Summations Only

The Declaration of Independence does not aspire to or embody Constitutional ideas. It is a document from a group of rebels that did not want their current government. You can not cite the Declaration to force its ideas into the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the United States of America.The current government system of the United States was not founded until 1789, 13 years and many negotiations later.

You should really do your own research instead of relying on random web commenters.The actual text of the English Bill of Rights 1689 says

quote:

---

subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

---

so it's not exactly "right to bear arms".
None for them damn Catholics. Also there seems to be a class distinction there. Don't want those damnable peasants arming themselves do we.So what we have is a natural right for high born Protestant men. Clear enough.Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

But as it reads these were not rights for just anyone. These rights were only for highborn protestant males. All others need not apply. How can natural rights only apply to a small subset of the population?

Or prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment? This is the question I have been trying to get Jon, Cat Sci and Faith to answer. Are all the rights preexisting just because of the particular grammar used? If not, how do we tell which were?

It seems he truly cannot see the hypocrisy and how his argument changes completely depending on the point he wants to make at the moment.

But typical.

You do realize that 21st century British royalty is nothing like it was in the 18th century don't you?
Therefore you have supported the argument against you.

Provide references and sources. Original news accounts please.
Oh there are none? Typical.

The kid said it was a clock. It was a clock. So why was he arrested for having a clock?

No matter how much you wish it was it was not a bomb.If they are going to arrest students for having something that could possibly if it had numerous alterations and the addition of an explosive, then they need to arrest any student with a cell phone. This clock is a rube goldberg contraption if it was meant to be a timer for a bomb. Any old cell phone would be much more efficient and practical. Or heck any old digital timer with a battery backup.It was a circuit board with a digital read out. Whooppee!!! I am sure I could make one with some circuit boards I have around here and I am sure I have something I can scavenge a digital display from. It would take a couple hours and not worth any of the effort whatsoever, but that a 14 year old wanted to do it is cool. That is how people learn. I learned a lot by deconstructing and constructing things as a kid. I suppose a home built ham radio now qualifies in your mind as a terrorist device.It was not a bomb, he never said it was a bomb, he never made any threat. You can think what you want in your fantasy world, but you can not alter the facts.

It seems more like you read this guy.
http://blogs.artvoice.com/...ed-mohameds-clock-and-ourselves
No idea if the guys is correct but I venture to guess you are full of shit.Even if the parts did come from a commercially available clock he did make this. Electronics products I made as a child were quite similar. People who build Ham radios use stock parts. Of course he did not invent a clock. But he took a clock and reconfigured it and rebuilt it. The curiosity should be commended.
Or are your sensibilities insulted because he did not create his on circuit board?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Not only are they distinct, the only thing they have in common is wires and a rectangular shape.

The school was not a gun free zone. I am tired of the right wing bullshit lies to justify their goddamn warped perspective that enslaves us to those with the biggest lobbies and most money.Faith you are being lied to, when will you develop basic critical thinking skills and actually try to understand something yourself rather than listen to those that always lie to you.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Care to support this with evidence? Are you mental health shaming? Psychotropic drugs are very important and helpful to a lot of people. Praying to your god does not help mental health issues but drugs can.You know nothing about this shooter but have already taken one tiny data point and jumped to the conclusion that drugs, not guns, caused the tragedy. You are a pitiful person.

So you have no evidence to back the contention that all or most shooters have been on psychotropic drugs? How about you get back to me when you find this evidence. My point stands that you are being lied to.Concealed carry is allowed.
http://thinkprogress.org/...colleges-in-oregon-cant-ban-gunsEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.