How Can The U.S.A. Reduse Mass Shootings?

[Obadiah]

So the fear of the gun is mightier than the fear of God? Is this an admission that the Christian promotion of the fear and wrath of the Lord has failed?

Well, yes, the Christian promotion of fear and wrath of God has indeed failed. All you have to do is look around you to see this. It has failed because that's not what God asked us to do. He asked us to promote the good news of salvation through Christ, not the bad news of fear and anger.

 

[Jim Parker]

Then when faced with a choice, both they and us, have chosen Barabbas over Christ.
It was the popular choice, both then and now.

"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

I have chosen Christ. He said to buy a sword. Mine's a model 1911 45 cal.
It's my "American Express Card. I don't leave home without it.

iakov the fool

 

[smaller]

lol! I love it... in the morning let us know when FBI arrives so we can pray. LOL!!!!!!!

I am not a fan of U.S. meddling in everyone else's governmental affairs, particularly to the active usurping of other governments and leaders.

It should be left up to the people of each nation to hold their own leaders accountable, or revolt against them. We have only one nation to concern ourselves with, as citizens.

 

[Obadiah]

Then when faced with a choice, both they and us, have chosen Barabbas over Christ. It was the popular choice, both then and now.

I don't see that as relating to anything in this thread at all. Another smokescreen it seems. Some of you have a lot of smoke!

 

[smaller]

lol! I love it... in the morning let us know when FBI arrives so we can pray. LOL!!!!!!!

I have deeply rooted PROTESTant instincts. What can I say?

 

[Jim Parker]

I am not a fan of U.S. meddling in everyone else's governmental affairs, particularly to the active usurping of other governments and leaders.

It should be left up to the people of each nation to hold their own leaders accountable, or revolt against them. We have only one nation to concern ourselves with, as citizens.

True. We changed the name from the "War Department" to the "Department of Defense." So prepare for DE-fense not OF-fense.

But, it is an unfortunate fact of life that, every now and then, you have to reach out and touch somebody.

HItler attempted to take over Austria in 1934 when the Austrian Nazis murdered the chancellor, Dolfuss. Italy moved its army to the border and Hitler backed down.

Hitler was sweating bullets when he sent his troops into the Rhineland and the army had orders to retreat if the French resisted. They didn't and the game was on.

The idea of "Nation Building" and making Islamic countries into western democracies when western democracy is incompatible with the cultures of many Islamic states has proven to be a disaster for the countries we were attempting to "bless." Afghanistan (The place where empires go to die) has had a tribal form of government since pre-historic times. And they like it like that.

(Just musing)

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't see that as relating to anything in this thread at all. Another smokescreen it seems. Some of you have a lot of smoke!

Look up the medical term "Insulflation."



iakov the fool

 

[jasonc]

In 1815,and earlier was merica nation building when we were attacked were we dealing with islam. Islam hates isreal, if I hated and wanted isreal gone the bigger threat would be the nation who backs isreal.I would attack america,weaken it.then unto isreal. If I didn't as an American want that.isreal would be going to the wolves.

 

[Jim Parker]

In 1815,and earlier was merica nation building when we were attacked were we dealing with islam

1815?? What was going on in 1815? Who was attacking us in 1815? The War of 1812 was over in Dec 1814.

"Nation Building" was a buzz-word from George the 2nd Bush administration. It was invented to make the destruction of Iraq as a power balancing Iran look like we were doing some good. (IMHO) Too bad he didn't follow Reagan's example when he sent a few F-111s to bomb Qadafi's palace. Qadafi shut up and cooperated after that. Saddam probably would have responded in a similar manner. Then Iraq would still be strong and the current doofuss taking up space in the Oval Office wouldn't have had the opportunity to pull out all our troops and open the door to ISIS.

But I digress.........

This thread is supposed to be about reducing mass murders in the USofA.

and with reference to reducing said mass murders, I'm still in agreement with "An armed society is a polite society."


iakov the fool

 

[jasonc]

1815?? What was going on in 1815? Who was attacking us in 1815? The War of 1812 was over in Dec 1814.

"Nation Building" was a buzz-word from George the 2nd Bush administration. It was invented to make the destruction of Iraq as a power balancing Iran look like we were doing some good. (IMHO) Too bad he didn't follow Reagan's example when he sent a few F-111s to bomb Qadafi's palace. Qadafi shut up and cooperated after that. Saddam probably would have responded in a similar manner. Then Iraq would still be strong and the current doofuss taking up space in the Oval Office wouldn't have had the opportunity to pull out all our troops and open the door to ISIS.

But I digress.........

This thread is supposed to be about reducing mass murders in the USofA.

and with reference to reducing said mass murders, I'm still in agreement with "An armed society is a polite society."


iakov the fool

The Barbary pirates attacking us shipping interests.before and after the war of 1812.
So afghanistan,Germany ,japan, the south after the wars. Shoukd have been left to rot?the later the union provoked.had the north just pulled troops.the south wouldn't have attacked.the civil war wasn't over slavery. Never was.money plan and simple.

We denazified Germany.I really don't see much of a difference of that with what bush attempted.the only difference is that the exception to the rule was thar it work.the northern occupation by the north after the war was a failure because of the Democrats weak will support.yet it was working.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I don't see that as relating to anything in this thread at all. Another smokescreen it seems. Some of you have a lot of smoke!

It's not the amount as much as where they try to blow it!

 

[Jim Parker]

The Barbary pirates attacking us shipping interests.before and after the war of 1812.
So afghanistan,Germany ,japan, the south after the wars. Shoukd have been left to rot?the later the union provoked.had the north just pulled troops.the south wouldn't have attacked.the civil war wasn't over slavery. Never was.money plan and simple.

We denazified Germany.I really don't see much of a difference of that with what bush attempted.the only difference is that the exception to the rule was thar it work.the northern occupation by the north after the war was a failure because of the Democrats weak will support.yet it was working.

I think I understand part of what you are saying but I'm having difficulty deciphering your post.

Wars have always been about money and power. Somebody once said that there's nothing new under the sun.

iakov the fool

 

[Free]

I have chosen Christ. He said to buy a sword. Mine's a model 1911 45 cal.
It's my "American Express Card. I don't leave home without it.

And what does the context say about buying a sword? Is it a blanket statement that all his followers should carry a sword?

 

[Free]

It seems to me that gun control is working just fine. I started a thread in CE&P about crime rates including violent crimes being lower than they have in many years. Mass shootings happen sporadically. Islamic terror attacks in the U.S may be new, but no amount of gun control will stop them from carrying out the attacks. IMHO

I saw a chart recently (probably FB), that showed although the rates change and do drop every now and then from year to year, the overall trend is definitely upwards. That is, while a year or even two in a row might show a downward trend, over the course of twenty years the trend is upwards.

The U.S. needs more gun control and less Trump. Everyone else in the world can see it is necessary.

 

[iLOVE]

I saw a chart recently (probably FB), that showed although the rates change and do drop every now and then from year to year, the overall trend is definitely upwards. That is, while a year or even two in a row might show a downward trend, over the course of twenty years the trend is upwards.

The U.S. needs more gun control and less Trump. Everyone else in the world can see it is necessary.

What is the biblical solution in getting gun control?

 

[th1b.taylor]

What is the biblical solution in getting gun control?

1Tim. 5:8

 

[Jim Parker]

And what does the context say about buying a sword? Is it a blanket statement that all his followers should carry a sword?

I gather that it means we should have the means to defend ourselves, our families, and our community against "bad guys" but should not take part in an insurrection.

iakov the fool

 

[th1b.taylor]

I gather that it means we should have the means to defend ourselves, our families, and our community against "bad guys" but should not take part in an insurrection.

iakov the fool

While I do preach the concept from a scripture, this is not one I would use. Can you show me, in context, how you arrived there from this passage?

 

[Jim Parker]

While I do preach the concept from a scripture, this is not one I would use. Can you show me, in context, how you arrived there from this passage?

After Jesus told his disciples (the 12 or the 72) to sell their cloak and buy a sword, Peter said they had two swords and Jesus said that was sufficient.

Logically (to me anyway) two swords would be enough to deter would-be robbers but insufficient to take on two armed and armored Roman soldiers let alone a Roman legion. So two swords seem to be sufficient to defend the group from criminals but not to rebel against or resist the authorities. (Police to Marines)

That's my thinking.

iakov the fool

 

[Free]

After Jesus told his disciples (the 12 or the 72) to sell their cloak and buy a sword, Peter said they had two swords and Jesus said that was sufficient.

Logically (to me anyway) two swords would be enough to deter would-be robbers but insufficient to take on two armed and armored Roman soldiers let alone a Roman legion. So two swords seem to be sufficient to defend the group from criminals but not to rebel against or resist the authorities. (Police to Marines)

That's my thinking.

iakov the fool

The question we are asking is about context. Jesus never said anything about defending against robbers. What is the context?