What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Do You Have The Right ?

that regulated and monitored? how is it that in until 1986. that any American who was an adult could own a fully auto weapon to include military grade? tanks and other rockets? what changed that? was it because of crimes? im older then that year of birth. i don't recall any assault with a tank, bazooka or fully auto all that much.( the later)

so you don't care about why i am stating the reasons for our rights? ok then while i wouldn't expect you to agree at least read what is the backdrop of what i was taught in school and in the army by pro gun soldiers. for you see i was anti gun as a kid. it changed when i entered the army.not so much because i shot the army issue weapons. or even bought a gun. i have never owned a privately owned gun. i wont. its my right. but i will not deny any other person said right?

so i know my country and i have quoted Jefferson whom is often reffered to as one of the most influential men of our countries government. some of those quotes are after the army was standing full time. yet he said that. yet you have the audacity to tell us that we should get rid of the gun lobby? sir i have had a thorough background check that is higher then any background check for a pistol and so did major nadal hasan. whom killed 13 americans in an act of terror. he had fully auto weapons and reloaded and was stopped only by a off duty cop. go figure.soldiers dying and yet you say that we cant take them. i know the military. one cant own a gun like a civilian can. i can on base carry my own gun, i cant take it out from the armory to shoot it on post or off post without permission. i have seen fully weapons stolen and hidden in the barracks, illegal guns and munitions pop up during inspections. how did they get inside an fenced permiter with mp's patrolling them and random inspections?
 
turnorburn said:
In the original God gave Abraham a land flowing with milk and honey and he threw in some other promises as well..

Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

greater_israel.gif


Map with land of Israel with borders in red below representing the Royal Land Grant that God gave to Israel through the Abraham Covenant compared to what Israel actually has today in yellow on the map above it.

I wonder what would happen if the Jewish people suddenly woke up and realized they are being cheated out of all the land God gave Israel in the Abraham land covenant instead of the little sliver of land they are now living on, which is only a fraction of what had been promised to them? And even that, the arabs and nations of the world are trying to take the little fraction shown in yellow on the map, which is now Israel, little by little by waging terror war after war against the Jews and forcing a land for peace deal upon the Jews.

http://filesfromtoni.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-much-land-did-god-give-israel-in.html

tob
Click to expand...

That state of Israel is not the fulfillment of that prophecy, and that is subject I will not discuss because it will not be pretty.
 
jasoncran said:
that regulated and monitored? how is it that in until 1986. that any American who was an adult could own a fully auto weapon to include military grade? tanks and other rockets? what changed that? was it because of crimes? im older then that year of birth. i don't recall any assault with a tank, bazooka or fully auto all that much.( the later)

so you don't care about why i am stating the reasons for our rights? ok then while i wouldn't expect you to agree at least read what is the backdrop of what i was taught in school and in the army by pro gun soldiers. for you see i was anti gun as a kid. it changed when i entered the army.not so much because i shot the army issue weapons. or even bought a gun. i have never owned a privately owned gun. i wont. its my right. but i will not deny any other person said right?

so i know my country and i have quoted Jefferson whom is often reffered to as one of the most influential men of our countries government. some of those quotes are after the army was standing full time. yet he said that. yet you have the audacity to tell us that we should get rid of the gun lobby? sir i have had a thorough background check that is higher then any background check for a pistol and so did major nadal hasan. whom killed 13 americans in an act of terror. he had fully auto weapons and reloaded and was stopped only by a off duty cop. go figure.soldiers dying and yet you say that we cant take them. i know the military. one cant own a gun like a civilian can. i can on base carry my own gun, i cant take it out from the armory to shoot it on post or off post without permission. i have seen fully weapons stolen and hidden in the barracks, illegal guns and munitions pop up during inspections. how did they get inside an fenced permiter with mp's patrolling them and random inspections?
Click to expand...

I will deny your right to a weapon intended for killing humans if you are criminal. That is an issue for society. I don't care if you want to own a gun and you're a regular person. There is nothing wrong with regulating guns. The only people that can't have guns are criminals and the mentally ill. Everyone else can. The types of firearms should also be regulated because some are more dangerous others. A tool for killing humans is not something everyone has the right to have.

From what I understand of your constitution (and my father is an American and I have discussed this with him), the right to bear arms is in the context of a militia. Arming yourself against the government is treason, and against your fellow man is murder. What purpose does a militia serve?
 
a criminal cant buy a gun in the us. but no person who knows that person would not sell to him. a tool? really what about martial arts. i know of murders happened with that trainging in judo. but he can get it from the black market which is my point. that law hasn't never stopped that.

ov vey mentally ill? yeah that is vague area? so what would stop a depressed person from killing with a butcher knife? nothing. what about his car? see that lady who tried to run a barricade and was paranoid and was shot. the early militia was the concept of what i do today. the citizen-soldier. that need not be simply read the link. Jefferson is for compulsory service using the armed men and also allowing gun rights and saying that just because he said that doenst make it so!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

well then how does the militia given the contexts of what both Jefferson and Hamilton thought about that exactly have to do with the freedom given clearly here? NOTHING. im not advocating sedition, only when the government is and become tyrannical and starts oppressing the people or do you really expect us to vote a "benevolent" Obama from office or any such like?
 
there are those who have their psychosis under control and own weapons, in fact one can in the army have them , if cleared, serve and shoot your weapon. i know a soldier in my unit who has depression and has fired his weapons. in fact i knew a soldier who was discharged but couldn't have a gun yet was a supply soldier, meaning she could enter the arms room and get a m 16 and ammo and start shooting it. yet she was stable and would never do so and hated that insult but because she had a moment of suicidal thoughts albeit brief the saw fit to discharge her and do that. she had merly post partum depression. that was gone when they discharged her. she in fact told me at home i have some guns. go figure.
 
how do you seriously expect to stop a gun being sold to criminals?
phht registered weapons? see my statement on maj husan. all guns are tagged in the army if they are yours. so if you sold it to someone and they did a crime they will ask you about that and if he was a criminal and did the deed on post you will be in trouble. so theres no need to make a law on that. if not the gun was used in a crime and it will be destroyed. that is the law. gun confustigations don't work. its been tried and it didn't reduce the crime rates via guns at all.
 
So you have a child' and you believe in Christ and the child is very sick. Now we as Christians are to have faith' but God also works through doctors too. The thing is God sometimes performs outright healing on some people and other times he will not heal you. And then there are times where he will allow medical human doctors to help the sick' but He' God is in control. So should these parents wait and see if God does something or should they put the girl in treatment ?
 
The Lounge
Settle in for some casual conversation and fellowship!

I read some place the color pink is soothing..........

Really Lewis are you trying to get back to topic... ? :shame

Please take the privet discussions to SAC ... As the OP is suggesting :topic
 
I've been having trouble logging in at home and haven't been able to respond to this over the weekend. I see it's gotten a bit off topic, but there's one thing I'd like to say about the original post about the Amish girl. I can't help but wonder what the reaction would have been if the parents had stopped treatment because they couldn't afford it. Would the courts have said that the hospital should force the girl to receive treatement, even though the parents couldn't pay for it, or does that fact that their decision is based on religious grounds have something to do with it?

The TOG​
 
Good point but I think Medicare would take care of them if they coukdnt afford it. Although, I do think in a small way it has to do with them being Amish. There was the issue of the amish cutting others beards in the same area not too long ago. The Ohio social services underwent an overhaul because if the Kenmore 6 case. I think they are quicker to take action now. Too quick if you ask me.
I don't believe in faith healing. If me or anyone in my family is sick we go to the ER. I believe God has allowed the doctors to discover a way to cure people. Most discoveries are by chance, Pasteur discovered the vaccine for rabies because of the arrogance of his colleagues. They didn't believe in germs and exposed themselves to a weakened rabies. If it weren't for a woman named Henrietta Lacks most the advances in the last 50 years would not have happened. She died of cervical cancer (I think in the 50's) but not before they took a cell culture. Prior to this most cell ctures would only last a few days. Her's are still dividing and growing to this day. They isolated the cells and most research developing anything from chemo to insulin has been carried out on the HeLa cell line.
I believe it's Gods wisdom paired with the doctors that allows us to get well. That being said, my wife survived pancreatitis without medical intervention. She kept me in the dark about what was happening otherwise I would have dragged her to the ER. A few months after having our first daughter she started having gall bladder attacks. We went to the doctor and scheduled outpatient surgery in a few days. The doctor called us the next day to tell her to go straight to the ER because her bloodwork revealed acute pancreatitis. She said she felt fine and waited 2 more days and had her gall bladder removed, she was 26. Afterwards I was filled in on the rest of the story. Her doctor said her gall bladder was full is stones, too many to count, she had passed 17 stones in 21 days. He said one must have gotten stuck and caused the pancreatitis, she was lucky to be alive. I remember her being in pain a few times and even heading to the ER. Then she felt kinda flushed and all the pain went away, this happened several times just as we were going to the ER she suddenly felt better. The reason she didn't want to go? The woman didnt want to stop nursing her baby. We kinda joke about it now but I'm all for doctors and medicine.
 
Ohio Amish girl won't be forced to renew chemo

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-amish-girl-won-39-t-forced-renew-233150234.html
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — A court-appointed guardian is dropping her attempt to force an 11-year-old Amish girl with leukemia to resume chemotherapy after she and her parents fled their home to avoid treatment.


The move filed in court Friday will likely bring an end to a months-long fight between Sarah Hershberger's family and a hospital that began when her parents decided to halt the treatments because they were making the girl sick.

The guardian, an attorney who's also a registered nurse, was given the power to make medical decisions for Sarah after an appeals court ruling in October said the beliefs and convictions of the girl's parents can't outweigh the rights of the state to protect the child.

But the guardian, Maria Schimer, decided to drop the effort because she doesn't know where Sarah is now and it has become impossible to monitor her health or make any medical decisions, said Clair Dickinson, an attorney for Schimer.

"It didn't make sense to drag this on any longer," he said.

Doctors at Akron Children's Hospital believe Sarah's leukemia is treatable, but say she will die within a year if she halts chemotherapy. The hospital went to court after the family decided to stop chemotherapy and treat Sarah with natural medicines, such as herbs and vitamins.

Dickinson said an attorney for the hospital told him that if the court allows Schimer to withdraw from the case, the hospital won't continue its legal push to get chemotherapy for the girl.

Sarah's father said the family doesn't oppose modern medicine and that they didn't make their decision based on religious reasons.

They ended chemotherapy because it was making her too sick and they feared it could end up killing her, the family's attorney, Maurice Thompson, said.

Sarah and her parents left their home in rural northeast Ohio just days before the state appeals court allowed the guardian to take over medical decisions. The family left the country in late September before returning to an undisclosed location outside Ohio.

Schimer's attempts to meet with the family were rebuffed, Dickinson said.

The guardian's decision to withdraw from the case still needs final approval from a county court.

"The judge's approval of this resignation will pave the way for the family's return home, which will allow Sarah to receive the family's preferred treatment under the best possible conditions," Thompson said.

Sarah's last known chemotherapy session was in June, but she has undergone alternative-therapy treatments and is doing well, her family has said.

Thompson, who leads the libertarian 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in Ohio, said the case came down to fundamental principles and constitutional rights. "We made it clear to our opponents that they were in for a protracted battle," he said.

Andy Hershberger, the Ohio girl's father, said this past summer that the family agreed to begin two years of treatments for Sarah last spring but stopped a second round of chemotherapy in June because it was making her extremely sick and she feared the treatments would make her infertile.

The family's attorney said the girl's parents made their decision after researching the effects of chemotherapy.

Sarah begged her parents to stop the chemo and they agreed after a great deal of prayer, Hershberger said. The family, members of an insular Amish community, shuns many facets of modern life and is deeply religious. They live on a farm and operate a produce stand near the village of Spencer in Medina County, about 35 miles southwest of Cleveland.

Hospital officials have said they are morally and legally obligated to make sure the girl receives proper care. They said the girl's illness, lymphoblastic lymphoma, is an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but there is a high survival rate with treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top