The way Christians terrorize

[spurraider21]

Again, you're the one who invoked tyranny in this conversation, and there's a huge difference between something that's effective for protection and something you have a right to own for protection. The same handgun wouldn't protect you from a home invasion if there were 30 people invading with fully automatic weapons. So the "outdated" argument isn't a good one. Folks were never able to fight off organized armies just because the villagers were armed. It doesn't make the concept of trying "outdated".

i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanc y of the cons ution."

i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur

[DMC]

Neat.

Keep twisting instead of quantifying your claim.

Hey dumbass - if we believe that 70% (conservative number) of Americans are Christians, and 28% of all Americans believe in inerrancy, simple ing math tells us that's 40% of Christians who believe in inerrancy. That's less than half. That's hardly "most".

Now you were saying?

[DMC]

i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanc y of the cons ution."

i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur

You made the comment about fear of losing separation, as if the 1st Amendment is sacred. Then you called the 2nd Amendment outdated. I just used the hypocrite horn you use in every other post. "HOOOOOONK"

[spurraider21]

You made the comment about fear of losing separation, as if the 1st Amendment is sacred. Then you called the 2nd Amendment outdated. I just used the hypocrite horn you use in every other post. "HOOOOOONK"

for the 8th time, i never called the 2nd amendment outdated

[spurraider21]

You're the only one here who said anything about tyranny, I guess just so you could flog the concept.

Do you think the 1st Amendment is outdated? Does it protect hate speech? If the 1st Amendment is sacred, why doesn't the federal or state governments get involved when liberals riot and burn to the ground because someone they oppose is giving a speech? Is their action also protected by the 1st Amendment?

Which amendments are not outdated? Just for the record.

i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.

i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military

if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull

as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dip s an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.

the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.

You made the comment about fear of losing separation, as if the 1st Amendment is sacred. Then you called the 2nd Amendment outdated. I just used the hypocrite horn you use in every other post. "HOOOOOONK"

honk

[DMC]

it can also be said that the purpose of the 2nd amendment being a defense against a tyrannical government is no longer even a possibility. sure when you give civilians muskets to combat against the government, who is also armed with muskets, i can see that working.

letting us have larger magazines isn't doing against a federal government with access to drones, tanks, missiles, and air force, etc. the only way the 2nd amendment can serve it's original purpose in today's world is to have a complete deregulation on arms. let civilians own tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and keep missile silos in their yards, and let them hold nuclear arms

honk

Philo
but I didn't say it was out of date, just said it cannot be used for its original purpose...

I showed you that DC vs er debunked that "original purpose" fallacy. You keep pushing it forward though.

[spurraider21]

Philo
but I didn't say it was out of date, just said it cannot be used for its original purpose...

I showed you that DC vs er debunked that "original purpose" fallacy. You keep pushing it forward though.

i went on to say agree with DC vs er that self defense is sufficient... we dont need to pretend our guns are going to beat down the US military to validate the 2nd amendment

the 2nd amendment for the purpose of pushing back against a tyrannical government, is absolutely outdated. but the 2nd amendment isn't limited to that.

saying one purpose is outdated is different than saying the entire amendment is outdated, which is why i made that clear in a bunch of posts

[spurraider21]

i dont think the 2nd amendment is useless. i think the rationale that we need it to fight tyranny is outdated and flawed. i think self defense is sufficient. DC vs er agrees.

you're the one who brought up the 2nd amendment as being crucial to a free society, which implies the "defense from tyranny" justification, rather than the self defense argument, which i find much more compelling

you cant complain about red herrings when you've turned the first amendment/establishment clause discussion into a 2nd amendment discussion. this entire tangent is a red herring... courtesy of you

DC v er specifically decided that citizens have a right to possess firearms separate from any sort of militia service. so yes, they decided sufficiency. they decided that the second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms for purposes of self defense. therefore, self defense is a sufficient justification. people don't need to assert "we need a militia to fight tyranny" in order to have protections under the second amendment.

everything in the cons ution is "sacred" because that is the one foundational do ent that all of our laws are derived from. that absolutely includes the first amendment. that's not exclusive to any of the amendments.

my entire point of the second amendment discussion (which again, is just a red herring you've brought up to deflect from our discussion), was that the right to bear arms isn't doing to protect us from tyranny. it might have during the 18th and 19th centuries... but in the world of modern weapons, it's simply an outdated concept. that doesn't make the 2nd amendment less valid. it just makes the argument that "we need our guns to stop tyranny" a stupid one. and in DC v er, the court agreed that we can justify the second amendment right to bear arms without invoking the militia purpose

i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.

i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military

if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull

as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dip s an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.

the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.

The bill of rights specifically pertains to government action (most cons utional rights, actually, with the exception of the 13th amendment)

i'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves. what i'm saying is that the particular justification for arms (to protect from tyranny) is an outdated concept. as we saw in DC vs er, we don't have to pretend that forming a militia to fight the government is the reason people need arms. the 2nd amendment has been construed to extend beyond that purpose and applies to personal self defense.

[spurraider21]

somehow DMC will translate all that into me saying the 2nd amendment is outdated

[DMC]

i went on to say agree with DC vs er that self defense is sufficient... we dont need to pretend our guns are going to beat down the US military to validate the 2nd amendment

the 2nd amendment for the purpose of pushing back against a tyrannical government, is absolutely outdated. but the 2nd amendment isn't limited to that.

saying one purpose is outdated is different than saying the entire amendment is outdated, which is why i made that clear in a bunch of posts

What's the difference? If I use a Betamax for a doorstop does that mean the Betamax is not outdated?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it state a purpose?

[Blake]

Hey dumbass - if we believe that 70% (conservative number) of Americans are Christians, and 28% of all Americans believe in inerrancy, simple ing math tells us that's 40% of Christians who believe in inerrancy. That's less than half. That's hardly "most".

Now you were saying?

I'm saying you said "theists", dumbass. Go back and look or not, I'm done going in circles.

Sure, there are many theists that dont believe in literal translation. There are "many" theists that do.

It's crystal clear what I'm referring to. If you're gonna keep blabbering about American Christians, I'm gonna just chalk you up to being a re and stop wasting time reading your text walls.

[spurraider21]

i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanc y of the cons ution."

i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur

[Blake]

Eh, I'll drop this about American Christians for you any way

Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Charles Darwin in a file image. More Americans believe in a literal and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

REUTERS/FILE

****

By*Ed Stoddard*|*DALLAS

(Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.

It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.

Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.

Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of "natural selection."

There are unsurprising differences among religious groups.

This is a problem, tbh.

[DMC]

People don't have a dog in the evolution race, however they do want to live forever and so belief in an afterlife is rewarding psychologically in the current life, but belief in a theory is only comforting for those who have actually done the research and are compelled to believe through overwhelming scientific evidence. + the term "theory" gets tossed around like "opinion" in errday life.

[Blake]

People don't have a dog in the evolution race

No idea what you mean here.


People have dogs in what's taught in the science class room race.


Plenty of Christian Americans demand their intelligent design dog be put in the race. Plenty of politicians are helping to get that dog in the race.

[DMC]

That's true for most people regardless their position, even on things other than religion. Just look at the 2nd Amendment and how the liberals here want it done away with, but their pants when the 1st Amendment is threatened. The same founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment as well. If their reasoning is so crucial to a free secular society, then you cannot just surgically remove the parts of it you disagree with. If you do, you're right back where they started, and why they started.

i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanc y of the cons ution."

i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur

again... no I did not.

I said IF the founder's reasoning is so crucial to a free society (meaning their entire body of BoR reasoning), then you cannot just cherry pick which of their reasonings you find to be sacred by calling the 2nd Amendment outdated. Besides, the prior USC case (before er) was in the 30's and said that's the reason (militia). So are we so much less able now to defend ourselves against the tyranny of the government than we were in the 30's?

[Chris]

[DMC]

No idea what you mean here.


People have dogs in what's taught in the science class room race.


Plenty of Christian Americans demand their intelligent design dog be put in the race. Plenty of politicians are helping to get that dog in the race.

But that's a different question. You asked if they personally believed it, not whether or not they wanted their kids taught evolution. Try to stop moving goalposts long enough to see you lost already.

Plenty /= most.

Plenty is a word people use when they don't know the amount, or the ratio or percentages. They just say "plenty" as a confirmation biased answer.

[spurraider21]

again... no I did not.

I said IF the founder's reasoning is so crucial to a free society (meaning their entire body of BoR reasoning), then you cannot just cherry pick which of their reasonings you find to be sacred by calling the 2nd Amendment outdated. Besides, the prior USC case (before er) was in the 30's and said that's the reason (militia). So are we so much less able now to defend ourselves against the tyranny of the government than we were in the 30's?

If i was mistakenly assumed your intent, you could have just pointed that out about 20 posts ago instead of engaging in this conversation about cons utional intent, which is just a (now very extended) red herring from our original discussion of the establishment clause.

As established, I don't cherry pick. I don't think the 2nd amendment shouldn't be followed, as YOU tried to imply earlier. I've said this about a dozen times now.

[Blake]

But that's a different question. You asked if they personally believed it, not whether or not they wanted their kids taught evolution. Try to stop moving goalposts long enough to see you lost already.

Plenty /= most.

Plenty is a word people use when they don't know the amount, or the ratio or percentages. They just say "plenty" as a confirmation biased answer.

man. Do you see a question mark in my post?

You posted a new claim, new tangent.

You're the one kicking through a new goal post. Not me.

I'm still waiting for you to quantify the amount of theists that don't believe in a literal translation. You said "many". Again, wtf does "many" mean to you?

I don't know what more to tell you. You're an idiot.

[spurraider21]

[Blake]

If i was mistakenly assumed your intent, you could have just pointed that out about 20 posts ago

Lol

[Chris]

jinn
[jin]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural jinns (especially collectively) jinn. Islamic Mythology.
1.
any of a class of spirits, lower than the angels, capable of appearing in human and animal forms and influencing humankind for either good or evil.

Not my cup of tea 21.

[Blake]

I guess my phone is too old, can't see Chris' YouTube embeds.

I'm probably not missing anything.

[Blake]

jinn
[jin]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural jinns (especially collectively) jinn. Islamic Mythology.
1.
any of a class of spirits, lower than the angels, capable of appearing in human and animal forms and influencing humankind for either good or evil.

Not my cup of tea 21.

Lolwut