20% of US citizens have a family member killed by a gun.
- Thread starter Billyd
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Remember this from 2021?
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...-latest-backdoor-plan-to-limit-gun-ownership/
On Aug. 20, the U.S. State Department announced that it would soon prohibit the importation of Russian ammunition and firearms, adding to an already dramatic ammunition supply shortage.
According to the State Department, the reason for the sudden ban is not related to some important problem with the safety of Russian firearms or ammunition; rather, the ban is part of a “second round of sanctions on the Russian Federation over its use of a ‘Novichok’ nerve agent in the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition figure Aleksey Navalny.” MORE
Years ago it was pondered in Congress to ban the manufacture and or sale of ammunition.
The idea being the Constitution isn't violated because the 2nd guarantees the inalienable right to own guns, not ammunition too.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...-latest-backdoor-plan-to-limit-gun-ownership/
On Aug. 20, the U.S. State Department announced that it would soon prohibit the importation of Russian ammunition and firearms, adding to an already dramatic ammunition supply shortage.
According to the State Department, the reason for the sudden ban is not related to some important problem with the safety of Russian firearms or ammunition; rather, the ban is part of a “second round of sanctions on the Russian Federation over its use of a ‘Novichok’ nerve agent in the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition figure Aleksey Navalny.” MORE
Years ago it was pondered in Congress to ban the manufacture and or sale of ammunition.
The idea being the Constitution isn't violated because the 2nd guarantees the inalienable right to own guns, not ammunition too.
-
1
- Show all
The reason I disagree has to do with the notion that anyone is accountable for "also has the responsibility to ensure that his arms don't fall into the hands of those who have no business even touching a firearm."
If you mean a young child, then I agree.
It's just that the left wing media and politicians have turned this into a different meaning. They want to hold manufacturing companies, dealers, private owners responsible for the criminal's actions with those tools. That is a roundabout way of violating the 2a.
Examples:
A. A criminal broke into my storage building and gathered garden tools to break into my house. He used those tools in order to steal more tools if greater value to him. That's his crime, not mine. He was unable to breach my home/ "my castle", and we caught him. He had a stabbing weapon on him. Whoever he stole that weapon from is not responsible, the thief is.
As soon as I can, I am going to keep my garden tools in a more secure location and fortify the structures with even stronger security.
B. When the Philistines conquered other nations, like God's people during King Saul's reign, they stole their weapons. The conquered allowed their weapons to fall into the conquerors' hands.
See what I mean?
That is exactly what the enemies are trying to do to all of the states.
If you mean a young child, then I agree.
It's just that the left wing media and politicians have turned this into a different meaning. They want to hold manufacturing companies, dealers, private owners responsible for the criminal's actions with those tools. That is a roundabout way of violating the 2a.
Examples:
A. A criminal broke into my storage building and gathered garden tools to break into my house. He used those tools in order to steal more tools if greater value to him. That's his crime, not mine. He was unable to breach my home/ "my castle", and we caught him. He had a stabbing weapon on him. Whoever he stole that weapon from is not responsible, the thief is.
As soon as I can, I am going to keep my garden tools in a more secure location and fortify the structures with even stronger security.
B. When the Philistines conquered other nations, like God's people during King Saul's reign, they stole their weapons. The conquered allowed their weapons to fall into the conquerors' hands.
See what I mean?
That is exactly what the enemies are trying to do to all of the states.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
2020 US gun deaths: 45,222
2020 US abortions: 620,327
a 7:100 ratio, btw.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm
2020 US abortions: 620,327
a 7:100 ratio, btw.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm
-
1
-
1
- Show all
There are more than plenty of reasons to believe that dictators would do to us the same as dictators have done throughout history. We have been relatively safer than many societies because self defense has been retained as a right of the people.
Just across the border in Mexico, as is S.A., there are drug cartels that pay their gts to have assistance keeping the territories/ turf without competition. They get away with crimes against the people, but the people are imprisoned if found with a weapon.
I've heard interviews with border patrol that unspeakable things are done to women and children as they travel North through those countries to the USA as illegals.
Those are areas where there are strict gun/weapons control laws. It breeds crime by providing criminals with all the power, while keeping decent families from the power to defend life and property.
Just across the border in Mexico, as is S.A., there are drug cartels that pay their gts to have assistance keeping the territories/ turf without competition. They get away with crimes against the people, but the people are imprisoned if found with a weapon.
I've heard interviews with border patrol that unspeakable things are done to women and children as they travel North through those countries to the USA as illegals.
Those are areas where there are strict gun/weapons control laws. It breeds crime by providing criminals with all the power, while keeping decent families from the power to defend life and property.
-
1
- Show all
It's like comparing apples to snowballs.
Except for the fact they're both legal.
What should forewarn people is the Leftist corrupt Supreme Court vacated a woman's right to choose. A right granted in the 70's on Constitutional grounds.
Which should forewarn Americans who respect the unalienable 2nd amendment.
Except for the fact they're both legal.
What should forewarn people is the Leftist corrupt Supreme Court vacated a woman's right to choose. A right granted in the 70's on Constitutional grounds.
Which should forewarn Americans who respect the unalienable 2nd amendment.
In southern California as one drives closer to the Mexico border they'll see signs warning against bringing guns into the country.
If a secret caravan could carry weapons to the disarmed population they'd have an opportunity to overcome the evil that enslaves the population.
Mexican police arrest people caught with a gun at their border. And take them straight to prison.
And there, there is no right to a phone call or legal representation. You simply disappear. And America has no treaty right to free you.
Americans may wish to reflect also upon our independence day coming July 4th. And perhaps feel gratitude for the sacrifice of life our ancestors made to insure this land was free of British rule.
Sweet words toward our enemies didn't accomplish that. Reasoning did not either. Guns made us free.
An armed population threatens those who would seek to enslave us today.
China floated a spy balloon over this nation for God only knows how long, in truth.
Our government knew this and did nothing until it became necessary to lead people to think the Air Force put a stop to it.
Our country is being invaded daily. And our government is not only enabling this but is rewarding the invaders using our tax dollars.
Our pretender and thief is responsible.
Our government, our legislators, our supreme court, are not our friends. Their god is money.
We're led like saps to give charitable contributions to third world countries. Those charities are only responsible for giving a small percentage of gross proceeds to the object of their charitable intent.
They choose countries whose dictators are starving their citizens to death. Those people are under armed threat as the disarmed.
If you're one of those donors and it makes you feel better to help the oppressed, don't make the mistake of supporting any effort to disarm the people of this country so that we become them.
The enemies of America, within and without, would waste no time taking us over.
An armed population insures life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you love freedom don't take it for granted.
If a secret caravan could carry weapons to the disarmed population they'd have an opportunity to overcome the evil that enslaves the population.
Mexican police arrest people caught with a gun at their border. And take them straight to prison.
And there, there is no right to a phone call or legal representation. You simply disappear. And America has no treaty right to free you.
Americans may wish to reflect also upon our independence day coming July 4th. And perhaps feel gratitude for the sacrifice of life our ancestors made to insure this land was free of British rule.
Sweet words toward our enemies didn't accomplish that. Reasoning did not either. Guns made us free.
An armed population threatens those who would seek to enslave us today.
China floated a spy balloon over this nation for God only knows how long, in truth.
Our government knew this and did nothing until it became necessary to lead people to think the Air Force put a stop to it.
Our country is being invaded daily. And our government is not only enabling this but is rewarding the invaders using our tax dollars.
Our pretender and thief is responsible.
Our government, our legislators, our supreme court, are not our friends. Their god is money.
We're led like saps to give charitable contributions to third world countries. Those charities are only responsible for giving a small percentage of gross proceeds to the object of their charitable intent.
They choose countries whose dictators are starving their citizens to death. Those people are under armed threat as the disarmed.
If you're one of those donors and it makes you feel better to help the oppressed, don't make the mistake of supporting any effort to disarm the people of this country so that we become them.
The enemies of America, within and without, would waste no time taking us over.
An armed population insures life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you love freedom don't take it for granted.
-
1
- Show all
The right to choose to have an abortion is listed as a right in the Bill of rights? I don't see that in my copy.
If you read Blackmun's decision it wasn't her right to choose that he affirmed rather the governments right to shut their eyes to what was going on. That is a direct contradiction to the law given to Noah. The government does not have the right to shut their eyes to murder.
If you read Blackmun's decision it wasn't her right to choose that he affirmed rather the governments right to shut their eyes to what was going on. That is a direct contradiction to the law given to Noah. The government does not have the right to shut their eyes to murder.
-
1
- Show all
America is not ruled by the law of Noah.
Abortion was made legal for decades on Constitutional grounds.
It was not, by law, legalized murder.
Whereas Capital punishment is if an innocent person is put to death. And our system of government is representative. Making each citizen guilty of that murder of that innocent.
Where in the Constitution is CP allowed?
Abortion was made legal for decades on Constitutional grounds.
It was not, by law, legalized murder.
Whereas Capital punishment is if an innocent person is put to death. And our system of government is representative. Making each citizen guilty of that murder of that innocent.
Where in the Constitution is CP allowed?
Every single government on earth is required to treat murder seriously, and if they don't they will lose legitimacy with God and that results in their collapse. We have seen many governments come and go over the last six thousand years, this has happened many times when God has judged a nation. The reason the BLM protests had some merit was because of Jim Crow and Slavery when parts of this country did not treat murder seriously. The Civil War destroyed the confederacy for this reason. There is no government leader of any country that can ignore justice in the matter of murder and hope to hold onto his position for long.
Either you do not understand the US constitution or you do not understand what you just said. According to our constitution the Supreme court has no authority to make something legal. What the Supreme court has the authority to do is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. Therefore they only have authority on laws that the constitution speaks about, the constitution is very clear that if it does not talk about a law then the Supreme court has no authority. The recent ruling by the Supreme court concluded that the US constitution does not speak about abortion. In that case it is up to each state to decide their own laws.
In the previous ruling Blackmun determine that the right to unreasonable searches and warrantless searches applied to abortion. According to him it wasn't that abortion was legal or not, rather by law, the government had no right to know. That is a stunning incomprehensible ruling. Each state regulates the hunting of animals, protecting baby fish and wildlife, banning hunting when animals might be pregnant, but they have no right to protect human babies? The IRS has the right to collect taxes and detailed tax records from doctors performing abortions yet they have no right to regulate abortions? Even Blackmun agreed with the absurdity of that and so they made the stipulation that this applied to situations where the baby was not viable outside the womb. He understood you can't legalize the killing of people, so he argued if the baby isn't viable apart from the womb it isn't a person. That opened the door to a long list of laws designating when the baby would be defined as a person and the primary reason for the Supreme court finally admitting the ruling wasn't constitutional because they were going to be flooded with one abortion case after another. In that particular case Mississippi was arguing that the baby would be defined as a person when you could detect a heartbeat.
So the initial ruling never made abortion legal, what it made illegal was the government making any laws to prohibit abortion before the baby was a person. But that also created a huge problem, where in the constitution does it talk about the point at which a baby becomes a person?
It is a terrible mistake to think that if the Supreme court ruled one way then that means it was legal. In that case slavery was legal. Dredd Scott is one example of how horribly wrong the Supreme court can be. Instead what is true is we have two different courts, one said that the constitution protected a woman's right to privacy to abort her baby, another court said that is absurd, the constitution does not say any such thing, and it is up to each state to pass their laws.
Wow, you really do not understand the US constitution. No where in the US constitution does it specifically address capital punishment. As a result there is no federal law legalizing or outlawing it because according to the US constitution if it doesn't talk about it then it is up to each state. What the constitution does say is illegal is cruel and unusual punishment. That means if a state legalizes CP they must make sure it is not cruel or unusual. This is why they now mainly use lethal injection which puts the person to sleep before stopping the heart.
However, it is amazing that even though the constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishment the Supreme court has never ruled that this forbids capital punishment. In other words this shows what a ridiculous stretch it was to say that the protection from unwarranted searches of your house is talking about abortion.
Either you do not understand the US constitution or you do not understand what you just said. According to our constitution the Supreme court has no authority to make something legal. What the Supreme court has the authority to do is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. Therefore they only have authority on laws that the constitution speaks about, the constitution is very clear that if it does not talk about a law then the Supreme court has no authority. The recent ruling by the Supreme court concluded that the US constitution does not speak about abortion. In that case it is up to each state to decide their own laws.
In the previous ruling Blackmun determine that the right to unreasonable searches and warrantless searches applied to abortion. According to him it wasn't that abortion was legal or not, rather by law, the government had no right to know. That is a stunning incomprehensible ruling. Each state regulates the hunting of animals, protecting baby fish and wildlife, banning hunting when animals might be pregnant, but they have no right to protect human babies? The IRS has the right to collect taxes and detailed tax records from doctors performing abortions yet they have no right to regulate abortions? Even Blackmun agreed with the absurdity of that and so they made the stipulation that this applied to situations where the baby was not viable outside the womb. He understood you can't legalize the killing of people, so he argued if the baby isn't viable apart from the womb it isn't a person. That opened the door to a long list of laws designating when the baby would be defined as a person and the primary reason for the Supreme court finally admitting the ruling wasn't constitutional because they were going to be flooded with one abortion case after another. In that particular case Mississippi was arguing that the baby would be defined as a person when you could detect a heartbeat.
So the initial ruling never made abortion legal, what it made illegal was the government making any laws to prohibit abortion before the baby was a person. But that also created a huge problem, where in the constitution does it talk about the point at which a baby becomes a person?
It is a terrible mistake to think that if the Supreme court ruled one way then that means it was legal. In that case slavery was legal. Dredd Scott is one example of how horribly wrong the Supreme court can be. Instead what is true is we have two different courts, one said that the constitution protected a woman's right to privacy to abort her baby, another court said that is absurd, the constitution does not say any such thing, and it is up to each state to pass their laws.
Wow, you really do not understand the US constitution. No where in the US constitution does it specifically address capital punishment. As a result there is no federal law legalizing or outlawing it because according to the US constitution if it doesn't talk about it then it is up to each state. What the constitution does say is illegal is cruel and unusual punishment. That means if a state legalizes CP they must make sure it is not cruel or unusual. This is why they now mainly use lethal injection which puts the person to sleep before stopping the heart.
However, it is amazing that even though the constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishment the Supreme court has never ruled that this forbids capital punishment. In other words this shows what a ridiculous stretch it was to say that the protection from unwarranted searches of your house is talking about abortion.
-
1
- Show all
The Misunderstanding about Capital Punishment
There are several main reasons why opponents to Capital punishment oppose it. The reason I support it is because Jesus commanded us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I was convicted of a crime I didn't do I would ask the judge for the death penalty and I will explain why.
1. The main reason is that you might execute an innocent person.
2. The second major reason is that the criminal justice system is biased against the poor. If you can afford the best lawyers money can find like OJ did then you have almost 0 chance of getting the death penalty. It is poor people that get the death penalty, not the rich.
3. The death penalty is more expensive that life in prison.
These are three excellent reasons to be concerned and to want to do something, what these well meaning people miss is the absolute best way to do something about it is the death penalty.
1. 150 years ago it was estimated that one third of the people in prison were innocent. Today it is thought to be about 5%, and that is not talking about death row. It is much harder to get on death row than to simply be found guilty of a crime. So what has cause the very great improvement? Forensics. We have fingerprints, DNA, and a whole host of tools we never had 150 years ago that can greatly confirm we have the right person and exonerate an innocent person. For example, the first time fingerprints were ever used to solve a crime it was a murder case. A woman's children were murdered and she said it was her ex boyfriend who killed them. She saw him leave her home with blood on his hands and when she went in the house the children were dead. So the police arrested him and beat him for 24 hours to get a confession out of him, standard practice of the day, but he would not confess. So the detective wanted to be sure before executing him and he noticed a bloody fingerprint. He thought if they could match it to the man then that would be proof. It was immediately apparent that it was not his finger, it was a woman's finger. It matched the mother. If they had arrested him for stealing they would have thrown him in jail, but because no one wants to get a death penalty sentence wrong they tried to come up with some way to find proof and because they did how many innocent people over the next 150 years didn't go to jail? Why is it more compassionate to put someone in jail for life? You put him in jail for 40 years for a crime he didn't do? That is not compassion. When you look at developments in forensics you discover they almost always take place because it is a death row case or a case with the possibility of a death sentence.
2. Yes, the justice system is biased, which is why we should fix that. People lie, witnesses lie, but physical evidence doesn't lie. Forensics has done a tremendous job at making sure innocent people are not convicted of crimes they didn't commit. In fact we use DNA now to prove that many who were previously convicted of a crime are in fact innocent. DNA is another case where the man was going to get the death penalty and he had confessed to the crime, but the police wanted to be sure. They used DNA and it turned out the man who confessed was innocent. However, they were able to use DNA to then find the real guilty person. This person was a rapist and a murderer. Forensics doesn't just help the innocent it also helps society by making sure we get the guilty person. In this case the police went to the university, and convinced the professor to help them because if they didn't an innocent person might die. It is amazing how many people will give their time and money to help prove someone is innocent that is on death row, but if they have a life sentence they just shrug it off. The death penalty motivates everyone, police, lawyers, judges and even professors to make sure they get it right.
3. The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Do you know why that is? It is because if you are on death row you are given many more appeals. It is because you get free legal help and that will include free help with forensics. If I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit I would ask the judge for the death penalty. If he asked me why I would say "because I am innocent and I aim to prove it. If I have the death penalty I will get more appeals, 25 years on average in prison before the sentence is carried out, and free legal assistance. I need that to prove I am innocent. It will be much harder for me to prove I am innocent while in prison without that help and there is no guarantee I'll get it if you don't give me the death penalty.
There are several main reasons why opponents to Capital punishment oppose it. The reason I support it is because Jesus commanded us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I was convicted of a crime I didn't do I would ask the judge for the death penalty and I will explain why.
1. The main reason is that you might execute an innocent person.
2. The second major reason is that the criminal justice system is biased against the poor. If you can afford the best lawyers money can find like OJ did then you have almost 0 chance of getting the death penalty. It is poor people that get the death penalty, not the rich.
3. The death penalty is more expensive that life in prison.
These are three excellent reasons to be concerned and to want to do something, what these well meaning people miss is the absolute best way to do something about it is the death penalty.
1. 150 years ago it was estimated that one third of the people in prison were innocent. Today it is thought to be about 5%, and that is not talking about death row. It is much harder to get on death row than to simply be found guilty of a crime. So what has cause the very great improvement? Forensics. We have fingerprints, DNA, and a whole host of tools we never had 150 years ago that can greatly confirm we have the right person and exonerate an innocent person. For example, the first time fingerprints were ever used to solve a crime it was a murder case. A woman's children were murdered and she said it was her ex boyfriend who killed them. She saw him leave her home with blood on his hands and when she went in the house the children were dead. So the police arrested him and beat him for 24 hours to get a confession out of him, standard practice of the day, but he would not confess. So the detective wanted to be sure before executing him and he noticed a bloody fingerprint. He thought if they could match it to the man then that would be proof. It was immediately apparent that it was not his finger, it was a woman's finger. It matched the mother. If they had arrested him for stealing they would have thrown him in jail, but because no one wants to get a death penalty sentence wrong they tried to come up with some way to find proof and because they did how many innocent people over the next 150 years didn't go to jail? Why is it more compassionate to put someone in jail for life? You put him in jail for 40 years for a crime he didn't do? That is not compassion. When you look at developments in forensics you discover they almost always take place because it is a death row case or a case with the possibility of a death sentence.
2. Yes, the justice system is biased, which is why we should fix that. People lie, witnesses lie, but physical evidence doesn't lie. Forensics has done a tremendous job at making sure innocent people are not convicted of crimes they didn't commit. In fact we use DNA now to prove that many who were previously convicted of a crime are in fact innocent. DNA is another case where the man was going to get the death penalty and he had confessed to the crime, but the police wanted to be sure. They used DNA and it turned out the man who confessed was innocent. However, they were able to use DNA to then find the real guilty person. This person was a rapist and a murderer. Forensics doesn't just help the innocent it also helps society by making sure we get the guilty person. In this case the police went to the university, and convinced the professor to help them because if they didn't an innocent person might die. It is amazing how many people will give their time and money to help prove someone is innocent that is on death row, but if they have a life sentence they just shrug it off. The death penalty motivates everyone, police, lawyers, judges and even professors to make sure they get it right.
3. The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Do you know why that is? It is because if you are on death row you are given many more appeals. It is because you get free legal help and that will include free help with forensics. If I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit I would ask the judge for the death penalty. If he asked me why I would say "because I am innocent and I aim to prove it. If I have the death penalty I will get more appeals, 25 years on average in prison before the sentence is carried out, and free legal assistance. I need that to prove I am innocent. It will be much harder for me to prove I am innocent while in prison without that help and there is no guarantee I'll get it if you don't give me the death penalty.