patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,209,232 comments by 14,373 users - AD, Ceffer online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 57 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
Dan8267
2016 Jun 24, 7:42am
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because we are no longer having a rational discussion about this.
Dan8267
2016 Jun 24, 8:33am
Funny how that happens with every thread you enter and post in.... Why is that??
It doesn't. curious2 and I just disagree on this issue, but even when we disagree we can keep it civilized, which is something a whiny little bitch like you cannot.
By the way, the only post you should be making now is your address in response to Dan8267 says
I accept your invitation. Just reply to this message right now with your home address. I may still be able to get reasonably priced plane tickets. If not, I can always send one of my friends in NJ to say high to you and snap a couple of pictures. Of course you are not going to post your real name or home address because you are a lying coward and an invitation that has no location isn't really an invitation. Now is it? It's a bluff by a coward. But hey, prove me wrong. If you don't, you are demonstrating what a lying little cowardly bitch you are and have always been.
Until then, coward, nothing you say carries weight.
NuttBoxer
2016 Jun 24, 9:58am
The gospel according to Luke 6:27-36
John 2:13-16
13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.â€
The passage you referenced refers exclusively to these things being done to you, not your family. Are you really that desperate to be right that you'd intentionally misrepresent the Bible?
NuttBoxer
2016 Jun 24, 10:04am
Try pulling that at my house, I'll introduce you to my intruder alert system. It's got high accuracy, and is the best cure for recidivism known to man, the bullet.
Which is why Christianity has done NOTHING to make Christians more moral. You are confirming exactly what I said.
And you've just stated that shooting someone who attempts to rape your family is immoral... Nice set of values psycho.
Dan8267
2016 Jun 24, 10:23am
The passage you referenced refers exclusively to these things being done to you, not your family. Are you really that desperate to be right that you'd intentionally misrepresent the Bible?
The passage I reference clearly states that one should gladly accepting suffering rather than harm others. But hey, you're dodging the point. If a person broke into your house and you lived alone, would you refrain from shooting him to stop him from raping and killing just you? Of course not. So you reject the teachings of your god. So do I. I'm just honest about it. Christianity is stupid and a poor basis of morality. That said, Christianity clearly has had no impact on changing your morality or anyone else's. People who like to kill "bad guys" continue to like to kill "bad guys" regardless of what their religion teaches. Religion has never been effective in understanding or promoting morality. You are living proof of that. You reject the very basis of Christian morality and the idea that the afterlife, not this life, is what really matters.
Dan8267
2016 Jun 24, 10:35am
And you've just stated that shooting someone who attempts to rape your family is immoral... Nice set of values psycho.
No, I did not. And the fact that you think such a statement is psycho is tantamount to admitting that Christianity is crazy. I am completely in agreement that the moral thing is to use the least amount of violence necessary to stop the evil act even if the least amount of violence necessary is fatal. Unlike you, however, I do not take pleasure at the idea of killing someone even someone who is doing a vile act. And that is what makes me morally superior to you.
Nonetheless, according to Christian doctrines, which you well know, your killing of the intruder would cause him to die in a state of mortal sin condemning him to an eternity of torture. By any sane standard, doing that would make you an inherently immoral person having done something far worse than mass rape and murder. So if you believe in the Christian afterlife, you are morally bankrupt for choosing to kill a person in such a state of sin regardless of whether or not he were to kill you and your family. If you don't believe in the Christian afterlife, then the Christian moral teachings are, as you pointed out, psychotic.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Jun 24, 10:43am
And you've just stated that shooting someone who attempts to rape your family is immoral... Nice set of values psycho.
Come on now: rape is about as bad as getting punched in the nose. It's hardly meritorious of gunfire.
Dan8267
2016 Jun 24, 10:45am
Come on now: rape is about as bad as getting punched in the nose.
According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, a moral authority and recognized genius in Christianity, masturbation is far worse than rape.
« First « Previous Comments 57 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
There is a lot of emotions about gun controls, and I'm in favor of some level of gun control, and licenses requiring specific training to own guns.
But we need to be rational here: Before raising the issue of gun control as a way to prevent terrorist attacks we need to consider the following:
1 - The laws that we hear are proposed are mainly aimed to "Assault riffles", not hand guns. Most politicians are not proposing to ban hand guns (as far as I know).
However the AR-15 used in the attack is not an 'Assault riffle'. I'm not a specialist of fire arms, but it appears this is not an automatic weapon, but a semi automatic one. And it's not either particularly 'high powered' as far as riffles go, though it is maybe more powerful than many hand guns. The AR-15 does look like an assault weapon but it's not.
http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear-someone-call-an-ar-15-an-assault-rifle-show-them-this/
2 - Using a riffle was probably not ideal for the attack. Riffles provide an advantage at a distance, not at point blank or in a melee. In other words it appears the terrorist could have done as much damage with a hand gun - which again I don't hear a lot of politicians propose banning.
3 - Yes we need may need to prevent access to weapon for terror suspects. But I doubt this would be effective to stop terrorists (usually determined people) from getting weapons in a country that has 300 millions fire arms. In fact weapons require permits in France, and are very rare in this country, still we got Paris attacks with true assault riffles. They were smuggled into the country.
4 - All the rhetoric is fine if it puts the NRA on the defensive. But I'm worried the real point of this weapon focus is to distract the public and obfuscate the real causes of the attack. If the terrorist had used pressure cookers, would the president make a speech about that? In her speech Clinton also talked of weapons and then immediately turned around and started warning against "islamophobia" as if there was no rational and reasonable concern there. This is even after a video surfaced showing an Imam in Florida defending the death sentence for gay people. I think these people are confused and are deliberately attempting to mislead the public. I don't think weapons are the central problem in this particular occurrence. Again we are not talking of an autistic child access to a weapon.