9th Circuit: Individuals don't have the right to own firearms.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Personally, I find your claim that communism is a "Christian system" to be ridiculous.

On what grounds do you make this claim?

Of course, you can argue that the crimes committed in the name of communism do not reflect true communism, but I would of course have to reply that they do indeed reflect true communism,

True communism can be shortly defined man living for his fellow man, that is, christ's style of communism. The bolshevik system, or that Maoist system and so on and so forth therefore, do not represent true communsim, as they don't reflect this principle purely.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya! Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya! Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya! Oh Lord, kumbaya!

[David Floyd]

On what grounds do you make this claim?

Well, a Christian should not be an advocate of giving a state absolute power, because that would then give the state the ability to restrict Christianity.

True communism can be shortly defined man living for his fellow man, that is, christ's style of communism. The bolshevik system, or that Maoist system and so on and so forth therefore, do not represent true communsim, as they don't reflect this principle purely.

So you don't want a communist government, then, but rather a system of morals that everyone lives by? And you want a government to enforce those (your) morals?

I wonder how that's ultimately any different from what the Republicans or Democrats or Nazis want.

Or, if you don't want a government, you are wanting something that is Biblically impossible - you're wanting a world without sin. Not gonna happen until after the Second Coming and all that.

So either you want a system in which the same personal moral beliefs are forced upon everyone, or you want a system that your own beliefs tell you won't happen.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Yes I give you examples in which the military sucsesfully stopped socialism in those countries, but there are different example. In Russia and Cuba armed struggle did suceed in bringing out a revolution.

Yes, but it was a tainted revolution. While it is true that revolutionaries such as Lenin and Trotsky and Castro, and so forth genuninely meant well, and they genuinely dedicated their lives to improving the lives of others, and for this they should be greatly praised. But their revolutions fell apart to dictatorship, despite their most noble of intentions, to one degree or another.
So while some success can be made with armed revolution, it is ultimately only true communism can come about as a result of a greater enlightenment of society at large, and as a result, a greater willingness to help improve the lives of others.

Your hope that everyone will just suddenly start loving each other does not seem well founded.

Of course it has no historical precendent to base itself it on, if it did, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in. Communism coming about will be a unique event in history, and needs no historical precendent.

{QUOTE]
Definitely. Jesus never got involved with politics [/QUOTE]

Jesus did however set a pattern for how we should live our lives. If we followed this pattern to a greater degree, the end result would be a de facto communism, regardless of what you make of Jesus' political feelings Politics is an end result of how people desire to live their lives. If people wish to live in tune with the pattern that Christ set, there will be brotherhood and communism. If people fail to do so, their government will reflect this as well.

[David Floyd]

Jesus did however set a pattern for how we should live our lives. If we followed this pattern to a greater degree, the end result would be a de facto communism, regardless of what you make of Jesus' political feelings Politics is an end result of how people desire to live their lives. If people wish to live in tune with the pattern that Christ set, there will be brotherhood and communism.

OK, but all you are saying is that people should be good. That's a given. Of course people should be good.

I don't recall Jesus advocating that we FORCE people to live "good lives", though. I do recall God creating man with good will, and generally telling us not to judge or take revenge on others, that it is God's place to ultimately punish them for their mistakes. Indicates to me that God would not advocate an authoritarian system where people are forced to "be good".

[Boris Godunov]

Guns, people. Guns.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, a Christian should not be an advocate of giving a state absolute power, because that would then give the state the ability to restrict Christianity.

There is no need for an absolute state power when people *choose* to mutally live in communism. If the vast majority of people come to a sense of greater enlightenment and realize greater truths than what currently pervade our society, there is no need for coercian.


I urge you to give up libertarianism David, and follow me. The road may be rocky for some time, but the rewards, ultimately, will be much greater than what can be acheived under your philosophy.

[monkspider]

Oh yeah, once again, sorry to threadjack.

[David Floyd]

There is no need for an absolute state power when people *choose* to mutally live in communism. If the vast majority of people come to a sense of greater enlightenment and realize greater truths than what currently pervade our society, there is no need for coercian.

Except against that "small minority" who dissent, of course. But saying a great majority will ever aspire to communist principles, or for that matter Christian ones, is utterly ridiculous and unrealistic. And again, the society you are advocating is essentially one without sin, and we both know that is impossible.

I urge you to give up libertarianism David, and follow me. The road may be rocky for some time, but the rewards, ultimately, will be much greater than what can be acheived under your philosophy.

I would say that individual liberty is the greatest good we can hope to achieve. Even though I'm a Christian, I'd be 100% against a theocratic Christian state run on Christian/Biblical principles, because people would not be free, and the government (or the "vast majority of the people", however you want it), would hold absolute power.

[David Floyd]

Guns, people. Guns.

Blah, blah, blah...seriously, pointless topic because no one will ever budge anyone else on the issue, and it's been hammered to death. I'll simply point out that gun ownership is a property right and should never be infringed in any way, someone like Dr. Strangelove will point out homicide rates, I'll tell him that the number of deaths are meaningless to me and an emotional argument that has no logical bearing on the issue, and round and round it goes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like the original post said, different circuit decisions, the SCOTUS will probably affirm the 5th Circuits decision and reject the 9th Circuit's decision (which it tends to do anyway).

[David Floyd]

It would be nice to have a definitive pro-gun SCOTUS ruling.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Except against that "small minority" who dissent, of course. But saying a great majority will ever aspire to communist principles, or for that matter Christian ones, is utterly ridiculous and unrealistic. And again, the society you are advocating is essentially one without sin, and we both know that is impossible.

There is a small minority who dissent against laws against murder. Do they have the right to dissent?
In regards to the realism of my aspirations, of course it is impossible for a perfect, sinless society to ever emerge. However, it is quite possible for a society that has a greater sense of living for the betterment of their neighbor. That not only is quite possible, but perfectly reasonable. Moreover, if you still believe that this can't be achieved, just remember, with God, all things are possible.

I would say that individual liberty is the greatest good we can hope to achieve. Even though I'm a Christian, I'd be 100% against a theocratic Christian state run on Christian/Biblical principles, because people would not be free, and the government (or the "vast majority of the people", however you want it), would hold absolute power.

What is one of the two great commandments, aside from love God with all your heart? Love your neighbor as yourself. This is a universal truth, this is not the mere workings of mice or men. What Ayn Rand considers most important is nothing compared to what God considers even remotely important. As I have stated in a previous discussion, God asks that we live for each other, rather than the individualism that Rand mandates. There is no need for a theocratic regime, because what I propose offers true freedom. There is no need to belong to this or that religious sect to agree. Once again David, I ask that you give up your philosophy, and I promise that it will be well worth it.

(sorry to continue threadjacking)

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It would be nice to have a definitive pro-gun SCOTUS ruling.

They had been assiduously refusing to make one . They will not necessarily make one in this situation; conflict in the among the circuit decisions is still a permissive jurisdiction for them, not a manditory one.

[Lefty Scaevola]

But if they leave the conflict in place, that will make the Left Coast and easy conquest for the South + Texas.