Spoiler
Diabolical wrote:
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.Kehsct wrote:
If Christians aren't supposed to kill, then what about all those soldiers who pray to god in a time of need?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.
All governments have a very poor record of doing better than the free market, even in non-free market economies.oceanhawk wrote:
I think, that the government objective, should be making private healthcare affordable.And I think, that the government can do that..Pablo22510 wrote:
He was still a very good president. Obamacare should have gone through.maybe even better than the free market, but it can do so..
Become Europe?Pablo22510 wrote:
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.oceanhawk wrote:
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..Pablo22510 wrote:
He was still a very good president. Obamacare should have gone through.No...just...no.
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.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.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.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.Oh, and if everyone's packing a fully-automatic rifle, there will still be no gun crime.
A civilian militia should always be fully armed in case the government (and by extension, the army) turns on us.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.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.
just, in response, to what you said to me.
The government, can do things. Usually not as well, as the free market. And being a conservative, I believe that.
But the government, can cut taxes, lower that stupid min wage( what idiot came up with that), and even if they offer services, that can compete with the private market, with in reason, that can dry up the profit a small bit, so that the profit incentive doesnt die.
The Profit incentive, is the most important thing.
As for the other guns issue. Back when the constitution,was written. They had single shot, 7mil rifles
A hunting rifle, is most than able to protect, your self with. I dont think, as-47s are really, okay for anyone to carry around the street
as for your airplane, comment.
That is an awful idea. I could walk to the end of the plane, then spray a mag into the wall. Windows, and Lose cabin pressure. And countless other things can be done.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
