|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
2 members (2 invisible),
632
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,541
Posts546,047
Members14,420
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97 |
but, again, maybe we are dealing with an ISIS cell here...
you know, ISIS could also mean: Infinitely Subtle Internet Subversives?
hope homeland security is watchin an listenin...
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
Religious Freedom Act 1993:
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
This is the federal legislation that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices chose to ignore in the Holly Lobby verdict. When I made the statement that they are not mainstream and attempting to legislate to their own agenda from the bench here is just one instance for my opinion.
All 4 of them should be impeached and tossed out on their ears.
Ironically The RFA was signed by none other than Bill Clinton whose wife is now bitching about the Holly Lobby decision.
"The ruling that closely held corporations can deny birth control coverage to their employees on religious grounds, she said, is “a really bad slippery slope.”
Hillary Clinton
Last edited by italiansxs; 07/01/14 11:37 AM.
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97 |
wait a minute, you guys? are getting off track again...
this thread is supposed to be about me...
as algore said: its about me...what about me, me, me?
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
The only thing we can all do is wish in retrospect that your parents weren't religious.
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97 |
or how about this:
Idiotically Stupid Internet Stalkers...
yeah, ah lik dat won bet ta.
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346 Likes: 391 |
wait a minute, you guys? are getting off track again...
this thread is supposed to be about me...
as algore said: its about me...what about me, me, me? ed, you're so right. It was your buddy King who took this thread off topic as he very frequently does. King says Dave reads all threads and will never ban you for money. King frequently talks as if he is inside Dave's head and knows what he's thinking. King is the one guy who Dave has had to moniter because he kept trashing the Second Amendment Informational Thread on the main DoubleGun forum last year. In short, I doubt if King has Dave's ear, or will ever be much of an influence upon him. I say that since he has temporarily booted your a$$ for no money, a little financial incentive for a permanent fix is worth a try. Really ed, are you any different than spam, bots, or viruses?
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,746 Likes: 97 |
or this one:
Inter Space Introverted Sociopaths
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 188 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 188 Likes: 1 |
OK...put me down for 20 bucks....well worth the price if I never have to see Ed's idiotic babbling again.
"Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,850
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,850 |
Everyone here, as you say, is for gun rights. We wouldn't be here otherwise. A call for greater vigilance and active participation to slow tightening of restrictions is common sense. A few members have chosen, however, to negate the citizenship and character of those who don't share their opinions.
Keeping our guns and fraternity together is more important than partisan politics.
King, your last sentence above is 100% wrong!. With friends like you and ed, who needs enemies? Just about everything else you've said this morning is lies. You twist the living hell out of what Jim said about our four extreme Liberal Supreme Court Justices. They are not mainstream and they do not operate as their job description requires. They continually see things in the Constitution which are not there, and attempt to subvert the clear intent of the Framers on subjects such as guns, religion, and abortion. To call Obama Cerebral and eloquent is stupidity. To attempt to convince us that the majority of Americans agree with that is dishonest. Brian laid it out for you. Obama is a stumblebum without a teleprompter, he knows nothing until he sees it on the news, he is reactive rather than proactive... and his reactions are generally wrong. His dismal approval ratings are only as high as they are because of Libtard idiots like you who would rather see the country go down in flames than admit that their first black (mulatto) president was a dismal failure. Again King, we're not the same here in Misfires. You and ed are among a small handful of "Misfits" who think it's OK to come on to a firearms forum and suggest infringements on our gun rights. You King, are the liar who LULLS gun owners into thinking there is no legitimate threat to our gun rights. You frequently bash the methods of the NRA, and suggest they follow your own failed solutions. You can't defend your character because you have lied about your position on our 2nd Amendment rights and a thousand other things. You are not like us at all King. You are really kind of creepy, and dishonest right down to your marrow. Of course you would think it mean and mischievious to have that all pointed out. Too bad. Maybe you and ed should go somewhere nicer where you could both lie and spew Libtard bullshit and stroke each other. Quoting keith again here so King doesn't have an excuse for not reading it.
Practice safe eating. Always use a condiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
....Everyone here, as you say, is for gun rights. We wouldn't be here otherwise. A call for greater vigilance and active participation to slow tightening of restrictions is common sense.... Oh no, not the dreaded foregone conclusion. If there's an end goal, wouldn't the wise push to get there quicker. If the right will be lost anyway, why not solidify gay rights, free contraceptives and maybe more solar panels instead of a slow death with nothing to show it. Disappointing, why did you bother to help reverse your long gun registry. Spinning wheels, or window dressing to pacify.
|
|
|
|
|
