Bush was a butt boil.

In fairness many social conservatives take a blind eye view of fiscal issues as long as they are Pro-life ie Bush. I respect your views and lean toward social conservative issues. But I am also respectful of local control. And all joking aside why not let local voters set the standards?

A few drinks might lighten you up. Just kidding!

In all cases? There are idiots out there who are ‘law-abiding citizens.’ Owning a gun brings with it a mandate to be responsible and not infringe on someone else’s rights with it. Otherwise, there will be legal action and punishment.

If someone takes a drink and consequently infringes on someone else’s rights, there will be legal action and punishment just the same.

“Now, you may consider yourself a responsible citizen when you take a drink, but then you’d probably be able to get up and go to work Monday morning, and you’d be able to pay out of your own pocket for the medical complications that develop 20 years from now. You’d not abuse your wife, or maim yourself or another driver on the road. But the statistics prove that many are not so fortunate.”

So is it government’s place to make sure I don’t become irresponsible due to liquor bought on Sunday? The bars still sell liquor on Sunday, so the only folks who CAN buy it on Sunday will most likely be driving home after drinking it, anyway. I mean, really, do you see how stupid this sounds? This whole argument is getting laughable, and I don’t even drink. I just don’t want government deciding one day that I can’t do something I like to do because it offends some group that has power.

I think the worst logic for the responsibility of government is employed when we discuss the general stupidity of the populace as a defense of civil government’s usurpation of authority. Freedom means you get to be responsible personally for your stupidity. Unalienable rights mean you get to shoulder all the negative and positive ramifications of that premise.

This is one of my favorite Ambrose Bierce quotes from the Devil’s Dictionary: “Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling.”

It’s as if the Romans were really doing Jesus a favor when you think about it.

Good law is not about preventing a situation in which irresponsible people may or may not hurt others. It is about punishing offenders, so that the people are strongly encouraged not to damage their fellow citizens. Freedom allows people to enjoy living their lives as they wish and believing whatever they wish, so long as their actions don’t impinge on the rights of others.

That would be great, if their behavior didn’t frequently have consequences to their fellow citizens and taxpayers.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote. But I am sure Jesus would care more about understanding the meaning behind being a Christian than a debate on who is right about the Sabbath.

Jesus was clear on not focusing on ritual over real substance. And this issue permeates in many religions. Why not focus on the message?

‘Sunday is not the sabbath for a Christian, either, who actually understands the Bible.”

The issue here is not about ‘enabling’ anyone, it’s about ‘disabling’ someone’s freedom to be responsible for himself.

“Sunday is the day after the sabbath to jews and pandering to the religous right is scary.”

Sunday is not the sabbath for a Christian, either, who actually understands the Bible. It is a day set aside for worship, but this does not give good reason to disallow those who have a different view to buy a legal substance on this particular day.

I’ll say it until I have no more breath – Government SHOULD NOT regulate alcohol sales to adults, just like it should not require me to wear my own seatbelt. This is not the United States of Kindergarten. People should be allowed to take responsibility for their own decisions.

The first amendment is very clear. “Congress shall make no law…” refers to the federal, noy to the state. You should read the Constitution some time.