I think they would likely agree to that, and if done correctly it would be every bit as proficient and as effective as the alternative. Again, I am not opposed to the idea, I just don't think we should be allowing exceptions out of hat for religions. It needs to be across the board and available to all. If I decide I want to handle my affairs the same way, I should be allowed to.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
How can an Amish man Buy an Firearm? (no photos of Amish)
- Thread Starter RicInOR
- Start date
I think they would likely agree to that, and if done correctly it would be every bit as proficient and as effective as the alternative. Again, I am not opposed to the idea, I just don't think we should be allowing exceptions out of hat for religions. It needs to be across the board and available to all. If I decide I want to handle my affairs the same way, I should be allowed to.
- Messages
- 169
- Reactions
- 433
When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.
Robert A. Heinlein
Robert A. Heinlein
One of the biggest regrets I have in my life is that it is probable that I will never see the Human race colonize and thrive on other planets.
The whole religious discrimination argument here seems a little silly. The Qur'an instructs it's followers to kill unbelievers, along with lots of other craziness. So, if you're a Muslim, and you live in USA, should you be allowed to follow Mohammed's teachings because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? How about those who believe it's neat to mutilate the genitals of their young in the name of religion? They've been doing it for hundreds of years. Does that mean it's ok?
And on and on and on.
I believe there are multiple issues being argued here. Should an Amish man be able to walk into a store and buy a gun without being molested by the Feds? Of course he should, just like any other law-abiding citizen. That's a 2nd Amendment protected, God-given right. Should he also be allowed to practice his faith, as long as doing so isn't harming other law-abiding citizens? Of course he should, and the 1st Amendment offers him protection.
I think the real question is this, "Should a person's beliefs allow them to skirt "The Laws of the Land" while those who don't follow his religion are required to follow said laws?".
That one is easy for me. And, while I agree with a majority of the comments, none of them come close to convincing me that this is a valid 1st Amendment infringement.
I'm tired. I hope this still makes sense to me in the morning Goodnight brothers.
And on and on and on.
I believe there are multiple issues being argued here. Should an Amish man be able to walk into a store and buy a gun without being molested by the Feds? Of course he should, just like any other law-abiding citizen. That's a 2nd Amendment protected, God-given right. Should he also be allowed to practice his faith, as long as doing so isn't harming other law-abiding citizens? Of course he should, and the 1st Amendment offers him protection.
I think the real question is this, "Should a person's beliefs allow them to skirt "The Laws of the Land" while those who don't follow his religion are required to follow said laws?".
That one is easy for me. And, while I agree with a majority of the comments, none of them come close to convincing me that this is a valid 1st Amendment infringement.
I'm tired. I hope this still makes sense to me in the morning Goodnight brothers.
Last Edited:
I wondered if someone would pull up that argument here. Of course, it's a far cry difference from the discussion at hand, but it certainly could be relevant.
I see your examples as something different. Here we're talking about a guy that doesn't want his photo taken. That doesn't really impact another person. It doesn't hurt another person. It doesn't violate the rights of another person. Should he have to go through some kind of background check simply because he doesn't have photo ID, I think he should - just perhaps, as I suggested above, in another form, such as fingerprinting followed by a wait time for the fingerprints to be ID'd before he can make the purchase.
As for murdering non-believers, now your into the realm of taking rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) from others. As far as I know from what I've read, that has never been an allowed form of interpretation of the first amendment. Really the constitution comes down to protecting the rights of the individual. If another individual is taking the life of another, abusing another, assaulting another, mutilating another, they are violating their rights and a line is drawn there. We already know that no one is exempted from murder in this country, regardless of religious beliefs.
I think our founding fathers were smart enough to allow room for discussion on certain points regarding our rights. They could have made a document that exhaustively listed everything that was okay to do and everything that wasn't okay to do, but, they left it to us and our (hopefully) good judgment to make the call.
In the case of the Amish, it's about a man potentially losing his 2nd amendment rights over photo ID, which would be a violation of his religious beliefs. His aversion to photos doesn't cause harm to someone else, so I see no problem with the government making a concession, which would require him still to comply, but can allow him to freely exercise both the first and the second.
I simply think it's a non-argument to try and compare religious executions/murder to a government issued ID card.
- Messages
- 169
- Reactions
- 433
Obviously, unless one is a statist thug.
- Messages
- 68
- Reactions
- 52
I am really enjoying this discussion. Serious and thought provoking with no beach slapping...
I agree. I like discussions like these. It forces people to actually think and reason. Something that we should be known for. Obviously there are several different opinions, and somewhere in there we should be able to arrive at a solution that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, yet still provides the public with some level of protection. I imagine there were discussions of similar calibers happening some 225 or so years ago as well.
- Messages
- 2
- Reactions
- 0
Amish went to jail over this issue and eventually won. Not sure if this has any bearing o the thread but food for thought. CB
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.
- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,484
Here's the definitions on Wikipedia.
A gun trust is normally set up to acquire NFA items and doesn't require a photo & fingerprints, but you still have to have some form of legitimate ID when you pick up the item at the LGS.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...7s7h7ytTny59wBwQw&sig2=UzuY5QOHFoW2AFWB2IC5zg
A gun trust is normally set up to acquire NFA items and doesn't require a photo & fingerprints, but you still have to have some form of legitimate ID when you pick up the item at the LGS.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...7s7h7ytTny59wBwQw&sig2=UzuY5QOHFoW2AFWB2IC5zg
- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,484
- Thread Starter
- #74
IDIOCRACY IS NOT A HOW-TO GUIDE: Massachusetts woman wins fight to wear colander in driver's license by citing 'pastafarian' religion.
- Messages
- 27
- Reactions
- 54
Sounds like the guy should just go buy a muzzleloader?
- Messages
- 27
- Reactions
- 54
Montana's Ernie Tertelgte Arrested for Trying to Feed Himself Owns Judge - Cites Natural Law
Published on Nov 23, 2013
Three Forks Justice Court | November 21, 2013 | Montana, North America
In a packed courtroom, 52-year-old Ernie Tertelgte told the judge "I am a living man protected by natural law and I have the right to forage for food when I am hungry… You are trying to create a fictitious, fraudulent action."
Charged with fishing without a license and resisting the arrest for fishing without a license, Mr. Tertegte says he's being wrongly prosecuted for trying to feed himself.
Tertelgte, 52 years old, was arrested on Monday and is accused of fishing without a license and then resisting arrest.
William Wolf said, "It's we the people that run this and rule this country, not we the courts, not we the government, and if the people don't start standing up for themselves and for each other, we are going to continue being subjects of this government."
Justice Adams set Tertelgte's bond at $500 and his next court hearing is scheduled for January.
Published on Nov 23, 2013
Three Forks Justice Court | November 21, 2013 | Montana, North America
In a packed courtroom, 52-year-old Ernie Tertelgte told the judge "I am a living man protected by natural law and I have the right to forage for food when I am hungry… You are trying to create a fictitious, fraudulent action."
Charged with fishing without a license and resisting the arrest for fishing without a license, Mr. Tertegte says he's being wrongly prosecuted for trying to feed himself.
Tertelgte, 52 years old, was arrested on Monday and is accused of fishing without a license and then resisting arrest.
William Wolf said, "It's we the people that run this and rule this country, not we the courts, not we the government, and if the people don't start standing up for themselves and for each other, we are going to continue being subjects of this government."
Justice Adams set Tertelgte's bond at $500 and his next court hearing is scheduled for January.
Last Edited:
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
WTT: BlackHills 308win 175gr match for Fiocchi 308win SMK 175gr
- Started by skyfire1201
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
