The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on August 28, 2009, 06:51:28 AM
-
In case anyone is looking to get rid of a gun that was used in a crime
:http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2009/08/god_guns_new_bethel_pagano.html
St. Gregory the Great wants weapons
Last month in Kentucky, an Assemblies of God congregation drew international attention with its "open carry celebration," in which the pastor invited members of to come to bring their guns to church, that they might "celebrate our rights as Americans."
“God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” the Rev. Ken Pagano told The New York Times.
Next month in Baltimore, a Catholic church will ask parishioners to bring weapons to church -- for a very different purpose. Responding to increased gun violence in the city, organizers say, St. Gregory the Great is sponsoring its seventh "Gun Turn-In Day" on Sept. 12.
Since the parish began its effort to get guns off the streets, organizers say, more than 100 have been turned in.
“The police have verified that in the past, some of these weapons that have been turned in have been very lethal,” Monsignor Damien G. Nalepa said in a statement. “We appeal to all the citizens of our city to help stop the violence and turn in guns.”
Co-sponsored by the Catholic Review, the event is scheduled for 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the church at 1542 N. Gilmor St. Organizers are offering $100 for each workable automatic or semi-automatic handgun or assault rifle, and $50 for any other workable gun turned in.
According to flyer being circulated for the event, no questions will be asked. Parish staff members and volunteers log the type of gun, and verify that it is unloaded and safe. At the close of the event, the guns are to be turned over to local law enforcement.
Exit Question: Why is it that we never see a "Turn in your crack rock" day? With drugs being such a scourge to our society, shouldn't we be trying to use the same useful method of getting guns off the streets ::) to help get drugs off the streets? Shouldn't doing drug buy back programs be implemented as a tool in the war on drugs? Come on, its for the children. Turn in your crack rock, no questions asked and get yourself a gift card for some new shoes ::)
-
Marion Barry will volunteer his efforts in this regard, for the children....."Send me your crack, your whores, your huddled masses!"
;D ;D
-
Eric
Its the utopian mindset. If we assume that evil is caused by some external factor there is an easy solution. Remove it. Pass a law, provide an incentive or ban a product.Replace foolish leaders with wise ones. This is idealism. If on the other hand we understand that evil is caused by some part of human nature, circumstance and inequaility, fear or bigotry or lust for power which will always be with us, we realize there is no easy solution.One leader for another, a call to religion or ideology or a policy shift will have effects only on the margins. This is realism.
Idealism is easier to sell. Its BS though.The left and right indulge in idealism, the death penalty, abortion, gun control, the war on drugs, blaming pornography etc. Its all the same BS. If only we remove a thing, WE will change.Not going to happen. Once we understand that human nature is both constant and fallible, and make policy with a firm belief in the limitations of government to influence human actions, we can get somewhere. Until then..... ::) :P
FQ13
-
Eric
Its the utopian mindset. If we assume that evil is caused by some external factor there is an easy solution. Remove it. Pass a law, provide an incentive or ban a product.Replace foolish leaders with wise ones. This is idealism. If on the other hand we understand that evil is caused by some part of human nature, circumstance and inequaility, fear or bigotry or lust for power which will always be with us, we realize there is no easy solution.One leader for another, a call to religion or ideology or a policy shift will have effects only on the margins. This is realism.
Idealism is easier to sell. Its BS though.The left and right indulge in idealism, the death penalty, abortion, gun control, the war on drugs, blaming pornography etc. Its all the same BS. If only we remove a thing, WE will change.Not going to happen. Once we understand that human nature is both constant and fallible, and make policy with a firm belief in the limitations of government to influence human actions, we can get somewhere. Until then..... ::) :P
FQ13
Once again you are over thinking things, Socrates. Everything is not always as nuanced as you always think it is.
-
Once again you are over thinking things, Socrates. Everything is not always as nuanced as you always think it is.
Eric, you miss his point in all the words. While I disagree with some of the phrases that he used, his basic point that "Blaming "things" when the problem is human conduct, is naive at best" Hits the nail directly on the head
-
Eric
Its the utopian mindset. If we assume that evil is caused by some external factor there is an easy solution. Remove it. Pass a law, provide an incentive or ban a product.Replace foolish leaders with wise ones. This is idealism. If on the other hand we understand that evil is caused by some part of human nature, circumstance and inequaility, fear or bigotry or lust for power which will always be with us, we realize there is no easy solution.One leader for another, a call to religion or ideology or a policy shift will have effects only on the margins. This is realism.
Idealism is easier to sell. Its BS though.The left and right indulge in idealism, the death penalty, abortion, gun control, the war on drugs, blaming pornography etc. Its all the same BS. If only we remove a thing, WE will change.Not going to happen. Once we understand that human nature is both constant and fallible, and make policy with a firm belief in the limitations of government to influence human actions, we can get somewhere. Until then..... ::) :P
FQ13
FQ,
Ya gots ta learn ya ain't teachin' a class here. No need to take ten minutes worth of material and stretch it to fill 45 minutes. ;)
;D
-
Eric, you miss his point in all the words. While I disagree with some of the phrases that he used, his basic point that "Blaming "things" when the problem is human conduct, is naive at best" Hits the nail directly on the head
Right.
these weapons that have been turned in have been very lethal
But he is turning it all into academic gobldy-gook and trying to throw all kinds of other crap into it to prove a point that he has nuanced into something different all together.
Once again you are over thinking things, Socrates. Everything is not always as nuanced as you always think it is.
-
Right.
But he is turning it all into academic gobldy-gook and trying to throw all kinds of other crap into it to prove a point that he has nuanced into something different all together.
It's a college thing, they get graded by word count on a lot of stuff.
-
Monsignor Damien G. Nalepa said in a statement. “We appeal to all the citizens of our city to help stop the violence and turn in guns.”
The Monsignor is like many people that believe:
• Everyone citizen who owns a gun is a “hair trigger” waiting to go off at any moment. It is as if the gun produces a Siren’s song and makes bad things happen.
• Shifts the blame for violence from the person onto an inanimate object, the gun, rather than on the perpetrator of the violent act.
-
Shifts the blame for violence from the person onto an inanimate object, the gun, rather than on the perpetrator of the violent act.
BINGO!!
-
The Bible says, "When a strong man, armed, guards his house, his goods are in order."
-
I'm just waiting for one of the volunteers checking the gun as safe, to touch a round of into their wall.
-
The Bible says, "When a strong man, armed, guards his house, his goods are in order."
The parable is found in four different forms:
* Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. (Matt 12:29)
* In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. (Mark 3:27)
* When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. (Luke 11:21-22)
* Jesus said, "It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands; then he will (be able to) ransack his house." (Thomas 35)
-
Guys, while I could have cut down the wod count a bit, nuance IS necessary. Its because there are twopoints.
1 blaming stuff rather than people is dumb
2 human nature is constant and nothing will change it
Thus, as those last Biblical quotes indicate: Buy a gun because folks will try to steal your stuff and hurt you.
See, I can do simple. ;)
FQ13
-
K I S S
-
The Bible says, "When a strong man, armed, guards his house, his goods are in order."
the bible also say an eye for an eye... and vengence is mine.
so which is it?
-
the bible also say an eye for an eye... and vengence is mine.
so which is it?
TAB, there is more to each of those quotes. The Bible says that you should AVOID an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, lest the whole world be blind and toothless. And the Bible says, "Vengeance is mine, SAYETH THE LORD." (not "sayeth the TAB")
-
my point was you can't take the bible word for word.
-
my point was you can't take the bible word for word.
Of course you can. You just need to know what the words mean.
And there is a huge difference between justice (eye for an eye) and revenge (vengeance).
-
Of course you can. You just need to know what the words mean.
And there is a huge difference between justice (eye for an eye) and revenge (vengeance).
And you need to take the words in context.
-
Here's your context:
Ezekial 25:17 The Righteous Man.
by Samuel L. Jackson, and Mr. 1911.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz80uV4t-W0&feature=related
-
Im sorry, what were we talkin bout? I cant get past Tabs Avatar.
-
Forgot to include this little tidbit.
Remember the wacky anti-gun white guy priest inc charge of the black St. Sabina's in Chicago, you know, the one who though a local gun store owner should be killed? Well, he is in charge of a Catholic Church too, so apparently the Catholic Church hasn't improved their recruitment guidelines yet with this mope in MD.
In the Middle Ages it was customary to blame inanimate objects if they rose up and did something really stupid like kill someone. Say, like a cart rolling over a human, they burned the cart - after a trial of course.
-
That's tight up there with dunking heretics.
If they drowned, and sank they were saved,....If they floated, and fought for air, they were of course wicked.....
A famous comedian once stated he was raised Catholic, and has the rest of his life to recover,...
Although the "penguins" at the schools, with the rulers across the knuckles,....etc,...
-
Forgot to include this little tidbit.
Remember the wacky anti-gun white guy priest inc charge of the black St. Sabina's in Chicago, you know, the one who though a local gun store owner should be killed? Well, he is in charge of a Catholic Church too, so apparently the Catholic Church hasn't improved their recruitment guidelines yet with this mope in MD.
In the Middle Ages it was customary to blame inanimate objects if they rose up and did something really stupid like kill someone. Say, like a cart rolling over a human, they burned the cart - after a trial of course.
Actually Path, you raise a very scary legal point. What you are refering to is called "The Law of Deodands" and was binding under Common Law into the 19th century. Essentially it held that inanimate objects could be held guilty of a tort (hold onto this word folks because it matters, since a tort requires "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The idea was that if my tree fell on your house you could sue, not me, but the tree.If it was found to be to blame than it was either burned (depriving me of wood) or given to you. The same as in the case of the cart that you mentioned. Either way I lose, but the standard of proof is lower, and the tree or cart cant testify and I am officially not a party to the case and have no standing to speak.
Now for the punch line. fast forward to 1970 and the passage of RICO asset forfeiture laws. Fast forward again to the 1980s and the war on drugs. Until this point, RICO's forfeiture provisions were basically a dead letter, rarely used.Then under Reagan's drug war they were deployed. The feds could sieze ALL assets they thought were the product of RICO activities and the burden of proof is on you to show they weren't. The 8th ammendment's prohibition against excessive fines didn't apply. Conviction wasn't even necessary. Why? Because it isn't YOU that is on trial, its your assets, and they have no rights. What was the basis for the Court upholding this? The "law of deodands", with several centuries of precedent in Common Law. So Eric, dont tell me nuance isn't important, because it at least let's you know HOW they get away with screwing us over. ;D
FQ13