Political Memes.

Yeah. Agree with you there.

Uh, gun control? Pfft, ridiculous. Proper training and mental health checks are what is needed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Also, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Uh, gun control? Pfft, ridiculous. Proper training and mental health checks are what is needed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Also, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Uh, gun control? Pfft, ridiculous. Proper training and mental health checks are what is needed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Also, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

you sound like a Bernie supporter...

I agree as well. And Im all for guns. Quasi just said when you need the police for that moment, they are not there until its over. Properly training gun users, and better screening can really weed out the bad folks.

All we really need to do is ban assault rifles from civilian use, close gun show loopholes, and make sure people know how to use guns and are responsible enough to do so. When my dad was growing up in North Dakota, everyone had guns, so there was no gun crime. You're not going to try and rob somebody if they might have a gun.

The sack of Constantinople was made possible by its owner because they broke a promise and let the Crusaders to starve. How about Islam, they still have a Jihad going now, and it started almost 1500 years ago.

Kehsct wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Uh, gun control? Pfft, ridiculous. Proper training and mental health checks are what is needed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Also, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

you sound like a Bernie supporter.

I actually kinda agree with Quasi on this. Look at what Australia did.

Kehsct wrote:

All we really need to do is ban assault rifles from civilian use, close gun show loopholes, and make sure people know how to use guns and are responsible enough to do so. When my dad was growing up in North Dakota, everyone had guns, so there was no gun crime. You're not going to try and rob somebody if they might have a gun.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Kehsct wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Uh, gun control? Pfft, ridiculous. Proper training and mental health checks are what is needed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Also, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

you sound like a Bernie supporter.

I actually kinda agree with Quasi on this. Look at what Australia did.

What did Australia do? I completely agreed as well, and I meant the comment about sanders in a good way. I actually like Sanders.

Kehsct wrote:

All we really need to do is ban assault rifles from civilian use, close gun show loopholes, and make sure people know how to use guns and are responsible enough to do so. When my dad was growing up in North Dakota, everyone had guns, so there was no gun crime. You're not going to try and rob somebody if they might have a gun.

I think assault rifles are overrated. Just because it has the word "assault" in it doesn't mean it 1000x better than every other gun. Yes, they are specifically designed for combat, but so are most other guns, with only rare exceptions. Banning them would be wrong, in my opinion.

Kehsct wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Kehsct wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Uh, gun control? Pfft, ridiculous. Proper training and mental health checks are what is needed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Also, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

you sound like a Bernie supporter.

I actually kinda agree with Quasi on this. Look at what Australia did.

What did Australia do? I completely agreed as well, and I meant the comment about sanders in a good way. I actually like Sanders.

Kehsct wrote:

All we really need to do is ban assault rifles from civilian use, close gun show loopholes, and make sure people know how to use guns and are responsible enough to do so. When my dad was growing up in North Dakota, everyone had guns, so there was no gun crime. You're not going to try and rob somebody if they might have a gun.

I think assault rifles are overrated. Just because it has the word "assault" in it doesn't mean it 1000x better than every other gun. Yes, they are specifically designed for combat, but so are most other guns, with only rare exceptions. Banning them would be wrong, in my opinion.

Australia took all legal guns in the country and destroyed them. Gun crime shot up overnight by 300%. Plus, assault rifles are fully automatic. Not even changed from the battlefield. That should not be in civilian use. Plus, most civilian guns aren't used in the military.

2. A lot of guns used by civilians have been or are used by the military. The M1A, for example, is a semi automatic rifle similar to the M1 Garand that's used by the US military. This rifle was first made in the 1970s. The point is, there are weapons legal for civilian use that are practically unchanged from what the military uses. If you want a deadly weapon there are a lot easier things to get than fully automatic assault rifles.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Uh, gun control? Pfft, ridiculous. Proper training and mental health checks are what is needed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Also, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Although, I do support some more background check...

people, on no fly list, can get guns...

Mental Health checks.. is most important..

you dont sound, like the usually leftest here?

why so?

finally coming to your sense haha

but you are 100% right..

and right...

aahh see... right wing.. right haha

In my opinion all guns under 19.99mm should be legal, with cannons of 20mm or larger requiring a license.

@GreatbigHippo I don't know much about Sanders but he has soured whatever good things I have heard about him when I heard he tried to screw over the VA.

Kehsct wrote:

If Christians aren't supposed to kill, then what about all those soldiers who pray to god in a time of need?

Actually, "Thou shalt not kill" is for individual persons. God grants the authority to wage war to governments. He also commanded the Nation of Israel to destroy certain other nations. For example, He ordered them to kill the entire Amalekite nation...even the women and children. Why? Because to not do so would lead to future generations of evil Amalekitic attacks such as were the original crimes they wrought against Israel in the first place.

A genocide of an entire people doesn't sound good to human ears but God knows what we do not know and His will is just and merciful even when you don't understand it. For example, all the little Amalekite children killed would not be held accountable for their sin-nature because they weren't of the age of accountability (unique to each child). So they would be raised in Heaven by God Himself.

Had those children been allowed to grow up on earth, they would have all turned to the evils of their parents and would have ultimately gone to Hell when they died. So, God killed two birds with one stone (pardon the pun, here) and wound up saving the souls of the children by not letting them grow up into sin.

The Lord says in Isaiah 55:8 " 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD". indicating that we are not able to see the big picture that God, in His Glory, does see.

Sometimes, war is the only solution when dealing with a great evil. The Amalekites were a great evil that constantly raided and killed the Israelites while they were wandering the desert. War -- and genocide in this case -- was the only solution and God Himself called upon Israel to exercise it.

oceanhawk wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

He was still a very good president. Obamacare should have gone through.

I think, that the government objective, should be making private healthcare affordable.And I think, that the government can do that..

maybe even better than the free market, but it can do so..

All governments have a very poor record of doing better than the free market, even in non-free market economies.

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

He was still a very good president. Obamacare should have gone through.

I think, that the government objective, should be making private healthcare affordable.And I think, that the government can do that..

maybe even better than the free market, but it can do so..

America needs to limit weapon usage, get affordable education and healthcare, but stil remain within their ideals.In other words, the USA has to try and become Europe, but wihtout sacrificing so much security for liberty.

Become Europe?

No...just...no.

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

I agree as well. And Im all for guns. Quasi just said when you need the police for that moment, they are not there until its over. Properly training gun users, and better screening can really weed out the bad folks.

I'm in favor of requiring citizens to carry guns in public unless they are conscientious objectors. Even on an airplane, we could elimintate the need for the TSA and screening if 50 people on each plane was packing. If a terrorist pulls out a knife...or even an AK-47, he's going to quickly change his mind when dozens of pistols and rifles are pointed at him.

Kehsct wrote:

All we really need to do is ban assault rifles from civilian use, close gun show loopholes, and make sure people know how to use guns and are responsible enough to do so. When my dad was growing up in North Dakota, everyone had guns, so there was no gun crime. You're not going to try and rob somebody if they might have a gun.

The second amendment specifically calls for the people to organize themselves as militias and to keep at the ready in case of foreign invasion or despotic rule by the federal government. This includes ALL arms, not the pretty-sounding ones.

Oh, and if everyone's packing a fully-automatic rifle, there will still be no gun crime.

Kehsct wrote:

Australia took all legal guns in the country and destroyed them. Gun crime shot up overnight by 300%. Plus, assault rifles are fully automatic. Not even changed from the battlefield. That should not be in civilian use. Plus, most civilian guns aren't used in the military.

A civilian militia should always be fully armed in case the government (and by extension, the army) turns on us.

Australia is just plain stupid for doing that. I feel really bad for the people who actually surrendered their guns to the power-hungry government. If they had had a constitutional law protecting their right to bear arms, they might not have so-willingly given up their freedom to defend themselves when their corrupt government decides to rule with an iron fist.

Such a pity...such a pity.

Paramunac wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

Um, I actually support and defend the Crusades and I believe we should call on a new crusade...actually two of them.

We need a crusade against Islam and we need a crusade against secular humanism.

1. Those "Crusaders" were vey much interested in pillaging and looting. Why did they attack Byzantium if they had any religious motives?

2. I believe that later part of the message is called "hate speech" as it openly calls for aggression against other people which is not according to the ToS.

Darren I wrote:

6.2 Further, the Participants are obliged to adhere to all laws and regulations when using the game in any way. In particular, the Participant is not allowed to publish any content which is pornographic, racist, glorifies war and/or violence, or is otherwise of an illegal nature or content which is capable of infringing third party’s rights.

When I say I support the Chrusades, I mean the Crusades in general. I don't support every action they took. Though some I don't know about may have been in violation of the strictures of God's command. Also, when the Pope would call for a Crusade, it wasn't always the right thing to do. But, since he was the national head of the state church of the group of Catholic nations, it was his right to do so and God put him (whomever he may be) in power for this reason.

I have no hate for others. I love all men but I do hate the practice of sin and sinfulness. I love gay people. I am not gay. But I love them. I hate homosexuality because it is a sin. But I don't hate the people who practice the sin. I firmly believe that any sex out of wedlock is a sin (both adultery and fornication) but I don't hate the people who practice it. And, since most of humanity has practiced fornication at one time or another, I would have to hate most of humanity (like 99%) if I hated people for their sin.

No, I have no hate in my heart for others. If they choose to sin (i.e., it is a choice to practice Islam or to practice homosexuality, for example), they must answer to God, not to me. But I will continue to see them through God's eyes as lost souls in need of salvation. However, I cannot condone the behaviors. That is why -- for example -- I'm opposed to "gay rights" against so-called gay discrimination.

(A title 9 discrimination should only count as that done against people who have no choice of who they are. A person who is born black should not be discriminated because of their color. A person who is born in India should not be discriminated because of their national origin.)

But any "discrimination" against a person for a choice they take is and should be allowed. Like with this whole recent issue about transgender discrimination. I don't want to hurt anyone who elects to have mutilating surgery performed on their genitals and whatnot. But at the same time, I don't recognize their "choice" of gender as being something they are born with.

God doesn't make mistakes. He creates each of us as either male or female. The extremely rare cases where the genes have so-broken down as part of the curse on man for his sinful nature have resulted in situations where a person might be born with more than one set and they are of opposite genders to each other. But determining the right gender in those extreme cases is usually obvious and should be a good judgement call for a wise doctor to make. Unfortunately, there may be cases where a doctor made the wrong call in removing spare genitals, but hopefully that is so rare as to be nearly non-existent.

Meanwhile, ordering others to allow people who choose a gender that they are not born with to use a restroom or locker-room or dorm where those are gender-specific to one or the other is actually reversed discrimination against people who would choose to have privacy in a place where privacy is expected. At the same time, because I have compassion for the sinner, if any is confused or adamant about the choice they've made and wish to be in a place where this expectation of privacy exists, I think a reasonable accommodation can and should be made to furnish a so-called gender-neutral facility in addition to the so-called gender-normative facilities.

I would think the easiest way to accomplish that in a large institution would be to sacrifice one male facility (i.e., bathroom) and change its designation to a universal one. Men need less total bathroom-ing facilities than women for many reasons (some personal, some hygienic, some beauty-related) and so it would be less of a sacrifice for men to be inconvenienced for the sake of the trans-gendered than for women.

As for Islam. I am biased against any other faiths apart from Christianity because the Bible teaches that there is no other name under Heaven by which man might be saved (that name being the name of the Lord, Jesus). So, to me, any other faith is a form of paganism and is false-religion. But, like I said above, I don't hate the people who practice it, I hate the sin they perform in the practice of their faith.

At the same time, God appoints governments and the leaders of those governments to exercise His will in this world. As such, I do support either a national call for crusade or else a general call for war against any Muslim nation that has demonstrated that they wish to do us (Americans) harm. I also do not ascribe to the idea that only some Muslims are the problem because any nation that would tolerate some Muslims practicing "Jihad" against us are condoning the behavior in a corporate fashion. Thus, the nation as a whole is guilty of acting in warfare against us.

I feel bad for the local citizenry that don't condone the behavior. But if they choose not to stand up against it in their own homeland, and their fellow citizens do wage a war of "Jihad" against us, then we must treat the entire nation as our enemy.

There are grey boundaries with inter-tribal war, but that is just a difference in the type of border we ought to recognize when deciding who our enemies are. For example, the Kurds are not an enemy of America and thus America should side with them and aid them in their fight against ISIS since ISIS is an enemy of America. Therefore we are not at war with Iraq since a part of Iraq is actively fighting against our enemies in ISIS.

It is not hate speech to declare one's hatred of sin. It is hate speech to declare one's hatred of other people. There is a difference. And declaring that something is not another thing is not hate speech either. So, if I declare that homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with, then I'm not practicing hate speech but proclaiming that the choices someone makes are indeed choices. And, even if homosexual tendencies were something you were born with, that still doesn't mean you should sin against God by acting on those tendencies.

I am a Christian. I have sexual tendencies towards women. I like women. I would love to have sex with a woman. In fact it is my highest desire behind following the Lord and caring for my mom and my sister's family. But I've never had sex. I'm a virgin by choice, celibate because of a promise to the Lord that I would never practice the sin of fornication by having sex before marriage. And I'm not married thus I have no sex. I have the desire. But I don't act on that desire because of my commitment to not sin that way. Am I perfect? By no means. Though I've managed to stay true to my promise, I've broken other commandments of God and have had to confess my sin before Him.

No Christian is perfect. No Christian is sinless. But all real Christians are forgiven of our sins because we accept the salvation of Jesus Christ. And that same forgiveness can be yours too if you call on Him to be your savior. That is about as far away from Hate speech as anyone could imagine in my way of thinking.

Diabolical wrote:

A civilian militia should always be fully armed in case the government (and by extension, the army) turns on us.

Diabolical wrote:

For example, He ordered them to kill the entire Amalekite nation...even the women and children. Why? Because to not do so would lead to future generations of evil Amalekitic attacks such as were the original crimes they wrought against Israel in the first place.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Ehm, surely you should trust your own forces enough that they would not follow an unlawful order and not shoot their families?

Quasi-duck wrote:

Lol, your God created those lads in the image of himself I thought. Maybe God should ring up the samaritans.org/how-we-can-help…KOtzZnV2swCFWWK2wodZ64FRA ? I mean, he wants to kill little versions of himself, what is next!?

If you read through Diabolicals posts can you paraphrase it for us people who don't? I read most of them, but I honestly don't feel like reading the new ones right now. Sorry, m8.

Can we please have a discussion that doesn't involve religion? Why do you have to put religion into everything @Diabolical?

I have actually enjoyed his posts. A good writer, it was very informative.

I for one, as an atheist, find it amusing that he is using an "all-caring" God to say murder and genocide is okay. Also, why does God refer to himself in plural form with his us's and we's.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

If you read through Diabolicals posts can you paraphrase it for us people who don't? I read most of them, but I honestly don't feel like reading the new ones right now. Sorry, m8.

Kehsct wrote:

Can we please have a discussion that doesn't involve religion? Why do you have to put religion into everything @Diabolical?