dimreepr

People are held captive by their own flesh and blood.

Or freed by it, your choice; choose the negative/dark and the path is difficult to follow; choose the positive/light and the way is clear.

Heaven is here and now if you decide it is, otherwise you condemn yourself to live through hell.

Edit.. IOW

I feel no shame for the actions of others.

Even, if your rhetoric inspires or is directly responsible for the action of others?

If you really think that then I would suggest the relevant authorities remove your weaponry with great caution.

If someone purposefully runs down a crowd of people with a car should I feel shame because I own a car? No. Does that better answer your question?

 

To own a car you not only need a license but you need to prove you’re competent to use it and its primary purpose is transport, not a weapon; in some states you need a license, to own a gun but none require you prove your competence to use it and its primary purpose is a weapon.

Now, that’s what I call irony but if you need help to understand why, please, borrow my irony meter... no... wait... you’ve broken it with this:

The right to FIGHT for their rights is the reason why the right to bear arms is inalienable.

 

And, of course.

My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?

 

I find it laughable that at least two Brits ( John and Dim ) are criticizing American governments of the last 50 yrs and the state of the American middle class.

You went from being an almost still relevant "world power" to hanging on to America's coat tails in that period.

And how is your middle class doing ?

 

Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England since the war, instead of always picking on Americans ?

So instead of, at least, a semblance of balance you prefer to tip the scales?

Balance needs two equal sides not two equals on the same side.

 

I feel no shame for the actions of others. If someone purposefully runs down a crowd of people with a car should I feel shame because I own a car? No. Does that better answer your question?

 

No, people FIGHT for rights. They FIGHT for their rights because there rights are inalienable part of there being. The right to FIGHT for their rights is the reason why the right to bear arms is inalienable.

 

It seems you’re prepared to sacrifice others to maintain your privilege (sorry, inalienable rights) and even if you feel no shame others will see that you should and change things anyway; either way your intransigent attitude is part of the problem and so you’re partly responsible for every death since you first posted; let’s hope you never find out what it feels like to actually take a life, you may prefer to amputate your hand (to prevent you typing another’s death warrant) than find out.

My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?

LOL This argument is beyond ridiculous, no wonder you feel no shame.

I don't get the emphasis that you and others put on 'design'. You make it sound like it is inherently evil because it was designed to kill. In my mind it only matters if it is actually used to kill. I would venture to say that most guns sold in the US are never used to kill anyone.

 

Using your line of reasoning I could say that thalidomide was inherently good because it was designed to decrease the suffering of pregnant women. (Not really quite right but you get my point.)

TBH given the gravity of the topic and our basic agreement on that topic, this tangent doesn’t seem worth exploring further. Maybe I would in a separate thread.

I have a .22 target pistol. Are you telling me that was designed to kill?

 

A gun, or any inanimate object, does not have inherent evil in it. It is its use that matters. Some guns are used only to start races or avalanches.

 

My car wasn't designed to kill people riding bikes, but if I chose to kill people riding bikes it would be ideal for that purpose.

Firstly I’m not anti-gun; I, used to own a competition .22 target air rifle and regularly shot clays.

But guns were designed to kill target/skeet shooting is a by-product of that design; just as your cars potential as a weapon is a by-product of its design which makes them antipodes.

My car could also kill someone as I am on the way to work, and I have other non-lethal ways to get to work (my bicycle), but since the risk is low I drive to work.

A car may be used as a weapon but it was designed as transport; guns don’t have the luxury of that excuse.

As long as the right to own guns is in the US Constitution (and I think it is likely that it will always be there) I think we'd be much better off regulating guns to a much greater extent. For example, I would like to see legislation that required people purchasing guns to attend gun safety classes, and to have significant security of their weapons in their homes. To me these are just common sense requirements that do not infringe on anyone's rights.

 

What I really despise about the NRA and gun nuts is their knee-jerk reaction to ANY legislation that would enhance the safety of their fellow citizens, just because it might cause them to suffer some minor inconvenience.

On this we agree.

Even in England I still have the right to do both I just have to prove I’m worthy of that right.

Just the purpose is different.

 

My shotgun's purpose is shooting skeet.

The purpose of my .22 is target shooting.

In more general terms, the purpose of my guns is entertainment.

There are non lethal versions of both so is your right to, potentially lethal, entertainment worth a life?

What's different about your guns?

It's called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the Bill of Privileges.

 

You cannot legislate away a Right without changing the Constitution.

Call it what you will but it’s noble to fight/die for the right to education for all, the right to be considered equal etc...

I can’t think of anything noble in fighting (and others dying) for the right to kill; the gun has no other purpose than to injure or kill.

Not a privilege a right.

No it’s not; people die FOR rights not because of them.

Edit... Besides that doesn't answer the question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33647535

How many more people have to die before your shame overcomes your need to hold on to the privilege of owning a lethal weapon?

Why would he need to say “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” if people didn’t think he was?

 

And given that “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” could easily mean, he doesn’t want to destroy their lives but show them a way to fulfil them.

The rest possibly means that one should follow societies rules such as “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not steal” and to teach otherwise is immoral.

 

I'm going to heaven!

Okay, bye.

Congrats...

Why would he need to say “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” if people didn’t think he was?

And given that “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” could easily mean, he doesn’t want to destroy their lives but show them a way to fulfil them.

No.

They tell you to kill people who are different- for example those who are gay.

They also tell you that you should use foreigners as slaves- that's not very tolerant.

Have you read much of the Bible?

Only the new testament and “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” seems to be teaching tolerance. I’ve always thought the old testament was only included to provide an example of how not to do it.

Au contraire once again. It seems to me it's you that do not understand the logical or fundamental difference between the collective action of an organism (referred to as the 'voice of the people' in my analogy), and the action or view of an individual within it.

That very much depends on the intelligence of the individual.

How do you know? If we can't understand the message?

For instance isn't tolerance taught in the bible?

A debate is seldom furthered by automatic gainsay.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/institute

 

"No, what I’m saying is his understanding of religion is flawed; if a chef buggers up a recipe is it the recipes fault?"

If somebody is following that chef's orders, shouldn't we be concerned for them? Does forwarding excuses for their naivety help, or hurt?

A little out of context but the chefs orders only come into play when he’s not alone ergo an institute.

religion is hijacked by the power-hungry.

This doesn't contend my point, it reinforces it.

It’s not religion but the institution of which there’re many.

Here's the report filed by the Committee Against Torture.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/JusticeMagdalenes_Ireland46.pdf

I'm not trying to defend such atrocities nor am I trying to defend religion (I'm an atheist) I'm defending peoples right to choose.

My contention is that the Pope would have more chance of "getting it" without the books or religion.

TBH I think the current pope, pretty much, does get it but he’s hamstrung by the politics of the institution and therein lays the problem. On an individual bases I think religion mostly helps it’s the institution that hinders people’s lives.

There are many people whose lives have been profoundly affected by religion becoming better for it like Richard Coles a vicar who’s openly gay and living with his partner, that’s progress at least.

Denying people the opportunity of betterment is as bad as denying people the opportunity of education.

Just because the Pope doesn't get it doesn't mean humanity can't and god doesn't have to exist for the book to be real.

Are you seriously saying the the Pope's objection to the use of contraception isn't religious?

No, what I’m saying is his understanding of religion is flawed; if a chef buggers up a recipe is it the recipes fault?