Time To Watch and Listen

imported post

Gridboy, give it up. There will ALWAYS be folks who just won't let go of their desire to rule over others. They can't handle real freedom, and sure don't want anyone else to enjoy it, that's for sure.
True freedom requires courage and includes real risks. Most Amerikans prefer a nanny state where someone else takes care of unpleasant matters FOR them. Got a burglar in your home? Forget confronting him yourself, cower in a closet and dial 911 (and die). That is the advice of many a chief of police and sheriff.
The nation of Israel had NO kings, NO rulers, just judges who settled disputes. There were NO "law enforcement officers" lurking everywhere, waiting for you to run afoul of some absurd, nitpicking "law" to haul you off to jail. They had TRUE freedom, being subject to the LORD, Himself, and nobody else. That wasn't good enough, the stupid Jews just had to have a king, "like the other (pagan) nations."
Go read 1st Samuel, chapter 8 for the details.

imported post

And just what point is that, komrade?

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

True freedom requires courage and includes real risks. Most Amerikans prefer a nanny state where someone else takes care of unpleasant matters FOR them. Got a burglar in your home? Forget confronting him yourself, cower in a closet and dial 911 (and die). That is the advice of many a chief of police and sheriff.

Click to expand...

And just what point is that, komrade?

Click to expand...

The only thing I hear you saying is, "Kill, kill, kill."

Someone kills your son, kill them back. That, I think we're in agreement in.

Someone takes advantage of your wife? Kill them.

Someone takes a swing at you? Kill them?

Where is the civility here? It's barbaric and downright frightening -- eye for an eye and a crack on the head as well. You're writings indicate you'd tend to take to the gun more often than to words to settle a dispute and that's not a good sign.

imported post

I can't prove it, but I suspect you're a state worker. No, let me correct myself, a state EMPLOYEE, someone who sucks at the public teat.
Sorry the concept of killing offends you. Have you not read Ecclisiastes? A time to kill?
Are you saying the LORD is WRONG? BTW, even Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fufill it.
Here, let me present how you indicate you'd handle, uh, someone raping your wife. Better yet, your daughter.
"Uh, excuse me, but sir, that's my 16 year old daughter you're raping. Would you PLEASE quit? If you don't quit right now, I'll call 911 on you. Or at least let me know when you're done?"
I've been openly carrying for over 9 years, have yet to draw on anyone, despite the fact I really should have on one occasion. By NOT drawing, I really put myself at risk, something I'd do differently today.

imported post

Removed my post as it was a bit personal -- I did a bit of research on you and it explained everything.

imported post

Uh oh, an "educator." A famous libertarian writer, Vin Suprynowiz has written extensively concerning "your kind." Bet you've heard of him, LOL. Shame ole' Vin isn't here to enjoy your comments firsthand, he'd certainly get a chuckle.
Thou shalt not kill refers to unfounded murder. Since you're an admitted agnostic, I feel fairly confident I'm much better versed in this subject matter than yourself. The Old Testament is full of scripture concerning the legitimate taking of life. Check it out and learn something. As Jerry Clower often said, "there's no shame in BEIN' stupid, the shame's in STAYIN' stupid. It's your choice.
If you can't hit a rapist at point blank range, you certainly don't belong on this site. I'd suggest some serious range time. May I treat you to at least one hour's worth?
Pick the place, I'll spring for it.
Funny you should mention being evaluated. Yes, I HAVE been evaluated, proven to be quite sane. Even the shrink commented afterwards, "Mark, you're quite sane, but I have my doubts about those guys over at the sheriff's department."
You know, it's truly sad that anyone who directly opposes your fascist tendencies are, in your opinion, deserving of committment. That just goes to show how little tolerance you truly have for persons who don't share your desires/fantasies to rule the world.
How you get "shoot first/ask later" out of this is beyond me. Have you ever considered treatment?

imported post

Gents....you both are on the same side, albeit from different angles. While entertaining, personal battles are best left for PM's.

There will always be good men who respect their own rights and the rights of others. There will also be bad men who abuse their own rights and the rights of others.

"Good men don't need laws to tell them what to do and and bad men will always find ways around laws." - Plato

imported post

What has all this to do with US v Heller? When the law that passed back in the 70's over 70% of the people of DC wanted less gun violence in their part of the world. Granted only the law abiding were willing to obey the law even though it infringed on their rights. Better to be alive and gunless then dead from walking home from work.

The problem is and always will be that the criminal, by definition, could care less what the law says. It was a bad law that made it impossible for the law abiding to even protect themselves in their own homes. I can just imagine the homeowner asking the criminal if they can wait while they reassemble their long gun and take off the trigger lock. Better to just grab a baseball bat and swing for the fence.

I really hope that the Supremes go a little further then just stiking down this law. I don't expect much from them and some of the recent rulings from this group are so different from how I understand the law. The ruling in this case won't be much different then anything else they've done lately. Best I can hope for is that they might think that self defense in your home is allowed. 'Yea!'

I doubt they will read and correctly interpret the 2nd Amendment as ' the right to keep and bear arms'. That everyone has the right to feel secure and able to defend themselves anywhere in this country. Most rulings from the court have been very limiting and seldom lean towards 'the people'. The people of DC might be able to own a gun in there homes that is capable of being used without 15 minutes of work to get it functioning. :banghead:

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Gents....you both are on the same side, albeit from different angles. While entertaining, personal battles are best left for PM's.

There will always be good men who respect their own rights and the rights of others. There will also be bad men who abuse their own rights and the rights of others.

"Good men don't need laws to tell them what to do and and bad men will always find ways around laws." - Plato

Click to expand...

Bob, he's certainly not on the same side with me, I can assure you. He definitely does not respect anyone else's rights, unless they conform to his standard. I've come to realize over the years that I have a radically different view of the word "right" than most folks. If it can be the constant subject of "reasonable restrictions," it's no longer a right. Just who gets to decide the definition of the word "reasonable?" Wynder? God save what's left of the republic.
Sidenote: is this HankT reincarnated?

imported post

Oh, Noes! I'm an educator!!!one!

Yes, I teach computer science -- I teach people how to program in C and C++, I teach Visual Basic, PHP, MySQL... The great government conspiracy -- you've discovered it!

I love how you continue to spout that I don't respect anyone elses rights when I've said on several occasions that you certainly have the right to your thoughts and comments on government and God, yet you're unable to do the same.

Always proving my point for me -- thank you so much!


Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit... I *have* also taught music. Marching band, actually... The snareline to be specific, although I did dabble a bit with the tenor section. And, I actually *gasp* wrote the score for the battery.

The HORROR!

imported post

While I might "have" the right to this and to that, you make it more than obvious you'd violate the rights of others at the drop of a hat, all in the name of implementing your agenda for Amerika.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

While I might "have" the right to this and to that, you make it more than obvious you'd violate the rights of others at the drop of a hat, all in the name of implementing your agenda for Amerika.

Click to expand...

And yet you're not allowing me that opinion? You're coming off holier-than-thou when you're not even practicing what you preach -- that's pretty much the definition of hipocracy.

Not saying that I actually have an agenda for the United States as I have no real political aspirations at this point, but I do find it staggaring that you're all for absolute unabridgement of rights, but you're not allowing me the one right that is unarguably absolute: thought.

imported post

And yet you're not allowing me that opinion? You're coming off holier-than-thou when you're not even practicing what you preach -- that's pretty much the definition of hipocracy.

Not saying that I actually have an agenda for the United States as I have no real political aspirations at this point, but I do find it staggaring that you're all for absolute unabridgement of rights, but you're not allowing me the one right that is unarguably absolute: thought.

Click to expand...

QFT

imported post

You miss the entire point. I believe in rights. You don't. You believe in "privileges." As a believer in rights, I would never use force to impose my beliefs on you. However, you support a form of "government" which DOES use force to impose it's views on everyone else. See the difference?
Question: if/when the next American revolution occurs, just who's side will you be on? The people who want their freedoms restored or the forces of those who don't want people to have their freedoms restored?

imported post

~Flamesuit on~

I know Im probably adding to the mess here but for me when someone quotes the bible in a supposedly intelligent discussion, I have a tendency to discredit what they are saying. As we know, the bible was written by man and man is nowhere near infallible. It has been used so many times to advance the agenda of individuals that it makes me sick thinking about it.

Rights are only rights until they invade the rights of others.

As far as when the next american revolution happens, I'm hopping the next ship outta this place when that happens. I love my country, but I am sick and tired of all this brainwashing that America is the best country in the world. Maybe we WERE, but I think we arent and never will be again. I hope that I can be proven wrong.

Opinions are like assholes....everyone has one.
This is just my .02.
Please dont flame me too much for my thoughts.

imported post

If you truly believe the Holy Spirit had no hand in the penning of the bible, all I can do is pray you one day realize your mistake.
You ARE correct on one point: America WAS the greatest nation in the history of the world. I'd say it ceased to be that somewhere around 1861 when the Great Invader trashed the constitution forever. If you understand this one fact, you're way ahead of the game, compared to the rest of the Amerikans.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

You miss the entire point. I believe in rights. You don't. You believe in "privileges." As a believer in rights, I would never use force to impose my beliefs on you. However, you support a form of "government" which DOES use force to impose it's views on everyone else. See the difference?
Question: if/when the next American revolution occurs, just who's side will you be on? The people who want their freedoms restored or the forces of those who don't want people to have their freedoms restored?

Click to expand...

If your definition of 'Rights' is that you have to freedom to do as you please, when you please, then, yes -- I'd tend to disagree with you.

As a father of two children, I believe it reasonable that non-prurient media content be restricted to the high shelves in the bookstore or for late night broadcast. However, while I certainly would like to slap the bangers along side the head for wearing their pants down to their knees, I don't begrudge them the right to look stupid. I believe that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, inducing panic, should make the actor responsible for his actions and I think that you should not be allowed to walk along the street and randomly threaten anyone you like on a whim.

I concede that laws don't encourage responsibility -- folks are either going to commit crimes or not, regardless of them; however, I do think they're prudent to define what constitutes a crime, violation or infringement on someone elses rights and what the punishment is.

However, "reasonable" is determined by the people we elect into office... I got to the ballots and I cast my vote for Ron Paul. The majority will most likely decide otherwise, however, when folks wake up and realize that whatever administration currently installed isn't doing what they want, the people have a chance to change that administration.

With no government at all, all I can see is mob rule.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

If you truly believe the Holy Spirit had no hand in the penning of the bible, all I can do is pray you one day realize your mistake.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this is my lack of religious education coming through; however, the bible was written by men, yes? While it may have been influenced or written about the life of Jesus and the story of God, it was still written by men, nonetheless. And, as I'm sure we can all agree, man is not infallible in their memory nor interpretation of events.

In addition, books were selected and ordered by the Council of Nicaea... so any kind of 'spin' could've been created on the bible as they saw fit.

I'm honestly not trying to be blasphemous, nor do I know if what I'm saying would be considered as such, but the good book didn't just suddenly materialize itself in the hands of the Pope one day.

imported post

+1....Thats like a more indepth version of what i said

imported post

There, you prove my entire point for me. You do NOT believe in rights, but "privileges" with restrictions which meet with YOUR approval. That's basically a police state, of which I want no part, thank you.
YOU believe it's reasonable !! That brings the discussion right back to my question: under YOUR form of "government," just who gets to decide the definition of "reasonable?" And the answer is: you.
Shouting "fire" in a theatre would be the appropriate thing to do, especially if the theatre WAS on fire. The act of speaking a single word( in this instance, "fire") in and of itself does not induce panic. It's all in how certain people (whom I love to refer to as "sheeple") REACT to that word. If I were a theatre patron and someone was astute enough to notice and alert me to the situation, I would not panic. Instead, I'd try to remain calm and negotiate my way out of the theatre. Again, the majority of Amerikans who function based on emotion WOULD probably panic.
Threats: I'll always remember an incident when a Cajun from "sout" Loosiana was jumping up and down, upset that his ex-wife was dating someone else. This Cajun carried on for quite some time,even after a cop arrived. In the presence of the cop, the recipient of the tongue lashing finally had enough. He said, and I quote, "YOU come to MY house, I'll kill you." The Cajun grabbed the cops arm and asked, "did you hear that? What do you say about that?" The cop calmly replied, " If I were you, I wouldn't go to his house."
Since you are an admitted agnostic, you probably aren't familiar with the writings of Paul. He made it quite clear, the law of Moses didn't save his soul, it merely made it obvious just how impossible it was for him (and the rest of men) to live a perfect, sinless life. Only JESUS could fufill the law. Again, all the laws in the world will NOT create your Utopia, where nobody is ever harmed, wronged or killed. So you and the rest of your kind need to just let it go.
You voted for Ron Paul !!!! Now there's a shocker. If "reasonable" can be determined by the bozos Amerikans select, you have no rights, you have privileges. When you have a majority deciding for the minority, you have a democracy, something the founders went to great lengths to avoid. So much for that.
Mob rule? Yes, we have it now. Look around. When I think of no government at all, I see FREEDOM. Want to look through MY glasses? It may scare you.