Mass shootings

[parousia70]

The sovereignty of all nations must first be accomplished - the USA is the big challenge. Once we submit, the One World Socialist Government can become a reality. That is the goal of the Left.
Watch Walter Chronkite's speech:
United Nations, national sovereingty and the future of the world - Walter Cronkite - a speech on UN

Don't hold your breath....

 

[parousia70]

As for nerve gas, that is a stretch and you know it. Nerve Gas is banned globally for being a cruel method of killing.

So a semi automatic weapon unleashed onto a walmart killing over 20 people in a minute isn't cruel enough way for innocents to die for you to want it banned the way you want nerve gas banned?

Ok then...

Nerve gas isn't the problem, right? it can't be... it doesnt DO anything until is is weaponized and delivered by a human being... How can IT be cruel by itself?

The gasses in the atmosphere of Venus must be incredibly cruel then...we should probably ban them from the solar system.

And how does something get banned Globally? Is the one world Government our friend Ronald seems to be fretting about already here then?

Does the USA Submit its sovereignty to a Higher World Body today?

 

[☦Marius☦]

So a semi automatic weapon unleashed onto a walmart killing over 20 people in a minute isn't cruel enough way for innocents to die for you to want it banned the way you want nerve gas banned?

Ok then...

And how does something get banned Globally? Is the one world Government our friend Ronald seems to be fretting about already here then?

Does the USA Submit its sovereignty to a Higher World Body today?

I'm sure millions of Jews and those killed by communism would have had something to say about this. What's worse? A few hundred killed in shootings, or a tyrannical government slaughtering or starving its own population in the millions?

Also, the Geneva convention? The UN? International law?

 

[parousia70]

What's worse? A few hundred killed in shootings, or a tyrannical government slaughtering or starving its own population?

I suppose the dead folks at el paso walmart figure it's a moot point.

Why can't we say it's ALL terrible?

Why are a few hundred dead OK at all?

 

[usexpat97]

Why can't we say it's ALL terrible?

Why are a few hundred dead OK at all?

Because it's a gun control argument. It's a question of "the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", vs. "disarm the citizens and if there's a mass shooter, then let the government take care of it". Pros and cons both ways. If you arm the citizens, mass shootings. But if you disarm the citizens, tyrannical government.

Darned if you do, and danged if you don't. It's one reason I say that returning to God is the only answer.

 

[parousia70]

Because it's a gun control argument. It's a question of "the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", vs. "disarm the citizens and if there's a mass shooter, then let the government take care of it". Pros and cons both ways. If you arm the citizens, mass shootings. But if you disarm the citizens, tyrannical government.

Darned if you do, and danged if you don't.

False choice.
Straw Man.

Banning the sale of assault weapons (which we did from 1994-2004, resulting in a 70% decrease in Deaths from mass killings) did not result in, or equate to "disarming citizens".

Where do you get the notion that it did?

The 2nd amendment Right to keep and bear arms was in full effect during the Assault weapon sales ban.

(and By the way.. good guys with Guns, more often than not, don't stop bad guys with Assault weapons in time)

 

[Darkhorse]

(and By the way.. good guys with Guns, more often than not, don't stop bad guys with Assault weapons in time)

"In time"? Like before they shoot anyone? That's a little hard to do...

 

[usexpat97]

False choice.
Straw Man.

Banning assault weapons (which we did from 1994-2004, resulting in a 70% decrease in Deaths from mass killings) did not result in, or equate to "disarming citizens".

The 2nd amendment Right to keep and bear arms was in full effect during the Assault weapon ban.

I am actually undecided on gun control, but I would disagree here on all counts. Plenty of 2nd Amendment rights advocates believe that if you disarm the citizens and not the government, then you give the government all the power and that is tyrannical. Indeed, that is at least a big part of the reason why the 2nd Amendment was ever written. Meanwhile, you have people on the other side screaming out, "Ban guns and stop the mass killings already!" Thus you are weighing the hundreds dead from mass killings vs. the millions dead from tyrannical government. That is how different people have different perceptions of the same thing.

Second, 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infrnged. Banning assault weapons is infringing it. For that matter, 2nd Amendment very clearly gives states the right to maintain their own militias, yet the Supreme court by a 5-4 margin says that no, it does not. I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court is wrong. I can read the text of the 2nd Amendment for myself.

 

[parousia70]

"In time"? Like before they shoot anyone? That's a little hard to do...

Well, a good guy with a six shooter is far more likely to be successful in stopping a bad guy with a six shooter before he killed 20 people than he would be stopping a bad guy with an AR before that.

But, people really do like the warm fuzzy feelings they get knowing they can legally own an AR so...'murica.

 

[parousia70]

I am actually undecided on gun control, but I would disagree here on all counts. Plenty of 2nd Amendment rights advocates believe that if you disarm the citizens and not the government, then you give the government all the power and that is tyrannical. Indeed, that is at least a big part of the reason why the 2nd Amendment was ever written. Meanwhile, you have people on the other side screaming out, "Ban guns and stop the mass killings already!" Thus you are weighing the hundreds dead from mass killings vs. the millions dead from tyrannical government. That is how different people have different perceptions of the same thing.

Name one law abiding american gun owner who was disarmed by the government during the 10 year ban on the sales of assault weapons.

Just one name will prove your point.

Second, 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infrnged. Banning assault weapons is infringing it.

Then So does banning Nukes, or nerve gas...

 

[Blade]

What are you looking at? If man then you will find some man/woman to blame. If we believe Jesus is real and that "bible" is His word and true then "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places"

Not knowing who what where the battle is.. well keep trying. Guns or not guns.. wont change a thing. Took Gabriel 21 days to get back to Daniel and then he had to call on Michael to come help. Why? THATS where the battle is. What happens there then effects things on earth. What got Peter set free from the jail? God just wanted to? No they were praying. Seen heard CITIES changed just because people were praying.. not 15 min or hours or days.. but weeks months! Never stopping.

After Jesus comes and is ruling.. we find Satan bound. What happens? Its wonderful.. are not people EVIL? yet..when Satan gets loosed what happens? Then what was NOT happening.. nations now turn against Christ. We have to answer for our choices. But there is ONE that is the cause of all this lies sickness and ever evil thing. Its what happens when GOD is not in it.

So fight the good fight. PRAY! PRAY PRAY! Pray the word.. angels do what GODS word say. Here to help. But.. fight this see it from flesh..nothing will happen

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

Thread locked permanently
Off Topic to General Theology
MOD HOT OFF​