doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Theodore Roosevelt on critics

That's the best I've seen anyone come up with. The difference there, however, is that the US government deals with Native Americans/Indians differently than with other ethnic groups or religions. (I prefer the "politically incorrect" term Indians. Having been born in this country and even without a drop of Indian blood as far as I know, I consider myself a "Native American".) The US government has negotiated numerous treaties with various tribes, and deals with them on some issues almost as if they were sovereign nations. They also get to use drugs which are otherwise illegal in some religiouns ceremonies. All of this, I think, is by way of our government recognizing that they were here before there was a United States government, and therefore allows them certain rights and privileges (also in the areas of hunting and fishing) that are forbidden to non-Indians. Having taken much of the land on which they freely roamed in the past--even if they didn't "possess" it in the same way we possess property--I think we bend over backwards in allowing them to retain those aspects of their culture. It's also a reaction to past govt practices of essentially trying to eliminate their cultures and languages, and turn them into . . . us, I guess. For example, the former policy was to forbid them to use their native languages if they attended a government Indian school. Now they're encouraged to retain their native tongues.

But we don't seem to make the same accommodations to ethnic groups or religions that have been brought here by more recent immigrants. For example, our Hmong allies in Southeast Asia were used to hunting, fishing and gathering with essentially no regulations. We had to do some educating to get them to follow American laws in those areas.

The All-Seeing-All Knowing Larry Clown is still missing some religious groups that get special treatment.

Another example is the Amish who are exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes and also the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. There was also a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which the Court exempted the Amish from compulsory school-attendance laws.

Larry weaseled out of Goillini's American Indian example. He can weasel out of the Amish example by pretending to ignore me. But he will still be wrong. Again.

l: regarding the 10th amendment: here it is:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

and her is wiki's take on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

after reading wiki, if one is objective, one must conclude that the tenth amendment has little to do with individual rights and more to do with federalism and the rights of the people and the states with respect to their relationship with the federal government...

and as to an individual right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from any involvement...it is clearly up to the people and the states, in the context of a well regulated militia, to determine governments involvement, if any, in the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

therefore, in theory, any federal legislation, court decision or executive order, infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms is in violation of the second amendment.

If one is objective, it's not the worst idea in the world to look at 'wiki's' policy on what information gets presented.

craig: are you suggesting wiki is biased? if so, i have not seen it. please provide examples...

He wont, and cant...

Sorry ed, no can do, but maybe you can ask Last Dollar? I have reason to believe he has a lot of frequent flyer miles, so he can offer unbiased expertise, to you?

What does flyer miles have to do with WIKI? I know nothing about WIKI's creds, you are the one who brought it up...