My cold dead hands...

[Fat Old Guy]

Manson isn't evil, he just made some bad choices. The DC Snipers are bad guys, just confused. The thug who stole the car in Baltimore and dragged the driver to death because she was snagged on the car was just trying to make a living.

 

Geeze Big Dog, get with the program.

[Achilleez]

Ok fine there are evil people!

 

Rather obsessive aren't we(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

[Adrianvs]

"That would be difficult since Eugene Stoner was born in the 20th century. However, didn't Christ say "if you don't got a piece, go sell your Starter jacket and buy one"?

 

 

hahaha... I was just about to type a similar paraphrase, but you beat me to it.. It's better than mine, too.

 

It comes as quite a shock to some people when they realize that Robert Powell wasn't the Christ.

[scoutingagain]

Wasn't Manson a Beatles fan?

 

SA

[NJCubScouter]

Scoutingagain says:

 

Wasn't Manson a Beatles fan?

 

I'm not sure if the word "fan" quite fits someone who has his murderous gang write the titles of a group's songs on the wall, in the blood of their victims. There has to be some other category for that. I believe it was John Lennon who was quoted at the time, saying something like "Couldn't he have just left us out of it?" The Beatles were also interviewed about Manson's elaborate interpretations of the songs in question, and their basic conclusion was that he was "cracked." As in crazy -- not legally insane, just crazy. He evidently thought, for example, that "Sexy Sadie" (written by John) referred to one of Manson's own followers, who John didn't even know. (As a matter of fact, John later said he intended the song as a jab at the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and the title was originally "Maharishi," but John didn't want to get sued. Any further discussion on that subject would obviously take us beyond the syllabus for today's class.)

[RobK]

A couple of points:

 

1) The Biblical case for armed self defense:

 

Luke 22:36 -- Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

 

Luke 22:38 -- So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords."

And He said to them, "It is enough."

 

Jesus told his disciples, If you don't already have a sword, sell your garment and buy one. And some of the disciples already had swords! If Jesus didn't want us to be armed, 1) would He have told His disciples to buy swords, and 2) would any of the disciples already have had swords?

 

Achilleez, read the book of Revelation. When Jesus returns, it will be with a sword, and it won't be for show. People pick out one verse like "turn the other cheek" and take it to mean "never defend yourself", but they never bother to read the rest of the book, say for instance Ecclesiastes 3 (there is a time for everything, including killing and war).

 

2) Good guys vs. bad guys

 

Achilleez, it's easy to tell the difference. Good guys leave other people in peace, bad guys knock over the corner Qwik-E Mart.

 

3) The possibility of an invasion

 

Bob White writes: "But Trail Pounder, just what country's army do you feel has the capacity to try and land sufficient enemy forces in the USA that our military structure is incapable of stopping?"

 

The Japanese had plans for invading the US mainland. The Soviets had thoughts about it too. Britain actually did it. Just because no country could do it right now doesn't mean it will always be that way. Sun-Tzu writes in the Art of War (chapter 8, paragraph 11): The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable. This is the essense of self-defense, both national and personal. Our position will not remain unassailable if we don't work to keep it so. One of the factors that makes our position unassailable is an armed populace.

Machiavelli writes in The Prince that the people should be armed for just this reason and points to the Swiss as the perfect example: every man armed, and never occupied.

[Achilleez]

RobK

 

In your own words, please describe to me what 'turn the other cheek' really means.

[RobK]

We find Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" in two places, Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. Read them in the context of the whole chapter. Here's a link: "turn the other cheek" in the Gospels.

 

The slap on the cheek Jesus means is not a real physical assault, it's an insult meant to provoke a fight. He's saying, don't let yourself be provoked into fighting and don't seek revenge. The idea is not "don't defend yourself ever", it is to not seek vengance and to be forgiving of those who wrong you. Especially consider the "Love your enemy" section (begining at Matthew 5:43) which immediately follows and amplifies this passage. Look also at Romans 12:14-20 paying special attention to verses 18 and 19. When you read all these things in context, you get a better idea of what he meant.

 

Now I ask you this: how is it showing love to your fellow man to not stop a mugger? Is it really showing love to allow a man to commit a crime? If he mugs you, you can be reasonably certain that he'll mug others. Is allowing him to continue in this sin, hurting others, showing love to him or those other people?

[RobK]

Here's another article of interest from the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p02s01-ussc.html

 

From the article: But carrying weapons has its own set of concerns. For example, gun-owning seniors, like any age group, are at risk for having their weapons used against them. Byers notes, however, that researchers haven't been able to compile the exact number of incidents in which this has happened.

[Bob White]

"The Japanese had plans for invading the US mainland. The Soviets had thoughts about it too. Britain actually did it."

 

Sorry Rob, but the vikings landed here once too, but I don't see them coming back.

 

It's a different time, and different geopolitical world. Japan does not have the military ability, The Soviet Union doesn't exist, the British haven't been our enemy for nearly 200 years. It's not as if our military is going to be dismantled, or our ability to detect invading forces approaching removed.

 

If you need a firearm to protect youself there are situations where I can by into that. But to think that you need it to protect your neighborhood from an invading military force is the stuff of comic books, not real life.

 

I have a friend who is an emrgency room physician. He was always amazed at the number of gun shot wound victims he treated that were shot by their own guns. What amazes him is that every case starts the same way "I don't know how it happened, I'm sure the gun wasn't loaded".

 

Gun ownership doesn't worry me.....but some gun owners sure do.

[RobK]

Bob, the point was not that one of those powers in particular would in the future, but that it has been thought about and done before. Just because we are mighty, doesn't prevent another nation from becoming mightier, and it doesn't keep us mighty.

 

It's not as if our military is going to be dismantled, or our ability to detect invading forces approaching removed.

 

How do you know? Just saying it will never happen won't prevent it from happening. The only way to ensure that it doesn't happen is to actively prevent it from happening. I'm sure many of the citizens of Rome felt as you do now. Who can defeat the might of Rome? And yet Rome fell. History is littered with once great nations fallen and vanquished. The United States, mightiest military in the world, didn't hold South Vietnam. We got kicked in the face in Mogadishu, and we turned tail and ran. He who will not learn from history...

 

But to think that you need it to protect your neighborhood from an invading military force is the stuff of comic books, not real life.

 

Really? Tell that to the Afghans. Tell that to the Viet Cong.

 

Didn't someone once say be prepared for anything? Sound familiar?

 

I find it hard to have sympathy for those who accidently shoot themselves. Rule number one: All guns are always loaded.

 

The rules of gun safety, as articulated by Jeff Cooper:

 

* All firearms are loaded. - There are no exceptions. Don't pretend that this is true. Know that it is and handle all firearms accordingly. Do not believe it when someone says: "It isn't loaded."

 

* Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy. - If you would not want to see a bullet hole in it do not allow a firearm's muzzle to point at it.

 

* Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. - Danger abounds if you keep your finger on the trigger when you are not about to shoot. Speed is not gained by prematurely placing your finger on the trigger as bringing a firearm to bear on a target takes more time than it takes to move your finger to the trigger.

 

* Be sure of your target and what is behind it. - Never shoot at sounds or a target you cannot positively identify. Know what is in line with the target and what is behind it (bullets are designed to go through things). Be aware of your surroundings whether on a range, in the woods, or in a potentially lethal conflict.

 

Remember, safety is a state of mind, not mechanics! Take nothing for granted!

 

BTW, gun accidents are at all time lows.

[evmori]

"Just saying it will never happen won't prevent it from happening."

 

If Mr.White says it, it won't.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

"Tell that to the Afghans. Tell that to the Viet Cong."

 

Oh Please RobK, you can't be saying that you see any comparisons in technology, military capability or tactical resources between them and the USA.

 

You don't think that having the most powerful, most advanced, military force in the world is "being prepared"?

 

 

[dan]

READY, FIRE, aim

 

 

[RobK]

I think you've taken my examples of the Afghans and the VC backward. No Bob, I'm saying that the Soviet Union was never able to subdue the Afghans, and the US did not defeat the VC in Vietnam in spite of all our might. I'm saying that an armed populace held off and eventually drove out an overwhelmingly superior foreign occupying power. Bob, why did Hitler not take Switzerland? He took Poland, he took Czechoslovakia, he took France and their Maginot Line! But not Switzerland. That was only 60 years ago. Machiavelli addresses this subject quite thoroughly in The Prince ("http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm").

 

Yes, I do think that having the most powerful, most advanced, military force in the world is PART of "being prepared", but again, saying that we are that, doesn't make it so. Actually working to be that and stay that makes it so. Check out our ammo situation ("http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36465"). It's not the first time in recent years I've heard of us being short.