Tax newspapers? Yes, and then when they print a story politicians don't like, raise their taxes. That ought to work well for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Tax churches? That seems very complicated to me. When I bought my home, someone from the city came by to see if it was valued at the price I paid for it. I guess that's because there is a somewhat established market for single family houses. It's worth what someone will pay. How much would someone be willing to pay for a church? Is there really a market for them or would their value lie in the property only. Developers wanting to bulldoze churches and put up strip malls would be the ones establishing property values. There seems to be an implied hostility there that is worse than granting them tax exempt status. Besides, there are a myriad of faith based charities that help ease the burden of our own responsibilities of providing a social safety net to the least fortunate amongst us. Given the very real contribution they make, perhaps we should say thank you, instead of a punitive tax.

That's inconsistent. Shouldn't all the amendments have equal weight and be judged equally?

How can you justify treating each differently?

I was expressing my opinion. So yes, it's inconsistent.

In my opinion, we need to look at all laws, including Constitutional Amendments and look not just at the words, but to see what was the intent. Then we can judge if that intent is still valid. If it was the intent of the Second Amendment to protect this new country from the British crown's attempt to re-impose it's rule on their former 13 colonies, then the Second has lost it's usefulness. Of course, there may be other justifications for it's existence. Then let's discuss those. Let's tweak the Second until such time as it serves us better. But I do think the time has come when a majority of people believe that the Second is no longer serving us well. The parents of those 20 in Newton, Conn., friends and family of theater goers in Colorado, survivors of mass shootings whose numbers grow seemingly every day want changes.

In my opinion, the very definition of being a responsible gun own is a willingness to engage in just this sort of discussion. Demand that actual hunting guns be allowed, but also demand that those intended for mass killings of humans be restricted. Demand reasonable restrictions, such as universal background checks. Demand controls that don't have loopholes so large you could drive a semi through them. Demand that advocacy groups such as the NRA not only say they are for responsible gun ownership, demand that they support laws that move towards that position, because the majority of Americans today see them as nothing but obstructionists right now. That's what a "responsible" gun own is. Too many guns owners today are concerned about nothing but their rights. Their rights to own whatever devise of mass killings and then justify that by saying they haven't done anything wrong. Well, I can't build a nuclear weapon in my basement and then claim to be responsible simply because I choose not to detonate it today. The definition of responsible is not building such a devise and advocacy towards having you not build such a devise either.

If we tax churches, don't we have to allow them further into politics? Imagine an America where the Catholic Party and the Baptist Party are vying for the presidency and you are paying for it because of campaign finance reform.

You don't tax churches, not because you love god, but because you want churches to remain an outcast from our government.

Go ahead and preach to me about the influence they have now, and you'll be right. But it could be a whole lot worse.

We have different opinions of government and what it should do. I think it should do what is constitutionally mandated and you think it should do other things. I don't know how to say it more plainly than this:

I want much much less government, especially at the federal level, but at all levels. I will pay what they demand, but I'll support any tax cut that forces the government to downsize.

As for communal life, I opt out.

Funny how so many people who only want the government to do what is required by the constitution will immediately scream "activist judges!" when the court orders the legislature to fund public schools AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Just sayin.