• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Random Comments

Solid gold!
 
www.globalresearch.ca

Video: Epstein's "Black Book" - Global Research

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and...
www.globalresearch.ca www.globalresearch.ca
 
Upon lecturing in class about Jonah hiding under a tree and falling asleep, one of my college profs said, In the midst of a spiritual battle, Take a nap! Years later I find that very valuable advise. You cant fight well when you are tired.
 
www.dailywire.com

SHAPIRO: A Complete Betrayal At Fox News

Fox News highlighted the story Friday of a biological girl whose family encouraged her to identify as a boy, as part of its “America Together: LGBTQ+ Pride Month” series. The video would be absolute despicable insane lunacy if I saw it on CNN or MSNBC. To see it on Fox News is a complete...
www.dailywire.com www.dailywire.com
 
Keith Martin said:
www.dailywire.com

SHAPIRO: A Complete Betrayal At Fox News

Fox News highlighted the story Friday of a biological girl whose family encouraged her to identify as a boy, as part of its “America Together: LGBTQ+ Pride Month” series. The video would be absolute despicable insane lunacy if I saw it on CNN or MSNBC. To see it on Fox News is a complete...
www.dailywire.com www.dailywire.com
Click to expand...
I don't trust Shapiro,. but he is right in this case. Foxnews is acting treacherously.
 
steve said:
View attachment 3097
Just keeping it real.
Click to expand...
The right it is protecting is outlined in the English 1688 Bill of Rights Act, which outlines many of the legal principles the American revolutionaries were acting under and seeking to protect, and is still law throughout the Commonwealth.
Full text here: https://legislation.govt.nz/act/imperial/1688/0002/latest/whole.html#DLM10993

Relevant right:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law:
Click to expand...
This does contain the qualification "as allowed by law", which lets the government place some restrictions. The previous clause says that nobody can maintain a standing army without consent of Parliament, and this clause lets Parliament restrict citizens from particularly high-powered weaponry that would be more suited to a standing army. But citizens must still be permitted "arms for their defence suitable for their conditions". So it is permissible for the government to ban heavy machine-guns or artillery, but not defensive hand weapons.

Explanation that this right is not granted by this law, but is fundamental and outside the scope of the government:
it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly held and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come:
Click to expand...
Which incidentally means that whatever Trudeau or Ardern or any other Commonwealth country's prime minister may say, the citizens retain the right to bear arms. The government is itself breaking the law if they "infringe upon" this right.
 
FollowingHim said:
The right it is protecting is outlined in the English 1688 Bill of Rights Act, which outlines many of the legal principles the American revolutionaries were acting under and seeking to protect, and is still law throughout the Commonwealth.
Full text here: https://legislation.govt.nz/act/imperial/1688/0002/latest/whole.html#DLM10993

Relevant right:

This does contain the qualification "as allowed by law", which lets the government place some restrictions. The previous clause says that nobody can maintain a standing army without consent of Parliament, and this clause lets Parliament restrict citizens from particularly high-powered weaponry that would be more suited to a standing army. But citizens must still be permitted "arms for their defence suitable for their conditions". So it is permissible for the government to ban heavy machine-guns or artillery, but not defensive hand weapons.

Explanation that this right is not granted by this law, but is fundamental and outside the scope of the government:

Which incidentally means that whatever Trudeau or Ardern or any other Commonwealth country's prime minister may say, the citizens retain the right to bear arms. The government is itself breaking the law if they "infringe upon" this right.
Click to expand...
According to the federalist papers the founders intended the second amendment to insure the people had sufficient armaments to resist the government when it became tyrannical... and according to Brandon, that would require F-15’s. So the second amendment has already been infringed.
 
I'm finding I'm still kind of foggy in my thinking after the Covid last month. Like I'm just slow reacting to things.
 
steve said:
It sounds like you are saying; I believe that X came from Y, therefore Y defines the meaning of X.
Click to expand...
Sort of. X certainly came from Y - there is a definite heritage from the English civil war -> law changes -> American revolution -> US law, lots of the same family names involved in both even. We all share a common legal and historical heritage. But both are describing something so fundamental it is not established by or defined by either. Both describe the same thing using different language, but the language of either does not define the thing they are describing, it exists independently.
 
FollowingHim said:
Sort of. X certainly came from Y - there is a definite heritage from the English civil war -> law changes -> American revolution -> US law, lots of the same family names involved in both even. We all share a common legal and historical heritage. But both are describing something so fundamental it is not established by or defined by either. Both describe the same thing using different language, but the language of either does not define the thing they are describing, it exists independently.
Click to expand...
America was still using common law as recently as the 90’s I believe. And even the statutory law we switched to is basically just the common law. Supreme Court cases still cite it heavily.
 
MeganC said:
I'm finding I'm still kind of foggy in my thinking after the Covid last month. Like I'm just slow reacting to things.
Click to expand...
Same. Was at a family birthday party yesterday and trying to tell a story. Couldn't for the life of me remember what words were. On the other hand I could read a book to my 4 yr old perfectly fine because I didn't have to think about it at all.

Had a dream last night that all these times where I can't remember things and I go foggy for a few minutes was actually epilepsy lol. I was diagnosed by a doctor and had to take pills and everything. I guess my brain is trying to make sense of the fact that my brain is not making sense!
 
www.lewrockwell.com

Get Rid of Public Schools Now - LewRockwell

The recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas has led brain-dead Biden and his cohorts to try to take away our guns. It has also led to proposed legislation to investigate and take action against “right-wing terrorism” and white supremacy, even though not even the lefties claim that the Uvalde...
www.lewrockwell.com www.lewrockwell.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top