Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Yup....
Right....
This is the question for those discussing gun control ....
Do you stand for the right of American citizens to own guns for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense and the 2n..."
Yes. While I support things like background checks at gun shows, my answer is yes.
Right....
This is the question for those discussing gun control ....
Do you stand for the right of American citizens to own guns for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense and the 2n..."
Yes. While I support things like background checks at gun shows, my answer is yes.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I support the 2nd Amendment and people's rights to be part of a well regulated militia.I just don't see it as a holy thing that means 'you can never touch our guns!' "
Does that m..."
It means I believe in the second amendment, and that people should be allowed guns, but also that everybody leaves out that last part, and like with the bible, treats it as sacred, but are just cherry picking the part they like.
Travis wrote: "It means I believe in the second amendment, and that people should be allowed guns, but also that everybody leaves out that last part, and like with the bible, treats it as sacred, but are just cherry picking the part they like. "
I agree. People cherry pick all over the place, though not just the Bible.
Yes, there is the other part. There are also hundreds of years of precedent and a Supreme Court ruling. So, ....
Either one thinks the American people should have the right to own guns, which is guaranteed through years of precedent and proceedings regarding the 2nd Amendment, or one thinks that right should only be afforded to the militia, given a strict reading of the amendment without giving an eye to precedent and proceedings....
I agree. People cherry pick all over the place, though not just the Bible.
Yes, there is the other part. There are also hundreds of years of precedent and a Supreme Court ruling. So, ....
Either one thinks the American people should have the right to own guns, which is guaranteed through years of precedent and proceedings regarding the 2nd Amendment, or one thinks that right should only be afforded to the militia, given a strict reading of the amendment without giving an eye to precedent and proceedings....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It means I believe in the second amendment, and that people should be allowed guns, but also that everybody leaves out that last part, and like with the bible, treats it as sacred, b..."So, does this mean we are done with your question list?
Travis what is the whole text? the bit that gets left out?
Travis wrote: "So, does this mean we are done with your question list? "
Did you answer all of the questions? Like how a woman could defend herself against two men with a knife.... No. But, that's your choice. I'm not going to call you out about it.
Shanna, the whole text is the part that Travis just mentioned and that has been discussed here off and on over the last few days, at least since Ken mentioned it.
I'm sure you know it.... Though, it can be Googled.
Did you answer all of the questions? Like how a woman could defend herself against two men with a knife.... No. But, that's your choice. I'm not going to call you out about it.
Shanna, the whole text is the part that Travis just mentioned and that has been discussed here off and on over the last few days, at least since Ken mentioned it.
I'm sure you know it.... Though, it can be Googled.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, does this mean we are done with your question list? "Did you answer all of the questions? Like how a woman could defend herself against two men with a knife.... No. But, tha..."
I know, I did google it, but I'd like to know which bit he's specifically referring to, the bit not cherry picked.
Oh and I think you just call Travis out about it... right in those sentences.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, does this mean we are done with your question list? "Did you answer all of the questions? Like how a woman could defend herself against two men with a knife.... No. But, tha..."
What if, what if, what if....that's a game my 4th graders like to play...What if an alien comes down from space? What if a shark jumps out of the ocean and on to your boat and eats you?
Travis, and I have both said that if you own a gun legally and use it for protection, well wonderful!
You think your question about 2 men with knives proves some point...it doesn't. It is a rhetorical question with no real answer because there are so many variables...does she have a gun in her possession ready to go, can she get to it, can she aim and successfully hit two assailants, is she at home, and on and on and on.....Just having a gun does not guarantee a successful outcome!
Travis has said repeatedly, legal guns for protection...he supports that.
On to "well regulated militia" The part of the 2nd amendment people ignore. What did the founding fathers mean by militia? Did they think it meant all of us?....well based on who they intended the Constitution and Bill of Rights to cover....they meant white, land owning males. Cuz that's who they intended to have vote, and have rights. Not women, not Blacks.
Here's what the Supreme Court says militia means:
Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
SO if you aren't a female in the National Guard you aren't in the militia.
The 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms....it does not say the right to own any caliber weapon you want, in any quantity you want, with magazines capable of firing multiple rounds per second....
That's where we as sane human being who care about more than the amount of guns in our "Doomsday Prepper" compound in Montana come in and say we want sane gun control.
I have friends in Sweden, Norway, England, Turkey and Saudia Arabia. I can tell you that it has been said again and again that they just do not understand our obsession with guns. England's own police do not carry guns and yet that country thrives. Women do not wall themselves up in their houses because they do not have a gun to kill those two hypothetical attackers with a knive.
I lived for 5 years in Saudia Arabia, as a woman, not on an American compound with 2 small children, and never once needed a gun to protect myself.
Lots and lots of countries manage to do so much better with gun violence than we do. Sane regulations are just one part. We have to get real about our health care, especially our mental health care. It is a disgrace how little we have to offer those who are mentally ill,especially if they do not have unlimited funds.
We need to move away from our culture of worshiping violence in the media, in video games we let kids play. Many of my 4th graders play first person shooting games where the graphics are very bloody and my students love them and talk about these games and they watch movies like SAW where bodies are dismembered..
But we can't sit here and pick each other apart or demand answers to "what if" scenarios.
The answer to gun violence just cannot be, more guns.
Our motto cannot be "any loss/death is acceptable as long as I can keep what ever gun I want, in whatever quantity i want."
Shouldn't we want more for our kids futures? I just don't understand how any argument for sane gun control is countered with "You want to take our guns, don't ya. You are unAmerican/unpatriotic/Liberal nutjob?"
Really?
Shannon and Travis, If you guys don't mind, please take it on personal chat or something. Argument is completely out of scope of topic.
I finally logged in and changed my email and notification option, so I guess I don't care now.
Shanna wrote: "Oh and I think you just call Travis out about it... right in those sentences. "
You're right, in retrospect.
You're right, in retrospect.
Shanna wrote: "Travis what is the whole text? the bit that gets left out?"People tend to stop after 'right to bear arms' and leave out the part that mentions 'well regulated militia'.
So, you have a lot of people saying 'See! I can have guns!' and not noticing that there were conditions.
Most people then try and shrug that part off. They see the amendment as being only half sacred, the other half you can ignore at will.
Again, like the bible.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I support the 2nd Amendment and people's rights to be part of a well regulated militia.I just don't see it as a holy thing that means 'you can never touch our guns!' "
Because ....."
Yes.
And if that woman needs a gun and is legal able to own one then she has the right and the means to shoot intruders to her hearts content.
any more?
I want the complete list taken care of to your complete satisfaction.
Travis wrote: "I want the complete list taken care of to your complete satisfaction. "
I honestly don't think that's the important thing.
I honestly don't think that's the important thing.
Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Travis what is the whole text? the bit that gets left out?"
People tend to stop after 'right to bear arms' and leave out the part that mentions 'well regulated militia'.
So, you ha..."
At the time, the militia included all able-bodied men of a certain age, can't remember of the top of my head. Meaning, all able-bodied men could own a gun. In times of trouble, all able-bodied men could be called up to serve in the militia. I guess we could say all able-bodied men could own guns today, adhering to the letter of the amendment. That would still hold as all men have to register for the selective service, I suppose.
Of course, we also have precedent. All of the "frontier" families, whether in the wilds of Maine or Texas, owned and used guns. I'm pretty sure the pony express riders had guns, though I wouldn't bet my life on it. Annie Oakley had guns, the Wild West show, etc.... Fairly certain Ann Story had a gun, before and after the Revolution.
Yes, the amendments reads as Travis and others have said. For sure. Precedent? Many, even most, families had guns. Restrictions? Fairly certain "we" didn't want the African-Americans to have guns. But, that's another story and someone wrote and requested we stop talking about guns, so ....
People tend to stop after 'right to bear arms' and leave out the part that mentions 'well regulated militia'.
So, you ha..."
At the time, the militia included all able-bodied men of a certain age, can't remember of the top of my head. Meaning, all able-bodied men could own a gun. In times of trouble, all able-bodied men could be called up to serve in the militia. I guess we could say all able-bodied men could own guns today, adhering to the letter of the amendment. That would still hold as all men have to register for the selective service, I suppose.
Of course, we also have precedent. All of the "frontier" families, whether in the wilds of Maine or Texas, owned and used guns. I'm pretty sure the pony express riders had guns, though I wouldn't bet my life on it. Annie Oakley had guns, the Wild West show, etc.... Fairly certain Ann Story had a gun, before and after the Revolution.
Yes, the amendments reads as Travis and others have said. For sure. Precedent? Many, even most, families had guns. Restrictions? Fairly certain "we" didn't want the African-Americans to have guns. But, that's another story and someone wrote and requested we stop talking about guns, so ....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I want the complete list taken care of to your complete satisfaction. "I honestly don't think that's the important thing."
I do.
I want to be done with you and not have you turning around and going 'Ha! you didn't answer question number seven!'
So, please review the list and make sure you are all set.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Travis what is the whole text? the bit that gets left out?"People tend to stop after 'right to bear arms' and leave out the part that mentions 'well regulated militi..."
So you are saying the meaning of well regulated militia changed? So the 2nd Amendment is not a static document and can be interpreted differently to fit the times, like the change from muskets to assault weapons?
Like the right for women to vote, own property and the full rights granted to former slaves? You mean we might have to take a look at certain laws and adjust them to our more current situation?
I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying all along.
Did we forget the original question?
Jim wrote: "Did we forget the original question?"Nope, but sometimes discussions take on a life of their own. If you have a spare month you can review the previous 10672 posts. Religion, science, gay marriage, rights, gun control...we got it all.
Jim wrote: "Did we forget the original question?"Beware all who enter here...there be tangents.
Feel free to start one of your own or even go back to the original topic.
Sorry all I am good with all topics did not mean to offend
Jim wrote: "Sorry all I am good with all topics did not mean to offend"Offend? No offense here, feel free to post on anything.
It's so hard! In my opinion, I think a world without science would result in something similar to the European Dark Ages , where 'religion' justified the murders of millions and degraded an entire gender claiming that was the way of their God - a huuuuge no-no. BUT religion is such a rich part of culture, so complex, so important for some people, that I don't think you could live in a world without it either. People commit atrocities in the name of both religion and science (i'm looking at you, animal testing labs and sexist cultures!). Humankind just needs to figure out how both work hand-in-hand, and not as opposites.
Jim wrote: "Sorry all I am good with all topics did not mean to offend"No offense taken. Feel free to talk about anything.
Heck, go crazy and see if you can get us back on topic.
Stranger things have happened.
Powerball in NY is 600 million + dollars if God lets me win I pick Religion
Jim wrote: "Powerball in NY is 600 million + dollars if God lets me win I pick Religion"I like that idea!
Travis wrote: "I do. I want to be done with you and not have you turning around and going 'Ha! you didn't answer question number seven!'"
If you think you answered the questions and did so as honestly as you expected me to answer yours and as you expect of others here, it's done.
If you say nothing more, regardless of what I might think, I'll never say, "Travis never answered the gun questions to my satisfaction."
Not ever. You have my promise.
It's up to you to decide.
If you think you answered the questions and did so as honestly as you expected me to answer yours and as you expect of others here, it's done.
If you say nothing more, regardless of what I might think, I'll never say, "Travis never answered the gun questions to my satisfaction."
Not ever. You have my promise.
It's up to you to decide.
Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Travis what is the whole text? the bit that gets left out?"People tend to stop after 'right to bear arms' and leave out the part that mentions 'well regulated militia'.
So, you ha..."
Thanks Travis I thought that might be the bit but didn't want to assume.
Shannon wrote:"If you say nothing more, regardless of what I might think, I'll never say, "Travis never answered the gun questions to my satisfaction"Really because that's almost all you've said in your recent posts.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I do. I want to be done with you and not have you turning around and going 'Ha! you didn't answer question number seven!'"If you think you answered the questions and did so as hon..."
Then we're done.
Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote:"If you say nothing more, regardless of what I might think, I'll never say, "Travis never answered the gun questions to my satisfaction"Really because that's almost all you've said ..."
It went something like this:
Shannon: Do you believe that?
Travis: Yes, here is what I believe....
Shannon: But do you REALLY believe that?
Travis: Yes, here is what I really believe....(same as stated originally)
Shannon: Okay, but why won't you say what you really, truly believe?
Travis: Here's what I really, truly believe...(same as he said earlier)
Shannon: Well, I guess if you think you answered my questions...but I just wish you'd say what you really, truly, for real think...but oh well you obviously don't want to answer my questions.
Shanna wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Travis what is the whole text? the bit that gets left out?"People tend to stop after 'right to bear arms' and leave out the part that mentions 'well regulated militi..."
No problem.
I don't have an issue with the second amendment, just the way people act towards it.
Mary wrote: "Jim wrote: "Powerball in NY is 600 million + dollars if God lets me win I pick Religion"I like that idea!"
To be fair, if science wants to make a counter bid, I'm willing to be open minded.
Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote:"If you say nothing more, regardless of what I might think, I'll never say, "Travis never answered the gun questions to my satisfaction"
Really because that's almost all you've said in your recent posts. "
Yes, Shanna. I asked for answers. Intellectual honesty, questioning and answers have been touted endlessly here. Is that no longer the standard? If so, say it.
Having said that, it's obvious that Travis is done and has nothing more to say. To demand more, at that point, would be wrong. If he's done, he's done. I'm not going to question that.
Really because that's almost all you've said in your recent posts. "
Yes, Shanna. I asked for answers. Intellectual honesty, questioning and answers have been touted endlessly here. Is that no longer the standard? If so, say it.
Having said that, it's obvious that Travis is done and has nothing more to say. To demand more, at that point, would be wrong. If he's done, he's done. I'm not going to question that.
Shannon wrote:"Yes, Shanna. I asked for answers. Intellectual honesty, questioning and answers have been touted endlessly here. Is that no longer the standard? If so, say it.Having said that, it's obvious that Travis is done and has nothing more to say. To demand more, at that point, would be wrong. If he's done, he's done. I'm not going to question that.
OK here we go again, you have been bordering on haranguing and harassing Travis( and yes I know he can leave and whatever). Reading the last few pages he has answered and reanswered your questions and asked you restate the questions you feel haven't been answered more than once. It has bordered on the hysterical and obssessive, are you having some mental health issues (not being snarky)?, perhaps you might need to think about that, there is a marked degeneration of your tone.
Shanna wrote: "OK here we go again, you have been bordering on haranguing and harassing Travis( and yes I know he can leave and whatever). Reading the last few pages he has answered and reanswered your questions and asked you restate the questions you feel haven't been answered more than once. It has bordered on the hysterical and obssessive, are you having some mental health issues (not being snarky)?, perhaps you might need to think about that, there is a marked degeneration of your tone. "
Not sure whether to run to call for psychiatric services or to point out that, once again, you failed to answer a question. Though, that's not fair. As phrased, you only had to answer if answering questions here is no longer the expectation. I'm guessing, therefore, it is still the standard you expect, at least for some.
Regarding my "harassment" of Travis, I'll expect you to speak up the next time someone from your "team" tells someone he and his views mean less than a sh**t sandwich and similar things. To speak out when people are truly exhibiting unbalanced behavior.... As actually happens.... Or, should I not expect that in general, but only when someone from your "team" is being questioned or harassed by someone who seems a bit off?
Not sure whether to run to call for psychiatric services or to point out that, once again, you failed to answer a question. Though, that's not fair. As phrased, you only had to answer if answering questions here is no longer the expectation. I'm guessing, therefore, it is still the standard you expect, at least for some.
Regarding my "harassment" of Travis, I'll expect you to speak up the next time someone from your "team" tells someone he and his views mean less than a sh**t sandwich and similar things. To speak out when people are truly exhibiting unbalanced behavior.... As actually happens.... Or, should I not expect that in general, but only when someone from your "team" is being questioned or harassed by someone who seems a bit off?
What question? the one about standards, I thought it rhetorical. Also, I've just now, decided not to buy into the Shannon question game, it doesn't look like much fun.OK I was talking to YOU. You are making the persecution argument "Officer why aren't you arresting that speeding driver too?..."
I'm not on you because of your beliefs or "team", it's your behaviour that's off. People having discourse even if it's heated and argumentative is not "unbalanced". Pages of demands, haranguing, complaining and answering your own posts is...
Mary wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote:"If you say nothing more, regardless of what I might think, I'll never say, "Travis never answered the gun questions to my satisfaction"Really because that's almost a..."
Yeah, I see that, I think everyone sees that. :P
Even the new posters who've stuck their heads in...
Shanna wrote: "What question? the one about standards, I thought it rhetorical. Also, I've just now, decided not to buy into the Shannon question game, it doesn't look like much fun.OK I was talking to YOU. You..."
Thank you Shanna. No one is out to get Shannon, but this whole "answer my question" thing has gotten beyond ridiculous. Maybe she can look back on it in a week or two and see what others are seeing.
Everyone would be better off in a world without religion. Religion offers very little spiritual guidance. What it does succeed in doing is divide people based on their various religious differences. So, yes, I would rather live in a world without religion. Or I can be more specific, I would like to live in a world where there is ONE religion that truly unites everyone.
I'm just wondering how a wonderful debate on science vs religion got hi-jacked by a discussion on the 2nd Amendment and an argument on whether or not questions have been asked and/or answered...
Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Everyone would be better off in a world without religion. Religion offers very little spiritual guidance. What it does succeed in doing is divide people based on their various religious differences..."Any particular religion?
Angela wrote: "I'm just wondering how a wonderful debate on science vs religion got hi-jacked by a discussion on the 2nd Amendment and an argument on whether or not questions have been asked and/or answered..."214 pages and the same core group of people talking.. :)
Shanna wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Everyone would be better off in a world without religion. Religion offers very little spiritual guidance. What it does succeed in doing is divide people based on their vari..."I would prefer a "new" religion if you will. Something that hasn't polluted the minds of people already. I was born a Muslim, but I'm sick of it. Not just Islam, but all other religions and their propaganda. I think there is something good in every religion, but people take it too seriously. I mean, God has given us brains, right? We don't need a guidebook to tell us what is right and what is wrong. If there is anything a religion should do, it should be to allow its followers to embrace people of different characters and backgrounds - gay, not gay, prude, slut, anyone. It should be a uniting force rather than a dividing one.
Nazia7book_slave wrote: "I would prefer a "new" religion if you will. Something that hasn't polluted the minds of people already. I was born a Muslim, but I'm sick of it. Not just Islam, but all other religions and their propaganda. I think there is something good in every religion, but people take it too seriously. I mean, God has given us brains, right? We don't need a guidebook to tell us what is right and what is wrong. If there is anything a religion should do, it should be to allow its followers to embrace people of different characters and backgrounds - gay, not gay, prude, slut, anyone. It should be a uniting force rather than a dividing one. "Sounds like a religion I could get behind, if I could get behind any. I fear that we humans would ruin it though... :)
Shanna wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "I would prefer a "new" religion if you will. Something that hasn't polluted the minds of people already. I was born a Muslim, but I'm sick of it. Not just Islam, but all ot..."You're right about humans ruining it. :) Maybe we'll be better off without a religion.
Mary wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote:"If you say nothing more, regardless of what I might think, I'll never say, "Travis never answered the gun questions to my satisfaction"Really because that's almost a..."
It's called dodging the question, politicians are good at it.
Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "I would prefer a "new" religion if you will.I like your idea. But I too think any religion would be corrupted over time. because religions are man made constructs. I know some religions believe that man was made in a god's image. But I think man made god in his image, and we are greedy, kind, selfish, loving, cruel, egotistical, and more.
Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Everyone would be better off in a world without religion. Religion offers very little spiritual guidance. What it does succeed in doing is divide people base..."If you want to ditch then hierarchal structure and buildings and props that seem to cause all the trouble, of religion and just keep the some of the spirtuality stuff: be nice to each other, no killing etc, then you might have something.
We could probably keep the music and that part where we stand around and have coffee and doughnuts together.
I never had a problem with those parts.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Right....
This is the question for those discussing gun control ....
Do you stand for the right of American citizens to own guns for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense and the 2nd Amendment or not?
Yes or No....