jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (143 posts)

Have you heard about the UN firearm treaty?

  1. 0
    Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago

    Hillary Clinton signed a United Nations (UN) firearm treaty. The treaty would change Americans' right to bear arms if ratified by the Senate in 2012. Thus far, the proposed bill has strong support from the Obama Administration. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate Ratification in 2012. It would ban citizens from having semi-automatic firearms....anything with a clip. Do you think the UN should be allowed to do this?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like a great idea to me. Too much mahem in this country from mental defectives running around in the woods with assault weapons, drug gangs shooting up inner city neighborhoods, insane people killing politicians and abortion doctors, etc. We are badly in need of more effective regulation (not banning) of the manufacture and sale handguns and prohibition of military type weapons in this country.

      1. 0
        Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you outlaw guns; only outlaws will have guns.

        1. Jed Fisher profile image87
          Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Let history teach its lesson. Advancements in firearms technology have led to advancements in human rights. When a single old lady can kill hundreds, old ladies get to vote. Those who can't fight back have no rights. It's as simple as that.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If you re-read my comment you'll see that I'm not proposing that guns be outlawed but rather than reasonable, effectively enforced regulations be enacted.

        3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And guns don't kill people..

          And second amendment...

          Our forefathers....

          Got anything original?

          1. 0
            Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            guns dont kill people....people kill people

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks, I've never heard that one.

              1. 0
                Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ron all evidence points to the fact that you have never heard anything unless its from a liberal source like nbc or msnbd....

        4. Doc Snow profile image97
          Doc Snowposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, how original!

        5. 60
          mksgromoloposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          With a law like that, the only people with guns are going to be the bad guys!!  Why is the United Nations getting involved in the rights of a sovereign nation as The United States of America??!!  It is our rights not theirs!!

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And my Rights come from God... not man, or a govt... so they can all piss off.

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              roll

              1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, you'll really get far with that kind of thinking Mr Mason. Kinda like how some nut job tells the judge that God told him to kill his entire family.

            2. 0
              Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree 100%

            3. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I thought God said Thou shalt not kill.

              1. Greek One profile image80
                Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The right to carry a gun came from God?

                Was that in Leviticus or Pissedoffatus?

                1. lovemychris profile image79
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I think it was meprotectoryoukiller 4:89

                  1. Greek One profile image80
                    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    or maybe the Book of Mark..... '


                    Chapman

                2. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The right to self defense is inate.

                  But continue on with the games... I will wait here.

                  1. Greek One profile image80
                    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    if the ability to shoot off a hundred bullets falls under 'self defense'... then does individual ownership of grenades... tanks.. missiles, also count?

                    Where is the line?

                    How many kills per second goes to far?

                  2. lovemychris profile image79
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Really? What happened to Turn the Other Cheek?

                3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Can't go wrong with the 'ol God told me so defense.  Whenever you stake out an indefensible position, just play your God says I'm right card.  That settles that.

              2. 0
                Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thast is true but was part of the law before Jsus died for our sins.......also God destroyed many of many of liberal civilizations....

                1. Greek One profile image80
                  Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  so if God can destroy stuff, why can't we too?

                2. lovemychris profile image79
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So, since Jesus died, you are allowed to kill?

                3. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  ie; Sodom, Ghemorra, etc...

                4. Greek One profile image80
                  Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  yes.. like the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, Czarist Russia, etc

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Those were all liberal civilizations... roll

        6. 0
          klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are soooooooooo right! hmm

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image93
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this
        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No... we are badly in need of enforcing the laws on the books.

          The laws already exist, along with other laws, against all the things you talk about... no need for more.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image93
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You didn't look at that link, did you?

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's a nice parroting of the NRA talking points but it simply isn't true.  In the case of the Gabby Giffords shooting, the shooter did not break any state or federal laws until he actually aimed at Giffords.  Laws that have been defeated by NRA lobbyists, such as the 5 day waiting period, could have been very effective in stopping the slaughter.

            The next talking point that NRA apologists bring up is that of lax enforcement.  It's ironic that they take this position while fighting new rules that make enforcement more effective.

            Please shovel up some more NRA B.S..  I'm just getting warmed up.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So he would have waited five days and shot her then. More than likely he would have shot somebody after those five days he wasn't getting any saner.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That's a very deep thought roll

            2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image93
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It's actually against the law to shoot people for no reason - isn't that cool!

      3. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Back when the 2nd Amendment was written, the muzzleloading flintlock firearm was the state of the art weapon.

    2. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's pathetically stupid and last time I checked, attempting to do this is a violation of the Constitution and individual rights.

      1. 0
        Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        exactly...but through this they could ban certain guns and still allow revolvers and shotguns and therefore not violate the constituion

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sensible firearm regulations are Constitutional.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They are, in fact gun control pre-dates the U.S. constitution.  The myth of gun totin' founding fathers is very popular with extremists, but has no basis in fact.

          1. Greek One profile image80
            Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Constitution has been corrupted by successive Presidents and their Supreme Court inJustices!!

            Only by resorting to revolution can Americans get back their Republic. but Clinton and her Kenyan boss are trying to use the UN destroy American freedoms!!

            TO THE STREETS I URGE YOU.. TO THE STREETS!.. while you still have the right to bare arms (and breasts, legs, etc)

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I have to take a break.  The "tree of liberty" needs watering.

        2. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          When have you known government or any other authoritative body make sensible regulations? Oh please...it's all about control.

    3. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I say that would be the one that kicks off the new American Civil War, Conservatives against the Leant Left. Of course it would be a quick war and a fairly easy win for the Conservatives. Cause we know most of the Leant Left would run to canada as soon as the fighting started... so.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        WOW! roll

      2. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am still waiting for a link to any such treaty language supporting this interpretation.

        International treaties of this type do not and cannot trump the second amendment. And this treaty concept is about international trade.

      3. 0
        Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol yes they would....good point! The amuzing part is, as a former ambasador mentioned in a hub I wrote....forget his name.....that it first appears to be a bill saying it is against trade of semi auto guns but the other parts are hidden like taking them away from americans but allowing them to keep shotguns so the constituion still stands to allow people to bear arms but liberals cant read fast enough to get to that part haha

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That is because the Liberal leftist scholars and historians fling that BS about the 2nd amendment being for hunting, when we know for a fact it is speaking to self-defense and defense against a Govt esp. your own, and as such it allows citizens to, or should anyway, own the current field arms deployed in the standing military or militia.

          And they cannot stand that.

          1. psycheskinner profile image82
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Still waiting for that link showing that a treaty exists that trumps the 2nd amendment.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              When did I say that? What link?

              As I said... it would be an act of war as far as I am concerned.

              1. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                This thread was started by saying there is a treaty that will limit American's rights to carry guns.

                I still have not seen any evidence that this is true.

            2. 0
              Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              well like most libs you sit and wait rather than looking yourself....funny thing is I have it and could paste it right now but I am going to follow Obama's lead and do nothing haha

              1. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I looked and satisfied myself that no such treaty exists.

                Which is why this whole conversation is such a joke.

            3. 0
              Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              here is an article on from forbes magazine....I will get the other link again tonight to the actual draft that isnt finished http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 … in-arms/2/

              1. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That link is to an editorial where people make wild accusations based on no obvious evidence.

                Every impartial report I have seen says the treaty is just what it says: a treaty limiting international gun trafficking in the hopes of limiting some of the genocide zones the world currently has, thanks to first world nations selling high tech weapons to dictators and warlords.

                1. 0
                  Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  yeah like the obama admin and the fast and furious op they botched

                  1. psycheskinner profile image82
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Um, not sure what you mean.  But the fact that no international treaty can in fact trump the constitution strikes me as a clue that the accusations are not accurate.

    4. 60
      mksgromoloposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      NO!!  With a law like that, the only people with guns are going to be the bad guys!!  Why is the United Nations getting involved in the rights of a sovereign nation as The United States of America??!!  It is our rights not theirs!!
      yOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE MY GUN OFF MY COLD DEAD BODY, IT IS MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND PROTECT MY HOME, FAMILY AND PROPERTY!!!  READ THE CONSTITUTION!!

      1. 0
        Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly!!!

    5. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They can try to take my gun away....

      ...

  2. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    I am still p#%@#% off at the SALT treaties and their restrictions on average Americans who want to collect nuclear weapons.

    If you outlaw the a-bomb, only outlaws will have them

  3. donotfear profile image92
    donotfearposted 5 years ago

    Why the heck does anyone want a semi-automatic weapon anyway?  Unless you are in battle with the flesh eating zombies or something.  Really.....
    Hubby has no use for semi in the deer woods. He even uses his trusty bow!   I can see wanting an automatic pistol, but those freakin big ass guns?  You can count me out!  I'll take the pistol.

    1. Greek One profile image80
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How the Hell am I supposed to rob someone or gang bang with just a bow?

      What happens when I decide to go crazy here at work and take everybody out?  Am I supposed to carry around 50 arrows??

      Nope.. I need an efficient killing machine that will cause maximum damage and take away as many lives as possible, thank you very much!

    2. 0
      Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      a pistol is semi-automatic...anything that takes a clip

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How about 30-capacity magazines of the type used by the whack job who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and other mass shootings?

        1. 0
          Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          fine ban those but were talking a 7 shot clip side arm here

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Progress! Whoopee!

  4. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    This right-wing paranoia story pops up every couple of months.  No one takes it seriously.

  5. Doc Snow profile image97
    Doc Snowposted 5 years ago

    Hate to chill the discussion, but this one is pure urban legend:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's what happens when you get your news from facebook statuses.

    2. 0
      Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      then why is it in forbes and on the UN site?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you are incapable of using the Internet, I respectfully suggest you should not ba allowed anywhere near any firearms. lol

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol

      2. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The treaty exists at the concept stage, it just doesn't do what you said it does.

        1. 0
          Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          it bans semi automatic weapons if passed.....so yes it does...but you liberals can continue to live with blinders...obama you hail

          1. psycheskinner profile image82
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps you should read the treaty you are all upset about.  It relates only to international trade.  It does not, and in fact could not, affect domestic law.

            1. 0
              Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              perhaps you should because it states the US will not allow semi automatic weapons and will destroy them

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why would anyone need a semi-automatic weapon?

                And it says nothing about destroying all semi-automatics anyway.  The treaty would just regulate sale of such weapons to the U.S.  Buy American and all that.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I carry a semi-auto 9mm.  It gives me 11 shots instead of the 5 or 6 that a revolver would, and is much easier to conceal.  I encounter violent, sometimes armed, people daily and I don't want to be the unarmed party if there's trouble.  I passed a thorough background check and am trained and licensed. I was not required to, but I would certainly have been willing to wait a few days for an even more thorough background check.  These are reasonable restrictions.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    *nods* Fair enough.  Does your job require it or is it because of the armed civilians that you run into on a daily basis?

              2. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Link? To a primary source please.

                Because legally that really doesn't work. It fundamentally isn't how the law operates.

  6. omnianonymous profile image60
    omnianonymousposted 5 years ago

    I don't like the sound of that . its never good when your government wants to take away your means of protection....

  7. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    I support gun control.

    The best way to do this is to make sure both hands are holding the firearm.

  8. MelissaBarrett profile image59
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    If you really want to get pissed off read this:

    www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922(g)(9).html

    It essentially turns any gun crime into a federal offense unless every single piece of the gun and the gun as a whole was manufactured in the state that they shooter bought and used it.  Assuming that no part of the gun, or the gun as a whole, has never crossed any state line at any point.

    It is one of the most brilliant laws I have ever seen passed and hardly anyone noticed because it was part of an appropriations act :)It also outlaws ownership of a guns to a huge population of Americans and effectively prohibits unlocked guns in most metropolitan areas.

    Wicked cool smile

    (you have to copy and paste link because of the parenthesis in link)

  9. jcmayer777 profile image78
    jcmayer777posted 5 years ago

    There's nothing wrong with sensible gun control, but in the end, what will it accomplish?  The idiots that you don't want to have them will still get them through illegal means.  Those that hunt, target shoot or engage in legal activities will be ones that follow the law and get punished.

    Many people who don't know much about guns hear the automatic part of semi-automatic and think machine guns.  Not even remotely true.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's BS.  If you can't take a deer out without emptying a clip into it, then you shouldn't be hunting.  And the convenience of not having to reload during target practice is a little outweighed by the convenience of police having a free shot while a crazed gunman DOES have to reload.

      1. jcmayer777 profile image78
        jcmayer777posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The crazed gunman will not have to reload because  he won't follow the law.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If he didn't have access, then he couldn't use one smile  Regardless of the law.

          1. jcmayer777 profile image78
            jcmayer777posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How wouldn't he have access?  I could go out on the street right now and buy a gun in 20 minutes.  It may have been stolen, may have been used in a crime previously, and might decade decades old, but I could still get it and use it.

            If they ban semi-autos, what happens to all of them out there now?  Guns can last for centuries and remain in working condition.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Rarely can a gun last for "decades" in working order.  Those that have are simple guns that have been exceptionally well kept and are STILL as likely to hit the person holding the gun than anyone in front of it.

              I honestly believe that ideally every single gun in the world should be destroyed.  I believe functionally that every easily concealed gun in the United States (with the exception of law enforcement and military) should be destroyed.

              Barring that, I feel that anyone that purchases a gun should have a background check that includes a psychological exam and access to even "sealed records". In addition, the original purchaser of the gun should be charged with a felony if any gun they own is found in commission of a violent crime... regardless of who is using it.

              Just to let you know where I am coming from.  The "only outlaws would have guns" crap is a fail.  If no guns existed... no one would have them.

              1. jcmayer777 profile image78
                jcmayer777posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Guns can and do last that long because they are simple, just as they are made now.  Single shots, bolt or lever action, and even semi-autos are very simple.  Nothing but steel, wood, and plastic.

                I get what you're saying and I respect your opinion.  I am not against background checks.  In Wisconsin, they started that (I think) about 10 years ago and it has stopped some convicted felons from purchasing guns. Up until the last few years, it meant you had to wait a few days to take the gun home.  Now, they are quicker, with only a few minutes taken for background checks.  I said then and I say now that that's a minor inconvenience that I can live with if I choose to buy a gun

                I also get what you're saying about outlaws not having guns if they didn't exist, but that's not possible anymore.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are a lot of other issues.  Start with suicides, especially by teenagers.  They're nearly 100% successful when a handgun is involved, much less so by other means.  The majority of attempted but failed suicides do not make a second attempt.  With a gun, no second attempt is necessary.  background checks and proper instruction on gun safety and storage are very effective at limiting these and other impulsive violent acts.

    3. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There's no such thing as sensible gun control with regards to government agencies or laws.

      I wrote a hub that dispels that myth.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You don't even have to read such a hub to know that your statement is outrageously broad.

        Do you think Plaxico Burress will be walking into a nightclub with a concealed weapon anytime soon?

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your example comes from an idiot who did something wrong to begin with.

          Gun Control is all about individual responsibility and nothing more.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this



            As in: "I believe in gun control; you should always use 2 hands"?

            You could write for Rick Perry

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Nothing like a broad statement, huh? roll

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You know many crack-addicts that have a whole lot of personal responsibility?

            1. psycheskinner profile image82
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And those delusional paranoid people, really self-controlled.

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hey Psyche, does that include the religious sect? lol (j/k) lol

            2. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And, what's your point? Or do you like asking foolish questions for no reason at all?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                My point is, those who do drugs have no sense of personal responsibility at all.  I thought that was pretty simple and straight forward.  Crackheads should not be allowed to own guns. Are you seriously going to argue the point?  Is their a big lobby for crackhead gun ownership that I am missing?

                Therefore, gun control being about "personal responsibility" is moot in people who have given their intellect to a glass c***.

                That goes for any other person that can be shown to not be able to think rationally or control their own actions.

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Really? I know plenty of people who do drugs, but maintain control over their entire life. So, how exactly are these people not being responsible?
                  I'm sure it was, but actually was slightly narrow-minded. No offense, just pointing it out. Because, you're using addiction to cover and distort.
                  Addiction is a different story.
                  I'm not going to argue that crackheads are dangerous, even without a gun, but dispel your distortion of this particular conversation.
                  No.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?  Because I thought that drugs produced an altered state of mind.  That's kinda the point of drugs.  When someone is high, then they have no personal responsibility because they are not in control of their actions... they aren't "thinking straight"  So, do these friends of yours call the police before they get high to turn over their children, their cars, and their guns until they come down? In addition, those who are "maintaining control of their lives" wouldn't be getting arrested, getting fired, or losing relationships.



                    No, the addiction is the point.  Drug use is the point.  Crack in specific is not a "recreational drug".  If you smoke crack regularly, you are a crackhead. Same could be said for anyone who throws back a fifth of liquor a day.

                     

                    Nope it isn't.  If you own a gun and suck on a pipe, you are putting everyone around you in danger... thus not showing personal responsibility.  Even if you only smoked it once.



                    Maybe it is your distortions that need to be dispelled. Or your view of "personal responsibility"

  10. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/guns-make-bullets-go-faster.jpg

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, that's at least not untrue. lol

  11. MelissaBarrett profile image59
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Wow, everything you just said was B.S.  It's the same B.S. I hear from addicts on a regular basis at least the ones that are still active.  Those in recovery know different.  You're views aren't enlightened, they are perpetuating drug abuse.  If you think anything else then you are in denial. 

    Now I return to the regularly scheduled thread.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      WOW! roll

      Edit: Btw- if you see what I said as a defense for drug abuse, then apparently you are having a comprehension problem.

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT OUTLAWING AXES?!?!?! I DEMAND A UN TREATY OUTLAWING AXES!!! THE DANGER OF AXES HAS BEEN IGNORED FOR WAY TOO LONG!! NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO OWN AN AX!!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/world … china.html

    1. Greek One profile image80
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Many things can be turned into a weapon.. but can you kill 30 people a minute with an axe?

      (PS.. in many buildings, they probably wouldn't let you bring in an axe)

  13. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Old Testament:
    Thou Shalt Not Kill
    New Testament:
    Turn the Other Cheek.

    Current day Christians: Give me my semi-automatic!

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The word is not "kill", it is "murder". Thou shalt not commit murder.

      "...atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."

      However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses. The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary."

      http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

      1. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        what about throwing the first stone

      2. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The New Testament's original language is Aramaic.

        No matter how you slice it, to kill is murder is a sin!

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You can kill without commiting murder... and if you do not know that... then I cannot help you.

          And with that attitude then you agreee Abortion is murder.

          Glad to have you aboard.

          And the ten commandments are in the Old testament, Hebrew, not Aramaic.

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's not my attitude, it's YOURS! YOU are the one who claims to be a Christian!

            And no, you just agreed that abortion is not murder!

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am the one who understands the difference between the words, "kill" and "murder", something which seems to elude you.

              1. lovemychris profile image79
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Please enlighten.

                A conglomerate of zygotes is a human being, and to abort it is murder.

                But a fully alive breathing Palestinian child is cannon fodder and can be killed? Is that it?

                1. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Please point out where I said that?

                  I will wait for you to justify your hyperbolic rant.

                  So point it out please...

                  1. lovemychris profile image79
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, i'll make it simple:

                    Is this how you feel?

                    Abortion is murder.
                    Children who die in military conflicts are collateral damage, and can be killed.

  14. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago
    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I pointed this out months ago MDS and they called me crazy paraniod... imagine that. hmm

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I make it so my tin foil hat doesn't cover my eyes and I can read

 
working