Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Christian Patriot on September 13, 2011, 06:05:56 PM
-
Tought ya'll might find this interesting. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/13/house-weighs-bill-to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/13/house-weighs-bill-to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/?test=latestnews)
-
That's a good bill.
-
:) Darn tooen
-
That's a good bill.
I seldom see anything good that has the federal government regulating.
What will the criteria be for these federally recognized permits?
-
I seldom see anything good that has the federal government regulating.
This.
Bronson
-
Last night Bill O'reilly was talking about the Pharmacist that was fired from Walgreens here in MI for shooting at the burglers. They are working on getting him his job back. He had two Fox News attorneys on that are going to talk to Walgreens! They (including Bill O) were all in support of this man!
-
Yeah....I'm opposed to this bill. 10th amendment -- states' rights -- etc.
-
I agree that States have rights, but We the people have a right that are guarenteed to us that stand above any state law. It is called the constitution! Reguarless of which state you reside in. The 10th amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The right to bear arms is a guarentee by the constitution. It is not or should not be left to each individual state. That is why the citizens of some states are pushing for "constitutional carry"!
Daniel
-
With respect Phil:)
-
Last night Bill O'reilly was talking about the Pharmacist that was fired from Walgreens here in MI for shooting at the burglers. They are working on getting him his job back. He had two Fox News attorneys on that are going to talk to Walgreens! They (including Bill O) were all in support of this man!
That's great! I saw the Grand Tea Bagger Glen Beck spouting off how the guy was shooting wildly and inferring recklessly. Beck is a tool. I had often considered Bill to be an elitist, but more often than not he is sincere and his opinions are well founded. Even if I don't agree with them. I do respect his judgement.
-
I agree that States have rights, but We the people have a right that are guaranteed to us that stand above any state law. It is called the constitution! Regardless of which state you reside in. The 10th amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The right to bear arms is a guarantee by the constitution. It is not or should not be left to each individual state. That is why the citizens of some states are pushing for "constitutional carry"!
Daniel
Yes, exactly. Or as one man said to me: "States don't have rights! Only powers meant to protect OUR Rights!". And certain rights are so fundamental that no state should be able to usurp them. We all believe in the 2nd Amendment here as a fundamental right.... Then it makes sense to guarantee that right across all borders!
The State government is there for OUR benefit not the other way around. Or as Paul the Apostle said in the Bible:
Romans 13:1-4 * Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. * Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. * For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: * For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Obviously the Bible also states that when a "king" over steps his bounds then the king is acting against God and is eventually removed when purpose requires. But in General, A State/Nation has a job to execute Justice and Guard it's peoples! For the best interest of God and those Peoples...
I think this Bill is an attempt to explain that the RKBA is universal and should be protected and exercised Universally.
-
I hate this bill! First any permit is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Secondly while I agree with the premise i also respect the 10th Amendment/states rights but, if you read the 10th correctly the 2nd in an enumeration therefor the feds have no authority to regulate, and the states cannot be given this power either because it belongs to the people respectively. Meaning being certain rights are non negotiable they are as natural as food, water, breathing, & self defense , etc. I need no ones permission to do any of these things because they are god given this is not the same as a drivers license (Tho all drivers license have to be recognized under the constitution). I do not support this bill at all! JMHO :)
-
I understand your position but, it is a lot better than what we have now. It is a step forward. So, untill constitutional carry is restored, lets take steps that are beneficial to us!
Daniel
-
Amen; we take the best we can until better can be had!
We live in a very imperfect universe....
-
Amen; we take the best we can until better can be had!
We live in a very imperfect universe....
Wow an imperfect universe created by a perfect god. Makes one wonder....
-
Amen; we take the best we can until better can be had!
We live in a very imperfect universe....
Wow an imperfect universe created by a perfect god. Makes one wonder....
Makes one wonder.... about those inalienable rights endowed by the creator.
-
Amen; we take the best we can until better can be had!
We live in a very imperfect universe....
Wow an imperfect universe created by a perfect god. Makes one wonder....
Makes one wonder.... about those inalienable rights endowed by the creator.
Yes it does. But on can argue we have natural rights as human beings
-
Well... I think that if you look at the universe we find that it is absolutly breath taking! Including the planet we all share. The only thing that is screwd up is "man" or "man kind"! We destroy everything we touch. Whether one believes in the creator or not, The universe is a wonderous thing that we should all take more time to care for! And as for my opinion all religion aside, I find it extreemly hard to believe that from ABSOLUTLY NOTHING, some how everything came into being and all of a sudden "bang" now there is a one cell organisim and IT evolved into every living thing that exists today...??? Bull Crap! With respect to those of the Athiest religion.
Daniel
-
Amen; we take the best we can until better can be had!
We live in a very imperfect universe....
Wow an imperfect universe created by a perfect god. Makes one wonder....
Without getting further off topic Venator; I was referring to the fact that "post-fall" the universe is NOW imperfect. I did not imply that it was created so. Anyone wishing to discuss this fuirther can email me to move this to a religious topic.
What IS on topic is the question of what "inalienable rights by our Creator" and what that means. And as a side joke; does one have those rights if they deny the Creator? Believe it or not, the Bible implies some surprising answers on that topic.
But my point was that we are in a battle for the free exercise of the right to prepare for self-defense. Jesus told those who did not have a sword to purchase one and his implication was that Self-Defense was a inalienable right. His rebuke of Peter was for offensive use of an arm against Jesus' specific orders. And Peter was never told to get rid of the sword but only put it back away.
We are simply in a political battle for the government recognition of our right to self-defense by any method we choose. and that the Government recognize that it's purpose is for OUR benefit, not its' own!
As was pointed out, the modern OC/CC movement has been most successful because, just as it has taken the world decades to confuse people into giving up their rights, it will take tame to re-educate people to taker them back.
As one preacher told his students; "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!"
It could just as well be a Jack@ss. Either party applies. As it was not originally a political joke...
-
Scripture also commands you to obey the laws of the land.....
Romans 13:1-7
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
So you disobey god when you disobey the laws of the government, because god has established that government.
That's what the same ancient magical book tells you to do just as it tells you to sell your clothes and by a sword.
But then as I have read from the religious ones that post on these forums, you don't have to obey all of the scriptures. You get to pick and choose those that you want to obey.
-
Scripture also commands you to obey the laws of the land.....
Romans 13:1-7
Many people here claim to be Christian and so this text plays a common part in this thread. After all this is America and not some muslim or Eastern Country. People have forgotten the roots of our early colonial fathers. The Bible played a part in their lives one way or another but it always did. Mine came here 150 and 300 years ago, or 1000 depending upon which branch of the tree you follow. This verse was used in many wars of self-defense and many men fought or died while still wrestling with it. And I supposed we all will continue to do so...
But at least remember something which our ancestors knew very well - whether they agreed or not with each other - You MUST take the Bible and Paul's writings in their entirety. He is referring to Lawful Authority, and not government in general (not exactly, for that is another discussion entirely)! And that is plainly in context here as well as Luke 22. God does not Ordain Sin and therefore when the Authority or individuals behave contrary to Law (such as robbery) You have the God-given right to defend yourself and your property (again, read the rest of the Bible in context to see that there are no contradictions).
Murder is against God's Law and yet killing while in the act of defending your family from an attacker intending harm - is lawful in God's eyes. This is not a contradiction.
We have the right to protect ourselves but not to act rebelliously or act in a manner which repays evil to others (see previous chapter). Some people reject ALL authority because of the bad - we know them as those which use the term Anarchists. Paul was saying that there is JUST AUTHORITY and that is must be followed Unless is rebells from the Creator - In which case the Disciples' answer was to "Obey God rather than Man".
Certain forms of government may legalize certain forms of murder under color of law. However that does not mean that all such Authority is Ordained of God. Just look at 1st century Judaism which Paul and the Church were commanded by Jesus to Reject. Because rebellion is not sanctioned by the leadership.
So back to topic. Nuremburg trials - where Nazis were not allowed to use "Just following orders" to justify moral-criminal acts. There is a Moral Authority that all people recognize as inherently foundational to a just society. And when leadership fails to follow that Moral Authority, it has failed entirely. All Authority is from God but not all actions.... That is what Romans 13 is about here. According to a proper reading of Romans 13 - Germans were accountable to God to disobey Hitler - not to follow him. And the same would be true here if Hitler had won. Read verse 1 again, there is no real power (authority) but that of God. That is the point, not blind obedience to corrupt laws and leaders. Any ready of the Gospels shows that point.
And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is part and parcel to that issue.
But occasionally, people forget their heritage due to failure of teachers to pass that on - as in my own case. And it takes time to unlearn the propaganda and relearn the pass ethics which were forgotten.
It comes down to a failure to Learn and Teach History, Correctly! We see the exact same problem in Churches and the same results of that failure in society as a whole. When people can harm children without regret, or refuse to protect them - Then we have forgotten our moral authority.
And that is why we are all here...
I'm through. Anyone wishing to go further on this topic can PM me for study assignments.
-
Scripture also commands you to obey the laws of the land.....
Romans 13:1-7
Many people here claim to be Christian and so this text plays a common part in this thread. After all this is America and not some muslim or Eastern Country. People have forgotten the roots of our early colonial fathers. The Bible played a part in their lives one way or another but it always did. Mine came here 150 and 300 years ago, or 1000 depending upon which branch of the tree you follow. This verse was used in many wars of self-defense and many men fought or died while still wrestling with it. And I supposed we all will continue to do so...
But at least remember something which our ancestors knew very well - whether they agreed or not with each other - You MUST take the Bible and Paul's writings in their entirety. He is referring to Lawful Authority, and not government in general (not exactly, for that is another discussion entirely)! And that is plainly in context here as well as Luke 22. God does not Ordain Sin and therefore when the Authority or individuals behave contrary to Law (such as robbery) You have the God-given right to defend yourself and your property (again, read the rest of the Bible in context to see that there are no contradictions).
Murder is against God's Law and yet killing while in the act of defending your family from an attacker intending harm - is lawful in God's eyes. This is not a contradiction.
We have the right to protect ourselves but not to act rebelliously or act in a manner which repays evil to others (see previous chapter). Some people reject ALL authority because of the bad - we know them as those which use the term Anarchists. Paul was saying that there is JUST AUTHORITY and that is must be followed Unless is rebells from the Creator - In which case the Disciples' answer was to "Obey God rather than Man".
Certain forms of government may legalize certain forms of murder under color of law. However that does not mean that all such Authority is Ordained of God. Just look at 1st century Judaism which Paul and the Church were commanded by Jesus to Reject. Because rebellion is not sanctioned by the leadership.
So back to topic. Nuremburg trials - where Nazis were not allowed to use "Just following orders" to justify moral-criminal acts. There is a Moral Authority that all people recognize as inherently foundational to a just society. And when leadership fails to follow that Moral Authority, it has failed entirely. All Authority is from God but not all actions.... That is what Romans 13 is about here. According to a proper reading of Romans 13 - Germans were accountable to God to disobey Hitler - not to follow him. And the same would be true here if Hitler had won. Read verse 1 again, there is no real power (authority) but that of God. That is the point, not blind obedience to corrupt laws and leaders. Any ready of the Gospels shows that point.
And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is part and parcel to that issue.
But occasionally, people forget their heritage due to failure of teachers to pass that on - as in my own case. And it takes time to unlearn the propaganda and relearn the pass ethics which were forgotten.
It comes down to a failure to Learn and Teach History, Correctly! We see the exact same problem in Churches and the same results of that failure in society as a whole. When people can harm children without regret, or refuse to protect them - Then we have forgotten our moral authority.
And that is why we are all here...
I'm through. Anyone wishing to go further on this topic can PM me for study assignments.
I took nothing out of context. I simply quoted GOD"S word in it's entirety. You however have inserted your secular beliefs into HIS word to justify your understanding. There is NO mention in GOD'S word of "just authority". Twist HIS words all you want. They are what they are. Either you accept them or you don't. If you do accept them then you believe that the governing power is in place because GOD allows it. If you don't believe then you will have to stand in judgement for your disbelief.
If you want to use the ancient magical book (as one here refers to it) then so be it. But don't rewrite it to your liking thinking that you can convince me then to accept your meaning of it contents. You are not GOD's interpreter.
-
Well... I think that if you look at the universe we find that it is absolutly breath taking! Including the planet we all share. The only thing that is screwd up is "man" or "man kind"! We destroy everything we touch. Whether one believes in the creator or not, The universe is a wonderous thing that we should all take more time to care for! And as for my opinion all religion aside, I find it extreemly hard to believe that from ABSOLUTLY NOTHING, some how everything came into being and all of a sudden "bang" now there is a one cell organisim and IT evolved into every living thing that exists today...??? Bull Crap! With respect to those of the Athiest religion.
Daniel
Yet here we are all multi-celled and everything. As I have pointed out in other posts on other forums, there is way more evidence that we have indeed evolved from these simple chemical elements than there is a god. One either believes in god on faith or one doesn't on faith.
Tue atheists believes there is no god without proof that one doesn't exist, that's as weak a stance as saying there is a god without proof. Both positions are untenable. Agnostics accept that you can neither prove or disprove god, so they are left the choice to believe or not.
-
:-X just lost Carry On.
-
The main thing that makes our world imperfect is that all men have the individual will to make choices. Either you make decisions that glorify life (HIM) or decisions that promote death; as Satan prowls like a lion to steal, kill, and destroy our spiritual relationship with HIM. Bad things do not originate from our Creator unless we are serving the other. Look at the statistics of how many servants of Darkness there are in Flint. Remember the cartoon showing a person with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other? This is a good illustration showing the conflict of man with him having the final decision of whom to serve.
-
Romans 13:1-7
I took nothing out of context. I simply quoted GOD"S word in it's entirety. You however have inserted your secular beliefs into HIS word to justify your understanding. There is NO mention in GOD'S word of "just authority". Twist HIS words all you want. They are what they are. Either you accept them or you don't. If you do accept them then you believe that the governing power is in place because GOD allows it. If you don't believe then you will have to stand in judgment for your disbelief.
If you want to use the ancient magical book (as one here refers to it) then so be it. But don't rewrite it to your liking thinking that you can convince me then to accept your meaning of it contents. You are not GOD's interpreter.
Two points. We have the entire Old Testament to interpret the New. You can not separate the Book without losing the message. And the OT very clearly justifies Self-Defense. And this is not about semantics but doctrine. And biblical Doctrine DOES teach Just and Unjust Authority.It is the reason that Biblical Theology was such a major influence on the colonies as well as all leadership up to the Civil War.
Also, By definition, the Bible is not a magical book. If you want to tackle specific verses then PM me. As for the claim that I failed to refer to verses instead of secular sources, read my post again. I references 4 additional chapters of Biblical incidences. Which if you read them; would negae your accusation. I did not interpret them but a plain reading shows my points.
The words may not be there but the concept IS. Anyone familiar with the concept of the anti-christ is familiar with the concept. Anyone who has read the story of Pharoah and the Exodus has read the incident including just and unjust authority. And those of failed to obey the unjust authority were actually rewarded by God for doing so.....
Whether a particular word is in your Bible or not is entirely based upon what translation and how well you understand thee original languages.
The word "Dinosaur" is not in the bible. Why? Because it is a modern made-up word post-dating those translations and pre-dating the post-evolutionists modern ones. HOWEVER Dinosaurs ARE in the bible if you recognize their descriptions.
Denial is all about semantics.
Let us get back on topic. Other men have put very good and thorough papers on this topic of Just and unjust Authority as well as Self-Defense in the Bible. An internet search will turn them up or pm me to send them to you. Also look back at the Nuremberg Trials. The concept was understood there as well.
The Bible's own story of King David. How, when running from King Saul, David did not condone a general uprising to overthrow the current authority.... but he did not obey it either when it was corrupt. And generally he acted in a defensive manner which was condoned by God. He was only rebuked when he violated that by committing Adultery and Murder in the story of Bathsheba and Uriah. However, when Abner killed Joab's brother in self-defense; there was no spiritual rebuke although he did have to deal with consequences of vengeance
These are entire chapters of historical narrative which make this point plainly.. Just because one chooses to deny them does not make them less true. And Failure to read them plainly and thoroughly guarantees misunderstanding. The Bible is not complicated or hard to understand.
I just hope this bill passes so that another stepping stone towards Constitutional Carry can be made.
Just as Romans 13 mentions. The point of the State is to protect the Just and punish the Criminal. That is what these people want to see.
-
The word "Dinosaur" is not in the bible. Why? Because it is a modern made-up word post-dating those translations and pre-dating the post-evolutionists modern ones. HOWEVER Dinosaurs ARE in the bible if you recognize their descriptions.
And so ARE unicorns. You just need to recognize their descriptions too.
-
So sorry but I feel I have to put my .02 in on this.
I have yet to have one person in the religious theological community convince me about ANY "God" given rights to anything.
Don't continually use the "Bible" to validate ANY argument. Any Bible you want to quote is only hearsay that is accepted as "proof" by those of "faith" who choose to acknowledge your faith.
There is not a single "written word" by God or Jesus that has EVER been acknowledge as being written by them...PERIOD.
So what you are asking is for everyone (those of faith or not) to accept your argument on hearsay alone.
Sorry, but even the courts of these United States does not accept hearsay evidence.
So lets leave all the theological cites out of the argument as a basis of factual proof and only cite rights guaranteed by the law of MAN as set forth in the Constitution!
Rant off... continue on.
JMO
Rights were/are given and recognized by man...period! NOWHERE...are any"God" given rights set in writing.
-
So sorry but I feel I have to put my .02 in on this.
Don't continually use the "Bible" to validate ANY argument. Any Bible you want to quote is only hearsay that is accepted as "proof" by those of "faith" who choose to acknowledge your faith.
There is not a single "written word" by God or Jesus that has EVER been acknowledge as being written by them...PERIOD.
Funny, that is like saying "Dont use the Constitution for any RKBA discussions!
you bare free to make your own choices in life; whether to accept or deny anything. It does not change fact or history. And your comment above also proves a lack of research or just flat denial of facts. And you are free to possess both. that is your choice.
>> To be born free is an accident.
The Colonists did not believe that. Moral law as written in the Bible was the entire basis for the original Colonies. And it did not matter what denomination. Discussing the Constitution without the beliefs and understandings of the various authors and their disagreements is like building your house on Sand.
And that is why our laws are getting worse and stupider. Don't believe me? Just wait until next years rants and raves about various scandals and so-called promises begin.
As long as Americans deny American History, we will have these problems. And when we accept them - we just have different problems. Your personal relationship with God has no bearing on this discussion. And is way off topic. The relation of the Bible to this country and its laws is simple history. you don't have to be a Christian to accept Historical Fact; just as I do not need to be a Nazi to accept the facts of Hitler and WWII.
You can rant on and deny from here on out. I am done with this off-topic piece. If you want to continue then do that with yourself, a Bible, and God. Anything I share will just be more of the same.
>> Rights were/are given and recognized by man...period!
Then they can be taken away? Then the Right to Self-Defense is not inalienable - according to you. That rather contradicts the main focus of this entire website. the Declaration of Independence and constitution both also imply otherwise. And the entire reason for Open-Carry is because we believe otherwise (whether one admits it or not) that Man has an inalienable right to defend his life, Liberty, Family, and property...
The duty of States is to protect that right.
As this bill continues its way through the House. Consider your options and their consequences. Write your Representatives and voice your opinion one way or another. Hopefully in the best interest of Open-Carry.
Semper Fi.
Semper Paratus.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
It's not time to beat our swords into plowshares yet!
A Dieu
-
Again you use the bible to verify your point. Hearsay...not acceptable.
The Constitution was created and accepted by VOTE by man.
Whether they based their reasons to justify the contents of said document on "their beliefs" in the bible have no support basis to the document.
The document was enacted, accepted, and enforced by "man"; not the bible or any religious deity.
-
So sorry but I feel I have to put my .02 in on this.
Don't continually use the "Bible" to validate ANY argument. Any Bible you want to quote is only hearsay that is accepted as "proof" by those of "faith" who choose to acknowledge your faith.
There is not a single "written word" by God or Jesus that has EVER been acknowledge as being written by them...PERIOD.
Funny, that is like saying "Dont use the Constitution for any RKBA discussions!
you bare free to make your own choices in life; whether to accept or deny anything. It does not change fact or history. And your comment above also proves a lack of research or just flat denial of facts. And you are free to possess both. that is your choice.
>> To be born free is an accident.
The Colonists did not believe that. Moral law as written in the Bible was the entire basis for the original Colonies. And it did not matter what denomination. Discussing the Constitution without the beliefs and understandings of the various authors and their disagreements is like building your house on Sand.
And that is why our laws are getting worse and stupider. Don't believe me? Just wait until next years rants and raves about various scandals and so-called promises begin.
As long as Americans deny American History, we will have these problems. And when we accept them - we just have different problems. Your personal relationship with God has no bearing on this discussion. And is way off topic. The relation of the Bible to this country and its laws is simple history. you don't have to be a Christian to accept Historical Fact; just as I do not need to be a Nazi to accept the facts of Hitler and WWII.
You can rant on and deny from here on out. I am done with this off-topic piece. If you want to continue then do that with yourself, a Bible, and God. Anything I share will just be more of the same.
>> Rights were/are given and recognized by man...period!
Then they can be taken away? Then the Right to Self-Defense is not inalienable - according to you. That rather contradicts the main focus of this entire website. the Declaration of Independence and constitution both also imply otherwise. And the entire reason for Open-Carry is because we believe otherwise (whether one admits it or not) that Man has an inalienable right to defend his life, Liberty, Family, and property...
The duty of States is to protect that right.
As this bill continues its way through the House. Consider your options and their consequences. Write your Representatives and voice your opinion one way or another. Hopefully in the best interest of Open-Carry.
Semper Fi.
Semper Paratus.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
It's not time to beat our swords into plowshares yet!
A Dieu
I always love how the bible thumpers use scriptures to pontificate their righteousness. But when confronted with an opposing opinion the withdraw to it all being a question of faith. If you only had faith you'd believe.
Why only quote the current scriptures? Why not all of the books that aren't included in modern translations? Are those any less significant?
Religion has no place whatsoever in the logical discussion of Open Carry and the laws affecting it.
Unicorns exist because I read about them in a book too.
-
Thank you Pat for seeing my point.
I guess I should have explained my reasons for posting in regards to this to begin with...my bad.
First off, I am an agnostic...don't know what that is...look it up!
1. On most fourms, I have seen posts that were challenged and require the poster to validate his claim with the cite to support it.
2. If no cite is given they are dismissed/chastised as an invalid claim.
3. BUT! Let a point be validated by a religious quote and it's accepted as fact!
I'm only saying, drop the double standard. If you require a valid cite of law from others; do the same in return and leave the theological cites out of it. They hold no weight in proof of your claim.
All current laws were/are enacted by man. Break a law and I doubt a lightning bolt or anything else will hit you from anywhere.
Beware of man though; he will gladly throw your arse in jail!
BTW: I love theological discussion. I even had a catholic priest throw me out of a rummage sale cause I pissed him off so bad....turn the other cheek? hhhmmmmm
-
I dropped the topic because neither of you were seriously interested in the answer. And foolishness would not do this forum any good. I HAVE posted citations, just because you blew them off or deny them does not negate the fact that I cited them.
And I wont continue to waste my time answering point by point if it is not truly wanted. As a confessed antagonizer of knowledge (that is what Agnostic means), then it would be foolishness to argue with you.
Unless you wanted true answers, there is no point. why would I believe that you would read new citations when you refuse to look into the past ones.
If you really do want answers, then lets meat somewhere appropriate. I will require you to do the same research that you will expect of me. Are you up to it? We could start with dinosaurs. Email or PM me. If I dont hear from you then I will assume that you are accusing me of that which you really apply to yourself.
I am not running and did not in my past email. I simply called you bluff. Bring your books and lets meet for coffee. Someplace that allows Open-Carry, so we can stay on topic. And can we Stop violating forum etiquette by quoting entire posts?
Anyone notice that Vermont Carriers would get reciprocity without a license at all? Could that work to our future advantage if true?
-
Well you're right about one thing; no sense trying to have a conversation with your "opinions".
As a confessed antagonizer of knowledge (that is what Agnostic means)
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
Cite truth..not opinions.
Have a good day
-
Well you're right about one thing; no sense trying to have a conversation with your "opinions".
As a confessed antagonizer of knowledge (that is what Agnostic means)
Definition of AGNOSTIC
Cite truth..not opinions.
Have a good day
I did and AM.
I went to the Greek roots and not to an english dictionary. I wanted the etymology and meaning of the word and not its modern convenient usage. Don't give me someone's opinion either....
Don't look for easy or convenient answers. I didn't then and I don't now!
-
Scotchman, don't cast your pearls. Also, I mean to confess that I don't believe in gravity...even though it operates all around me.
-
Right, Pearls aside....
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/243-house-members-back-federal-concealed-weapons-reciprocity-bill/
(http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/243-house-members-back-federal-concealed-weapons-reciprocity-bill/)
I was wondering how is this different than our own Michigan preemption law that prohibits cities from creating gun laws stricter than the state laws?
Would this be similar in preempting states and requiring universal recognition of the 2nd Amendment? At least to a certain degree...
I don't know if it will pass or not. Just a law that I am watching like watching the Ford Contract votes.
Obama declared his opposition to carrying concealed weapons during the 2008 campaign. Matt Lehrich, a White House spokesman, declined to say whether Obama would veto a national reciprocity bill if it reaches his desk.
Not a surprise there! So the real question is whether the House has enough votes to over-rule a veto or is this just a show to present a face of attempting-to-do-something?
What we really wanted to discuss here was how this might affect the Open-Carry movement? Or vise versa?
I guess it is a good election year to OC for the first time at my polls.
-
The main thing that makes our world imperfect is that all men have the individual will to make choices. Either you make decisions that glorify life (HIM) or decisions that promote death; as Satan prowls like a lion to steal, kill, and destroy our spiritual relationship with HIM. Bad things do not originate from our Creator unless we are serving the other. Look at the statistics of how many servants of Darkness there are in Flint. Remember the cartoon showing a person with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other? This is a good illustration showing the conflict of man with him having the final decision of whom to serve.
I don't glorify death, but I do glorify life and I don't need him to do it.
-
Again you use the bible to verify your point. Hearsay...not acceptable.
The Constitution was created and accepted by VOTE by man.
Whether they based their reasons to justify the contents of said document on "their beliefs" in the bible have no support basis to the document.
The document was enacted, accepted, and enforced by "man"; not the bible or any religious deity.
Funny but much of the founding fathers philosophy was based on classic history from Greek and roman Republican rule on up to common English law. They read far more than the bible to form a document of governance.
-
Well holy crap! This thread went to Hades and back... This is all your fault Brian as everything usually is! Stop starting contraversy will ya? ok... well... ok
-
I dropped the topic because neither of you were seriously interested in the answer. And foolishness would not do this forum any good. I HAVE posted citations, just because you blew them off or deny them does not negate the fact that I cited them.
And I wont continue to waste my time answering point by point if it is not truly wanted. As a confessed antagonizer of knowledge (that is what Agnostic means), then it would be foolishness to argue with you.
Unless you wanted true answers, there is no point. why would I believe that you would read new citations when you refuse to look into the past ones.
If you really do want answers, then lets meat somewhere appropriate. I will require you to do the same research that you will expect of me. Are you up to it? We could start with dinosaurs. Email or PM me. If I dont hear from you then I will assume that you are accusing me of that which you really apply to yourself.
I am not running and did not in my past email. I simply called you bluff. Bring your books and lets meet for coffee. Someplace that allows Open-Carry, so we can stay on topic. And can we Stop violating forum etiquette by quoting entire posts?
Anyone notice that Vermont Carriers would get reciprocity without a license at all? Could that work to our future advantage if true?
Bible quotes are not provable citations of anything. If you believe in god great, but don't claim that you have proof he exists.
-
Well holy crap! This thread went to Hades and back... This is all your fault Brian as everything usually is! Stop starting contraversy will ya? ok... well... ok
What controversy are you talking about? My fault for what? I'm not understanding your post.
-
I dropped the topic because neither of you were seriously interested in the answer. And foolishness would not do this forum any good. I HAVE posted citations, just because you blew them off or deny them does not negate the fact that I cited them.
And I wont continue to waste my time answering point by point if it is not truly wanted. As a confessed antagonizer of knowledge (that is what Agnostic means), then it would be foolishness to argue with you.
Unless you wanted true answers, there is no point. why would I believe that you would read new citations when you refuse to look into the past ones.
If you really do want answers, then lets meat somewhere appropriate. I will require you to do the same research that you will expect of me. Are you up to it? We could start with dinosaurs. Email or PM me. If I dont hear from you then I will assume that you are accusing me of that which you really apply to yourself.
I am not running and did not in my past email. I simply called you bluff. Bring your books and lets meet for coffee. Someplace that allows Open-Carry, so we can stay on topic. And can we Stop violating forum etiquette by quoting entire posts?
Anyone notice that Vermont Carriers would get reciprocity without a license at all? Could that work to our future advantage if true?
Tell me about dinosaurs. Have they found a human skull in the fossilized ribcage of a T-Rex? Because maybe I missed some new discovery.
-
Brian, sorry if our posts are offending you. Those of us that believe, live in the Kingdom and strive to behave as such and those who don't are of the world. Ordered life does not originate from randomness. If I walk into a room with a 1000 piece completed puzzle, I'm going to assume some intelligence was involved in this construction. Ok, on to a health fair in town.
-
Brian, sorry if our posts are offending you. Those of us that believe, live in the Kingdom and strive to behave as such and those who don't are of the world. Ordered life does not originate from randomness. If I walk into a room with a 1000 piece completed puzzle, I'm going to assume some intelligence was involved in this construction. Ok, on to a health fair in town.
Not offended at all, I enjoy the topic. You are free to believe that human beings were created by an invisible guy in the sky if you want. As for me I would rather place my faith in science and knowledge. So far there is more proof that man evolved from lesser life forms, than a from some un-knowable creator.
You make all kinds of claims yet you do not have one shred of evidence. If find it strange that people that would verify all aspects of say a simple mortgage, yet completely fall for the fallacy of some god with zero proof. But that's okay, just don't claim you have some proof, just say you blindly believe. Don't be a hypocrite about it.
-
Scotchman, don't cast your pearls. Also, I mean to confess that I don't believe in gravity...even though it operates all around me.
I think he called me a swine!
-
Be careful... I love pork!
BTW: My dear nephew was only pulling your chain. He knows I always blame you for everything.
-
I was just joking Brian... hehehaha... and actually, they have found a fossilized dinosaur footprint with a mans footprint. Inside it... Ill find a link to the story.
-
My bad...It was all but disproved... But still an interesting story. http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm
-
Of course it was disproved. Everyone knows that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. And the earth was only created 10,000 years ago. So there's proof that dinosaurs and man couldn't have lived at the same time.
And I proved it without quoting scripture.
-
These so called baby steps are not forward steps towards Constitutional carry, they are steps away from rights and toward carry privileges. Soon we will be required to have a license to carry concealed, openly, and to own, just as with a car. It will be accepted by every one...Mark my words. You give an inch to the Government and they will take your right!. I'll ask again, According to the Michigan Constitution How do you carry a right if no Conceal carry permits are issued? Meaning, if there were no CPL's how would one carry or exercise his right? Yeah that's right Openly and if it got cold you'd exercise another right, a right to shelter yourself from the weather, and that does not void your right to carry. Openly or Concealed either way it is Constitutional carry. The only difference between then and now is people bow down to an UN-Constitutional Permit. The Govt. isn't taking the right away...Your giving it away step by step. People accept the CPL as a step forward and I assure you the govt. doesn't see it that way. When your all ready to join the cause you let me know. In my world there are two kinds of people..."those who know the Constitution, and those who have heard of the Constitution!" :)
-
These so called baby steps are not forward steps towards Constitutional carry, they are steps away from rights and toward carry privileges. Soon we will be required to have a license to carry concealed, openly, and to own, just as with a car. It will be accepted by every one...
........
In my world there are two kinds of people..."those who know the Constitution, and those who have heard of the Constitution!" :)
Good point Steve. We have a long way to go toward a perfect world. I look forward to that day. But what a battle ahead. Just like the communist contract talks going on right now. People have forgotten why America is not russia. In more ways than one.
-
Ok... Time to reclaim this thread... Here is an LEO who decides to tell the residents of his county the truth!!! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/01/south-carolina-sheriff-need-to-protect-yourself/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/01/south-carolina-sheriff-need-to-protect-yourself/)
Daniel