Gun Legislation

[Boatrocker]

Perhaps the RW simply isn't evolving. Or- worse, yet- perhaps they are devolving. Might not be long before they are crapping in the street.

That would be "biological in nature and part of the natural order" wouldn't it?

IMNSHO, yes, though I don't know right off if there is a precedent for de-evolution in the natural world. New research may be in order.

[Mr.B]

"Since Matthew didn't even exist, and could have never know what Jesus said anyway since it was written hundreds
of years after his supposed death........"

According to whom....? References, (credible) please.

[bannination1]

"Since Matthew didn't even exist, and could have never know what Jesus said anyway since it was written hundreds
of years after his supposed death........"

According to whom....? References, (credible) please.

That's what you'd have to provide, I can't provide references because there aren't any, "Matthew" didn't exist!

Here's an expert saying that Matthew is not the writer and that the book of Mathew was from an anonymous author:

Duling 2010, p. 298-299, 302.

[O Really]

"Since Matthew didn't even exist, and could have never know what Jesus said anyway since it was written hundreds
of years after his supposed death........"

According to whom....? References, (credible) please.

Here's one for discussion...
"The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50."

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

[bannination]

Yep, I was off on the "hundreds" but certainly decades. "Matthew" is just a plagerization of Mark anyway. The earliest Mark was written was 70.

It'd be like my kids writing a history about Obama and his accomplishments like it was first hand knowledge when all they did was "hear" things about Obama decades after his death. If they've heard the wingnut version then Obama was the first Muslim president.

[O Really]

Considering also that there were numerous other gospels. The ones currently accepted were the ones selected by the religious authorities sometime between 150 and 400AD. Then there were the translations, interpretations, adaptations, and so on. The widely accepted King James translation was in early 1600's. So really, it's more like a translation from a 2080 English article about Obama, translated into Swahili sometime in 3500AD.

[Bungalow Bill]

Moses is even more problematicial than Matthew, not that it really
matters to me one way or the other.

[Roland Deschain]

True that, but even regarding the comment, living in a society places some restraints on biological and natural impulses. Like crapping in the street. The mama bear can be excused for not knowing that someone "between her and her cubs" isn't necessarily a danger. A human, on the other hand, is expected to make a finer distinction between what constitutes a danger and what does not.

I'll agree with that. However, a mama bear is not going to use discretion in the amount of force she uses either...once you are perceived as a threat she will kill you. With that in mind and given the fact that humans are "expected to make a finer distinction", once a threat is realized should a human not at least be afforded the right to meet a threat with equal force? Don't make a lot of sense to bring a knife to a gun fight.

[O Really]

... once a threat is realized should a human not at least be afforded the right to meet a threat with equal force? Don't make a lot of sense to bring a knife to a gun fight.

I was pretty sure you'd say that eventually. So if everyone carries handguns, isn't it going to encourage many to carry bigger or more guns? Whatever you perceive the "threat" to have, don't you want more? And wouldn't that apply to everyone? I think you see that now with the arms race between law enforcement and the bad guys.

[Roland Deschain]

... once a threat is realized should a human not at least be afforded the right to meet a threat with equal force? Don't make a lot of sense to bring a knife to a gun fight.

I was pretty sure you'd say that eventually. So if everyone carries handguns, isn't it going to encourage many to carry bigger or more guns? Whatever you perceive the "threat" to have, don't you want more? And wouldn't that apply to everyone? I think you see that now with the arms race between law enforcement and the bad guys.

Not really, there comes a limit of practicality when it comes to carrying. However, you dodged my question...we have established that self defense is part of the natural order, so should you not have the ability to defend yourself as close to "equal" as practical???

[Ombudsman]

Speaking of dodging questions, Mad Roland, when are you going to tell us why you are so obsessed with guns? Is it because you have no other interests? Is it because you profit from them? Is it because you view them as an extension of your anatomy? Is it because you're a chicken liver who feels the need to arm himself constantly? Or is there some other reason?

[homerfobe]

Speaking of dodging questions, Mad Roland, when are you going to tell us why you are so obsessed with guns? Is it because you have no other interests? Is it because you profit from them? Is it because you view them as an extension of your anatomy? Is it because you're a chicken liver who feels the need to arm himself constantly? Or is there some other reason?

Why are you so obsessed with Roland? What's your friggin' business if he wants to have a gun? What would you do if someone broke into your home: would you smack him with your panties or would you blow him into next week? (forgetting of course his anatomy extension) Or would you be the
shivering chicken liver who would piss your pants because your scared shitless?

[homerfobe]

Here's something to ponder.

(CNN) -- A weekend robbery in a racially diverse neighborhood of Washington may have been a hate crime, police said.
"This is for Trayvon Martin," one of the three black men told a white man as they approached him early Saturday, according to Washington
Metropolitan Police Officer Anthony Clay.
The men kicked the adult white male as they took his iPhone and wallet, Clay said Sunday.
The man, who has not been publicly identified, suffered minor injuries and refused medical treatment, he said.
There have been no arrests, but police are investigating the incident as a hate crime, he said.
It happened in the Adams Morgan neighborhood in the northwest quadrant of the nation's capital.

Wouldn't it been pleasing to know the dude pulled out a .44 Magnum and said "This is for George Zimmerman."
(that would be OK wouldn't it Ommybudboy?)

[O Really]

Not really, there comes a limit of practicality when it comes to carrying. ...

Do these guys know the "limit of practicality" or do they still have a way to go?

[Roland Deschain]

Not really, there comes a limit of practicality when it comes to carrying. ...

Do these guys know the "limit of practicality" or do they still have a way to go?

Hardy har.....if you can shove that AK or the RPG in your pants and conceal it I'd see a doctor. Seriously, can you not inject a little common sense here and remember we are talking about concealed carry or do you have to start jumping off the deep end of extremes because your argument is loosing footing?

[Ombudsman]

smack him...blow him....piss .... shit?

Do you think about anything that doesn't involve something below the waist?

[Wneglia]

[Ombudsman]

Not really, there comes a limit of practicality when it comes to carrying. ...

Do these guys know the "limit of practicality" or do they still have a way to go?

Hardy har.....if you can shove that AK or the RPG in your pants and conceal it I'd see a doctor. Seriously, can you not inject a little common sense here and remember we are talking about concealed carry or do you have to start jumping off the deep end of extremes because your argument is loosing footing?

You mean like when you keep pretending that the argument is between the two extremes of either not being allowed to defend yourself or being allowed any weapon you can possibly fathom? Those kind of extremes? Why do you keep cowering when I ask your motivation for your gun obsessed rants?

[Ombudsman]

Boy Doc, that guy sure puts a lot of signs in his yard.

[O Really]

Hardy har.....if you can shove that AK or the RPG in your pants and conceal it I'd see a doctor. Seriously, can you not inject a little common sense here and remember we are talking about concealed carry or do you have to start jumping off the deep end of extremes because your argument is loosing footing?

The pic may not yet be realistic for the US, but the principle is sound. If one thinks that most everyone else in the bar is armed, he's going to want to be armed, too. If it gets to the point that everyone is armed with handguns, those who want an upper hand (good guys or bad) will get bigger ones, more of them and eventually you'll have to carry a rifle around.

But yes, the law does, generally and in most places, allow the use of lethal force in the face of lethal force. That doesn't mean you can expect to get off unscathed if you shoot a guy who threatens you with a pocket knife from across the room. Except maybe Florida.