Do you consider "the right to bear and keep arms" or "seperation of church and state" more of a detriment?

Question

Basically:

"You are allowed to have weapons for the purpose of defense, hunting and sport"

or

"The state shall not support any religious worship"

Which one do you consider to be more of a detriment to the United States?

Answer 1

I would say not supporting religious worship. This takes away any voice a person has in their beliefs. This expounds into the family's home and how they are to treat and discipline their family members. It is a control of your intimate feelings, core beliefs that are to be challenged to a mindset in a government that if you don't agree you will face consequences.

Right to bear arms is already taken away. Because in most states already, you have to meet the intruder with equal force. That was the beginning, the Decline of that right.

Answer 2

I don't think either one is a detriment. I do however think that having these rights become a detriment to indivduals. When people do not take the constitution to heart and realize that these rights were given to us by our founding fathers for the sole intent of keeping us free from future tyranny. As a country. Too, many people want to interpret these rights for themselves and for their own beliefs. This constant bickering and protesting and lobbying causes a degree of detriment to the country, but having these rights are not a detriment.

If only people could be concerned with their owns lives and stop meddling in the rights of others we would be happier.

But, being a free country (except California) we have the right to express ourselves, so we must learn to tolerate these rantings as apart of our lives. The best thing to do is to understand that when push comes to shove, no one controls our lives, least of all the government.

Stop the stress! Stop second-hand stress!

Yoda out

Answer 3

Without the first right, how would individuals resist those who would violate the second right? And those who scoff at the idea that one might need a gun for defense, have you ever been pressed to a corner with your life in danger? There are lots of stupid people who give guns a bad name by using and keeping them irresponsibly. When properly used and respected, they are helpful tools, especially out here in the country where it is much more likely that one will meet a rabid raccoon or a pack of marauding wild dogs than it is in the streets of New York City. Of course you have people shoving religion down your throat out here too, but at least it isn't legislated...yet.

So in answer to your query: both of these rights are essential. If one loses the right to keep and bear arms, one loses one's ultimate voice and becomes dependent on others to defend life and liberty. If the government then pushes religion as state policy, it can enforce it more easily against a resisting, unarmed populace than it can against a resisting, armed populace.

That said, there are other, more appropriate ways of protesting against bad laws; but the ultimate power of a ruling body is in its ability to bring force of arms to bear in order to enforce the laws it sets down. This is fundamental, although there are many who have lost sight of it.

Answer 4

Marriage isn't in elementary terms a church thought. There are 2 facets to it - the religious and the legal. The religious components of a marriage are those dictated by way of the religious community and doubtlessly the religious discern presiding over the marriage. That of legal marriage is dictated by way of an each state's family individuals regulation codes. Marriage is in lots of techniques like a legal partnership - it entitles the two events to 0.5 the sources amassed in the time of its span, and it dictates custody allowances of any infants besides. Civil unions, on the different hand, are a manner of turning out to be marriage between homosexuals acknowledged for legal rights devoid of giving it the cultural magnitude utilized to the term 'marriage.' in actuality, it gives you gay couples comparable rights to married immediately couples devoid of giving them de facto equivalent status. in case you remember from Brown v. Board of coaching, separate yet equivalent is by no skill equivalent.

Answer 5

Neither is a detriment. Both are necessary. I would fight for both of them.

Religion MUST be kept out of government affairs for there to be ANY hope of fairness. And the government should also be kept out of church doctrine. Let people decide for themselves what myths to believe.

HP makes the mistake of thinking that a capitalist society can be civilized. A situation where "he who has the gold makes the rules" is one where the average person MUST have arms to at least partially make up for the power differential.

Put simply - I don't trust the cops and army, that answer to big business, to have a monopoly on armed force. And as long as we are not guaranteed jobs, housing, medical care, and education, violent crime IS guaranteed to be a part of our lives.

If having military-style arms in the general population causes, for instance, a George Bush, to hesitate even a fraction of a second before instituting his more repressive actions, it is WELL worth whatever problems these arms MAY cause in society.

And you know what? A non-capitalist society needs armed citizens, too.

"There are no circumstances imaginable, not even victory, under which the proletariat should give up its possession of arms." -- Karl Marx

Otherwise, you get - Stalin.

Answer 6

I am from the UK and I see no reason whatsoever, in a civilized society why you should be able to, be allowed to and more importantly WANT to carry a weapon which is specifically designed to kill other people.

Unless you are in the army or hunt there is no reason what so ever to carry a gun... defense is really not a reason.

Separation of church and state seems reasonable enough - why should the tax payer pay money to support something which may or may not be a total load of twaddle....

Answer 7

OK, this is just my opinion and mine alone on this answer here, but maybe other people feel the same way. The constitution is a little outdate don't you think, they should re-write it or make many ammendements to it, the right to bear arms I am against, too many people getting killes, (please NRA members dont tell me people kill people not guns, that theory is full of ****, they could not kill them if they did not have the guns!), seperation of church and state is another one full of ****, the poor private church's and schools have to live and die on donations from their parishioners and tution, while the governennt gives the public schools and people who can work and would rather sit on their *** and get wlefare and all the other hard working peple have to suport the deadbeats and liars, also, what is so wrong with kids talking to their God whoever they believ in before class, give me a break people. Now I am sure I will get a lot of flack for this, but SO WHAT, this is how I feel, and I am not alone. Have a nice day ......
and Merry Xmas everyone.

Answer 8

I dont think of either as a detriment... I likes me guns and I'll use 'em to preserve that seperation of church and state should the need ever present itself...

Answer 9

I have bare arms but I believe in the
separation of church and state.

Answer 10

I'm sure many in congress, as well as the aclu, would like to see them both done away with. And btw it is the state shall not MAKE any religion, not as it is today, where the state prevents religious worship.