|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:42 pm
It was an interesting essay, very well written, but I do have a point or two to make.
As a Christian, I am taught that God is in me, because I have accepted him. Therefore, the reasoning in the essay that Jesus was part of God, so he didn't need a weapon is null and void. We are part of God too.
Didn't Jesus tell Peter to put down his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane? Peter was trying to defend his friend and mentor, yet Jesus, the ultimate pacifist, refused to let his friend murder the soldiers, even stopping to heal one of them.
And please disregard the Old Testament's teachings. Jesus brought new lessons and ideas to the world.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:02 pm
BOTH are tales of God, and BOTH shall be regarded. Besides, I didn't write it. NOTE, am not a police officer and my name is not "Johnathan R. Marshall". And that's not my email address at the bottom of the article. PLease send any comments or questions about the article to the email at the bottom. I'll go ahead and forward some of the points you made to see his answers.
BUt, God was going to sacrafice Jesus to attone for our sins, and thus wouldn't allow him to die any other way.
He did that because it was supposed to happen. Any scenario leading up to him being cruxified was supposed to happen, and he knew it.
Also, you use the word "murder" under the wrong context. "Murder" requires premeditation and planning. He was going to kill the soldiers, not murder them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:13 am
I understand that you didn't write it. I was just trying to write down my reaction towards the article. Thank you for sending my reply to the man; I'm curious to see his response.
I trust that God will keep me safe throught my life - why would I need a weapon?
Hmm... interesting. Killing and murdering are not mutually exchangable.
Side bar question: Since soliders are trainded to end lives, does that make it murder?
Also, I'm not really sure what we are arguing about here. I agree that people should be able to own guns, if they choose to do so. However, I do not choose that option. Are we arguing about my choice not to have a gun in my home?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:42 am
It'll take a while for a reply, and that's if the email still works. I changed the out-going email address becuase they were returned under "doesn't exist" when I forgot to pick one (Microsoft Outlook).
Well, good luck with that. Your choice. And, as I've pointed out, a gun is a tool. My guns have never been used as weapons, nor ahve but two of the guns of everyone I know, and those were self-defense cases.
Yep.
Now, that's a good question. Technically, they are both. If the Rules of Engagement stated "shoot on sight", then they are murderers until the nemy starts firing back. IF the RoE is "only fire if fired upon", they are strictly acting in self defense. Also, several million normal civilians take firearms training every year, and only a small percent are safety classes. The other classes deal with self-defense scenarios (finding cover, 'center of mass' shots, self first-aid, ect), which technically teaches thme how ot kill. Are they murderers? No, not at all. A gangbanger won't spend upwards of $2000 to take a class to learn how to point the gun his drug dealer gave him.
Not really. More of just arguing. You make a point against gun ownership, and I make a point for it. We seem evenly matched. You don;t use the normal ban-lobby arguments. Bravo. I accept your decision to not own a gun, as long as you leave mine alone. As long as you accept my choice, I'll accept yours.
((Yay! I broke my last record. I made it thorugh this whole argument without using the word "sheeple" to describe your average, government-brainwashed citizen! Yeah, that car commercial stole it from the gun bloggers. They came up with it a long time ago. AND I;m not calling you government-brainwashed, you;ve proven yourself otherwise by remaining intelligent and keeping your arguments from being emotionaly charged.))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:18 am
I think it will be interesting to hear what the man has to say - more debate material...
Have you gone hunting? Because that would be using the gun as a weapon to murder animals (premeditated - you went out looking to make an animal die)
Why couldn't they all be classified as premeditated? Just because they spent the equivalant of a semester in college? Because they are "normal"? Because they don't wear baggy clothes (which is the norm whrer I live...)? If a person takes the class to learn how to murder someone, then the murder or attempted murder was premeditated.
Just making sure the argument wasn't going stagnant; then it would be boring. Then we'd have to close this discussion down, but neither one of us would want to be the first to leave, because that would mean that we had surrendered. True?
I probably am government-brainwashed as well; I tend to absorb the facts, but not their sources. And considering how much (yes I don't remember where I got this from) the executive branch has paid in false news stories - I believe it was over a billion dollars. We are mostly sheeple. It reminds me of the book 1984.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:56 am
Jungle Soldier "you shall live by your sword, and your brother you shall serve" Sorry I am anarchist and atheist, bible quotes do not work for me! I am my own master and my brother imho sucks... The mixing of firearms and christianity is simply insane. It is like giving a hyperactive kid caffeine: It's gonna be messy! By the way, I couldn't care less if they get completely banned or not. I won't say everyone with a gun is bad. There are many people doing it as a sport, having it as a hobby. And others who need it for hunting (professional), but machineguns are just firearms designed for warfare and not hunting. What I hate is simply this "It is my holy quest to have a gun and protect my lawn and destroy everyone who stands against me as straight white christian and whatsoever!" That's the dangerous way with a gun: ideological blinded people running around with it and compensating a small d1ck. And these people pull the whole image of shooting as sports into the dirt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:28 pm
Dude, calm down. None olf those quotes are directed at you. Queen made a bibliological point, and thne I did.
I remember sitting in elementary school, severy morning at breakfast, adn they owuld give coffee to the dangerously hyper kid. They added some cream and then it actually calmed him down.
Hunting is not a profession, it is a hobby. Olympic and ISPCA
(I have no idea....) are professions.
*Points at your stereo-typing of every gun owner* Riiiight. I don;t have a small organ. I don;t plan on shooting everyone who disagrees with me. I;m not very religous, as my schedule is alread crammed to the brim. I;m not idealogical. And all of those apply to the severla thousand gun owners and carriers that I converse with on a daily or weekly basis.
ALso, I will point out for the third time, in caps, OUT SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR TARGET SHOOTING! IT'S THERE TO PROTECT AGAINST A TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT! So, stop using the (originaly nazi*) "sporting purpose" argument.
*THe gun contral act of 1968 was based off the old Nazi Gun Control Acts, ehich included "all firearms without a use for game hunting shall be confiscated and destroyed". The 1968 act didn't keep "confiscated and destroyed", but it attempted to ban non-hunting weapons. It failed.
Also: You CAN use a machine gun for hunting. Not everyone can hit that tiny-a** target with a single shot.... The AR-15 platform has grown for that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:49 pm
If you'll look a couple pages back, Hellraver, you'll see the reason we started to talk about the Bible. I am attempting to follow a pacifist lifestyle, and am depending on God to protect me. I also am trying to obey "Thou shalt not kill".
------
Caffeine calms down people with ADD or ADHD. My Grandma drinks a cup of coffee to fall asleep every night. But I understand that it was a metaphor.
------
Now, I don't see the point of hunting. Before any gun control laws, I would like to ban that practice.
------------
Uryu, I think that Hellraver is trying to say that some people give all gun owners a bad image; he wasn't talking about you specifically.
However, my thoughts on the stereotype tangent:
It's interesting how it works out. I refuse to carry a gun, am white and Christian. Oh, and I am also a vegetarian.
Uryu likes guns, isn't a devout Christian, not sure what race he is, and is male.
Neither one of us is a trigger-happy, Christian, male, blind-sided stereotype. If anything, we proved that in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:19 am
I'm white (Or "caucasian" to be politically correct)
And as to your post that I missed earlier...Eheh, sorry. You posted a couple seconds before hellraver and I only caught his post.
I have not gone hunting. My father is a devout christian, and has divorced from my mother a long time ago. HE live a couple counties away now, and has already remarried (I don;t know why say "already", they divorced 12 years ago...)
They don't learn how to murder someone. I;m not sure it even counts at learning how to kill. They are learning how to protect themselves. They teach to aim for the chest (center of mass) because it has a high chance to hit, and a lower chance to kill than a head shot. And I don;t know of any classes that last a semester...The longest I have seen is a four-day course, and it cost $2500. I can take it for free if I ever go to Vegas, but I probably won;t.
Not really. It's not officially a surrender until someone says "I give up" *winkwink*
I've wanted to read that book for years, but I haven't been able to find it. I almost asked the clerk at BAM to check the inventory, but I figured Amazon should have it.
Now Now, you shouldn't try to ban hunting either. It teaches skills that can be used later in life, along with discipline and respect. Now, if they are only hunting for antlers or trophies, they need to be banned. You eat what you kill. It;s also more humane than the farms that produce deer meat for stores, as most hunters kill thier game instantly, instead of torturing thme through their entire lives. They also control poulation and disease. Instead of paying hundreds of thousand or millions of dollars for government hunters to lower the population in a given area, they can sell permits to hunt and have the hunters do it for them and make a buck in the process. THey also put a lot inot the economy, with the equipment travel, and other hunting expences (per person) amounting to several thousand dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:23 am
thenerdqueen I trust that God will keep me safe throught my life - why would I need a weapon? did god keeps the Jews safe in WWII?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:21 pm
Again, as I've pointed out in another thread, the "what G*d said" argument is completely invalid, given that, primarily, not everyone believes that god exists. Just because you do or do not agree with something does not mean that it should be legal or illegal on that basis.
This being said, the theological arguments both for and against gun control and restriction should have no bearing. The truth of the matter is simple, the second amendment to the bill of rights is intended to allow for people to bear arms in an organized militia. It allows us to keep arms for the sake of shooting people, should the need arise. It serves as the ultimate check and balance, allowing the people to defend themselves from the tyrrany of the government itself.
Hunting is a byproduct of this, and if you're actually consuming your kill, then that's all the better, but it's still a completely moot point in the eyes of the argument at hand.
If the past has proven anything, it's that prohibition does not work. From guns, to drugs, to alcohol, it has already been shown that the results will, inevitably, be violent, expensive, and, ultimately, futile. The so-called "War on Drugs" made a lot of people a lot of money. If it didn't, it wouldn't have happened. That seems to be the whole point with these supposed crackdowns, take the money from the taxpayers so that the rich and powerful can grow even more rich and powerful.
And a side note: the whole "volume of fire" argument for hunting, doesn't really apply for hunting.... Automatic weapons are meant to suppress enemy combatants from poking their heads out by putting as much lead in the air as possible. Automatic weapons are, inherantly, difficult to control, and if you can't hit your target with one shot, getting 30 more behind you will only spoil the meat of your prey, if you do hit.
oh, and the civilian model AR-15 is semi-automatic only...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
And, with proper finger placement and pull, you can put out a fair volume of fire with a semi-automatic weapon. Most hunting rifles are bolt-action. Shotguns do have semi-automatic models for hunting, but I don;t know any shotgun hunters.
Yes, I know the Civilian AR-15 is semi-auto only. I've held one in my hands before, opting for it instead of the somewhat over-sized AK-47. Haven't fired either, and won;t until I get better hearing protection than my cheapo walmart muffs.
That said, the 2nd isn't only for militias. The first part, the one including the militias, is only the justifying clause, and has no effect on the actual amendment (the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And even those who don;t read anyone who points out that it was written in clauses, one of the fathers wrote a nice piece about it.
((Which I typed out at one point somewhere and have since lost....I'll find it eventually)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:07 pm
Why would you need better ear protection from a gun that only fires 5.56 mm rounds? the rounds are smaller, and inherantly quieter than larger rounds more typical to hunting, such as the 30.06, or even the 7.62. if you were to use a larger slug, and could actually hit and kill your quarry with the first shot, you would be able to get some good meat out of your kill, rather than killing the animal with your follow-up shots, and having the meat so soaked in adreneline that it's become completely tense and not even worth consuming.
That being said, the 5.56 mm round isn't meant to kill, and does it quite poorly. it's meant to maim and mutilate, demoralizing the enemy forces with ghastly wounds and horrific pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:24 pm
Wow. I can have some fun today. (Uryu, I'm ignoring your second post because I don't think it is aimed at me.) uryu ishida - It's all right, it gave me some downtime to catch up on my quest without staying up until 3 in the morning (which I did anyway - Harry Potter was such an excellent book I had to read it again.) Okay, I should go back and edit my musings on stereotypes, but I won't - people can go back and read it for themselves. Protecting themselves would be learning what a bulletproof vest is, and where to buy one, or learning to dodge bullets by running in a zigzag and such useful things as that. Learning where to shoot people is learning how to kill them. And the semester was a reference to the cost to get in to college. A year in a public college costs about 4,500- 5,000 dollars. Yeah. How likely is that? How could a decent bookstore not carry 1984? It's a classic AND it's a good story. Just be wary of the three wordy chapters in the middle. Those are purely political, written in thesis format. (I started to read the book in seventh grade and stopped there. It was only after taking World History four years later was I able to fully enjoy the book). I was referring mostly to the trophy hunting that goes on. It is wasteful and cruel to kill murder (after all, the hunters did plan it in advance) the animals for fun. I don't have a hard opinion about the other type of hunting - there are pros and cons that just about even out. Aside: I haven't eaten meat meat since the eighth grade (when I was allowed by my parents to stop), so I do not support the slaughterhouses that murder the animals. I once took care of a baby goat for a weekend that was later sold for its meat, but that's about it. Another aside: I think that all people should tour a slaughterhouse to see where their hamburgers actually come from. I think alot of people think that they just magically come from McDonalds. Jungle Soldier - In which country? In all of Norway, only 6 Jewish people were ever captured by the Nazis. And all of the workers in Oscar Schindler's factory made it through the war - even those that were taken to Auschwitz instead of Schindler's factory. Many of God's miracles happened during the occupation. dronze - But as I mentioned earlier to someone else, Quote: If you'll look a couple pages back, Hellraver, you'll see the reason we started to talk about the Bible. I am attempting to follow a pacifist lifestyle, and am depending on God to protect me. I understand that not everybody believes in Him. However, I do, and Uryu and I were debating about whether my beliefs were valid (for lack of a better word). As I have said before, I will not lobby against guns, because that would be restricting your freedoms. But I have the freedom not to use a gun, and that is my decision. Hunting is not even mentioned as a reason for retaining guns in the Bill of Rights. They are supposed to be safeguards against an oppressive government. (Which I suppose, would technically make the gun-holding citizens terrorists for preparing for a coup of the government...) Guns should not be used for murdering anybody (see Uryu's section above on my usage of the word murder). Why can't animals get rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:32 pm
thenerdqueen Why can't animals get rights? Because they're food, that's why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
