"Ugh, nobody is talking about taking your guns."

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Personally I have no problem with people praying but I don't want to see it or listen to it or hear about it. Just go in the closet and close the door. Knock yourself out.

Actually, we're supposed to pray in private.

Matthew 6:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Of course that is so to avoid the appearance that you're doing it to boast or call attention to yourself. Other than that...I don't mean to offend but I can't help what other people do in public and if me and my wife's prayer before we eat at the restaurant offends you, do what I do and ignore the offenders. We'll all get along just fine if we learn to ignore rather than complain.

 

[jamil]

Personally I have no problem with people praying but I don't want to see it or listen to it or hear about it. Just go in the closet and close the door. Knock yourself out.

Well. You do have the right not to see stuff.

 

[chipbennett]

Actually, we're supposed to pray in private.

Matthew 6:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Of course that is so to avoid the appearance that you're doing it to boast or call attention to yourself. Other than that...I don't mean to offend but I can't help what other people do in public and if me and my wife's prayer before we eat at the restaurant offends you, do what I do and ignore the offenders. We'll all get along just fine if we learn to ignore rather than complain.

Yeah, the part that precedes the "but" provides the specific context to Mathew 6:6. It does not suggest, much less doctrinally require, that all prayer take place in private.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, the part that precedes the "but" provides the specific context to Mathew 6:6. It does not suggest, much less doctrinally require, that all prayer take place in private.

Right. That was the point I was trying to make...that there is "some" basis for Drail's comment but not completely, lest anyone were to pull that verse out as proof.

 

[jamil]

Right. That was the point I was trying to make...that there is "some" basis for Drail's comment but not completely, lest anyone were to pull that verse out as proof.

I always took that as believers pray to communicate with God, and not just to be seen praying. We have a very good phrase for that now. It's called virtue-signaling. But as far people not wanting to see people pray, I don't care. Why should that bother people? I mean. It's not like seeing two dudes kiss.

 

[actaeon277]

.. nevermind

 

[MCgrease08]

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/570590002?__twitter_impression=true

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/570590002?__twitter_impression=true

From the article: "Consider this an investment in averting carnage and heartache and loss."

So I'm guessing he'd be okay with banning alcohol, since drunk driving kills more people than "assault weapons" [sic], and many of those deaths are far more gruesome than being shot. I can hear his (and other nonsensical liberals) response now... "But nobody gets drunk with the intention of killing people!" To that I say BS. Everyone knows the danger posed by impaired driving, yet they choose to engage in that behavior. I'd say that makes their intent pretty clear - that they simply don't give a flying **** who they kill. I see no moral difference between the two behaviors.

 

[BigRed]

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/570590002?__twitter_impression=true

"The right to live is supreme over any other."


I wonder what the jackass's position is regarding abortion.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"The right to live is supreme over any other."


I wonder what the jackass's position is regarding abortion.

Judging by his criticism of all things GOP, I think we can make a pretty good guess...

 

[BigRed]

Judging by his criticism of all things GOP, I think we can make a pretty good guess...

I looked it up.... no surprises from that douchebag speaking of the "supreme right to live" while working to infringe upon the natural right to self defense.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I looked it up.... no surprises from that douchebag speaking of the "supreme right to live" while working to infringe upon the natural right to self defense.

If the bad guys just kill you with a 9mm handgun, that's okay. I guess you're not as dead as you might be if they used a rifle. Just kinda dead.

 

[actaeon277]

Wants to eliminate "carnage".
Guess he's not taking into account the effects of resistance.

 

[spencer rifle]

SF Dem leftist. So predictable. So wrong.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From the article: "Consider this an investment in averting carnage and heartache and loss."

So I'm guessing he'd be okay with banning alcohol, since drunk driving kills more people than "assault weapons" [sic], and many of those deaths are far more gruesome than being shot. I can hear his (and other nonsensical liberals) response now... "But nobody gets drunk with the intention of killing people!" To that I say BS. Everyone knows the danger posed by impaired driving, yet they choose to engage in that behavior. I'd say that makes their intent pretty clear - that they simply don't give a flying **** who they kill. I see no moral difference between the two behaviors.

Logic does not apply. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but these people always respond with the same sort of logically weak drivel. It'll be something like you say or something like "well...cars are not designed to kill. They have a legitimate use. Your weapons of war are designed for one thing. Nobody needs that".

 

[jamil]

Logic does not apply. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but these people always respond with the same sort of logically weak drivel. It'll be something like you say or something like "well...cars are not designed to kill. They have a legitimate use. Your weapons of war are designed for one thing. Nobody needs that".

I hear that a lot. I tell them that the 100 million gun owners, who own more guns than people own cars, manage to kill fewer people with these “killing machines” than cars do. They must be finding a lot more purposes for guns than killing people.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I hear that a lot. I tell them that the 100 million gun owners, who own more guns than people own cars, manage to kill fewer people with these “killing machines” than cars do. They must be finding a lot more purposes for guns than killing people.

The new mantra is: "no one needs a weapon of war". It doesn't matter how badly you wreck their arguments, you simply don't need one of those things.

 

[Mark 1911]

"The right to live is supreme over any other."


I wonder what the jackass's position is regarding abortion.

Well, no surprise, but he's anything but pro-life, he is virulently pro-death. Here's his voting record on key life issues, from National Right to Life.

Go to this link, then click on the "votes" tab...
National Right to Life | Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California) biography

 

[jamil]

The new mantra is: "no one needs a weapon of war". It doesn't matter how badly you wreck their arguments, you simply don't need one of those things.

What war was fought with that weapon?

You’re right. It’s pointless. But not completely fruitless. If they’re honest and not driven by nonsense maybe you can make some headway. But you know you’ve it a brick walk when you answer all their questions with reasonable answers and then they say stupid **** like, “well, you just have an answer for everything, don’t you.”

Well, if you’ve reasoned out your position, having arrived at it thoughtfully, yes. You tend to have already answered those questions in your mind.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What war was fought with that weapon?

You’re right. It’s pointless. But not completely fruitless. If they’re honest and not driven by nonsense maybe you can make some headway. But you know you’ve it a brick walk when you answer all their questions with reasonable answers and then they say stupid **** like, “well, you just have an answer for everything, don’t you.”

Well, if you’ve reasoned out your position, having arrived at it thoughtfully, yes. You tend to have already answered those questions in your mind.

Oh I know. You're right. I've have very similar interactions. We can always hope that bit of dissonance might someday develop into a crack and then into a complete fracturing of their emotion over reason stances.