Replies

I didn't write the original letter, but I will try to answer your questions on his/her behalf:

>>If liberals oppose the government using the death penalty on convicted rapist and murders, why then do you allow, even encourage, a women to kill her unborn child who has never harmed any person?<<

When you say "kill," that implies viability. Terminating a pregnancy is not at all equivalent to killing a person. But if you think it is, then you should answer for the same inconsistency.

>>If liberals are so stauchly supportive of individual rights under the Constitution, why then do liberals work so hard to take away a person's right to own and carry a firearm?<<

We'd like to reduce or eliminate the murders, accidents, massacres, and mayhem committed with weapons more powerful than anything our founders anticipated. Regulated hunting with appropriate weapons is constitutionally protected.

>>If liberals are so concerned about their fellow man, desiring to lift them up and change their station in life, why do liberals create programs that force their fellow man to be a slave to the government hand out?<<

Because of inequalities in our system, some people need a helping hand. Let's work together to eliminate racism, poverty, etc. We can design programs that encourage people to help themselves, instead of becoming dependent.

>>If liberals or progressives are wanting the people to have a better life, why then is it that liberals desire to take (by force of arms and pain of inprisonment) more and more hard earned money away from the people through ever progressive taxation? <<

Many of the things that are needed to assure a better life--infrastructure, education, defense, health, environment, etc.--can best be provided by pooling our individual resources.

>>If liberals are so supportive of the Constitution and state that there is a "wall of seperation" between church and state, why then do liberals work so hard to establish the official state religion of athiesm? And further work to actively prohibt the "free expression" of religion - a phrase that is ACTUALLY IN the first amendment?<<

Your assumption is flawed: I don't see anyone trying to establish a religion of atheism. Many liberals do work to make sure that a particular religion is not endorsed by government agencies. Individuals can express all the religiosity they desire to but they should not be permitted to impose their religious views on others.

I hope this helps.

Your assumption is flawed: I don't see anyone trying to establish a religion of atheism. Many liberals do work to make sure that a particular religion is not endorsed by government agencies. Individuals can express all the religiosity they desire to but they should not be permitted to impose their religious views on others.

ROFL! You can't see the contradiction in this simple statement?!? And you post this while accusing another of a flawed assumption?!? TOO funny!

eLet me help you:

1. I don't see atheism (a belief that there is no God... a philosophical opposition to Theism, the belief that there IS a God... ergo, a religion)
2. Liberals work to ensure no particluar religion is endorsed. (ie, imposing the religion of atheism throughout the land)
3. People should not be permitted to impose their religious views on others (as you just stated liberals work to do!!!)

Your willful blindness ("I don't see it!") is truly amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.

We'd like to reduce or eliminate the murders, accidents, massacres, and mayhem committed with weapons more powerful than anything our founders anticipated.

Then imprison the murderers and massacrers (is that a word?) and throw away the key. Unfortunately there are some risks to living in a free society, but as Benjamin Franklin stated, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. BTW, at the time the Constitution was written, private citizens owned cannon and even warships, the most powerful weapons of the day.

Regulated hunting with appropriate weapons is constitutionally protected.

Show me the article in the Constitution where hunting is mentioned. Or in the Bill of Rights. Regulation of hunting has fallen largely under state jurisdiction, and is a fairly recent (about 75 year old) phenomenon. The operative clause of the Second Amendment states in simple English (and the authors of the Constitution were masters of the English language): THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Look up Second Amendment threads on the FR search engine to see what the Founding Fathers had to say about private firearm ownership.

The Second Amendment ain't for hunting, it's for personal protection and defense (and deterrence) from a tyrannical government. And don't give me that "It can't happen here" garbage. I'm sure the people of Weimar Germany thought it couldn't happen to them, either.