I think your "gifts" of "faith" are just luck (and brain washing that) you fell hook, line and sinker for... prove it? Look!

Actually, I think not since a large part of the justification for slaughtering "heathens" was "White Man's Burden", a largely religious concept. Native American genocide was brought up as a subset of that whole "Manifest Destiny" concept, again largely religious-based with Christians as much as Jihad is with Muslims. Again, religion is responsible for a great deal of good but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to basic concepts it/they have engendered in that "holier than thou" manner that makes the enemy sub-human and therefore easier to kill. If one looks at the animosity between, for example, Suni and Shiite, the differences seem very small and should be of little concern to the other since it has little effect on the other. That, however, is rarely the case when religious fervor exists.

The same sort of perceived difference can and has been exploited even within a community of like belief such as in the case of "Divine Right" autocracy. If religion is to survive for much longer, I submit that if this sort of nonsense isn't intrinsic, it needs to be weeded out. If it is intrinsic, religion itself, at least of the organized variety which always gains political power and usually military force, needs to "die on the vine" as it is a huge obstacle to advanced civilization.

It does take more than just the obvious operation technique to own and keep a gun responsibly. There are more innocent civilian deaths from "accidental" mishaps than from gangs since gangs are commonly at war with other gangs with the single glaring exception of those involved in "car jacking" but non-violent means thwarts such "enterprise" far more safely than keeping a gun in one's car in the city.

That said, it is undeniably true that firearm control cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. However it is also demonstrably so that allowing casual ownership of weapons like assault rifles tends to cause both such incidents as Columbine and a police force to become militarized in response. Then we get incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco. In the most recent US incident in Orlando it should be obvious that the perpetrator could have caused as much carnage with a bomb, a vehicle or possibly even with a sword, but it seems guns, especially automatic weapons, make that decidedly easier.

The balance between individual freedom and public safety is an extremely complicated issue but I suspect all here would be against private ownership of say a 55 gallon drum of weaponized smallpox which also has about as much use to a city dweller as an assault rifle.


We are discussing a tyrannical government and of what use is even the most modern military weapons in the hands of an individual in protecting even oneself, let alone the nation, against such a government. Wars are not only fought with violence. They are fought with ideas and economic sanctions as well.

As for counting on the US Military to back it's citizens, are you unaware of the "Bonus Army Conflict"? The point is that in modern times with billions of dollars worth of hi tech machinery in place and a large standing army the idea that a lone gunman, or even a hundred or more semi-skilled citizens with military weapons hasn't "a snowball's chance in Hell" of thwarting tyranny. Some variation of Cyber Warfare has a far greater chance of success, and even that is demonstrably limited. I'm afraid that current conditions are much like they were in Medieval times, where the masses had little chance to oppose "nobility". That justification for weaponry is a "dog that don't hunt".


Actually The Crusades are extremely present in the cultures of mid eastern Islam, probably because they were "the butt of the joke" not the perpetrators. Granted, Mohammad was a warrior so it stands to reason that such a point of view must permeate his teachings but obviously that, just as in Christian teachings, is subject to interpretation and most people, regardless of rligion, just want to live their lives..... unless they feel threatened. We have provided radicals with such a threat.


Sorry but this is the weakest form of justification and reeks of the arrogance of the conqueror. It is simply not true that Native Americans were simply bloodthirsty savages constantly at war with one another. One example was The Iroquois Nation which was a highly evolved, sophisticated form of government that nurtured cooperation, peace and prosperity. Sure we made peace treaties.... and then broke them, repeatedly. So if someone murdered your wife and children and kicked you out of your home and offered you "free college" you'd find that a fair deal?

Come on, Man. There is no shame in admitting our ancestors were guilty of massive atrocity. The shame is in trying to justify it and not learning from it.

If only lying to ourselves

Quote:

Attachment 22370

(☮book smarts☮ :rolleyes: L:pL :D) but (as implied from time to time)

just keep up one thing (in mind,) morals ≠ herds

( or flaming birds (and ter*-faecēs,,,)

not that there's anything wrong with some perceptions of that! :hattip:)

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl2...oral_Sense.htm

Adding a 2nd link (not missing mind u:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Tru...Nonmoral_Sense

I can tell you first hand that this is false. After having many confrontations with gangs, I will have you know that they WILL harm you if you happen be in the wrong place at the wrong time..I had been robbed a few times at gun point. Jumped for a my ipod,phone whatever, if they see you have something that looks expensive they will try to take it..Not only that but they also constantly carry out home invasions. If you don't live in the sub-urbs of a city then you will likely never hear about these things happening.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If everyone were armed, or at least if there more armed guards present in such situations. Then damage from these tragedies would never have reached the extent it did..

I'm not disputing the last sentence as that should always be how things happpen. Sometimes however, like in terms of the British taxes that were imposed on the colonists, that option may not be available.. Whether you're right or wrong one thing is for sure, without firearms we stand zero chance, zilch, nada...

Granted I'm no history expert, I just did a few Google searches and remembered some of what I was taught in school. However with that said I am capable of realizing when I am wrong, and this may be one of those situations.. School taught me yes we did something bad, and we tried to make up for it. But I'm not gonna dwell on the past and forever feel ashamed about this country that gave me, and so many othes opportunity. There has been too many lives lost so that we can be here.

Unfortunately, the United States of America was built on a foundation of genocide and murderous conquest, and the inability of 18th Century naval technology to allow England (who was having other political problems of its own at that time) to crush the rebellion in time. Ironically, the country very nearly destroyed itself in civil war that turned into total war. Had Europe recognized the Confederate States as a country, we would be living in a very different land. But, they refused to do so.

Prove it!Attachment 22371

Enorbet I don't say you may be right. But indeed you have said it right!

m.m.

Isn't this intrinsic to humans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups, religion is just an example of this.

No blurring the lines here now!
 

If you live in a desert and teach your kids to find hidden colored eggs once a year but you hide them a week early to rot first, is that right or wrong?

May I suggest that we should properly draw a distinction(!!) between: "what is done 'in the name of religion,'" and, "what is championed by the religion itself?"

I suspect that we will find an enormous gulf between these two, no matter which "religion" we may be talking about.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism ... pick one(!) ... when Man wants to do Inhuman Things to Other Man, it does not seem difficult for him to come up with a Religious Justification. :mad:

The first time I went to Scout Camp, my parents told me to be sure to come home with two Merit Badges: First Aid, and, Rifle and Shotgun.

Little did they know (nor, did I ...) that I would "take to the rifle range like a duck in the water." Here was a test of pure-skill(!) that a wimpy kid like me could actually master. I shot through a hundred rounds of .22 ammunition, and borrowed many more. I learned how to shoot "skeet," and tried my weak-armed "not-so best" at archery. I still enjoy practicing my skills. ("The range is the same, the gun is the same, the target is the same, the distance is the same: the only difference ... is "you.") A pure test of skill.

So ... what does this possibly have to do with "inhumanity in the name of religion?" Absolutely nothing. "With guns?" LIkewise: nothing.

People who, for whatever incomprehensible reason, might bear it in their hearts to do something hideous to their fellow man, probably need no justification. Neither should we condemn the tools they use. The gods of the religion that they profess to cling-to will surely spit them out of their mouths: "Away from Me! I never knew you!" The weapons in their hands, likewise, had nothing to do with it, such that attempts to remove similar weapons from the hands of others will have no useful effect.

Pray, now, with the families. Grieve for them. Grieve with them. Pray.

--
"Yes, I know which 'thread' this is!" It is still okay to ... "Pray."

And ... to cry. Even, to scream. :cry:

Guns don't kill on purpose, they've just evolved for that purpose... :eek: (no deNial.)

Lazer guns are far more accurate and even safe fun!

You'd think searching the web for a quoted term such as: "scariest legal guns" would show more about the guns than the arguments but war is, as of yet, in stone!?.