Posted on 10/10/2005 9:31:15 AM PDT by conservativebabe
Interesting question. It gets into a conflict with 2nd A. issues. If a person buys a gun with the intent that the gun be used for a criminal activity by another, I suppose that would make him an accessory. If the gun was purchased from an out-of-State source, that would give Feds an avenue for prosecution. But the question is, is suicide a criminal activity?
However, that doesn't match the current circumstances, as the son is not acting in a governmentally licensed capacity when supplying the gun. The son could have just as well have bought an overdose of OTC drugs for his suicidal pop. The M.D. is operating under governmental license when supplying the poison. Perhaps if Oregon was allowing only State licensed gun dealers to rent out pistols for use in suicides the comparison would hold.
And let's be pointed. This is not about suicide -- it is about murder.
The Federal behemoth has grown, and its greed for power has come to deny all rights and by the kinetic energy -- the momentum -- of that growth they have negated even the well-stated rights. Free speech inviscerated by CFR, gun laws crushing the right to bear arms, the drug laws and other Federal criminal claptrap eliminating rights to privacy (secure in one's person and effects from search and seizure -- not!). Yet the Hamilton you quote was a monarchist -- the Federal growth (although not the ruining of the Rights of Man) was what he wanted -- unchecked. His personal reasons for opposing the Bill of Rights were his own, and may well differ from what History records.
George Mason was right to demand that the Rights of Man be alluded to directly, be listed in some fashion in the Federal Constitution. For he saw beyond Hamilton's view. He saw that in some future era from his that we'd need to point to those words, list, and clear part of the charter and say at that time (now for example) this is NOT what we have! We demand it back!
Oh, just about everything. He is sovereign, and, quite frankly, He's still the boss!
God will have the final say and it won't be pleasant. We have corrupted HIS laws and one day He will punish us for it. I'm only interested in what God thinks, not what man thinks.
Oh, you think you are so clever, huh? God doesn't 'think' the way WE do. He commands. We're supposed to obey but most won't. They don't want anyone telling THEM what to think or do. Cheez.
Oh, really? Ever ask Him about these matters? No, I didn't think so. His word says thou shalt not kill and that also means suicide. Go ahead and believe what man has to say about these things. It's like spinning your wheels.
We need more people who will understand the will of God in all of these matters. In the end, nothing but what we do for God is going to matter. His wisdom supercedes our own. If people would pray and ask God to help, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
So basically, you want Supreme Court justices to ignore the plain meaning of the constiution and impose religious views when interpreting it? What compliant then would you have when liberals impose thier own views on the constitution? The constitution, as a document that limits federal power, well serves us Christians. We are best off just having it enforced as the plain contract that it is.
Makes too much sense.
I agree. Do it. Don't just talk about it, do it. It is up to the person.
You know dogs left to their own actions will go off by theirself to die. It is instinctive in them and maybe in us.
God will have the final say and it won't be pleasant. We have corrupted HIS laws and one day He will punish us for it. I'm only interested in what God thinks, not what man thinks.
That's great for your own personal life, but that's a lousy way to run a country.
Fortunately, the Founders didn't have to read God's mind. They gave us a nation of laws. Man's law, not God's law, is what governs this nation.
They believed in God's law, called the 10 Commandments, and based our law on much of that. God was not left out of the writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If we would follow God's principles, we wouldn't see all the crap going on in our judicial system. Our government, no matter who is at the helm, is failing us miserably because they don't want to follow God's commands. I'm not talking about a theocracy where religion is forced on us. But His principles were part of what made this nation great. Now we choose to ignore it. If we followed His plans, we'd be healthier, our crops would be more than enough to feed the world, etc.
You have every right to believe as you want, but you're dead wrong on the history.
Our laws were not based on the Ten Commandments. Some of our laws happen to be the same as some of the Commandments, but many others of the Commandments are most definitely not relevant to our legal code. Heck, the very foundation of our economy depends on coveting - were there no coveting, our entire economic system would fall apart and our nation would fall.
Your view of God is personal. Let it guide your personal life. Trying to translate your view of God into public policy in any fashion is a very, very bad idea. That's the distinction I wanted to make.
And all I'm trying to say is that if we followed God's principles and commandments, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. He wrote down His principles in His Word but people don't want to be told what to do, even by God. So we go about our own way and the spiral keeps going downward. Love, M
Well, that's your opinion and you have every right to it. I just don't share it, for many reasons.
That's okay, highball. I don't mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.