S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Two swords among twelve able bodied men would have been sufficient to protect them on the back roads from a wild animal or a small band of robbers.
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Not to give support to the other side but that would be correct. Being an occupied people by Rome, it was illegal for the Apostles to be armed. Jesus, being God, knew that Peter was armed in violation of the law and had no problem with it – showing how important it was to Jesus for His followers to have the ability and means to defend themselves.
C
chriso
Guest
I appreciate the clarification, but still wonder then, why didnt they take Peters sword from him after he cut the servants ear in the garden? Why didnt they arrest Peter at the same time as Jesus? Still not to mention I dont recall that the apostles “stole” the foal? (although I guess “joyriding” could have been implied
)
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Recall that scripture tells us that the Apostles scattered. Mostlikely there was much confusion and the soldiers were primary charged with bringing Jesus in.
It was also likely that they were looking for Peter that night which is why he kept denying Jesus because he didn’t want to be charged with the attack and having a sword.
C
chriso
Guest
I guess too… when you consider their imagined threat of insurrection posed to their system of order from a man who could gather and feed an army of over 5000 men… that they indeed may have been that focused on his arrest and in getting out of the garden without getting attacked by his men… thanks again for some more good stuff to ponder.
R
royal_archer
Guest
We’ll I got my ‘new’ revolver in! 
C
chriso
Guest
So this discussion started by Tina has won you over?We’ll I got my ‘new’ revolver in!
I guess I’ll have to consider augmenting my semi-auto collection in that case!
Sure hard to beat a revolver for reliability and ease of use isnt it?
R
royal_archer
Guest
I could say I did it just to annoy some of the hoplophobes but it is also the weapon I carried on active duty and I finnaly found one for a decent price (even though it wasn’t gov issue).So this discussion started by Tina has won you over?
I guess I’ll have to consider augmenting my semi-auto collection in that case!
Sure hard to beat a revolver for reliability and ease of use isnt it?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Actually, the NRA is a pro-life organization!
AND, they have just reduced the price of a life membership to $500.
Revolvers for everyone!
AND, they have just reduced the price of a life membership to $500.
Revolvers for everyone!
T
TinaG
Guest
C
CPA2
Guest
I Just received this health warning in my e-mail:
Doctors vs. Gun Owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is
700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are
120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician
is
0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
is
80,000,000.
(Yes, that’s 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner
is
.000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,
BUT
Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!
Please alert your friends
to this
alarming threat.
We must ban doctors
before this gets completely out of hand!!!
Doctors vs. Gun Owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is
700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are
120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician
is
0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
is
80,000,000.
(Yes, that’s 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner
is
.000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,
BUT
Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!
Please alert your friends
to this
alarming threat.
We must ban doctors
before this gets completely out of hand!!!
C
chriso
Guest
oh no! but the CDC says… 
T
TinaG
Guest
Hmmmm.
Guns don’t kill people…Doctors do…
-Tina “Ruminatin’” G
Guns don’t kill people…Doctors do…
-Tina “Ruminatin’” G
A
AndyF
Guest
TinaG:
I am against the other extreme, the police state.
Here we have examples of this system well under way in the likes of Canada,Australia and England. Already symptoms are appearing. Canada’s transition is proceeding in a typical fashion.
One such symptom is the lessor requirement to choose alternate methods of restraining a suspect other than to shoot them dead which often occurs when involving young adults. Statistics show a decreasing tolerance to all confrontations, and this is not an exception but becoming a norm.
Another symptom is the decreasing clear line between situations of conflict of interest among the judicial institution. Police commissioners, while in that capacity, not citizens, are asked what type of sentencing is appropriate. One such suggestion, when a new law was about to be drafted, was to increase fines for seat belts to 2000$.
Another is the ludicrous psychotic social attitude that all pre-offenders in a nation are sufficiently placated and scolded that they can be discriminated beyond their stated sentencing, and are incapable to make judgement calls. One such area is in obtaining a firearm permit. The intent is missed by authority. Rather than see a pre-offender wishing to obey the law by obtaing his firearm legally, which he knows carries with it the nuisance of being closely monitored and restrictions, they now force him to take the prerequisite of a firearms training course, THEN do background checks for qualification
. If refused he receives no refund for the course. Do we really want such individuals fuming at the collar, …this time legitimately? If this lesson is a lesson on appropriate handling of citizens that he can learn by example, then I miss it somewhere.
The upshot is that this process leaves a citizen who has paid his debt to society, finds out he is no longer a citizen, (by virtue of his constitutional rights, that there being no such thing has lessor grades of citizen). By not being a citizen in it’s full right he now discovers he has no such obligation to act like one, and we by decree, not him, caused this…
Police can ignore acquittals and the defense can remain on criminal records. One such individual found out he had a “record” when he sought a new job, and it took him extraordinary time,money and effort to have the blotch removed.
Another is the slow disappearance of the recognition of the presumption of innocence. Rarely do the police warn the suspect and it is an option. Rarely do newspaper “letters to the editor” in response to a person being arrested and the method being used catch this slip that should be obvious, and a measure of how *every citizen *is viewed by the judicial system.
A well armed nation will call for a command of respect by all officials and a policing behavior determined by moral fairness, not on one where the method used for policing is based on the current state of coersion. There will still be failures and no system will be perfect.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Andy
I am against the other extreme, the police state.
Here we have examples of this system well under way in the likes of Canada,Australia and England. Already symptoms are appearing. Canada’s transition is proceeding in a typical fashion.
One such symptom is the lessor requirement to choose alternate methods of restraining a suspect other than to shoot them dead which often occurs when involving young adults. Statistics show a decreasing tolerance to all confrontations, and this is not an exception but becoming a norm.
Another symptom is the decreasing clear line between situations of conflict of interest among the judicial institution. Police commissioners, while in that capacity, not citizens, are asked what type of sentencing is appropriate. One such suggestion, when a new law was about to be drafted, was to increase fines for seat belts to 2000$.
Another is the ludicrous psychotic social attitude that all pre-offenders in a nation are sufficiently placated and scolded that they can be discriminated beyond their stated sentencing, and are incapable to make judgement calls. One such area is in obtaining a firearm permit. The intent is missed by authority. Rather than see a pre-offender wishing to obey the law by obtaing his firearm legally, which he knows carries with it the nuisance of being closely monitored and restrictions, they now force him to take the prerequisite of a firearms training course, THEN do background checks for qualification
. If refused he receives no refund for the course. Do we really want such individuals fuming at the collar, …this time legitimately? If this lesson is a lesson on appropriate handling of citizens that he can learn by example, then I miss it somewhere.The upshot is that this process leaves a citizen who has paid his debt to society, finds out he is no longer a citizen, (by virtue of his constitutional rights, that there being no such thing has lessor grades of citizen). By not being a citizen in it’s full right he now discovers he has no such obligation to act like one, and we by decree, not him, caused this…
Police can ignore acquittals and the defense can remain on criminal records. One such individual found out he had a “record” when he sought a new job, and it took him extraordinary time,money and effort to have the blotch removed.
Another is the slow disappearance of the recognition of the presumption of innocence. Rarely do the police warn the suspect and it is an option. Rarely do newspaper “letters to the editor” in response to a person being arrested and the method being used catch this slip that should be obvious, and a measure of how *every citizen *is viewed by the judicial system.
A well armed nation will call for a command of respect by all officials and a policing behavior determined by moral fairness, not on one where the method used for policing is based on the current state of coersion. There will still be failures and no system will be perfect.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Andy
C
CPA2
Guest
Very good reasoning! The judicial system and the rest of government are out of control.TinaG:
I am against the other extreme, the police state.
Here we have examples of this system well under way in the likes of Canada,Australia and England. Already symptoms are appearing. Canada’s transition is proceeding in a typical fashion.
One such symptom is the lessor requirement to choose alternate methods of restraining a suspect other than to shoot them dead which often occurs when involving young adults. Statistics show a decreasing tolerance to all confrontations, and this is not an exception but becoming a norm.
Another symptom is the decreasing clear line between situations of conflict of interest among the judicial institution. Police commissioners, while in that capacity, not citizens, are asked what type of sentencing is appropriate. One such suggestion, when a new law was about to be drafted, was to increase fines for seat belts to 2000$.
Another is the ludicrous psychotic social attitude that all pre-offenders in a nation are sufficiently placated and scolded that they can be discriminated beyond their stated sentencing, and are incapable to make judgement calls. One such area is in obtaining a firearm permit. The intent is missed by authority. Rather than see a pre-offender wishing to obey the law by obtaing his firearm legally, which he knows carries with it the nuisance of being closely monitored and restrictions, they now force him to take the prerequisite of a firearms training course, THEN do background checks for qualification
The upshot is that this process leaves a citizen who has paid his debt to society, finds out he is no longer a citizen, (by virtue of his constitutional rights, that there being no such thing has lessor grades of citizen). By not being a citizen in it’s full right he now discovers he has no such obligation to act like one, and we by decree, not him, caused this…
Police can ignore acquittals and the defense can remain on criminal records. One such individual found out he had a “record” when he sought a new job, and it took him extraordinary time,money and effort to have the blotch removed.
Another is the slow disappearance of the recognition of the presumption of innocence. Rarely do the police warn the suspect and it is an option. Rarely do newspaper “letters to the editor” in response to a person being arrested and the method being used catch this slip that should be obvious, and a measure of how *every citizen *is viewed by the judicial system.
A well armed nation will call for a command of respect by all officials and a policing behavior determined by moral fairness, not on one where the method used for policing is based on the current state of coersion. There will still be failures and no system will be perfect.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Andy
- Status