1. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Cultural Settlement - Feudal Japan

    Arising from the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan, the clan of Akechi Mitsuhide has requested your help.
    As the Daimyo of his village, it is your task to lead the Feudal Japan to prosperity! Detailed information here!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Changelog 1.157

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.157 will take place on Wed, July 24, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Which do you support most and why? (Select 1 or more)

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Lucifer1904, Feb 14, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    But they did. Over and over again. Spear, sword, equal sides playing with equal weapons. The only time those with lesser weapons won, was when God was on their side, helping them fight to victory. But they still had to engage the enemy in battle, and it was never okay to surrender or give up without a fight.

    Please don't mock something you clearly have no understanding of.
     
    BlackSand the Sly likes this.
  2. DreadfulCadillac

    DreadfulCadillac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    ..this threead is funny xd
     
  3. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    A) What do your comments here that are clearly about how wars/battles are fought have to do with the original topic?
    B) The post you're responding to wasn't mocking anything, it was clearly a statement that the poster was not going to get into the middle of this debate. Ironic that you castigated him for his post when you clearly had no understanding of it.
     
    Shy Pete likes this.
  4. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Indeed I understood. He put up an image of Christ saying he was not going to touch the topic. If the poster wanted to speak for themselves, they could have quite easily. No, instead they wanted to dress their 'non-opinion' opinion in what they believe Someone much more Authoritative than they had to NOT say on the issue. He had plenty to say on the subject, both in His pre-incarnate and incarnate forms. And it wasn't just about war.

    Nope, David never had to defend himself against Saul, no one's sons ever rebelled to overthrow the kingdom. Certainly there was no murder, at least not enough to comment on. Oh, wait I seem to remember a thou shalt not along those lines.

    But don't worry, the Bible says you'll get your way. That's why Christians will be beheaded for their faith, not shot for it. Seems dead is dead either way.
     
  5. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    A) What "way" exactly are you talking about?
    B) Christians in America have been shot for their faith. In some of those mass shootings that so many seem to think are an acceptable side effect of little to no gun control.

    Incidentally, I am a Sunday School teacher in my spare time, so you may want to avoid trying to give me Bible lessons.
     
    DreadfulCadillac likes this.
  6. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    You see there is the Second Amendment to our Constitution here. It’s completely understandable that some people may want to change it, but they fail to do what the Constitution requires them to do in order to make the changes they want.

    So people start to argue about the scary weapons and other stuff that doesn’t make a bit of difference to what the Second Amendment means or why it was actually included in the Constitution.

    Here’s a hint ... As far what was legal for a private citizen to own as far as firearms and defense were concerned when the Second Amendment was included and ratified by the States ...

    ... A private citizen could own a fast sailing ship with up to eight cannons ... And those wouldn’t be for hunting, target shooting or home defense.

    .
     
    DreadfulCadillac likes this.
  7. DreadfulCadillac

    DreadfulCadillac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    wait when i grow up to be a adult i can buy a ship with cannons?thats what im doin HELL YEAH@!!!!!!!!!
     
  8. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Well, here's a hint for you: Well regulated militia. Look that up. Doesn't exist today in the sense that it did in the late 1700s. Every defense of gun rights begins and ends with ignoring this inconvenient phrase. (And it's laughable to consider how little use even an AR-15 would be if the government ever did decide to use the military against its citizens. Saying that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against the government flies in the face of logic both then and now.)
     
  9. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    Her’s a hint ... If you would like to change what the Constitution states and make it mean something it doesn’t say ... You have to do it the way the Constitution requires.

    Interpretation only becomes a problem when you try to make something mean something it doesn’t just to suit your desires.

    If you would like to suggest the Founding Fathers trusted the Federal Government more than the People, that would be wrong and contradictory to just about everything they wrote.
     
  10. DreadfulCadillac

    DreadfulCadillac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    completly agreed.
     
  11. DreadfulCadillac

    DreadfulCadillac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    am i correct?
     
  12. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    If you get a NICS number they stop asking you what you want your Assault Weapon for and just make sure you get in less than 30 minutes.

    I recommend it for people interested in purchasing firearms without the hassle and long waits.

    .
     
  13. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    I would just like the gun rights people to explain why they ignore what it states. "Well regulated militia". Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Nope, cause they don't exist now. We have full-time professional armed forces. Something the Founding Fathers would not have liked, since you pretend to care about that. So the Second Amendment is obsolete.
    Exactly. Like when the phrase "well regulated militia" is ignored or twisted to mean something other than it did back then.
    The Second Amendment says nothing about trusting the Federal Government or the People. If you want to go down that rabbit trail, there's a lot more to talk about than the Second Amendment among issues today. Like how a Senator can ignore his duty to consider a sitting President's Supreme Court nominee because he wants to wait almost a year to see if his party's candidate will win the next election. Like how that same Senator now promises to hold up every piece of legislation coming from the House if the other party wins the next Presidential election. I could go on for days, but it would be pointless because all of these actions further that party's agenda, which they consider more important than the good of the country.

    Incidentally, nothing any gun rights advocate says means anything until they explain why "well regulated militia" doesn't matter, but the rest is gospel.
     
  14. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    The part you choose to ignore is the part that indicates the Peoples’ rights to bare arms shall not be infringed ... Which doesn’t mean ... Except when the government decides to infringe on them.

    The Tenth Amendment identifies exactly who is in charge of governing anything the Federal Government hasn’t been given the authority to govern ... And if you feel militias should be regulated to greater extent ... that’s who you need to look towards in governance.

    Nothing a gun control advocate states means anything until they can comprehend simple English ... It’s not how you would like the Federal Government to do something it has been forbidden to do in the Constitution.


    Edit: And if you think the Constitution doesn’t matter ...

    Under Ferderal Law ... What’s the minimum age a person can own/possess an AR-15 and ammunition for it?


    .
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2019
  15. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Indeed they have, but both Revelation and Daniel are quite specific that during the great tribulation, which would better be translated as great persecution, it will be beheading. So, you'll get your gun control, up to and including full citizen disarmament. Soon.
    Ouch! Scripture says as a teacher, you'll be judged more harshly then the rest.

    I'm sure you do a great job repeating the Word, but I question how much you read it, and I very much question if you believe it. Sorry, but you certainly seem to have very little understanding of it. Given your expressed position on most social and political issues, you contend for evil, not for Good. What am I to make of that?

    I'm also not going to get into a pissing match with you over Biblical bone fides, I'll let the Word stand on His own. My reaction to your claim of expertise? "Oh, that's cute. I'm sure the kiddies love you." Also, if you knew you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have to resort to "My paper is bigger than your paper."

    I don't care if you're Franklin Graham, Joel Osteen or the Pope himself. Your claimed bone fides don't mean a thing to me, nor do they mean a thing to God. I will fight over Scripture with you any day, any way, and I promise you my friend, you will lose. I'd love to do it, with you or anyone. Have at it.
     
  16. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Militias don't exist in the sense that they did at the time the Constitution was written. What militias do exist now are actually civilian groups unrelated to any civic entity. And mostly not formed to protect anything except radical views on race and such. So they have no resemblance to what the Constitution is talking about.
    I'm sure you know that there are different views on exactly what the end times will look like, but whatever they look like they are irrelevant to this discussion.
    No kidding. Thanks for reminding me of such a basic scriptural truth...which I think about every single day.
    Question away. Your uninformed opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
    Exactly which social and political issue positions do I hold that "contend for evil"? And please be specific to my stated positions, not what you assume I support.
    Apparently you aren't informed enough to know that Sunday School doesn't always mean teaching children. Don't adults get together weekly to study the Word together in your church? Aside from listening to the sermon, of course. Where I come from, whether it's called Sunday School or Adult Bible Study or whatever, it's common practice to continue learning together throughout life.
    If you really understood Scripture, you wouldn't mention Franklin Graham and Joel Osteen as examples of understanding and following scripture. Franklin Graham has sold out his father's legacy for a political agenda, and Joel Osteen is simply the worst of the worst when it comes to televangelists.
    In any case, all of that is only relevant to the rabbit trail you started, not the main topic.
     
  17. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    Although a tad bit off-topic ... This reminds me of an encounter I had during the service.

    We a translator while stationed in the Middle East (great guy, true to cause and a thoughtful person). While kitting up to go out, a young soldier had stopped to pray. The translator hesitated and I could tell he was thinking about something seriously ... So after a few moments with his thoughts, I asked him what was on his mind.

    Paraphrasing, he said something like ...

    That soldier was praying to God, I pray to God for peace, my relatives on the other side of this conflict pray to God before they go and fight. But ... As far as I can tell, we are all praying to the same God. We all go into battle and we die on both sides just the same.

    Then he said he wasn’t quite sure if God really wanted to play a part in our inability to find better ways of settling conflict without tearing all his stuff up and killing his children. Either way ... We had a job to do ... And when doing that job, we were doing it for the soldier(s) next to us, our brothers and sisters in arms ... Not really for a Nation, Flag, God or anyone else for that matter.

    In hindsight, we could see some of the good we accomplished along the way, and owned the bad w

    .

    .
    If you are dissatisfied with the manner in which the State where you live is regulating your militias, or lack thereof ... Then that’s your own damn fault.

    On the other hand ... The State where I live amended our State Constitution to include the same “fundemental basic rights” to bare arms, the fact the government “shall not infringe” on those rights ... And left out any obligatory language that might confuse people like you as far as “militias” were concerned.

    Amending our State Constitution requires a vote by the People and not just the legislature ... And it passed with a 75% margin. It was challenged in the Supreme Court, and since it does not violate the US Constitution, it stands as is.

    I notice you didn’t take the time to look up the minimum age under Federal Law that a person can own/possess an AR-15 and ammunition for it. Or perhaps you couldn’t find it, because there isn’t one. Under Federal Law ... You can own/posses an AR-15 and ammunition for it the day you are born or become a Citizen of the United States ... Because it is a Constitutionally protected right, and those rights apply to everyone regardless of age.

    Believe me when I mention the Federal Government didn’t just forget to infringe upon that right. It’s the State’s responsibility to govern what the Federal Government has not been granted the power to govern. And ... I hope it doesn’t bother you much that in my State, we don’t lay awake at night worrying about what nit-wits elsewhere want.

    They still teach freedom and liberty in our schools, even if it is subjegated to State History classes, due to Federal meddling in Public Education.

    .
     
  18. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    I didn't respond to that because I already knew the answer...and also that you only asked it to try to further your argument, even though nitpicking like that is irrelevant to the larger question. I hope you sleep well after each and every mass shooting with one or more of these guns. I know I do, but that's because I know I'm not part of the problem. You probably do, too, I realize, but only because you stay willfully ignorant of your part in it.
     
  19. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    Well ... I don’t know about you but I own a plethora of legal firearms and none of them have, nor will be, involved in a mass school shooting or whatever keeps you awake at night.

    Oh ... It’s not nit-picking, you just miss the most basic of considerations ... I’m am not, and not required to by law, asking your permission nor concerned with your desires.

    I you have concerns or a problem with the US Constitution, then change it, because there is a process for doing so defined therein(the US Constitution allows for that). If you want more control over firearms, then petition your State to legislate what you think is necessary (the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for that).

    But ... Stop making crud up to pretend that your efforts are supported in regards to the Federal Government infringing on the rights of citizens baring firearms. You can at least attempt to do what is possible within the confines of the enumerated powers actually granted to the State and Federal Governments.

    .
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2019
    RazorbackPirate likes this.
  20. Praetorius

    Praetorius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Worlds:
    Fel Dranghyr, Parkog

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.