In response to:

Guns Don't Kill People, the Mentally Ill Do

Jim Oakland Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 2:42 AM
This does not sound like it, but it is an honest question and I would like someone to answer it: IF the president can ban certain types of weapons in the 2nd amendment, why can't he ban certain types of religions in the 1st amendment?
justme16 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 6:37 AM
He, they are trying - by using the bogus argument of separation of church and state, and pressing law that prohibits anyone even mentioning religion. The amendment actually states ..And cogress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion (i.e. declaring Islam or Christianity or Catholocism as a NATIONAL RELIGION) that all must adher to. Simply recognizing ones spiritual beliefs is not even close to that. In fact I would challenge anyone to present one case in the history of this country where congress ever tried to ESTABLISH and name a state religion. It is more double talk and these clowns make their livings from behind the mask of double talk.
LCDR BUD/S USN Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 7:16 AM
One fact that anti religionists always totally ignore when trying to ban any type of religious symbolism in public places is that at the time the B.O.R. was passed, every one of the original 13 states had an official state religion. They just DID NOT WANT an official NATIONAL religion, such as the Church of England.
Joseph64 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 7:40 AM
What they also won't tell you is that even though each state had an official religion, that religion was not enforced at the point of a gun. You still had the choice whether to participate or not. The state religion was like the state bird or the state flower. You did not necessarily have to agree with the choice of the bird or the flower, you were still free to like whatever birds or flowers you wanted to.
Happy Jake Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 6:05 AM
No reason. He's already working that way with his contraception mandate and his affinity for same-sex "marriage." He's testing the waters to see how much backlash he's going to get by forcing Christian religious institutions (other than churches) and companies owned and operated by Christians to violate either their religious beliefs or the law.

The only reason the Left hasn't engaged in full-blown Roman-style persecution of Christianity is because even with all the howling about "intolerance," at least 70% of Americans still self-identify as Christian, and open persecution is still politically untennable.
Joseph64 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 5:50 AM
That is an excellent question, because if the President has the power to unilaterally ban guns then that also would mean that he would unilaterally have the power to band Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. It would also mean he unilaterally has the power to force certain newspapers and magazines to stop printing and to force radio and television personalities off the air and to force opposition political parties to disband.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 5:56 AM
You might be getting a little carried away there, Joe.
AWLoutwar Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 6:01 AM
Joseph64 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 6:35 AM
No, I'm not. If the President has the power to unilaterally dismantle the 2nd Amendment, then he has the power to unilaterally disband all the others as well which means we are no longer living in a Republic but a dictatorship.
justme16 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 6:39 AM
He, they do NOT have the power to unilaterally or bi-laterally BAN much of anythng. What they do is pass the law and foist their bogus dog and pony show off on an American public that has been 'CONDITIONED' to simply roll over and comply - IN addtion they know that in MOST instances the courts that are stacked with their partisan hacks won't go against them any way. Rather they put a phony seal of approval on most of what they do..which further encourages compliance without question. After all THEY HAVE bigger guns.

Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment.

But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho's mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.

At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in...