That is probably not the best way to view serial killers. They are called serial killers for a reason.
Yes, the wicked destroy the wicked. But serial killers destroy the innocent.
Newest insanity from the left
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
That is probably not the best way to view serial killers. They are called serial killers for a reason.
Yes, the wicked destroy the wicked. But serial killers destroy the innocent.
ok doser was banned? That sucks.
It forms a part of my psychology and anthropological studies. I have reached a conclusion not stated an opinion.
The scriptures teach that there are none good nor innocent people. The wages of sin is death serial killers deliver the judgement that passes to sinners.
Since God has not appointed them, no.
Apparently this is refutable. I don't know how to do it without calling you deranged. :idunno:
Just report back and tell him you failed. That your Sophistry fell to the ground and perished.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Not much of a chance of that.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It matters.
It matters a lot.
Government is influenced by We the People in more ways than just in the polls, from our wallets, in the Press, etc. Government is influenced when We the People are armed as well as our own national military's troops. That absolutely matters a lot, when our government takes this into consideration, because, and this is my point---it matters when We the People are not thusly armed. That's when all the 666 stuff happened, and that's when it still happens. Governments make wrong choices when the lethality of their people is null. They make better choices when we are armed to the hilt. So writ large wrt human history, "gun control" (iow any government violation of the right to bear arms) is devastating wrt murders, murderers, and murder victims, when calmly and collectedly viewed in direct comparison with what the Second Amendment plainly instructs the US government to do: The US government is instructed to do nothing, wrt 'gun control' of any kind. Strip down everything but the simple sentence formed from just the operative words---the, right, shall, not be infringed. = no gun control!
We sit here and we ponder annual murder rates. If we're honest. Otherwise we might ponder suicides by gun as evidence that gun control is a good idea (to say nothing of its obvious invalidity wrt the Constitution).
Gun control kills, because its direct opposite the right to bear arms, prevents the worst killings ever seen. It's the most important right that there is, and the US is the last best chance that humanity has of protecting this most important facet of the very right to life.
It's impressive how long your posts are, despite all the acronyms.
Guns are weapons and should not be in the wrong hands. Our rights as Citizens are not infringed by this. What we use guns for matters. That aside, some people hunt game with guns. I believe different guns are used for different things, like hunting or defending your homeland against the attack of foreigners seeking to oppress you with their weapons and gun involved shows of power. In other words, maybe the Red Coats or the English wouldn't fire at us. I don't think they were protecting other Red Coats, but the reason I say this is because I don't know that we will not use firepower abroad, while others may feel they are protecting their own land.
And who decides which hands are not worthy?
Not worthy? If guns could potentially go to anyone, for what purpose? Because worthy hands is different than not worthy, and who would want to make someone feel that their hands or they are not worthy? But if they are for killing people then who wants that responsibility when a shot fired could result in a murder charge but worse a dead person.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Agreed. :up:It's impressive how long your posts are, despite all the acronyms.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The wrong hands are the bad guys. If he's a bad guy, then you don't want him to have a gun, so you lock him up and keep him locked up until he's a good guy. If he never changes to a good guy, he's imprisoned for life.
And if he's a good guy, why wouldn't you want the good guy to have guns? You always want the good guys to have guns, haven't you seen a single war movie?
Anybody who's not in prison should be assumed to be a good guy. Give him a gun. And if we're wrong, then lock him up and keep him locked up. Infringing the right to bear arms, iow, is only Constitutional imo, when done to prison inmates.
The word "arms" in the Constitution refers first and foremost to exactly the weaponry that every British redcoat carried back then. Everybody is authorized, as a human being, to carry what is simply called today "standard issue" military, just like in the 1700s.
It's pretty simple.
There is a way in which the right to bear arms is not about gun control.
I don't think you understood the question.
I don't equip soldiers. I don't know if you do. You can answer if you want to.
You want me to answer my own question? :AMR:
Sure.