Wednesday, October 19, 2011

More on Defeating HR 822


We don't allow visitors who may come from a state with a higher speed limit to ignore Illinois' speed limit. Imagine if we extended "home state" rules concerning divorce and medical marijuana to visitors to our state?

This bill should not become law. Proponents of relaxed gun laws are usually staunch supporters of states' rights. They should be consistent. Each state should have the right to demand that all visitors obey its particular laws, unless they are superseded by federal laws.
How many times have we heard those bogus, biased gun-rights boys compare Concealed Carry reciprocity to driving licenses being honored in other states than your own?

Well, Karen Wagner shut that one right down. As usual the pro gun crowd try to slip nonsensical arguments into the mix.  The proper comparison is what she pointed out that your home speed limits are not honored when you visit another state with your driver's license.

And better yet is what she pointed out about the hypocritical flip-flopping they do with regards to states' rights. 

What's your opinion?  Are we going to have any trouble defeating HR 822?

Please leave a comment.

68 comments:

  1. Haven't you figured out that in the Gun Loon universe, guns come first.

    They will talk about rights, but other rights take a backseat to "gun rights" everytime.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Well, Karen Wagner shut that one right down."

    Actually, she didn't shut anything down.

    The comparison with driver's licenses is not bogus. HR822, would just force reciprocity among the states as is currently true with driver's licenses. As for the speed limit analogy, she and MikeB are correct. We don't allow drivers to use their home state speed limits when visiting another state and HR822 does not change local laws on CCW. You still must obey the laws of the state you are visiting.

    All HR822 does is make your license valid in all states. Well, almost all. Since that backward state of Illinois does not yet have CCW laws, HR822 won't even apply there. Of course, the fear mongers like Karen Wagner and other anti's won't mention that with their bogus blood-in-the-streets rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They will talk about rights, but other rights take a backseat to 'gun rights' everytime."

    Well, at least you know us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FWM, wrote:
    "The comparison with driver's licenses is not bogus."

    The comparison with drivers licenses IS completely bogus. What was written here is that out of state drivers are required to obey the laws relating to DRIVING in their state, regardless of what their home state allows them to do - specifically obeying speed limits was mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "What was written here is that out of state drivers are required to obey the laws relating to DRIVING in their state, regardless of what their home state allows them to do - specifically obeying speed limits was mentioned."

    And under HR822, CCW holders must obey the carry laws of the state they are visiting, not those from their home state as suggested in the original post. Just like visiting drivers must obey the local speed limits, not those from their home state. Wagner is erroneously implying that if someone is carrying under HR822 they could ignore local law and carry as they would in their home state.

    For example, if HR822 becomes law and I travel to New York, I would have to obey New York's retarded restrictions on reduced capacity boxes with springs in them even though I can carry two more rounds in my mags at home. If I carry in New Jersey, I would have to make sure I didn't carry hollow point bullets because those nuts believe them to be evil unless you wear a magic talisman to negate their evilness.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's worse in NJ than you give it credit for being. No Hollow Pointed bullets and each round is a count. That means if you had 50 rounds of HP, you would be charged with 50 counts and could serve a consecutive sentence of X for each round (50x).

    And you would have similar restrictions on magazine capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. FWM, you continue your flawed analogy.

    All states recognize each other's drivers licesnes and have interconnected data bases that allow them to verify each other's information as an example.

    We do not in each state have a similar reciprocity for firearms, nor showuld we. Because some states, like Florida, are horribly lax in who they allow to buy a gun and who they license to carry.

    If a state, say somewhere backward like Mississippi or Texas, allowed a 10 year old to drive say a commercial vehicle, you might not even see that license reciprocated in other states, either. I would expect our HP to pull over such a driver and not allow him or her behind the wheel of an 18 wheeled semi.

    States do not necessarily recognize or acknowledge the right of anyone other than law enforcement to carry - and not even them in all circumstances. For good reason - we are not safe with some of the people who other states allow to carry.

    But I'll make you a deal FWM - if you agree that we require all gun owners and especially those who carry to be bonded or approrpaitely insured for any damage their guns cause, I'd be willing to loose up on that.

    But you don't, so your analogy remains flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The bill states that you will follow the state's laws in which you are in...meaning if your in rhode island and and from massachusetts you are under rhode islands laws. If people would just read the bill instead of listening to all the stuck up shitheads on t.v. and in the papers you wouldn't look so ignorant yourself. If i'm not mistaken, and yes i could be wrong, but i believe its a federal law that you must be 18 years of age to purchase a fire-arm...pistol, rifle, shotgun...all fire-arms...so "dog gone" as for your 10 year old driver example do your home work before you go jumping on your soap box. Simple solution...read the bill for yourself and don't take to heart somehting you actually haven't read FROM THE BILL.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

    ‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

    (1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

    ‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    ‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

    ‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.


    ‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    ‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

    (c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.


    Actually, reading this, it does allow for someone who has a valid permit in a shall issue state to have the same rights as someone in a more restrictive "may issue" state.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The only place someone could not legally carry would be a state that completely prohibits concealed carry.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The interesting question would be Hawaii since it technically allows for concealed carry, but does not issue licences.

    Otherwise, it appears one can carry in most US jurisdictions except WI,IL, and DC.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The reason I liked that speed limit idea is this.

    When a guy from Arizona goes to NJ with his permit, he should not receive reciprocal rights because the requirements to get his permit were less than the NJ CCW guys.

    So, just like the Arizona driver who can't drive over the NJ speed limit like he could back home, the Arizona CCW permit holder is not entitled to carry a concealed gun in NJ because he hasn't met the requirements according to NJ standards.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The same thing is with your drivers license as well. Every state has different requirements the you have to pass to obtain a drivers license, except for the CDL (commercial dirvers license). But no state does not allow a driver from another state with lesser requirements to be able to drive in the visiting state. If you qualify, you drive where ever you want.
    Actually I think that this national carry act is bogus, I really do. It should not exist. Neither should a license to carry. All of this is an infringement of the second amendment which gives your, or rather PROTECTS your GOD GIVEN rights to be able to BEAR arms without infringement!

    People scream all of the time about how their rights have been violated. Well how about the rights of the second amendment. If your going to honor the constitution, you have to honor and protect ALL of it.

    If there was NO such thing as guns, people would use something else instead. The violence would not end. You have to stop these people from committing crimes. Unfortunatly you dont know who they are untill they do something.

    No law, NONE, has ever been written that has stopped ANY crime! NONE!

    Our freedom was won by the gun, kept free by the gun, your God given rights protected by the gun so that you can call gun owners loons. And the courts, many times, have already held that law enforcement is not responsible to protect the individual but people as a whole. They, the courts, have ruled many times that the only person charged with protecting yourself and your family and things is you. Law enforcement cleans up after the crime has been committed. Since these courts have these judgements then I cannot see how they can infringe on your rights to have the tools needed to protect yourself from these "loons" AKA criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If god gave you a right to own a gun: why was gunpowder developed so late in human history?

    Anyway, to quote Ayn Rand:

    In America, Religion is a private matter and must not be brought into political issues.

    Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.


    The fact that you insist on this being a divinely given right demonstrates your position is illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If God gave us the right to bear arms, does he deny it to N.Korean or Iranians?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous wrote:
    "All of this is an infringement of the second amendment which gives your, or rather PROTECTS your GOD GIVEN rights to be able to BEAR arms without infringement!"

    The 2nd amendment deals primarily with militias, not individual rights to bear arms, and further it is not unlimited or absolute.

    And there is NO GOD GIVEN freaking right to bear arms. Our rights come from the social contract.

    Then we have Anoymous's contention, unsupported:
    "No law, NONE, has ever been written that has stopped ANY crime! NONE"

    Apparently Anonymous is completely ignorant of the concept of deterrence. The premise that the death penalty deters crime and saves lives is promoted by the right wing, like the Heritage Foundation:

    The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves LivesBy David Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
    August 28, 2007
    http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-death-penalty-deters-crime-and-saves-lives

    I would further offer you a little light reading on the subject, since you are so ignorant, to ease you into wrapping your head around the concept:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(psychology)
    and
    http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html

    and then if you want to get into improving your ideas, you can try this:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1988.tb02311.x/abstract
    The Economics of Crime Deterrence: A Survey of Theory and Evidence
    SAMUEL CAMERON

    So, yes, laws, including the penalties of laws are deterrents in prevention of crime. The death penalty, not so much as the Right wingnut Heritage Foundation would have you believe:

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

    But clearly, what laws are written DO deter and prevent crime which totally refutes your contention.

    Want to try again? Your assumptions and beliefs are full of holes, inaccuracies, false assumptions and an appalling lack of facts. But you are welcome here to present those ideas, so long as you don't mind being challenged on them and don't mind being required to produce facts, particularly verifiable links.

    Hint - you might want to avoid the more tainted bullcrap like that presented as fact (but isn't) that is rampant on right wing media propaganda sites like Fox Not-news or Rush Limbaugh.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hint - you might want to avoid the more tainted bullcrap like that presented as fact (but isn't) that is rampant on right wing media propaganda.

    As I said, if he has to make the silly claim that the right to bear arms is "god given"--he is already admitting that he has no logical basis for his opinion.

    The Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written by men. The government grants rights.

    Nowhere in the 10 commandments does it mention the "right" to bear arms:

    Thou shalt not be without without firearms!

    HAH - that's really a funny assertion!

    ReplyDelete
  18. You REALLY need to READ the bible. Since guns werent invented then, it wont say. But it does say an eye for an eye, in lots of different ways.

    The MEN that wrote the constitution specficly says GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Those rights were valid before the constitution was written and the constitution was written to protect them. Read the constitution and the MEN that wrote them and their discussion that lead to the constitution as it was ratified.

    God given rights means rights as a human, something that isnt "given" by the goverment, something that cant be "given" by the goverment. But the constitution protects these rights and was written so that the goverment CANT take them away. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means just that.

    Rather than joke or bash about something you clearly know nothing about, read and educate yourself before making such stupid comments. Of course, UK people wouldnt understand anything but the queens rule.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.

    As I said, your argument falls flat on its face.

    And you admit it by this statement:

    "God given rights means rights as a human, something that isnt "given" by the goverment, something that cant be "given" by the goverment."

    Then who gives it? Doesn't there need to be some agreement that this right exists?

    if you have to make the silly claim that the right to bear arms is "god given"--you are already admitting that you have no logical basis for his opinion.

    You further destroy your position by saying:

    "Of course, UK people wouldnt understand anything but the queens rule."

    If this right is truly "God given", "pre-exists other rights", and is not something that can be given by a government, then that is a truly idiotic statement. This right should be universal and understood by all.

    The fact that this right only exists in a few ignorant minds does not make it "god given".

    Saying one needs to read the Bible doesn't help your position.

    The US is a secular society--you can't justify anything based upon the religious text of one sect.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous, you are ill educated in religion and the constitution.

    I come from a long line of protestant ministers, and my own religious education was conducted by seminarians. I'm not too bad on comparative religions either.

    Pop quiz question - what book of the bible did the eye for an eye quotation come from (no points if you had to look it up), and can you indicate whether it was from the old or new testament off the top of your head AND explain why being one or the other is significant to this discussion?

    I'm guessing not. You sound like you got both your flawed and inaccurate notions of both religion and history from the likes of that poseur hysterian (not historian) David Barton.

    An eye for an eye, btw, refers to justice, the penalty imposed by rule of law - not an entitlement to weapons. That is the meaning and principle in all three of the Abramhamic religions. There is NOTHING in the Torah, the Kaballah, the Bible, or the Koran which mentions a god given right to weapons anywhere ever, or even that having weapons of any kind is desirable.

    We can trace that back to the code of Hammarabi, and the principles of Zoroastrianism. I'm reasonably confident that a right to weapons is nowhere either in the writings of Hinduism and sure as heck not in the Buddhist texts. Now if you'd like to pick one of the lesser populated religions, I think I can hold my own in most of those as well, although there are a few which are too obscure for me to address right off the top of my head; I might need a brief refresher. But I doubt you would claim any of the really obscure world religions as justification for U.S. law.

    By all means, do show me where it is in the U.S. Constitution that it says what you claim for any right, ANY right: "The MEN that wrote the constitution specficly says GOD GIVEN RIGHTS."

    NO, they don't and it (the constitution) does not. You are sorely in need of schooling in early American history.

    And before you bash Laci's knowledge of the constitution, you should know, he is a dual citizen of the U.S. and U.K., and a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney in Washington D.C. - specializing in firearm litigation. He knows his stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, and the Bible is not lawful authority in the United States.

    Your argument that this is a "God Given" right fails miserably. You misunderstand the concept of an eye for an eye.

    This command is found in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that the conduct of individual citizens was to be governed by different principles that did not tolerate revenge.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ok, your right about the phrase is not in the constitution itself, God given, but it is in the declaration of independance. The declaration of independance does lay out the very rights that the constitution was written to protect the people from the government and others that would seek to remove said rights from you. Those rights are specific in the constitution itself.

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    And further,

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    This was written BEFORE the constitution by a very wise group of men, EDUCATED men, that saw the future of a truly free country.

    I would also contend that those rights, God given, does extend to every person on the planet, but because of what ever rule they live under seeks to exempt them from said rights.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Our rights extend from the social contract, we agree to extend these rights as defined, they do not come from any supernatural or divine being, nor was that ever the intent or understanding of our founding fathers.

    What the reference to God was in the context of the enlightenment was the abstract generative force, be it what we now call the 'big bang theory' or something equally nebulous. It was not the classic old man in a robe.

    http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
    -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

    If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
    -- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

    Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
    We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
    - President Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

    ReplyDelete
  24. When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
    - Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

    My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting [Protestant] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist.
    - Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
    -- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

    The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses....

    Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
    -- President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous, before you quote Thomas Jefferson here, btw, if that was your intent, you might want to fact check your quotes.

    There have been more than a few false attributions to Jefferson widely quoted by the right.

    http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule

    For example:

    Status: We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%" or any of its listed variations. We do not know the source of this statement's attribution to Thomas Jefferson.

    Sources consulted: Searching on the phrase "mob rule"

    1.Monticello website
    2.Ford's Works of Thomas Jefferson
    3.UVA EText Jefferson Digital Archive: Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Texts by or to Thomas Jefferson from the Modern English Collection
    4.Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress
    5.Retirement Papers
    6.Quotable Jefferson
    7.Bartleby.com: Quotations
    Earliest known appearance in print: 2004[1][2

    My best bet is this is another example of the faked history promoted by Barton and his ilk.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am also waiting for a single link that shows what law was EVER written that has STOPPED a CRIME or a criminal from commiting a crime. I did not say deter, I said STOPPED! Please actually READ posts before you try to rebutt them. If simple WRITTEN laws were that effective, then no crime would have ever been committed and law enforcement and courts, jails and so on wouldnt exist. Your utopian society simply does not exist.

    In reference to one's qualifications to justify one's position, to put it quite bluntly, the posted qualifications suck.

    One does not inherit knowledge. It is not wise to use the accomplishments of one's parents to qualify your own opinions. Although I am not a doctor, scientist, biologist, or physicist, common sense tells me that knowledge is not geneologically passed from parent to child. Don't be afraid to stand on your own accomplishments.
    Futhermore, all the knowledge in the world will never be of any use without understanding what it is that you "know". With all the education you have already obtained....get more.

    As to the second amendment,

    Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    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.

    The 2nd amendment specifically states the individual's rights to keep and bear arms. It does not say what type of arms but all arms are included in the second amendment. From there the states themselves can regulate who (from criminal background or age), and where (such as schools, certain government buildings, etc.) but can not deny the common law-abiding citizen from the tools to defend themselves from criminals.

    In the last 25 years or so, more and more states actually DO read the constitution and are slowly giving back those rights to the people to have the tools needed to defend themselves. Four states are now constitution carry and more are in line. In fact there is only one state left that denys its people, Illnois. (No surprise this is the home state of our current president!)

    Even the FBI has now reported that more guns means less crime. Everywhere guns are regulated, crime is higher. Giving back those individual rights in the states that have done so, crime has fallen dramatically. Guns in the hands of law abiding people has been the LARGEST DETERRENT! note: I said deterrent - NOT detergent.

    Admit it, your losing!

    About me, I am licensed to carry, so is my wife. We carry everywhere, where allowed by law. I carry at work and my employer knows AND approves. My fellow workers also know and approves as well as our customers. Walking the dog, going shopping and so on. Our weapons are like our cell phones or spare tires for our vehicles. We never leave home without them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous, I've enjoyed reading your comments on this thread. Are you new around here?

    I must point out though, that your latest contains one fo the most famous gun-rights tricks.

    I am also waiting for a single link that shows what law was EVER written that has STOPPED a CRIME or a criminal from commiting a crime. I did not say deter, I said STOPPED!

    Now, how exactly could there be proof of something NOT HAPPENING?

    By asking a question that you know damn well there is no answer to, and asking it as if our failure to answer would be proof of our failure to hold up our end, is shabby to say the least. It's dishonest.

    Maybe you didn't really mean it or were just repeating what you've heard from others, so I don't want to be too aggressive with my response to it, but you can't really ask questions like that and get away with it, not around here.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous, the Constitution does not state what you claim. I will leave it to Laci to provide you with a reading list for your edification about the arguments contemporaneous with the founding fathers relating to militias versus standing armies.

    Again, he's worked with gun litigation in federal court so this is more his area of expertise.

    You are apparently unfamiliar with the word deter, so let me provide you with the dictionary.com definition:

    de·ter   /dɪˈtɜr/ Show Spelled[dih-tur] Show IPA
    verb (used with object), -terred, -ter·ring.
    1.to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding: The large dog deterred trespassers.
    2.to prevent; check; arrest: timber treated with creosote to deter rot.
    deterrent
    2.something that deters: a deterrent to crime

    This means laws stop crime, prevent crime from happening.

    Now if you are arguning that a law does not stop a crime in progress, when they do occur, you are correct.

    Often firearms do not either, and law enforcement is superior to taking the law into your own hands.

    So, please restate your claim that laws do not stop crime. Clealry they do, and in the best way - before they happen.

    Further, there are markedly lower crime rates in countries with more rigorgous regulation and restriction on firearms. I'm still waiting for a refutation of that here. More firearms do appear consistently to equate with more firearm violence, specifically, and higher levels of violence, generally.

    Further, the rates for violent crimes have declined steadily for decades now, so the need for self defense has also logically declined accordingly.

    If more people having more guns ended crime, we would have the lowest rates of crime in the world.

    We don't.

    So, please support your contention.

    I don't care if you and your wife are pro-gun or not. I would like to see something more rational than your preference offered here as reason and argument.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous, the Declaration of Independence is an Historic Document, but it has no legal authority according to Article VI of the Constitution.

    Again, your insistance that this right is "God Given" fails in the face of logic. Which god gave it? Again, if it is truly "god givn" it needs to be universal in accepetence.

    There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.

    Anyone can claim anything as a right, but whether that right is recognised by others is the real issue. Rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable.

    One way to get an idea of the multiple understandings and senses of the term is to consider different ways it is used. Many diverse things are claimed as rights:

    “A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way.”

    There are likewise diverse possible ways to categorize rights, such as:

    “Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, states' rights, the rights of peoples. What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent; property rights, bodily rights. Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary rights are aspects of local customs. How the asserted right can be affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.”

    There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic community, particularly within fields such as philosophy, law, deontology, logic, and political science. Given this controversy, it is very difficult to make the assertion that any right is truly "god given".

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous, for your assertion that guns are the greatest deterrent to crime, can you back that up without recourse to the discredited studies produced by Lott and Kleck?

    Again, you made another assertion without facts to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous, the Second Amendment states that it applies to "well-regulated militia"--that is its reason and purpose. This is the militia which is organised and armed by Congress according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

    This right is implemented by "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as part of such a militia.

    There is no explicit mention of self-defence, but the Constitution does provide for the Common defence.

    Revisionist history aside, there is far more evidence for this interpretation that withstands scrutiny. See these for more information.

    We are hardly losing, anonymous, you haven't provided anything of substance to back up your assertions.

    And my God tells me that you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have read the ACTUAL constitution, the declaration of independance, the bible and let those FACTS stand on their own without opinion or interpretation.

    Anyone can "interpret" these facts or laws anyway they want to skew them into ways to make them fit your belife if you wish. But that does not make me wrong.

    Less crime happens because more people, not law enforcement, want to make a stand against the criminals. Those facts stand not by coincidence but by action. More gun control mean more criminals, its happened all over the world and is indisputable.

    I dont live in a communist, social leftist world. If thats the world in which want to live, be my guest. Your free to do so. Its no wonder that you only have 47 members compared to other sites that happen to live in a Conservative world had tens of thousands of us "pro gun, pro freedom" world. You have lots of topics, with very few comments on them, or none, and usualy the same four leftist people.

    Belive and write what you want, my family, friends have fought and died, BY THE GUN, to protect your right to keep talking about and skewing facts that fit your views.

    It does not make me wrong or those that died for those rights for every individual to belive what they want. If it was not for this fact, you couldnt have these privalges in the first amendment.

    Yes I am new here, but we (lots of family and friends) have been reading reading this for some time and having lots of laughs.

    Keep having fun! I mean it. I really do.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have read the ACTUAL constitution, the declaration of independance, the bible

    You may have read them, Anonymous, but you sure didn't understand them.

    So far, anonymous, you haven't made any statement of substance backed up by facts.

    The Constitution does not back you up.

    The Bible cannot be used as legal authority, even if it did back you up, which it doesn't.

    And the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, as are Magna Charta, The British Bill of Rights, The Articles of Confederation, and so on, with no legal authority in the US per US Constitution Article VI.

    As for numbers, that is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
    All your friends are wrong.

    In fact, your last post contains quite a few of the tactics used by people when they are losing an argument: saying that our political beliefs mean we can't be correct.

    How do we "skew" facts? Can you provide a concrete example which refutes what we have said?

    Can you provide anything concrete that backs up you assertions at all?

    Or does you entire argument hang upon faith?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous has failed, utterly, to present any text from any religion that supports his contention that there is a GOD-given right to bear arms, or that concepts of god and religion are inherent in the Constitution.

    IF the Constitution meant to declare these god-given rights, it would have said so. In fact there was a great deal of contention surrounding how to address religion in relationship to government.

    Further Anonymous appears to be poorly read in terms of the history and political and moral philosophy contemporaneous with the American Revolution.

    I would suggest, in refutation of the concept that the founding fathers believed that any rights, much less the rights included in the Constitution, are deity-derived.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

    The constitution describes rights we give ourselves, that we take for ourselves, that we AGREE upon for ourselves.

    The overwhelming interpretation by decades, centuries, generations of Supreme Courts ascribed the 2nd Amendment to apply to state militias. (Take it away Laci!)

    Clearly, deterrence statistics indicate that laws stop crime. Not all crime is stopped or prevented, but clearly it does stop crime.

    I'm waiting for Anonymous to demonstrate some form of statistics that having a personal firearm, statistically, prevents more crime than it leads to injury and fatality and crime. Anonymous should be aware that he will have to explain away all the stolen firearms used in crimes, and all the suicides, accidental injuries, and of course, all the violence, particularly domestic violence, committed with legal firearms.

    I think that is an insurmountable barrier for him to argue, particularly given his lack of information on the Bible, the Constitution, the texts of any other religion, and his clear lack of understanding and familiarity with U.S. early history.

    You say you have read the Constitution. Good for you - that is merely a starting point. Clearly you are no constitutional scholar, and clearly you read it selectively, not comprehensively as a whole. I'm still waiting for the answer to what god given rights, from what god, as evidenced by what religious text.

    You DO know don't you, that the Consitution is not a religious document?

    I repeat one of my earlier quotes, specifically as regards the Constitution:

    Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
    -- President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)


    May I point out to you that this same John Adams was one of the three authors OF the Declaration of Independence, as well as one of the four signers from Massachusetts (number 6 out of all the signers), that Franklin was one of the signers from Pennsylvania, and Jefferson from Virginia. Each of these three, signers and AUTHORS of the Declartion of Independence do NOT support your contention about either document, the constitution or the declaration of independence.

    If THEY didn't intend it, you can't be claiming it on the basis of your own flawed understanding of these documents. All three assert that government and rights derive from people, not from God.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous, there is nothign in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, that forms a government which authorizes citizens to be their own law enforcement.

    There is nothing in the Bible which says that either.

    But if you have a citation that says either of those things, please present it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I've given citations to the documents in question (see above) that show our anonymous friend is incorrect in his interpretation.

    I have also provided a link above to sources on the Second Amendment that show his interpretation is incorrect.

    So far, Anonymous has only relied upon his god, which was refuted by my god.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous, you claim to have read the Bible, but there is no support that 'eye for an eye' means anything pertaining to self defense or a god-given right to personal weapons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

    "The meaning of the principle, an eye for an eye, is that a person who has injured another person receives the same injury in compensation. The exact Latin (lex talionis) to English translation of this phrase is actually "The law of retaliation." At the root of this principle is that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retribution for an offended party.

    The phrase, "an eye for an eye", (עין תחת עין‎, ayin tachat ayin, literally 'an eye under an eye'), is a quotation from several passages of the Hebrew Bible[1][2][3] in which a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to pay compensation. It defined and restricted the extent of retribution in the laws of the Torah."

    The English word talion means a punishment identical to the offense, from the Latin talio. The principle of "an eye for an eye" is often referred to using the Latin phrase lex talionis, the law of talion."


    Please show where an eye for an eye anywhere in the Bible refers to personal weapons rather than religous legal practice.

    But if this is such a clear and frequent part of the Bible, please produce the quotations that you believe say this.

    You claim to have read the Bible; I know the Bible pretty well, having done my reading under the supervision and tutelage of seminarians and theologians.

    Most of the references to weapons in the Bible refer to military use, or to animal husbandry implements, or to religious sacrificial equipment and practice.

    Let me show you how this quotation thing works:
    Romans 12:19 ESV Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

    Mmm, nope, not self defense, rather the opposite.

    Matthew 5:38-39 ESV “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    Nope, still not self-defense or a god-given right to weapons.

    Matthew 26:52-54 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

    No, this argues against personal self-defense weaponry.

    1 Samuel 13:19-20 ESV
    Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.” But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle."

    This sounds like an absence of private weapons , as conforming to the will of God.

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  38. Galatians 5:22-23 ESV
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

    1 Samuel 13:22-23 ESV
    So on the day of the battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people with Saul and Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son had them. And the garrison of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash.

    This sure sounds like personal weapons were NOT what was the traditional conformity with Biblical or Torah texts required.

    The overwhelming references to weapons of any kind in the Bible refer to military weapons and warfare, equipment associated with animal husbandry or farming, or with religious sacrifice. NOTHING that I'm reading indicates a god given right to weapons, quite the opposite. More typical is the quote from Isaiah, about turning swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, than keeping them for self-defense.

    So....let us see you demonstrate this great Biblical knowledge you have acquired from your reading.

    Note - Laci and I will also be referencing the original language, so you may want to check your translations before quoting them.

    Or are you going to claim that the Founding Fathers lacked a similar familiarity with the Bible - as well as other religious texts?

    ReplyDelete
  39. It appears (to me anyway) that what we basically have here, is a difference in culture. In the U.S., a majority of the people are self-reliant and abhor the idea of someone else doing for them what they could just as easily do for themselves, ie: protect themselves. While I do NOT endorse, promote, or believe in vigilantism, I do believe that I have a responsibility to take care of myself and my own. I don't go out looking for trouble, but if trouble comes knocking on my door, it will find resistance. If I have to wait for the police to come - I'm taking the chance they will only arrive to investigate my death.

    There are inumerable instances in the Bible, both Old and New Testament of weapons and physical force being used to stop or restrain. Just a few of the more known.....Joshua and the City of Jericho, David and Goliath, Samson, and yes, even my Lord Jesus Christ. If you don't know what I am referring to,either read the Bible yourself, or ask me.

    Don't even go there with speaking for "your god". I don't know who you believe in. I do know that many of the founding fathers of my country, U.S.A., were Christian and many were ministers. Much of their input into the writing of our most important documents were influenced by their beliefs.

    Although I have a CHL and a gun, which I DO carry, I also have a car and car insurance. I drive my car and carry my car insurance card. That doesn't mean that I hope to use my car insurance one day. I also have medical insurance. That doesn't mean that I hope that one day, it will pay off big should I suffer a dibilitating disease or injury.
    I hope that I NEVER have to use my gun. I believe in "Prepare for the worst, expect the Best". Hmmmm, sounds like what I've heard doctors tell their patients.

    CHL holders are among the most law-abiding groups of people that you will find. They HAVE to be. You can't get a CHL unless you ARE law-abiding, and will lose that license if you break the law.

    It's the CRIMINALS who won't go to the bother to even try to get a CHL, they think it's stupid to get a license for something they will do (carry AND use a gun) without any kind of license.

    Guns are not the only thing that criminals steal. They will steal anything they can get their hands on and get away with. They steal money. Does that mean I shouldn't carry money, because it could be stolen by a criminal and then be used to purchase guns, drugs, etc.?
    They also steal identities. This can do untold damage to the victim. No one seems to have a problem with someone taking measures to protect their identity from being stolen. Just because I want to be prepared - in the unlikely event that someone tries to take my life, or the lives of my family, doesn't mean that I am contributing any more to enabling a criminal to commit a crime should they steal my gun, than I do when I have a bank account - and should my identity be stolen - and the money is then used to commit more crimes.

    Come on now, get real! You seem to have found one thing to pick on and then attack anyone who thinks differently. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous, according to dictionary.com vigilante refers to people who are civilians, who take on themselves the role of law enforcement in place of law enforcement.

    adjective 3.done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

    That would seem to be what you advocate when you write:
    "While I do NOT endorse, promote, or believe in vigilantism, I do believe that I have a responsibility to take care of myself and my own."

    You then write:
    "In the U.S., a majority of the people are self-reliant and abhor the idea of someone else doing for them what they could just as easily do for themselves, ie: protect themselves."

    Dealing with criminals, which is presumably who you mean when you write of protecting yourself, is the function of law enforcement, and then the courts. That is wrong, that is vigilanteism, and it is not anywhere in the Bible or in the Constitution.

    It is not 'self-reliant' to try to do for yourself the job of law enforcement, nor is it "American", and it never has been. In my experience, growing up in this country, our self-reliance is no greater than the self-reliance of other countries and cultures.

    Laci grew up spending part of his time in the U.S., part in the U.K. He is AS American as you are. I grew up entirely in the U.S., although like Laci, I have also traveled. There is absolutely nothing uniquely American about what you describe as doing for yourself. I am not aware of any other cultures that believe otherwise. I've traveled a good bit of North America, some of Europe and the Middle East; Laci has traveled North America, UK and Europe, Africa and Asia.

    I think we both know what different cultures are. Please, do tell us from your own experience, where these alternate cultures are with such different values that you posit.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous, I gave you a variety of Bible quotations that indicate there was a premise of NOT being armed, and NOT any God Given right to bear arms.

    Since you believe you have a superior understanding of the Bible, I'd like you to post SPECIFIC Bible verses that show that God Given Right you claim.

    I want to see those quotes, including book, chapter and verse.

    I'd particularly like to see where you believe Jesus went around armed as you do, or used weapons in his own defense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. There are inumerable instances in the Bible, both Old and New Testament of weapons and physical force being used to stop or restrain. Just a few of the more known.....Joshua and the City of Jericho, David and Goliath,

    Joshua, the city of Jericho; David and Goliath; Samson slaying an opposing army with the jaw bone of an ass - those were instances of war, not personal self defense.

    I've had the privilege of visiting sites like Tel Jericho in the holy land, in the company of biblical scholars, seeing the sites of these events. You?

    Those instances do not support your claims of a God Given right to bear arms.

    Which stories of Jesus do you believe give YOU the right to personal arms as distinct from arms used in war as part of an army? Do you believe that you have the same perogatives, btw, as Jesus, or do you agree there are significant differences?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Then we have Anonymous with this:
    "CHL holders are among the most law-abiding groups of people that you will find. They HAVE to be. You can't get a CHL unless you ARE law-abiding, and will lose that license if you break the law."

    Actually, Anonymous, there are numerous instances of legal gun owners - people who legally purchased their firearms - acting illegally, including concealed carry permit holders.

    We've posted them here regularly.

    In particular I've written here, in the context of October being domestic violence awareness month of such instances. I think we can all agree that law enforcement officers often carry concealed firearms off duty. You agree?

    Then are you aware that law enforcement officers have a MUCH higher rate of committing domestic abuse and domestic violence. I don't consider that a particularly good argument for your superior law abiding private firearm ownership, including concealed carry - do you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous, are you conversant with the concept of jingoism?

    ReplyDelete
  45. If by 'jingoism' you mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then I am 'jingoe'

    If by 'jingoism' you are asking if I am proud of my country, then you are absolutely correct! I think my country is the best place on earth.

    I was not familiar with this term having never heard of it so I had to look it up.

    I have a feeling that you are trying to change the subject at hand. You asked me to "demonstrate this great Biblical knowledge you have acquired from your reading" and I asked you to ask me what you dont know as I can provide numerous passages and my take from them. The Bible means a great deal to me and my family. Probably more than you could ever understand. If your ready, I can more than fill the space here, and no, I do not use any references from others such as Barton who I belive is a hack.

    These would be my take on the scripture, as well as others, many others like my pastors and other church members on the word provided by the Bible both Old and New Testament.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes, I am aware that there have been a few problems with CHL holders, no system is perfect and is WHY we have the laws providing for CHLs. Such as the fact that there are police officers commit crimes is my point. There are FAR more LEOs that commit crimes than CHLs. Yes, LEOs carry concealed as they expected to uphold law on and off duty as they were sworn to when hired. Yet they are still human beings that have to individually make decisions just like you and I. And, unfortunately cannot be everywhere at the same time to stop crime. And a LEO wont fit in my back pocket, meaning I cant expect him to shadow me to protect me every second of every day.

    The average time to respond to a crime is 15 minutes where I live. I have family and friends that are or have been in law enforcement. They all applaud the CHL and other methods of self defense as the individual him or herself being threatened is actually the first responder, not the law enforcement agency. LEOs are trained on this very fact as they roll onto a scene, they have to sort out who is who and what happened. Law enforcement agencys across the spectrum, including federal agencies like the FBI have made it plainly known the the common individual takes out more criminals, ultimatly, than local law enforcers do and with laws on the side of the individual.

    In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well."

    Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life which is a gift from God to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Also thinking about your questions concerning LEO crimes, are you saying that we need to disarm the police as well? I thoght you held the PD in high regard to protect you. It is very contridictory and illogical for this question. It seems to me that your advocating the disarming of all law abiding people including law enforcment instead of the actual criminal.

    The criminal is the only ones that will not give up their tools of violence, what ever that may be.

    Also you like to take my previous posts, cut them up and take parts out of context in an attempt to make you points. Dont you know how to make points as the posts stand on its own? For example, It is not vigilantism to defend oneself. It is not taking the law in my own hands. It is an act within the law and provided for by the law. Dont try to make something out of what is not there.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dear Anonymous, I like your style.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I would like to address a particularly nasty tactic that you have been imployed in your responses, ie: attributing statements to me that I have not made. Example:

    Since you believe you have a superior understanding of the Bible, I'd like you to post SPECIFIC Bible verses that show that God Given Right you claim.

    I NEVER said that I have a superior understanding of the Bible OR of any other subject.
    I've never even said that I believe that I have a superior understanding of anything.

    I WILL state that I believe that Jesus was not only the only begotten son of God....he IS God. He said himself that he and the Father are One.
    Jesus defended his father's house with his bare hands by turning over the money changers tables in the temple and driving them (the money changers) out.
    See Matthew 21 and Mark 11.

    Galatians 5:22-23 ESV
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
    Galatians 5:22-23 ESV


    Believe it or not, I LOVE this particular scripture that you posted. It is my utmost desire to see that ALL people EVERYWHERE would come to know God and believe on Him and follow after Him. Then, we would actually see these fruits of the Spirit.
    Unfortunately, too many people do NOT believe, and this is what you end up with:
    (Ephesians 6:12-20) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    I admit that I do not possess the education nor have I traveled extensively as you claim that you have. You have begged me to provide you with links and stats and other sources to back up or reinforce my statements and/or beliefs. If you want to educate yourself further, I suggest you look for these yourself. I am not your teacher. Caution: Do NOT believe everything you read and/or hear. Just because something is written down, does not make it true. You may think I am referring to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Bible, Laws that are written down, etc. That is NOT what I am saying that you should not believe. I am referring to opinions about these documents that other people have written. Often these people will misquote or take out of context what these documents said in an attempt to make their point.
    There are actually people who try to persuade others that the holocaust committed against the Jews in Germany never happened, even though there are still witnesses still alive to testify to the truth of it and also photographic evidence. There are people who say that no one has ever made it to the moon. That it was all fake.

    The point of what I'm trying to say is: Read these documents yourself. Interpret them for yourself. Believe they are real documents or not, your choice. If you choose to interpret them differently than I do, that's all well and good for you. Unfortunately, the people who wrote them are no longer living so they can tell us personally what they meant.
    If we disagree as to what these documents mean, that doesn't mean that you are completely right or completely wrong OR that I am completely right or completely wrong.

    I am still willing to provide you with chapter and verse in the Bible for futher discussion on this subject.
    Please understand that I am not claiming to be an expert in the Bible or possess superior knowledge or understanding of the Bible. I can only present what I have learned so far in my life experience. I am willing to discuss this subject in a civil manner as posted, not having my posts taken out of context and twisted into something else.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous is correct he has never indicated a superior knowledge of the Gospels, in fact he has quite a flawed one.

    For example, he misinterprets the cleansing of the Temple first off by saying that "defended his father's house with his bare hands"

    Incorrect, Jesus created a whip from some cords and “he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. But he said to those who sold doves, ‘Get these out of here! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!’[John 2:13-16]”

    That passage demonstrates that Anonymous's understanding of this incident is incorrect. First off, it occurs in all four canonical gospels of the New Testament. Jesus and his diciples are in Jerusalem for Passover, when he expels the money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple to a den of thieves through their commercial activities.

    If anything, this incident would contradict most of anonymous's beliefs. Some Christians hold that capitalism is an inequitable system since it does not provide for all to share the benefits of the economy. In fact, there were strong beliefs against usury and money lending. The New Testament contains references to usury:

    Finally the master said to him 'Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
    —Luke 19:23

    "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury."
    —Matthew 25:27

    "…Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow. Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?"
    —Luke 19:22-23

    Of course, that had a negative impact on commerce and the reformation saw a change from the beliefs about monry and wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Next we come to Galatians 5:22-23. That's a stretch to say that igt grants any right to armed self-defence.

    If anything, armed self-defence would hardly be a right if one truly believes in the sanctity of life.

    One way of moving beyond slogans to a more substantive understanding of the sanctity of life is to define the term with some precision. This is my working definition: The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

    In fact, the use of deadly force is the extreme last option to use when all else has failed. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the life of others. This breathtaking and exalted vision of the worth and dignity of human beings is what we mean, or ought to mean, when we speak of the sanctity of life.

    It is a moral conviction that continually challenges our efforts to weaken it. Yet weaken it we do, whether purposefully or unintentionally. Most often we weaken it when we chafe against the implications of its universality—its vision of the weak, the enemy, the disabled, the stranger, the unborn, the sinner, the poor, the ex-friend, the racial other, or whoever else we find it difficult to include within the community of the truly human.

    That you would chose to believe that someone's life is worth less than the $40 dollars in your pocket demonstrates that you do not understand the meaning of the Gospel.

    If anything you should "turn your sword into plowshares" and learn compassion for why these people would resort to criminal activity and work to change it.

    Unfortunately, you see crime everywhere, and your false idol, the firearm, cannot protect you from it.

    I will not validate that belief for it is a false one of your many false beliefs, anonymous.

    I do not need a lecture from you on what to believe or not to believe.

    You are an example of blind leading the blind.

    I have eyes and I can see.

    ReplyDelete
  52. BTW, we have loads of Gospel about dislking the acucmulation of wealth and the indifference to the poor.

    For example, Ezekiel 16:48-50 concerning Sodom and Gomorrah where God compares Jerusalem to Sodom:

    As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

    “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.


    Christ was no fan of the rich, and that is the Gospel:

    Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

    When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
    Matthew 19:21-22

    That is not the only place where riches and materialism are pointed as being contrary to proper spiritual growth. For example:

    “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. Matthew 6:19-20

    Jesus was a lefty, live with it, anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am SO elated that you FINALLY are getting my point with your statement, which I have kindly copied below:

    "In fact, the use of deadly force is the extreme last option to use when all else has failed. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the life of others. This breathtaking and exalted vision of the worth and dignity of human beings is what we mean, or ought to mean, when we speak of the sanctity of life."

    However, you misunderstand my concept of self-defense. I would NEVER consider material possessions as a legitimate use of deadly force against another person. I'm talking about defense of LIFE. To stand back and let another take the life of even one person is to be equally guilty.
    To stand back and do nothing and then place the blame on the lack of police presence because that is the ONLY option for defense....because, after all, it's not my job, is equally offensive.

    I'm sure you must be aware of the harmonizing of the Gospels. In fact, I believe they strengthen each other as "eye witnesses" do not tell the exact same story, as they observe it from their own point of view. I chose to use the account given in Matthew in an effort to diffuse an arguement about the weapon "a whip" that Jesus is reported to have used in another's account of the incident. As you must be aware, guns were not yet in use in Jesus' time, therefore, a whip is not only viewed as a weapon in His time, but in ours as well.

    "For example, he misinterprets the cleansing of the Temple first off by saying that "defended his father's house with his bare hands"

    Incorrect, Jesus created a whip from some cords and “he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. But he said to those who sold doves, ‘Get these out of here! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!’[John 2:13-16]”

    That passage demonstrates that Anonymous's understanding of this incident is incorrect. First off, it occurs in all four canonical gospels of the New Testament. Jesus and his diciples are in Jerusalem for Passover, when he expels the money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple to a den of thieves through their commercial activities."

    True, there was not a reported threat to life in the temple when Jesus drove out the money changers, but this just points that to desecrate the House of God was evil. The Bible says that if you break one law, you are guilty of breaking them all,ie: murder is the same as lying, stealing, adultery, etc. To do any of these things is to sin against God. To do it in God's Holy Temple is just to slap Him in the face. Don't think that these merchants were just innocently going about their business in a legitimate fashion. They were stealing and lying right there where they were supposed to be worshipping God.

    ReplyDelete
  54. But the subject was supposed to be about self defense correct?
    So lets go to these,

    Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

    One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After the sun has risen seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it better be clear that one's life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.

    Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

    The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance -- was also proper for an individual.

    Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.

    Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").

    ReplyDelete
  55. And further,

    The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?

    Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

    Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

    God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.

    Another question asked by Christians is "Doesn't having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?"

    Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)

    Those who trust God work for a living, knowing that 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was "trusting God" would actually be to defy God.

    King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1).

    The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.

    Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages cited above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family's defense would be to defy God.

    There is an additional concern to taking the position that "I don't need to arm myself. God will protect me."

    At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'" (Matthew 4:7).

    It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has laid out for us in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Then,why do you need a gun?

    Actually, the evil was commerce since Jewish authorities required that only Hebrew money was acceptable payment for the Temple tax during the Roman Occupation. You see, under the Law of Moses every male of Israel twenty years old and upward was required to redeem his soul by giving a half-shekel of gold, when a census was taken of Israel. No man was exempt, even the poor had to pay it. This money was for the maintenance of the Temple.

    The temple was not only the centre of worship, but it also served as the treasury for Israel.

    In order that this tax could be paid in Hebrew money, money changers were allowed to set up tables and benches (the English word bank is derived from the word bench) for themselves in the court of the Gentiles where they exchanged not just local Roman money, but also foreign currency from distant travellers, for shekels. Along with them were peddlers who sold animals, birds and various items for worship and sacrifice.

    The money changers profited greatly from the exchange rates that they charged worshippers for shekels to pay the priests, and then from the priests to convert it back into Roman money - they were "cashing in" from both ends. They also profited exorbitantly from loans that they made - with interest rates up to 300 per cent.

    The moneychangers had a monopoly on the half shekel and buying and selling in the sanctuary. Thus, they could charge what they wanted for those coins. The moneychangers were much like the modern day bankers, who has a monopoly on creating money out of nothing and charging interest on it (see Fractional Reserve Banking).

    I'm sure that Jesus would be appalled at credit default swaps. The problem is using money to make money and not as a mere tally for exchange. In other words, the wealth came from something other than labour. There was no problem with exchanging money since that was required, the real issue was that people were profiting from the exchange of money.

    "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Luke 16:13

    ReplyDelete
  57. And further,

    [Exod 22:2] If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

    [Matthew 10:34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. -- Jesus

    [Luke 11:21] When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

    [Luke 22:36] Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    [Luke 22:38] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

    [Luke 11:21] When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

    These should be fairly self explainatory.

    Also your assertion that Jesus is a leftist is wrong. He is never a political being, only a righteous devine being. To make Jesus a lefty to make your points is very condescending and insulting and is used only by people that are afraid that they cant win an arguement any other way.

    I stated before, this isnt about winning, or losing but about MY belifes and how I live with my choices.

    My statement way back about you are losing was soley about the gun laws changing in this country to allow for more individual self defense. New Hampshire has just approved in its House a constitutional carry bill, that means open or concealed, unloaded or loaded without any permit. Any criminal or person that does not otherwise legally qualify for a weapon cought with one will face severe consequences. With its passage, it will make state number five that has constitutional carry.

    For referance, Constitutional carry means that the court system has made it clear that the second amendment does in fact say "The right of the individual to keep and bear arms" to be defined also by the courts "for the defense of oneself, others and property under of the individual in his or her contol without infringement.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I'm sure that Jesus would be appalled at credit default swaps. The problem is using money to make money and not as a mere tally for exchange. In other words, the wealth came from something other than labour. There was no problem with exchanging money since that was required, the real issue was that people were profiting from the exchange of money."

    Ok then......but I thought the topic of this blog was GUN CONTROL?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Unfortunately, the use of the Bible in a secular society such as the US for any policy decisions is unconstitutional per the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

    To say that any policy is based upon one religion or another is to establish religion.

    Additionally, it is open to disagreement.

    You are obviously unaware that many people came to the United States to avoid religious persecution and to flee religious intolerance: Hence "my god tells me that you are wrong".

    Any religious argument opens you up to that criticism.

    The founders were quite canny in making the US a Secular Society. And not all the founders were Christian: I am sure you have never heard of Haym Solomon,which is a shame since he is probably the person most responsible for US Independence.

    By 1776 and the War of Independence, around 2,000 Jews lived in America, most of them Sephardic Jews of Spanish and Portuguese origin. They played a significant role in the struggle for independence, including fighting the British, with Francis Salvador being the first Jew to die, and playing a key role in financing the revolution, with the most important of the financiers being Haym Solomon. Others, like David Salisbury Franksan, despite loyal service in both the Continental Army and the American diplomatic corps, suffered from his association as aide-de-camp for General Benedict Arnold.

    President George Washington remembered the Jewish contribution when he wrote to the Sephardic congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, in a letter dated August 17, 1790: "May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in the land continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants. While everyone shall sit safely under his own vine and fig-tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

    It is too bad that hindsight is 20-20 because I wish that Haym Solomon and those others could see what the US has become and people like yourself, anonymous, since I am sure that they would seriously reconsider their efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ok then......but I thought the topic of this blog was GUN CONTROL?

    But you hijacked to it the topic of religion.

    If you want it to remain on topic,then I will delete your religious posts.

    [Matthew 10:34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. -- Jesus

    Which is one of many reasons that he is not the Messiah, if he ever existed. See this for further information.

    ReplyDelete
  61. BTW, there was post here on Biblical Justification - Luke 11:21 which contradicts your interpretation as well.

    So, we do handle religion and can do it quite well. In fact, we appear to know it better than you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I was busy with a field trial over the weekend, so I am just now catching up with responding to some of the comments made during that time. Particularly, I'd like to address statements made by Anonymous, beginning with his assertion that I used a 'nasty tactic' which I believe is a bogus accusation.

    Anonymous,in various posts wrote:
    "I NEVER said that I have a superior understanding of the Bible OR of any other subject.
    I've never even said that I believe that I have a superior understanding of anything."

    The conclusion of a number of statements was that if we did not agree with you, then we must not have read the Bible, OR the Declaration of Independence, OR the U.S. Constitution ourselves.

    Clearly, we not only have read it, speaking on behalf here of both Laci and myself (I don't think he will mind), but we have read it in depth, and in a far deeper and more informed context, including original languages of the texts, than you have Anonymous.

    By that I mean Laci and I have read these documents - all of them - in the context of things like the writing of historical and biblical scholars, education from academic courses on these topics, travel to sites of biblical archeology in the company of biblical scholars, and the original languages, from multiple versions of the texts, not just the English translation on which you rely.

    This is an unfair statement on your part, Anonymous, that I am using a nasty tactic. I am using very fairly the substance of your own statements. I'm sorry you don't like my choice of words in paraphrasing you, but they are a fair assessment of the content and substance of your comments, and I stand by them.

    I believe you owe me an apology for that accuasation, and you need to retract it.

    So, when you write things like this:

    "You asked me to "demonstrate this great Biblical knowledge you have acquired from your reading" and I asked you to ask me what you dont know as I can provide numerous passages and my take from them."

    Anonymous, you are telling us that you believe you know information that we don't,that we are ignorant, as the only explanation apparently that you can think of for someone disagreeing with your reading comprehension of the Bible, Constitution, etc. You clearly are asserting that we are ignorant,relative to yourself, and that you consider yourself qualified to educate us.

    You don't in fact know more than we do - i.e. you do not have either superior knowledge or understanding, you know considerably less; and you are not qualified to teach either of us, on any of these topics.

    You did not simply do this once, you did it repeatedly, as in this excerpt:

    "I have read the ACTUAL constitution, the declaration of independance, the bible and let those FACTS stand on their own without opinion or interpretation.

    If you don't know what I am referring to,either read the Bible yourself, or ask me."

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'm going to continue to comment on other comments previously posted here, rather than recopy these comments to the other post on the topic of religion and 2nd Amendment rights.

    Anonymous wrote:
    "Rather than joke or bash about something you clearly know nothing about, read and educate yourself before making such stupid comments. "

    Clearly, Anonymous, this was another instance where you present yourself as having superior knowledge to our own.

    I think we can quite capably demonstrate that Laci and I have a superior grasp of the material to yours, a better education in these specific topics, and that we are not making "stupid comments".

    Rather, when I ask you to provide Bible quotations that support private weapons rather than weapons in the context of military use in war, you provide me examples of three accounts of wars from the Bible. Apparently you don't HAVE any references from the Bible that are Pro-individual weapons.

    But it does raise the question in my mind, do you know what it is you are putting forward here in defense of your claims? For example, you seemed completely unaware that the Biblical account of Joshua and Jericho is contradicted by archeology and carbon dating of the site, which is old news, dating back decades. If there are problems with the accuracy of the Biblical account, then it is not only a weak support of individual rights because it is a military conflict, it is an invalid support for your position, because it is factually inaccurate.

    I think you might enjoy something about the efforts to make corrections to religious texts, from a news item, that I wrote about prior to this discussion, on my other blog:

    http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/08/that-not-so-inerrant-word-of-god.html

    It addresses a scholarly project, in Israel, the Hebrew Bible project, being conducted by Jewish scholars, in Israel, with the support and approval of a number of the mainstream Christian religions.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Then we have these comments:

    "One does not inherit knowledge. It is not wise to use the accomplishments of one's parents to qualify your own opinions.

    Don't be afraid to stand on your own accomplishments.
    Futhermore, all the knowledge in the world will never be of any use without understanding what it is that you "know". With all the education you have already obtained....get more.


    Addressing the last first, I believe one should educate onself continuously throught one's life, and I do so ongoing. That education is not only facts, but one that provides an excellent basis for understanding. I've always read extensively, and I read at the college level, based on testing, when I was in 5th - 6th grade. So, I have had some time to pursue my education, at a fairly advanced level. My parents were aware of may intelligence from the time I was a child, and along with a personal mentor, provided me with excellent educational opportunities -- but I DID THE WORK. I'm not taking credit for anything that my parents or anyone else has done. Btw -neither of my parents were ordained ministers, rather I have numerous relatives who are, and grew up around conversations on a variety of religious topis, in depth as a result. Those conversations did add to my acquired information, but more than that, the informed and directed my self-education. So if you would like to discuss, say, the relative history and merits of all four of the version of the creed - Apostle's, Nicene, Chalcedon, and Athenasius -- bring it.
    Or, say, Manicheansim, or the influence and origins of the Cult of the Virgin in medieval western secular and religious history as it related to the Council of Ephesus in 431. When I was confirmed, I had to demonstrate a solid knowledge of the Bible, including being able to answer queries like name the slave / servant in the Garden of Gethsemane who had his ear cut off. (I'll save you looking it up - it's Malchus).

    Since it took you so long, to come up with even a failed response, I'm assuming for the moment that your knowledge of the Bible is not as extensive as my own.

    You have the superficial 'I read a book once' notion that because you read the Bible in translation, you have the hubris to claim you know it or understand it. You don't.

    Anonymous said...

    I have read the ACTUAL constitution, the declaration of independance, the bible and let those FACTS stand on their own without opinion or interpretation.

    Belive and write what you want, my family, friends have fought and died, BY THE GUN, to protect your right to keep talking about and skewing facts that fit your views.

    It does not make me wrong or those that died for those rights for every individual to belive what they want. If it was not for this fact, you couldnt have these privalges in the first amendment.

    Yes I am new here, but we (lots of family and friends) have been reading reading this for some time and having lots of laughs.


    I am glad we have amused you and your family; but I hope we have also challenged you here and even educated you a litle. I don't think you really have a basis for laughter, but ignorance is bliss.

    I'm still waiting for you to make your case; you haven't so far.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Then Anonymous wrote:

    "If by 'jingoism' you are asking if I am proud of my country, then you are absolutely correct! I think my country is the best place on earth."

    There is nothing wrong anonymous with being proud of your country. Jingoism is not a compliment, rather it is a word which means you have a factually inaccurate disproportionate view that the U.S. is better (even when sometimes it is not) and that other countries and cultures are inferior, without being either fair or accurate about those cultures, countries, ethnicities.

    It is a term which means you are inaccurate and unfair to others, and not fairly or objectively proud of this country in that regard. It means you minimize our faults and exaggerate our virtues and accomplishments, and then do the same in reverse, to others.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think the idea that the 2A gives people in the year 2011 the right to own a gun or carry one is only outdone in ridiculousness by the idea that god has given this right.

    Some people like guns for various reasons, period. Justifying it is so difficult that they resort to these bizarre ways to shut down arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous wrote something which is a little confusing - it is not clear to me which things he believes and which he does not in the list he cited.

    But it is a jumble of accurate and inaccurate statements that support the very essence of the disagreement that (primarily) Laci and I were having with him.

    For example, he writes:
    "I suppose the Maximus Circus and the things that happened there....recorded for all posterity , did not happen either. Nero didn't burn Rome."

    NO! NERO DID NOT BURN ROME, for starters.

    He wasn't even in Rome when the fire started. The details of that fire are a matter of scholarly record, including archeological record. The records which claim that Nero was responsible, or at the very least indifferent, to the burning of Rome, are inaccurate, and appear to be intentionally malicious.

    Try this source for easy access to the events:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

    And while yes, there were executions in the Circus Maximus (it is not the Maximus Circus) and the Colliseum, those were not the primary function of those locations, Christians were executed not for being Christian, but because they were mistakenly believed to be Jews and were executed allong with Jews, and further, the records of those executions appear to have been greatly exaggerated by Christianity, particularly monks, during the middle ages and don't tend to be very accurate.

    So Anonymous might want to be careful in selecting sources for what he believes, and to do a bit better job of critical reading to inform himself.

    In the larger context of why Nero would burn Jews, including Christians lumped in with Jews, you have to look at the larger context of conflict in the first Jewish Roman war.

    Again, while Wikipedia is not my idea of a primary source, it makes an excellent introduction to the material.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Roman%E2%80%93Jewish_War

    I've learned my own knowledge of these events from multiple scholarly sources, including visiting Masada when I was in Israel.

    I'm sorry to see that Anonymous is too willing to mix his facts with fiction, too unwilling to address these in conversation, and to insecure and intolerant to hold a discussion with people who challenge him or disagree with him or believe differently - and more fact-based - than his own beliefs.

    It is too bad, because this had the potential for being an excellent discussion, one which was fact based not fiction based.

    ReplyDelete