Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[Ktoyou]

What kinds of mental illness?

Domestic abuse for one big one. If someone cannot control their behaviour to resist hitting someone, then they should not have a gun.

He was also diagnosed as having mental illness.

 

[patrick jane]

Domestic abuse for one big one. If someone cannot control their behaviour to resist hitting someone, then they should not have a gun.

He was also diagnosed as having mental illness.

Yes, any violence and violent crimes should ban the person from having a gun. But there are many different forms of mental illness like depression, anxiety, etc.

 

[kmoney]

Well I guess we need to make more restrictions of who can drive a vehicle since folks are still getting run down by them despite all the current training and inspection we have in place.
Obviously we just don't have enough to stop nuts from using a vehicle inappropriately.
If we just had more restrictions, that would stop the nuts.

I'll take that as a no. So on the flip side, would you remove the vehicle laws?

 

[kmoney]

I agree, yet in my old age, I have become more realistic about a need to have more control to keep guns out of the wrong hands. The NRA is too insistent it is all or nothing, and I am afraid it may end up being nothing.

We need to come together and develop a compromise.

What's interesting to me is that the NRA used to be much more amenable to gun controls but they've gotten more extreme.
And the general public, even NRA members, poll more favorably to gun control measures, but the NRA leadership fights against it and throws a ton of money at it.
So the desire to compromise seems to be there for a lot of people.

 

[Ktoyou]

What's interesting to me is that the NRA used to be much more amenable to gun controls but they've gotten more extreme.
And the general public, even NRA members, poll more favorably to gun control measures, but the NRA leadership fights against it and throws a ton of money at it.
So the desire to compromise seems to be there for a lot of people.

NRA began with hunters in mind and the right to harvest wild game. That is why 'rifle' is in the name; most of the original members were hunters, rather than proponents of self-deference, which was implied as undeniable, but they saw the NRA as a way to preserve the American hunting right.

Members used to get a mag about rifles, or hunting and most readers were hunters.

This began to change around 1990 with more emphasis of right to bear arms for self-defense. Before that, self-defense was understood as a given right; what they were mainly concerned was more urban people not valuing hunting, or the right to hunt.

The focus of the NRA has very much changes in the last 25 years.

 

[Nihilo]

The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is a civil right, stemming from the right to life, and the right to self defense, and it is the right o possess and carry standard issue military small arms.

The Second Amendment says the RKBA shall not be infringed.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the Second Amendment.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

The Second Amendment recognizes a human/civil right to own/keep/possess and to bear/carry peaceably and lawfully standard issue military small arms, and stipulates that this human/civil right "shall not be infringed," so really, nothing you say here is true. You're way off. Warped, some might say.
Everybody's got opinions.
Terrorists didn't really start taking advantage of our freedoms until Prohibition.
No, because of murderers.

Anyone who has a gun is thinking they will kill someone if they are threatened and are therefore preparing to carry out murder.

Guns are a relativity new technological invention that has allowed anyone to murder others very easily.

Guns are not something that God intended, it is a Satanic invention like anything else that kills.

Death is a consequence of the fall caused by Satan.

Gun owners are owned by Satan.

Gun owners are Satanist whether they know it or not.

Those who support gun ownership are Satanists as well.

All these people would rather carry out murder than be murdered which is the opposite of what Jesus taught:

Matthew 5:44
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Jesus was Murdered and forgave His murderers:

uke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Pro-gun people hate others.

1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

These haters will go to Hell:

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the MURDERERS, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

You have a misconception about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was given by the founding fathers because they understood how a government can run amok and threaten the liberty of its citizens. They gave the citizens of the US that right because they knew the time would come when the citizens would have to overthrow their own government to keep their liberties.

Here is Thomas Jefferson's take on it: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

What follows is the context of that sentence. It is a letter written by Jefferson on November 13, 1787 to a man named William Stephens Smith.



If you wonder where I came up with this, I have all of Thomas Jefferson's writings in ebook form.

Actually it is more complicated than that, the history of the Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

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.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

See this is what I was talking about the British. However there are different interpretations of the Second Amendment which is argued over:

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

And this was what I was also talking about.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

So within that debate any intelligent person would realise that both sides are wrong given the fact that this system clearly isn't working, given the extremely high death toll compared to countries with tight gun control.

 

[exminister]

I'll just respond to what I see as the main idea behind your post.

Got road rage?

When you come off your soap box I would like you to have a conversation with me.

 

[exminister]

I think this might be a good time to remind folks that the NRA does not sell guns.

But they sure make loads of money from those who buy and manufacture, enough to scare the daylight out of Congressman.

 

[exminister]

The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is a civil right, stemming from the right to life, and the right to self defense, and it is the right o possess and carry standard issue military small arms.

The Second Amendment says the RKBA shall not be infringed.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the Second Amendment.

The right to life. What about that same right for the 10,000 victims of gun violence annually?

 

[patrick jane]

The right to life. What about that same right for the 10,000 victims of gun violence annually?

Right to life. What about the 100,000 (probably more) victims of crime and possible death at the end of a gun barrel from a criminal?

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]How Dare the GOP Pray for Texas[/h]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-dare-the-gop-pray-for-texas-1510012040


http://www.newsweek.com/trump-gop-thoughts-prayers-texas-church-shooting-702305

 

[Tambora]

But they sure make loads of money from those who buy and manufacture, enough to scare the daylight out of Congressman.

Well that's pretty cool for them.
But they still don't sell any guns.

 

[Gary K]

Actually it is more complicated than that, the history of the Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

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.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

See this is what I was talking about the British. However there are different interpretations of the Second Amendment which is argued over:

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

And this was what I was also talking about.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

So within that debate any intelligent person would realise that both sides are wrong given the fact that this system clearly isn't working, given the extremely high death toll compared to countries with tight gun control.

I can give you quotes concerning Madison's actual beliefs from both letters he wrote and speeches he gave as I have his writings in ebook form.

1. Madison believed the government, both state and federal, should have no standing army. He believed it was a curse upon the people and diametrically opposed to liberty.

2. Madison believed that only the states could form military bodies, i.e. call one into existence in time of need. Implicit in that understanding is that there would be no armories as such. The general public at that time was often far better armed than what government supplied in time of need.

The government gave out smooth-bore muskets during the Revolutionary war. These were adequate simply because of how battles were fought then. The two sides would line up opposite each other and go to firing. No real accuracy required because the troops were massed on both sides. The public had weapons with rifled barrels which were required for accurate shooting. No one on the frontier could survive with a weapon as innaccurate as a smooth-bore musket. They required a rifle with a rifled barrel to be able to shoot game, and fight off Indian attack, on a consistent basis. Thus, when a militia was called into existence each man showed up with his own rifle and bullet molds. The state simply provided the powder and lead they would use.

Another reason for this is because each man wanted to be familiar with the weapon he would be using. Since there were no standing military bodies there were no training programs to familiarize the men with a state-supplied weapon. To show up and march off into a fight with an unfamiliar weapon is suicide. Therefore each man needed his own weapon.

3. Madison believed that the federal government could only call upon states to provide military units in time of need. It was to have no authority over them on a continuing basis.

Now let's look at the underlying assumption of your position. Your claim is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right to only be armed if in the military. The germ of that idea is that it is a "right" to be called into the military and be used for canon fodder. That this is the "right" the founding fathers had in mind in creating the 2nd amendment. I find this to be a ludicrous idea. You're not the first to propose this idea so I'm not saying it's original with you. I'm just saying you've fallen for what "sounds" like a reasonable argument until you actually examine the assertion.

Every right declared in the amendments to the Constitution is there because it is designed to protect and maintain the liberty of the individual against the power of the government. And yet you want me to believe that men like Madison and Jefferson thought it a "right" for the individual to be cannon fodder for the purposes of the state. Ideas like that are something they had not long before fought a war against. Everyone of them had risked their lives and all their property to oppose such ideas. And now you want me to believe they were working to support the ideas they had opposed at the risk of their lives. You say that not all of them fought in the war? So? Even if they didn't actually fight in the war, they risked their lives and all their property by signing the Declaration of Independence, for if the colonists had lost the war with England the English would have shot or hung the signatories as rebels and confiscated all their property.

 

[Tambora]

There is a limited amount a reasonable administration can do.

Exactly.
Which is why each citizen should have the means to defend themselves.

The laws regarding vehicles are designed to stop sane people doing dangerous and daft things, and they are usually quite good at that.

They cant stop some intent of breaking all laws from using the car as a weapon.

Gun laws that don't take most guns out of circulation do similar they will limit the damage sane people may do to each other but are little protection against a determined psychopath.

You can switch vehicles and guns and have the same argument.

Watch ....

The laws regarding vehiclesguns are designed to stop sane people doing dangerous and daft things, and they are usually quite good at that.

They cant stop some intent of breaking all laws from using the cargun as a weapon.

GunVehicle laws that don't take most gunsvehicles out of circulation do similar they will limit the damage sane people may do to each other but are little protection against a determined psychopath​

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I can give you quotes concerning Madison's actual beliefs from both letters he wrote and speeches he gave as I have his writings in ebook form.

1. Madison believed the government, both state and federal, should have no standing army. He believed it was a curse upon the people and diametrically opposed to liberty.

2. Madison believed that only the states could form military bodies, i.e. call one into existence in time of need. Implicit in that understanding is that there would be no armories as such. The general public at that time was often far better armed than what government supplied in time of need.

The government gave out smooth-bore muskets during the Revolutionary war. These were adequate simply because of how battles were fought then. The two sides would line up opposite each other and go to firing. No real accuracy required because the troops were massed on both sides. The public had weapons with rifled barrels which were required for accurate shooting. No one on the frontier could survive with a weapon as innaccurate as a smooth-bore musket. They required a rifle with a rifled barrel to be able to shoot game, and fight off Indian attack, on a consistent basis. Thus, when a militia was called into existence each man showed up with his own rifle and bullet molds. The state simply provided the powder and lead they would use.

Another reason for this is because each man wanted to be familiar with the weapon he would be using. Since there were no standing military bodies there were no training programs to familiarize the men with a state-supplied weapon. To show up and march off into a fight with an unfamiliar weapon is suicide. Therefore each man needed his own weapon.

3. Madison believed that the federal government could only call upon states to provide military units in time of need. It was to have no authority over them on a continuing basis.

Now let's look at the underlying assumption of your position. Your claim is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right to only be armed if in the military. The germ of that idea is that it is a "right" to be called into the military and be used for canon fodder. That this is the "right" the founding fathers had in mind in creating the 2nd amendment. I find this to be a ludicrous idea. You're not the first to propose this idea so I'm not saying it's original with you. I'm just saying you've fallen for what "sounds" like a reasonable argument until you actually examine the assertion.

Every right declared in the amendments to the Constitution is there because it is designed to protect and maintain the liberty of the individual against the power of the government. And yet you want me to believe that men like Madison and Jefferson thought it a "right" for the individual to be cannon fodder for the purposes of the state. Ideas like that are something they had not long before fought a war against. Everyone of them had risked their lives and all their property to oppose such ideas. And now you want me to believe they were working to support the ideas they had opposed at the risk of their lives. You say that not all of them fought in the war? So? Even if they didn't actually fight in the war, they risked their lives and all their property by signing the Declaration of Independence, for if the colonists had lost the war with England the English would have shot or hung the signatories as rebels and confiscated all their property.

Your missing my point; The US gun regulations aren't working. They need to go to tighten gun control like say with the UK's laws for example. Doing this is difficult given the history but not impossible. That's it. Argue all you like it won't change these facts.

 

[Nihilo]

Anyone who has a gun is thinking they will kill someone if they are threatened and are therefore preparing to carry out murder.

:freak: That's not murder.

Guns are a relativity new technological invention that has allowed anyone to murder others very easily.

So?

Guns are not something that God intended, it is a Satanic invention like anything else that kills.

Killers deserve to be killed.

Death is a consequence of the fall caused by Satan.

So?

Gun owners are owned by Satan.

:freak:

Gun owners are Satanist whether they know it or not.

:freak:

Those who support gun ownership are Satanists as well.

:freak:

All these people would rather carry out murder than be murdered which is the opposite of what Jesus taught:

Matthew 5:44
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Jesus was Murdered and forgave His murderers:

uke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Pro-gun people hate others.

:freak:

1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

These haters will go to Hell:

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the MURDERERS, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Lethal force used in self defense is moral, legal, and just. It's not murder, you evil idiot.

:freak:

 

[Nihilo]

The right to life. What about that same right for the 10,000 victims of gun violence annually?

They have the right to life also. :idunno: Does someone's right to life deny everybody else theirs?

 

[Gary K]

Your missing my point; The US gun regulations aren't working. They need to go to tighten gun control like say with the UK's laws for example. Doing this is difficult given the history but not impossible. That's it. Argue all you like it won't change these facts.

So, even though I exposed your entire argument as fallacious you stick to your argument.

Your point is, quite simply, wrong. Guns are not the problem. The problem is the decline and fall of Biblical morality within the US. If we all accepted and practiced the principles found in the 10 commandments there would be no murder problem, ever. That is the solution to the problem of murder. As long as those principles are not put into practice there will never be a cessation of murder, whether it be a single murder at a time, or murders of multiple people at once. And, people have a God-given right to defend themselves. The history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Israelites as a nation show God has never withheld that right from humanity.