Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All Things Second Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Saying it doesn't make it so, Idolater.



    In other words, you are teaching as gospel the doctrines of men, something Christ warned about.

    You need to place GOD first, not politics.

    “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” - Matthew 7:24-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...7&version=NKJV



    When you place politics before what God says, you commit idolatry.

    Somewhat ironic, Idolater...

    You should repent.
    Do you have kids btw? I do. Just curious.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
      Do you have kids btw? I do. Just curious.
      What does that have to do with anything?

      I don't, but why does it matter?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        What does that have to do with anything?

        I don't, but why does it matter?
        'Changes you. How you see things. idk what it is. Broader context maybe or something. Longer view of things. Like, I'm going to die one day, hopefully before them, and I've got work to do for them, on their behalf, before that day comes, stuff like that maybe. I'm not really sure.

        Thanks though, for answering.
        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

        @Nee_Nihilo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
          'Changes you. How you see things. idk what it is. Broader context maybe or something. Longer view of things. Like, I'm going to die one day, hopefully before them, and I've got work to do for them, on their behalf, before that day comes, stuff like that maybe. I'm not really sure.

          Thanks though, for answering.
          So, again, what in the world did that have to do with what we were talking about?

          Are you trying to make the argument that having kids changes things, such that morality itself changes? If so, I've got news for you... There have been (if my sources are correct (just a quick google search, will provide link if requested)) around 300 billion children born since creation, and yet morality has not changed.

          If that was NOT the argument you were trying to make, my point still stands:

          God's law against idolatry has not gone away.

          God comes first. The rest will naturally fall into place after. Even politics.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            So, again, what in the world did that have to do with what we were talking about?

            Are you trying to make the argument that having kids changes things, such that morality itself changes? If so, I've got news for you... There have been (if my sources are correct (just a quick google search, will provide link if requested)) around 300 billion children born since creation, and yet morality has not changed.

            If that was NOT the argument you were trying to make, my point still stands:

            God's law against idolatry has not gone away.

            God comes first. The rest will naturally fall into place after. Even politics.
            You shall not commit adultery.

            That's a law.

            Right now, government police don't get involved if you commit adultery.

            Do you believe that government police should get involved if you commit adultery?

            If you say yes, then that is theocratic, and you're a theocrat. I believe adultery is grave sin, and I don't believe in theocracy. My politics don't determine my morality, and my morality doesn't determine my politics. It's difficult though, and it interested me to see evidence suggesting that politics precedes morality and not the other way round, which is why I posted the article.
            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

            @Nee_Nihilo

            Comment


            • Just in case anybody's unclear on the issue, what Beto proposed in last night's debate is Town's position.
              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

              @Nee_Nihilo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                You shall not commit adultery.

                That's a law.

                Right now, government police don't get involved if you commit adultery.

                Do you believe that government police should get involved if you commit adultery?
                Only if charges are brought against someone.

                If you say yes, then that is theocratic, and you're a theocrat.
                Pretty sure I've corrected you on this before.

                I am not a theocrat.

                I am not advocating theocracy.

                I am a theonomist.

                I advocate theonomy

                Theonomy:
                Theos - God
                Nomos - law

                Literally God's laws.

                I believe adultery is grave sin, and I don't believe in theocracy.
                I don't need to advocate for theocracy because the world will, in fact, eventually have one.

                But until God returns, having one would be unnecessary.

                My politics don't determine my morality, and my morality doesn't determine my politics. It's difficult though, and it interested me to see evidence suggesting that politics precedes morality and not the other way round, which is why I posted the article.
                Except that it shouldn't.

                I think that's what you're missing here.

                Politics SHOULD NOT affect your morality.

                Morality should affect politics.
                Last edited by JudgeRightly; September 13, 2019, 04:06 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                  Just in case anybody's unclear on the issue, what Beto proposed in last night's debate is ....

                  ... only rational when recognized as an act of racism

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                    ...politicians want a lack of guns just in case they need to turn tyrannical. Even if they have a big army and lots of cops that can roll over a rebellion, for some reason they find the need to take guns first... odd that....
                    This is from some dark alley of the internet (can't locate the cite---it's not mine is all I can tell you), and I thought it was worth sharing itt.
                    You cannot control an entire country and its people with drones, tanks, jets, battleships. A drone, jet, tank, battleship or whatever, cannot stand on street corners and enforce “no assembly” edicts. A drone cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband materials or propaganda.

                    None of those things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Drones and those other weapons are for decimating, flattening, glassing large areas, killing many people at once, and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass, they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive [expletive redacted].

                    Drones are useless for maintaining a police state. Police are needed to maintain a police state. Boots on the ground. No matter how many police or soldiers you have on the ground, they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians. Which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their [expletive redacted].

                    But when every random pedestrian could have a Glock jammed in their waistband and every random homeowner has an AR-15, all of that gets thrown out the window because now the police and military are outnumbered and kicking down those doors becomes a lot riskier, lest you catch a bullet on your way in and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

                    If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has ever tried to destroy. They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks, and improvised explosives. Because the big scary military monsters one would allude to are all but useless for dealing with them.
                    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                    @Nee_Nihilo

                    Comment


                    • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
                      - Second Amendment


                      During the Dayton mass shooting, its estimated that 9 were killed and 23 wounded within a span of 30 seconds - reinforcing the stark reality that the ability of authorities to intervene before a determined shooter has inflicted major "carnage" is virtually impossible1

                      With 8.5 to 15 million assault weapons available to America's private sector (NRA estimates), combined with high capacity magazines, that provides each individual owner, irrespective of their mental state, with the "firepower" that equals or exceeds that of a "well regulated militia" - by the Founding Fathers' standards!"

                      Individual Americans with assault rifles can wield as much firepower as a "well regulated militia" - unfortunately the finger on the trigger is neither "well-regulated" nor following orders/accountable to a militia!
                      Last edited by jgarden; September 18, 2019, 09:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
                        - Second Amendment


                        During the Dayton mass shooting, its estimated that 9 were killed and 23 wounded within a span of 30 seconds - reinforcing the stark reality that the ability of authorities to intervene before s determined shooter has inflicted major "carnage" is virtually impossible1

                        With 10 to 15 million assault weapons available to America's private sector, combined with high capacity magazines, that provides each individual owner, irrespective of their mental state, with the "firepower" that equals or exceeds that of a "well regulated militia" - by the Founding Fathers' standards!"

                        Individual Americans with assault rifles can wield as much firepower as a "well regulated militia" - unfortunately the finger on the trigger is neither "well-regulated" nor following orders/accountable to a militia!
                        We are limited by the gun control laws that we constantly show are Unconstitutional. We can do a better job without being hog-tied.
                        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                        @Nee_Nihilo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                          We are limited by the gun control laws that we constantly show are Unconstitutional. We can do a better job without being hog-tied.
                          A strict interpretation of the Constitution could also conclude that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" be limited to technology of the firearms that existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written!

                          Modern weapons would be reserved for those who had enlisted and were under the control of "a well regulated militia!"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                            A strict interpretation of the Constitution could also conclude that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" be limited to technology of the firearms that existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written!

                            Modern weapons would be reserved for those who had enlisted and were under the control of "a well regulated militia!"
                            What I'm saying is that the well regulated militia is hog-tied right now, by gun control. The right to bear arms is infringed like crazy, and the whole point of not infringing the right, is to have a well regulated militia, so it makes perfect sense that the militia is only as well regulated as gun control laws permit it to be, which is not very much right now.

                            https://forums.catholic.com/t/what-c...9/126?u=nihilo
                            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                            @Nee_Nihilo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                              Just in case anybody's unclear on the issue, what Beto proposed in last night's debate is Town's position.
                              Poll: Most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'
                              - 08/07/201

                              Most Republicans would support legislation banning assault-style weapons, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found Wednesday — a finding that contradicts President Donald Trump's claim earlier the same day that there's "no political appetite" for such restrictions.

                              The poll found that nearly 70 percent of all voters would back such a ban. Support for an assault-weapons ban was higher, at 86 percent, among Democrats, who have been pushing for new restrictions on the firearms in the wake of two mass shootings over the weekend.

                              Republicans typically are more reticent to support new gun restrictions, and Trump campaigned in 2016 on his strong support for the Second Amendment. But the poll found that 55 percent of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons, and 54 percent said they would support stricter gun laws more generally. Ninety percent said they would back universal background checks for gun sales.

                              Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban, the poll found.

                              https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ns-ban-1452586
                              ********************************************
                              - nearly 70% of all voters would back an assault weapon ban

                              - only 23% of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban

                              - 55% of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons

                              - 86% of Democrats supported an assault-weapons ban

                              It would appear that "Beto" was expressing an opinion that is already held by 70% of Americans, including 55% of Republican voters!

                              The real question is how much longer the majority of Americans will be content to have the other 23% attempt to hold the nation hostage to the NRA agenda!

                              With 14 months before the 2020 Election, how much longer can this President and Republican politicians remain committed to their gun lobby friends, given that its public support is rapidly eroding before their very eyes - time for the "rats" to start deserting the NRA ship!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                                Poll: Most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'
                                - 08/07/201

                                Most Republicans would support legislation banning assault-style weapons, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found Wednesday — a finding that contradicts President Donald Trump's claim earlier the same day that there's "no political appetite" for such restrictions.

                                The poll found that nearly 70 percent of all voters would back such a ban. Support for an assault-weapons ban was higher, at 86 percent, among Democrats, who have been pushing for new restrictions on the firearms in the wake of two mass shootings over the weekend.

                                Republicans typically are more reticent to support new gun restrictions, and Trump campaigned in 2016 on his strong support for the Second Amendment. But the poll found that 55 percent of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons, and 54 percent said they would support stricter gun laws more generally. Ninety percent said they would back universal background checks for gun sales.

                                Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban, the poll found.

                                https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ns-ban-1452586
                                ********************************************
                                - nearly 70% of all voters would back an assault weapon ban

                                - only 23% of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban

                                - 55% of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons

                                - 86% of Democrats supported an assault-weapons ban

                                It would appear that "Beto" was expressing an opinion that is already held by 70% of Americans, including 55% of Republican voters!

                                The real question is how much longer the majority of Americans will be content to have the other 23% attempt to hold the nation hostage to the NRA agenda!

                                With 14 months before the 2020 Election, how much longer can this President and Republican politicians remain committed to their gun lobby friends, given that its public support is rapidly eroding before their very eyes - time for the "rats" to start deserting the NRA ship!
                                Republicans need the NRA, and it's not the other way around. If Democrats suddenly grew a brain, they'd realize that if they made a focused effort on acknowledging, recognizing, affirming, protecting, preserving, honoring, and defending the right to bear arms, they'd rule the world and win every election.
                                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                                @Nee_Nihilo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X