Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,699 Excellent

About Stargazer

  • Rank
    Observing the heavens since 1951.
  • Birthday 10/03/1951

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    West Sussex, UK
  • Interests
    Religion, science, technology, computers (especially computer programming), foreign languages!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,561 profile views
  1. In an effort to see how best to organize a novel I will probably never finish, I've been studying several published works in my chosen genre, and the idea of "no loose ends" has really come to the fore. Then again, there's the final season of Game of Thrones... which appears to have written by chemistry majors.
  2. Wow! So please tell us what MOS he signed up for! You know, occupational specialty. I'm an 8 year veteran, started out in the infantry, transitioned to field artillery, and finished as an electronics tech.
  3. To those of you responding to what I have written, my apologies for not reacting to you. I said I was done with the thread, and I am sticking to that. Except for this apology, of course.
  4. I had a look at a photo of Ehrman online. He does not look like the man I assumed was him at one of the FAIR conferences. So, I stand corrected on all points.
  5. I am not going to post further here in this thread. It's not because I can't answer any objections to my arguments, so don't assume that. I just have better things to do with my time, and it's getting too political now. And it's partly my fault. Have a great day!
  6. I'm sure that will work swimmingly. And we may soon have some "police-free" communities to prove just how well it works. Such as that part of Seattle that declared it to be a "cop-free" zone a few weeks ago. CHAZ, I believe it called itself. One dead and one wounded in shooting in Seattle police-free zone Police enter Seattle's 'no cop' CHAZ protest zone after 'shooter with a rifle in a SUV kills one man, 19, and leaves another in critical condition' My terrifying five-day stay inside Seattle’s cop-free CHAZ Seattle Police Chief: Cops Unable to Respond to RAPES in CHAZ
  7. Sometimes arms need to be brandished. Sometimes you need to stand in front of your house so they know you're watching, even if they don't see you brandishing arms. Sometimes you might be outnumbered by those who are willing and able to violate your person and property.
  8. He didn't need to be referring to amendments. At the time, the right to keep and bear arms, just as the right to free speech, assembly, and religion were not questioned. And why should he make particular mention of the Second Amendment when it was a universal assumption? Firearms ownership was almost literally an unquestioned feature of life in the colonies, and later in the Republic. Just because they didn't make a particular point of it doesn't mean it was unimportant. Are you kidding me? I guess you've never studied the Federalist Papers, then. As you should know (but now I have some doubts), the FP were the prima inter pares when it came to writings advocating ratification. And "arms," meaning weapons/firearms, were mentioned 25 times. Even in the Anti-Federalist Papers (opposing the Constitution) arms were mentioned. Among many mentions discussing the subject of firearms, we have Hamilton writing in Federalist 29: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” Madison wrote (Federalist 46): “To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands…fighting for their common liberties…It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.” Now, these quotes are not advocating the private ownership of firearms, because private ownership of firearms was assumed to be the norm, and this ownership was being used as an argument in favor of the Constitution -- well before the Bill of Rights was even conceived! They were arguing that the Constitution was a good form of government because the people could be depended upon to keep the country free from tyranny -- through use of private arms -- and thus the opponents of the Constitution arguing that it was too strong a government and endangered public liberty were exaggerating the danger. Please do not try to claim that the subject never came up. It not only came up, it was used as an argument in favor of the ratification of the Constitution, because private ownership of arms was assumed to be a universal feature of the makeup of the country. The authors of the Constitution, and those who argued in favor of its ratification, never ever assumed anything other than an absolute and unequivocal right of each citizen to keep and bear arms as their own private property. If you want to change things, fine, go for it. I don't think you'll get much headway, though, in repealing the Second Amendment You had me worried there for a minute. I guess I'm surprised. D&C 101 was a false revelation then? It's clear that you've made a diligent study of the works of Howard Zinn and his fellow travelers. Abraham Lincoln once said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." If slavery had not been protected in the Constitution, there would never have been a house divided against itself, because there would have been two (or even more) houses. So, I will concede that you're right that the Constitution protected the interests of slaveholders. But that was far from the purpose of the Constitution. Slavery was protected, because if it had not been, the southern states would have gone off on their own, and the United States of America would never have existed. Instead, we would have had the Northern and the Southern Republics, with the North forever free, and the South forever enslaved. And they would still be whipping, raping, buying and selling slaves to this day down there. So what we got was a country where the slave trade was eventually terminated (a provision of the Constitution, btw), and then finally the inevitable war occurred, during and after which slavery was abolished. The Constitution virtually guaranteed that slavery would eventually be abolished. And that is not a bad thing. As long as men insist upon savaging each other in defiance of God's law, self-defense by whatever tool is available or needed will always be the answer. During the Millennium this will not be so, of course, because the need will not exist. But we're not there yet. But you still keep confusing the tool with its wielder. There are millions of gun owners in the United States, and virtually all of them righteously wield them. But because a very few wield them unlawfully, they must be taken from all?
  9. Which part of the Constitution do you understand the least? This part, on the evidence. The 3/5ths argument is trotted out all the time as some kind of evidence that the Constitution is evil or really bad. But it's a false point. The Constitution does not consider ANYONE only 3/5ths of a person. That fraction occurred only as a compromise between pro- and anti-slavery factions in figuring how much representation each state would get in Congress. The slaveholders wanted to count slaves towards their share of representation, but the abolitionists didn't want them counted towards that at all, because how can you count those who were considered property and not men as part of your power? There had to be a compromise if the Constitution was going to be agreed upon. And that was the figure finally agreed upon. To assign it any other meaning is to promote a lie. Do you think that God would rather have let the southern states be permitted to count their slaves in computing their representation? You're right it is an imperfect document. But it's far less imperfect than many people think. As for the electoral college, I am not so sure I agree it should be abolished in favor of popular vote -- unless there was some sort of instant run-off system so that prevent a president being elected with 35% of the vote. This could happen if there were three popular candidates. For example, in 1992 Clinton won the presidency with only 43% of the popular vote. This was a plurality, not a majority, and it happened because billionaire looney-tunes Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote (his support came from the full spectrum of voters, so no use claiming that he kept Bush from winning that time). I don't think I heard the Democrats complaining about the electoral college that time, at least. I found this video on the problem of the electoral college to be an interesting take on the matter, and quite logical. Spoiler alert: it doesn't support the electoral college.
  10. Nothing I know of in anything categorically proves that our Lord created the law of gravity, either. The scriptures are silent on the subject. Does this mean that the Lord didn't create it? The Lord endorsed the Constitution, indeed claimed to have used his own instruments to create it. And did so well after the Second Amendment was a part of the Constitution. Do you claim that there's no proof the Lord supports the First Amendment? Which one of the individual articles in the Bill of Rights does the Lord not support? Any of them? None of them? It's OK with the Lord if the government puts people in prison without due process? Does the Lord feel that it is perfectly OK for the police to enter your house and confiscate everything you own, because there's no proof He supports the 4th Amendment? The scripture says that the Lord redeemed the land by the shedding of blood, speaking of the American Revolution. That blood was shed by firearms, mostly, and at the beginning virtually all of those firearms were privately owned by the revolutionaries/patriots. The Lord doesn't seem to have a problem with the Second Amendment. It's part of the Constitution, as it existed at the time the Lord claimed it as his.
  11. Wow, non sequitur much? What does mistresses, slaves, and plantations have to do with it? Or do you use normally use well-poisoning in your litigations in court? Informal fallacies are such fun, are they not? There were a lot of important topics in connection with the Constitutions -- of course they didn't focus solely on guns. Nor free speech. Nor the right to trial by jury. There's an entire structure there, and no single component is of paramount importance. But take away a component, and just like a block pulled from a jenga tower, the entire edifice is threatened. An amendment becomes part of any law. I challenge you to appear in court arguing that an amendment to any law should be disregarded because it wasn't part of the originally enacted bill. I doubt the judge would take you seriously. Might even laugh at you. But that's a nonsensical argument. At the time of D&C 101 the 2nd Amendment was part of the Constitution. Or, do you believe that because the 1st amendment was not part of the original verbiage of the Constitution that the Lord didn't endorse freedom of the press, speech, or religion? That's a very weak argument, something I don't think a constitutional lawyer would want to use in court. And perhaps you are wise not to litigate Second Amendment cases -- if these arguments are a sample of how you would litigate them. But even assuming you're correct that it isn't part of the Constitution, there were those at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified who feared that specifying certain rights might cause later generations to limit rights to just those ones, that the rights of the people should not be enumerated, lest later generations attempt to take them away. Time has proven these arguments to be false -- because the sappers and miners of the Constitution have been at work for generations trying to remove rights, one piece at a time. Tort law has been in desperate need of reform for decades.
  12. Of course they are! Not to every question, but to some of them. Do you wonder why so many previously hoplophobic people have been out there buying guns during the current violence? If you wonder about it, I can tell you why: they can see very clearly that the police are there only to call the coroner after they couldn't get there in time to stop evil men from committing evil. And there are only so many police officers available -- and there will be fewer after the Left gets done defunding police departments. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Gun manufacturers are already on the same footing as makers of knives, autos, and chainsaws. But you want gun manufacturers to be held at fault for unlawful use of guns, don't you? But when a murderer uses a knife, or a chainsaw to kill, or when the operator of a motor vehicle uses his car unlawfully and hurts someone, should Oneida, General Motors or Husqvarna be held responsible? But ownership of those things are not constitutional rights. Firearms ownership is. That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. Not to protect gun manufacturers from making faulty products. This topic of course trends upon the political, but so does the Doctrine and Covenants. In D&C 101:80 the Lord is recorded as having said: And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. And whose blood was shed in redeeming the land? Among others, the blood of patriots, and that of tyrants (or the minions of tyrants). And whose firearms were first employed against those tyrants, if it weren't those in private hands? At the time this revelation was given, the Second Amendment had been in force for nearly as long as the Constitution itself. And you know what I noticed? The same "wise men" whom the Lord raised up were those who also brought the Bill of Rights into force as well, as part of the Constitution, with the Second Amendment, second only to freedom of speech, assembly and religion . And when the Lord gave this revelation, do you think it was simply oversight that the Lord forgot to exclude the Second Amendment from his endorsement? He did not say, "But take the guns away." You're a smart man, Bob Crockett, in the areas where your expertise abounds. But you are not universally wise. And in this area you seem to be operating from the Pollyanna point of view that the tool is the problem. I live in the UK, and when the criminals can't get ahold of guns they use coshes, knives, and acid. In the 2017 London Bridge attack, which occurred in a spot my wife and I had been just a few weeks previously, nobody suggested that Renault, the manufacturer of the van used in the attack, or the manufacturer of the knives used to kill people after the van was unable to go further, be held accountable for the deaths and injuries. In the US, firearms manufacturers are licensed to make the weapons, and the law controls how they are sold, and to whom. Just like automobiles. It is human nature that needs controlling, not tools.
  13. Nice! I'm not a connoisseur of poetry, so I am hardly one to do a review -- but that's a nice poem!
  14. Haven't actually listened to any other conference, to the best of my knowledge. I am pretty sure he was on video as at one of these -- if not as a speaker, then as an attendee? Now I'm wondering if I was confusing him with someone else...
  • Create New...