In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
This is all the Inheritance I can give to my dear Family.The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed. From PATRICK HENRY'S last will and testament,Nov.20,1798
God give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for-because unless we stand for something,we shall fall for anything. Prayers offered by the chaplin,rev.Peter Marshall,This was offered in the SENATE at the OPENING OF THE SESSION,April 18,1947
My point, actually, was to show how the people most anxious to ban guns use totally bogus "exuses" for doing so---excuses which, in point of fact, don't square with their professed beliefs on other topics. I apologize for accidentally steering the discussion off the road this way. But I most certainly WILL take issue with Spectre when he/she says I'm applying "fallacy-laden logic". There IS no logical fallacy in pointing out the hypocrisy of others, unless you're trying to misapply the concept of the "ad hominem" argument. I simply find no merit in the arguments of the anti-firearm crowd when they support stances on issues whose results would be diametrically opposed, is all. More gun laws, more restrictions so fewer children are harmed by guns; then...What? fewer restrictions on abortion so there's fewer kids to be HARMED by guns? Is that how it's supposed to work?
I hardly think that making such an observation qualifies as a "fallacy-laden sort of logic", or marks me as a "narrow-minded and ignorant" gun-owner. I'm smart enough to see through alot of the smoke-and-mirrors arguments the anti-firearms people make, so I can't be TOO much of a moron, regardless of what Spectre may feel on that particular point.
The real issue at hand is this: The transparently bull-crap "for the children" line the Liberals seem to spout on an ongoing basis is belied by their actions on OTHER child-related matters, which is a rather clear indication that "child safety" ISN'T the real concern for all their anti-gun shenanigans. If not that, then what could their TRUE motive (or motives) be?
First, hear the words. Then examine the deeds.
And again, I apologize for setting off such an off-topic firestorm.
trstone, I too need to apologize and admitidly spectre has said this should be on a seperate forum and or thread.However this is how the gunbroker thing goes,from my experiance here this is not new at all.Any time the founders,the constitution etc. comes up this is the correct forum,if not the best thread.The founders were for the most part by and large CHRISTIAN.The thought that they would have wriiten a work that would allow the killing of the unborn,Whatever the age and then tie up firearms FOR the sake of the children is a joke....I agree tr...You just cannot get there from the founders,framers and the constitution of our great country.
Longhunter: The "in god we trust" business started in the 50's in response to communism. It somehow became an accepted fact that Communists were Atheists and since Communists were "evil"; atheists must be evil. And again, I believe your assertion that the "majority of the founding fathers" were christains is unsubstantiated. But perhaps we will simply have to disagree on this matter. We are, after all, more or less on the same side right?
trstone: The fallacy of logic lies in your reasoning. In order for the professed belief in 'saving children' to exist in conflict with an acceptance of, or support of, abortion then you have to prove that the fetus in question qualifies as a child (read: human).
Since, in most if not all cases of abortion *I'm hesitant to include third-trimester abortions* it is impossible to prove that the tissue growth qualifies as a 'human'; it is like-wise impossible to equate abortion with killing children. Hence, it is a fallacy; 'begging the question' if memory serves.
And like I said jpwolf; you can prove EITHER side with quotes. The bottom line is that the constitution reads "freedom of religion" and not "freedom of christian denomination"; so I would think that using any religion for the purposes of dictating federal law or social policy would be inappropriate.
This is the old, tiresome semantic debate about when the fetus "officially" becomes a "human being", and as such constitutes nothing more than a philosophical dodge. ENOUGH. This has gone wildly off-topic for too long now. If it makes you happy to call it a "logical fallacy", then fine. Substitute words for reality, then argue about the words all you like.
Originally posted by spectre7
Wow, what to address first:
Longhunter: The "in god we trust" business started in the 50's in response to communism. It somehow became an accepted fact that Communists were Atheists and since Communists were "evil"; atheists must be evil. And again, I believe your assertion that the "majority of the founding fathers" were christains is unsubstantiated. But perhaps we will simply have to disagree on this matter. We are, after all, more or less on the same side right?
Oh yes we are for the most part.....however,I take my history VERY serioudly,as my family is from the founders region and indeed I've many that fought in the revolution itself.My daughters are able to join the "Daughters of the American Revolution"if they wish.I had a direct decendant die on the deck of John Paul Jones ship,the "Bohomme Richard"fighting for our cause.Indeed quite a few of the original signers were relations,and I go Directly back to John Alden,and Priscilla Mullins at plimouth plantation.So...I guess what I am saying is I have done A LOT of research,read letters etc.etc.They were christians.....Allmost all and as such in that day and time had there FAITH in EVERY aspect of their lives.Nuff said,I do disagree in the strongest terms possible,but do so respectfully.....L.H.
Next thing you know, we'll all be debating on exactly what "infringed" means....
Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
To everyone who strongly is against abortation. After intercourse when an egg is fertilized with the sperm ( I think it called a Zoyogte) who here would risk their life, or the life of a loved one, to save that collection of cells that some day might grow into a human? Come on, I really want to know.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
I know I shouldn't answer a question with a question so, apologies, but, tr, are you trying to insinuate that that first stage of life has less right to live than you or I, simply because it is only a few cells? This makes utterly no sense to me. A new human life needs to be conceived and born in an instant in order to qualify for right to self defense status?
I am a man. If I were a woman, yes I would risk my life to protect that child as much as my own born children, because they are mine, and they are in my custody, and I believe God Will be done. That is a responsibility many of us overlook... the possibility that it may go bad. Only when they told me it didn't make it would I concede and have it done.
Although my wife can no longer have children, she feels the exact same way. And I love her for that among all the other things.
Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
jpwolf: as I pose the question to you if you would risk you life to save the union of sperm and egg that took place within your wife/girlfriend within one to two days ago. I am looking for a yes or no answer and then of course if the responder feels like it, an explanation of the answer.
gunphreak: Most of us here are men but I still pose the same question to men. I can't think of a good example of how it could happen, but no matter the question is in theory only. See my response to jpwolf and tell me if you would risk your life for the one or few cells that were a start of your wife's pregnency? I am looking for a yes or not answer and we can all talk in detail about that if you wish after you answer. Again, I am not trying to put anyone of the spot or win an argument. I am just trying to understand the situation a little better.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
To everyone who strongly is against abortation. After intercourse when an egg is fertilized with the sperm ( I think it called a Zoyogte) who here would risk their life, or the life of a loved one, to save that collection of cells that some day might grow into a human? Come on, I really want to know.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
I've KNOWN woman that have done just that,and lost.....however the baby survived.She gave her life for her child.A Mothers love,I am supposed to take that away from her?Further in the bible I believe it says something like...for there is NO greater gift than to give ones life for another.....Also; And the greatist gift of all is LOVE. Would'nt YOU give your life for a child????
longhunter, my friend. Please stop dancing around my question. Would YOU risk your life, if somehow needed, to save the one day old union of sperm and egg that your wife has?
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
You're question is invalid, since, of course, there is no way to know that it has occurred until some time has past. In any event, once it is known, that the woman is pregnant, then yes, of course. If it could be known at the instant it takes place, then again, yes, of course. Nothing changes. God's work of "knitting together" of a human life has begun, and a soul is born in that instant.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
longhunter, my friend. Please stop dancing around my question. Would YOU risk your life, if somehow needed, to save the one day old union of sperm and egg that your wife has?
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
OK fox...In order to answer this some *-u-mptions need to b made Yes?First that I could Possibly know that my wife was pregnant with a 1 day old GROWING baby.You see I believe that when they are seperate they are indeed,sperm and egg.Once joined however,I believe that "LIFE " has been created.The resulting life is a growing baby...Period.Yes I would fox,And unless I truely misread you ,so would you....I would for your wife if I could possibly know the same.It is my duty,it is biblicly correct ,it is the moral thing to do,it is the "NATURAL" thing to do.I am a protector of Gods children...they are ALL his,we have them but a short while.My reward would be in the afterlife....I would die to save your children,however old they were or were not....I would hope you and the rest would do the same for me.It isn't about you and me...Its ALL about the children.....I did not ALWAYS believe it this way,this clearly...it has taken time,research,heart/self searches,and many discusions with my inner self and my creator.I hope this answers your question.....L.H.
Ok, wolf and hunter, thanks for giving me the answer to my question. Took awhile, but you both came through for me. But unfortuntely for you both, here is another one (he he).
If a loved one was on life support in a vegatable state unlikely to ever recover, and that loved one needed you to donate a kidney or else that loved one would die, would you do it? And with the understanding that the operation on you would risk your life.(Now come on guys, give me a yes or no, THEN you can start picking my question apart)
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
You aren't by chance a teacher are you?/ This one is takin some thought as I wish to answer with a yes or no...oops,I allready messed up..Do I get a grade on this quiz?[:D] I will get back to ya
Vegetable state? First of all, assisted suicide is wrong. It seems merciful, but I have an option I don't think anyone has even considered yet.
Why not allow nature to take its course? The longer a man sits a vegetable, the longer that man's soul has been denied into heaven (or hell). And that goes for chronic sufferers of other ailments.... quit with the treatment. Let nature take its course.
However, if someone disrespected my wishes by keeping me bound to the flesh and denied entrance into heaven, and someone I loved needed a part of me to survive, then absolutely. By all means!!!
Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
No.......After much thought and some real inner thinking,I would have to say no.Now there!I can pick this dang question apart now....You see I have children at home,to risk my life to MAYBE save another that MOST likely would not survive??Now,IF there was actually a chance that I might do good I would.You see fox,we would ask our creator and if he told me to lay my life down.I hope that the strength would never fail me to do so.I like Gunfreaks look at this question as well.Any of these thoretical questions have so variables that I do not think they can be HONESTLY answered without all the other info in place.Its a question like would YOU run into a burning building to save a child?Of course,and without much thought or any of personal safety.There is a good chance you may not survive but for the child you would do it anyway.Of course there also isn't much time to think about it...that helps...
OK, alll three of you guys were good enough to go along with my little "questions" excerise and I apprericate you all for it. Now it is only fair to put myself on the spot by answering my own question.
I would not risk my life to save a few cells that started dividing from the union of sperm and egg with my wife/girlfriend (wife in my case). For to do so would be misplaced idealism. I would be selfish to have risked and lost my life for those few cells which are not even close to being a baby yet. Because I have a wife, a young daughter, a grandson, a sister and a mother whom to varying degrees depend on me and have an emotional attachment to me. In a way they would suffer a more noticable loss than I would if I risk and lost my life.
The same story for the loved one in a vegatable state. My point is that whether fair or not, different forms of life or living sometimes have different values. I cannot assign the same value to each and every form of life, of the form life takes at the beginning and the end of life. And I don't mean just old and at the end of life. I mean sick or injured and almost gone from this world already. OK, go ahead and kick my butt on this one.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
fox,This is where your lack of faith comes shining thru....You see if you gave your life for that few cells(your words,not mine)You would be giving the greatest gift you can give.If you believed ,then you would understand that God would provide,take care of your families needs,not wants or desires but needs.When that few cells,starts it is the Start of human life isn't it?Look up and see what the definition of life is...Cells live buddy,when the combined they "started" a human life and god assigned a "soul" to that life.A decision of this magnitude would be hard ,faith would make it easier..I would still lay down my life for your wifes and her "new growing life".It is my place in life as the protector of the species so to speak.Oh and tho we differ in opinion,that is Ok,Perhaps one day you may get me to "believe"in the NRA.....and I you in a God ....who knows...You place a value on your life higher than certain others...I submit to you that if we ALL thought that way....well we would'nt be speaking English right now would we?In a faithful situation you would or should be able to know that IF you gave your life the rest of us would take care of your family.Period,without question,it would just be done.Alas the world is NOT as it should be......L.H.
Longhunter; thanks for the thoughful come-back. But yeah, we don't agree. Nothing wrong with that. Thousands of good American soldiers gave their lives so people like us could have the freedom to voice our opinion and disagree.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Originally posted by tr fox
Longhunter; thanks for the thoughful come-back. But yeah, we don't agree. Nothing wrong with that. Thousands of good American soldiers gave their lives so people like us could have the freedom to voice our opinion and disagree.
Absolutly....So we disagree...doesn't bother me...well much[;)]Still I got time ,I hope that thru our conversing we ALL learn something,about ourselves and others...Thats what its all about right?L.H.
Hey whats up everyone, Im new here so dog on what I say too much. First of all we all know that the Patriot Act is a great act to help the defense of our counry against foreign elements. But where does "in the hands of an un-corrupt government" come in in the definition? If this is such an amazing democracy we live in, where was that box on my last ballot? Come to think of it, why am I getting almost a quarter a quarter of my paycheck sent to someone sitting in an office(congressmen) completely oblivious to any glaring problems all of us see every day? If only we all had enough money to buy a seat in congress somewhere. I dont want to ramble on forever with my first post but I think its unusual that our great democracy lets us make our own laws but I have yet to see a yes or no on a ballot box regarding just about every new law I need to follow.
"We must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of fear we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men" - author unknown
Alright, I know we all figured this thread to be finished, but I would like to add one more item of input. It is a question. What is the difference between killing a baby a day after it is born, or the day before it is born? Okay,then, two days after it is born, or two days before it is born? Following this line of reason to it's logical conclusion would be nine months/nine months. So, at what point does one arbitrarily make the leap that at "x" number of days before birth, it's still okay to kill the baby, but at "x+1" it is no longer okay? It can't be done. Therefore, I contend that since this can not be done, then it is never okay. Agree/disagree?
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Alright, I know we all figured this thread to be finishied, but I would like to add one moreitem of input. It is a question. What is the difference between killing a baby a day after it is born, or the day before it is born? Okay,then, two days after it is born, or two days before it is born? Following this line of reason to it's logical conclusion would be nine months/nine months. So, at what point does one arbitrarily make the leap that at "x" number of days before birth, it's still okay to kill the baby, but at "x+1" it is no longer okay? It can't be done. Therefore, I contend that since this can not be done, then it is never okay. Agree/disagree?
Thank you, LH. :-)
I would also like to add that I'm very happy that my parents did not agree with legal or illegal abortion! Otherwise......
Now consider this....If one is to consider this as a viable option for birth control, (which of course, it was argued by those who wanted it legalized that it would never be used for this purpose) then you better be ready and able to live with the fact that you have committed a murder, but not just any kind of murder, murder on a defenseless, helpless, and the only kind of "truly" innocent human being that there is. This is barbarity at it's worst...infantacide.
Seems like adoption would be the better alternative.
VALUE HUMAN LIFE IN IT'S ONLY TRULY INNOCENT FORM.
WOW! I thought I accidently clicked on a Sally Strothers web site for a minute there....
About this waiting period. I have never understood the rational behind this 14, 30, 60, and even 90 day wait. A cooling off period they say. If you were going to commit an illegal act with a gun, do they really think you would go to the government, show your I.D., get a permit, go to a FFL, fill out the mountain of paperwork, then use that gun in a crime, with that long paper trail. Give me a break! When is the last time a hard core criminal was arrested because they were able to follow the paperwork back to when HE bought the gun. In reality, the gun is traced back to a victim of a home break-in. Makes no sense to me.
As for the law abiding citizens.....what's going on during the rest of the 13 days of the waiting period. Most, if not all States, have upgraded to the Live Scan fingerprint computers that are equipped with the AVIS technology. This machine can take your prints and complete a thorough criminal background in way less than an hour. You can change your name, hair color, S.S.#, whatever, but the machine will catch those prints. That's nation wide too. Even without this, with todays computer tech. a complete background based on a person's I.D. info. can be done in less time than it takes to load a hi-cap mag. But, we all know the answer, they didn't build Rome in a day, and we won't lose our guns in a day either.
I guess I'm lucky. I live in very rural county with a lot of old time values. When I need another permit, I just stop by and see the Hi-Sheriff himself. Our last meting went something like this:
Me- Hey Sheriff, you busy?
Sheriff- Nope, come on in, whatch you need?
Me- Another permit Sheriff
Sheriff- Damn son, you starting your own compound.
Me- Well, you just never know Sheriff.
Sheriff- (as he is signing the permit) Well, at least if all hell breaks loose I'll know where to come.
Me- Thanks Sheriff, see ya next time.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Thank you, LH. :-)
I would also like to add that I'm very happy that my parents did not agree with legal or illegal abortion! Otherwise......
Now consider this....If one is to consider this as a viable option for birth control, (which of course, it was argued by those who wanted it legalized that it would never be used for this purpose) then you better be ready and able to live with the fact that you have committed a murder, but not just any kind of murder, murder on a defenseless, helpless, and the only kind of "truly" innocent human being that there is. This is barbarity at it's worst...infantacide.
Seems like adoption would be the better alternative.
VALUE HUMAN LIFE IN IT'S ONLY TRULY INNOCENT FORM.
And it sure isn't God hurting these growing babies is it? No it is Man...I do not understand how when some complain on how God is cruel because of babies suffering,they can turn round and say this is OK? Another GREAT post! Thank You, L.H.
if i may but waiting periods and permits to carry should be for the guys the make us day to day good guys go through hoops [:(!][:(!][:(!] whos with me[?] everyman and woman bomard your sentors and end this maddnes. make those who force us legally to jumps through these pointless hoops for the
right
to bear arms. this country was made to trust honest hard working people not the lawyers and lawbreakers who run our country. what do you say end the waiting period and permit to carry for us and throw the yolk on the one who do crimes and get away with it. they lost their right to own firearms when they broke the law our laws. like they say you do the crime you pay the time. it's time the pay for the crime.
Comments
God give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for-because unless we stand for something,we shall fall for anything. Prayers offered by the chaplin,rev.Peter Marshall,This was offered in the SENATE at the OPENING OF THE SESSION,April 18,1947
I hardly think that making such an observation qualifies as a "fallacy-laden sort of logic", or marks me as a "narrow-minded and ignorant" gun-owner. I'm smart enough to see through alot of the smoke-and-mirrors arguments the anti-firearms people make, so I can't be TOO much of a moron, regardless of what Spectre may feel on that particular point.
The real issue at hand is this: The transparently bull-crap "for the children" line the Liberals seem to spout on an ongoing basis is belied by their actions on OTHER child-related matters, which is a rather clear indication that "child safety" ISN'T the real concern for all their anti-gun shenanigans. If not that, then what could their TRUE motive (or motives) be?
First, hear the words. Then examine the deeds.
And again, I apologize for setting off such an off-topic firestorm.
Longhunter: The "in god we trust" business started in the 50's in response to communism. It somehow became an accepted fact that Communists were Atheists and since Communists were "evil"; atheists must be evil. And again, I believe your assertion that the "majority of the founding fathers" were christains is unsubstantiated. But perhaps we will simply have to disagree on this matter. We are, after all, more or less on the same side right?
trstone: The fallacy of logic lies in your reasoning. In order for the professed belief in 'saving children' to exist in conflict with an acceptance of, or support of, abortion then you have to prove that the fetus in question qualifies as a child (read: human).
Since, in most if not all cases of abortion *I'm hesitant to include third-trimester abortions* it is impossible to prove that the tissue growth qualifies as a 'human'; it is like-wise impossible to equate abortion with killing children. Hence, it is a fallacy; 'begging the question' if memory serves.
And like I said jpwolf; you can prove EITHER side with quotes. The bottom line is that the constitution reads "freedom of religion" and not "freedom of christian denomination"; so I would think that using any religion for the purposes of dictating federal law or social policy would be inappropriate.
Typos and profanity, oh my! http://www.funky-town.org
Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Although my wife can no longer have children, she feels the exact same way. And I love her for that among all the other things.
Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
gunphreak: Most of us here are men but I still pose the same question to men. I can't think of a good example of how it could happen, but no matter the question is in theory only. See my response to jpwolf and tell me if you would risk your life for the one or few cells that were a start of your wife's pregnency? I am looking for a yes or not answer and we can all talk in detail about that if you wish after you answer. Again, I am not trying to put anyone of the spot or win an argument. I am just trying to understand the situation a little better.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
To everyone who strongly is against abortation. After intercourse when an egg is fertilized with the sperm ( I think it called a Zoyogte) who here would risk their life, or the life of a loved one, to save that collection of cells that some day might grow into a human? Come on, I really want to know.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
I've KNOWN woman that have done just that,and lost.....however the baby survived.She gave her life for her child.A Mothers love,I am supposed to take that away from her?Further in the bible I believe it says something like...for there is NO greater gift than to give ones life for another.....Also; And the greatist gift of all is LOVE. Would'nt YOU give your life for a child????
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
longhunter, my friend. Please stop dancing around my question. Would YOU risk your life, if somehow needed, to save the one day old union of sperm and egg that your wife has?
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
OK fox...In order to answer this some *-u-mptions need to b made Yes?First that I could Possibly know that my wife was pregnant with a 1 day old GROWING baby.You see I believe that when they are seperate they are indeed,sperm and egg.Once joined however,I believe that "LIFE " has been created.The resulting life is a growing baby...Period.Yes I would fox,And unless I truely misread you ,so would you....I would for your wife if I could possibly know the same.It is my duty,it is biblicly correct ,it is the moral thing to do,it is the "NATURAL" thing to do.I am a protector of Gods children...they are ALL his,we have them but a short while.My reward would be in the afterlife....I would die to save your children,however old they were or were not....I would hope you and the rest would do the same for me.It isn't about you and me...Its ALL about the children.....I did not ALWAYS believe it this way,this clearly...it has taken time,research,heart/self searches,and many discusions with my inner self and my creator.I hope this answers your question.....L.H.
The turn that this thread has taken is very interesting......
This is so.....happens a loy here at GB don't it?
If a loved one was on life support in a vegatable state unlikely to ever recover, and that loved one needed you to donate a kidney or else that loved one would die, would you do it? And with the understanding that the operation on you would risk your life.(Now come on guys, give me a yes or no, THEN you can start picking my question apart)
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Why not allow nature to take its course? The longer a man sits a vegetable, the longer that man's soul has been denied into heaven (or hell). And that goes for chronic sufferers of other ailments.... quit with the treatment. Let nature take its course.
However, if someone disrespected my wishes by keeping me bound to the flesh and denied entrance into heaven, and someone I loved needed a part of me to survive, then absolutely. By all means!!!
Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
I would not risk my life to save a few cells that started dividing from the union of sperm and egg with my wife/girlfriend (wife in my case). For to do so would be misplaced idealism. I would be selfish to have risked and lost my life for those few cells which are not even close to being a baby yet. Because I have a wife, a young daughter, a grandson, a sister and a mother whom to varying degrees depend on me and have an emotional attachment to me. In a way they would suffer a more noticable loss than I would if I risk and lost my life.
The same story for the loved one in a vegatable state. My point is that whether fair or not, different forms of life or living sometimes have different values. I cannot assign the same value to each and every form of life, of the form life takes at the beginning and the end of life. And I don't mean just old and at the end of life. I mean sick or injured and almost gone from this world already. OK, go ahead and kick my butt on this one.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
"We must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of fear we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men" - author unknown
Alright, I know we all figured this thread to be finishied, but I would like to add one moreitem of input. It is a question. What is the difference between killing a baby a day after it is born, or the day before it is born? Okay,then, two days after it is born, or two days before it is born? Following this line of reason to it's logical conclusion would be nine months/nine months. So, at what point does one arbitrarily make the leap that at "x" number of days before birth, it's still okay to kill the baby, but at "x+1" it is no longer okay? It can't be done. Therefore, I contend that since this can not be done, then it is never okay. Agree/disagree?
I agree! L.H.
I would also like to add that I'm very happy that my parents did not agree with legal or illegal abortion! Otherwise......
Now consider this....If one is to consider this as a viable option for birth control, (which of course, it was argued by those who wanted it legalized that it would never be used for this purpose) then you better be ready and able to live with the fact that you have committed a murder, but not just any kind of murder, murder on a defenseless, helpless, and the only kind of "truly" innocent human being that there is. This is barbarity at it's worst...infantacide.
Seems like adoption would be the better alternative.
VALUE HUMAN LIFE IN IT'S ONLY TRULY INNOCENT FORM.
About this waiting period. I have never understood the rational behind this 14, 30, 60, and even 90 day wait. A cooling off period they say. If you were going to commit an illegal act with a gun, do they really think you would go to the government, show your I.D., get a permit, go to a FFL, fill out the mountain of paperwork, then use that gun in a crime, with that long paper trail. Give me a break! When is the last time a hard core criminal was arrested because they were able to follow the paperwork back to when HE bought the gun. In reality, the gun is traced back to a victim of a home break-in. Makes no sense to me.
As for the law abiding citizens.....what's going on during the rest of the 13 days of the waiting period. Most, if not all States, have upgraded to the Live Scan fingerprint computers that are equipped with the AVIS technology. This machine can take your prints and complete a thorough criminal background in way less than an hour. You can change your name, hair color, S.S.#, whatever, but the machine will catch those prints. That's nation wide too. Even without this, with todays computer tech. a complete background based on a person's I.D. info. can be done in less time than it takes to load a hi-cap mag. But, we all know the answer, they didn't build Rome in a day, and we won't lose our guns in a day either.
I guess I'm lucky. I live in very rural county with a lot of old time values. When I need another permit, I just stop by and see the Hi-Sheriff himself. Our last meting went something like this:
Me- Hey Sheriff, you busy?
Sheriff- Nope, come on in, whatch you need?
Me- Another permit Sheriff
Sheriff- Damn son, you starting your own compound.
Me- Well, you just never know Sheriff.
Sheriff- (as he is signing the permit) Well, at least if all hell breaks loose I'll know where to come.
Me- Thanks Sheriff, see ya next time.
Thank you, LH. :-)
I would also like to add that I'm very happy that my parents did not agree with legal or illegal abortion! Otherwise......
Now consider this....If one is to consider this as a viable option for birth control, (which of course, it was argued by those who wanted it legalized that it would never be used for this purpose) then you better be ready and able to live with the fact that you have committed a murder, but not just any kind of murder, murder on a defenseless, helpless, and the only kind of "truly" innocent human being that there is. This is barbarity at it's worst...infantacide.
Seems like adoption would be the better alternative.
VALUE HUMAN LIFE IN IT'S ONLY TRULY INNOCENT FORM.
And it sure isn't God hurting these growing babies is it? No it is Man...I do not understand how when some complain on how God is cruel because of babies suffering,they can turn round and say this is OK? Another GREAT post! Thank You, L.H.
may we never need to draw blood