1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Another shooting fueled by an extreme right wing white supremacist

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by Epic Beard Man, Jul 30, 2019.

  1. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,852
    Ratings:
    +2,879
    I didn't say "confused", I said "utterly confused" - I don't anticipate any possibilty of fixing that but it is kind of amusing that you conflate the broad principles of the Declaration - claiming that the wording was changed mind you - with the very specific provisions of the Second Amendment - amendment mind you - and declare your individual right to bear arms in defense of the security of the state to be a "civil" - civil, mind you - "unalienable right". The whole idea is preposterous - and I do mean pre-poster-ous (but I don't suppose you'll understand that either). Anyway, I'm done with this - 'tis a pointless exercise attempting to educate a "Christian" who defends the right of individuals to carry and use lethal weapons on the basis of a 240 year old human document in direct contravention to what the founder of their faith - the very "Word of God" himself - advised almost 1800 years earlier. (Matthew 26:52).
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  2. SugarOcean

    SugarOcean ¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +283
    Religion:
    Christian
    You're the one with a thinking monkey as your profile picture.
    Your post wasn't even in the vicinity of anything related to what I said about the second amendment.

    The one that is utterly confused is you. Rather than worry about speaking correctly to the points I actually did make your priority was apparently pejoratives. You can't think straight but your mouth runs trash talk like a champ.
    That's too bad.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,852
    Ratings:
    +2,879
    My mouth? I never opened it once - I'm using a keyboard - not bad for a monkey - eh?
     
  4. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,886
    Ratings:
    +2,560
    But we also witnessed you trying to defend the fake photo...that happened.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,886
    Ratings:
    +2,560
    Please remember that many "socialist Democrats" advocate for gun rights. Try to not use the big brushes when the small ones work just fine.
     
  6. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,886
    Ratings:
    +2,560
    Well, it seems there is confusion between you two.

    The Constitution most definitely defines the power and structure of the federal government (and in some ways the state governments). The "unalienable" right is the right to self defense (which encompasses defense of one's country). For guaranteeing this right, we sought to limit our federal government from having the authority to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. This, at that time, did nothing to prevent state or local governments from enacting legislation that "infringed" on gun owners rights (though many state constitutions did).

    After the civil war the 13th and the 14th Amendments were passed. The 14th Amendment limits the states authority to do what it had previously done regarding gun regulation.

    So is the right to keep and bear arms an unalienable right? No. Is the right to self defense an unalienable right? Yes.

    Can the federal, state, or local government infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms? No, not without running afoul of the constitution. Put simply, they do not have the authority to do so. If people want to change that then they are welcome to try.

    The bigger question here is ought they have the authority? I say no.
     
  7. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,852
    Ratings:
    +2,879
    And that's fine - I don't agree but it is absolutely fine that you hold that opinion. But the right to own any kind of weapon is surely not an unalienable civil right is it? And how would one define an unalienable right to self defense? Suppose someone wanted to have an F-35 to defend against any potential air assault, or maybe one of those 'new' Sherman tanks? Anyway, I think I have said enough on this. It may have escaped people's attention, but the world has changed in the last couple of centuries and the guarantees that worked then, might, perhaps, not work so well now...it's taking a while to sink in - but it has to change eventually.
     
  8. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,886
    Ratings:
    +2,560
    Yeah, an unalienable right to self defense is very different than a right to keep and bear arms. You do get that?

    Sure i would argue that the two intersect, but your question makes me think you are chasing a strawman that you saw in my post.

    Reread what i wrote and see if you think the question--But the right to own any kind of weapon is surely not an unalienable civil right is it?--is applicable.

    If so, please explain how that is applicable.
     
  9. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,852
    Ratings:
    +2,879
    Now we're all getting confused - your first sentence was essentially my argument to another poster who was clearly confused about the content of the Declaration and the Constitution and wrote in reference specifically to the Second Amendment:

    You interjected in our ongoing discussion saying that we were both confused. Well perhaps you're right - but I'm not THAT confused!

    Anyway, I am actually sorry I got myself into this - if you guys want to continue defending your right to kill one another over trifling issues at work or whatever - please do carry on without me.
     
    #169 siti, Jul 31, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  10. Epic Beard Man

    Epic Beard Man Bearded Philosopher

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,652
    Ratings:
    +3,529
    Religion:
    Agnostic-Monotheist
    I understand your distrust for CNN but in several news outlets the first video was confirmed.

    Apparently you missed the point where I said white nationalists and supremacists are embolden by his words. The recent shooter was embolden by far right extremist white supremacy. These things correlate to each other.

    Trump has made plenty documented racist statements
     
  11. Epic Beard Man

    Epic Beard Man Bearded Philosopher

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,652
    Ratings:
    +3,529
    Religion:
    Agnostic-Monotheist
    That comment wasn't for you.
     
  12. Epic Beard Man

    Epic Beard Man Bearded Philosopher

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,652
    Ratings:
    +3,529
    Religion:
    Agnostic-Monotheist
    What the hell are you talking about?
     
  13. InChrist

    InChrist Free4ever

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    6,875
    Ratings:
    +1,364
    Post #140 ...

    "Jesus, you come with no argument.....You're ridiculous learn to debate man."
     
  14. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,975
    Ratings:
    +12,244
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    Isn't it rather hypocritical for you to propose that which would violate the Constitution and by assuming guilt while blaming others for what pretty much is like that which you are proposing? To put it another way "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or walk around naked.
     
  15. SugarOcean

    SugarOcean ¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +283
    Religion:
    Christian
    When CNN admits they produce fake news and their talking heads at the anchor desk have too, yes, anyone who cares about true reporting and journalist ethics would never patronize CNN. Unless they want to meet a Left wing anti-Trumper on the grounds that individual employs in order to assail Trump.
    And Trump didn't approve WS in the video.



    No, apparently you missed what I said. If as you say these things correlate to each other NN's and WS's wouldn't invoke Trump in their hate rhetoric because Trump condemns their hatred.
    As I said, and as you missed it I'll rephrase. NN's and WS's are emboldened by Hitler. Their hatred is irrational as are their idols. Because they idolize Hitler, or think Trump speaks their language, when clearly if they paid attention they'd realize he doesn't and instead condemns their existence, doesn't mean it is rational, valid, or attributable to those they claim make them what they are.
    Hitler's Nazi's would have likely arrested the moron brigade that claims to be the new nazi's of today.



    List them. Shouldn't be too hard if they're documented.
    By the way, Islam is not a race. Nor is illegal alien.
     
  16. SugarOcean

    SugarOcean ¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +283
    Religion:
    Christian
    The irony in the fake photo , if you'd have read my post, was due to my having a White (shirt) Power tee shirt.

    Someone posts a fake photo in order to allude to racism in the Republican party and you don't have an issue with that?
     
  17. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54,959
    Ratings:
    +13,513
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I think Trump is a symptom more than a cause.

    While Gilroy was making the news, another story has been national news here in Canada: two neo-Nazis, implicated in the murder of 3 people, have been the subject of a large manhunt:

    Questions remain as Manitoba manhunt stretches into Day 9

    I don't think our Prime Minister has done anything to enbolden people like this, yet here we are.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,982
    Ratings:
    +3,831
    I can't believe any rational human being actually believes that Trump has never made a racist statement.

    He has a history of discriminating against black tenants applying to live in his apartment complexes. He was actually sued by Nixon's DOJ in 1975 and had to sign an agreement not to discriminate against renters of colour.
    He still thinks the Central Park Five are guilty, despite the fact that they've been exonerated by DNA evidence. That's after he spent money and many years advertising in favour of re-instating the death penalty so that they could be executed.
    The Trump Plaza Hotel in New Jersey had to pay a $200,000 fine for removing black dealers from tables based on "presumed prejudices" of a high roller client.
    He pushed the "Birther Movement" against Barack Obama, long after Obama released his birth certificate. He has also repeatedly claimed that Obama couldn't have gotten into Columbia and Harvard on his merit.
    He kicked off his campaign by saying that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists and murderers.
    He said that a judge of Mexican heritage (who was born in Indiana) should recuse himself from overseeing the Trump University lawsuit because he would be incapable of remaining impartial because Trump wanted to build a wall along the Mexico border. A comment that Paul Ryan at the time referred to as, "the textbook definition of a racist comment."
    He regularly re-tweets posts from white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
    He regularly refers to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas. On one occasion, he did so during an event that was meant to honour Native Americans.
    While campaigning in 2016, he told a group of black voters, "You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”
    He continually attacks and insults black reporters and members of Congress as "low IQ individuals."

    That's just to name a few. They do add up.

    There's a mix of racism and bigotry that have been present in his words and actions for many years now.

    Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel are still jarring to read - CNNPolitics
    Trump Attack on Judge's Ethnicity Brings Back Sordid History
    Trump calls Warren 'Pocahontas' at event honoring Native Americans

    And if you want to go with Trump's own words, rather than saying "I am not racist," he has said that "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world." Being the least racist still makes you racist now, doesn't it? ;)

    What he told them was to go back to the countries they came from. Hmm now why would he say such a thing to four women with darker coloured skin tones? Hmmm, yeah, it's a big mystery. :rolleyes:
    And notice how you had to change what he tweeted, in order to make it seem less innocuous.

    "A Fox News poll released last week found that 57% of voters said Trump doesn't respect racial minorities, and 34% said he does. Sixty-three percent said his tweets about four minority congresswomen "crossed the line."

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ty-say-quinnipiac-university-poll/1888125001/
    Fox News Poll, July 25


    She's a naturalized citizen, whether you like it or not. There are plenty of actual anti-semites that were born in the US. In fact, anti-Semitism is on the rise all over the US. Weird how Trump doesn't tell them to go back to the countries they came from. Perhaps it's because of their skin colour, hmm?

    In our mind that may be the case. How many times have you met her and discussed her personal feelings on the matter?

    So many, yet you haven't listed a single one.

    So, you haven't read the Mueller Report then?
     
  19. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,982
    Ratings:
    +3,831
    So what does this mean then? :


    "They were also blind to the fact that Obama, had he been any race and behaved as he did for eight years in office, was a racist and a traitor. That he left office out of handcuffs, walking beside Hillary in her own set of bracelets, was a tragedy that will impact America for generations to come." (Post #80)

    “The collusion with Russia occurred under Obama and Hillary.” (Post #79)
     
  20. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,982
    Ratings:
    +3,831
    When did that happen?



     
Loading...