Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
  Page of 3  Next >

Are we a free country?

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:14 AM

Are we a free country? 


link


I find this incredibly terrifying.  The Obama administration is essentially arguing that you only have 1st ammendent rights to freedom of religion while you are at home. 

Someone tell me we didn't just make the single biggest mistake in American Election history by allowing this man to remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If that doesn't scare you, check out the UN Gun control treaty.


I would really like for this to not be a republican vs democrat debate but I would love for someone to defend either of these moves as constitutional because, you know, thats the oath of office "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States".  Begin.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:36 AM

Re: Are we a free country? 


I'm a little lost....where did the article say that you "only have 1st ammendment rights when at home"? 

As to the UN Gun Control treaty....maybe read this article, it may make you feel better: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Of course, you may not want to feel better.  That's fine too, and up to you. 

Personally, I'm not worried about Obama trying to supersede the Constitution.  The Hobby Lobby issue described here is a bit troubling.  However, the system has checks and balances built into it.  The Supreme Court exists for this very reason, as a check to any other branch of the goverment violating the Constitution.  I'm sure that this issue will be resolved by the courts, and I (not a lawyer or even close to it) would expect Hobby Lobby to win.  And I would expect the rest of the goverment to abide by that ruling.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:46 AM

Re: Are we a free country? 


The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion and permits the free exercise of religion.

The article you linked to is about is about insurance, and whether or not the federal government can mandate coverage of drugs and medical procedures.  they mandate the coverage of tons of things, flu shots, cancer treatment, diabetes coverage on and on.  Nobody forces the insurance recipient to use any of that coverage.

The case of whether or not morning after pillls have to be covered by insurance is no different than and of the other million insurance mandates that you don't care about.  Insurance companies don't practice or establish religion.  People do.  people can  use morning after pills or not as their religious convictions dictate.

If I were a partisan hack, (and I kinda am) I would point out that women who are raped ought to be covered by insurance for a morning after pill if they have insurance.  A partisan hack might point out that your position approaches the AKIN LINE.

Last edited 11/13/2012 10:50 AM by BuddyBiancalana

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:57 AM

Re: Are we a free country? 




---------------------------------------------
--- happiocupcakeo wrote:

link


I find this incredibly terrifying.  The Obama administration is essentially arguing that you only have 1st ammendent rights to freedom of religion while you are at home. 

Someone tell me we didn't just make the single biggest mistake in American Election history by allowing this man to remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If that doesn't scare you, check out the UN Gun control treaty.

I would really like for this to not be a republican vs democrat debate but I would love for someone to defend either of these moves as constitutional because, you know, thats the oath of office "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States".  Begin.

---------------------------------------------

I'm going to go ahead and say electing any candidate ever that supported segregation or slavery was a bigger mistake. I didn't see anything that scares me at all in the article you linked.

The UN treaty doesn't scare me either, because the NRA has been using election cycle scare tactics to drum up ammo and gun sales for years. Gun and ammo makers contribute significant money to them and it benefits their bottom line greatly. It's one reason that I'm no longer an active NRA member. And I say this as a firearm enthusiast with a CCW and a glock 19 I carry every single time I leave the house. I'll believe they are taking my guns when I actually hear a reasonable number of elected officials talking about it. I don't care what a bunch of gun lobbyists say, much as I don't care what any lobbyist says. They have motivation to skew facts to make bank, and that pretty much destroys their credibility.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:16 AM

Re: Are we a free country? 


By the way I'm so tired of all of this talk about insurance interfering with religion. Some sects of Christianity don't believe in any medical intervention whatsoever, so in keeping with this desire to protect religious freedoms, why stop with only protecting your beliefs? As Buddy said it makes far more sense to allow people to make those decisions on their own and insurance covers all of it. If a particular procedure goes against your beliefs then you don't have that procedure. This seems perfectly congruous with allowing individual freedoms including the freedom to practice religion in any way you see fit. Why should Hobby lobby get to dictate their religious beliefs to their employees?

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:17 AM

Re: Are we a free country? 



steadyd wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- happiocupcakeo wrote:

link


I find this incredibly terrifying.  The Obama administration is essentially arguing that you only have 1st ammendent rights to freedom of religion while you are at home. 

Someone tell me we didn't just make the single biggest mistake in American Election history by allowing this man to remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If that doesn't scare you, check out the UN Gun control treaty.

I would really like for this to not be a republican vs democrat debate but I would love for someone to defend either of these moves as constitutional because, you know, thats the oath of office "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States".  Begin.

---------------------------------------------

I'm going to go ahead and say electing any candidate ever that supported segregation or slavery was a bigger mistake. I didn't see anything that scares me at all in the article you linked.

The UN treaty doesn't scare me either, because the NRA has been using election cycle scare tactics to drum up ammo and gun sales for years. Gun and ammo makers contribute significant money to them and it benefits their bottom line greatly. It's one reason that I'm no longer an active NRA member. And I say this as a firearm enthusiast with a CCW and a glock 19 I carry every single time I leave the house. I'll believe they are taking my guns when I actually hear a reasonable number of elected officials talking about it. I don't care what a bunch of gun lobbyists say, much as I don't care what any lobbyist says. They have motivation to skew facts to make bank, and that pretty much destroys their credibility.
Just curious, but why do you carry a gun every time you leave the house?

Posted: 11/13/2012 12:18 PM

RE: Are we a free country? 


Even though I disagree, I will concede for the sake of argument that the insurance mandate in some way enters First Amendment territory. So what? Can a corporation even have a religion? How does a company hold religious beliefs? I'm talking about the corporate entity itself, not the natural persons who own the corporation.

If you want to say that the religious beliefs of the owners can transfer to the corporate entity, then you are tearing at the wall between the corporate entity and stockholders. If the corporation and the stockholders are one and the same for the purposes of religion, then why are they not one and the same for other purposes, such as liability?

If a corporate entity cannot have religious beliefs, then it has no religious rights that the Obama administration can infringe.

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:20 PM

Re: Are we a free country? 




---------------------------------------------
--- ChiTownRoyalsFan wrote:


steadyd wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- happiocupcakeo wrote:

link


I find this incredibly terrifying.  The Obama administration is essentially arguing that you only have 1st ammendent rights to freedom of religion while you are at home. 

Someone tell me we didn't just make the single biggest mistake in American Election history by allowing this man to remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If that doesn't scare you, check out the UN Gun control treaty.

I would really like for this to not be a republican vs democrat debate but I would love for someone to defend either of these moves as constitutional because, you know, thats the oath of office "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States".  Begin.

---------------------------------------------

I'm going to go ahead and say electing any candidate ever that supported segregation or slavery was a bigger mistake. I didn't see anything that scares me at all in the article you linked.

The UN treaty doesn't scare me either, because the NRA has been using election cycle scare tactics to drum up ammo and gun sales for years. Gun and ammo makers contribute significant money to them and it benefits their bottom line greatly. It's one reason that I'm no longer an active NRA member. And I say this as a firearm enthusiast with a CCW and a glock 19 I carry every single time I leave the house. I'll believe they are taking my guns when I actually hear a reasonable number of elected officials talking about it. I don't care what a bunch of gun lobbyists say, much as I don't care what any lobbyist says. They have motivation to skew facts to make bank, and that pretty much destroys their credibility.
Just curious, but why do you carry a gun every time you leave the house?

---------------------------------------------

Because I have a license to do so.

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:31 PM

Re: Are we a free country? 



steadyd wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- ChiTownRoyalsFan wrote:


steadyd wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- happiocupcakeo wrote:

link


I find this incredibly terrifying.  The Obama administration is essentially arguing that you only have 1st ammendent rights to freedom of religion while you are at home. 

Someone tell me we didn't just make the single biggest mistake in American Election history by allowing this man to remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If that doesn't scare you, check out the UN Gun control treaty.

I would really like for this to not be a republican vs democrat debate but I would love for someone to defend either of these moves as constitutional because, you know, thats the oath of office "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States".  Begin.

---------------------------------------------

I'm going to go ahead and say electing any candidate ever that supported segregation or slavery was a bigger mistake. I didn't see anything that scares me at all in the article you linked.

The UN treaty doesn't scare me either, because the NRA has been using election cycle scare tactics to drum up ammo and gun sales for years. Gun and ammo makers contribute significant money to them and it benefits their bottom line greatly. It's one reason that I'm no longer an active NRA member. And I say this as a firearm enthusiast with a CCW and a glock 19 I carry every single time I leave the house. I'll believe they are taking my guns when I actually hear a reasonable number of elected officials talking about it. I don't care what a bunch of gun lobbyists say, much as I don't care what any lobbyist says. They have motivation to skew facts to make bank, and that pretty much destroys their credibility.
Just curious, but why do you carry a gun every time you leave the house?

---------------------------------------------

Because I have a license to do so.
I need more details. 

I am planning on jumping you at some point (I'm unsure if I'm going to take your wallet).  I need to strategize.

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:36 PM

RE: Are we a free country? 




---------------------------------------------
--- GregA wrote:

Even though I disagree, I will concede for the sake of argument that the insurance mandate in some way enters First Amendment territory. So what? Can a corporation even have a religion? How does a company hold religious beliefs? I'm talking about the corporate entity itself, not the natural persons who own the corporation.

If you want to say that the religious beliefs of the owners can transfer to the corporate entity, then you are tearing at the wall between the corporate entity and stockholders. If the corporation and the stockholders are one and the same for the purposes of religion, then why are they not one and the same for other purposes, such as liability?

If a corporate entity cannot have religious beliefs, then it has no religious rights that the Obama administration can infringe.

---------------------------------------------

This makes sense to me.

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:57 PM

Re: Are we a free country? 



BuddyBiancalana wrote: The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion and permits the free exercise of religion.

The article you linked to is about is about insurance, and whether or not the federal government can mandate coverage of drugs and medical procedures.  they mandate the coverage of tons of things, flu shots, cancer treatment, diabetes coverage on and on.  Nobody forces the insurance recipient to use any of that coverage.

The case of whether or not morning after pillls have to be covered by insurance is no different than and of the other million insurance mandates that you don't care about.  Insurance companies don't practice or establish religion.  People do.  people can  use morning after pills or not as their religious convictions dictate.

If I were a partisan hack, (and I kinda am) I would point out that women who are raped ought to be covered by insurance for a morning after pill if they have insurance.  A partisan hack might point out that your position approaches the AKIN LINE.
Did you just insinuate that I agree with Todd Aikin on abortion/rape?  Really?  If I were a douche (and I kinda am) I would point out how silly that makes you look. 


To further the real issue here I would like to say that this isn't as much of a "contraceptives" issue for me as much as it is the President getting congress to pass legislation that requires companies to provide insurance and then also dictates to those companies how they will provide that insurance. 

I felt like I was pretty clear about not wanting this to be a republican/democrat debate but rather a look at the true issue.  Clearly I failed at making that point because some of you did not seem to get it.

Yeah, I'm against abortion but that isn't the issue here.  We can hash that out in some other thread if you all feel like getting nasty.  The issue here is the constitution and what it allows a president to do and what it doesn't and how it appears this president has no regard for that portion of the document.

I understand the "checks and balances" argument but it still does not concern you that the president we just elected seems to view his powers granted by the constitution differently than the constitution itself?

Look at it from Hobby Lobby's perspective.  Forget for a minute that you think religious people are all ignorant hypocrits and bigots.  Put aside your "I'm smarter than conservatives" bullcrap for just a minute and turn on your noodle.  Hobby Lobby provides health insurance for their employees.  Hobby Lobby offers medical coverage for other sources of contraception.  I assume those include birth control and vasectomy and tubal ligation surgeries. 

If I offer my employees these other options why should the government force me to offer this other option that is against my beliefs?  I could understand if they were saying that they offer no option for contraception.  condoms, birth contral, ligations and vasectomy all are effective means of PREVENTING pregnancy which is different than TERMINATING pregnancy.  Why should Hobby Lobby be legislated into providing morning after pills?  Why is it the companies responsibility to pay for the choices of its employees?  I know the counter argument here is rape and if the government is so very concerned with this rare occurence (even 1 case every billion years is 1 case too many) then why don't they foot the bill for rape victims to receive the pill?  You were raped?  ok, here is the pill.  If it is determined that this is a false report then you will pay for the pill yourself. 

Give me a reason other than rape why the personal convictions of a business owner are not allowed to rule his own business.

Posted: 11/13/2012 2:38 PM

RE: Are we a free country? 



Gbwoy wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- GregA wrote:

Even though I disagree, I will concede for the sake of argument that the insurance mandate in some way enters First Amendment territory. So what? Can a corporation even have a religion? How does a company hold religious beliefs? I'm talking about the corporate entity itself, not the natural persons who own the corporation.

If you want to say that the religious beliefs of the owners can transfer to the corporate entity, then you are tearing at the wall between the corporate entity and stockholders. If the corporation and the stockholders are one and the same for the purposes of religion, then why are they not one and the same for other purposes, such as liability?

If a corporate entity cannot have religious beliefs, then it has no religious rights that the Obama administration can infringe.

---------------------------------------------

This makes sense to me.
Indeed.  It was very well put.

Posted: 11/13/2012 2:50 PM

Re: Are we a free country? 


Happio, feel free to respond to my early post, but also:

You have a common misunderstanding of what it means to be a business owner, at least when doing business in a corporate type form.

The business owners, i.e. shareholders in a corporation or members in a LLC, do not have the right to do whatever they want with their business or to pursue their personal convictions. That has never been the case. A license to do business as a corporation is granted because we believe it is in the common good and common economic interest to allow people to do business free from personal liability for the obligations of that business.

In exchange for that license and the privileges that go with it, business owners agree to give up some of their personal liberties in regard to what they can do with that business. They are required to tailor their actions to further the interests of the business, basically making money, and not do whatever the hell they want, whether based off their religion or something else. We have become extremely lax in this country about this and about what it means for business owners to further the interests of their businesses. That has led to the mistaken belief that business owners have a "right" to do whatever they want. They don't and never have. Corporations used to not be able to give money to charity even.

This all becomes clear when you understand the history of the corporate form. There is not a natural right to form a corporation. Originally, a corporation was a privilege granted by the King by special charter in exchange for which the owners agreed to give up some personal liberty with regard to the corporation. Obviously, we do not have a King in this country, but the common law principles that form the basis of corporate law were inherited from England. Instead of the King granting the privilege, today the state does, quite freely at the present. The basic idea remains the same.

The owners of Hobby Lobby have chosen to take advantage of the corporate form. If they want to take the good of that, then they have to take the bad part of it too. The question should be how does not offering the morning after pill in employee health insurance further the business interests of the corporate entity?

Sorry, for the length.

Posted: 11/13/2012 3:18 PM

Re: Are we a free country? 



GregA wrote: Happio, feel free to respond to my early post, but also:

You have a common misunderstanding of what it means to be a business owner, at least when doing business in a corporate type form.

The business owners, i.e. shareholders in a corporation or members in a LLC, do not have the right to do whatever they want with their business or to pursue their personal convictions. That has never been the case. A license to do business as a corporation is granted because we believe it is in the common good and common economic interest to allow people to do business free from personal liability for the obligations of that business.

In exchange for that license and the privileges that go with it, business owners agree to give up some of their personal liberties in regard to what they can do with that business. They are required to tailor their actions to further the interests of the business, basically making money, and not do whatever the hell they want, whether based off their religion or something else. We have become extremely lax in this country about this and about what it means for business owners to further the interests of their businesses. That has led to the mistaken belief that business owners have a "right" to do whatever they want. They don't and never have. Corporations used to not be able to give money to charity even.

This all becomes clear when you understand the history of the corporate form. There is not a natural right to form a corporation. Originally, a corporation was a privilege granted by the King by special charter in exchange for which the owners agreed to give up some personal liberty with regard to the corporation. Obviously, we do not have a King in this country, but the common law principles that form the basis of corporate law were inherited from England. Instead of the King granting the privilege, today the state does, quite freely at the present. The basic idea remains the same.

The owners of Hobby Lobby have chosen to take advantage of the corporate form. If they want to take the good of that, then they have to take the bad part of it too. The question should be how does not offering the morning after pill in employee health insurance further the business interests of the corporate entity?

Sorry, for the length.
I completely understand your point and it is correct.  It really is.  Hobby Lobby is a corportation and as such it can't have religious beliefs becaue it isn't a human being.  I agree with that completely. 

I guess my concern comes from the fact that these things are being legislated by a law that I don't believe is in any way shape or form constitutional.  I guess the bigger picture here is whether the health and whatever else its called legislation should have ever even be allowed passage.  The judge did not rule on the issue and I am not sure why that it is but I will be interested to see what comes of it.

Many thanks to Greg for something that actually looks like a conversation on the topic.  Appreciate the thoughts of everyone except the Todd Aiken guy.  Happy to discuss anything else in more detail if you all wish. 

I'm just concerned and I don't understand how other people aren't.  I know my view is jaded because I am not an Obama supporter after the last 4 years but it scares me to death that he still go re elected.  That's neither here nor there tho.  enough rambling from this idiotic, religious, bigot of a pastry.

Posted: 11/13/2012 3:26 PM

RE: Are we a free country? 


Your guy lost , get over it

seriously , were all in this together ,why dont you just do your part ?

If we all just do our best at what we do it will be OK

Last edited 11/13/2012 3:35 PM by Nibiru

Posted: 11/13/2012 3:59 PM

RE: Are we a free country? 


Sorry about the Aiken crack.  I know you have been around a long time and I will never have a negative opinion of you personally, especially after learning the origins of your name.

I don't really want to talk about abortion politics either.  I did want to point out that insensitivity to womens health and reproductive rights was one of the reasons that women as a group were more favorable to Obama, and it is theses kind of issues that seem to alienate them.  Maybe its even one of the types of isssues that caused you to be surprised by the election results.

Associating you with Aiken and the 'legitimate rape" deal was out of line.  If we ever meet I will buy you a beer and we can talk about something else.

Posted: 11/13/2012 4:13 PM

RE: Are we a free country? 



Nibiru wrote: Your guy lost , get over it

seriously , were all in this together ,why dont you just do your part ?

If we all just do our best at what we do it will be OK

I disagree.  With a debt of 16 trillion and growing, this country is headed towards a fiscal cliff from which it will not return unscathed.  My current "part", and yours, and every other citizens is currently a 51K bill, which will continue to grow until the country starts to fracture a la Greece or we become a slave to China (more so than we already are).

This isn't a bashing of Obama, as Romney's plan to push as much as an additional 200 Billion in defense spending while simultaneously cutting marginal and corparate tax rates across the board had disaster written all over it, it's just a cold, hard fact.  The country is broke.  Exploding healthcare costs, policing the world, becoming China's bitch, and paying for the needs and wants of a largely more urban population which is by nature more socialistic (see Europe), as opposed to rural, are all contributing and I don't see an end in sight with either party.  Things will get ******.

As for the thread topic and mandated healthcare/morning after debate, it is a very sticky subject and one best left to the supreme court IMO.  I don't particularly like it, but the implications of it possibly infringing on constitutional rights are far less severe than those instituted by his predecesor with the "Patriot Act".

As for gun laws, give me a break.  Nothing but NRA lobbyist propaganda to rile up the rednecks.  Might we one day see a return of the Brady bill or something similar?  Sure, again, as the country gets more urban socialist leaning, the public majority (not the government) starts to view things like assault rifles in the hands of the general public as more harm than good.  But the government isn't going to "take away everybody's guns" anytime soon.  Every politician in America knows full well that it would result in some forms of serious secessionism movements and violent incidents ending with some domestic terrorist from Oklahomastan going nutso and blowing up their motorcade and are in no hurry to see it happen.

Last edited 11/13/2012 4:42 PM by ElChupanibre

Posted: 11/13/2012 4:32 PM

Re: Are we a free country? 




---------------------------------------------
--- ChiTownRoyalsFan wrote:


steadyd wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- ChiTownRoyalsFan wrote:


steadyd wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- happiocupcakeo wrote:

link


I find this incredibly terrifying.  The Obama administration is essentially arguing that you only have 1st ammendent rights to freedom of religion while you are at home. 

Someone tell me we didn't just make the single biggest mistake in American Election history by allowing this man to remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If that doesn't scare you, check out the UN Gun control treaty.

I would really like for this to not be a republican vs democrat debate but I would love for someone to defend either of these moves as constitutional because, you know, thats the oath of office "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States".  Begin.

---------------------------------------------

I'm going to go ahead and say electing any candidate ever that supported segregation or slavery was a bigger mistake. I didn't see anything that scares me at all in the article you linked.

The UN treaty doesn't scare me either, because the NRA has been using election cycle scare tactics to drum up ammo and gun sales for years. Gun and ammo makers contribute significant money to them and it benefits their bottom line greatly. It's one reason that I'm no longer an active NRA member. And I say this as a firearm enthusiast with a CCW and a glock 19 I carry every single time I leave the house. I'll believe they are taking my guns when I actually hear a reasonable number of elected officials talking about it. I don't care what a bunch of gun lobbyists say, much as I don't care what any lobbyist says. They have motivation to skew facts to make bank, and that pretty much destroys their credibility.
Just curious, but why do you carry a gun every time you leave the house?

---------------------------------------------

Because I have a license to do so.
I need more details. 

I am planning on jumping you at some point (I'm unsure if I'm going to take your wallet).  I need to strategize.

---------------------------------------------

I have a job that occasionally puts me in potentially dangerous situations, but also because I like guns and I took the time to take the class and go through the procedure. I picked up some additional rights and I intend to use them.

Posted: 11/13/2012 4:45 PM

RE: Are we a free country? 




---------------------------------------------
--- ElChupanibre wrote:


Nibiru wrote: Your guy lost , get over it

seriously , were all in this together ,why dont you just do your part ?

If we all just do our best at what we do it will be OK

I disagree.  With a debt of 16 trillion and growing, this country is headed towards a fiscal cliff from which it will not return unscathed.  My current "part", and yours, and every other citizens is currently a 51K bill, which will continue to grow until the country starts to fracture a la Greece or we become a slave to China (more so than we already are).

This isn't a bashing of Obama, as Romney's plan to push as much as an additional 200 Billion in defense spending while simultaneously cutting marginal and corparate tax rates across the board had disaster written all over it, it's just a cold, hard fact.  The country is broke.  Exploding healthcare costs, policing the world, becoming China's bitch, and paying for the needs and wants of a largely more urban population which is by nature more socialistic (see Europe), as opposed to rural, are all contributing and I don't see an end in sight with either party.  Things will get ******.

As for the mandated healthcare/morning after debate, it is a very sticky subject and one best left to the supreme court IMO.

As for gun laws, give me a break.  Nothing but NRA lobbyist propaganda to rile up the rednecks.  Might we one day see a return of the Brady bill or something similar?  Sure, again, as the country gets more urban socialist leaning, the public majority (not the government) starts to view things like assault rifles in the hands of the general public as more harm than good.  But the government isn't going to "take away everybody's guns" anytime soon.  Every politician in America knows full well that it would result in some forms of serious secessionism movements and violent incidents ending with some domestic terrorist from Oklahomastan going nutso and blowing up their motorcade and are in no hurry to see it happen.

---------------------------------------------

Well put. In 2008 I couldn't find .380 ammo anywhere because the freaking NRA had a bunch of people riled up thinking Obama wanted to take their guns. Those poor uninformed souls went off the deep end and started stockpiling every caliber they thought the G men would take. It was all bs, as I told many of my conservative friends that are gun enthusiasts. They said the same thing this go around about the UN treaty, and despite their previous experience, they started buying 5.56 ammo like crazy. This is all nothing more than an effort to sell a crap ton of weapons, magazines, and ammo to unsuspecting good ol boys that aren't very sophisticated when it comes to such things. Nobody is taking our guns. This country is far too rural and far too many people such as myself grew up using firearms.

Posted: 11/13/2012 7:12 PM

Re: Are we a free country? 


Happio, I hate to tell you this, but stuff like this happens all the time. I can't speak for things at the federal level, but I've seen numerous instances of things like this at the state level. Its nothing new, and it isn't particular to Obama, or any single politician really.

Which is why I said what I said earlier about the court system. Most people just go along with stuff like this, because its easier. If Hobby Lobby wants to fight it, I say more power to them. But I don't see it as anything more than business as usual.
  Page of 3  Next >