Jump to content

admin

Multiple Fatalities in El Paso, Texas Mall Shooting

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

admin -
29
390

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

@James Thomas Rook Jr. And yet you have the government, the powers that be who seek to make things even worse, the real masterminds behind various things of their own design. I myself isn't someone for guns despite holding one once that was unloaded a very long time ago, but I have met people who had used and trained with them, especially, for instance, Steven Gern, he is a former US marine.

That being said, the focus is in question if For Government Control and Not For Government Control concerning guns, and due to the march for our lives event when such questions are addressed concerning such, it exposes the fact that even the people do not know what they are fighting for and or are deeply confused, for example, the ban of bump stocks has not changed the situation of gun control and gun violence throughout the US, as is with the confusion of those, at said event who are in favor of banning assault rifles, but are somehow okay with handguns, for it is said over 80% of mass shootings are carried out by someone with handguns vs. that of assault rifles, regardless it comes down to not the weapon, but the person who is holding that weapon who commits to cause harm.

I also remember someone pointed out that the US should do what the Chinese are doing concerning guns, making it as difficult as possible to get a license to carry, but since the US is in the state that it is, with guns all over the place, it comes down to people wanting to stand their ground and defend, but there are those who commit to hate and chaos that makes it harder for the good guy with the gun to actually take action.

I get a lot of heat for speaking against lies against the police, for I am even called a police sympathizer, but the truth is the truth, not all policemen are evil, but today's world say otherwise. The head of police does can only counsel the people within the force, actions done by members of the force can either be good willed or ill willed, but it does not define all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to bear arms, as is necessary, for personal and family and associates self defense is as basic and natural as the right to eat food, and drink water, and breath air. It is a NATURAL right, like the right of an unborn baby to live, or a person to speak freely, or associate with whomsoever he or she wishes.

Whether the governments of Earth protect these rights, ignore these rights or restrict or eliminate the exercise of any of these rights is a whole other subject.

We HAVE these NATURAL rights .... if we can manage them, and sometimes, if necessary fight for them, and win ... we can then exercise these rights.

The RIGHT to bear arms existed BEFORE the United States Constitution sought to protect what already existed, by saying that those rights shall NOT be infringed.

EVERY LIVING THING ON THIS EARTH HAS, AND ALWAYS HAS HAD, THE NATURAL RIGHT TO TRY AND PROTECT IT'S OWN LIFE, BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE .... If they can manage to do do so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The right to bear arms, as is necessary, for personal and family and associates self defense is as basic and natural as the right to eat food, and drink water, and breath air. It is a NATURAL right, like the right of an unborn baby to live, or a person to speak freely, or associate with whomsoever he or she wishes.

But you have the powers that be who say otherwise and push a narrative to draw forth fear, which can and has been disarming, even harming those who seek to protect themselves, and their families, even if you do everything by the book. Then you have those who take up influence to cause harm to those who are deemed enemies, i.e. the Patriots to Antifa, Antifa to the Patriots.

Although a right, at the end of the day, you have no power to defend, but rather, what the Government and those in said power who says what you can truly defend and whom to trust [them] with your firearms.

6 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Whether the governments of Earth protect these rights, ignore these rights or restrict or eliminate the exercise of any of these rights is a whole other subject.

It isn't about ignoring, it is more about control. Government has their hands everywhere, in the schools, the banks, the churches, the stores and shops, etc. They do the same with whatever it is you use to defend yourself.

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The RIGHT to bear arms existed BEFORE the United States Constitution sought to protect what already existed, by saying that those rights shall NOT be infringed.

But it seems the game that is on the table has changed, especially with the situation the United States is in now.

8 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

EVERY LIVING THING ON THIS EARTH HAS, AND ALWAYS HAS HAD, THE NATURAL RIGHT TO TRY AND PROTECT IT'S OWN LIFE, BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE .... If they can manage to do do so.

But above all else in the world run by so called kingdoms and empires, the government has their hands everywhere. You are lucky enough to escape the grasp for a moment, only to be reeled back in for another big wave.

What people fail to realize is the power they have on everything that stands tall, and everyone who roams cities and towns. We already have radiation forced upon us untested, causing people to speak up, likewise, the situation is similar with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 1:21 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I was expecting an answer like " Yeah, how about that?"

That would have been the case, but I am the type of person who sees the things of this world for what it really is, and I am not the only one. Think about it, shootings will still happen, there will always be blame and a scapegoat, which will take place several days to a week later, there will be those who spin the narrative to bank and profit and shut down anyone who speaks the truth of the matter, there will always be fear mongering and insighting of fear, there will always be a push to disarm and or control, which will make anyone who upholds the second amendment be branded either a victim and or an enemy, and at the end of the day, government will have their say in regards of many parties who think and or say otherwise in support and or against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another shooting with an active shooter in Philly, 4 police officers injured and or dead, cannot make out the reports but I'd have to check again, other sources show the count to be 6, granted that this is live right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Another shooting with an active shooter in Philly, 4 police officers injured and or dead, cannot make out the reports but I'd have to check again, other sources show the count to be 6, granted that this is live right now.

There is another shooting in a place called Philly in El Paso, Texas?

Going on Live right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Right !

..... except back then, as now, weapons were used for many reasons ... not JUST to support "the state".  It was recognized as a NATURAL right that existed before all political considerations.

...like the NATURAL rights of cats to have retractable claws ... or *coff*  the rights of Bears to bear arms.

This "natural right "... which has existed since the beginning of humans, already existed before someone declared it shall not be infringed upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now





  • Topics

  • Posts

    • True, however, testing the spirit does not include drawing one's own conclusions outside scripture. I have not found an insistence where the Watchtower has gone beyond what is written. Do they try to simplify certain things, yes they do. That doesn’t mean they are stepping away from the context. Another thing is with the comparison made. The GB are following the true spirit of God like the apostles. Therefore, they have NOT taken the position of the Jerusalem counsel. If you have, then you sit in Moses seat. Matthew 23:2 If the passion is to correct, as God corrected his people, Then I would suspect there is a resemblance to be equal to Christ as the Pope seems to indicate. The GB do not hold themselves in that high regard as to think, they can question God's motives for humanity. I would recommend studying the issue further. There are areas that haven’t been included with many presentations here. Since you claim the Watchtower is misrepresenting an issue that has become an obstacle to your personal faith, then I would make light of JTR and TTH comments about contacting the Watchtower directly. Feeding an assumption only emboldens the God of this world, no one else. Correct. There is only one way to view scripture. Anyone deviating from that is causing personal harm to the spirit of others. It doesn’t matter if those individuals hate the Watchtower, it’s by their own spoken words and actions of clear and concise misinterpretation of scripture, and misapplication of the Watchtower literature where they fail to see the difference. Removing themselves from the context of scripture to argue with the strength of hate and discourse is the sole definition of scripture when Christ clearly stated not to and to stay away from. Those are the dangers when we engage in an open forum. We like to think it is to discuss issues. However, the ever present danger will always be, the influence of the devil. It is one thing to defend the truth, but quite another thing to defend the truth when one’s heart is conflicted. Merely following that conduct disqualifies anyone from stating they are Christian. That is the kind of Christian Jesus spoke of as a danger. The confusion would lie with how the public perceives the Watchtower under the direction of the bible Student association. The word “association” should give anyone, pause to rethink, Russell and Rutherford belonged to the International Bible Student Association. A reason, Rutherford dismissed the edger pyramid scheme straight up. Russell, used it as a comparison, nothing more. Another thing that witnesses should consider, those works were made by not allowing Christendom’s view of scripture. Therefore, Russell essentially started from scratch. There are far more reasons why those dates were accepted. Mainly, by events of that time. Bible Students still believe, the Jewish nation has a pivotal role in the last days. According to Christ everyone became relative in the last days including the Jews. They are not the sole reason for the last days as Christendom exerts. Remember, even the most conservative view which is Bishop Ussher, his calculation referenced 586BC as the 3rd instance of judgment by Nebuchadnezzar. The third, not the first nor the second as historians and scholars claim, but the third. This is why history itself is flawed, since they continue to insist, there were only 2 campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem. Mainly 597-587BC. I will not beat on the bush with this one. I am confident we both know what limitations are imposed and previous actions taken.  
    • An interesting take with a lot to say for it. When Jude mentions these "rocks beneath the surface" for example, it always reminds me of the first time I read "Paul and Thecla" while at Bethel, but at the NYPL, via a book about Christian widows of the 2nd century. Paul and Thecla is an early Christian short story or novella with Thecla, not Paul, as the hero. It's one of a few stories of this type, probably written by and for women in the early Christian congregations. The antagonists of some of these stories are the 2nd century "circuit overseers" who would go from congregation to congregation saying all the right things from the "platform" but then they would also quietly worm their way into the houses of well-meaning sisters and widows, and try to take advantage of them sexually. I was quite surprised when the Watchtower last year mentioned Paul and Thecla for the second time in nearly 100 years, and was again surprisingly supportive of the work as containing possible reflections of true traditions believed in the 2nd century: *** w18 March p. 13 par. 3 Questions From Readers *** The Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly regarded in early centuries, as confirmed by the fact that 80 Greek manuscripts of it exist, as well as versions in other languages. Thus, our artistic presentations are in line with some ancient indications of what the apostle looked like. I personally have never experienced a "bad" circuit overseer. All of them have been exemplary and I have always looked forward to their visits, especially when hearing a new one for the first time. But I think all of us old-timers have had experience with congregational drifters, and we often look at them with the same kinds of suspicions. Sometimes it's a young brother who is very vague about his last congregation and who quickly latches on to an association with another eligible sister. Sometimes it's a more elderly brother, perhaps even a special pioneer, looking for an alternate congregation, hoping the trouble he caused in the last congregation won't get reported in too much detail. (Speaking from a real example, this elderly brother also latched onto a "relationship," and place to stay, with a family of sisters: a sister with an unbelieving and ailing husband, and a couple of daughters. It was a recipe for disaster.) The younger brother caused some heart-ache by getting engaged to a sister, and the engagement was later broken off.  It's hard for me not to imagine such cases when I read Jude. So, at first, it was hard for me to see them as drifters into forums like this one to cause other kinds of trouble, but I can definitely see a similarity now.  
    • I’m not really sure what “worshipful” means.  When celebrities come into town, they are mobbed by fans. Are those fans worshipful? I might say yes, but the fans themselves will just say they they are flocking to them out of respect for their accomplishments. If brothers pose for selfies with the GB members (much to the latter’s annoyance, I am consistently told, someone said with the possible exception of Lett) are they “worshipful?” It’s in the eye of the beholder, I think. Though I have a great many faults, admiring personalities is not one of them. I would love to have a GB member stay at my house so I could ignore him. “There’s your room—make yourself at home. If you’d like to visit, that works fine, but you have many things to do and if you ignore us completely that also works fine with us,”  Probably there are few words they could hear that would please them more. And no, @James Thomas Rook Jr., I wouldn’t present them with a list of my QUESTIONS that, as MEN of HONOR, they are obligated to answer,
    • Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials.... Read comments, they are entertaining  
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.