F
FrDavid96
Guest
I don’t think a P-51 can carry a pickup truck. I suggest you read the owner’s manual before attempting that.
- Status
P
persistent1
Guest
I think she means she will use the P-51 to carry heavy objects just as the truck would be used to carry heavy objects.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Ooh. OK. Now I understand. Thanks.
On second thought though…
That won’t work either. All those objects will just fall out of the back of the P-51 shortly after it gets off the ground (if it ever does). Maybe with some really strong bungee cords, it just might be possible, but I have my doubts.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t think it’s going to work.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Here we go again…
There is that “Subject of the British Empire” NEED to be “limited” or controlled.
We (USA) do not look at things that way.
Our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is protected because “a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State”. Since people make up a militia, this is obviously an individual right and there is really no mention of “self defense”.
To provide for the “security of a free State” would of course, require weapons. The only logical limitations placed on these weapons would depend on what weapons are being carried by those who would challenge the “security of a free State”. Our founding fathers were very wary of a tyrannical government and a standing army. They rightly provided for an armed populace. To “provide for the security of a free State”, the people who make up the militia would logically have to be armed with weapons equivalent to the standing army of a tyrannical government. (This has been held by our Supreme Court)
Now a State may limit the type of weapons its citizens can own. Constitutionally, that diminishes the ability of the people (militia) to provide for the security of that State. Many state limitations have been challenged and repealed.
Nationally, there are 488,065 registered full automatic machine guns in the U.S. according to the annual report compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Owners pay a $200 annual tax and pose no threat to public safety.
So yes, you could own a fully operational armoured tank…in some states.
A
Annie39
Guest
Well Fr. David you are exactly right of course. I just got carried away. I was thinking if L. S. would settle for an armored tank I would rather have something spiffier. I can think of nothing better than the P-51. It is so cute. Of course it looks the cutest when parked. But they do get off the ground. They are the most popular airplane at air shows. Here is a pic of one at the Reno air show. mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/ I did not attend last year but IMHO if you have been to one you’ve been to them all.
Annie
JoeFreedom
New member
If you live in the United States of America and you truly believe that our Founding Fathers were Divinely inspired and that the Constitution of the United States of America enshrines our God-given rights, then the only logical conclusion one could make from that premise is that God gave us the right to defend ourselves, and that our government cannot take away this right. Our Constitution is a document that, well, documents our rights. But unlike so many people think, these are not just simply privileges that are extended to us by our government and can be taken away from us by our government. I would encourage everyone to look up the definition of the word “unalienable” (located in our Declaration of Independence).
It is truly unfortunate that so many people have lost sight of our true freedoms, those freedoms our Father in Heaven granted to us. We must be vigilant to ensure that we exercise our freedoms wisely, for good, and justly. But those freedoms can never, ever be un-granted or restricted, even when evil persists to use them inappropriately.
It is truly unfortunate that so many people have lost sight of our true freedoms, those freedoms our Father in Heaven granted to us. We must be vigilant to ensure that we exercise our freedoms wisely, for good, and justly. But those freedoms can never, ever be un-granted or restricted, even when evil persists to use them inappropriately.
M
migueltojose
Guest
Well said. Our constitution is an attempt to document “natural” law. Which applies to everyone, everywhere… unalienable… endowed by our Creator…
What Thomas Jefferson Meant by ‘Unalienable Rights’by AWR Hawkins 23 Sep 2013 (parsed segment)
When Thomas Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence, he pointed to “certain unalienable rights” with which we were endowed by our “Creator.”
What did he mean when he wrote the phrase “unalienable rights,” and what rights are “unalienable”?
Jefferson understood “unalienable rights” as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. The emphasis on our Creator is crucial, because it shows that the rights are permanent just as the Creator is permanent.
Jefferson’s thought on the source of these rights was impacted by Oxford’s William Blackstone, who described “unalienable rights” as “absolute” rights—showing that they were absolute because they came from him who is absolute, and that they were, are, and always will be, because the Giver of those rights—Jefferson’s “Creator”—was, and is, and always be.
***Moreover, because we are “endowed” with them, the rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.
In a word, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them. ***
To protect fundamental, individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government’s reach.
The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.
S
sallybutler
Guest
As far as I know, the only right God gave us was free will.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Why aren’t tourists and other travellers to America not allowed to carry a gun for protection inside your borders? Are we lesser beings in Gods eyes that our right to defend ourselves is severely restricted as we walk your streets? Perhaps it is the case that you also believe that your borders should be closed and impenetrable to non US outsiders, being that they are obviously lesser in the eyes of the Father of all?
P
pnewton
Guest
Having read the Catechism multiple times along with other Church documents, I recall no where is the US Constitution given credit for divine inspiration. In light of the fact there was a procedure for it to be amended, I think such a belief is self-contradictory.
I believe that American exceptionalism is contrary to moral law, specifically, the Golden Rule.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Tourists and travelers from other countries are not trusted by their government to own or carry firearms. Why on earth would we trust them and allow them to carry firearms within the United States???
Non US outsiders are not lesser in the eyes of the Father of all.-- but they are lesser in the eyes of their governments.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Do you think tourists and travellers are expendable in your country? If you don’t trust outsiders based on your interpretation of other national laws, why aren’t they at least assigned an armed security guard in order to have the same degree of security (which is a basic human right of all people) as the citizens of the US?
As a matter of fact, why aren’t your own citizens who don’t qualify for a gun, assigned protection in a way that puts them on equal footing with gun owners in regards self protection?
M
migueltojose
Guest
That’s ridiculous. What are you really trying to say?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
You said “Our constitution is an attempt to document “natural” law. Which applies to everyone, everywhere… unalienable… endowed by our Creator…”
When visiting America, why can’t tourists arm themselves for self defense also. If is ‘applies to everyone, everwhere… unalienable… endowed by our Creator’ that owning a gun for self defense is a right… why are there blanket laws in your country preventing tourists from carrying a gun for self defense? Why don’t we have the God given right to self defense on your soil?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Excellent questions LongingSoul.
I don’t like to consider travelers and tourists as expendable…but they are involved in auto accidents, skiing accidents, hiking and climbing accidents etc…so I guess they ARE expendable when they VOLUNTARILY visit the U.S.A.
It is not that I don’t trust outsiders, nor am I presumptuous enough to interpret the laws of their nations, I would be the first to encourage outsiders to engage a private security service as a prerequisite to their obtaining a visa.
Your last question is real food for thought.
There are many law abiding U.S. citizens who are prevented from owning or carrying a firearm by draconian local ordinances. Washington D.C., Chicago and Detroit come to mind. Since these citizens are not afforded the same rights as other Americans, it should be the responsibility of the local, state or city to provide armed security protection 24/7.
I think this is a great idea. I will bring it up at the next NRA Annual Meeting.
M
migueltojose
Guest
When your country becomes one of our states perhaps.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Evening Joe Freedom: Were the Framers of the Constitution in your opinion divinely inspired when they made it a fundamental human right for one person to enslave another person? Should we have been more vigilant in preserving the right to sell another person’s family or to beat and rape another person by virtue of the fact that we owned them and to give them no legal recourse?
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Constitution is either sacred or venerable. It’s simply a framework by which we govern affairs. It can and has been amended many times, and certainly can be replaced if at some point it fails to serve the purposes of society. And insofar as amendments are concerned, it has been amended to allow regulations and restrictions on gun ownership. And while the laws right now are currently pretty lax, we do as a society under the framework of the Constitution have the ability and the inalienable right to make the laws much stronger.
The bottom line is that the world and its attending practicalities, as well as ideas on morality to include such things as what color and gender someone has to be in order to be counted as a human being have changed profoundly since the old folky days of the Constitution.
Thank you,
Gary
S
sallybutler
Guest
Who is going to pay for this? Might be cheaper to supply everyone with a gun.
A
Annie39
Guest
I think that LS has some good points. When we lived in Torrance, CA USA our next door neighbors were Cuban refugees from Castro’s Cuba. One night the man of the house looked out his window to see a bad guy “casing” our house appearing to decide whether or not to break in. In our country he was not able to be armed so that he could challenge the bad guy nor did he have our phone number to alert us. We were just lucky that the guy decided against the break in. I would be willing to vote for a law that allowed all law abiding visitors/foreign residence to arm themselves for protection. And I think that every state or city that will not allow the good guys to carry guns should hire as many officers as necessary to protect them against the bad guys because only the bad guys would be armed.
Annie
A
Annie39
Guest
- Status