RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment ***

RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 3:23:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I understand that pro gun claim it their God given right, I just trying to find out when God announced that policy Book of Ruth One of her missions was getting the King, not to protect the Jews, but to allow them the weapons to do it themselves. The modern equivalent would be not swords but ... wait for it.... Firearms. Not so sure about Ruth. Nehemiah 4:17-18 Luke 22:36 Psalms 144:1 Judges 5:8 1 Samuel 25:13 Exodus 22:2 My mistake, it was Esther, not Ruth.

PeonForHer -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 3:32:48 PM)
FR God said guns were fine in the Bible. Or, the 2nd Amendment is immutable and set in stone, so guns are to stay forever. Or they're an integral part of what is timelessly American. Or, as was said at the beginning of this thread, guns are the "the genie" that is now "out of the bottle; we can never put it back in again." Or . . . whatever. It doesn't matter. The sociologist Jurgen Habermas called this 'objectivism' (not to be confused with the use of that term by Randian cuckoo clocks): the idea that some social institution came into being and now is just there, unalterable, like the hills or the weather. It is, of course, bollocks, and until that's realised, nothing moves on.

dcnovice -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 3:42:19 PM)
quote: God said guns were fine in the Bible. Sad to say, there are parts of my beloved country where that actually passes muster as a public policy argument. ETA: I'm not waiting up for those same folks to embrace, say, Mark 10:21 or Matthew 19:4 with quite the same fervor. And those swallowing sword verses seem to have overlooked Matthew 26:52.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 3:47:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: God said guns were fine in the Bible. Sad to say, there are parts of my beloved country where that actually passes muster as an argument. No but various portions of the Bible do validate self defense. Today that would be firearms. Unless you are going to make the argument that since they just had swords then that is the only thing it's ok to defend yourself with. But wait every gun thread has one crackpot who claims that the 2nd only protects muskets.

Kirata -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer God said guns were fine in the Bible. I don't think anyone said that. Nosathro implied it by asking "where?" But a "God given" right denotes a right that is inherent, intrinsic to being a human being. It is axiomatic that persons have a right to defend themselves. The burden here falls upon those who would argue that persons do not have a right to defend themselves or, just as effectively, that they do not have a right to an adequate means to defend themselves. K.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer God said guns were fine in the Bible. I don't think anyone said that. Nosathro implied it by asking "where?" But a "God given" right denotes a right that is inherent, intrinsic to being a human being. It is axiomatic that persons have a right to defend themselves. The burden here falls upon those who would argue that persons do not have a right to defend themselves or, just as effectively, that they do not have a right to an adequate means to defend themselves. K. That one's easy. Hear it all the time in one form or another. "It's the children!" Heh!

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:11:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: God said guns were fine in the Bible. Sad to say, there are parts of my beloved country where that actually passes muster as a public policy argument. ETA: I'm not waiting up for those same folks to embrace, say, Mark 10:21 or Matthew 19:4 with quite the same fervor. And those swallowing sword verses seem to have overlooked Matthew 26:52. Embrace what? Your misunderstanding? [8\|]

PeonForHer -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:31:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer God said guns were fine in the Bible. I don't think anyone said that. Nosathro implied it by asking "where?" But a "God given" right denotes a right that is inherent, intrinsic to being a human being. It is axiomatic that persons have a right to defend themselves. The burden here falls upon those who would argue that persons do not have a right to defend themselves or, just as effectively, that they do not have a right to an adequate means to defend themselves. Not my point, K. My point was to pick at the assumption that guns are an unalterable fact of society in the USA - as unalterable as the weather. Still, to your point: Is it really axiomatic that persons have a right to defend themselves? I don't think so, not all the way, and not in most societies, including that of the USA. A lot of any person's self defence is given over to the state and the state doesn't usually feel it incumbent on itself to explain why, for instance, ordinary US citizens aren't allowed to have the means to defend themselves against, say, enemy aircraft equipped with bombs and missiles - or, indeed aircraft that have been hijacked by terrorists. Also - children are 'persons', of course, yet the states of most countries - including again the USA - don't think it necessary to explain to children why they can't carry firearms into school. Sure, I think people need to defend themselves and it's up to the state to explain why they are unable to have the adequate means to do that. I know that this goes to the practical question: Do I think that innocent people should be deprived of their weapons, while the criminals - who by definition are beyond the law anyway - still carry theirs? No, of course not. But that doesn't seem to me to be an insurmountable problem. Law enforcement agencies in the USA seem to be able to wade in with full force against anyone suspected of owning, say, bomb-making equipment. If now-illegal guns were to be put into the same category of heinous criminality and acted upon by law enforcement agencies accordingly, the problem could be solved without too much delay - no?

Politesub53 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR We got a lot of tickets for the Unmoderated Zimmerman thread because people were being nasty to each other. Please don't report this. What you were going on about having reported me for. Again can't you understand plain English? Youre not making sense.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If now-illegal guns were to be put into the same category of heinous criminality and acted upon by law enforcement agencies accordingly, the problem could be solved without too much delay - no? We here in the states have a problem with such as you think so simple. Call it the "Never Again" syndrome or anything else you should choose. You're very trusting in government. We here have an innate distrust. At least enough so that we still have our guns.

deathtothepixies -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If now-illegal guns were to be put into the same category of heinous criminality and acted upon by law enforcement agencies accordingly, the problem could be solved without too much delay - no? We here in the states have a problem with such as you think so simple. Call it the "Never Again" syndrome or anything else you should choose. You're very trusting in government. We here have an innate distrust. At least enough so that we still have our guns. we don't trust our government any more than you do but guns aren't going to change anything, you're never going to overthrow your government because citizens own some guns, it's a stupid concept that is hundreds of years out of date

Politesub53 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 4:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If now-illegal guns were to be put into the same category of heinous criminality and acted upon by law enforcement agencies accordingly, the problem could be solved without too much delay - no? We here in the states have a problem with such as you think so simple. Call it the "Never Again" syndrome or anything else you should choose. You're very trusting in government. We here have an innate distrust. At least enough so that we still have our guns. Are you suggesting the US hasnt evolved in 230 years or so ? Wouldn`t "never again" apply to all the mass shootings in the US ? We are our government and have been for 300 years. What we trust is our democratic process, what we choose is not to carry arms.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If now-illegal guns were to be put into the same category of heinous criminality and acted upon by law enforcement agencies accordingly, the problem could be solved without too much delay - no? We here in the states have a problem with such as you think so simple. Call it the "Never Again" syndrome or anything else you should choose. You're very trusting in government. We here have an innate distrust. At least enough so that we still have our guns. Are you suggesting the US hasnt evolved in 230 years or so ? Wouldn`t "never again" apply to all the mass shootings in the US ? We are our government and have been for 300 years. What we trust is our democratic process, what we choose is not to carry arms. Technologically we've evolved. I don't think human nature has changed in thousands of years. I'm sure you're aware, for instance, even Hitler was elected via their democratic process. That's not so long ago. What you choose is up to you. What we choose is up to us.

chastityDom1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:14:21 PM)
whoosh............. evolution, really? isn't there some internet thing about bringing Hitler to the table? Are the gun totting citizens of America going to bring the government down? Yes or no?

Politesub53 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:19:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chastityDom1 whoosh............. evolution, really? isn't there some internet thing about bringing Hitler to the table? Are the gun totting citizens of America going to bring the government down? Yes or no? Thanks......saved me posting.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:20:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: chastityDom1 whoosh............. evolution, really? isn't there some internet thing about bringing Hitler to the table? Are the gun totting citizens of America going to bring the government down? Yes or no? Thanks......saved me posting. [sm=rofl.gif] You two should get a room [8D]

chastityDom1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:24:37 PM)
instead of posting stupid icons you could try to answer the fucking question

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:33:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chastityDom1 instead of posting stupid icons you could try to answer the fucking question Answer what? Your reply is the best you can do? I say we've evolved technologically and that I think human nature hasn't changed in 2000 years. and what do you reply, oh one of such written wit? whoosh............. evolution, really? Wow! Have I been put in my place [sm=rofl.gif] Polite says, What we trust is our democratic process, Hitler is not off the table. It's quite apropos actually, being so recent and an example of the democratic process. But, you're so smart... [sm=owned.gif] Are we going to bring the government down? You think I'm clairvoyant? I'll give you a [sm=biggrin.gif] I've said this before, now I'll say it to you - You're not tall enough for this ride.

Politesub53 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chastityDom1 instead of posting stupid icons you could try to answer the fucking question Dont hold your breath........ Loved his notion that mankind hasnt evolved in 2,000 years.

dcnovice -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/8/2013 5:43:08 PM)
quote: Embrace what? Your misunderstanding? I see. When someone else cites Scripture, it's a "misunderstanding." Pius IX felt the same way.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875