WontLeave

Joined

• started 20 topics
• posted 849 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by WontLeave

• 
  165

  So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

  saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

  single-shot hunting rifle?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  bohm,

  There are websites that will give you pretty exhaustive lists of various logical fallacies for reference.

  The way you keep guns out of the hands of people who suck is the price, psychological tests, restricting availability to convicted criminals, etc. Sure, a few crackpots and criminals have guns, but guess what: Making more laws won't cause them to go away. I only suggest availability, not proliferation. I talk about the right to bear arms and you suggest "tanks and stuff distributed amongst people". The idea that some people shouldn't have weapons, so therefore nobody should be able to have them is about the same as "Some people should be locked up, so all people should be locked up." Sure, there are those who shouldn't have weapons, just like there are those who shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they're too stupid or evil. Your argument only allows one side of the equation to be armed: The government - and government has proven time and again it has a tendency toward stupid and evil. That's the mentality of feudal Europe and Orient. Maybe a disarmed public is going smoothly right now, but roll the clocks back 70 years and how were they? How about 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Armed government has a long history of abusing unarmed people.

  thetrueone,

  In all honesty, handguns shouldn't be more favored than most guns the US government bans, according to the 2nd Amendment. Since the Constitution isn't protecting a right to prevent crime, but empower the citizens against tyranny, it doesn't make sense. The argument for a handgun is to protect from criminals, not armed government personnel. Granted, many military officers carry a sidearm and the majority of police do too. When something like Waco happens or when citizens have had enough government corruption and rebel, the SWAT team and military will have much bigger guns than a Glock 19. The only purpose a handgun serves is to kill civilians and that is not protected under the US Constitution. Even when a police officer knows he's going into a gun fight, he gets the shotgun out of the trunk, because handguns don't cut it.
• 
  165

  So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

  saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

  single-shot hunting rifle?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  If you think the "democratic process" is a good thing, we will definitely have to agree to disagree.

  A lynch mob in the Southern US in the early 20th Century vs. a black man was a "democracy".

  The Nazi regime vs. 6M Jews was a "democracy".

  A pack of wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner is a "democracy".

  The Inquisition vs. the accused was a "democracy".

  The same person you wouldn't trust with a gun probably shouldn't be trusted with a vote. I'd rather keep some power in my own hands than turn it completely over to the ebb and flow of popular opinion, otherwise unemployable government workers (including police and military), or corrupt politicians. Anyone who believes dialog and reason win the day and cooler heads prevail in political and social issues has never read a history book. Too many forms of government rely on a totally unrealistic ideal of people being inherently good, intelligent, productive, generous, etc.

  Hitler was elected. The parade of embarrassing US presidents over the past few decades were elected (not that there was really much of a choice; just a perceived lesser of two evils). The 'will of the people' is no guarantee (or even suggestion) of sanity or intelligence. People suck and in large groups they can suck in a large way.
• 
  165

  So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

  saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

  single-shot hunting rifle?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  I'm merely pointing out absurdity by being absurd. Responding in kind to sarcasm and hyperbole. See how it's not convincing and just obnoxious? How it adds nothing to the conversation? How it only preaches to its own choir? How it's only self-indulgent arrogance?
• 
  165

  So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

  saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

  single-shot hunting rifle?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  bohm, your sarcasm and hyperbole have swayed me to your side. I will start a petition in my neighborhood to have a policeman posted in every living room, every US citiz- sorry - subject be implanted with a GPS tracking device, all pointy scissors be replaced with round-tip ones, and highway speed limits be reduced to 25 MPH. With enough legislation and loss of liberty, the government will protect us from ourselves and we will have nothing to fear.

  did i mention i live in europe

  Oh, never mind. You guys have already beat me to this.
• 
  62

  What silly things have you been counselled on or simply been told off for?

  by 3Mozzies in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  so what silly things have you been counselled on or simply been told off for?.

  back in my early 20's, i had a pair of comfy old jeans that started to tear in about 3 places on the leg.

  it was the fashion at the time so not only did they feel great to wear, they also looked 'in', not that i cared for that, but it was a bonus .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  "Inappropriate" ties, wearing a hat, wearing a beard, having a FaceBook/MySpace/Yahoo account, emailing a female sister (totally not romantically), offering to drive a sister 3 blocks to my study with a female... The list goes on and is irritating and just plain shameful.

  Got pulled aside several times for not pursuing more "privileges" in the congregation, e.g. pioneer, MS, even elder. I'd never even get on the school. I didn't want the responsibility to distract me from my ministry and didn't want it to feel like a burden, but a joy. I never agreed with a special title ("pioneer") for Witnesses who actually witness. The 5-10 hour a month JWs who insist they are "putting the Kingdom first" just annoy me to no end.
• 
  165

  So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

  saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

  single-shot hunting rifle?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  The Second Amendment guaranteed "the rights of states to form militias not for individuals to bear arms."

  Actually, the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the need for the government to be armed "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and so the government doesn't, in turn, transform from a protector of the people to a bully, ruled that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is another of the checks and balances instituted by the Constitution to keep the government as honest as can be legislated. Chopping up the sentence and moving the words around to make it seem like only the government (the militia) can be armed is the exact opposite of what the 2nd Amendment and the entire Constitution stand for.
• 
  32

  References for "Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?", Watchtower 2010, Mar pp.18-20

  by pirata in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i thought i'd dig up some of the references made in the.

  "did jesus really die on a cross?

  ", watchtower 2010, mar pp.18-20interestingly 2 references are honestly quoted, but the other 2 are misquoted.. what are your thoughts on the credibility of each reference source used and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  This has always struck me as something really stupid to pick a fight over. But that's cult mentality. This kind of emotional brainwashing that makes JWs hate the sight of an inanimate object, like a charm on a necklace or (Christmas) lights on a house is highly indicative of mind control. The deer-in-headlights looks from other JWs if one says "church" instead of "kingdom hall" or "congregation", "Old Testament" instead of "Hebrew Scriptures", "John the baptist" instead of "baptizer", "Last Supper" instead of "Lord's evening meal", etc. are all symptoms of the cult language used to put a chasm between JWs and the community. All of these things already had words, but they feel the need to make up JW words for them, just like they need their own "cross" word, even to the point of inserting a word not in the original Greek: "Torture". Even if a slam dunk case can be made for "stake" (which it can't) there is no excuse for adding "torture" to it.

  But long-time JWs will shove their feet into their respective mouths, up to the hip, picking this fight over and over, while preaching. They'll do the same thing over 607 BC, thinking it's backed by secular history, because they've never actually checked. I also love when they try to show a Catholic that "their Bible" has God's name in it. These "Bible scholars" have no clue that the 1611 KJV was a product of the Church of England, a protestant denomination. Years ago, when Catholics used the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, it had Yahweh in all the original places, but the Vatican no longer tolerates the use of any form of the "sacred name".

  I've come to the realization this "just believe whatever you're told" mentality is what leads to the proliferation of urban legends among them: Jeopardy saying the NWT is the most accurate, angels saving JWs while preaching, possessed garage sale items, and all the Smurf stories. They're "trained from infancy" to avoid any "worldly wisdom" (college, Internet, books not written by WTBS) and not to question the Society or verify any of its claims, as that leads to (gasp!) "independent thinking" and "apostasy". So, they're conditioned to be mentally lazy and willfully ignorant.
• 
  165

  So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

  saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

  single-shot hunting rifle?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  And you're saying the average guy who joins the army instead of his only other option (fast food) is somehow more suited to entrust with military-grade weapons? Of course, because other than on base, he doesn't have access to any of it until he's overseas. Let the drooling hick blow up the residents of some other country; it's no skin off our backs. But wait until those same weapons are pointed at you and your family and those same drooling hicks are under orders from corrupt, power-hungry government officials. "Nuremberg Trials" mean anything to you?

  In a perfect world, nobody would have a weapon; I think everyone agrees on that. We wouldn't have police, hospitals, politicians, courts, etc. When you see that world, let me know. I'll get a hammer and join in beating all the guns into plowshares. Until then, you can trust the government all you want and buy into the cradle-to-grave nanny state; just please don't expect me to join in with your sentiment. Even with the tattered remains of rights like the 2nd Amendment, they're not to be trusted. Imagine how they would be without them.
• 
  165

  So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

  saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

  single-shot hunting rifle?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  Nukes = suicide. Nuclear weapons aren't for domestic use, so there is no "fight fire with fire" point here. An argument can be made for other countries to have nukes because the US government has nukes. Just as the US government wouldn't use nukes on its own soil as that would be cutting off its nose to spite its face, the citizens wouldn't use nukes domestically as the outcome would be the same.

  Now, if you want to argue RPGs, tanks, body armor, anti-aircraft weapons, hand grenades, etc... I'm on board. If someone misuses them, there are laws against that. If someone misuses a steak knife, baseball bat, screwdriver, or a stick, do you ban it? Cain killed Abel before weapons were even invented. As 9/11 demonstrated (once again), trying to make everybody sit around a camp fire, holding hands, singing Kumbaya by taking away weapons is pointless and just plain stupid.

  The 2nd Amendment implies equal ams for citizens as for government. When the choppers with miniguns come for you, do you really want to have to defend yourself with your deer rifle and .25 handgun? The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, collecting, or even crime prevention: It's about killing army guys.
• 
  40

  J-dub elders throwing a wrench in funeral services for my nephew

  by mimimimi in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i said in my earlier post, my nephew took his own life yesterday evening.

  my sister is a die-hard jw and this religion is her comfort more than ever right now, so she accepts everything they throw at her.

  the elders will meet this evening and decide whether they will allow a memorial service at the kh.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WontLeave

  I realize this particular situation has many more facets than the issue of suicide, but it made me think:

  I never could understand the belief that suicide was an unforgivable sin. Jesus only mentions one unforgivable sin and that's blaspheming the Holy Spirit. (For all you "Blasphemy Challenge" idiots, this doesn't mean doubting the existence of something you don't understand or believe in. But I digress...) The Catholic Church - and many others - insist a suicide goes straight to Hell. Likewise, most JWs believe suicides can't enter the New World. If someone commits suicide it's pretty much a given that they are dead.

  For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin. - Rom 6:7

  You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed. - Acts 10:15