Guns, Guns Guns

Daryl wrote:Any killing of innocent people is wrong...

No it isn't, not when it prevents the murder of even more innocent people, like the "push the button" site, If you could push a button and cause 10 random innocent children to die, but at the same time prevent the death of 100 other innocent children who would have died if you didn't wouldn't you push it?

Annachie wrote:You do know that Allah is the arabic word for God don't you

Actually it translates to "The God", and is intended to indicate "The Jewish God of Abraham" but the term is linked in the "5 pillars of Islam", in the Koran, as being "The God" for whom "Mohammad is his profit". thus separating the Islamic "The God" which does not recognize Jesus as "the son of God" from the Christian "The God" who does not recognize "Mohammad is his profit". in-fact the Bible ends with "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" which would prohibit the adding of the latter teaching from Mohammad and he is thus NOT the profit of the Christian "The God" despite claims of both to worship "The God of Abraham".

MAD-4A wrote:

Annachie wrote:You do know that Allah is the arabic word for God don't you

Actually it translates to "The God", and is intended to indicate "The Jewish God of Abraham" but the term is linked in the "5 pillars of Islam",.

Of course it is.

And it's also what Arabic Christians have called God for 2000 years...

MAD is correct, 'Allah' does translate as 'THE God'. However, its use as such goes back to the old pagan religion of the Peninsular Arabs, who believed that their many deities were but facets or aspects of a single supreme being. It can therefor be argued that the Arabs have always been monotheistic and that the introduction of Judaism, and eventually Christianity and Islam merely represented philosophical speculation on the nature of the supreme being. This is quite similar to the evolution of Jahweh as the supreme being of the Hebrew tribes - the religion of their original homeland in southern Mesopotamia was also a form of many deities as aspects of the supreme being.

So Christians killed Muslims for following the wrong prophet, and vice versa.
Both kill the jews because they believe that the prophet hasn't come yet.

Both Muslims and Mormons follow their prophet because they both think the teachings of Jesus got corrupted by man so new teachings were needed.

Seriously the world would be a much better place without religion.
Hell, the best thing a putative loving god could do for the world would be to provide just such proof.
It would remove the reason for most of the current fighting in the world.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=what+do+we+want+dead+cops+chant&view=detail&mid=139428E15FB9BEC895BC139428E15FB9BEC895BC&FORM=VIRE

Here is a selection of their calling for killing cops. BLM proponents support their right to engage in political speech. Their policy goals contain an element of retribution. They engage in gross mischaraterizations of tragic events as in the Michael Brown case to promote their POV. The witness a preventable tradegy in Eric Garner and march in the streets calling for the immediate death of policemen. They have crossed the line and continue to skirt it even now.

They have a right to engage in political speech no matter how offensive. They have crossed the line upon occasion. Even so they still have the right to speak as they wish.

The right to defend one's sovereignty is not a right to trample on anyone else's. The BLM movement obviously believes their lives are being threatened by the police. The statistics can be argued either way. Blacks are disproportionately more likely to commit murderer and other violent crimes usually against other blacks. They are 12% of the population but commit 52% of all homicides. They are twice as likely to be killed by police. That reads as they are 4 times as likely to be in a violent encounter with the police yet those encounters are only likely to generate 2 times the police killings. Compare that to whites who have a lower per capita incidence of homicide as well as being responsible for fewer total homicides but higher absolute number of people killed as a result of those fewer potentially violent encounters.

Bottom line is that BLM is spinning the data to make their point. Offens8ve as that is they have a right to do so. Calling for killings crosses the line but does not negate their right to speak about the issues they believe in no matter how reprehensible others might find their speech.

gomeau wrote:
Oh bullshit it is. BLM didn't call for police assassinations and if they had it would not have been covered under their first amendment rights and nobody here has been making arguments that the 1st *should* cover a right to call for the death of government officials if you get angry at the government.


People have been repeatedly throwing around claims that the 2nd WAS intended for exactly the acts performed in Dallas however. Using your guns to take up armed resistance to government authorities when you feel those authorities have become the enemy... Dallas is what that looks like when someone actually does exactly that.

This is going to seem kind of rantish, so please bear with me.

gcomeau wrote:Just because this needs pointing out. To all those people who keep arguing the 2nd exists to allow the people to have guns to resist the government when they think the government has turned against them?

Dallas is what that looks like in practice.

Still think that's what the 2nd is for and that it's such a hot idea?

Yes I do think the 2nd is still a good idea. What happened in Dallas is NOT what the 2nd was intended for. That was the actions of a racist arsehole with one hell of a grudge, who used a fully legal firearm (and fully legal by California laws nonetheless) to enact some petty revenge. Do NOT use the actions of one person on a grudge to paint the entire 100+ million law abiding firearm owners in the country. Or you open it up to the actions of one person painting entire demographic, races/religions under the same brush.

An example is, because of the actions of an idiot in Dallas, the 2nd should be repealed and all firearms confiscated (which is what I will assume you are aiming for); alright. By that measure, the actions of a muslim extremist in the US means ALL muslims in the US are rabid terrorists just waiting to strike. It's the same reasoning you're using so do NOT way they are different.

As if it, you are trying to use the actions of a very VERY tiny percentage of the US population and gun owners as a reason to restrict/remove the rights of every American. There are over 100 million firearms owners in the US. The vast VAST majority of them are safe and sane with their firearms. Yes there are occasional accidents, but that's true with -everything-. The number of people killed by firearms in the US is absurdly, laughably minuscule. About 30,000-35,000 out of a population of 330,000,000. That's three hundred and thirty million. 35,000 is 1% of 1% (.01 I believe) of 330,000,000. More people die in automobile accidents than are shot.

The BLM crowd also ignores the biggest killer of blacks. Other blacks. It is sad that blacks kill each other at a much higher rate than anyone else. The number of blacks shot by police pales in comparison to blacks shot by other blacks, but what do the BLM groups protect? Police shootings of blacks.

I admit there is a problem with some police departments and they could use better training, but to focus solely on police while ignoring how the majority of blacks are killed, is foolish. And the BLM crowd isn't winning themselves any friends by their aggressive tactics, which include shutting people up.

That aside, this is getting somewhat off topic. The topic; The 2nd Amendment. It's still valid and useful as always. There are over 30 states with the 2nd amendment in them, guaranteeing it to their citizens. And most firearms owners use their firearms for a number of reasons; self protection (handguns get used for this a LOT), sport shooting (very popular for all types of firearms), hunting (popular and necessary in many places for obtaining food and pest control), and collecting (popular and expensive). Protection against the government ranks very low as a reason why people purchase firearms, and I find it offensive that others use tragedies such as Dallas as an excuse to push their agenda to try and restrict/remove the 2nd Amendment for every American. You [i]ADD[/i[ to the list off rights. You don't take them away from the population. Ever.

Zakharra wrote: The BLM crowd also ignores the biggest killer of blacks. Other blacks. It is sad that blacks kill each other at a much higher rate than anyone else. The number of blacks shot by police pales in comparison to blacks shot by other blacks, but what do the BLM groups protect? Police shootings of blacks.

Two small things I would like you to explain to me:

1. As we all know, open carry is a thing you guys are very proud of. Same as concealed carry. How safe is it for a law-abiding black person to practice either? How likely is it for the NRA to support the civil rights of a black person who gets in trouble due to practicing either?

2. Funny story time: Recently, Nintendo released a game called Pokemon Go. Unlike previous Pokemon games, this one runs on smartphones; the idea is that this is an ARG (augmented reality game) where players collect new Pokemon by being in the right GPS coordinates at the right time. Experience with other, similarly designed ARGs like Ingress shows that this leads to people being encouraged to wander around quite a bit (There are stories of Ingress players travelling to Antarctica for it). Please estimate how safe it is for black people to play it.

How safe is it for anyone to play it? If you can manipulate groups of people to get them to particular places and times, I can think of several groups that could use that for not so innocent purposes.

Annachie wrote:Hell, the best thing a putative loving god could do for the world would be to provide just such proof.

Perhaps I should, but what would I do for entertainment?