The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the three self-evident natural rights which exist in a state of nature. (not to be confused with legal rights which exist and are defined within the context of a civil society)
Question: What meaning do rights have if they may be violated or suppressed by another person’s use or threatened use of force and violence? The answer is they have none. Now because we live in a civil society we have courts of law and officers of the court whose job it is to enforce laws and bring fugitives to justice. Even though we pool each of our individual authority to use force to the civil authorities, this does not mean the individual has surrendered that authority. The civil authorities cannot be everywhere at all times and circumstances do arise which require members of a society to reclaim that individual authority to use deadly force if it be needed to halt the use of unlawful force against them or another innocent person.
In the eloquent words of John Locke, “I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”
Sir. William Blackstone commented that “Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.” (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765)
“A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For no man can transfer, or lay down his right, to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment.” … “The right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant [the agreement between individuals to form a government, and the laws enacted thereby] be relinquished.” – THOMAS HOBBES (“Leviathan”, 1651)
It is a matter of established fact that the personal firearm is the most effective tool for preserved the safety of the innocent. If it were not then those who hold power within government would not surround themselves with them 24 hours a day. “…for ’tis a wise and true Saying, that One Sword often keeps another in the Scabbard. The Way to secure Peace is to be prepared for War. They that are on their Guard, and appear ready to receive their Adversaries, are in much less Danger of being attack’d, than the supine, secure and negligent.”Benjamin Franklin
The person who’s handle is Bannik is a British citizen who is active on a website I frequent and we often but heads on the issue of the 2nd Amendment. The comment was in response to a video titled Badass Baby.
What does the badass baby expect gun control to do? Eliminate all crime?… plus there is no evidence to suggest that guns actually make you safer… most likely the ability to own the gun by the "citizen" helps the "criminal" obtain the firearms with more ease…
nothing wrong with guns, everything is wrong with EVERYONE being able to own one… owning a gun is not a RIGHT its a privilege, act like it.
In Britain it may be a privilege Bannik, in the United States is it a Right guaranteed by the constitution and constitutional rights may not be infringed except via due process of law. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias. Everyone who is born, or becomes a citizen of the United States and reaches the majority age (18) is guaranteed certain inalienable rights. These rights cannot be suspended except via due process of law.
For example, US citizens have a 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. I can’t just walk into someone’s home without their consent and start looking for evidence of a crime. However if probable cause is found a Court can be petitioned for a warrant which allows me to search and seize anything that may prove that person committed a crime. Likewise, if there is a trial the Judge can place a gag order which suspends someone’s 1st Amendment right to speak about the trial and even imprison that person if they violate that order.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, if someone pleads or is found guilty of the charge of domestic violence then they forfeit their 2nd Amendment rights. If someone pleads or is found guilty of any felony offense, then they forfeit their 2nd Amendment rights. If years later that person has committed no other offenses they may petition a court to restore those rights and expunge their record but what you’re advocating does not involve due process of law. You see the government must be also to show good cause for suspending the right via the person’s own actions.
Your idea would be to have everyone give the government good cause for allowing them to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way. In states where people must jump threw hoops and give a compelling reason why they should be ALLOWED to carry a firearm only the WEALTHY and POLITICAL classes are able to obtain carry permits. Look at Senator Feinstein in California, that bitch has spent her entire political career trying to gut the 2nd Amendment but she herself has a very rare permit to carry a concealed weapon. Fucking hypocrite. Rosie O’Donnell is another cunt who calls for more civilian disarmament and it was discovered that she had hired ARMED GUARDS to be near her child while it was away at school.
What you are advocating is that we make what is currently a right and declare it a privilege. We should convert citizens into serfs. Nobody likes to talk about it in modern times but the 2nd Amendment is a also a guarantee that the citizens will always have the right to abolish any government which becomes tyrannical. Now don’t shit a brick, I don’t that is the case now and I hope it never happens but if human history is any measure it seems to happen eventually.
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
In the grand scheme of things the 2nd Amendment exists as a last resort measure, a guarantee if you will that no ruling class or authoritarian regime can ever rule unchecked over the people, which would also include foreign powers invading the country. Now you can cry about that never happening and perhaps you might be right but we mere mortals cannot tell the future so why risk it.
In the short term or personal level, the 2nd Amendment exists to guarantee that the most effective tool is available for defense of self, family, home and community against individuals who might engage violent criminal behavior, that is to say, the firearm. Current law dictates that all able bodied men are subject to being called up by the elected Sheriff during breeches of the peace or during natural disasters. The militia spoken of in the 2nd Amendment is not the standing military. The militia is every able body male, between 17 and 45 according to Federal code, who has not renounced their US Citizenship. How else do you think the draft was legally justified?
Buzzfeed’s Matt Stopera published an article entitled 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution which contained photos of 22 creationist at the event, each holding a question for Bill Nye. As these questions often come up when discussing the issue with creationist myself I wanted to post my own answers.
If we define positive by how well we educate our children concerning the operations of the physical world, how to think critically, and to recognize when supposed answers actually have no explanatory value, then yes. Whereas other educators are focused on teaching at the high school and college level, well after some parents have crammed their children’s minds with superstitious religious bullshit; Bill Nye is at the forefront of education, introducing young children to the wonders of the real world.
Since there is nothing to fear from “creators” that show no evidence of being physically real, then no I am not scared. I do not fear a divine creator for the same reason I don’t fear the boogie man, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Kruger. I find this question odd because to fear something first requires a belief in that something. If there is no reason to believe this divine creator is real then the question seems to resolve itself.
Yes, of course it is illogical. Occam’s Razor tells us that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. The idea Earth was created as we see it today would require your creator god to create all the evidence currently pointing to a 4.5 Billion year old Earth. That necessitates your god being a dishonest trickster deity which is refuted by the very Bible to which Ham appeals. Hebrews 6:18: “[I]t is impossible for God to lie.”
No, it does no such thing. The Second Law of Thermodynamics roughly states that energy can only flow from a hot body to a cold one in a closed system, and that the measure of this is called entropy, which only ever increases. The argument being that a living cell appears to contradict this by maintaining order in their cellular innards. Alas living things are not closed systems. Creationist like to use one thing they don’t understand to explain the others. The problem here is a misunderstanding of physics.
This is a misunderstanding of physics and cosmology. Living in the same region, I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt that her question was with regard to the beauty of the sunset, not how it occurs. It should be obvious to anyone with a basic education that the earth is a rotating oblate spheroid and sun sets when any surface observer rotates away from the sun. The beauty aspect usually depends on other factors such as landscape and weather and is purely subjective, not everyone is in awe over the sun setting.
Basically the same answer as #4, with a slight twist. At the start, the universe in its compressed form would seem to be at near-maximum entropy — a dense, homogenous gas. But the “organization” of the universe into its current form also generates disorder. The solution here is that because the universe is expanding it keeps getting shifted out of equilibrium. In the drive to reach a new equilibrium state, you can get pockets of order occurring without violating the second law, because the maximum allowable entropy also keeps increasing.
What about it? It is a branch of study concerning the mind and intellect. The concept is most widely known from a mention in Dan Brown’s novel “The Lost Symbol.” It’s not evidence against evolution nor is it evidence pointing to any sort of god. The argument would appear to be that the mind is unexplainable without a supernatural creator. Again we find the old argument from ignorance. As far as we can tell our mind is a manifestation of our physical brain and not something that is separate from the brain.
From many of the same places that you probably do. But this is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is true or not. Should we not try and shape facts to fit a certain philosophy, or figure out the facts and consider how this affects our worldview? The hidden argument here is that without a sky daddy there is no meaning to life. But the meaning granted to us by a religious belief is that we are all slaves created to dedicate our entire lives to the adulation and subservience of an invisible celestial dictatorship, backed up by a threat that refusal will lead to torment after death. Why would anyone want that sort of “objective” meaning?
This is yet another argument from ignorance, otherwise known as the god of the gaps. The implied argument being that, absent a scientific explanation concerning how life arose, the default answer is to attribute it to a god; this doesn’t actually explain anything. The question of how the first cell arose is actually irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution via Random Mutation and Natural selection or the Earth being 4.5 Billion year old, the two things which Ken Ham explicitly denies. The chance of life originating on Earth is actually 100% because it has already occurred. Attributing life to a god only begs the question of how god originated? Did their god originate by chance?
This isn’t a question but a theological assertion which shoe horns a religious belief into the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the Universe. This assertion is another appeal to ignorance as it is currently unknown what if anything existed or could exist before the initial quantum fluctuation that lead to cosmic inflation. This assertion requires further investigation such as why and how does god speak? What did god say exactly and how did uttering this mystery phrase cause physical reality to begin? The fundamental problem of appealing to supernatural causes in an attempt to explain natural observations is that it raises far more questions than it attempts to answer.
The question reads, “Why do evolutionist, secularist, humanist, non-god believing people reject the idea of their being a creator god but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?” This is example of prejudice as we don’t universally embrace that idea, nor are we required to believe aliens designed life in the absence of a magical sky daddy. The exact explanation of how life arose is currently unknown. All we know is that there is nothing within the laws of chemistry that prevent self-replicating molecules from occurring in nature.
The argument appears to be that there is nothing in-between Lucy and modern humans, only a few fossils of the hundreds necessary for what this person would consider “official proof”. I’m wondering if this lady has ever heard of something called Wikipedia? Perhaps she could start here and see all of the fossils showing the many intermediate forms between humans and our ancient apelike ancestors. I’m also certain that even with hundreds of fossils this lady would then move the goal post and demand even more evidence before considering it “official proof”.
Metamorphosis is not micro-evolution; it’s a series of developmental stages in a single organism. Here is a good article on the evolution of metamorphosis in insects.
The idea that diseases are caused by germs is a theory too, yet most medical schools tend to spend much more time on antibiotics and hygiene than on faith healing. Most science classes don’t teach evolution “as fact”; it is taught as a scientific theory. And in this case, “theory” doesn’t mean “a bunch of wild ideas that Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye cooked up after a late night at the pub”; it means an explanation supported by massive amounts of physical evidence and logic, tested and weighed and re-tested and scrutinized by scientists across the world.Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be altered or disposed of if new, convincing evidence arises; creationism ignores or selectively misinterprets existing scientific evidence in favor of preserving the assumption of a divine creator.
That definition of theory is wrong as explained in the previous response. Observation and testing is actually pretty much the entire thing that science is about.
So this seems to be a common creationist argument: evolution cannot be real because mutations don’t “add information.” In their view, it’s impossible to get from a tiny microorganism that has a very small genome to a human with about 20,000 protein-coding genes through mutations. This is kind of an extension of the entropy argument. But there are actually plenty of ways that mutations can “add information” to the genome! A region of DNA might be copied and inserted into the genome due to an error during replication, or by a virus. Sometimes even a whole genome can get duplicated — many plants are what are called polyploidy, meaning they have multiple copies of their whole genetic library (cultivated strawberries, for example, are octoploids — they have 8 copies of their genome in every cell!) Duplication is thought to be a powerful engine for evolution. A creature might retain an original version of the copied gene, while the other copy might undergo some point mutations (changes to a single letter of the DNA sequence). The organism still has the functional, original gene that allows it to keep on trucking’, while the other copy may gain new functionality.
Like the 2nd & 8th question, this question is irrelevant to the larger question of whether evolution is true or not. But this is also a false dichotomy; there are plenty of scientists that identify as religious and don’t see a conflict between evolution and their beliefs. Does the concept of Salvation really hinge on whether or not humans evolved over time?
This also presumes that salvation from sin is something to be concerned with. Sin is an affront against god and as yet there is no good evidence to assume there are gods, therefore there is no good reason to assume there is a need for salvation.
Scientists have actually found at least nine specimens of Austrolopithecus afarensis (the species “Lucy” belongs to) in Eastern Africa. This is someone else who hasn’t yet heard of Wikipedia. Perhaps he should look here if he wishes to see the other pre-human fossils he assumes have yet to be found.
Yes, because there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory. Astronomical observations show that galaxies are moving away from each other, and if we trace their paths backward, it looks as though the Universe was condensed into a single, very hot point billions of years ago. The ratios of hydrogen, helium and other elements throughout the Universe appear to match what we might expect if the Universe was once compressed into a tiny, very hot, very dense point. We haven’t found any stars that appear to be older than 13.8 billion years old. The cosmic background radiation permeating throughout the universe is at the temperature that one would expect from an expanding, cooling universe.
Ah…. you can add this to the long list of arguments from ignorance. The non sequitur here being that the world is amazing therefore it must have come about by the will of a god; and I’m going to bet on it being her god. Most scientists find evolution pretty amazing and beautiful! It’s exciting to think about how life in all its vast, varied beauty and terror, has changed over billions of years – and how it might change in future eons. Black holes are amazing as well, but they are also terrifying objects which can destroy solar systems and swallow whole stars. Did god makes them? Supernovas can destroy entire planets in orbit around them, some of which may harbor living beings. Why would your god create something like that?
Barring the fact that the Big Bang isn’t quite the same thing as an exploding star—it’s massively hotter, for one thing, and stars explode in space, while the Big Bang created space itself and stretched it — a lot of scientists would like to know this too!One idea*, for example, is that the Big Bang was actually the interaction between two vast objects outside of our universe called “branes.” It’s an important question, and a difficult one to explore – but one of the great things about science is that you can always say “I don’t know”; another is to follow that up with “but I’ll try and find out.”
This question is, for lack of a nicer word, as stupid as asking why, if Americans came from England, are there still Englishmen? Or, if dogs were bread from wolves why are their still wolves? Humans did not “come from monkeys”, we simply share a common ancestor with all modern primates. This man might be shocked to discover that humans are currently classified as great apes. We are Homo sapiens, members of a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea.
The core belief and assumption of all gun grabbers is that if the government could somehow confiscated all guns in America, legal and illegal, that murders would go down. This belief is fundamentally flawed as they do not or refuse to grasp the difference between criminal law and prohibitionist law nor the principal of enforceability.
We already know that laws against murder don’t stop psychotic murderers, murderers who are confident in their chances of not being found, or murderers who simply don’t care for the risk (of which these three categories make up a vast majority of all first degree homicide cases). We simply have these as law as a means of quarantine and rehabilitation (although our system is rather ineffective at that second part). We get murderers off the street so they can’t murder anymore and hope, with false confidence, that being locked up for 25 years makes them learn their lesson.
The issue is how this translates to certain firearm restrictions. It isn’t the gun that is getting punished, it’s the person. Does violating a zoning ordinance make a potential mass killer fear the legal repercussions of going into a gun free zone? No. Was the prohibition against creating destructive devices something that gave Timothy McVeigh any moral pause about the illegality of blowing up a federal building? No.
Can Dianne Feinstein point to one bombing that didn’t happen because bombs are illegal? No.
Can Chuck Schumer point to one shooting that didn’t happen thanks to a gun free zone? No.
How can gun grabbers then claim things that banning “ghost guns” is going to prevent homicide with home made guns (something of which I don’t think is a statistical reality)? They can’t.
How can anyone claim things like banning magazines of a certain size will mean shooters will necessarily reload at the 15, I mean 10, I mean 7, I mean 5 round limit? Am I supposed to think that the shooter at Aurora, a person who created a bomb so elaborate it took federal agents all day to disarm, couldn’t grasp basic welding and a screwdriver to turn the materials of multiple 10 round magazines into a single +25 round magazine? They are not elaborate, they’re basically metal pez dispensers.
Laws have different enforceability.
I go 55 on the road because the flow of traffic is that limit, correlating to an established common standard, and because of the reality of getting pulled over for speeding; and I want to conserve gas. It’s not exactly a nefarious thing to go 70 instead, it’s not even considered a criminal act. Many good people have had instances of speeding.
It’s a gross false equivalence to say that what keeps people from making bombs, from making illegal modifications to guns, and from commuting mass homicide is the fact they are illegal and that people with suicidal tendencies are worried the police may try to arrest them after they act.
Cooter Brown wrote: I challenge you to prove the God of the Abrahamic faiths (Jehovah/Yahweh) doesn’t exist.
Yes, the god of the Abrahamic myths can be demonstrated not to actually exist by pointing out fatal contradictions in that god’s alleged character.
There is a contractions between Abrahamic god’s alleged omnibenevolence and his creation of hell. Infinite compassion does not condone or abide infinite torture. This is a fatal contradiction which demonstrates that your god cannot logically exist.
There is another clash with beings claimed to be both intrinsically immortal and omnipotent (all powerful/can do anything). Your god cannot be both, take for example suicide. If your god cannot be killed (immortal) then killing itself is beyond its power, but if your god could kill itself then it by definition cannot be immortal?
It’s been argued that such an example is irrelevant because your god cannot do things that conflict with its nature. This, however, redefines omnipotence by taking "the ability to do anything" and adding "that doesn’t conflict with the beings other properties." By that new definition I am omnipotent as I have the ability to anything which doesn’t conflict with my other properties. By myself I cannot fly or breath water, not because I’m not omnipotent but because they conflict with my nature.
Divine free will and divine omniscience present another contradiction. Does your god know or does it not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If your god knows then it necessarily follows that the individual is compelled to act as your god knew beforehand he would act, the individual would predestined; not free. If the individual were free and could choose to do otherwise, your god’s knowledge must be imperfect. These two ideas cannot both be true, therefore your god cannot logically exist.
A biblical example of this would be the myth of Adam and Eve. An omniscience god would have known about the serpent beforehand, there could be no divine anger as your god would have known they would not obey it and could have prevented it from occurring. It makes no more sense for your god to be angered by and punish Adam and Eve as it would if you decided to drop a brick from head level knowing that gravity would cause it would break something important to you.
The mythical flood of Noah is another example, your god is said to have brought the flood after becoming disappointed with its creation of mankind. Disappointment is the non-fulfillment of what one hopes; an omniscience being does not hope, it knows.
In Genesis 22:12 An angel of god stops Abraham from killing his son saying "…now I know that thou art a god-fearing man…" ‘Now I know’? An omniscience god would already know.
For stories concerning surprise, emotion, and reassessment to be true, divine omniscience must be false. As your god is said have engaged in these contradictions your god cannot logically exist.
Finally, your god is asserted to be perfect. This sets up a problem as illustrated by Matthew 7:18 which says "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." So a PERFECT GOD creates a PERFECT HUMAN and imperfection comes of it? How could a perfect being sin? We can’t say "because it just decides to" Why? What possible need would it be serving, an imperfect need? Where did the imperfect need come from?
When we work backwards to find the transition from perfection to imperfection the problem is unworkable. Freewill or not, perfect beings (human or gods) do not make imperfect choices. To argue otherwise is to argue that a good tree CAN bear bad fruit.
There is more but I’m out of space, needless to say your god is one gigantic mess of self-contradiction. As good as you might feel being deluded in your beliefs, your god cannot logically exist.
Now that the proverbial shit has hit the fan about Phil Robertson, a devout Christian, expressing his devoutly Christian views on homosexuals to a writer from GQ Magazine, I would like to take a step back and point out the depressing stupidity of A&E and those who agree with them.
After the author writes “He is a man who preaches the gospel of the outdoors and, to my great envy, practices what he preaches.” He then turns suddenly and writes “…here’s where things get a bit uncomfortable … he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength.” Now perhaps I do not find Bible thumping uncomfortable because I was raised in Phil’s religion but the author is a journalist, his personal feelings are irrelevant. I suspect he inserted this tidbit to distance himself from the ideas he seems to think are criminal to express.
The author then writes something which, coming from a journalist, is entirely hypocritical. “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free.” That’s right, too free, as in Phil’s freedom to express himself has crossed some sort of imaginary line and should be curtailed. I wonder if the author of the article would appreciate being told that his freedom to write what he wants is a little too free. This brings me to the gravamen of my case, free expression being trampled by political correctness.
With the congratulatory praise of GLADD, A&E responded to the article by removing Phil from the “reality show” based on his family. What part of the article prompted this hard-handed response? Well it wasn’t the creationist nonsense, it wasn’t even his anecdotal denial that blacks were mistreated during the civil rights era, it was the fact that Phil Robertson had the [audacity!] to SAY he thought homosexual sex was revolting to him; that he did not understand why a man would not prefer sex with woman. Phil merely expressed in words his own ignorance concerning the person sex drive of other humans, not one mention of committing violence against homosexuals, which if he were true to what his religion actually says would be a given, just that he personally didn’t understand why anyone would engage in homosexual coitus. A view which fits perfectly with the other religious views, nothing surprising about this. A&E and GLADD would have us think that any dislike or inability to understand homosexuality is equivalent to hate, it isn’t, but that is also irrelevant.
This mole hill, turned mountain, reminds me of a lecture by the late Christopher Hitchens on the subject of hate speech where he recommended everyone take a refresher course on the classic texts on the matter; John Milton’s Areopagitica, “Areopagitica” being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression; Thomas Paine’s introduction to The Age of Reason. The most pertinent being John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty in which it is variously said that it is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear.
Every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. If all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. As Rosa Luxembourg said, freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.
When I first read what was happening the look on my face mirrored that of Archie (right). I’m an atheist, I don’t think for one second that we should base modern society on the archaic manuscripts which include such things as the death penalty for unruly children or working on the Sabbath. I think that gay relationships harm nobody and that gay marriages should be recognized and treated no differently than so-called traditional marriage. I think Phil Robertson, like the fictional Archie Bunker, is a product of the time and place in which he was raised and there isn’t very much anyone can do to change him. Phil Robertson isn’t attempting to force his personal views on others or calling for homosexuals to be persecuted in any way, his words caused no actual harm. The appropriate response should be the same as it was with All in the Family. People laughed at Archie Bunker’s bigotry because bigotry doesn’t deserve serious consideration. They did not raise hell, complain about being offended and then call for his removal from the show.
GLADD and A&E are justifying the removal of Phil with the claim that what he said was offensive to their LGBT views. Well I’m with Steven Fry in that “[i]t’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a wine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.” Seriously GLADD, what Robertson thinks has ZERO effect on your members.
I’ll close with a suggestion to Phil and his family, stick together. As a family, refuse to take part in any further production until they reverse their decision. I may not agree with Phill but I’ll be damned if I’m going to support GLADD and A&E forbidding everyone else from hearing what he has to say.
To illustrate, turn the clock back further and focus on just one victim, a renowned German athlete. Alfred Flatow won first place in gymnastics at the 1896 Olympics. In 1932, he dutifully registered three handguns, as required by a decree of the liberal Weimar Republic. The decree also provided that in times of unrest, the guns could be confiscated. The government gullibly neglected to consider that only law-abiding citizens would register, while political extremists and criminals would not. However, it did warn that the gun-registration records must be carefully stored so they would not fall into the hands of extremists.
The ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power just a year later, in 1933. The Nazis immediately used the firearms-registration records to identify, disarm and attack “enemies of the state,” a euphemism for Social Democrats and other political opponents of all types. Police conducted search-and-seizure operations for guns and “subversive” literature in Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods.
Jews were increasingly deprived of more and more rights of citizenship in the coming years. The Gestapo cautioned the police that it would endanger public safety to issue gun permits to Jews. Hitler faked a show of tolerance for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, but Flatow refused to attend the reunion there of former champions. He was Jewish and would not endorse the farce.
Flatow walked into a Berlin police station to comply with the command and was arrested on the spot, as were other Jews standing in line. The arrest report confirmed that his pistols were duly registered, which was obviously how the police knew he had them. While no law prohibited a Jew from owning guns, the report recited the Nazi mantra: “Jews in possession of weapons are a danger to the German people.” Despite his compliance, Flatow was turned over to the Gestapo.
This scenario took place all over Germany — firearms were confiscated from all Jews registered as gun owners. As this was occurring, a wholly irrelevant event provided just the excuse needed to launch a violent attack on the Jewish community: A Polish teenager who was Jewish shot a German diplomat in Paris. The stage was set to instigate Kristallnacht, a carefully orchestrated Nazi onslaught against the entire Jewish community in Germany that horrified the world and even the German public.
Under the pretense of searching for weapons, Jewish homes were vandalized, businesses ransacked and synagogues burned. Jews were terrorized, beaten and killed. Orders were sent to shoot anyone who resisted.
SS head Heinrich Himmler decreed that possession of a gun by a Jew was punishable by 20 years in a concentration camp. An estimated 20,000 Jewish men were thrown into such camps for this reason or just for being Jewish. The Jewish community was then held at ransom to pay for the damage done by the Nazis.
These horrific events were widely reported in the American media, such as The New York Times. After Hitler launched World War II, the United States made preparations in case it was dragged into the conflict. Just before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress passed a law noting the Gestapo methods and declaring that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed by such measures as registration of firearms.
Kristallnacht has been called “the day the Holocaust began.” Flatow’s footsteps can be followed to see why. He would be required to wear the Star of David. In 1942, he was deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where he starved to death.
One wonders what thoughts may have occurred to Flatow in his last days. Perhaps memories of the Olympics and of a better Germany flashed before his eyes. Did he have second thoughts about whether he should have registered his guns in 1932? Or whether he should have obediently surrendered his firearms at a Berlin police station in 1938 as ordered by Nazi decree, only to be taken into Gestapo custody? Did he fantasize about shooting Nazis? We will never know, but it is difficult to imagine that he had no regrets over his act of compliance.
Today, gun control, registration and prohibition are depicted as benign and progressive. Government should register gun owners and ban any guns it wishes, Americans are told, because government is inherently good and trustworthy. The experiences of Hitler’s Germany and, for that matter, Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, are beneath the realm of possibility in exceptional America. Let’s hope so.
Still, be careful what you wish for.
Stephen Halbrook is research fellow with the Independent Institute and author “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State’” (Independent Institute, 2013).
you sound like a very unhappy person , that is sad, because the proof you ask for is the HOLY SPIRIT and I know when it happened to me I was in autopilot , i was raised in several different churches as a child and I wrote off alot of what i heard off because i didnt want to hear it, then one day during one of the worst times in my life, I felt I could not go on anymore, and I was ready to give up and I fell down on the floor and cried out to Jesus, time seemed to stand still, and i was lifted up by hands that were unseen and I literally felt my heart just pounded away but I felt such Peace like never before, I knew my heart had been changed from a self centered brat to someone who could get through any tough times. Since then I had a horse fall over backwards on me at a show and I came out without even a mark on me, I was in the middle of a bad wreck where my car had the front end smashed in about 5 months ago didnt even need to be checked out when the ambulance arrived. That is my proof, until you have that you will have a life of doubt and anger. God BLess you !
Once again we see another example of a favorite Christian Red herring, which is a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue. The scenario works like so, the Christian is confronted by a statement that he/she cannot refute and instead of admitting that they dodge and redirect by accusing the person confronting them with the statement of being angry, sad, or an otherwise unhappy person. This usually works when engaging with a novice but after you debate enough Christians you soon find that this tactic is VERY common, well I’m not falling for it unburdened.
My emotional state is irrelevant to the discussion. I’m not any of those things you say I sound like but even if someone in my position were, it would not effect the argument that your belief is founded in nothing but ancient myths and hearsay.
You’re anecdotal personal testimony is not evidence that anything in your religion is factual. It is merely evidence that you were in a desperate emotional state and in that state you decided to surrender your ability to think and deal with your situation. You took the lazy way out and surrendered your reasoning to a blind belief that a magic man, which just coincidentally happens to be the central figure of the religion in which you were raised, would somehow come to your rescue, like an invisible Superman.
Your alleged evidence that anything happened is first a subjective feeling that time stood still, something that others not only have experienced with different religions but that is documented to occur when the brain is under stress from a myriad of things. Second, a feeling that you were lifted up by hands that were unseen, something called the Ideomotor phenomenon. Mystics, and religions, attribute these effects to paranormal or supernatural forces and due to confirmation bias you assumed that your actions were originating from god.
You say you "felt such Peace like never before" which can also be attributed to endorphins being released in the brain as a response to intense emotional pain. Everything you describe can be explained through purely physical phenomenon and require no appeals to supernatural intervention.
Your other alleged evidence is also subject to your own confirmation bias. So you had a horse fall over backwards on you at a show and you came out without a mark, are you the only one to have ever survived something like that? I doubt it. You were in the middle of a bad wreck where your car had the front end smashed in about 5 months ago didn’t even need to be checked out when the ambulance arrived, which means the vehicle did exactly as it was designed and absorbed the impact energy before it effected you. You should think the car engineers for saving your life, not some invisible silent magic man.
I have my beliefs you have yours
This is a meaningless tautology. It’s way of appearing to say something without saying anything at all. Of course we have have differing beliefs, why else are we have this discussion. What you really mean to convey, I think, is that you have your reasons for assuming what you believe, reasons which I just showed be fallacious, and that you don’t care that they are fallacious. You believe things not because they are objectively true but for no other reason than they make you feel good about believing them. You enjoy having your beliefs, like a child enjoys having a favorite toy, and would rather ignore the hard truth of reality in favor of a reassuring fable; we all know children are not fond of giving up their favorite toy.
I am not wasting my time bantering with you any further , I am here to share with other Christians and not argue , enjoy this world it will be all you get.
I’m sorry that you actually think scrutinizing extraordinary claims is a waste of time. I’m sorry you do not value truth, and I’m not talking about the pseudo-"truth" asserted by religious adherents, I’m talking about objective, verifiable truth founded on good reason and evidence.
You seemed not to think you were wasting your time sharing your so-called miraculous brushes with death. I know it must have burst your magical bubble to have it explained why those things were not so miraculous. Now you’ve seemingly run out of magical anecdotes and personal testimony of spooky experiences and want to run from the discussion. I understand.
The thing is if you want to share things with other Christians there is a place for that, it’s called church. In church you can control who talks and legitimately silence dissenting views and bothersome questions. On the other hand this is Topix and though you may wish to engage in self righteous back-patting and mutual confirmation of your fables, you can’t control who responds to those claims. If you’re claims had any merit to them whatsoever you should welcome criticism. If your claims had any basis in reality then they should be able to withstand any amount of criticism thrown their way. Can not truth defend itself from error?
As your claims cannot stand up to even the innocent questions of children, they stand no chance at all against the questions of rational adults with the instant fact checking offered by the Internet.
But thanks, I will enjoy this world and the actual marvels that reality has to offer, marvels that put to shame things like silly stories of burning bushes. I choose to be thankful that I have a life, and will forsake any vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. I hope you eventually open your eyes to reality. It would be a waste to spend your entire life chasing empty promises of pie in the sky.