The problem with conservatism.

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

Indeed. If you believed what I believed - that there is someone out there who loves you and those you love in a perfect way, more perfect that you could possibly love, your heart will be filled with joy and warmth and you will no longer feel the need to be vigilant.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Vigilance isn't a curse, holy man, it's part of the game. Your "joy and warmth" is a self-fommented illusion that can be shattered forever by a chance encounter. I've seen it happen more than once. When people are forced to choose between piety and survival the latter almost always wins.

Indeed.

Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself.

While we all feel obliged to defend our families (as much as you'd like to think you're unique in that respect) we don't all feel constantly threatened by people and that our liberties are taken away when we're not allowed to carry weapons on the streets.

You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun.

What an ego trip.

Don't you dare accuse me of undo drama, at least not while you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

"Obliged?" More weasel-speech from a pompous knowitall. It's my >responsibilty< to keep my family as safe as humanly possible, because NO ONE else will. You really need to spend some time pointing your nose AWAY from the bible. You seem to have no IDEA how dangerous the "streets" can be depending on locale. EDUCATE yourself before you start spewing religion-scented air all over a place like this. BTW, I can't think of ONE thing about YOU I want changed at the point of a "good" government gun. Why can't you find the will to do the same for me in all that love and peace you SAY you believe in? Also, I never SAID I was unique in any way, pansy. Control yourself.

Yup, in the political arena of "anti self-defense" we ARE mortal enemies, and you're well on your way to loosing. More than 3/4 of the states have CCW in some form or another, and more WILL follow, whether it chaffs your pompous hide or not. Aw here we go now, Handgun control pap 101. "A gun can't help you!" You're joking right? Do you have any idea how persuasive a gun can be? If they're useless then why do the high priests of your order (people like Sarah Brady) surround themselves with ARMED guards, holy man?

Indeed I do have an ego, Mr. Pious. But the difference between yours and mine is that mine is based on REALITY, not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

/me rescinds offer of malted beverage. Looks like you've had enough already. We still agree(overall) on the gun issue though.

CkG

Yet you still feel the need to focus your treacly nonsense on me as if I care. I'm curious what don't we agree on in terms of the 2a? Do you have a problem with unrestricted carry?

We probably do agree - like I said I just disagree with your approach. However, bashing someone for their Christian beliefs doesn't sit well with me.

CkG

Nor does does superciliousness sit well with me, no matter what the source. READ what he said to me CAD, and don't be so quick to judge.

"Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself."

I guess I should have blown him a kiss after him trying to superimpose his views over mine. And when that was over, spent all night trying to explain my life-story so he would understand why I feel the way I do about self-defense.

"You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun."

If you know anything about the gun debate in this country CAD, you should have been just as aggressive in your response to this drivel.

I don't understand you man. When Witling felt it would be useful to tell me "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", you roared your approval. I said right at first that I didn't want to spend my time here thinking up insults. This was taken to mean that I was a pansy or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can play just as rough as any of you (though I do have limits, as indicated by my reply to Corny's racist crap). And now that I've "gotten with the program", you tell me not to be so mean?

No, I don't care what you think he said to you or about you. What I take issue with is the bashing of Christianity. I strongly support the right to carry guns and I do know quite a bit about the debate. You seem more than able to debate the gun issue and I would chime in if I felt you needed some support on the issue. But again -that isn't what I take issue with and actually I agree with you on that part. I don't however think that trying to trash Christianity is a way to debate things.
I never told you to not be so mean - I just don't approve of the Christian bashing. Berate him all you want on the gun issue but stooping to Christian bashing is repulsive and I don't approve. THAT(incase I haven't stated it clearly enough already) is what I take issue with.

CkG

Of course you don't care, I don't expect you to. That's my job. Are you really so blind that you think I don't support his RIGHT to seek solace in ANY manner he chooses? Of all you pseudo-intellectual, high-post count "elites" and general forum goers, I SEEM to be the only constitutionalist. As such I'd risk my life to protect his freedom of worship. But I won't tolerate him extending his choices to include me. Especially if he tries to justify voting away MY rights with warmed over HCI propaganda. One last thing on this subject: Please stop trying to dangle your approval in front of me as some sort of prize, CAD. I neither seek nor require it in order to freely express my opinions.

Buahahaha

Someone has to try pretty hard to not understand what I'm saying about this. I agree with your comments on the gun issue. However, I think making comments like -

not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

and the other snide comments about Christianity.

Someday I hope someone will have the patience and fortitude to help you in ways that are near impossible over the intarweb.
That is all.

CkG

READ THIS

You really can't be this dense, can you? Do you actually UNDERSTAND the printed word? It's like you're a failed AI experiment that was inadvertently left running. I will retaliate as >I< see fit when I'm antagonized. I don't need your approval. I won't heed your opinion as to HOW I should retaliate. You have no control over me, understand? BTW, I have no hopes for you at all. You could die right now and it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest. See? That's the way I want our "relationship" to be. Now, I've tried twice to make peace with you only to have you spit in my hand. Why don't you just leave me alone? You don't run this place and have NO authority, no matter how many posts you have.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
READ THIS

You really can't be this dense, can you? Do you actually UNDERSTAND the printed word? It's like you're a failed AI experiment that was inadvertently left running. I will retaliate as >I< see fit when I'm antagonized. I don't need your approval. I won't heed your opinion as to HOW I should retaliate. You have no control over me, understand? BTW, I have no hopes for you at all. You could die right now and it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest. See? That's the way I want our "relationship" to be. Now, I've tried twice to make peace with you only to have you spit in my hand. Why don't you just leave me alone? You don't run this place and have NO authority, no matter how many posts you have.

Still caught up in people's post count?
I repeat - I don't care what you think he said to you or about you - I just don't like it when people try to bash Christianity to try to "win" an argument. I am more than able to post my opinion just as you are.
If you are trying to make "peace" let things drop and/or try to understand what a person is saying before wildly going off trying to blast them. My comments were about your bashing of Christianity but yet supportive of your Gun argument. Seems you still don't realize that's what it was and continue to jump from this to that trying to make this personal. I don't know you, and I don't care if my death wouldn't matter to you - it's irrelevant to what I posted.
Just my opinion though since you are trying to make this "personal" - you might want to remove that chip from your shoulder - everyone is not out to get you and they certainly aren't waiting here online to give you their "approval"

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
The interpretation of the Christian bible has changed over time.

Yup, but its practitioners still expect blanket amnesty for anything they do or say.

The interpretations of the Bible may change, but that is due to politics of the time period, but books of the Bible has stayed the same for close to two thousand years, and is just as relevant.

HW, I'm still analyzing your article, but in the meantime, I'm still here.

If you must criticize Christianity, please have the patience and understanding to quote concepts as a whole and not out of context. It will give you more credibility. As to your statement, let me clarify what mainstream born-again Christians believe. You may not care, but if you are to make accusations I feel it is best to know what you are talking about.

We believe that though there are varying degrees of sin, the nature of being sinful is what condemns us and that is why we need Jesus's death on the cross, Jesus being the holy Son of God and is God in the flesh, sinless, to reconnect us to God. This is relevant because his death on the cross is payement for the condition of sin, which encompasses all acts of sin, ie, your "anything they say or do." The knowledge of this convicts true believers to turn to God, and this is the key - we don't take it for granted nor do we play games with this salvation. We will continue to sin and make mistakes and fail because it is in our nature, but we will try hard and yearn for the companionship of God, and that in itself gives us the comfort of knowing that regardless of what happens on Earth, God loves us and will take care of us for eternity.

So when you say we expect blanket amnesty, that implies that we give ourselves free reign to do or say anything without repercussion. For the true Christian, this is not true because we are convicted by Jesus's actions and sacrifice - and we devote our lives to His teachings. Though we will commit sins because it is in human nature to be selfish, we know we should never be proud of them, and instead, make genuine amends to change.

I hope this helps you to understand me a little better.

 

[busmaster11]

HW, this is my response to the first few paragraphs.

This article comes from the perspective that ones liberties and dignities are worth his life, if not more.

The libertarian is trained to overdramatize things by bringing up scenarios where one saves his life in the midst of a robbery by cowering like a dog or a prisoner seemingly giving up his dignities for meer protection, and then labeling the person as a coward, a subhuman, a worthless coward.

You can easily bring up counterarguments... The authour suggests you defend yourself. You have a gun, but where is there's a group of them, and they all have guns? What if you shot the rapist before he could get to your wife or daughter, but he has a family behind him and they are out for revenge, and are out to terrorize your family? What if they nabbed your wife, and demanded whatever it is represents your dignity in exchange for her? Is your dignity and liberties the most important thing in each of these cases? How do you justify his quote in this context:

Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

HW, I struggle with these myself. Don't dare think that becasue I am a Christian it is natural for me to accept lying down because I won't. I can be arrogant and prideful too. There are times when I've seen someone act obnoxiously around me and my girlfriend and just wanted to pummel him. But I know there are powers out there I cannot pick fights with because I cannot win. I don't have the resources to devote my life to the cause of revenge and honor. For my family I am willing to sacrifice anything, from my life to my dignity to my soul.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
The interpretation of the Christian bible has changed over time.

Yup, but its practitioners still expect blanket amnesty for anything they do or say.

The interpretations of the Bible may change, but that is due to politics of the time period, but books of the Bible has stayed the same for close to two thousand years, and is just as relevant.

HW, I'm still analyzing your article, but in the meantime, I'm still here.

If you must criticize Christianity, please have the patience and understanding to quote concepts as a whole and not out of context. It will give you more credibility. As to your statement, let me clarify what mainstream born-again Christians believe. You may not care, but if you are to make accusations I feel it is best to know what you are talking about.

We believe that though there are varying degrees of sin, the nature of being sinful is what condemns us and that is why we need Jesus's death on the cross, Jesus being the holy Son of God and is God in the flesh, sinless, to reconnect us to God. This is relevant because his death on the cross is payement for the condition of sin, which encompasses all acts of sin, ie, your "anything they say or do." The knowledge of this convicts true believers to turn to God, and this is the key - we don't take it for granted nor do we play games with this salvation. We will continue to sin and make mistakes and fail because it is in our nature, but we will try hard and yearn for the companionship of God, and that in itself gives us the comfort of knowing that regardless of what happens on Earth, God loves us and will take care of us for eternity.

So when you say we expect blanket amnesty, that implies that we give ourselves free reign to do or say anything without repercussion. For the true Christian, this is not true because we are convicted by Jesus's actions and sacrifice - and we devote our lives to His teachings. Though we will commit sins because it is in human nature to be selfish, we know we should never be proud of them, and instead, make genuine amends to change.

I hope this helps you to understand me a little better.

You'd be amazed at how many times I've debated religious folks. I have two friends who are deeply religious. One's a JW, the other is a born again who's very much like you in terms of belief. They both tolerate each other in person, but behind each others backs they're both VERY contemptuous of each others beliefs. Together they find me both fascinating and threatening. I have no problem with either belief system, but I don't subvert my view of life and the universe around me just to make them happy. Neither do I quietly accept statements like "God loves you even if you don't believe in him." To say such a thing to me attempts to subjugate my beliefs by force of will. I don't do this to others, and won't suffer it in return. BTW, they both see themselves as the "true Christians."

"Blanket amnesty" I've lived a LONG time around religious folks. I assure you that I don't say this lightly or without concrete views to support it. However, I won't waste my time trying to justify it to you. The best we could hope for is a long, increasingly contentious discussion that would leave you feeling as if I was attacking your beliefs. I choose to avoid this.

I look forward to your comments on the article.

 

[busmaster11]

HW, I'd still like a response to my response to the first few paragraphs. In the mean time:

The statistics shown here, if true and current, will convince me to not be opposed to concealed handguns for those who have no criminal background and have passed thorough checks and have credible references.

However this is my question to you. If you can have a weapon identical in look, feel, and responsiveness to yours, which instantaneously stuns the assailant instead, would you definitely prefer it? Why or why not? The author fails his credibility test when he goes to great lengths to justify and show the merits of a simple handgun, then goes on to depict the use and opponents to the use or legalization of assault weapons, conveniently without having justified them at all. That there is not a growing trend towards this clearly more humane method of defense or a market for developing such technology makes me suspicious that the reasons raised are all smokescreens for power / ego trips.

The basic assumption this article makes is that the fundamental need in life is the right to liberty and self-determination because there is no God and is therefore not a gift from God. Because of this, you would naturally draw a different line of conclusions than I, and due to these fundamental differences, there's not much to debate besides yes there's a god and no there's not.

We do not live in an anarchy. There are punishments which serve as deterrents for crimes, and as citizens we trust that such punishments, coupled with a certain level of caution and judgement from yourself, will keep you reasonably safe, provided you don't go out of your way to instigate with others.

I know the game. The first guy to label the other wins. So I don't blame the author for calling our country a totalitarian state, no matter how twisted it is in any context, because I know he has a political agenda. I will never understand why libertarians are so adamant and determined, and they will all swear to their detracters that they are willing to die for their detracter's beliefs. Yet when I ask for examples of practical freedoms they need to live day to day that they don't have, they come up empty. I guess when you don't believe in my God, all you have is life on this sinful sad earth, and defending what you believe to be yours is primary.

We can all be like you, and carry handguns for the rare occassion, but how are such precautions different, for example, from those tin-foil hat wearers who refuse to come within 10 feet of a microwave or cell phone for fear of cancer? What about if you're a smoker or drinker or race car driver? Where's the dignity in lying around as a quadripelegic waiting for people to dress you, roll you around, feed you and help you use the bathroom?

The author also cites a couple examples of where laws would not have prevented known criminal acts from occurring... yet never acknowledges the possibility that many unmeditated crimes may have been prevented because of them - I use my club analogy. I use the Club on my steering wheel, but I freely acknowledge that if a robber wants my car that badly, they'll find a way to steal it. I'm just counting on the notion that no one really would because there's nicer and easier cars to steal than mine. And so far, in 5 years time, I've been proven right without fail. So when the law works, there's very little evidence to show for it.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
The interpretation of the Christian bible has changed over time.

Yup, but its practitioners still expect blanket amnesty for anything they do or say.

The interpretations of the Bible may change, but that is due to politics of the time period, but books of the Bible has stayed the same for close to two thousand years, and is just as relevant.

HW, I'm still analyzing your article, but in the meantime, I'm still here.

If you must criticize Christianity, please have the patience and understanding to quote concepts as a whole and not out of context. It will give you more credibility. As to your statement, let me clarify what mainstream born-again Christians believe. You may not care, but if you are to make accusations I feel it is best to know what you are talking about.

We believe that though there are varying degrees of sin, the nature of being sinful is what condemns us and that is why we need Jesus's death on the cross, Jesus being the holy Son of God and is God in the flesh, sinless, to reconnect us to God. This is relevant because his death on the cross is payement for the condition of sin, which encompasses all acts of sin, ie, your "anything they say or do." The knowledge of this convicts true believers to turn to God, and this is the key - we don't take it for granted nor do we play games with this salvation. We will continue to sin and make mistakes and fail because it is in our nature, but we will try hard and yearn for the companionship of God, and that in itself gives us the comfort of knowing that regardless of what happens on Earth, God loves us and will take care of us for eternity.

So when you say we expect blanket amnesty, that implies that we give ourselves free reign to do or say anything without repercussion. For the true Christian, this is not true because we are convicted by Jesus's actions and sacrifice - and we devote our lives to His teachings. Though we will commit sins because it is in human nature to be selfish, we know we should never be proud of them, and instead, make genuine amends to change.

I hope this helps you to understand me a little better.

You'd be amazed at how many times I've debated religious folks. I have two friends who are deeply religious. One's a JW, the other is a born again who's very much like you in terms of belief. They both tolerate each other in person, but behind each others backs they're both VERY contemptuous of each others beliefs. Together they find me both fascinating and threatening. I have no problem with either belief system, but I don't subvert my view of life and the universe around me just to make them happy. Neither do I quietly accept statements like "God loves you even if you don't believe in him." To say such a thing to me attempts to subjugate my beliefs by force of will. I don't do this to others, and won't suffer it in return. BTW, they both see themselves as the "true Christians."

"Blanket amnesty" I've lived a LONG time around religious folks. I assure you that I don't say this lightly or without concrete views to support it. However, I won't waste my time trying to justify it to you. The best we could hope for is a long, increasingly contentious discussion that would leave you feeling as if I was attacking your beliefs. I choose to avoid this.

I look forward to your comments on the article.

No one's asking you to subvert or submit or subjigate or sub anything. If you have any desire to speak the truth about Christians then know this: Christians don't always reflect Christ. They are selfish, sinful people just like everyone else. They also fail and are tempted like everyone else. You may call it shameful, even hypocritical, but it is something I freely admit. Not understanding this or seeing this as a reflection of the God we serve is a major mistake in the sense that it shows a complete lack of understanding for human nature. It becomes an excuse for those who refuse God.

You can "justify" anything you want to me, but in the end, it is only a reflection of those you know or have spoken to. It is not, and cannot be, a reflection of my God. As for my God, you can say anything you want about Him - but know this. Without genuine humility, my God will never show Himself real to you.

God has not failed anyone. Rather, we have all failed Him. As arrogant as it may sound I can confidently say this is is the attitude all Christians need to have. Case and point - the Christians you know and have debated and have hated others behind their backs - have failed you.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
HW, I'd still like a response to my response to the first few paragraphs. In the mean time:

The statistics shown here, if true and current, will convince me to not be opposed to concealed handguns for those who have no criminal background and have passed thorough checks and have credible references.

However this is my question to you. If you can have a weapon identical in look, feel, and responsiveness to yours, which instantaneously stuns the assailant instead, would you definitely prefer it? Why or why not? The author fails his credibility test when he goes to great lengths to justify and show the merits of a simple handgun, then goes on to depict the use and opponents to the use or legalization of assault weapons, conveniently without having justified them at all. That there is not a growing trend towards this clearly more humane method of defense or a market for developing such technology makes me suspicious that the reasons raised are all smokescreens for power / ego trips.

The basic assumption this article makes is that the fundamental need in life is the right to liberty and self-determination because there is no God and is therefore not a gift from God. Because of this, you would naturally draw a different line of conclusions than I, and due to these fundamental differences, there's not much to debate besides yes there's a god and no there's not.

We do not live in an anarchy. There are punishments which serve as deterrents for crimes, and as citizens we trust that such punishments, coupled with a certain level of caution and judgement from yourself, will keep you reasonably safe, provided you don't go out of your way to instigate with others.

I know the game. The first guy to label the other wins. So I don't blame the author for calling our country a totalitarian state, no matter how twisted it is in any context, because I know he has a political agenda. I will never understand why libertarians are so adamant and determined, and they will all swear to their detracters that they are willing to die for their detracter's beliefs. Yet when I ask for examples of practical freedoms they need to live day to day that they don't have, they come up empty. I guess when you don't believe in my God, all you have is life on this sinful sad earth, and defending what you believe to be yours is primary.

We can all be like you, and carry handguns for the rare occassion, but how are such precautions different, for example, from those tin-foil hat wearers who refuse to come within 10 feet of a microwave or cell phone for fear of cancer? What about if you're a smoker or drinker or race car driver? Where's the dignity in lying around as a quadripelegic waiting for people to dress you, roll you around, feed you and help you use the bathroom?

.

Before the need for CCW permits, life was pretty much the same. People carried, and without the dire predictions that were around even then. When the American people started to forget just who reported to whom things started to go south. You, as a sovereign individual, should not have to ask the governments permission to carry a means of self-defense. Anything else puts undo power in the wrong hands. You're again veering into territory where you don't have the needed facts to form such a vehement opinion. Without being too technical, what you call an "assault rifle" is really a military LOOKING firearm that functions not unlike a semi-automatic hunting rifle. I have one. They look scary to those who have taken on the burden of judging others but they really aren't what you think.
Do some research on the subject of "assault rifle" bans and I'm sure you'll understand what I mean.

I disagree. Not once does the author say there is no God. What he does is directly contradict the idea that God wants you to sacrifice yourself rather than deal with some monster who decides to victimize you.

I'm well aware what type of system we leave under, even though it's become a pale shadow of what it should be. Indeed there are punishments for a great many things. That fact in no way mitigates your responsibility to defend yourself, on the spot and with equal force. Believe me, you'd find no solace in the fact that your tormenter was LATER captured and tried for what he/she had done to you. I don't want to be "reasonably safe", I want to have tools equal to those I might find myself facing.

"provided you don't go out of your way to instigate with others"

As the author says, there is no magic equation that will decrease your likelyhood of being acuasted, short of never leaving the house. And even that isn't a guarantee in that home envasion, one of the worst crimes there is, is a possibility. Criminal behavior, after all, defies reason for most of us. As the author rightly says, you can't form a social contract with someone who wants to, for WHATEVER reason, victimize you.

"I know the game. The first guy to label the other wins. So I don't blame the author for calling our country a totalitarian state, no matter how twisted it is in any context, because I know he has a political agenda. I will never understand why libertarians are so adamant and determined, and they will all swear to their detracters that they are willing to die for their detracter's beliefs. Yet when I ask for examples of practical freedoms they need to live day to day that they don't have, they come up empty. I guess when you don't believe in my God, all you have is life on this sinful sad earth, and defending what you believe to be yours is primary."

Now this is what I'm talking about. As a libertarian, I take offense to your characterization of MY beliefs. When I mentioned "blanket amnesty" as being something all religious groups seem to require I was talking about THIS behavior (not to mention a few more). If I was to immediately launch into an attack on your beliefs it would be seen as the worst behavior possible by you and your ilk. If you want respect, from me at least, you have to be willing to return it in equal measure.

"We can all be like you, and carry handguns for the rare occassion, but how are such precautions different, for example, from those tin-foil hat wearers who refuse to come within 10 feet of a microwave or cell phone for fear of cancer? What about if you're a smoker or drinker or race car driver? Where's the dignity in lying around as a quadripelegic waiting for people to dress you, roll you around, feed you and help you use the bathroom?"

Again, you're trying VERY hard to denegrate my beliefs when we both know you can't take the same in return. Why is this sort of behavior nessecasry? You seem to think I shouldn't take steps to deal with the unexpected because YOU don't see the statistical need. How can YOU, in good faith and in the spririt of community, take on the responsibility of determining MY response to my circumstances? Your view of the world is binding on you and you alone.

"The author also cites a couple examples of where laws would not have prevented known criminal acts from occurring... yet never acknowledges the possibility that many unmeditated crimes may have been prevented because of them - I use my club analogy. I use the Club on my steering wheel, but I freely acknowledge that if a robber wants my car that badly, they'll find a way to steal it. I'm just counting on the notion that no one really would because there's nicer and easier cars to steal than mine. And so far, in 5 years time, I've been proven right without fail. So when the law works, there's very little evidence to show for it."

My car can in way no way be validly compared to my life and dignity in terms of worth. Your analogy has no weight.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
READ THIS

You really can't be this dense, can you? Do you actually UNDERSTAND the printed word? It's like you're a failed AI experiment that was inadvertently left running. I will retaliate as >I< see fit when I'm antagonized. I don't need your approval. I won't heed your opinion as to HOW I should retaliate. You have no control over me, understand? BTW, I have no hopes for you at all. You could die right now and it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest. See? That's the way I want our "relationship" to be. Now, I've tried twice to make peace with you only to have you spit in my hand. Why don't you just leave me alone? You don't run this place and have NO authority, no matter how many posts you have.

Still caught up in people's post count?
I repeat - I don't care what you think he said to you or about you - I just don't like it when people try to bash Christianity to try to "win" an argument. I am more than able to post my opinion just as you are.
If you are trying to make "peace" let things drop and/or try to understand what a person is saying before wildly going off trying to blast them. My comments were about your bashing of Christianity but yet supportive of your Gun argument. Seems you still don't realize that's what it was and continue to jump from this to that trying to make this personal. I don't know you, and I don't care if my death wouldn't matter to you - it's irrelevant to what I posted.
Just my opinion though since you are trying to make this "personal" - you might want to remove that chip from your shoulder - everyone is not out to get you and they certainly aren't waiting here online to give you their "approval"

CkG

STFU CAD.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

However, I believe in pro-life, because I strongly believe in being accountable for lives that God empowered us to create. Everything comes from God and belongs to God, and saying its "her body" is arrogant denial of that if you are a Christian. I also believe in censoring the immoral component in the media, and all the justifying of the sexual violent and ambulance chasing themes which tempt our kids - because they do not honor God.

Is it conservative to think man should enforce God's law on another? Is it even Christian to think so?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
HW, this is my response to the first few paragraphs.

This article comes from the perspective that ones liberties and dignities are worth his life, if not more.

The libertarian is trained to overdramatize things by bringing up scenarios where one saves his life in the midst of a robbery by cowering like a dog or a prisoner seemingly giving up his dignities for meer protection, and then labeling the person as a coward, a subhuman, a worthless coward.

You can easily bring up counterarguments... The authour suggests you defend yourself. You have a gun, but where is there's a group of them, and they all have guns? What if you shot the rapist before he could get to your wife or daughter, but he has a family behind him and they are out for revenge, and are out to terrorize your family? What if they nabbed your wife, and demanded whatever it is represents your dignity in exchange for her? Is your dignity and liberties the most important thing in each of these cases? How do you justify his quote in this context:

Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

HW, I struggle with these myself. Don't dare think that becasue I am a Christian it is natural for me to accept lying down because I won't. I can be arrogant and prideful too. There are times when I've seen someone act obnoxiously around me and my girlfriend and just wanted to pummel him. But I know there are powers out there I cannot pick fights with because I cannot win. I don't have the resources to devote my life to the cause of revenge and honor. For my family I am willing to sacrifice anything, from my life to my dignity to my soul.

I don't have a problem with obnoxious behavior as long as it isn't pointed in my direction. If it is, I deal with it. You see this as wrong?

Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

I don't feel the need to justify this at all, though I do agree with it, completely.

"You have a gun, but where is there's a group of them, and they all have guns? What if you shot the rapist before he could get to your wife or daughter, but he has a family behind him and they are out for revenge, and are out to terrorize your family? What if they nabbed your wife, and demanded whatever it is represents your dignity in exchange for her? Is your dignity and liberties the most important thing in each of these cases?"

Then we have a shoot-out until the cops arrive to sort it out, though you have to know that criminal behavior doesn't work this way. The people you're talking about are cowards, after all. If I kill a rapist and mistakenly hurt or kill a bystander in the process I'll be held accountable for my actions, and probably be found innocent of malice. That's the way the system works. Are you suggesting that I should allow my wife or daughter to be raped in an effort to avoid hurting someone? It seems to me that you want the choice taken away from me just to avoid the possibility that some asshole might get what he deserves. That's a SCARY frame of mind you have there. Maybe, maybe not, it depends. The choice of how I deal with any of your doomsday scenarios is mine, not yours.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
READ THIS

You really can't be this dense, can you? Do you actually UNDERSTAND the printed word? It's like you're a failed AI experiment that was inadvertently left running. I will retaliate as >I< see fit when I'm antagonized. I don't need your approval. I won't heed your opinion as to HOW I should retaliate. You have no control over me, understand? BTW, I have no hopes for you at all. You could die right now and it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest. See? That's the way I want our "relationship" to be. Now, I've tried twice to make peace with you only to have you spit in my hand. Why don't you just leave me alone? You don't run this place and have NO authority, no matter how many posts you have.

Still caught up in people's post count?
I repeat - I don't care what you think he said to you or about you - I just don't like it when people try to bash Christianity to try to "win" an argument. I am more than able to post my opinion just as you are.
If you are trying to make "peace" let things drop and/or try to understand what a person is saying before wildly going off trying to blast them. My comments were about your bashing of Christianity but yet supportive of your Gun argument. Seems you still don't realize that's what it was and continue to jump from this to that trying to make this personal. I don't know you, and I don't care if my death wouldn't matter to you - it's irrelevant to what I posted.
Just my opinion though since you are trying to make this "personal" - you might want to remove that chip from your shoulder - everyone is not out to get you and they certainly aren't waiting here online to give you their "approval"

CkG

STFU CAD.

I consider my ASS kicked.

CkG

 

[HardWarrior]

"No one's asking you to subvert or submit or subjigate or sub anything."

Sure you are, Every time you presume to extend your beliefs to encompass me without my permission.

"If you have any desire to speak the truth about Christians then know this: Christians don't always reflect Christ. They are selfish, sinful people just like
everyone else. They also fail and are tempted like everyone else. You may call it shameful, even hypocritical, but it is something I freely admit.
Not understanding this or seeing this as a reflection of the God we serve is a major mistake in the sense that it shows a complete lack of understanding
for human nature. It becomes an excuse for those who refuse God."

Truth is far to subjective, it can change from moment to moment. If I can have them, I prefer facts. How do you serve God by doing the same things
as those who don't? There you go again; how can >I< "refuse" something that I don't think exists?

"Rather, we have all failed Him."

See what I mean? I've done no such thing.

"the Christians you know and have debated and have hated others behind their backs - have failed you."

They've done no such thing, BM. When did I say anything about them "hating" each other? All they've done is proven that they're subject to the same
human frailties that we all I have. I don't have a problem with that.

"You can "justify" anything you want to me, but in the end, it is only a reflection of those you know or have spoken to. It is not, and cannot be, a
reflection of my God."

Then you understand why I'm so down on your ideas about gun-control. The difference is that you're basing your opinions on things you've never
seen or heard directly.

"You can "justify" anything you want to me, but in the end, it is only a reflection of those you know or have spoken to. It is not, and cannot be, a
reflection of my God. As for my God, you can say anything you want about Him - but know this. Without genuine humility, my God will never show
Himself real to you."

What else can I base my knowledge on besides what I experience? Sure it can. If the believers in God are so much better than me shouldn't there
be some tangible proof that they are? For example, you haven't shown any "humility." At least not in a way I can understand. Why does God
reveal himself to you?

(You seem to want a disscussion of religion with me. Keep in mind that I said earlier, that you WILL end up saying that I'm attack
you, even though that isn't my intention. Because I have my own beliefs and disagree with many of yours doesn't mean I'm trying to
make your life more difficult or convert you.)

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
READ THIS

You really can't be this dense, can you? Do you actually UNDERSTAND the printed word? It's like you're a failed AI experiment that was inadvertently left running. I will retaliate as >I< see fit when I'm antagonized. I don't need your approval. I won't heed your opinion as to HOW I should retaliate. You have no control over me, understand? BTW, I have no hopes for you at all. You could die right now and it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest. See? That's the way I want our "relationship" to be. Now, I've tried twice to make peace with you only to have you spit in my hand. Why don't you just leave me alone? You don't run this place and have NO authority, no matter how many posts you have.

Still caught up in people's post count?
I repeat - I don't care what you think he said to you or about you - I just don't like it when people try to bash Christianity to try to "win" an argument. I am more than able to post my opinion just as you are.
If you are trying to make "peace" let things drop and/or try to understand what a person is saying before wildly going off trying to blast them. My comments were about your bashing of Christianity but yet supportive of your Gun argument. Seems you still don't realize that's what it was and continue to jump from this to that trying to make this personal. I don't know you, and I don't care if my death wouldn't matter to you - it's irrelevant to what I posted.
Just my opinion though since you are trying to make this "personal" - you might want to remove that chip from your shoulder - everyone is not out to get you and they certainly aren't waiting here online to give you their "approval"

CkG

STFU CAD.

I consider my ASS kicked.

CkG

Consider anything you want. I don't care.

 

[busmaster11]

The author equates semi-automatic weapons to assault weapons. I only know they can fire more shots quicker than a typical handgun, which again, is the only thing the author bothered to defend. And why stop there? Why not tanks, RPGs, and nukes? I know you believe in your right to defend yourself with any means you desire, but the day will come when nuclear technology will become cheap and portable. What then? Where do you draw the line? Should you have the right to own any weapon the government owns? If so, how do you prevent it from getting into the hands of a terrorist with no known criminal history?

Can you also answer my question about whether you would chose a stun weapon over any gun if they were just as practical? If you and the author of the cited passage shirk away from all opportunities to prove that ego has nothing to do with this, just how genuine can your protests be?

"I know the game. The first guy to label the other wins. So I don't blame the author for calling our country a totalitarian state, no matter how twisted it is in any context, because I know he has a political agenda. I will never understand why libertarians are so adamant and determined, and they will all swear to their detracters that they are willing to die for their detracter's beliefs. Yet when I ask for examples of practical freedoms they need to live day to day that they don't have, they come up empty. I guess when you don't believe in my God, all you have is life on this sinful sad earth, and defending what you believe to be yours is primary."
Now this is what I'm talking about. As a libertarian, I take offense to your characterization of MY beliefs. When I mentioned "blanket amnesty" as being something all religious groups seem to require I was talking about THIS behavior (not to mention a few more). If I was to immediately launch into an attack on your beliefs it would be seen as the worst behavior possible by you and your ilk. If you want respect, from me at least, you have to be willing to return it in equal measure.

Unless I come over for dinner with you and your family to know you, your respect will mean little to me, and I'm sure, vice versa. If you don't agree that we in the US have among the best combinations of freedom and prosperity found anywhere in the world, I honestly don't think I can ever see where one is coming from when they call this a totalitarian state.

"We can all be like you, and carry handguns for the rare occassion, but how are such precautions different, for example, from those tin-foil hat wearers who refuse to come within 10 feet of a microwave or cell phone for fear of cancer? What about if you're a smoker or drinker or race car driver? Where's the dignity in lying around as a quadripelegic waiting for people to dress you, roll you around, feed you and help you use the bathroom?"

Again, you're trying VERY hard to denegrate my beliefs when we both know you can't take the same in return. Why is this sort of behavior nessecasry? You seem to think I shouldn't take steps to deal with the unexpected because YOU don't see the statistical need. How can YOU, in good faith and in the spririt of community, take on the responsibility of determining MY response to my circumstances? Your view of the world is binding on you and you alone.

That may be true, HW; but only up to the extent that your choices do not affect my rights and my freedoms. Should I have to fight with you for my freedoms? If so, you are no better than the criminals you swore to defend against. In good faith I acknowledge I could be wrong as far as CCW is concerned, thats why objectively I said I decided not to be against it. Similiarly, your views *may* open up many more opportunities for things to go wrong than mine - and if so - that will indeed violate my rights.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

However, I believe in pro-life, because I strongly believe in being accountable for lives that God empowered us to create. Everything comes from God and belongs to God, and saying its "her body" is arrogant denial of that if you are a Christian. I also believe in censoring the immoral component in the media, and all the justifying of the sexual violent and ambulance chasing themes which tempt our kids - because they do not honor God.

Is it conservative to think man should enforce God's law on another? Is it even Christian to think so?

This may well be the best question I've heard so far. I haven't an answer to it... Let me sleep on it for a while.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11
"You have a gun, but where is there's a group of them, and they all have guns? What if you shot the rapist before he could get to your wife or daughter, but he has a family behind him and they are out for revenge, and are out to terrorize your family? What if they nabbed your wife, and demanded whatever it is represents your dignity in exchange for her? Is your dignity and liberties the most important thing in each of these cases?"

Then we have a shoot-out until the cops arrive to sort it out, though you have to know that criminal behavior doesn't work this way. The people you're talking about are cowards, after all. If I kill a rapist and mistakenly hurt or kill a bystander in the process I'll be held accountable for my actions, and probably be found innocent of malice. That's the way the system works. Are you suggesting that I should allow my wife or daughter to be raped in an effort to avoid hurting someone? It seems to me that you want the choice taken away from me just to avoid the possibility that some asshole might get what he deserves. That's a SCARY frame of mind you have there. Maybe, maybe not, it depends. The choice of how I deal with any of your doomsday scenarios is mine, not yours.

don't you dare put words in my mouth and tell me what it seems like when all you do is draw conclusions based on your idea of who I am. I am suggesting no such thing. If anyone has, is, or even intended on raping a loved one I will have no qualms about emptying bullets into their skulls, whether its Christian or not.

You're also banking on the expectation that all criminals you'll ever encounter are cowards and will run at the sight of a gun. This is the part where I would really like to understand more. You would have a shootout, risking your life and likely, the life of your wife or daughter. Is your dignity or liberties or freedoms worth more than their lives? If you die, is your life, coupled with their emotional suffering, and potential loss of their breadwinner, combined, worth less than your liberties or freedoms and dignity?

BTW, if you need a reminder of how this part of the debate got started, it is this: The author equates personal belongings to one's dignity, and calls on one to defend these things because they symbolize that. To me, that is a sign his balls are bigger than his brain. I will gladly defend a loved one, but I will not risk my life for some symbolic "dignity".

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

"If you have any desire to speak the truth about Christians then know this: Christians don't always reflect Christ. They are selfish, sinful people just like
everyone else. They also fail and are tempted like everyone else. You may call it shameful, even hypocritical, but it is something I freely admit.
Not understanding this or seeing this as a reflection of the God we serve is a major mistake in the sense that it shows a complete lack of understanding
for human nature. It becomes an excuse for those who refuse God."

Truth is far to subjective, it can change from moment to moment. If I can have them, I prefer facts. How do you serve God by doing the same things
as those who don't? There you go again; how can >I< "refuse" something that I don't think exists?

HW, I purposely preface my comments by letting you know that it is to help you understand Christians better because you clearly have misunderstandings about us - it is not an attempt to subjugate or force you to believe what we believe. I would just like for you to speak the truth and not some random thing that sounds senseless out of context to make it look foolish.

How do I serve God if I do the same things everyone else is? Easy. I don't. I serve God by being whats called a "living witness" and a good example to others. More often than not I fail in trying to do so because I'm human, just like you.

"Rather, we have all failed Him."

See what I mean? I've done no such thing.

Again, this is from my perspective, nothing I'd expect you to believe.

"the Christians you know and have debated and have hated others behind their backs - have failed you."

They've done no such thing, BM. When did I say anything about them "hating" each other? All they've done is proven that they're subject to the same
human frailties that we all I have. I don't have a problem with that.

You said they and the Jewish friend hated each other behind their backs. It is the wrong thing to do, and the Christians have failed you by giving you a bad example and a bad idea of how Christians are like.

What else can I base my knowledge on besides what I experience? Sure it can. If the believers in God are so much better than me shouldn't there
be some tangible proof that they are? For example, you haven't shown any "humility." At least not in a way I can understand. Why does God
reveal himself to you?

Now where have I ever suggested anyone is better than you because they are Christians? Whats the criteria for being better?

I believe many liberal concepts show humility. I criticize this Republican regime for its international policies of unilateralism because it shows no humility. I criticize conservative views on social issues because to me, they show little humility. Most of all, I continue to hammer the point that I acknowledge to being sinful, and failing over and over, because I believe in humility. God commands us to be humble, and that His grace alone will save us.

I believe, most of all, that my God reveals Himself to me because humility compels me to listen to Him and his word. I don't tell God what I need or demand from Him. I don't tell God what I expect my rights and freedoms to be, or how I need Him to bless me. I leave it all up to Him. He has blessed me and my fiancee in the last year or so, in infinite ways, ways I could never hope or ask for. Most of all, in ways I could never have been able to work for and earn.

Edit - if I have not been showing humility in talking to you, two notes: First, that I have failed in my attempt to convey to you what an ideal God loving Christian would. Second, because there's no doubt in my mind how you would disrespect and walk all over me if I didn't show some spine.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

However, I believe in pro-life, because I strongly believe in being accountable for lives that God empowered us to create. Everything comes from God and belongs to God, and saying its "her body" is arrogant denial of that if you are a Christian. I also believe in censoring the immoral component in the media, and all the justifying of the sexual violent and ambulance chasing themes which tempt our kids - because they do not honor God.

Is it conservative to think man should enforce God's law on another? Is it even Christian to think so?

This may well be the best question I've heard so far. I haven't an answer to it... Let me sleep on it for a while.

I'll just add another related ponderance: sin is there to tempt, temptation is there to turn away from. Is it really Christian try and sheild others from temptation?

 

[HardWarrior]

"HW, I purposely preface my comments by letting you know that it is to help you understand Christians better because
you clearly have misunderstandings about us - it is not an attempt to subjugate or force you to believe what we believe.
I would just like for you to speak the truth and not some random thing that sounds senseless out of context to make it
look foolish."

You presume too much. I've been alive long enough to form complete positions on a very many things. I understand Christians VERY well.
I've lived among them all my life (46-years, I stopped believing in God at about 8). You may not see the actions of Christians as a direct
threat to the choices of people who don't view the world as THEY do, but the evidence is everywhere. The abortion debate is just one example.
Christians make up the vast majority of anti's don't they? Are you aware that the modern gun-control movement got it's early funding from
a religious organisation? I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. You say you aren't interested in converting me, but you also say that
you'd like me to "speak the truth." Have you ever considered that my truth may be different from yours, though just as heartfelt?

"Now where have I ever suggested anyone is better than you because they are Christians? Whats the criteria for being better?"

Since when does a person or group have to OPENLY suggest anything for their motives and status to be easily understood? Why else
would hristian missionaries be crawling all over Iraq right now if they didn't think that THEIR way is better? What is that 18-year
old JW trying to tell me when he comes to my door on Saturday morning saying "I can tell you about things that can change your life!"
other than than HIS way is better than mine?

"I believe many liberal concepts show humility. I criticize this Republican regime for its international policies of unilateralism
because it shows no humility. I criticize conservative views on social issues because to me, they show little humility. Most of
all, I continue to hammer the point that I acknowledge to being sinful, and failing over and over, because I believe in humility.
God commands us to be humble, and that His grace alone will save us."

That's fine, but I don't. For the sake of clarity, which of the definitions best fits what you mean when you say "humble?"

1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.
2. Showing deferential or submissive respect: a humble apology.
3. Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly: a humble cottage.

For the record, I agree with MANY things you say about conservatives, but for different reasons. Also, I VERY aware that liberals
too have their limitations in terms of international affairs. Again, God doesn't command me to do anything, because I don't
believe he exists. The ONLY thing that I believe will save us is we learn to leave each other alone on our choices.

"I believe, most of all, that my God reveals Himself to me because humility compels me to listen to Him and his word. I don't tell God
what I need or demand from Him. I don't tell God what I expect my rights and freedoms to be, or how I need Him to bless me. I leave it
all up to Him. He has blessed me and my fiancee in the last year or so, in infinite ways, ways I could never hope or ask for. Most of all, in ways
I could never have been able to work for and earn."

I have all these same things and more, without ONCE looking to the divine, a book or ONCE pretending to be humble. How do you explain this?

"Edit - if I have not been showing humility in talking to you, two notes: First, that I have failed in my attempt to convey to you what an ideal God
loving Christian would. Second, because there's no doubt in my mind how you would disrespect and walk all over me if I didn't show some spine.

Whether you are or not is something you have to reconcile with yourself. I don't count in the equation. There's nothing you can do to stop me
from attempting to disrespect and "walk all over you." The fact that I don't is predicated on how you talk to, and relate to me. It isn't my nature to
attempt these things unless sorely provocked.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

HardWarrior, this is going to sound rediculous, but try not to base your attitude about Christianity on Christians. It's like basing your opinion of our goverment on politicians (some might call the current state of both perversions of what they were intended to be). There is more to Christianity than the people with the labels, and there might even be something in it worthwhile for you. You just have to know to look in the right place.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
HardWarrior, this is going to sound rediculous, but try not to base your attitude about Christianity on Christians. It's like basing your opinion of our goverment on politicians (some might call the current state of both perversions of what they were intended to be). There is more to Christianity than the people with the labels, and there might even be something in it worthwhile for you. You just have to know to look in the right place.

You're right, that is sort of weird!

Why is it unfair to judge a faith by the individuals who practice it? After all each devout person claims to be prsonally
touched by God. in a very personal way. I understand what you're saying GB, but I'm not looking for for anything that
religion can supply.

 

[HardWarrior]

"Again, this is from my perspective, nothing I'd expect you to believe."

Okay. But it's indicative that that whenever MOST religious people say "we" they indeed mean EVERYONE.

"You said they and the Jewish friend hated each other behind their backs. It is the wrong thing to do, and the Christians have failed you by
giving you a bad example and a bad idea of how Christians are like."

No, JW is short for Jehovah's Witness! That's funny. Again, I didn't say that either hated the other. I said that they were contemptious of each others
beliefs, check back. You've used the word "hate" in place of "contempt for each others beliefs" twice now. Do they mean the same to you? No, like
I said, neither of them have failed me in any way because they feel the way they do about each others beliefs. Also, as I said, these two guys are no where
NEAR the only Christians I've been around.

 

[HardWarrior]

"However this is my question to you. If you can have a weapon identical in look, feel, and responsiveness to yours, which instantaneously
stuns the assailant instead, would you definitely prefer it? Why or why not?"

You're assuming again and I reject your premise. Killing an intruder, carjacker, armed assailant or strong arm robber would not be my first
impulse. I would give this person the chance to desist (under most circumstances) and time to comply. However, if they
didn't, I WOULD shoot them, with the intend to disable as quickly as possible. The law supports this. BTW, if they died in the process, I
wouldn't loose a minute of sleep over it. Criminals are cowards and deserve what they get.

 

[sxr7171]

nm