Gun Control

[Insipiens]

I assume you still worship the trinity. Three gods ≠ one god therefore you are still practice idolatry

I am sure you know this and are just trying to wind up TDD but the doctrine of the Trinity does not hold that there are three gods.

[trickery dickery dock]

I am sure you know this and are just trying to wind up TDD but the doctrine of the Trinity does not hold that there are three gods.

No, he's probably just a moron.

[Fencer X and Y]

I am sure you know this and are just trying to wind up TDD but the doctrine of the Trinity does not hold that there are three gods.

I'm sorry Insipiens that post was not meant for you. Yes, I do know that Christians belive that the trinity is just one. (of course if it is just one then why give it three names and three different functions? but that's beside the point) Really, I was just trying out TDD's own arguing style. Pick an out of context idea or belief from the opposing camp then apply that out of context idea wrongly to try and prove a point that doesn't even matter. Since the only response I got out of him was

he's probably just a moron

I'd say that argumentative style works pretty well with him. Good to know

[I_luv_saber]

Hey, that thread is one of the most idiotic things fencing.net has ever seen. Congrats on being a part of it, n00b.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha, fencerchica wins cool points for using n00b amazingly well in a sentence!

!33t m!24ty h4x0r!


On a side note, how can it be that TDD is not on everyone's ignore list yet? Join the light! It makes the forums so much cleaner and less hateful! Then maybe we can recover slightly from this epic thread drift...

[Insipiens]

On a side note, how can it be that TDD is not on everyone's ignore list yet? Join the light! It makes the forums so much cleaner and less hateful! Then maybe we can recover slightly from this epic thread drift...

well you keep quoting him so I end up reading his posts anyway

[Beeblebrox]

It is not comparing apples and oranges both working on the Sabath and homosexuality are sins punishable by death in the old testament. Trickery suggests it is because One is a ceremonial sin and another is a moral sin. I have never heard such a distinction before and I wonder where he got it from. How are eating pork and working on Saturdays covered in the New Testament?

If we all commit sins then why are Christians so tough on the homosexuals? All they're doing is commiting sins just like anyone else. No one is perfect.

There is a reason it is called the New Testament. Trickery is actually correct in his distinction but that doesn't really matter. And yes, eating pork and the Sabbath are covered in the New Testament in a few places, in the gospels and in the letters of Paul to the churches.

You act as though Christians are ONLY tough on homosexuals. Just because we are forgiven doesn't mean we have a license to commit sin as we wish. I believe you will find the same Christians tough on abortion, adultery, etc. I am not against homosexuals, but I do find it offensive that they want everyone to accept them and their lifestyle as normal and even promote it. To me, that is equivalent to promoting adultery as a normal lifestyle. Both homosexuality and adultery are promoted in movies and television.

[I_luv_saber]

well you keep quoting him so I end up reading his posts anyway

Me? No, no, my friend, been on my list for awhile now!

After I stopped having fun poking the troll, it just became annoying so I opted out of it.

But I know what you mean... I keep seeing snippets that way and it only makes it more laughable when taken out from the whole post.

[telkanuru]

I believe you will find the same Christians having abortions, committing adultery, etc.

Fixed that for you.

The leaders of the Evangelical churches are way too busy being indited for tax fraud to save your soul.

[fatfencer]

[QUOTE=Fencer X and Y;782440]Okay, quiz time. Which of these is correct?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Does it matter? Well yes. In the first case it's pretty clear that the amendment is meant to apply to an individuals right. In the second case it is much more likely that the punctuation and especially the capitalization of the "People" implies that the Federal government would not be allowed to infringe on the right of states to keep and organized militia (now known as the national guard). So which one of these is correct? The national archives have both copies.

Hey folks!! Just wanted to interject a bit of Strunk and White, in the vain hope of getting the thread back on track.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

The primary purpose of a comma, in short, is to add pause in an attempt to clearly delineate meaning. It adds tempo to a phrase. Both versions of the above 2nd Amendment are the same. They have the same meaning. However, I submit that one version has TOO MANY COMMAS!! The result is a poorly written law from a grammar perspective.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the comma's usage is parenthetical. That is to say it doesnt add any meaning. Instead it merely separates added information which could be removed without changing the meaning or even the basic structure of the sentence. It's just added colorant or texture that the coma is separating

The 2nd example:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

is the parenthetical clause

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is the Main of the Sentence. You can test this by inserting "blah blah blah" for the parenthetical phrase.

Example One is much worse by far. This is a perfect example of comma overuse.

"A well regulated Militia(NOUN), being necessary to the security of a free State(parenthetical phrase), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms(there should be no comma here because its the main of the sentence and NOT a parenthetical clause/phrase), shall not be infringed."

I guess the founding fathers were more liberal in their use of commas. Regardless, they mean the same thing. One is, however, more poorly written than the other.

In example One, the first comma separates a subject from its verb. Poor grammar.

It should be written as follows, based on conventional grammar/punctuation rules.

Note the meaning doesn't change.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The capitalization of "People", or lack thereof, is what's troublesome. The lack of capitalization self refers back to militia. If capitalized, "the People" means the general populace. An example might be: "We the People".

Historically, people who were in the Militia brought their own guns. So the 2nd amendment makes an assumption that people own their own guns and would use them in defense of the country.

I think a very successful argument can be made that despite the National Guard being, Prima Facie, the State's Militia, it's really a draftable arm of the Federal Government. Many times the National Guard has been used to quell disturbances; also its been used to fight in wars authorized by said Federal Government.

The 'militia' during the Revolutionary war period was nothing so Federal. In fact, BRITAIN was the Federal overcoat we were trying to shed. 'Militia' is the general populace being called upon without having pre enlisted in a government organization. Just people with their own guns.

For the NRA/pro-gun movement to be correct in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

1) Militia must mean a generalized body of people, not previously drafted or enlisted, called to arms by the Governor or some Authoritative State Run Tribunal(hence well regulated), as a result of the Army/Police Force, etc. failing in its ability to protect the people.

2) People must have been capitalized in the original Constitution.

If not, rush to the stores and buy your ammo and guns boys!!!

I know not what course others may take. But, as for me....GIVE ME LIBERTY!!! You, Mr. Gubment Cheese Man, can keep Death for yourself.


Fatfencer

[Hauptman]

There is a reason it is called the New Testament. Trickery is actually correct in his distinction but that doesn't really matter. And yes, eating pork and the Sabbath are covered in the New Testament in a few places, in the gospels and in the letters of Paul to the churches.

You act as though Christians are ONLY tough on homosexuals. Just because we are forgiven doesn't mean we have a license to commit sin as we wish. I believe you will find the same Christians tough on abortion, adultery, etc. I am not against homosexuals, but I do find it offensive that they want everyone to accept them and their lifestyle as normal and even promote it. To me, that is equivalent to promoting adultery as a normal lifestyle. Both homosexuality and adultery are promoted in movies and television.

It's sad that you equate adultery with homosexuality.

Adultery involves deceit and the breaking of a sacred vow, and most importantly there is a victim.

There are no "victims" of homosexuality. Other than anatomical, there are no differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. And finally, homosexual relationships are quite normal. They exist in nature, and have existed from the beginning of human history.

As for the bible being a valid basis for modern living, do we really need to get into the arguments validating slavery, and the right to beat your wife?

Please, don't pick and choose what parts of the bible you are willing to live by, and not believe that you are being incredibly hypocritical as you do it.

[AndrewH]

For the NRA/pro-gun movement to be correct in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

1) Militia must mean a generalized body of people, not previously drafted or enlisted, called to arms by the Governor or some Authoritative State Run Tribunal(hence well regulated), as a result of the Army/Police Force, etc. failing in its ability to protect the people.

2) People must have been capitalized in the original Constitution.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[fatfencer]

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Where did you get this definition of militia? It's so poorly written even the commas don't help the reader!!! I assume of course that YOU DID NOT write this.

For the pro gun rights activist, B2 is what is germane. B1 IS the draftable arm of the Fed GOV that anti gun rights people point to and say THAT is the 'militia'. AS a result, the common citizen doesnt need guns or should be significantly limited in purchasing/using them.

If anti-gun folks are allowed to successfully make that argument you can piss your gun down the toilet! Gone like too many B-vitamins. I'm sure they've tried but I dunno how successful they are.

FF

PS: According to Wikipedia, repealing the Militia Act of 1903 might just give the anti-gun folks the ammo they need to take guns from the private citizen. If thats repealed then we, the people, are no longer a part of the 'militia' and could never be again, IMHO of course. However, the Heller edict seems to protect our rights for the time being.

[AndrewH]

Where did you get this definition of militia? It's so poorly written even the commas don't help the reader!!! I assume of course that YOU DID NOT write this.

Nope, it's part of the US Code. I got it from this source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

However, the Heller edict seems to protect our rights for the time being.

Yea, Heller was an important ruling. Of course, it didn't do DC residents a whole lot of good. It's still nearly impossible to buy a handgun and a nightmare of red tape to register it. DC also considers any semiauto handgun (i.e. anything that's not a revolver) to be a "machine gun" and therefore banned.

There was an interesting tidbit that came up during the debate before the Heller decision. The state of Montana has a clause in its statehood agreement that its citizens must be allowed the individual right to bear arms. If the federal government was to somehow criminalize firearm possession, would Montana have a right to secede?

[fatfencer]

Hauptman;784688

It's sad that you equate adultery with homosexuality.

Why? They are both sins from the biblical perspective. I note that Christianity is NOT the only religion that calls Christianity a sin. Most do. Last I checked, the JEWS(there I capitalized it for you!!) think its a sin too. The Torah says so. God's chosen people say so. Leviticus, I think. So don't forget if the Christians are prima facie wrong about their calling homosexuality a sin, then the JEWS(there I capitalized it AGAIN!) are equally wrong, despite being God's Chosen and having personally received God's Word that Homos are bad through Moses.

There are no "victims" of homosexuality.

I couldn't disagree with you more about this. A quick Google search says that there are MANY victims of Homosexuality.

http://gayuganda.blogspot.com/2008/0...any-other.html

is just one link I found. I would imagine that children who are abused by their classmates because they have two dads/moms doesn't qualify as 'victim' enough in your mind.

Other than anatomical, there are no differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. And finally, homosexual relationships are quite normal. They exist in nature, and have existed from the beginning of human history.

I guess that depends on your definition of NORMAL. Here is Merriam-Webster.com's take on the matter:

synonyms regular , normal , typical , natural mean being of the sort or kind that is expected as usual, ordinary, or average. regular stresses conformity to a rule, standard, or pattern <the club's regular monthly meeting>. normal implies lack of deviation from what has been discovered or established as the most usual or expected <normal behavior for a two-year-old>.

None of this applies to being Gay. It's not normal. Moreover your comment about existing in Nature equalling Normal is, well, FLAWED, FALLACIOUS, etc. The fact is there are things that occur in nature, but not FREQUENTLY. Scientist types call those ANOMALIES!!!! Being GAY is an ANOMALY! Note I didnt say that all gays were outliers, but they are statistical anomalies.

As for the bible being a valid basis for modern living, do we really need to get into the arguments validating slavery, and the right to beat your wife?

I don't know where it says in the New Testament you can beat your Wife. Must be a Pentateuch/Jew thing? Hauptman? Maybe you can shed some light on your culture. Seriously though. Most religions dont say its ok to beat your wife. My point is that Christianity is not alone in doctrinal abuse... including when an Atheist says that Christianity advocates something evil when it clearly doesn't. History is religion, all religions, misapplied.

The Bible alone should be weighed and measured. I assure you, you will not find it wanting. Educate yourself. Read Mere Christianity by Lewis.

Please, don't pick and choose what parts of the bible you are willing to live by, and not believe that you are being incredibly hypocritical as you do it.

So enlighten me. You think that an Atheist/Agnostic who, since he believes in nothing and thus is more successful at living with his 'faith', is somehow BETTER than a person who genuinely struggles to live according to a set of standards he has trouble adapting to?

If so, I find Atheism/Agnosticism the highest form of cowardly disingenuousness. Cowardly because Atheism, by your innuendo, has such low standards for what it hopes to achieve. Disingenuous because they use Science as a crutch to hide the fact that they can't even begin to fathom the emotional implications of a Supreme Deity that may actually care for them, despite their plain-faced idiocy. They'd rather go play D&D and eventually work for the Government developing biological weapons. No love for or quest for something beyond what they can see, touch, feel. There is a deep scarring irony here....many of History's greatest Scientists loved God very deeply, though they could not prove that He exists.

Meanwhile, I think you would be very hard pressed to find a passage in either testament that says its ok to beat your wife. You must be anti-Christian or something. Why? Guilt over picking Barabbas? The Catholics should never had acquiesed to saying that the Romans killed Jesus. Clearly, Pilate didn't. He allowed the JEWS, ( I capitalized it again) to choose. They chose poorly.

It's not to late to convert Hauptman, you gall-darned Pharisee!!!

Fatfencer

PS: You will also find nothing in the Bible that ADVOCATES slavery, though you will find historical examples of many things the Jews were doing that are now not considered... Kosher. Things like genocide, idol worship, slavery, etc.

PPS: Is it really so envogue to loathe Christianity? If so why doesnt that loathing have such a convenient name like 'anti-Semitism'?

[fatfencer]

AndrewH;784840]

Nope, it's part of the US Code. I got it from this source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Wow....I think we need to get them a copy of Strunk and White!!!!!

Yea, Heller was an important ruling. Of course, it didn't do DC residents a whole lot of good. It's still nearly impossible to buy a handgun and a nightmare of red tape to register it. DC also considers any semiauto handgun (i.e. anything that's not a revolver) to be a "machine gun" and therefore banned.

Sad for DC residents, but I'm not sure how a Glock 9 qualifies as a 'machine gun'. How they get away with this is beyond me. Well, I'm sure Frank, Pelosi, et al. have SOMETHING to do with it.

There was an interesting tidbit that came up during the debate before the Heller decision. The state of Montana has a clause in its statehood agreement that its citizens must be allowed the individual right to bear arms. If the federal government was to somehow criminalize firearm possession, would Montana have a right to secede?

Well technically yes, but secession isn't a matter of legality. It's entirely a matter of force. Apparently the victors aren't relegated to writing ONLY history. They have a legal dept. too!

FF

[erooMynohtnA]

Why? They are both sins from the biblical perspective. I note that Christianity is NOT the only religion that calls Christianity a sin. Most do. Last I checked, the JEWS(there I capitalized it for you!!) think its a sin too. The Torah says so. God's chosen people say so. Leviticus, I think.

That's the kind of Christianity and Judaism I can get behind.

[AndrewH]

Well technically yes, but secession isn't a matter of legality. It's entirely a matter of force. Apparently the victors aren't relegated to writing ONLY history. They have a legal dept. too!

But that raises all kinds of new issues. Can the US make any promises it wants to gain a state, then say it doesn't have to honor them because it has a bigger army? What would be the point of a statehood agreement, then?

[trickery dickery dock]

It's sad that you equate adultery with homosexuality.

Adultery involves deceit and the breaking of a sacred vow, and most importantly there is a victim.

As for the bible being a valid basis for modern living, do we really need to get into the arguments validating slavery, and the right to beat your wife?

Please, don't pick and choose what parts of the bible you are willing to live by, and not believe that you are being incredibly hypocritical as you do it.

He didn't equate it: God did. God also equated it with thievery and murder.

You are the one not picking and choosing Bible parts, not us.

[telkanuru]

So I assume you stone your neighbor to death for wearing a comfy cotton-polyester blend shirt?

[Hauptman]

Hauptman;784688



Why? They are both sins from the biblical perspective. I note that Christianity is NOT the only religion that calls Christianity a sin. Most do. Last I checked, the JEWS(there I capitalized it for you!!) think its a sin too. The Torah says so. God's chosen people say so. Leviticus, I think. So don't forget if the Christians are prima facie wrong about their calling homosexuality a sin, then the JEWS(there I capitalized it AGAIN!) are equally wrong, despite being God's Chosen and having personally received God's Word that Homos are bad through Moses.

I couldn't disagree with you more about this. A quick Google search says that there are MANY victims of Homosexuality.

http://gayuganda.blogspot.com/2008/0...any-other.html

is just one link I found. I would imagine that children who are abused by their classmates because they have two dads/moms doesn't qualify as 'victim' enough in your mind.



I guess that depends on your definition of NORMAL. Here is Merriam-Webster.com's take on the matter:

synonyms regular , normal , typical , natural mean being of the sort or kind that is expected as usual, ordinary, or average. regular stresses conformity to a rule, standard, or pattern <the club's regular monthly meeting>. normal implies lack of deviation from what has been discovered or established as the most usual or expected <normal behavior for a two-year-old>.

None of this applies to being Gay. It's not normal. Moreover your comment about existing in Nature equalling Normal is, well, FLAWED, FALLACIOUS, etc. The fact is there are things that occur in nature, but not FREQUENTLY. Scientist types call those ANOMALIES!!!! Being GAY is an ANOMALY! Note I didnt say that all gays were outliers, but they are statistical anomalies.



I don't know where it says in the New Testament you can beat your Wife. Must be a Pentateuch/Jew thing? Hauptman? Maybe you can shed some light on your culture. Seriously though. Most religions dont say its ok to beat your wife. My point is that Christianity is not alone in doctrinal abuse... including when an Atheist says that Christianity advocates something evil when it clearly doesn't. History is religion, all religions, misapplied.

The Bible alone should be weighed and measured. I assure you, you will not find it wanting. Educate yourself. Read Mere Christianity by Lewis.



So enlighten me. You think that an Atheist/Agnostic who, since he believes in nothing and thus is more successful at living with his 'faith', is somehow BETTER than a person who genuinely struggles to live according to a set of standards he has trouble adapting to?

If so, I find Atheism/Agnosticism the highest form of cowardly disingenuousness. Cowardly because Atheism, by your innuendo, has such low standards for what it hopes to achieve. Disingenuous because they use Science as a crutch to hide the fact that they can't even begin to fathom the emotional implications of a Supreme Deity that may actually care for them, despite their plain-faced idiocy. They'd rather go play D&D and eventually work for the Government developing biological weapons. No love for or quest for something beyond what they can see, touch, feel. There is a deep scarring irony here....many of History's greatest Scientists loved God very deeply, though they could not prove that He exists.

Meanwhile, I think you would be very hard pressed to find a passage in either testament that says its ok to beat your wife. You must be anti-Christian or something. Why? Guilt over picking Barabbas? The Catholics should never had acquiesed to saying that the Romans killed Jesus. Clearly, Pilate didn't. He allowed the JEWS, ( I capitalized it again) to choose. They chose poorly.

It's not to late to convert Hauptman, you gall-darned Pharisee!!!

Fatfencer

PS: You will also find nothing in the Bible that ADVOCATES slavery, though you will find historical examples of many things the Jews were doing that are now not considered... Kosher. Things like genocide, idol worship, slavery, etc.

PPS: Is it really so envogue to loathe Christianity? If so why doesnt that loathing have such a convenient name like 'anti-Semitism'?

You're wrong on so many levels, but I'll start with the fact that I never mentioned Christianity or any other religion for that matter, nor am I an atheist.

You throw up so many straw men, and make so many factual errors.... not to mention the ad hominem attacks...... Unless you'd like to have an intelligent, reasoned discussion (of which I don't think you are capable), I'm not going to waste my time. Crawl back under your bridge, troll.