I suppose it is de-lurking time.
In response to DAL's statement, allow me a simple substitution in your paragraph to test this premise:
"I, for one, would be very leery of a government that rules from the [the constitution], mainly because much of what's in the [the constitution] is open to so many different interpretations. If you don't think that's true, then why are there so many different [organizations] within [constitutional rights application, such as ACLU, John Birch, Libertarian Party, NAACP, etc.]?"
I, for one, believe this statement to be absolutely false, and the logic behind it equally so. Differing (and sometimes wrong) interpretation of the constitution DOES NOT negate the value of a government based on it. It must be examined on its theory first, and *proper* application second.
I, too, would fear a government that rules from the Bible, as it would cause me to choose leadership based on character instead of popularity, implore me to choose my actions (out of love) based on what is best for my fellow man, force me to discern between right and wrong using a predefined set of God given ethics, and remind me that I will be held ultimately accountable for my motivations and actions. That is scary stuff.
------
Secondly, in response to the words of Glenn E. Meyer, I do not find your comments to be offensive and I will fight for your right to have such opinions and share them in public forum. For this same reason, I ABHOR any call for the privatization of beliefs, be they gun ownership, economic methods, religion, or otherwise. To ask ME (or this sheriff) to have to keep my (or his) "different" beliefs to ourselves is to require us to have one character in private and a different character in public. Is not this hypocritical nature what we currently detest in our elected officials, that they bask under "lethal force protection" in their own lives yet publicly call for disarmament of the populace? Can you not name other examples of such deadly hypocrisy?
Where do you draw the line? I would rather have my elected officials tell me their beliefs, whether wacko or logically and philosophically sound, so that I might use this information determine if they are acceptable or not to receive my vote. The alternative is requiring their beliefs to remain unsaid, to act as a "hidden agenda" affecting every decision an official makes in executing the laws and governing the people, all done in our ignorance of that official's beliefs. Is this what you would prefer?
-----
I stand in support of your right to bear arms. Will you not stand in support of my right to free speech? Amendments 1, 2, 3, etc.; it is all the same to me. Like many Christians, I am not a one issue voter. Don't make us choose just one.
der schuler
------------------
abusum non tollit usum