Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Lawsuits against churches for refusing to perform gay weddings might lose and they might not. Remember the latest Court ruling according to the Chief Justice has nothing to do with the Constitution and that it's been decided tough shit Catholics you are paying for birth control and abortion whether you like it or not. Laws against speeding and drunk driving have nothing to do with your age and the idea that you have to be 18 to smoke and 21 to drink should prove my point. Seems like a shitload of people well over that age make terrible decisions, right? Most gay people probably are really nice people, all the ones I know are. And yet the desire to shock and offend seems pretty strong. And that's unfortunate. And just because there are artifacts of religion still not crushed by you people it doesn't mean there is any law requiring a state religion. As a matter of fact you can be sworn in on the Torah or the Koran or, I would assume, a copy of Lord of the Rings if you insist. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Fair enoughAnd just because there are artifacts of religion still not crushed by you people it doesn't mean there is any law requiring a state religion. As a matter of fact you can be sworn in on the Torah or the Koran or, I would assume, a copy of Lord of the Rings if you insist. You can now, for sure. But how long ago was it that this wasn't the case? And I think it's safe to assume it wasn't a big push by the christian right to change that fact. But there shouldn't be anything religious on a state capitol, or any government building. Suzy, 55, mother of three, can certainly have a little cross at her desk, no problem. But when the government starts endorsing one religion above all others, that's when you have problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And personally I don't give a fuck if somebody puts up a copy of the Ten Commandments. And that's all there is to it. And Susie, even though she's hypothetical might certainly be ordered to take it down if some dickhead and another cubicle bitched, correct? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And personally I don't give a fuck if somebody puts up a copy of the Ten Commandments. And that's all there is to it. And Susie, even though she's hypothetical might certainly be ordered to take it down if some dickhead and another cubicle bitched, correct? WSS The dickhead would be wrong, the cross is suzy's business. But the state shouldn't be favouring any religion over others (or lack of religion), yet we have the 10 commandments up there. Imagine if they had the five pillars of islam? Or the 600+ jewish commandments? I'm guessing people would give a fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 It seems like a lot of the complaints from Christians regarding the attack in Christianity, are really just Christianity being held to the same level as other religions. Trying to get to where there are no favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 The dickhead would be wrong, the cross is suzy's business. But the state shouldn't be favouring any religion over others (or lack of religion), yet we have the 10 commandments up there. Imagine if they had the five pillars of islam? Or the 600+ jewish commandments? I'm guessing people would give a fuck. They might but that's not my concern is it? And no matter how you try to twist the meaning to suit your own end it does not establish a state religion. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 (And of course you realize the dick head, right or wrong, we probably get his way in the end) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 It seems like a lot of the complaints from Christians regarding the attack in Christianity, are really just Christianity being held to the same level as other religions. Trying to get to where there are no favorites. Mostly, but not exclusively. Some people surely just want to go after christianity because they don't like it, perhaps because christianity has gone after them (gay rights, women's rights etc) or because they are born again atheists, or because they see christians using god to get in the way of climate change debates etc. Some people just like to have a go at someone and the church is an easy target, probably the only target left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Dickhead = woodypeckerhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 They might but that's not my concern is it? And no matter how you try to twist the meaning to suit your own end it does not establish a state religion. WSS Not your concern because you're christian? And what about the people that aren't? It's quite similar to you being unhappy with some muslim verses being inscribed on the Ohio state capitol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Not your concern because you're christian? And what about the people that aren't? It's quite similar to you being unhappy with some muslim verses being inscribed on the Ohio state capitol. I'm really not a Christian but its not my problem because if there was something pertaining to Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or Mormonism on the wall at the courthouse, the library or wherever the fuck I wouldn't care about that either. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 You personally perhaps, and plenty of others that don't care. But what about Stuart or OBF or any one else with similarly staunch views (apologies if I've misrepresented anyone)? Fucking Walter would bomb that shit if a government building put muslim verses up on itself! Well, maybe that's going too far, but people would not be happy. Why should it be different for christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I let the majority rule, as long as the minority still has their rights. OTH, the conservatives are like that. But liberals are the opposite. They want everything to change, they want to control it when it does, and everybody like them has to start being like them or they will never stfu, and they will just keep finding gay judges, lefty judges, to fight stupid fights in our country's courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Chris, but what if ??? You don't want to ban all guns...but what about so many other extreme lefty libs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'm not particularly well versed in anyone's religious books but I would bet that there are great examples of wisdom found it every single one and I have no problem with any of those. Perhaps if Obamao appointed and alqueda member to the Justice Department and he wanted to put 'death to America' on the wall I'd complain but.... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And Walter, though as crazy as a shithouse rat, is an atheist like you and the woodman. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Chris, but what if ??? You don't want to ban all guns...but what about so many other extreme lefty libs? It depends what you mean by 'ban all guns' really. All guns everywhere? No. Police should have guns. I have no issue whatsoever with gun ranges, hunting rifles, things like that. But does anybody really need a pistol? An automatic weapon? Anything military grade? Only if you're storing it next to a box of tinfoil hats. Or, if there's millions of guns floating around in the hands of criminals. So, stop that? But it's too hard! Well, how many billions have been spent on the 'war on drugs' - what about a 'war on guns held illegally?' This is why I'm in favour of registering guns - law abiding citizens can keep theirs, as long as they are responsible with it and don't leave it lying around the house or whatever. Perhaps a mandatory training course, like for, I don't know, driving? Then, when guns aren't registered, you can take them away, because law abiding citizens would abide by the law, and register their guns, right? Any gun that is not registered, or whose current registered owner doesn't match the person carrying it (with reasonable wiggle room, of course), can be taken away, meaning only the law abiding citizens end up with the guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And Walter, though as crazy as a shithouse rat, is an atheist like you and the woodman. WSS Good spot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Well, Chris, I appreciate what you said, but registering guns? How do you think that that solves anything at all, except lets the left send out higher and higher licenses fees for ownership? for each gun? I reckon Obamao would dearly love to know who has three guns, so they can raise the price of licenses 300 bucks per gun. Or they can establish demographics in populations with a lot of gun owners, so they can come up with vague criteria to ban them for stupidass reasons. Then they can financially make a lot of people give up their guns. Except criminals don't follow the law. They will still have their guns, and the gov still won't know where they are. Don't you understand that? What is up with all the nonsense about "why do you have to have a pistol?" uh...because I conceal carry at night and when we are out in the outdoors. Ever try to conceal a twelve gage shotgun? Come on, Chris. you want to know where all legal guns are, for ulterior motives that apply, and you libs don't give a crap that criminals will still have them. That is a major problem with the left - any feeble rationalization will do, for "now". I'm referring to the fact, that you think all criminals with illegal guns will have the gov take them away, so only those good Americans who DID register their guns...will have guns..... SERIOUSLY ??????? I mean, how is the gov going to know how to confiscate all the criminals' guns? THEY DID NOT REGISTER THEM. What the hell ? The only guns they can confiscate....... is the guns where THEY KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. And libs hate history - but historically, gun registration most always = gun confiscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated...--------------------In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.--------------------Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.--------------------China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.--------------------Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.--------------------Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.--------------------Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Good spot? ? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated. 2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated. 3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate. 4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated. 5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated. 6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated. 7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated. 8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed. The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murderedmillions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers. Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate 1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons. The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal. How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had) Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Drugs aren't registered, yet the police somehow know who's carrying and who isn't. Maybe there will be more 'random' spot checks to see who's carrying a gun, and if it's not registered, take the gun and fine the person. The fact that you think the only way the police can do anything about anything is if the things are registered is very strange. As for the licence fee being raised - what if it were free? But then, the government would have to pay *something* to keep the system in place. So how about it costs, let's say $50 for a 10 year licence, or some other agreeable fee, with stipulations to keep the fee from rising more than inflation? You have a whole lot of counter-points that can easily be resolved with just a little common sense. Not saying that the whole process would be easy, but it's doable if everyone weren't so paranoid. This isn't nazi germany, or china under mao. This is the 21st century, where America, aided by other UN countries, went to way to remove a dictator who was doing evil things to his people; where a president can only serve 8 years at most before someone else takes over - so there's only so much they can actually do. It would take years to get the infrastructure in place to do anything like your tinfoil hat post - I'm pretty sure if a president were to try that they wouldn't be re-elected after the first term; I'm pretty sure the army - who would need to be onside of course - wouldn't carry it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 ? WSS Basically. Not sure what his being an atheist has to do with much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 https://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4 Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why? Finally, most would wonder what gun confiscation would look and feel like in America. No speculation is necessary because of the gun confiscations which took place in New Orleans in 2006 in the aftermath of Katrina. Any American who thinks that gun confiscation is a good idea, needs to desperately watch the following video. Is this the government that you are going to accept? Even the most brainwashed of Americans cannot deny what you just watched on the preceding video. If we allow Obama to possess the ability to ban our guns, this is what you will likely see across the country and the potential for this to spread into a flash point for widespread violence, and even revolution, should be concerning to all of us. This issue, in my humble opinion, needs to be our line in the sand against this tyrannical government. Historians generally agree that there are eight identifiable stages associated with an unfolding genocide. It would behoove all Americans to familiarize themselves with these stages in order to accurately assess the developing threat should gun confiscation ever become a reality. An analysis of the applicability of the eight stages of genocide to present day America will be the focus of the next part in this series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 The Korean shop owners should have defended their businesses by sending out strongly worded letters and waiting for the non-existent police presence to arrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 So, Chris - your utopian liberal lala land nonsense flies out the window. Trouble is, all you anti-gun silly people aren't on the board, and won't watch the video I just posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 https://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4 That god damn liberal government taking guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Basically. Not sure what his being an atheist has to do with much.WSS In case you missed it that was just a little joke since you mentioned walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.