The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[The Barbarian]

And you haven't got anything to debate I see...... hence the insulting back-handers.
I remember now......... that was your chief characteristic last time we exchanged posts.

He's lost his place to intojoy, and he's conflicted on whether or not he wants it back. So occasionally rational, occasionally trolling.

Poor fellah.

 

[Idolater]

Oh come on, Idol, you know better. Believing in the right to bear arms does not require you to believe in the right to bear every.

'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' is the operative clause in the Second Amendment. It's an inalienable right. If your children's lives are in danger, I have the right to use any weapon that I can get my hands on in that moment to try to save them. If hand grenades are available, or a bazooka, or a machine gun, or assault weapons with the Most High capacity clips, then my inalienable right permits me to grab them, and to fire away.

If you want to talk about banning weapons, then I'm on board. But we have to start with the nukes, not small arms of any type; not before nukes.

Similarly, many people who would support abortion in the case of the mother's life being in peril would oppose it at any other juncture, though many right wing politicians widen that net a bit to include incest and rape victims. So the either/or just doesn't really work when you observe how people actually come down for the most part.

All I really meant was that Democrats don't want to ban abortion, so if you do want to ban abortion, then you're probably not a Democrat.

 

[Idolater]

To exclude the above is a statement that not all unborn babies are worthy of life. In the case of life-threatening pregnancy, the goal should always be to save *both* lives.

Agreed. Just as with any life-threatening encounter, the goal is to stop the threat, not necessarily to kill the one posing the threat.

Sadly, when the threat is posed by an adult, oftentimes lethal force is the only correct option; by their own doing.

 

[ok doser]

He's lost his place to intojoy, and he's conflicted on whether or not he wants it back. So occasionally rational, occasionally trolling.

Poor fellah.

You really missed me, dint you? just can't stop talking about me each:

you and artie and town are my fanboys

 

[Town Heretic]

'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' is the operative clause in the Second Amendment.

You omitted the foundation of the need for a militia as we lacked a standing army, a thing long gone by the boards, but ignoring that....sure. And the Court has already established you don't have the right to every type of weapon in the exercise of that right, which was my point and one nothing you write here responds to or rebuts.

It's an inalienable right. If your children's lives are in danger, I have the right to use any weapon that I can get my hands on in that moment to try to save them. If hand grenades are available, or a bazooka, or a machine gun, or assault weapons with the Most High capacity clips, then my inalienable right permits me to grab them, and to fire away.

Any weapon you can get your hands on to protect yourself (though if that really was a grenade and you harmed others foreseeably you wouldn't get a pass) isn't the same thing as having a right to buy and legally keep every sort of weapon that can be cobbled.

If you want to talk about banning weapons, then I'm on board. But we have to start with the nukes, not small arms of any type; not before nukes.

I've already set out the foundation and the argument. The only rational argument had today is where we draw the line in exercise, or if it should be redrawn. I've argued that due to the nature of weapons vastly more destructive than what the forefathers had on hand to meet the right fully, we must do that and reasonably should to protect our citizens better against gun related violence and mass shootings.

All I really meant was that Democrats don't want to ban abortion, so if you do want to ban abortion, then you're probably not a Democrat.

There's actually a pro-life group within the Democratic party, just as there are Republicans who are pro-choice, and many more on both sides that support abortion in limited circumstances, though I'd agree the pro-choice crowd has a better home in the Democratic party on the whole.

 

[Idolater]

You omitted the foundation of the need for a militia as we lacked a standing army, a thing long gone by the boards

The militia is every man and woman (it used to be just every man, but equality) who can learn how to shoot a gun. We're still here, even though we don't identify ourselves as such.

, but ignoring that....sure. And the Court has already established you don't have the right to every type of weapon in the exercise of that right, which was my point and one nothing you write here responds to or rebuts.

I disagree with them. To my mind, what we've got, gun control, starting with the NFA of 1934, is in direct violation of 'shall not be infringed.'

Any weapon you can get your hands on to protect yourself (though if that really was a grenade and you harmed others foreseeably you wouldn't get a pass) isn't the same thing as having a right to buy and legally keep every sort of weapon that can be cobbled.

It actually is. If somehow I find myself among military weaponry when either my life, or the lives of innocent people, are in danger, then my right extends to the use of those weapons to try to save them or myself, and I'll not be charged with any crime in doing so.

Also, the ATF regulates destructive devices, so there aren't any weapons that are really banned.

I've already set out the foundation and the argument. The only rational argument had today is where we draw the line in exercise, or if it should be redrawn.

The NFA is a line, that should be erased.

I've argued that due to the nature of weapons vastly more destructive than what the forefathers had on hand to meet the right fully, we must do that and reasonably should to protect our citizens better against gun related violence and mass shootings.

I was right with you up til you invoked 'gun' as the problem. It's nukes. We should denuclearize the planet before we even begin to think about small arms like guns.

There's actually a pro-life group within the Democratic party, just as there are Republicans who are pro-choice, and many more on both sides that support abortion in limited circumstances, though I'd agree the pro-choice crowd has a better home in the Democratic party on the whole.

There are tons of Republicans who also believe that gun control doesn't contravene 'shall not be infringed,' but like you say here, those who support the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms do have 'a better home' with Republicans.

 

[Town Heretic]

The militia is every man and woman (it used to be just every man, but equality) who can learn how to shoot a gun. We're still here, even though we don't identify ourselves as such.

A militia wasn't just a mob with guns. It was purposed and that purpose was necessary for the preservation of our fledgling democracy, lacking the means at the disposal of our enemies. We've long since surpassed them in that regard and no militia is going to be called up to defend the borders or our nation. Gone also is the more pragmatic underpinning in large part, as people mostly neither hunt for their meat nor use weapons as a part of their livelihood. And self-defense, the only reasonable remnant of scaffolding, is a thing that can be accomplished without the weapons and accessories that enable people to kill large numbers of other citizens before anyone has time register the intent.

I disagree with them. To my mind, what we've got, gun control, starting with the NFA of 1934, is in direct violation of 'shall not be infringed.'

And I believe you're wrong, attempting to do for one right what is not done for any other. Literally every right is subject to the balancing of rights among men in exercise. I've illustrated the truth of that and the logical necessity, from speech to religion. Guns are no different, nor should they be.

It actually is. If somehow I find myself among military weaponry when either my life, or the lives of innocent people, are in danger, then my right extends to the use of those weapons to try to save them or myself, and I'll not be charged with any crime in doing so.

You're not actually rebutting in substance here. The right to use what is at hand isn't the right to have at hand whatever it is you would use.

I was right with you up til you invoked 'gun' as the problem.

The problem of gun violence in this country is a problem of parts. One of those parts is the accessibility of guns capable of firing more than six rounds without a manual reloading, along with accessories that transform already absurdly lethal instruments into de facto machineguns. I don't have a problem with guns, only with certain types of guns and accessories that transform them. I love my shotguns and my breech loaded rifle. I'm fond of my 9mm, but I'm ready to give it up. I can accomplish any reasonable need without it.

It's nukes. We should denuclearize the planet before we even begin to think about small arms like guns.

We can't unless we like the idea of speaking Mandarin. Because without nuclear weapons China is the big kid on every block with little reason not to flex that muscle. The Russians can't afford to denuclearize with that reality on their border. So the world will have to change a bit before anyone seriously considers it and I'm not sure if any of the nuclear players ever will. Certainly not any time soon. Look at Pakistan and India eyeing their border and neighbor.

There are tons of Republicans who also believe that gun control doesn't contravene 'shall not be infringed,' but like you say here, those who support the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms do have 'a better home' with Republicans.

There's next to 0 dispute over the right to keep and bear arms though. Only a fringe from the left advance more. The conversation among most Americans isn't found there any more than most Americans favor the idea of machine gun sales at Walmart. The conversation is over where the reasoned line should be in terms of gun control.

If we want to dramatically impact gun violence and mass shooting we have any number of models among Western industrialized societies (all of which have guns in the hands of citizens) to use and improve the safety of our citizens. All it takes is recognizing the inherent absurdity of treating one right differently than we do any other and acting in our own rational self-interest.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As a compromise to criminalize all abortion? Yes, I'm in.

How about you?

That goes for you too...

Do not do evil that good may come.

Establishing socialist programs (which inherently violate God's enduring command, "thou shall not steal"), even to abolish abortion, is wrong.

The abolition of abortion is non-negotiable, and making compromises to accomplish it only leads to more problems.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The left's opinions are all that count in Liberal Land. It isn't working out too well for them, though, is it? That's why they're in such a snit. Can't you hear the sound of little feet stomping to get attention?

:rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

You really missed me, dint you?

Gotta admit it's fun watching you perform. But you've been outdone.

 

[intojoy]

Was Former President Obama what you call a Leftist?
I mean, he rose up to become the President of the United States of America, one of the most influential people in the World. Now who would you think I'd reckon to be the bigger mug...... him or folks who call him a fool?

He’s an imbecile


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

That goes for you too...

Do not do evil that good may come.

Establishing socialist programs (which inherently violate God's enduring command, "thou shall not steal"), even to abolish abortion, is wrong.

The abolition of abortion is non-negotiable, and making compromises to accomplish it only leads to more problems.

Taxes aren't theft or evil. Unless a person is forced to remain here then they are free to make the decision to participate in this republic and to pay the lawful freight for it or they can go elsewhere.

Calling taxes theft is both contrary to scripture and irrational else. Socialism is no more antithetical to Christianity than capitalism is endorsed. Given my druthers I'll take the latter with intelligent regulation to maintain a moral backbone, but only because I believe it does a better job, as a general economic principle, in guiding people to sustained prosperity.

 

[eider]

So you would punish the child for the crime of the father? You would kill an innocent child in the womb just because you don't think he or she would have a comfortable life, that the parents would not love their child?

What, then, would you do to the rapist? would you "punish" him by putting him in a prison where taxpayers would keep him comfortable?

No. The ONLY answer to this solution is to protect the child and execute the rapist, because unlike what liberals (and sadly many conservatives) claim, the death penalty IS IN FACT a deterrent.

"Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

God specifically forbids killing a child for the actions of what his father has done, and says that "the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Meaning, you execute the criminal, not his children. (Ecclesiastes 18:20)

Do not do evil, that good may come of it.

But that's not OT law, is it.....
Or would you please quote which Laws of Moses support your claim?
After all....... you quote from the OT laws.

 

[eider]

To exclude the above is a statement that not all unborn babies are worthy of life. In the case of life-threatening pregnancy, the goal should always be to save *both* lives.

The exclusions of rape, risk to Mother and extreme disability are just sad decisions which have to be addressed, imo.
When countries like the Republic of Ireland changes such policies then this is surely indicative of this?

 

[eider]

RE: "life-threatening"
Please name one situation where it would be "ok" to stop and kill the baby while trying to save the life of the mother.

It's not for me, but for specialists to decide when a mother's life is at risk from her pregnancy.

 

[eider]

He's lost his place to intojoy, and he's conflicted on whether or not he wants it back. So occasionally rational, occasionally trolling.

Poor fellah.

I think I preferred his posts when they were gushing with what I thought were aggression and hatred....... more fun.

 

[eider]

He’s an imbecile

Well, no matter what your achievements might have been, he certainly eclipsed anything you ever did, for sure.
Some imbecile!

Could I ask, 'What do you do for a living?'

 

[Idolater]

It's not for me, but for specialists to decide when a mother's life is at risk from her pregnancy.

The law has it that it's the mother herself who gets to decide when her life's in danger from delivering her little precious baby.

 

[eider]

The law has it that it's the mother herself who gets to decide when her life's in danger from delivering her little precious baby.

Do you obey the laws of your country?

 

[Idolater]

Do you obey the laws of your country?

Do you like yogurt?