215 replies to this topic

[joc]

DieChecker, on 05 February 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

Not seriously....

Seriously...why the hell not?  Mark the area Caution: Land Mines...in Esapnol and every other language...might kind of put a stop to the Drug Cartel traffic which is what I'm most concerned about.  How can anyone really seperate the Terrorists from the Drug Cartels?

[Frank Merton]

CrimsonKing, on 04 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

You make my point for me,he had a gun you didnt.If he wanted to he could have done anything he wanted to and there would have been nothing either one of you could have done but died.If a criminal has a gun pointed at you,it is better to fight fire with fire and hope you are the better shot.It is atleast 50/50 then.

Yea -- he had a gun (properly so) and I didn't, so we stayed off property that was very dangerous for us to enter (mines).  If we had had a gun things could have gotten truly ugly.  As it was with guns under proper control things went well.

[Beckys_Mom]

RavenHawk, on 04 February 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

You had better care.  Knowing what their [the Administration's] plan is determines what your course of action is.

Why does that effect me and everyone in my country?  I do not care what a group of religious people in the USA plan on..

Quote

I guess you didn't catch the focus.  The Bible and Jesus speak of many things but the message of the Bible is Salvation.   

When I said he also preached peace and forgiveness, your answer was - Not really..

Quote

You're non clever comment proves that you didn't.   

Really?  Tell me how this statement is not clever  or even fact --> Smoking doesn't kill anyone, but people can die from smoking..   It is no different from the statement you previously, which was Violence doesn't kill people, but people can die from violence..   Both statements are true..

Quote

   Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. – some will say that this was meant as a setup so that Jesus could rebuke the use of weapons but others will say only for the purpose of his Crucifixion.
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. – Some versions say that the word is not sword but division, but it is still violence.  From time to time, I make an equivalence between Judaism and Hinduism by stating that Yahweh = Brahma, Jesus = Shiva, & Holy Ghost = Vishnu.  Now Shiva is the destructor of the Triad (or Trinity).
  

Context is said to be important...  So as this does lean away from your OP I make a new thread, http://www.unexplain...howtopic=242416  asking Christians about the context of these two verses, and see what they have to say.. I have looked at the full context of the two and from what I have read, it seems you have not taken context into full consideration..Especially when it was Jesus that told Peter to put his sword away  ( after Peter cut someones ear off )  he said - "There is no need for this"..There is a lot more to those bible quotes than you like to think..It is easy to copy and paste a random bible verse to suit what you want, but many will tell you context is important..  If you wish to continue this over the bible quotes and context, go to the thread I created and take it from there, that's IF you don't wish to derail your topic any further

Quote

   Matthew 21:12-13
12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it 'a den of robbers.'"
These are examples of violence used by Jesus.  Now people like you and Phelps would see these as examples of using violence to get your way.  I see it as standing your ground.  As a last resort.
But aren't we getting away from the OP?  If you want to reply further then create a new thread in the appropriate  forum.  Let me know and I may respond.

So again you have not been able to show proof that Jesus said to use violence to get their way....If you do not wish to get all into this, then do not copy and paste the odd line from a bible that you take completely out of context thinking you are making a point, when in fact you have not been able to ..

Quote

   Sigh!...  I'll try it again.  I didn't bring GOD into this.   

When I say - In this thread, I mean only mentioned by you in this thread.. You of course where the one to post a comment you read elsewhere about god.. This is what I meant.. As for your OP then nothing is to stop you from getting back to talking about how many bullets you think are needed to take down your government...

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 05 February 2013 - 02:12 PM.

[AsteroidX]

Cant we just all get along like these guys

http://www.cnn.com/2...iner/index.html

[Capt Amerika]

Frank Merton, on 05 February 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Yea -- he had a gun (properly so) and I didn't, so we stayed off property that was very dangerous for us to enter (mines).  If we had had a gun things could have gotten truly ugly.  As it was with guns under proper control things went well.

If i am following your premise correctly, the landowner was in the right because it was his land he was protecting.
Had you had a gun it would have only gotten ugly if you chose for it to get ugly, in any case you were the one in the wrong.
His having a gun was a way to protect himself from the unknown, in this case..you.
What if you had a gun and he didn't?  Would you still have went all the way around or would you have crossed his property anyway just because you were armed and he wasn't?
In the end it seems simple, a guy wanted people to stay off his property and he had armed himself to ensure his rights were not violated.
Sounds reasonable to me.

[Frank Merton]

The "guy" was a soldier of the Army of Vietnam, apparently posted there to keep people off a mine field.  Soldiers have guns in Vietnam, civilians don't.  That is to my mind the way it should be.

[Capt Amerika]

Frank Merton, on 05 February 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

The "guy" was a soldier of the Army of Vietnam, apparently posted there to keep people off a mine field.  Soldiers have guns in Vietnam, civilians don't.  That is to my mind the way it should be.

Good News, In America, we don't require citizens to own guns.
Its a choice, Freedom is a wonderful thing.
and in my mind, that's the way it should be.

[Frank Merton]

Capt Amerika, on 05 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Good News, In America, we don't require citizens to own guns.
Its a choice, Freedom is a wonderful thing.
and in my mind, that's the way it should be.

I agree, freedom is a wonderful thing.  I go to the States quite often, although I'm kinda lucky that way -- most Vietnamese don't have the freedom to do so (because the US doesn't give them the freedom). I really don't notice much difference between the two countries when it comes to freedom, except I feel safe walking down the streets of Ho Chi Minh City at night, something I don't really have the freedom to do in the States.

Not that crime doesn't exist in Vietnam -- no matter where you are you need some common sense.

I think Americans have been fed this line about how free they are that they don't notice that they really aren't so free.  All freedom has to have limits and I do notice policemen doing things like enforcing speed limits there.