Posts by Hadriel

48

God said be fruitful and multiply,fill the earth and govern it.

by atomant in

l have a problem with this.lf adam and eve didnt sin the earth would eventually have been full to the brim with perfect human beings.then what every man gets the chop or no more sex?then on the other hand we have the jw's sayingresurrected ones will not be allowed to marry in the earthly new system.. married survivors of armageddon will remain married.

single survivors of armageddon may or may not be allowed to marry.so it seems that people reborn into new system wont be able to procreate.

and married survivors will stay married so l assume that means they can still hanky panky and have babys thats a bit unfair..the earth can only accommodate a maximum number of humans then what for the married couples.

Hadriel

@atomant you make the assumption there's such a thing as paradise Earth. However this does not exist in the bible. Only paradise of heaven is discussed.

Sadly many witnesses assume that "paradise earth" is spoken about all over the bible however it simply is not. mention it to them and they are stunned to find that this is the case.

So before we start considering that the Earth would be overfilled you have to first show me where in the bible this is even eluded to.

If there's a hope does it matter what it is? Earthly or Heavenly? Or is simply not dying or having life again more important?

15

1-2016 Circuit Overseer Mid week talk "Believe Inspired truth not inspired error" Crazy stuff

by Watchtower-Free in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba7j3shtbgy.

Hadriel

...he lost me at the 0:41 second mark with "expecially". You're a C.O. for crying out loud learn how to speak!

oh wait my bad you didn't go to college.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

Bowing out of this one at this point.

My final comment and I think this is fair to say but I bet no one commenting in this thread are likely to go spray bullets at a park picnic anytime soon.

So regardless of your side of the fence there's that...

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

@Finkelstiein that is patently false in the U.S. high gun ownership states are far safer. it's fact it cannot be argued. When there's a status quo people are far less likely to act like idiots.

As I posted earlier many states with very lenient gun laws aren't even recorded in some analytics because the amount of murder/homicides by guns are so low they don't even register. e.g. Alaska, Wyoming etc.

However states like California with very strict gun laws have very high murder/homicides by guns. The theory at first blush seems plausible however it is just that a theory. The numbers say otherwise.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

@freemindfade is DEAD on accurate.

Full auto is the last thing you'd do in a serious gun fight. Suppressive fire to keep the combatant at bay while moving positions is about it. Outside of that full-auto is the least accurate thing you can do.

Some of the best wartime weapons have been medium to long range semi-auto rifles. Why? Because they were accurate from moderate distance and without being full-auto had far less recoil. You are taught even with semi-auto to shoot in small burst groupings because these very accuracy issues.

Pistols cocked sideways and full auto are for the movies...

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

What about your children at school or College, a movie theater or their place of work, will you be there to protect your family with a gun in hand ?

Funny how these things rarely happen in free gun states. Wonder why?

I won't be there when that fertilizer bomb goes off either or whatever else may fall upon them that I can't control. I can't protect them from the nutcase that procures weapons in an illegal manner.

The point is so in the situations I can control I should just throw my hands up and say sorry I can't protect you at the theater so I guess I should give up.

That is just ridiculous logic. nutty people will do nutty things regardless of the method of destruction.

But then maybe anyone that takes an antidepressant should be locked up. Let's just ban everything!!!

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

I'll give you gun ownership opposers one glimmer of hope. I'll agree too much accessibility can prove to be a bad thing.

Here's the rub though. When two guys break into my home try to hurt my fam etc. I'm thankful for the ability to protect them. People are not drawing on the streets here.

This is about protection and ability to defend self and family that just isn't bad in my book.

Reality is if you ban all guns in every country the criminals will still find ways to source them. Yeah that'll work out well for us all. it will be like one giant looting session. The best you'll be able to do is stand there with you know what in hand and a smile.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

You must think day to day life here is like an action film lol

@freemindfade has me wiping my monitor from coffee spray brilliant line free.

Just for the record I've never witnessed a dual in the streets. I don't know where this idea of the Wild West in modern society comes from. Just as normal here as in other places around the planet.

The only difference is if you break into someone's home in the middle of the night yeah you might get shot.

Like @free said you could be holding a laser sighted twinkie it won't matter I'll still drop you and won't think twice about it.

If you don't agree I totally get it, but that's how it is here and I'm glad it is. You're simply not hurting my family without a serious fight on your hands. I wouldn't have it any other way. I honestly don't get why that's such a bad thing to some.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

Ah, the old "fighting against taxation" that you were probably taught?
The "tax / trade war" with Britain was because Britain took tax *off* it's tea products to boost sales to handle the east india tea company collapse (the leheman brothers of their day). The lower prices of British tea then undercut the local produce that relied on slavery ... also talked about being outlawed and abolished. It wasn't so much fighting against tyranny as tyrants fighting against freedoms.

What I remember is Britain lowering overinflated taxes but enforcing them to a far greater degree as a method of generating revenue. This corrupt british gov. even started charging a tax on any official paperwork. This was called the Stamp Act. I believe. Britain was broke and was clamoring for ways to generate money. What better way than to make money than to tax those you provide nothing for across the pond?

So yes I was taught that there were issues with taxation.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

Hadriel

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I don't see the limitation for Militia only.

What I read is the right "to KEEP and bear arms". The comma is intentional. If only for the purpose of militia there's be no need to KEEP the arms correc? There are two parts here. Yes a militia is needed. A way for common citizens to ban together to be trained for the purpose of defending against a rogue government.

The second part is to KEEP these arms. Why does it say that? It's because Britain was preventing not only the banding together and training of the militia but also the right to keep the weapons in the first place. You can't train without the weapons! It was written this way for very specific reasons.

So no the 2nd amendment is not limited to just the first part of the sentence.

I'm no historian but it is clear the Euros were greedy. They oppressed people with taxes in lands they were providing zero services for that tax. They came up with every possible scenario to keep the colonies from being able to fight back and defend themselves from the oppression. Kinda reminds me of the Watchtower and its summarily dismissing those that speak the truth as a means to silence them. All kidding aside it is the same principle.

Americans had enough of this chicanery and learned a hard lesson. The 2nd amendment is about not letting that happen again.

If gun prohibition yielded safer states I could see an argument here, however the facts are it is the exact opposite as I've pointed out.

Bottom line just because nut cases exist in the world doesn't mean I don't have the right to protect myself and my family.