30 Days, A beginning to the end of mass shootings.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Are you referring to Due Process?

This:

He should be put to death within 24 hours.

Put the pressure on.

30 days? "Eh, I'll repent later."

Day 30 arrives: "Why do I need to repent? I did nothing wrong!"

Giving a criminal time to relax allows him to solidify in his mind that he did nothing wrong, because there's no immediate punishment.

Executing a criminal within 24 hours, while giving him time to repent, also forces him to consider his eternal destination.

50% of the time when someone is confronted with the reality of their death, they turn to God. The other 50% they turn away.

God said that he has set out life and death, and to choose. There's no third option.

And before you ask, no, by "criminal" I mean one who committed a capital crime.

Those who commit other crimes should be punished appropriately.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If not, you're remarkably unable to articulate your beliefs. You've repeated them several times.

Or...

You're just too dense or too stubborn to (want to) understand...

I can only point out that in America, that has never been accepted.

No idea what you're talking about.

I cited a federal court decision. That's "someone" on all sorts of levels.

And that's an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy, dontcha know?

I realize you believe God wants to kill the guilty to the point that innocent people are killed. I disagree.

Straw man.

Misrepresenting my position won't win you the argument, Barb.

Try arguing against what I actually said.

So you now don't approve of rapid executions, which would kill scores of innocent people?

Again, not my argument.

Argue against what I said, not what you wish I said.

(Jesus shames the Pharisees into letting a guilty woman go free)
Question begging.

Show me, Biblically, why God had to repeal the death penalty to forgive the adulteress.

He didn't repeat an argument. He merely shamed them into not killing her, as the law demanded.

You're clearly not paying attention to what I'm saying. Go read what I said again, and respond to that.

Show us that there weren't witnesses.
Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,
“Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”[/YELLOW]She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:9-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:9-11&version=NKJV

And you're saying that if one guilty person escapes, you must let the other guilty person go free? How so?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

You don't know your Bible too well, do you?

‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus20:10&version=NKJV

(editing God's word to make a point)

I don't think that's a good idea for you to do.

You just don't like it because it's exactly what you're doing, saying "don't put murderers to death because they might be innocent," even though God specifically said to put murderers to death and to not show mercy nor pity.

I didn't say you were lying, but I don't think he likes it.

Read what I said again. I said YOU were lying.

You need to show us that. Show us there were no witnesses, and show us where it says that if one guilty party escapes the other guilty party must go free.

Supra.

I don't think this is serving any good purpose.

The word of God does not return void.

If you want to continue, show us that there weren't any witnesses, and that God says if one guilty party escapes, we have to set the other one free. I'll give you the last word now.

See above.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
This:



And before you ask, no, by "criminal" I mean one who committed a capital crime.

Those who commit other crimes should be punished appropriately.

So, how do we alter Due Process to accommodate/succor mob mentality? Constitutionally speaking, of course.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So, how do we alter Due Process to accommodate/succor mob mentality? Constitutionally speaking, of course.

As far as people who commit crime in a group?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Interesting the way some weep over a mass murderer. I think he should be taken out and shot.
Hmm, I think that's not painful enough, though it certainly is swift...

Aside from letting the victims and their families decide on his punishment, I think each one of them should fire one round into whichever part of his body he managed to hit on his victims.

You know, hand for hand, eye for eye, foot for foot...

Maybe even using the same weapon he used to do it.

Certainly painful enough, and if each family member each got a single shot, I think he'd die quickly enough, while still experiencing at least the physical pain he caused his victims...

The life for life demand would be satisfied too.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
​Yeah but... It would be painful. They get tossed in hell. That's not a PC thing to say, but a person who would shoot up a crowd of people has a pretty hard heart.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Oh and the woman caught in adultery didn't murder anybody. That is what is called a red herring argument. It's a derailment.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Interesting the way some weep over a mass murderer. I think he should be taken out and shot.

Interesting the way some would so impulsively play at our rights and liberties in the short term for a fleeting, impassioned opportunity at revenge.

Be careful what you choose to (knee-jerk) negate for others...you might require its privilege one day..
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Interesting the way some would so impulsively play at our rights and liberties in the short term for a fleeting, impassioned opportunity at revenge.

People don't have a right to murder, especially abortion.

Be careful what you choose to (knee-jerk) negate for others...you might require its privilege one day..

If there came a day when I were tempted to gun down a whole lot of innocent people, I'd want the knowledge that a swift and extremely painful execution awaited me.

Can you guess why?
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
I always find these threads very interesting. The socialists have been working at destroying Biblical morality since the 1800s. Now they make claims as to superior morality and decision making. Murderers need to be protected because, well, it's not nice to execute anyone, no matter what they have ever done. Oh, the claims to the moral high ground that come from those most responsible for removing morality from society.

They do this in every aspect of morality and crime. The thief should never be punished by his victim. The parents should never punish those who destroy the lives of their children. It's just not fair to punish those whom society has "abandoned". Well, who abandoned moral training? The same ones who argue those most affected by their own lack of moral training shouldn't be punished in any meaningful manner. By meaningful manner I mean punishment swiftly meted out and harsh enough to discourage others from following the criminal's example. Oh, the horror of that. It's so unkind and punishment never works. Riiiggghhht. No child on earth has ever benefited by being disciplined consistently by the child's parents.

The socialists deny even parents the right to discipline their own children because, well, the state should be the only one to discipline anyone. Right. The corrupt, easily bought off judges, prosecutors, police, politicians, etc... should be the ones who decide all moral issues and punishments. Someone outside the family who has no knowledge of what goes on every day should be the ones making the decisions. It's ludicrous but yet the socialists claim that is by far the best solution because, you know, parents might actually work to instill Biblical principles into the lives of their children. Oh, what a horror that would be. Decent, highly moral, law abiding citizens would destroy the calls for more surveillance, more controls on citizens, the removal of rights, etc.... That's why morality has been under constant attack for many decades. Moral people do not need to be controlled by an external force. They control themselves. That is a horror to the socialists in their search for absolute power.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
People don't have a right to murder, especially abortion.
I see that went completely over your head. Next....



If there came a day when I were tempted to gun down a whole lot of innocent people, I'd want the knowledge that a swift and extremely painful execution awaited me.

Can you guess why?

I'd rather you sit in your 6 x 6 cell and slowly rot away from the inside.

Can YOU guess why?
 
Top