Guns and stuff

[2ndRateMind]

One's heart goes out the bereft relatives and blameless wounded of Las Vegas. And one's prayers for the innocent dead.

Yet, one notices that this is hardly an isolated occurrence. Quite why civilians need a right to buy and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weapons evades me. The more that are sold, the more likely they will fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, the criminal, and the downright malicious. No civilised country could or should or would tolerate such lax gun laws for long.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

History shows to me at least that we get to choose between
small scale violence of the kind we saw in Las Vegas or genocidal massacres of unarmed civilian populations as per the Armenians.

Until you overlay that logic and truth in your belief system you will be swayed by the tragedy of gun violence.

Government is the biggest killer of people.

I see this comment above as brilliant because it is based on reality, and we need reality to overrule emotions and politics.

Hmmm. I disagree most profoundly. Politics, like it or not, is a part of reality. And we all know that the NRA and it's constituent members donate very generously to politicians, and lobby extremely effectively, and that is why Americans are cursed with the most lax and irresponsible gun laws in the civilised world. It's about putting profit before people.

Similarly, emotions are part of reality. If my mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter had been senselessly murdered in Las Vegas, or any of the other 18 mass shootings since 2011, I should not like to think that my emotions were dismissed by the government and others as 'not part of reality'.

Every government including the US government is a danger to humanity and particularly a danger to its own population, and the only true defense is a well armed citizenry who can rise up against any form of government tyranny.

Democratic governments exist to promote the interests of their citizens. That is the central advantage of democracies over all other forms of government. If they don't deliver, the citizens can get rid of them, and get rid of them peacefully. All they need do is vote. The question of tyranny does not arise in a properly accountable democracy. So it is useless to argue that military grade automatic assault weaponry is either necessary to, or desirable for, the populace.

And particularly the system of democracy where the majority rules over the minority is the single greatest danger ever threatened against human beings.

And would you prefer a system where the minority rules the majority? That is truly where tyranny lies.

I think anyone would do better to make the system work for them, by taking part in politics, than just opt out, amass an arsenal of small arms weaponry, and confine themselves to complaining loud and long in their local bar that governments do not see it their way. Governments, surely, have a duty to weigh and balance the interests of all their citizens without fear or favour or special consideration for anyone in particular as an individual. But somewhere close to the top of those interests must be the general right to life, the right to go about one's ordinary business without the fear that some sociopath, armed with a legally bought and legitimately owned machine gun, is going to take your life away from you, and perhaps many others as well, on some psychotic whim.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

Similarly, emotions are part of reality. If my mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter had been senselessly murdered in Las Vegas, or any of the other 18 mass shootings since 2011, I should not like to think that my emotions were dismissed by the government and others as 'not part of reality'.

It would be a big improvement if emotions could be suppressed or disregarded in any traumatic event or circumstance.

Human feelings and emotions are capricious and arbitrary and unreliable.

They are great for dating and for mating - but not for serious matters.

Democratic governments exist to promote the interests of their citizens. That is the central advantage of democracies over all other forms of government. If they don't deliver, the citizens can get rid of them, and get rid of them peacefully. All they need do is vote. The question of tyranny does not arise in a properly accountable democracy. So it is useless to argue that military grade automatic assault weaponry is either necessary to, or desirable for, the populace.

The minority vote can not change or get rid of the majority rule of a democracy and that is the fact.

When it really matters then it can not be relied upon to be done peacefully.

Thereby the people must have the 2A - the right to bear arms.

And would you prefer a system where the minority rules the majority? That is truly where tyranny lies.

I say that there needs to be a small group that make up the Leadership, and not one (1) person, and it has to have a Constitution which demands and enforces high moral and ethical standards of the Leaders and of their policies, including that each person must prove fitting to lead.

Neither a minority nor a majority rule.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by 2ndRateMind]

Study history to learn about who does the most killing. Study economics to learn what is the biggest impediment to economic growth. Government is the great idol of our age.

Democracy is irrelevant to the topic. I think also you value democracy a bit too highly. I had a thought recently that what democracy is is virtue signaling.

You say it's futile I say you are defeatist. Thank goodness our ancestors did not regard fighting Hitler as futile.

And all patriots that want to do as much for their country as possible should arm themselves to lend a hand and ease the burden on government to defend themselves. How does my owning a gun make me not a friend of someone?

[Wootah]

Democratic governments exist to promote the interests of their citizens. That is the central advantage of democracies over all other forms of government. If they don't deliver, the citizens can get rid of them, and get rid of them peacefully. All they need do is vote. The question of tyranny does not arise in a properly accountable democracy. So it is useless to argue that military grade automatic assault weaponry is either necessary to, or desirable for, the populace.

That is profoundly naive. Lions would hate for lambs to evolve claws too I am sure. Are you sure your vote changes anything the Dems and Republicans are the same.

[2ndRateMind]

It would be a big improvement if emotions could be suppressed or disregarded in any traumatic event or circumstance.

Human feelings and emotions are capricious and arbitrary and unreliable.

They are great for dating and for mating - but not for serious matters.

Really, I despair!

The love and joy one feels at the birth of one's child is not capricious or arbitrary or unreliable. Nor is the pain and grief one feels at their loss.

Jesus founded His whole church on emotion, for that is what love is, and that is what Christians do, unconditionally. Those who have yet to discover this have yet to discover Christianity.

The minority vote can not change or get rid of the majority rule of a democracy and that is the fact.

When it really matters then it can not be relied upon to be done peacefully.

Thereby the people must have the 2A - the right to bear arms.

Indeed not. But minorities can become majorities, if they have persuasive arguments to put and are prepared to campaign to put them. And that is the way democracy works; if their arguments are not persuasive, and/or if they don't care enough to campaign, minorities will stay minorities and so they should. Certainly, taking to the streets with assault rifles should not even be a considered, let alone preferred, option. That's what they do in banana republic dictatorships and corrupt and backward nations.

I say that there needs to be a small group that make up the Leadership, and not one (1) person, and it has to have a Constitution which demands and enforces high moral and ethical standards of the Leaders and of their policies, including that each person must prove fitting to lead.

Neither a minority nor a majority rule.

Actually, however ethical, (and we all might disagree on what constitutes ethical, exactly) this small leadership group would constitute a tiny minority. But as it happens, your thinking is not so far different to that of Plato (428-348 BC). You might find his Republic a congenial read, and at least you are in good company. But thanks to Plato, and many other thinkers since, Political Philosophy has advanced since the ancient Greeks. And it might behove you to get current with the state of the art.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 15 by 2ndRateMind]

In fairness, Jesus is also the logos. The centre of logic and rationality.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 15 by 2ndRateMind]

In fairness, Jesus is also the logos. The centre of logic and rationality.

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Saducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 'Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?'

Jesus said unto him, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and all the prophets.'

Matthew 22: 34-40 KJV

So Jesus is quite clear that love precedes reason. He did not say: the first commandment is; be rational. And the second is like it; be logical. And that makes sense; if one loves someone, or some group of people, or, indeed, humanity entire, then one seeks their best interests. And one may then deploy reason in that quest. And if everyone sought everyone else's best interests, as well as their own, the world might be a considerably more civilised place to inhabit.

But if one does not so love, then the best interests of others are irrelevant, and reason will not get anyone to make those their objective, or help the loveless to achieve them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

Human feelings and emotions are capricious and arbitrary and unreliable.

Jesus founded His whole church on emotion, for that is what love is, and that is what Christians do, unconditionally. Those who have yet to discover this have yet to discover Christianity.

This is an excellent point even though it shows a horrible ugly truth - but still a great point.

People and Christianity do not comprehend the real meaning of "Love" because it is not a feeling, and love is only an emotion based on the fact that love is an action word as is any emotion, and so people claim to love when they have no comprehension of what that word really means.

Jesus did not preach the "touchy feely" kind of love that dominates the lifestyle of lust and licentiousness - no - Jesus taught a kind of love based on actions, as like laying down thy life, and taking up thy cross, and sending rain on both the just and on the unjust.

I say you (2RM) are correct that this is a big reason why I can not align with mainstream Christianity because they do not comprehend the meaning of love, and since God is love then they do not comprehend God or Jesus accurately.

And you mention the unconditional kind of love (agp"), and that only meant unconditionally received - not unconditionally given - because there are huge conditions in order to give such love, as it takes strong adherence to the Godly principles and doctrines which make it possible to give real love to dirty dogs and to swine, as like giving love to that shooter in Las Vegas who deserves our contempt, because there are no conditions (unconditional) for him to receive that kind of love.

It takes huge conditions to give the agp" love, but unconditional for us to receive that kind of love.

Matthew 5:
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; KJV, Link = Matthew 5:43-48.

It is Christianity which is based largely on fickle emotions, and so Christianity still needs to discover Christ.

But minorities can become majorities, if they have persuasive arguments to put and are prepared to campaign to put them. And that is the way democracy works; if their arguments are not persuasive, and/or if they don't care enough to campaign, minorities will stay minorities and so they should. Certainly, taking to the streets with assault rifles should not even be a considered, let alone preferred, option.

That the minority can become the majority is putting evil on top of evil, because it is just brute force over brute force, and nothing to do with right or wrong.

The majority are thereby right, and the minority are thereby wrong, = as based on democracy.

I am not defending that creep who murdered people in Las Vegas, but the right to bear arms in the 2A is another subject which I do defend.

[2ndRateMind]

And you mention the unconditional kind of love (agp"), and that only meant unconditionally received - not unconditionally given - because there are huge conditions in order to give such love, as it takes strong adherence to the Godly principles and doctrines which make it possible to give real love to dirty dogs and to swine, as like giving love to that shooter in Las Vegas who deserves our contempt, because there are no conditions (unconditional) for him to receive that kind of love.

I agree with everything you say, right up to this point. Unconditional love, for me, is giving love unconditionally. Irrespective of what someone thinks, says, and does. We are all sinners, and none of us is perfect, and maybe none of us deserves that unconditional love. Yet, this is what Christians, and Christianity, offer us. Are we to be so niggardly as to deny it to others?

For while we may easily hate the sin in others, we must recognise we have similar sins of our own. So we need to find that we can hate the sin, while still loving the sinner. That's about our own psychological well-being, as well as that of others. And I think this is what God, and Jesus, want of us. It's a tough call, but it may just be the call that saves the world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

I agree with everything you say, right up to this point. Unconditional love, for me, is giving love unconditionally. Irrespective of what someone thinks, says, and does. We are all sinners, and none of us is perfect, and maybe none of us deserves that unconditional love. Yet, this is what Christians, and Christianity, offer us. Are we to be so [ censored ] as to deny it to others?

For while we may easily hate the sin in others, we must recognise we have similar sins of our own. So we need to find that we can hate the sin, while still loving the sinner. That's about our own psychological well-being, as well as that of others. And I think this is what God, and Jesus, want of us. It's a tough call, but it may just be the call that saves the world.

I like your participation in these discussions so please do not get the perception that I am being hostile to you which I am not.

Your words are close and it is on the right track and maybe you are much closer then what I perceive?

So yes Christianity views love in that way, but it is just not quite accurate.

People might claim some warm fuzzy feeling of love for the shooter in Los Vegas but that feeling or emotion is not real and it has no action associated with that so called love.

It certainly helps that the nasty dog is dead, because if he survived then our warm fuzzy love would include putting that creep into prison forever and ever, or maybe even to execute him as Capital punishment.

I see the death penalty as wrong, but he still would deserve it.

So if you or Christians are giving unconditional love to that murderer then what exactly does that love mean?

We could claim that we forgive him - but thank God he is dead so that forgiving is much easier.

What God tells is that His kind of love is that the killer will be resurrected along with everybody else as an equal (equal sinners), and he too will be saved as are we all, and he will carry his own guilt for all eternity - as each one of us all will carry our own guilt too.