Originally posted by galveston75You misuse and abuse the sayings of Jesus and the apostles to fit your own Watchtower doctrine. You ignore or distort those sayings that disagree with those doctrine. Your organization applies the physical to things that are meant to be taken spiritually and vice versa as it meets their agenda at the time. That is why they prohibit their members from saving lives by blood transfusions even though there is no mention of blood transfusions at all in the Holy Bible.
And that my friend is exactly the issue especially with you. You just don't get it.
But bottom line is you can do as you see fit and with your conscience and as far as that goes with others who say they follow Christ.
This is the concern I have with this and why I started this thread. If it was just gun control and the governments play if this, ye ...[text shortened]... o was he a liar? Why is this statement a truth you cannot see? Because you don't want to....
Originally posted by RJHindsWhatever....... It seems funny that I have not seen anyone here agree with you on anything but yet you still think you have it all right. Hummm? Does that really seem normal with you? No alarms going off in your head to make you question your opinions at all huh?
You misuse and abuse the sayings of Jesus and the apostles to fit your own Watchtower doctrine. You ignore or distort those sayings that disagree with those doctrine. Your organization applies the physical to things that are meant to be taken spiritually and vice versa as it meets their agenda at the time. That is why they prohibit their members from savi ...[text shortened]... ood transfusions even though there is no mention of blood transfusions at all in the Holy Bible.
Originally posted by galveston75I do not need a bunch of people on here to agree with me, for me to think I am right and you are wrong. I don't see anything funny about that at all. 😏
Whatever....... It seems funny that I have not seen anyone here agree with you on anything but yet you still think you have it all right. Hummm? Does that really seem normal with you? No alarms going off in your head to make you question your opinions at all huh?
Originally posted by RJHindsbasic training is what you do in the kitchen with your mother, to be able to cook some scrambled eggs when you live on your own. basic training is for nerf guns, and paintball guns.
I don't disagree with the fact that one should be trained with the proper care of the firearm and safe use. One does not have to join the military or be trained in law enforcement to get basic gun training. There are courses offered all over the USA in gun safety and self-defense. Here is one example in my area.
http://www.handguntraining.net/personal-protection-firearms-training-473.html#map
when you aim to buy a people killing boomstick, or even worse, a freakin assault rifle, you don't get to do basic training. you go through military training.
and as a side note, every civilian that wants to own a firearm, just because he wants to experience the american freedom, should be shot in the arm or leg. to experience what it is like to be shot. then, if he still wants to own a gun, and is willing to go through a 2 months military training, so be it.
it takes about a month to learn how to drive. how about you dedicate at least twice that for a boomstick
Unbelievable.....
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nra-practice-range-app-released-children-ages/story?id=18220200
Didn't the NRA spokesman a few weeks ago say they are willing to do things to help with the killings of young children?
And then they go and put their stamp of approval on this? Where in the heck is their minds, hearts and conscience at?
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI learned to drive in less than an hour. And that was with a stick shift. 😏
basic training is what you do in the kitchen with your mother, to be able to cook some scrambled eggs when you live on your own. basic training is for nerf guns, and paintball guns.
when you aim to buy a people killing boomstick, or even worse, a freakin assault rifle, you don't get to do basic training. you go through military training.
and as ...[text shortened]... about a month to learn how to drive. how about you dedicate at least twice that for a boomstick
Automatics are easy.
6 edits
Meanwhile, the anti-gun lobby -- which invented the term "assault weapon" back in the 80s to subvert public opinion -- chugs along at full steam, pretending that a ban on semi-automatic weapons will have any significant impact on murder rates.
That's right. Assault "rifles" have existed for a very long time and that category describes fully-automatic weapons that can fire up to nearly 1,000 rounds a minute. Assault "weapons" was a category of weapons completely made up, so that semi-automatic weapons could be included and made to look scary and unnecessarily dangerous. "Assault weapon," though compeltely made up, is now an accepted term meant to describe any semi-automatic weapon that looks like it might be military issue.
Essentially, the "assault weapons ban" is based on how menacing a weapon LOOKS. And that's just plain ignorant.
The M-15, used in the Connecticut shootings, is no more an "assault weapon" than is a 9mm pistol or a .38 revolver. It fires 1 bullet each time you pull the trigger. And before you anti-gun nuts start going on about magazine-sizes, bear in mind that the deadliest school massacre of all (Virginia Tech) and the Colubmine massacre, were both carried out with 10-round magazine clips (and a few 15 rounders for the VT incident); the murderers had no problem with 10 round clips. They just brought a whole bunch of the clips with them and quickly reloaded over and over, as needed.
But you see, as far as the weapons ban... it's not about the M-15, or "assault weapons" per se. It's just about taking advantage of the recent crisis to gin up support for weapons bans. The weapons-ban-supporters can't approach the issue with integrity. No. They have to make up terms and use scare tactics, false data, false logic, and the panic over a recent incident to trick ignorant people into siding with them.
It's no wonder the left wing and weapons-ban advocates work hand-in-hand. They favor the same "ends justify the means" tactics.
"NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE" - Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff
Originally posted by sumydidThe term "assault weapon", as used in the context of civilian rifles, has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" who wrote:
Meanwhile, the anti-gun lobby -- which invented the term "assault weapon" back in the 80s to subvert public opinion -- chugs along at full steam, pretending that a ban on semi-automatic weapons will have any significant impact on murder rates.
That's right. Assault "rifles" have existed for a very long time and that category describes fully-automa ...[text shortened]... ER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE" - Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff
“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Because of this history, the use of the term "Assault Weapon" is highly controversial, especially among gun rights activists, who consider it a made-up term invented specifically to disparage civilian semi-automatic firearms that fundamentally function no differently than many other commonly owned civilian firearms, differing only by the presence of black plastic parts in the place of wood for stocks and grips. Assault weapons are also colloquially and commonly called "black guns" or "black rifles". The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as it is believed the term is a media invention. Others believe "assault weapon" is a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons are full automatic firearms when they are not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Originally posted by RJHindsWould you accept there being restrictions on civilians owning fully automatic firearms?
Others believe "assault weapon" is a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons are full automatic firearms when they are not.
Originally posted by RJHindspeople saying that are a danger to society
I learned to drive in less than an hour. And that was with a stick shift. 😏
Automatics are easy.
you don't learn to drive in one hour any more than you learn to fly in one lesson or to disarm a bomb from reading a book.
it takes practice. supervised practice.
i have seen enough retarded kids convinced they could drive from the lessons their dad gave at one time. i have seen those retarded kids driving head first into another car, killing themselves and perhaps another more responsible driver.
Originally posted by sumydidit's like you live in your own little world. america is the most enlightened nation in the world. america has the "most" freedom. america can do no wrong. end sarcasm.
Meanwhile, the anti-gun lobby -- which invented the term "assault weapon" back in the 80s to subvert public opinion -- chugs along at full steam, pretending that a ban on semi-automatic weapons will have any significant impact on murder rates.
That's right. Assault "rifles" have existed for a very long time and that category describes fully-automa ...[text shortened]... ER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE" - Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff
get it through your skull, one shouldn't give a non-zero amount of fuks on how the weapons are called. the fact remains a civilian in the united states can purchase sniper rifles. they can purchase machine guns. armor piercing bullets. automatic and semi automatic weapons. meanwhile, the rest of the world can do without.
the french don't need to buy those weapons, and they don't feel their freedom threatened.. the danes, the english, the swedish. the germans. the canadians. all these people do not live in a tyrannical society. in fact, since they do not have a patriot act, or a guantanamo, they are a much more free society than yours.
how in the world do you explain that your country has the more firearms related deaths than zimbabwe for example? how do you explain that countries with strict gun controls have much less? you whine about how a ban in the US on fire arms of 10 years did nothing. what did you expect? a miraculous change over night? thugs simply handing in their weapons? it's like instituting a seatbelt law, then revoking it after one year because you didn't noticed a sharp enough decline in people flying through windshields .
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell, I did run into a tree, but I was driving. Then I went and got my driver's license. 😏
people saying that are a danger to society
you don't learn to drive in one hour any more than you learn to fly in one lesson or to disarm a bomb from reading a book.
it takes practice. supervised practice.
i have seen enough retarded kids convinced they could drive from the lessons their dad gave at one time. i have seen those retarded kids dr ...[text shortened]... g head first into another car, killing themselves and perhaps another more responsible driver.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAmerican freedom is a wonderful thing, but there are risks. 😏
it's like you live in your own little world. america is the most enlightened nation in the world. america has the "most" freedom. america can do no wrong. end sarcasm.
get it through your skull, one shouldn't give a non-zero amount of fuks on how the weapons are called. the fact remains a civilian in the united states can purchase sniper rifles. they c ...[text shortened]... because you didn't noticed a sharp enough decline in people flying through windshields .