Unprofitable Servant wrote: --- In other words, those who are born in the United States ‚Äúunder the jurisdiction thereof‚ÄĚ would only include those whose parents are American citizens themselves, or those whose parents have placed themselves under U.S. jurisdiction ‚ÄĒ legal residents
Thanks, US. Refreshing to hear unrevised history for a change. You have described me, a first gen American. Having input from my immigrant Dad and grandparents, I have both an understanding from their experience, and wanting myself to understand the American way, studied much of our unusual origination. It would be better if taught in school from the original documents and founders perspective, instead of revisionist tradition.
John UK wrote: --- _______________ BTW Mike, the quote from Gill was in response to your post. I think it should meet with approval. Thanks for the explanation about your 1-shot. It concerns me that if you miss, the intruder may use the time you take to reload to do you a mischief.
Appreciate the Gill quote, esp since I am not one of his biggest fans.
The only intruders I have encountered are squirrels, but they were armed with black walnuts. I suppose being black walnuts, they might have been more dangerous than English walnuts, also grown in this area, but squirrels run when they hear a loud noise anyway.
Question for you, John. What is the difference between preventing an intruder from doing harm in your house, and preventing one from doing harm at a gathering of the church?
So Hitler was the power that be ordained of God, and any Germans who resisted him resisted the ordinance of God, though he killed other powers that be to become a bigger power that be, so that he could kill lots of Jews and others. Churchill was ordained of God to fight against him at the same time. They were a couple of the powers that be. But it was ok for each to fight against the other power that be, because that is war, and wars are fought by nations, not people, so the rules of defense are different.
Such is the mind-bending silliness that derives from reading Romans13:1,2 alone. If we continue with verses 3,4, we find the authority and purpose of the powers that be. There is no contradictory authority granted to them by God. Look it up.
Proverbs 16:12 "It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness."
Hosea 8:4a "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:..."
From the news: "The Department of Labor (DOL) announced the proposal Aug. 14, saying the rule guarantees "conscience and religious freedom are given the broadest protection permitted by law."
Agree with Adriel, but maybe for different reasons. Beware of terms like "permitted by law" as regards religious freedom. It isn't permitted by law, it precedes law, but is codified by it. The proper approach is, you exist, therefore you have religious freedom. The law is to serve that reality, or it is no law.
John UK wrote: Mike, what happens after you have fired your single shot .22 and you need to fire again? ---
Reload it, bro. Usually not necessary. For a varmint, such as squirrels that like to eat holes in the house soffit, one is enough. For target practice, done for fun as well as proficiency, many. Nothing scary.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- from "Facebook And Twitter Uncover Huge Chinese State Operation Targeting Hong Kong Protesters" https://tinyurl.com/y4xrcqq6 Both are worth reading Zak Doffman wrote: Early on Monday [August 19], I reported that China has been paying Twitter to promote state propaganda against pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. The same has been true on Facebook, where multiple state-controlled accounts have peddled the same messages. By the end of the day, both social media giants had acted to suspend numerous accounts linked to "disinformation," essentially Chinese state propaganda.... .... In my initial report, I suggested that what Twitter (and Facebook) does next will be watched with interest‚ÄĒit is clear that promoted tweets from state media outlets at times of popular unrest go to the very heart of the free speech versus propaganda debate. Well, they have acted and the question has been answered....
Similar to what Facebook and Twitter do here against conservatives. Helping out the red menace wherever they may be found...
Lurker wrote: --- In this regard, an old idea has not been perpetuated. I'm sure you could argue the biblical legitimacy of a natural right if you choose but, right or wrong, that's the way it is. As I said earlier, any attempt to infringe on the right to bear arms will be met with fierce resistance. So you can hypothesize all you want but it isn't helpful as it doesn't deal with the realities as they exist here.
Hi Lurker, they are considered natural rights because in nature, created by God, we see that demonstration of survival instinct is intrinsic in the design. One needs no permission to protect wife and children, it's not up for discussion. The arguments from those who for generations have become comfortable with having govt as a parental authority/entity ignores this. Today in the US, those who would entrench themselves as parental authorities here, use tragedy to increase control, not because they give a rip about victims, but because they fear an armed people. As the fallen who lust for power should.
Still waiting for someone to explain how America would be safer if I no longer had my single shot .22. If anyone thinks the issue is about mean looking black rifles, they are deluded.
False religions are similar to criminal power seekers in the nation/state realm. The way they maintain power is to take it from those to have little, (in the name of purity in the one, and public safety in the other) who are deemed a threat to them for challenging the minds of people to think beyond the historical or institutional slavery to which they have become accustomed.
Dr. Tim wrote: True, Christopher, and in Kennesaw, Georgia, where every household is required by law to have at least one gun, the violent crime rate is 41 percent lower than the national average.
Darn those details. Seems peculiar that we are being taken to task by folks living in lands where most of their history has been one of bloodshed. Centuries of it, and more to come considering the suicidal path they have chosen to be on. Yet the attempt to teach the relative new guy on the scene we have obsession with guns. You have to shake your head in wonder.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- excerpt from, "Just say it: Trump is a racist". --- I assume that New York Times writers read other articles from other sources such as, the first White president in Atlantic Monthly? I think it should been rather obvious through the years, the New York Times was no fan of Donald Trump‚ĚóūüĎé
We know that. Neither are you. NYTimes writers read? Do they read anything other than supportive drivel? Trump has also been called a Nazi, even though he has Jews in his immediate family. What does the looney left do, when all their personal and stupid attacks do not work? Attack some more, naturally. I hope they do continue with the blabbing, Jim. It reveals more about them, than it does about Trump. That will get him reelected. Media and political bottom feeders have nothing to offer but negativity.
B. McCausland wrote: --- Mike, glad to hear of your satisfaction in living in the 'land of the free' Your defensive talk to Adriel has no place as he did not go near that way Crime, except checked, will be rampant in any society, but one would think exceptional that people have to be obsessed about guns in the 'land of the free' ---
The obsession lies with those who seem to hold a tool as inherently evil. Here we continually hear about "gun violence" but never about man violence. I have no obsession with that old single shot .22 in my closet. I'm still waiting for a logical argument from anyone that America would be more safe if I didn't have it. Details are more likely to reveal realities.
Adriel wrote: Alternatively what some are advocating is 'Trust in gun - Not in God' Guns appear to be entrenched in a false psyche in parts of America. As a defense phenomenon it belongs to lynch mob justice ideology. Blaming the murderous mass shootings on mental health does not cover the national obsession with guns. ps: I am not a pacifist. War has nothing to do with this debate.
You're there, and we're here, Adriel. Isn't freedom great? If it suits your fancy, be glad you have the freedom to stay. If you don't like our laws, it's ok, you don't have to come here, and we aren't going to make you defend yourself. God will surely do it, right? In my case, I'm thankful to my grandparents and my Dad for leaving bloody Europe, and coming here to escape it. They weren't obsessed with all the shooting that has gone on and on there, and set forth to a place where the law makes it more difficult to disarm the population, which makes them ever more vulnerable to foreign and domestic enemies. That is what liberal politicians' obsession with more and more useless gun laws is really about, see?
btw, "Trust in gun - Not in God" is a false choice. Neil/Tucson could probably better explain why.
John UK wrote: --- It's funny really. In one breath, people tell me that the day of my death is written down by God and I cannot affect it no matter what I eat or drink or how much exercise I do or don't do. Then they tell me that an ungodly wretch can take my life away, out of the will of God, to my great amazement and puzzlement.
John, it's not so much a puzzle when we apply rightly. Let's follow those lines through. If the time is fixed, and the one in the pew does not die, it must not have been his time. If the killer dies in the attempt, it must have been his time. If the ungodly wretch cannot take your life but by the will of God, then neither can preventing the wretch from doing so by stopping him be out of the will of God.
Christopher000 wrote: Here's a scenario: Someone is standing in front of us, ready to shoot and kill us. Do we: 1) Stand there and agree to being murdered, because if the bullet hits and kills us, it was God's will. 2) Pull out the weapon we happen to have tucked away; a gun, a knife, or a club...whatever, and attack first in an attempt to spare our life. 3) Run for cover, as the thug sprays bullets at us. I view running to take cover no different than pulling out, and using a weapon, because both are an attempt to spare one's life. Would anyone here not run to take cover to try and spare your life, and if you would, then what's the difference between that, and using a weapon to try and spare your life? Just curious.
No difference, Christopher. If we take the fatalist view that letting the perp shoot at you must have been God's will if the bullet strikes, then if you prevent him from shooting you, that too must have been God's will. It can't work only in one direction. Like I asked in my previous post, what did Jesus say about the goodman stopping the thief from breaking up his house?
Matthew 24:43 "But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up."
Ok, remembering that in that day calling the police would be a little more difficult, how would the goodman of the house prevented the thief from breaking in? How would he have stopped him, since being awake was necessary to do so? Why stay awake at all if the house were safe while he slept? I don't know of a passive way this could be accomplished, and from his own words, neither did Jesus. How was it expected that dealing with a thief had particular ways? How's this:
Mark 14:48 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?"
So we can see that Jesus saw them coming for him as though he was a thief. With weapons. That is of course unless we think Jesus used the illustration in the previous verse with content of which he disapproved.
John UK wrote: Mike NY, Help me out here bro. Acts 22:19-20 KJV (19)¬† And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: (20)¬† And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. Before Saul of Tarsus became a Christian, he was very nasty to the saints. He beat some, imprisoned others, killed others. Now Mike, what are you saying these saints ought to have done differently, which would have prevented them being beaten, imprisoned, or killed?
John, they were taken by Paul *because they were Christian,* and imprisoned because they were Christian, which puts a different light on it, no? They became martyrs for Christ. On the other hand, the looney who enters a church building to kill because he wants to kill isn't doing it because they are Christian, any more than the one who enters a school to kill is doing it because they are students, nor the one who shoots from a building is doing it because they are pedestrians. He is wanting to kill them because he wants to kill them. No Christian martyrdom involved. Just evil for it's own sake, and should be avoided if possible, or stopped if necessary.