Gun Control

Typically I see the line as the emotion surrounding it. Shooting the guy in the middle of stopping the crime would be justice, seeking your revenge afterward by going to his house and burying a cleaver in his head is vengeance. When you are trying to stop predators from killing you livestock (using this example as this was how it was mentioned before) you deal with the ones you see, the ones committing the action. You typical shoot the fox as it enters of leaves the hen house, you don't go out and kill the first fox you see. You do this as a fox has other uses in hunting and killing other animals that interfere with your farming operation.

If someone's already established they're willing to rob your daughter, you know exactly who they are, and you decide to go to their house and make sure they never hurt your daughter or anyone else's ever again, how is that different from hunting down and culling a problem predator that's developed a taste for sheep flesh? I mean, hell, it's arguably MORE difficult to isolate and identify a specific wolf/cougar/whatever than it is to isolate and identify a predator of the human sort. What's more, the animal at least has some kind of excuse - it's an animal. A human being in society damn well knows better. I can make a better argument for staying my hand against the animal than I can for the human. Not a particularly good sign.
 
There's some good christian values in this thread.

2bptt2.jpg



2g8nej.jpg


2g8nhx.jpg
 
You think Jesus was just a pacifistic hippy. That's fucking legit funny, my man. A+, good shit.

I really love how the concept of turning the other cheek got turned absolutely on its fucking head, too.

Question: "Was Jesus a pacifist?"

Answer:
A pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose. A pacifist often refuses to bear arms for reasons of conscience or religious conviction.

Jesus is the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6) in that He will one day bring true and lasting peace to the earth. And His message in this world was remarkably non-violent (Matthew 5:38–44). But the Bible is clear that sometimes war is necessary (see Psalm 144:1). And, given some of the Bible’s prophecies of Jesus, it is hard to call Him a pacifist. Revelation 19:15, speaking of Jesus, declares, “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” The setting up of Jesus’ millennial kingdom will necessitate violence in the form of a war waged against the forces of the Antichrist. Jesus’ robe will be “dipped in blood” (Revelation 19:13).

In Jesus’ interaction with the Roman centurion, Jesus received the soldier’s praise, healed his servant, and commended him for his faith (Matthew 8:5–13). What Jesus did not do was tell the centurion to quit the army—for the simple reason that Jesus was not preaching pacifism. John the Baptist also encountered soldiers, and they asked him, “What should we do?” (Luke 3:14). This would have been the perfect opportunity for John to tell them to lay down their arms. But he did not. Rather, John told the soldiers, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Jesus’ disciples owned weapons, which conflicts with the idea that Jesus was a pacifist. On the night Jesus was betrayed, He even told His followers to bring swords. They had two, which Jesus claimed was enough (Luke 22:37–39). As Jesus was being arrested, Peter drew his sword and wounded one of the men present (John 18:10). Jesus healed the man (Luke 22:51) and commanded Peter to put away his weapon (John 18:11). Of note is the fact that Jesus did not condemn Peter’s ownership of a sword, but only his particular misuse of it.

The book of Ecclesiastes presents life’s balance of contrasting activities: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: . . . a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, . . . a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, and 8). These are not the words of a pacifist.

Jesus did not sound like a pacifist when He said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ‘For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD’” (Matthew 10:34–36). While Jesus is not stipulating warfare, He definitely embraces the conflict that comes with the incursion of truth.

We are never commanded to be pacifists, in the usual sense of the word. Rather, we are to hate what is evil and cling to what is good (Romans 12:9). In doing so we must take a stand against evil in this world (which requires conflict) and pursue righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22). Jesus modeled this pursuit and never shrank from conflict when it was part of the Father’s sovereign plan. Jesus spoke openly against the religious and political rulers of His time because they were not seeking the righteousness of God (Luke 13:31–32; 19:45–47).

When it comes to defeating evil, God is not a pacifist. The Old Testament is full of examples of how God used His people in war to bring judgment upon nations whose sin had reached its full measure. A few examples are found in Genesis 15:16; Numbers 21:3; 31:1–7; 32:20–21; Deuteronomy 7:1–2; Joshua 6:20–21; 8:1–8; 10:29–32; 11:7–20. Before the battle of Jericho, Joshua was met by “the commander of the army of the Lord” (Joshua 5:14). This personage, who was most likely the pre-incarnate Christ, was distinguished by holding a “drawn sword in his hand” (verse 13). The Lord was ready to fight.

We can be assured that it is always with justice that God judges and makes war (Revelation 19:11). “We know him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:30–31). What we learn from these and other biblical passages is that we are only to participate in warfare when it is justified. The countering of aggression, injustice, or genocide would justify a war, and we believe that followers of Jesus are free to join the armed forces and participate in warfare.

And don't forget the way he supposedly chased the moneychangers from the temple. I bet you think he asked them to leave politely or something.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's justice but rather simply protection really, deadly force is in some cases simply the last resort to stop someone. As soon as someone would get on the ground making clear signs to give up, it would be pretty much outright murder to kill the person in such a case.


I already answered this question a few pages ago, yes I do, but it depends entirely on the crime and context. This is often clearly regulated, where a police officer can make use of his fire arm in certain situations, like defending a victim, preventing a felony, think about murder or something similar that could lead to severe injuries of someone. But it is definetly a complex topic and debated among schoolars how far the use of 'deadly force' can go.

*Edit but it's rather clear in some situations :

For cases where the suspect poses a threat to life, may it be the officer or another civilian, Graham v. Connor (1989) held that the use of deadly force is justified.


Which I would say is simply put a necessity. But it should never be done out of revenge or due to some emotions, just to make this clear, it should be always done with the intention to prevent imminent harm and danger.

So you agree that deadly force is required sometimes depending on the circumstance it should be used to defend life. So if I shot someone entering my house while my family and I were home this is entirely self-defence and justified. So what kind of gun control are you looking for?

Also the anti-Christian memes don't help you, as agnostic as I am religion of all kinds has had a mass benefit on the world (have you ever read the bible its like an early civilization survival guide in there) even if the fuck up sometimes (crusades, child rape, jihad, and such)

If someone's already established they're willing to rob your daughter, you know exactly who they are, and you decide to go to their house and make sure they never hurt your daughter or anyone else's ever again, how is that different from hunting down and culling a problem predator that's developed a taste for sheep flesh? I mean, hell, it's arguably MORE difficult to isolate and identify a specific wolf/cougar/whatever than it is to isolate and identify a predator of the human sort. What's more, the animal at least has some kind of excuse - it's an animal. A human being in society damn well knows better. I can make a better argument for staying my hand against the animal than I can for the human. Not a particularly good sign.

And now for the other side, you sir I would not trust with a gun. The problem with this is its is only the word of your daughter to go on, you yourself have not caught him in the act, you cannot prove he did it as you yourself have done nothing but act on emotion and have become the very problem you are trying to stop in fact maybe even a worse problem.
 
I'm assuming this is a thinly-veiled malediction against someone present.
Nah, just the statement that revenge and lynch justice makes Baby Jesus cry.
The more important statement, though, is that equality before the law is one of, if not THE most fundamental and important part of modern humanist society.
Disregarding due process in favour of personal revenge turns over the basic foundation of our society. You can wish for capital punishment for all sorts of crimes, but there is the division between legislative, executive, and judicative, and taking all of them into your own hands basically forfeits your own right to be part of this society.
Also, last time I checked, Jesus was a pacifist hippy. Sure, he chased out the money changers from the temple, but he also preached forgiveness and died for everyone's sins in the story. I thought that was kinda the point of Jesus? Forgiveness and redemption?
Anyway, none of this is really related to gun control, innit.
Everyone should be able to access guns, but I guess we should keep a close eye on Pariah Dog in case his neighbour steals his morning paper o_O
 
You typical shoot the fox as it enters of leaves the hen house, you don't go out and kill the first fox you see. You do this as a fox has other uses in hunting and killing other animals that interfere with your farming operation.
Or you follow the blood trail with your dogs in order to hunt down the bear feasting on your sheep to be sure he won't steal another one from you the next evening. Semantics.
 
And now for the other side, you sir I would not trust with a gun. The problem with this is its is only the word of your daughter to go on, you yourself have not caught him in the act, you cannot prove he did it as you yourself have done nothing but act on emotion and have become the very problem you are trying to stop in fact maybe even a worse problem.

The scenario posited implied that the father knew this was his daughter's assailant and that is exactly the premise I am working from. Acting on emotion? I think it's pretty rational to cull known predators. You could argue that emotion plays a part in it, because no one is completely emotionless, but the utter rationality of removing a threat to the continued well being of you and yours cannot be fucking denied.

Nah, just the statement that revenge and lynch justice makes Baby Jesus cry.
The more important statement, though, is that equality before the law is one of, if not THE most fundamental and important part of modern humanist society.
Disregarding due process in favour of personal revenge turns over the basic foundation of our society. You can wish for capital punishment for all sorts of crimes, but there is the division between legislative, executive, and judicative, and taking all of them into your own hands basically forfeits your own right to be part of this society.
Also, last time I checked, Jesus was a pacifist hippy. Sure, he chased out the money changers from the temple, but he also preached forgiveness and died for everyone's sins in the story. I thought that was kinda the point of Jesus? Forgiveness and redemption?
Anyway, none of this is really related to gun control, innit.
Everyone should be able to access guns, but I guess we should keep a close eye on Pariah Dog in case his neighbour steals his morning paper o_O

Nice little slimy implication there. You sure are doing your part to keep the thread clean. Anyway, the funny thing about "my right to be a part of this society" is that I certainly never asked to be a part of it, it was thrust upon me, and you, and everyone else born into it. The funny thing about the Social Contract is that it's the shittiest contract imaginable - you never see it, you never agree to put your name to it and yet you are inextricably bound by it. If being a part of "your society" mandates that I cede my right to defend life, liberty and property in lieu of the cumbersome "protection" your society's police force purports to offer, your society probably sucks and is held together by little more than the fact that ultimately people are not prone to being massive cockbites out of the clear blue, and this is demonstrated repeatedly by how much of a ripple a single bad actor can create in the pool. Wolves among sheep, and the sheepdogs are hobbled and blindfolded - you know, "for the sheep's protection".

But really though, what makes you think my first response to having my paper nicked wouldn't be to walk up to the person's door, knock on it and say "Excuse me, please knock that the fuck off."? Hyperbole doesn't suit you, Hassknecht.


First crusade was entirely fucking justified. Seljuks would not fucking stop sacking pilgrim caravans and so the Pope basically said "fuck your shit, it's war" like he damn well should have said.
 
Last edited:
The only way to deal with evil is your own Pepsi brand of evil.

Pretty funny how you deem such a thing as universal rights as petty and subjective, but your flavor of vigilante justice is what we all are supposed to aim for. Do you really think that the better way of standing up and over such amoral people is to step down to their level? If the metric is this pseudo-karmic system where context matters less than the colour of their shirt, isn't it "a bit" flawed?
 
The only way to deal with evil is your own Pepsi brand of evil.

Pretty funny how you deem such a thing as universal rights as petty and subjective, but your flavor of vigilante justice is what we all are supposed to aim for. Do you really think that the better way of standing up and over such amoral people is to step down to their level? If the metric is this pseudo-karmic system where context matters less than the colour of their shirt, isn't it "a bit" flawed?

It's somehow evil to not tolerate evil? What kind of fucking Bizarro World logic is that? Stooping to their level? I'm not advocating for unprovoked attacks against someone else's life, liberty and property, which is what the criminal in question is actually doing. And what fucking context makes infringing upon someone else's life, liberty or property anything but a crime worthy of punishment? How the fuck do you contextualize your way out of being a massive asshole to an innocent who's done exactly fuck-all to you?

Regarding rights: your rights extend about as far as your ability to bring grievous harm on anyone who infringes them, whether it's via vigilante justice or by proxy through a slow, borderline-unresponsive and cumbersome state apparatus that may or may not decide you actually have that right because you were foolish enough to leave it in their hands. God doesn't grant them to you and he sure doesn't defend them for you. No piece of paper guarantees it for you. Your ability to say "Stop infringing my rights or I'll fucking kill you" and back that up with action is what gives you your rights, and anyone who tries to tell you different is deluded or actively working against your rights. Rights are not granted to you by some other person or body of people. Those aren't rights, those are privileges. Do not confuse the two because down that road lies some seriously heinous shit.

And as for how flawed the system is, show me a perfect system. Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
Last edited:
There's great disturbance in the force after one bad apple stabbed doc to death in Offenburg, and since 325 other docs reported violent attacks by another bad apples in the last year in Germany according to Ulrich Clever, many docs are contemplating countermeasures now. Such as bank grade enchanted alarm button +3 against stabber, for starters. Lame, where's standard issue maschinengewehr when one needs it FFS?
http://www.badische-zeitung.de/suedwest-1/wir-muessen-handeln-x1x--155860984.html
 
There's great disturbance in the force after one bad apple stabbed doc to death in Offenburg, and since 325 other docs reported violent attacks by another bad apples in the last year in Germany according to Ulrich Clever, many docs are contemplating countermeasures now. Such as bank grade enchanted alarm button +3 against stabber, for starters. Lame, where's standard issue maschinengewehr when one needs it FFS?
http://www.badische-zeitung.de/suedwest-1/wir-muessen-handeln-x1x--155860984.html

Oh no, you don't want to arm the doctors, that would just ESCALATE these situations you see. *snort*
 
Ulrich Clever told the interviewer he doesn't remember a single case of such violence from his youth, it escalated already at frightening rate! And since there are tens of thousands doctors from Ostblock in Germany, with compulsory military service in their track record, it cannot fail: shot the offender, provide first aid, ask him to pay for the treatment. Win-win plus human rights intact!
 
just move on.
Honestly I think that’s the best thing for us all to do right now. Just walk away and come back when we’re in a better mindset. I set this thread to ignore for the longest time because it started to turn into shit slinging.
 
I'm assuming this is a thinly-veiled malediction against someone present.

Probably against those rabidly against Muslim barbarism due to Christian superiority, while they also support(ed) primitive beliefs (including chopping off large pieces of genital skin, raping sex slaves, and claiming all morals come from their religion when they stole it from preexisting sources) gained while wandering through the desert near death thousands of years ago.

I find Christian righteous rage against Muslims to be hypocritical. Especially in regards to violence. This does not excuse people running around chopping off heads, or blowing each other up, so before you try to divert and SAY "THEM MUSLIMS" slow your role.

Gun control. CONTROL. CONTROL. CONTROL.

The first word is what they want you to ponder. Are guns bad? Should I relent my freedom to defend myself against the government if they take TOO MUCH CONTROL? The second word they want you to think you have no choice about. I mean if it came down to it even if they were wrong they could get the backing of the UN and attempt to strongarm us into submission.

So the climate of fear then. They have us worrying about guns while people are getting removed from Youtube from TALKING about Alex Jones getting removed. They have you worrying about guns while they take away your RIGHT TO FUCKING SPEAK.

@Pariah Dog

This is not RPG Codex. I know you see me posting there, and you see me agreeing with you on some things, and you see everyone tossing verbal barbs back and forth. The difference between RPG Codex and here is when we get pissed off we attempt to cool off and see reason. RPG Codex continues to roll around in shit because it is entertaining. Our forum is too small for that. My heart has been hardened as well, but you must see reason. Of course you see people dismissing valid points due to bias and it pisses you off. DEAL WITH IT. Don't let others have control over you. It makes you look foolish. Trust me.

GUNS.

https://www.breitbart.com/californi...tive-committees-pass-seven-gun-control-bills/

California is the testing ground. As long as they keep doing what they are doing way over there I am ok. I have my shitty guns but no access to cheap medical care or education or a place to grow as a human being. At least I have guns though. This is more irony than sarcasm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice little slimy implication there. You sure are doing your part to keep the thread clean. Anyway, the funny thing about "my right to be a part of this society" is that I certainly never asked to be a part of it, it was thrust upon me, and you, and everyone else born into it. The funny thing about the Social Contract is that it's the shittiest contract imaginable - you never see it, you never agree to put your name to it and yet you are inextricably bound by it. If being a part of "your society" mandates that I cede my right to defend life, liberty and property in lieu of the cumbersome "protection" your society's police force purports to offer, your society probably sucks and is held together by little more than the fact that ultimately people are not prone to being massive cockbites out of the clear blue, and this is demonstrated repeatedly by how much of a ripple a single bad actor can create in the pool. Wolves among sheep, and the sheepdogs are hobbled and blindfolded - you know, "for the sheep's protection".

But really though, what makes you think my first response to having my paper nicked wouldn't be to walk up to the person's door, knock on it and say "Excuse me, please knock that the fuck off."? Hyperbole doesn't suit you, Hassknecht.
Not slimy at all. You even said that you don't want to be part of society, and you made it entirely clear that you disagree with the basic principles of the modern constitutional state. You want to forego the rule of the law to satisfy your own brand of justice. That's fine. You're just a good example of a person who probably shouldn't have guns. I mean, I still wouldn't want to take your right to bear arms away, absolutely not, but you're the kind of person who might need a few binoculars and maybe a tranq rifle pointed at them in case you actually leave your home and someone scratches your car or something.
This, like before, is not just hyperbole, it's called humour.
 
Not slimy at all. You even said that you don't want to be part of society, and you made it entirely clear that you disagree with the basic principles of the modern constitutional state. You want to forego the rule of the law to satisfy your own brand of justice. That's fine. You're just a good example of a person who probably shouldn't have guns. I mean, I still wouldn't want to take your right to bear arms away, absolutely not, but you're the kind of person who might need a few binoculars and maybe a tranq rifle pointed at them in case you actually leave your home and someone scratches your car or something.
This, like before, is not just hyperbole, it's called humor.

Fixed.
 
Back
Top