"Seems like "make no law" is pretty clear , while I am confused over how that converts to ""there is no priority""
What's even clearer is "Congress shall" --the amendment clearly applies only at the federal level, which makes clear sense when you consider that most colonies were founded as religious cliques and preserved this heritage in their policy-making even up until independence times when they had naturally begun to mix & moderate. That amendment was meant to protect individual minorities in these areas as much as it was to keep the colonies from fighting over the federal pie with the dream they could force their preferred faith on the remainder (as England had done by way of their king). Not sure how or when exactly this was somehow 'incorporated' to the states in direct contravention of the language, but I have to assume the 14ths 'inferred equality mandate' (as fanciful a goal as 'to each according to their ability,' and for the same reasons) had something to do with it.
Even more clear, is that the very next amendment, in a series of very similarly-worded amendments, makes no mention of Congress or the courts whatsoever; it merely states our (the people) right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by way of the constitutional document. And yet here we are, our very commerce, conveyance, and even ownership of these items is flatly prohibited in certain areas of this nation, ever hungry to expand their reach and influence. Courts almost entirely complicit in the subversion.
"The Little Sisters of the Poor case is pure malice and nihilism."
The kind of logic underpinning the case against them will end with we gun owners forced to find and pay for insurance who's liability cannot be calculated (due to statistical factors), and will therefore be set arbitrarily by hostile actors. Like all gun law, it will be designed to make ownership as expensive and cumbersome as possible. Regardless your stance on abortion/BC, do not pretend there are no consequences for you and other gun owners (even if you really, really, really want them/others to subsidize birth control or whathaveyou). This is how you vote as a gun owner, as opposed to by flights of fancy that sound good at the time, with no regard for the consequences.
"No, [the left opposes free exercise of religion] only when it interferes with the rights of others"
Well, there actually are groups that seek to remove tax-free status from churches, with the obvious goal of making them unaffordable for the masses in dense urban areas (if not everywhere) favored by like-minded persons. Looking at the end result and the means (pushing it through over objections by parishioners) it looks quite a lot like religious suppression. When looking at the various activities that have become prohibited on the ever-expanding scope of 'public facilities/areas/gatherings' due to governmental growth, it strains belief to think that the clear stated language of the 1st amendment has not been stretched into hostility against all religions (and when viewed against the backdrop of the rise of socialism/statism/populism in which the State is the article of worship, looks quite a lot like religious suppression).
"America was the first explicitly secular country, and the first to reject rule by divine right"
Yet somehow our Deist founding fathers did not reject the vast majority of so-called 'divine principles' when it comes to individual rights, dignity, expectations we should of our society, expectations society should have of its members, and the most basic core tenants of law (which were established under an England ruled by divine right since its beginning). They rejected a very few specific areas that had proven to be prone to abuse throughout history, but hardly rejected the body of principles as a whole. So the notion that faith should not merely remain unestablished or not be officially recognized in law, but should be actively purged from the public sphere of which public government is invariably an important part in any society (and is increasing in ours today) is ludicrous and in direct opposition to the kind of religious protections promised by the first amendment.
"It is not about logic, it is about political power."
And you know what someone who should know said about political power; it grows from the barrel of a gun. And not just because Mao killed a lot of people; far more powerful was the effect of his possessing a disparity of force in the first place. Enemies were silenced, the masses cowed, and the Party unified merely by the unopposed threat represented by his monopoly on arms in China. When Democrats begin officially agitating for large-scale confiscation of firearms from their sworn political opponents --and how else would you characterize what we are witnessing-- what conclusions are we gunowners supposed to find? That despite every historical example to the contrary, they just want what's best for us and wish us no ill will? To "get along?"
No. They mean to rule us. The other assorted political parties may be right and wrong on many issues, but no others are yet at the stage of posturing for a final power play on democracy in this country.
I'm afraid that any gunowner enabling this suicidal march can only be described as a useful idiot, who somehow mistakenly believes they will not be harmed by their party's slide into despotism, while retaining their firearms. Just as usefully idiotic as a paycheck-to-paycheck Republican voting against people who would steal enough free stuff for them from others to get themselves out of that situation; it's just that that person isn't quite as discordant as a gunowner voting to have their own door kicked in for falling afoul of some future gun law (because that hasn't happened since the Lautenberg Amendment, right?)
TCB
