment does? ...<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the<br>
> > phrase 'separation of church and state,' is found in the First Amendment?"<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> It was a bizarre exchange that permits but two conclusions. One,<br>
> > O'Donnell is frighteningly ignorant, particularly for a woman who claims<br>
> > constitutional expertise and aspires to the Senate. Or, two, assuming you<br>
> > buy her after-the-fact explanation (she was merely observing that the phrase<br>
> > "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment), she is<br>
> > terribly disingenuous.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> After all, the framers' intention to isolate church from state and<br>
> > vice versa is evident in the amendment's wording and is a matter of<br>
> > long-settled law, besides. The phrase "freedom of expression" doesn't appear<br>
> > in the First Amendment, either.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Would O'Donnell question that right, too?<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Maybe I shouldn't ask.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> While one is appalled by O'Donnell's ignorance and/or<br>
> > disingenuousness, one is not surprised. The capacity to be surprised by her<br>
> > died long ago, victim of revelations that she once "dabbled" in witchcraft.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> And was the subject of an IRS lien. And said people with AIDS brought<br>
> > the disease upon themselves. And was sued for nonpayment by her college and<br>
> > mortgage company. And was cited eight times by the Federal Elections<br>
> > Commission And thinks scientists have created mice with human brains.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> That this woman is a major party candidate for national office, that<br>
> > she is among the brightest stars of a constellation of like-minded cranks -<br>
> > some of them already in office - tells you all you need to know about this<br>
> > moment in our political life. Welcome to the United States of Amnesia.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Somehow we have forgotten the lesson we spent most of the last decade<br>
> > learning at ruinous cost: that faith-based governance, foreign policy by gut<br>
> > instinct, choosing leaders on the basis of which one we'd most like to watch<br>
> > television with, simply does not work.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Some say this is a conservative revolution, but this is no<br>
> > conservatism Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater would have recognized. At<br>
> > least their ideology adhered to an interior logic. This ideology adheres to<br>
> > a perverse "illogic" that posits that the less you know, the more authentic<br>
> > you are. So what triumphs here is not conservatism, but rather, mediocrity.<br>
> > The Know Nothings and Flat Earthers are ascendant. But intellect matters.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Knowledge is good. And what's it tell you that that point even needs<br>
> > to be made?<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> In a recent debate, O'Donnell was asked to name a modern Supreme Court<br>
> > decision to which she objects. "Oh, gosh," she said. "Give me a specific<br>
> > one, I'm sorry. ... Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a<br>
> > lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you."<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Some of us are reminded of how candidate George W. Bush kept calling<br>
> > Greeks "Grecians."<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Some of us remember how the electorate shrugged off that evidence of<br>
> > looming gaps in his basic knowledge because he had a folksy way and<br>
> > twinkling eyes. Some of us remember how that came out.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Others apparently don't.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Others are ready to travel that road again. It brings to mind an old<br>
> > saying: we get the leaders we deserve.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> You and I better hope that's not true.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > =======================================================<br>
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > > > <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> > > > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> > > > =======================================================<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> --<br>
> There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what<br>
> the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be<br>
> replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another<br>
> theory which states that this has already happened.<br>
><br>
> Douglas Adams<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. <br>
<br>Douglas Adams<br>