Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 3:46:16 GMT -6
How does a women move out of the way of a pregnancy that may will cost her life??? wt? Another irrelevant question. Every pregnancy may cost a woman her life. There is no escape from risk for anybody. Saying that risk is an excuse for killing allows killing for any reason. Of course, if a woman is willing to kill to avoid risk from pregnancy, she should be willing to kill to avoid becoming pregnant. Yes, but that is true, but for the most part women have the baby with little consequences to their health in the long term. But sometimes women end up becoming very unwell, sometimes they are diagnosed with cancer....and often the choice is between their long term survival and the babies life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 3:48:41 GMT -6
pro gun control, doesn't mean anti gun but it does mean more regulations and rules correct? Yes, I am okay with people owning guns, but I don't think it is a civil right.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 2, 2013 3:56:33 GMT -6
... hmm. I see that we are at odds on this since the same document that grants us our civil rights also grants us the rights to our guns making gun ownership a basic civil right. Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 4, 2013 5:07:18 GMT -6
... hmm. I see that we are at odds on this since the same document that grants us our civil rights also grants us the rights to our guns making gun ownership a basic civil right. Sent from my LS670 using proboards Good point. But God did not use a document to grant people their inalienable civil rights. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution includes a partial list of more significant human rights that the US government has agreed to continue to protect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 5:38:51 GMT -6
... hmm. I see that we are at odds on this since the same document that grants us our civil rights also grants us the rights to our guns making gun ownership a basic civil right. Sent from my LS670 using proboards Good point. But God did not use a document to grant people their inalienable civil rights. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution includes a partial list of more significant human rights that the US government has agreed to continue to protect. Yes, but I don't think God gave the right to own a firearm. And now people want to use the us constitution to grant rights the Authors of us constitution never intended
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 5, 2013 19:43:36 GMT -6
Good point. But God did not use a document to grant people their inalienable civil rights. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution includes a partial list of more significant human rights that the US government has agreed to continue to protect. Yes, but I don't think God gave the right to own a firearm. And now people want to use the us constitution to grant rights the Authors of us constitution never intended But God didn't write the Constitution - men did. And since when did God not allow us to defend ourselves?
Maybe I don't understand your comment (which has been known to happen) so I will hold off on any further commenting until I can clarify your last statement about people wanting to use the Constitution to grant rights that were never indended. What people and what rights are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 5, 2013 19:51:42 GMT -6
Yes, but I don't think God gave the right to own a firearm. God's granting of rights is not dependent on what you think. The authors of the Constitution did not intend to grant any rights. They intended to create a government that would protect our God-given rights. The Constitution was a method for the people to grant the government certain limited enumerated powers (not rights, only people have rights). It is a grave danger to liberty to consider that a government can grant rights. Rights are inherent in human beings and always endangered by governments.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 5, 2013 19:54:12 GMT -6
Thanks Donnie, I was trying to be polite, but you have stated (more eloquently) what I was thinking (generally).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 19:56:29 GMT -6
Yes, but I don't think God gave the right to own a firearm. And now people want to use the us constitution to grant rights the Authors of us constitution never intended But God didn't write the Constitution - men did. And since when did God not allow us to defend ourselves?
Maybe I don't understand your comment (which has been known to happen) so I will hold off on any further commenting until I can clarify your last statement about people wanting to use the Constitution to grant rights that were never indended. What people and what rights are you referring to? Do you think the framers of the constitution would have conferred rights to Gays. Do you think they intended for criminals to be set free if the police did not inform them of their rights each and every time they are arrested.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 5, 2013 20:00:42 GMT -6
I think the framers had enough forethought to allow us to modify, update or correc the Constitution and we saw fit in the future.
They did not provide any statute or law to protect us from our own stupidity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 21:03:33 GMT -6
You can't really argue that point to the irreligious or those who see Christianity (or any other religion) as merely part of their cultural heritage Yes, but I don't think God gave the right to own a firearm. God's granting of rights is not dependent on what you think. I know Christianity doesn't confer any rights on its believers. But I do know one of the most famous commandments is to love your neighbour as yourself. It can be argued that is is unloving to not restrict firearms to help protect some of your most vulnerable citizens simply because you want to keep your own rights. That is to consider yourself, above your other citizens. Matt 22:36-39 - Where I am quoting from
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 6, 2013 20:06:33 GMT -6
You can't really argue that point to the irreligious or those who see Christianity (or any other religion) as merely part of their cultural heritage Sure I can, an intelligent atheist will realize that, to protect her rights, she needs to support the concept of God and God-given rights even if she doesn't believe in God.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 6, 2013 20:22:42 GMT -6
I know Christianity doesn't confer any rights on its believers. But I do know one of the most famous commandments is to love your neighbour as yourself. It can be argued that is is unloving to not restrict firearms to help protect some of your most vulnerable citizens simply because you want to keep your own rights. That is to consider yourself, above your other citizens. It is God who grants all people their rights, not Chrisitianity. God grants human rights to all people before they decide what to believe about God, that is inherent in the greatness of God. There is no evidence that restricting firearms helps protect our most vulnerable neighbors. Indeed, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that it is our most vulnerable neighbors who most need the protection of firearms in their own hands or the hands of others. It is not possible for any firearm restriction to protect anybody. On August 23, 2000, near Merced, California, vulnerable fourteen-year-old Jessica Carpenter had been left in charge to look after her four, more vulnerable siblings; Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John, 7. Their father had left for work. Their mother had taken the car to get the brakes checked. A naked man with a pitchfork attacked them in their home. California firearms restrictions kept Jessica from using one of her father's guns to protect her and her siblings. As a result, Ashley and John were killed and Anna was wounded with the pitchfork before the police arrived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 22:28:24 GMT -6
You can't really argue that point to the irreligious or those who see Christianity (or any other religion) as merely part of their cultural heritage Sure I can, an intelligent atheist will realize that, to protect her rights, she needs to support the concept of God and God-given rights even if she doesn't believe in God. No atheists redefine "god given rights" as "human rights" which allows them to take God out of the Question. What they haven't realised is once you take God out of the equation, you can't make any statement with Authority.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Feb 6, 2013 22:30:15 GMT -6
PRO DEATH PENALTY Pro Choice Pro Gun with the caveat that reasonable gun control measures are necessary. I used to believe in the blanketidea that you should own a weapon that you want. But I think that there are reasonable measures in controlling the types of weapons that people should be allowed to have. For most home defense and CQB shotgun is your answer. For personal protection a small pistol. I am having trouble seeing the utility in owning an AR-15, SKS or AK-47 type weapon when their design of origin was to be used tactically in combat situation. Not going to dear hunt with an AR-15. Probably not with an SKS or an AK-47. This is from a guy that owns a Yugo SKS. I only got because the "Neato" factor years. Never used the weapon in other fashion than shooting random stuff out in the middle of nowhere.
In addition I do not think that anyone should be near a weapon unless they have gone through a course and are properly trained in the use of said weapon. I have no issue with the government knowing who owns what.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 23:07:35 GMT -6
I know Christianity doesn't confer any rights on its believers. But I do know one of the most famous commandments is to love your neighbour as yourself. It can be argued that is is unloving to not restrict firearms to help protect some of your most vulnerable citizens simply because you want to keep your own rights. That is to consider yourself, above your other citizens. It is God who grants all people their rights, not Chrisitianity. God grants human rights to all people before they decide what to believe about God, that is inherent in the greatness of God. There is no evidence that restricting firearms helps protect our most vulnerable neighbors. Indeed, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that it is our most vulnerable neighbors who most need the protection of firearms in their own hands or the hands of others. It is not possible for any firearm restriction to protect anybody. On August 23, 2000, near Merced, California, vulnerable fourteen-year-old Jessica Carpenter had been left in charge to look after her four, more vulnerable siblings; Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John, 7. Their father had left for work. Their mother had taken the car to get the brakes checked. A naked man with a pitchfork attacked them in their home. California firearms restrictions kept Jessica from using one of her father's guns to protect her and her siblings. As a result, Ashley and John were killed and Anna was wounded with the pitchfork before the police arrived. Which God is that? In Islam, women are mere chattel and have no rights. Many people think the same about Christianity. For every stranger assault I could talk about many more domestics that are settled with a firearm because they are there
|
|
sanquentin
Freshman
Pro dp, but only for murder and for rape(either seperately or together), and never mandatory.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sanquentin on Feb 7, 2013 1:15:31 GMT -6
I'm pro death penalty, but only for murder, and for rape, and never mandatory. I am also pro-abortion. If you aren't ready to raise a child with a profound disability, don't pretend that you are. And as far as guns, in general, I am pro-2nd amendment. But controls obviously need to be in place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 2:43:08 GMT -6
I'm pro death penalty, but only for murder, and for rape, and never mandatory. I am also pro-abortion. If you aren't ready to raise a child with a profound disability, don't pretend that you are. And as far as guns, in general, I am pro-2nd amendment. But controls obviously need to be in place. So what you are saying is that people should have an abortion if they know they child they are carrying is going to be born with a profound disability?
|
|
sanquentin
Freshman
Pro dp, but only for murder and for rape(either seperately or together), and never mandatory.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sanquentin on Feb 7, 2013 9:21:38 GMT -6
Nope. What I'm saying is, if you as a parent are not ready to raise such a child, then you should be able to have an abortion (or put the child up for adoption, if you prefer that route).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 19:40:35 GMT -6
Nope. What I'm saying is, if you as a parent are not ready to raise such a child, then you should be able to have an abortion (or put the child up for adoption, if you prefer that route). No one is going to argue about the second part of your point. However, while there is no shortage of parents willing to take on young healthy children placing a disabled child in a new home is hard.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 7, 2013 21:45:25 GMT -6
But here is the rub, it while we can debate the morality of it; we cannot debate the right of an individual to make that decison without the interference of government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 7:51:15 GMT -6
But here is the rub, it while we can debate the morality of it; we cannot debate the right of an individual to make that decison without the interference of government. You could probably make that argument with regards to anti discrimination laws. Yes, the government does not agree with the right of people to deny employment on the basis of race, gender, sexuality or religion, but what right does the government have in interfering with the actions of its citizens
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 8, 2013 14:03:01 GMT -6
but what right does the government have in interfering with the actions of its citizens I agree, so what were we arguin about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 14:36:47 GMT -6
Pro dp, anti guns, pro life. I am not against gun ownership but I don't think it shouldbe a right. Your comment makes no sense. If gun ownership is not a right, then people cannot own guns. If you don't have the legal right to do something, then you cannot do it. That's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Feb 9, 2013 0:35:31 GMT -6
Pro dp, anti guns, pro life. I am not against gun ownership but I don't think it shouldbe a right. Your comment makes no sense. If gun ownership is not a right, then people cannot own guns. If you don't have the legal right to do something, then you cannot do it. That's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about. You don't have the right to own a car, it's a privilege that you get a liscenced to do so after demonstrating competency, albeit most drivers are not. You could look at firearms the same way. You should only have them after thorough checks and psych evaluations, and you prove you understand how to safely use and store them. There are a lot of people in possession of them who should not be IMO.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2013 8:07:17 GMT -6
but it does mean more regulations and rules correct? Yes, I am okay with people owning guns, but I don't think it is a civil right. that is where you lose. the second amendment specifically give EVERY individual the constitutional, ie civil, right to own a gun. justice scalia explained it quite succinctly in heller
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2013 9:49:33 GMT -6
Good point. But God did not use a document to grant people their inalienable civil rights. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution includes a partial list of more significant human rights that the US government has agreed to continue to protect. Yes, but I don't think God gave the right to own a firearm. And now people want to use the us constitution to grant rights the Authors of us constitution never intended what rights would those be? you are correct that fools have perverted the constitution to make abortion free on demand, trying to erase god from the schools and government, and to try and pervert marriage by allowing homos to marry. other than that, there have been no rights concocted out of the constitution that the founders did not specifically intend
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2013 11:08:14 GMT -6
You can't really argue that point to the irreligious or those who see Christianity (or any other religion) as merely part of their cultural heritage God's granting of rights is not dependent on what you think. I know Christianity doesn't confer any rights on its believers. But I do know one of the most famous commandments is to love your neighbour as yourself. It can be argued that is is unloving to not restrict firearms to help protect some of your most vulnerable citizens simply because you want to keep your own rights. That is to consider yourself, above your other citizens. Matt 22:36-39 - Where I am quoting from damn. talk about grasping at straws. i hope that you weren't up too high, since such a flimsy straw would break on its own, let alone with your weight. there is not a rational word in that entire comment. obviously, jesus said that we should love our neighbor as ourself. of course, he also said that there is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend. the notion that restricting firearms is remotely close to showing love for your most vulnerable citizens is imbecilic on its face. the reality is that just the exact opposite is true. the greatest love is my having a gun to help protect YOU, even though you choose to put yourself in a position to be harmed. it is my duty and moral responsibility to own a gun, just as it is every law abiding citizen's. THAT is loving my neighbor as myself
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2013 11:59:19 GMT -6
It is God who grants all people their rights, not Chrisitianity. God grants human rights to all people before they decide what to believe about God, that is inherent in the greatness of God. There is no evidence that restricting firearms helps protect our most vulnerable neighbors. Indeed, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that it is our most vulnerable neighbors who most need the protection of firearms in their own hands or the hands of others. It is not possible for any firearm restriction to protect anybody. On August 23, 2000, near Merced, California, vulnerable fourteen-year-old Jessica Carpenter had been left in charge to look after her four, more vulnerable siblings; Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John, 7. Their father had left for work. Their mother had taken the car to get the brakes checked. A naked man with a pitchfork attacked them in their home. California firearms restrictions kept Jessica from using one of her father's guns to protect her and her siblings. As a result, Ashley and John were killed and Anna was wounded with the pitchfork before the police arrived. Which God is that? In Islam, women are mere chattel and have no rights. Many people think the same about Christianity. For every stranger assault I could talk about many more domestics that are settled with a firearm because they are there you lose again. as far as domestic assaults go, there are very few homes that do not have steak knives, which are just as deadly, and in EVERY instance where a gun is used, had the gun not been there, the knife would have been. the REALITY is that there is only ONE god, and that is the god of the bible. it doesn't matter whether or not some idiot chooses to follow the pedophile who hallucinated islam, or follow buddha, or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2013 12:01:55 GMT -6
But here is the rub, it while we can debate the morality of it; we cannot debate the right of an individual to make that decison without the interference of government. that is the bottom line. i, truthfully, do not know whether or not abortion is wrong. what i DO know is, that if it is wrong, the broad is going to have to explain it to god, not to me
|
|