Gun Control

[Immanuel Can]

Note to IC:

Will turning Judgment Day and eternal damnation into a joke likely work with God?

I wouldn't try it.

Lots of people do.

People like henry, apparently.

And yet, it's you I'm talking to.

Does he have to renounce this and accept Jesus Christ as his own personal savior or not?

You miss the whole point of what happens at the Judgment. At the Judgment, things are judged as they stand. You've had all the time you need to come to the right conclusions yourself, and all the knowledge you have needed to do it. So your mind's made up, and your situation's already been declared -- by you.

As C.S. Lewis put it,

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

Me?
Well, I'd like to think that if there is a Christian God, He'd at least respect the fact that I often took His existence quite seriously.

"Took His existence seriously"? What does that mean?

If a person holds the existence of God losely, as one of many possible theses, does that amount to "taking God seriously?" Or does thinking about Him, and deciding one is just as well to do nothing but wait to see what happens after one dies, does that amount to "taking God seriously"? Or how about living one's whole life as a skeptic, and then just hoping to get a pass on whatever terms please me...is that "taking God seriously"? What if God had spoken, and I simply refused to read His words or think about them, or only read them with an urgent desire to dismiss what I was reading; would I be "taking God seriously"? Or if I prefered to dabble in other "religions," and perhaps in some form of universalism, because I couldn't be bothered to search a book that would put serious responsibilties on me to know and respond to truth; would I then be "taking God seriously"?

And what if He sent His Son, and I never even bothered to pay attention, even though I had heard about that: would that be "taking God seriously"?

You're going to have to pin that down. What's allegedly "serious" to one person may ultimately prove not really very "serious" at all.

Exactly! Given the manner in which our religious faith reflects all of the existential variables in our life that predispose us to go in any number of directions here, some will be more serious about it than others.

I still have no idea what you mean by "serious."

You don't like defining your terms much, do you?

And here at PN, it's not God that pins things down, it's you.

No, I have no authority.

You may as well say it's the postman who wrote you all your letters. I'm not the author, and not the authority here; I just deliver the mail.

[henry quirk]

I'm not gonna speak for Mannie (he speaks, has spoken, for himself).

Me: as I understand it, if Christianity is the truth, and if I don't accept Jesus as the Way, then I'm damned.

Again, I'm not speakin' for Mannie, but, as I'm his friend, my possible damnation concerns him.

And guess what? Your possible damnation concerns him too.

But, here's the thing: all Mannie does, can do, is say his piece. He has no power to make anyone Christian, and I don't think he'd exercise such power if he had it.

Folks like yourself get your panties twisted, thinkin' Mannie is layin' judgement down.

Best I can tell: he's just the messenger.

What you oughta ask yourself: why does it chafe my ass so bad Mannie believes sumthin' I dismiss as superstition? Am I just thin-skinned, or, am I worried that, mebbe, Mannie is on the right side of things?

'nuff said.

and what any of this has to do with a man's right to his property is beyond me

[iambiguous]

I wouldn't try it.

Lots of people do.

People like henry, apparently.

And yet, it's you I'm talking to.

But I didn't make a joke out of it. Treating God's Judgment as a jail sentence you "escape" from.

I accept that a God, the God is one possible explanation for existence itself. Only down through the ages there have been many, many, many, many Gods said to have provided us with the One True Path to immortality and salvation. All of them, just as with you, insisting that it is their God and only their God that sends you up or down.

Though henry's God seems to have left that part just hanging up in the spiritual clouds. Mere mortals must "think up" their own path through Reason and Nature to what may or may not be immortality and salvation.

For all we know, the Deist God may care not a whit about how we think about guns. Though the irony is that there are no doubt Deists on both sides of the political spectrum here. Only henry knows how his own dogmatic, authoritarian convictions are lined up with the supernatural here.

You on the other hand, certainly seem to connect the dots between True Christians and your own fulminating fanatic political prejudices regarding guns. Again, almost as though you and God are a team here. No leaps of faith for either one of you!

Does he have to renounce this and accept Jesus Christ as his own personal savior or not?

You miss the whole point of what happens at the Judgment. At the Judgment, things are judged as they stand. You've had all the time you need to come to the right conclusions yourself, and all the knowledge you have needed to do it. So your mind's made up, and your situation's already been declared -- by you.

Well, in the Bible it says, "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

And...

"Salvation comes by knowing the Father through the Son. Jesus says, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

Where does henry fit in here on Judgment Day?

Me?
Well, I'd like to think that if there is a Christian God, He'd at least respect the fact that I often took His existence quite seriously.

"Took His existence seriously"? What does that mean?

If a person holds the existence of God losely, as one of many possible theses, does that amount to "taking God seriously?" Or does thinking about Him, and deciding one is just as well to do nothing but wait to see what happens after one dies, does that amount to "taking God seriously"? Or how about living one's whole life as a skeptic, and then just hoping to get a pass on whatever terms please me...is that "taking God seriously"? What if God had spoken, and I simply refused to read His words or think about them, or only read them with an urgent desire to dismiss what I was reading; would I be "taking God seriously"? Or if I prefered to dabble in other "religions," and perhaps in some form of universalism, because I couldn't be bothered to search a book that would put serious responsibilties on me to know and respond to truth; would I then be "taking God seriously"?

And what if He sent His Son, and I never even bothered to pay attention, even though I had heard about that: would that be "taking God seriously"?

You're going to have to pin that down. What's allegedly "serious" to one person may ultimately prove not really very "serious" at all.

Exactly! Given the manner in which our religious faith reflects all of the existential variables in our life that predispose us to go in any number of directions here, some will be more serious about it than others.

And that includes you too, of course.

But I'm certainly willing to put my own commitment to seriously grappling with God and religion on the line. Though, sure, if God taps me on the shoulder on Judgment Day and insists that He must first run that by you, I'm likely damned.

Just not henry, right?

And then that hush-hush "private" deal you have with henry. He shares your own political prejudices on things like guns and abortions so Jesus Christ will cut him some slack on Judgment Day.

That loophole I keep waiting for.

I still have no idea what you mean by "serious."

That's because religious objectivists of your ilk refuse to take anyone seriously if they don't think exactly as they do. That's why harping on being a True Christian is so important to you. In other words, a Serious Christian.

That you refuse even to acknowledge the possibility that your convictions revolve not around what you believe but around how what you believe comforts and consoles you is what keeps you up in the spiritual clouds in the first place. Bring those "logical" intellectual contraptions of yours down to earth and the sheer complexity of human interactions alone keeps you up there closer to God.

You don't like defining your terms much, do you?

We've been over that, of course. You're all about defining terms. That way you can keep the discussion up in the technical clouds. Endless arguments over what words in a "world of words" mean.

And here at PN, it's not God that pins things down, it's you. It's you who judges us as either the True Christian packin' or as damned.

No, I have no authority.

You may as well say it's the postman who wrote you all your letters. I'm not the author, and not the authority here; I just deliver the mail.

Uh, define "postman"?

[commonsense]

Thirty Seconds To Make A Point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRxzoKQ8Zk

The original KKK, and the KKK for most of its halcion years, was 100% Democrat. No exceptions. As were all the slave owners. And the Old South itself.

Somebody wants you to forget that, and to forget their entire history.

Good people remember.

Aren’t you conflating the Dixie Democrats with all Democrats?

[Immanuel Can]

Thirty Seconds To Make A Point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRxzoKQ8Zk

The original KKK, and the KKK for most of its halcion years, was 100% Democrat. No exceptions. As were all the slave owners. And the Old South itself.

Somebody wants you to forget that, and to forget their entire history.

Good people remember.

Aren’t you conflating the Dixie Democrats with all Democrats?

Jerone is pointing out who owns that history.

And are they different now? Not much, it would seem.

Look at what the Democrats have done, and are still doing, in all the cities where they've had a lock on power for decades...Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, Detroit...tell me what you see.

[iambiguous]

Me: as I understand it, if Christianity is the truth, and if I don't accept Jesus as the Way, then I'm damned.

Again, I'm not speakin' for Mannie, but, as I'm his friend, my possible damnation concerns him.

Okay, so Mannie does believe that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are damned. That concerns him. Even if God greets you on Judgment Day packin' a bazooka Himself, you're still going down unless you jettison your Deist God.

Note to Mannie:

Jump in here, please. Is he damned or not? And do you know this for a fact? Much like you know the Christian God resides in Heaven along side the Pope residing in the Vatican? Or is this admittedly more along the lines of a "leap of faith"?

And guess what? Your possible damnation concerns him too.

Him and dozens of other One True Path proponents out there. Of course many of them no doubt are concerned with his damnation, right? Him being on the wrong One True Path. Along with you and I.

Thus my point that with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, you'd think the real deal God could provide us with an idiot-proof, "absolutely no doubt about it" path to the One True Path itself.

Indeed, where did you go wrong? What are Mannie's thoughts on that?

But, here's the thing: all Mannie does, can do, is say his piece. He has no power to make anyone Christian, and I don't think he'd exercise such power if he had it.

Same thing though. With so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how can he fall back on these...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A

...to convince us that the Christian God does in fact exist. That beyond a "leap of fate" or a "wager" we can know this if we watch the videos.

That's his message, right? You're damned because he knows -- he knows -- that the Deist God does not exist in the same universe with his Christian God.

What you oughta ask yourself: why does it chafe my ass so bad Mannie believes sumthin' I dismiss as superstition? Am I just thin-skinned, or, am I worried that, mebbe, Mannie is on the right side of things?

'nuff said.

I can't make it any clearer:

With objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and with immortality and salvation at stake on the other side of it, I'm more than willing to believe that Mannie is on the right side of things.

When he is able to provide me with substantive and substantial evidence that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven and that beyond a "leap of faith" or a "wager" he can demonstrate to both you and I how to save our souls.

Again, as though saving our souls revolved instead around demonstrating that the Pope does reside in the Vatican. We both have everything to gain if he can manage that, right?

Especially if he can connect the dots between the Christian God and his own political prejudices regarding guns. I'll purchase a bazooka from you myself if he can pull that off.

and what any of this has to do with a man's right to his property is beyond me

Huh? What's a man's right to his property for 70 odd years "down here" matter compared to how God judge's our thinking about that for all the rest of eternity?

Run that by Mannie and get back to me.

[Walker]

The only difference between now and my scenario is whether or not, when it happens, there is any teacher in that school who has a gun. And there are teachers -- I know this beyond any possibility of doubt -- who would gladly carry a firearm to protect the children in their care. Some would rush to volunteer, given our present realities.

The would be more effective than a hallway in Texas packed with cops hiding around the corner.

Sad, isn't it? I know teachers who would literally put their bodies between any gunman and their classes. But they'd die instantly, and so would their students, when the did.

Empty handed, they'd lie on the floor in their own blood, listening the the cries and screams of other people's children dying.

If it were me, I'd empty a clip into any gunman that came through the door. If he didn't know the safe-word the school had chosen, so I knew he was a police officer or school official, and if he stepped into my room with a gun in his hands, I'd fill him with lead before I let him get at the kids. Period.

But not everybody would. That, we know. The closer one's relationship with one's class, the greater the chance the teacher in question would go to extremes to protect them -- instinctively, even. That's just human nature. The police don't know the children. They're just there to minimize the chance that anybody gets shot...and we see how that worked out for them.

Teachers have a closer relationship with the kids. But we owe such courageous teachers the means to make a meaningful defense of themselves and their kids.

Folks sometimes say an armed citizenry wouldn’t stand a chance against the government should it come down to a civil war, because the government has tanks and jets and atomic bombs, and bazookas.

Those cops are the government. Given the likes of those 300+ cops who stood around listening to gunshots, a determined armed citizenry, such as armed teachers in defense, would stand a pretty good chance … unless the government hires mercenaries from China to do the dirty work, and don’t be surprised.

Schlichter makes a good point in his recent column: Who Will They Get To Do The Tyrant’s Dirty Work?

[henry quirk]

You wanted to know what happens to me, if Christianity is the truth, and I don't accept Jesus as the Way.

Now you do.

Mannie and me, we both told you.

What you oughta do now: thank us for our answers.

Fat chance of that happenin', right?

[edited out the unnecessary]

[henry quirk]

Folks sometimes say an armed citizenry wouldn’t stand a chance against the government should it come down to a civil war, because the government has tanks and jets and atomic bombs, and bazookas.

Those cops are the government. Given the likes of those 300+ cops who stood around listening to gunshots, a determined armed citizenry, such as armed teachers in defense, would stand a pretty good chance … unless the government hires mercenaries from China to do the dirty work, and don’t be surprised.

Schlichter makes a good point in his recent column: Who Will They Get To Do The Tyrant’s Dirty Work?

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

You may as well say it's the postman who wrote you all your letters. I'm not the author, and not the authority here; I just deliver the mail.

You don't just deliver the mail, Mr Can. You have opened it, read it, interpreted it and insist that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is irrational. A competent postman would stick the bible through the letter box, carry on to next door and mind their own fucking business.

[uwot]

Folks sometimes say an armed citizenry wouldn’t stand a chance against the government should it come down to a civil war, because the government has tanks and jets and atomic bombs, and bazookas.

Those cops are the government. Given the likes of those 300+ cops who stood around listening to gunshots, a determined armed citizenry, such as armed teachers in defense, would stand a pretty good chance.

There are more guns than people in the US. Do you Walker, henry quirk, Immanuel Can or anyone else know of any examples where a 'determined armed citizenry' prevented even one death?

[Immanuel Can]

Folks sometimes say an armed citizenry wouldn’t stand a chance against the government should it come down to a civil war, because the government has tanks and jets and atomic bombs, and bazookas.

They might be right...and they might not.

But either way, the real danger today is not the goverment coming for you directly; it's the government-permitted angry mobs, and the government-enabled criminals coming for you. And they can definitely be held off with a significant weapon. That's the point.

[henry quirk]

prevented even one death?

That's not the goal.

Endin' the slavers (actual & wanna be): that's the goal.

-----

edit...

No: endin' slavers is the means; stayin' free, that's the goal.

[uwot]

... endin' slavers is the means; stayin' free, that's the goal.

That's your personal goal. Can you provide an example of you using your coach gun to end slavers?

[henry quirk]

... endin' slavers is the means; stayin' free, that's the goal.

That's your personal goal. Can you provide an example of you using your coach gun to end slavers?

No, agent of the State: I've committed no wrongdoings.

And -- if I had (which I haven't) -- I certainly wouldn't admit to it in a public forum.

Nice try (not).

'nuff said, cop.