A question for conservatives

Well and fine. But the constitution does not use the word or syllable "fire" in this area of concern. I wonder if the Indians and flaming arrows would have been covered there. And if you put stock in how the right was carried out at the time, private seagoing vessels, for example, did carry 'ordinances,' did they not?

 

Constitution

2 things w/ considerable difference: A medical exam is voluntary... always... w/ few esceptions (as n the military... where ur rights become subordinate 2 command n most cases). U may walk out on a doctor @ any pt... but once n line 4 admission 2 fly TSA doesn't permit u 2 change ur mind. Also, a personal /general physician may request 2 exam any part of the body necessary relative 2 the complaint... but physicians r limited 2 areas of specialty: A dentist doesn't do a pelvic & a urologist doesn't exam teeth.. & @ any pt a patient may decline: Furthermore, even n the most public clinics & wards, the practice of medicine takes steps respecting the patient's rights to modesty, dignity, & privacy.

N a broad sense ur right: Many things we've forgotten OR we haven't taken stronger stands on: We've forgotten God. We kill the innocent... abortions r justified as r wars n other lands 4 terrorist we kept n our own country! We deserve judgment... & God is giving it 2 us. Our leaders & their decisions r a reflection of our own moral compass & the general spiritual condition of our country: The Bible teaches we're 2 b concerned about the plight of our neighbor: But the only thing that angers us 2 speak out & identify on a position... is when the issues affect us. (A good example was when the kids were taken away from the morman community n Texas... based on an anonymous phone call: Most people here were more concerned about the differences between the mormans & us than about their rights as parents: Same w/ Waco!) If our rights come from God.... & we possess faith 2 believe n Him... we should trust that He who observes & judges all will b answered 2 @ some pt... n this life or n the next 4 those who hurt the innocent or rebel against God: An immoral society is untrusting because of the evil already n it... & every person is suspicious & is thought of w/ criminal motive. An immoral society (& that means everyone who disrespects God & his word) will never have peace & safety because its looking n the wrong direction.

A WMD is not the same as a weapon 4 protection of life & property. Nevertheless... if ur neighbor has the shielding necessary 2 prevent detection of radiation.... he has the right to his privacy & no searches w/o warrant: If he does something to raise sufficient suspicion ...then that's the basis 4 a warrant which a judge should determine... & b held accountable 4 n making his decision (but do we check the judges?... iow, do we do our own civic duty regarding the 4 branches of government?)

The word "living" is a euphemism popularly used: As a Creationist, the word 'living' means to me ...existing & viable, healthy, stable n its organics & functions, adaptive 2 changing conditions w/o itself being changed. This Darwinist World uses 'living' as evolving & changing form: The constitution can adapt.... but it doesn't change form.

C above 4 my ans 2 the living doc.
As 4 names .... it would do us all well (myself included) 2 regard these as so subjective 2 interpretation beyond the scope of their original intent of use as 2 b more useless than defining. (I think of conservative as relational 2 the subject w/o which it is no adjective nor noun of consequence: i.e. coservative as related 2 finances? as related 2 inerrancy of the Bible... sola scriptures? as related 2 strict observance of the constitution? as related 2 assuming responsibility 4 the acts & decisions of others?[boo])

!st of all, u have persisted w/ what, imo, is a ridiculous argument.
2nd, the topic has nothing to do w/ SALT.
3rd, unless u r God, u have no way of knowing 4 sure the intent of the poster by his merely asking a question: U may b correct but ... until the term " conservative" is defined n this post its meaning is lost in its obscurity... making this whole discussion, come 2 think of it, a bit ridiculous!

Perhaps the question would be better if put "Would a constitutionalist b willing 2 violate the constitution 4 the purpose of safety?"
In conditions of peace... I would say "no".
A war conducted elsewhere does not mean we have war here... no matter how our leaders try to frame it:
However they r framing us under such precarious conditions by their own decisions enforced upon us w/o sound (make that 'sane') reasoning... that we might likely see the conditions change here so badly that it seems 2 become every man 4 himself...& no certainty as 2 "why"...'til the gov steps n & by its own charter 'suspends the Constitution'.

The question then might well become.....which side will u choose then?

 

You are correct as to the exact wording and/or syllables used in the constitution.

Reading various documents written at the time of and immediately following the period of the second amendment show that there was some ambiguity and subsequent differences of opinion as to the meaning of "arms".

That is why I included a site which developed arguments around the meaning of the term. For the most part the consensus definition of an "arm" was a weapon which could be carried by an individual for personal protection although a minority felt differently (some more narrow in scope others wider).

And again, I am only objecting to the pharse "violation of the constitution" in the denial of a citizen the right to have a nuclear device in his/her home because of these unresolved differences of opinion.

I am still of the opinion that the TSA "pat-down"/"imaging" is not a violation of the constitution as it is avoidable (don't fly) and therefore a voluntary matter.

I suppose a case could be made that "flying" has become a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which does not infringe upon the rights of others and therefore a government sponsored and regulated "pat-down"/"imaging" in the pursuit thereof is indeed a violation of the constitution.

It gets complicated because the goverment's prime directive is to protect the citizens.

We'll have to wait and see what comes of this.

HankD