That makes you a liberal.

Euthanasia is deliberately killing a human being. All abortions are the murder of a defenseless baby.

Universal health care will open the door to inferior and inefficient health care with long waiting periods for treatment. With an open mind, research the health care in countries that have universal health care and you will see the shortcomings.

When was the last time you saw a government official at a free clinic? Under universal health care our leaders will receive proper care but the average citizen will be told "Take an aspirin and don't bother to call me in the morning. Again research the cuuntries with universal health care.

Jesus Loves You

Yes Jason I am stupid enough to believe that words have a specific meaning.

You say you are in FAVOR of my individual right to gun ownership but are AGAINST my individual right to gun ownership. How stupid is that?

You believe that you can give new meanings of your choice to any words. You also believe you can rewrite history any way you desire.

The militia in colonial times were composed of individual private citizens called up by private citizens. They were not connected to or controlled by government.

Their service to the government or termination of that service was entirely the decision of the militia leaders. Some actually left government service as a unit during the revolutionary war against Washington's wishes. The right to bear arms was in no way connected to government service.

If you had at least a glimmer of intelligence my post would not seem stupid. It will be a start when you grasp hold of the fact that there is a difference between conservatism and liberalism.

If you were smart you would not be a liberal.

Jesus Loves You

 "You're right, you don't need my permission to purchase firearms, you need the permission of your state's laws governing such matters."

I need no one's permission to purchase and own firearms.

This demonstrates that you have no understanding of the Second Amendment whatsoever.

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' (I don't care if the first part says, "Mary had a little lamb".) Our rights shall not be infringed by any government whatsoever.

 "Nonetheless, I will maintain that unless you're willing to submit to paramilitary training with an organized (Read: "Well-regulated") group of your peers, it's not the 2nd Amendment per se that gives you the right to keep and bear [arms] .

Amazing. The Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...and Jason says the Amendment doesn't give you the right to keep and bear arms? Simply amazing.

At some point in time unintentional ignorance gives way to deliberate stupidity. You crossed that line a couple posts ago.

Again you ignore the historical evidence, including recent Supreme Court decisions, that conclusively states that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in a militia.

And Mr Constitutional Scholar, once again, tries to lecture us on the proper training of a 'well-regulated' militia.

Let's go back once again to the historical record.

This is a little long but it's important to show the context so Jason can't attack it.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

'Paramilitary exercises' such as Generalissimo Jason C claims are necessary to maintain a militia are thus ruled as unworkable by far better men than he.

Unfortunately, your definition becomes basically useless because of the subjective nature of the term "unjustified".  So, for instance, if just one Iraqi citizen was killed during Shock & Awe (even if not on purpose, we were surely aware that bombing a major, densely-populated metropolitan area would undoubtedly result in civilian deaths), does that constitute murder?  Or does the term Collateral Damage entail justification?

Is that it is reserved for those who have voluntarily destroyed the life of another person. If the murderer is not required to pay with his life for the life of his victim, then where is the victim's 'sanctity of life'?

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

How can it be permissable to murder an unborn baby but wrong to execute a convicted murderer?

Maybe the state should let the victim's family decide the fate of the muederer and let the unborn baby decide whether or not to be aborted. After the baby is the individual suffering the most from an abortion.

Jesus Loves You

Thank queen, it's nice to be agreed with.  Your posts on the topic have been super.

And that's typical of revisionists.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Bolton/KEYES 2012