SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Gun control debate and what may lay ahead?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: mguldner

Hi mgulder thankyou so much I did not even catch what was written untill you responded

you answered correctly ///Fun fact the civil war wasn't started because of slavery but "State's Rights" Slavery was really secondary to this one issue.///



 2013/1/10 12:15Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2006
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Very true statement about the primary reason for the civil war.

On a related note, there is a really interesting article in World Net Daily today dealing with Sheriffs departments standing up against federal agents in matters relating to the citizenry of their respective counties.


_________________
Travis

 2013/1/10 12:29Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

hi hoohoou

I wrote "If only the North would have allowed the south to succeed more American Lives would have been spared than what any other War Cost and the Blue States could have had their socialism and the red states could have preserved their freedom."

hoohoou wrote ///Please tell me that you are being sarcastic, please. Please tell me you are not placing "american" lives above the lives of countless men and woman, who were created by God, that would have been subject to slavery.///

What the Civil War did was increase the Federal governments power ,It was a war that cost more American lives than any other war in history and increased racism through out the south for many years to come. The outcome was that the black slaves had no education no skills no jobs, no where to go but the citys where they where pushed to the slums of the city creating the Black ghetto which is still today very difficult for them to escape had the North just allowed the South to succeed the slaves would have through time been educated and integrated into society,

The war was not about Slavery, Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address proves this, He supported the Corwin amendment to the Constitution, The south was fed up with the federal government over stepping their boundries they wanted to succeed regardless of the slave issue

 2013/1/10 12:37Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

hi hoohoou

I wrote "If only the North would have allowed the south to succeed more American Lives would have been spared than what any other War Cost and the Blue States could have had their socialism and the red states could have preserved their freedom."

hoohoou wrote ///Please tell me that you are being sarcastic, please. Please tell me you are not placing "american" lives above the lives of countless men and woman, who were created by God, that would have been subject to slavery.///

What the Civil War did was increase the Federal governments power ,It was a war that cost more American lives than any other war in history and increased racism through out the south for many years to come. The outcome was that the black slaves had no education no skills no jobs, no where to go but the citys where they where pushed to the slums of the city creating the Black ghetto which is still today very difficult for them to escape had the North just allowed the South to succeed the slaves would have through time been educated and integrated into society,

The war was not about Slavery, Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address proves this, He supported the Corwin amendment to the Constitution, The south was fed up with the federal government over stepping their boundries they wanted to succeed regardless of the slave issue

 2013/1/10 12:37Profile
SkepticGuy
Member



Joined: 2012/8/8
Posts: 259


 Re:

Quote:
had the North just allowed the South to succeed the slaves would have through time been educated and integrated into society



speculative at best! have u been learning history at the feet of HK Edgerton or 'sons of confederate vets'? this is the type of lies that are pushed by the modern kkk and neo-nazi groups like storm-front. the civil war had everything to do w/ slavery. have u never heard of the 'border-wars' and the fights over 'free-state' and 'slave-state' that existed 20 yrs b4 the war? have u never heard of john brown? hariette tubman? maybe fredrick douglas? lincoln made it absolutely about slavery in 1863 w/ the signing of the amancipation proclamation, but it had everything to do w/ slavery b4 that.

i can not believe sum1 would come to a website like sermonindex and propogate these revisionist history lies used by hate groups like the kkk and storm-front. its almost as if u pasted word for word from those groups. shameful.

yes the war was about states rights, but the right the states were concerned with was SALVERY. there would not have ever been a war if there had not been slavery.

 2013/1/10 13:05Profile
hoohoou
Member



Joined: 2009/12/11
Posts: 212
Texas

 Re:

"The war was not about Slavery, Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address proves this, He supported the Corwin amendment to the Constitution, The south was fed up with the federal government over stepping their boundries they wanted to succeed regardless of the slave issue"

The reason is far less important than the result. I would gladly trade a portion of my freedom so that others could attain a vast amount more. And lets not forget that our Faith grew under some of the most oppressive governments the world has known and did so at a much faster rate than it does here in America. God is not boxed in by freedom of religion, speech or the right to bear arms. To in anyway place a form of government, no matter how good, in front of the value of a people is to disregard much of what Christ spoke of and how He lived. To say that slaves would have been better off being slaves is, besides being ridiculous, unknowable. What has hurt the descendants of slaves more than the overt racism of the southern states is the quiet racism of welfare. I'm sure we would agree on that point.


_________________
Matt Smith

 2013/1/10 13:06Profile
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re:

Proudpapa wrote: "The second amendment was not implemented so as to protect the right to hunt it was implemented so as to keep the Government accountable , and the ability for the people to succeed from a corrupt government".

Ah, you mean like what is happening in Syria? That's looking good!


_________________
Dave

 2013/1/10 13:06Profile
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3317
Texas

 Re:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.


_________________
Bill

 2013/1/10 13:07Profile
hoohoou
Member



Joined: 2009/12/11
Posts: 212
Texas

 Re:

"Fun fact the civil war wasn't started because of slavery but "State's Rights" Slavery was really secondary to this one issue."

While that may be true but debatable, the reason is far less important than the outcome. Also, it was the state's rights issue it was because of slavery.


_________________
Matt Smith

 2013/1/10 13:09Profile
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re:

Mr Bill,

What rights are you talking about losing? As I understand it, it is not about taking away the right to bear arms, but defining what arms are reasonable to bear. Assault weapons are not reasonable to most.

Do you think that citizens should have a right to bear any armament including misiles, bombs etc? If not then you are defining an interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If yes, then I'll leave you to the consequences.


_________________
Dave

 2013/1/10 13:14Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy