Doug wrote:


I don't hate, just don't think guns should be for everyone. Suppose
you knew a guy was unstable and capable of killing, would you want
that person to be allowed to buy a gun legally?

Yes.

The devil is in the details. Assuming there existed a law stating, simply,
"Unstable individuals cannot buy a gun." How do you define "unstable?" Is it
a subjective decision by the police chief? Is it someone who walks about
with a sign reading 'Thy Doom Is Near?" And so on.

As for your example, I really don't want to be around anyone who is NOT
capable of killing.

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:41:59 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

What "restrictions? Should a blind man own a gun?

What do you perceive as a reason to take away a privately owned gun?

You seen to have an opinion of when to take the guns... please share
with us.

At least two states I know about, Texas & Tennessee, a legally blind person
can obtain a concealed carry license.

Arguably, the physically handicapped have even MORE need of a weapon than
the more robust members of society.

Atila Iskander wrote:

Since 1934 there has been ONE crime committed with an automatic
weapon. I don't remember the particulars, but I do remember the perp
was a police officer who stole a Tommy Gun from the office arsenal.


Correction
There has been one crime committed with a legally registered
automatic weapon
And the cop went after another officer who was apparently partying
with the shooter's wife.

Ah! Thanks for the correction.

"HeyBub" wrote in message

The devil is in the details. Assuming there existed a law stating,
simply, "Unstable individuals cannot buy a gun." How do you define
"unstable?" Is it a subjective decision by the police chief? Is it
someone who walks about with a sign reading 'Thy Doom Is Near?" And
so on.

For a start, those who proclaim that strangers hate and threaten them.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:17:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:19:20 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:47:34 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

No, I just don't think anyone should have a gun. Disagree, I don't
care.

A prison Warden practiced limitations of such a policy. A family lost
their father when he and other officers were ambushed.

Don't "care" if you don't want too. I do care.


I'll give up my guns long, long after others do.


No matter what policy you have, it will not be perfect. There will
always be cracks to slip by but I think you have to look at the
majority of cases not minority of cases. I still don't want anyone to
have a gun.

Why should we care ?
You are one of those sheeple who expects others to protect you
A morally corrupt position.


Ok

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:42:22 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I don't hate, just don't think guns should be for everyone. Suppose
you knew a guy was unstable and capable of killing, would you want
that person to be allowed to buy a gun legally?

Yes.

The devil is in the details. Assuming there existed a law stating, simply,
"Unstable individuals cannot buy a gun." How do you define "unstable?" Is it
a subjective decision by the police chief? Is it someone who walks about
with a sign reading 'Thy Doom Is Near?" And so on.

As for your example, I really don't want to be around anyone who is NOT
capable of killing.


Never going to be easy to judge in reality. My example was on
purpose, over simplification.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged with a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:22:05 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:43:13 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:39:48 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:52:05 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:6uvq08ll786og530kb6rtpa57h6ag7pak1@4ax .com...
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:28:15 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:hltq08pi10p7t3nf949n7e53td580t1s4e@4 ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:38:53 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:1ojq08h6qtd2stn9gi68826a2hlg9jgb12 @4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:09:32 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:43:29 -0500, "Doug"

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:34:52 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:522n08t08epc6hn7n8sbck3li1de0a ...



I haven't heard of that but I did hear that one young man
took
a
fatal
bullet to save his girlfriend there. It really makes me
sad
to
think
this is almost becoming a common event and whereas before I
had
no
opinion on gun control, I do now but I'll save it for a
rainy
day.

Mass shootings are not that "common an experience" as you
imagine
This is a far more common experience. Nearly 4 times as
common,
and
no
one
blathers on about these ?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/11-dead-12-injured-pickup-truck-loaded-passengers-crashes-trees-rural-south-texas-article-1.1119890



Not common yet...as I said " becoming common" but maybe I
should
have
said "becoming MORE common" as each year goes by.

Except it's not.


Really, look at the news and think about how many times you
heard
this
sorta thing. The years between these events are getting closer.

So you should have no problem demonstrating that with some graph
to
support
your claim
Even a sequential list of dates would do as well..



No need, I know I'm right.

At least you imagine you are
Too bad you confuse "imagine" with "know"
There is a difference
But it's a difference idiots don't comprehend



Oh now the name calling when you can't convince someone.
LOL

I'm not trying to convince you of anything
You fit perfectly Ronald Reagan's aphorism
"It's not that our friends on the left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong."

You're an idiot because instead of verifying what you believe, you
simple
presume that you are right in your belief



I need to prove it to you ??? LOL

You did ?
You actually consider a comment like "read the news and you will see" as
proof ?

Thank you for once again, proving you're an idiot


Name calling.... and you call me an idiot grin.

Yes I do
And you're an even bigger idiot to imagine that my identifying what you
are
for all and sundry is anything but that.
But hey, idiots do idiotic things


Just keep talking... people can judge you for what you are too which
may not be what you think you are.

yada, yada, yada.
More circular logic
I KNOW what I am.
And frankly I don't really give a fig about what others (such as you)
imagine I am.


Ok.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:44:53 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:41:59 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

What "restrictions? Should a blind man own a gun?

What do you perceive as a reason to take away a privately owned gun?

You seen to have an opinion of when to take the guns... please share
with us.

At least two states I know about, Texas & Tennessee, a legally blind person
can obtain a concealed carry license.

Arguably, the physically handicapped have even MORE need of a weapon than
the more robust members of society.


Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.
--

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:41:43 -0400, Deucalion
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:45:01 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:41:59 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

What "restrictions? Should a blind man own a gun?

What do you perceive as a reason to take away a privately owned gun?

You seen to have an opinion of when to take the guns... please share
with us.

I once knew a legally blind guy who carried a pistol. I never had a
problem with him. Would you?

No sir.
--

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:43:17 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I still don't want anyone to
have a gun.

Okay. Problem is that the Constitution stands in your way. A pesky
little thing.

In your mind, just take away people's rights.
--

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:16:01 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:03:58 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Concealed weapons save lives
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161?localLinksEnabled=false


Interesting article if the facts are true. I'm going to guess that
if the movie house didn't have any sign, only a few would carry guns
on them into the movie house.

That is correct only 1-2% of the population chooses to be armed in most
States
The rest of the population is willing to do nothing and depend on luck, the
police (who usually show up after the incident is over, or the hope that
those 1-2% who carry are around and will respond to save them too.


I guess then an argument could be made
that if someone had a gun, they could have shot the shooter. I
think this is a valid point. I guess we need to ask ourselves with
what happened in this movie house in mind, if we went to a movie or
concert or any venue with a lot of people, would we feel safer with
some people carrying a gun or not?

Frankly, I hope you don't feel any safer if you choose to be passive about
your own protection
And you should definitely not count on others saving your bacon for you when
you are not willing to make the effort for yourself
After all, the expectation that people who carry will automatically stand
and respond is also a false expectation.
Our first duty is not to you but out ourselves and ours. Why should we risk
ourselves, if there is a safe way for us and ours to get to safety.
After all, 97+% of the population CHOOSE not to arm themselves for their own
defense.
That is a morally corrupt mindset.

And the answer the other side of your question ,turn it around
Since the only people one needs to fear are those with criminal intent, why
would you feel less safe if there are armed law-abiding people around you ?



Valid questions. Agreed.. having a person (not a cop) carrying a gun
near by doesn't obligate them to use it for my protection. I guess
that's why I can't feel safer or not in this situation but I would
feel unsafer if I felt (or worst knew) a certain individual should not
have a gun had one.

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 7:14:37 PM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
During the Colorado shooting, wasn't there one person who said "Oh, well,
I'm dead anyway" and charged, and tackled the shooter? Or did they all run
ad hide? I guess not?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

I am guessing from your subject line, maybe wrongly, you are comparing the theater attack to the Flight 93 incident. It is really apples and oranges..

With flight 93 a group of adult passengers, apparently some pretty aggressive and strong, had opportunity to realize what was happening, formulate a plan and take action that probably stopped another intentional crash.

That is different than sitting in a theater full of families, children and teenagers when some nimrod walks in and opens fire. We are beginning to hear about hero's who put themselves in front of friends, loved ones and even strangers. I suspect more is coming.

RonB

Yes, I was referring to the hijacked flight. Your comments sound right --
much less time to formulate a plan. Thanks for pointing that out.

I wonder what would have happened if
1) someone with a concealed handgun had returned fire
2) or, someone had said lets roll, and charged the guy

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"RonB" wrote in message
...

I am guessing from your subject line, maybe wrongly, you are comparing the
theater attack to the Flight 93 incident. It is really apples and oranges.

With flight 93 a group of adult passengers, apparently some pretty
aggressive and strong, had opportunity to realize what was happening,
formulate a plan and take action that probably stopped another intentional
crash.

That is different than sitting in a theater full of families, children and
teenagers when some nimrod walks in and opens fire. We are beginning to
hear about hero's who put themselves in front of friends, loved ones and
even strangers. I suspect more is coming.

RonB

Oren wrote:

Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.


I was legally blind without my glasses when I went into the US Army
back in the '70s.

In article ,
"Jim Wilkins" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message

The devil is in the details. Assuming there existed a law stating,
simply, "Unstable individuals cannot buy a gun." How do you define
"unstable?" Is it a subjective decision by the police chief? Is it
someone who walks about with a sign reading 'Thy Doom Is Near?" And
so on.

For a start, those who proclaim that strangers hate and threaten them.

But it is sometimes that true that just because you are paranoid doesn't
mean someone is out to get them.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:51:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Oren wrote:

Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.


I was legally blind without my glasses when I went into the US Army
back in the '70s.


I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\
--

On Jul 25, 8:16*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





Doug wrote:

I wasn't but now I will..... *personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged with a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...

Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

So one only has the "ability to kill someone" if they have a gun or a
lawyer??

Harry K

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:20:51 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





Doug wrote:

I wasn't but now I will..... *personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged with a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...

Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

So one only has the "ability to kill someone" if they have a gun or a
lawyer??

Harry K

Perhaps ???

"HeyBub" wrote in message

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED
by the government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual
charged with a crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if
necessary, so that his constitutional right to legal representation
can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...

I'd like my free printing press, please, or alternately free broadband
Internet access.

They did loan me an assault rifle and a .45ACP once, with a few
conditions attached.....

jsw

Oren wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:51:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Oren wrote:

Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.


I was legally blind without my glasses when I went into the US Army
back in the '70s.

I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\


My 22" 2048 * 1536 HP monitor died on me.

Harry K wrote:

So one only has the "ability to kill someone" if they have a gun or a
lawyer??


You should never point a loaded lawyer at someone, unless you intend
to use it.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:51:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Oren wrote:

Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.


I was legally blind without my glasses when I went into the US Army
back in the '70s.


I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\


One of my eyes has been progressively getting worse from glaucoma.
It's almost easier to close my eye and only use the other, because the
out-of-focus image is so distracting.
I'll have my surgery next year, after my daughter's braces are done and paid
for.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Oren wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:51:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Oren wrote:

Kansas, a couple of years ago was considering removing the presidency
test for CCW renewals. The question of blindness and even people with
Parkinson's disease (can't hold a cup of tea) came up. Not sure what
or if the changes took place.

Arizona has no license requirement for CCW. So it seems reasonable
that a blind man could carry.


I was legally blind without my glasses when I went into the US Army
back in the '70s.

I meant to write "proficiency" above.

I'm in early stages of Glaucoma, myself. Time for a larger monitor :-\


My 22" 2048 * 1536 HP monitor died on me.

Was it glaucoma or LEDcoma?
:-)

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:17:49 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?


Presume no, potential yes

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:16:01 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:03:58 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Concealed weapons save lives
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161?localLinksEnabled=false


Interesting article if the facts are true. I'm going to guess that
if the movie house didn't have any sign, only a few would carry guns
on them into the movie house.

That is correct only 1-2% of the population chooses to be armed in most
States
The rest of the population is willing to do nothing and depend on luck,
the
police (who usually show up after the incident is over, or the hope that
those 1-2% who carry are around and will respond to save them too.


I guess then an argument could be made
that if someone had a gun, they could have shot the shooter. I
think this is a valid point. I guess we need to ask ourselves with
what happened in this movie house in mind, if we went to a movie or
concert or any venue with a lot of people, would we feel safer with
some people carrying a gun or not?

Frankly, I hope you don't feel any safer if you choose to be passive about
your own protection
And you should definitely not count on others saving your bacon for you
when
you are not willing to make the effort for yourself
After all, the expectation that people who carry will automatically stand
and respond is also a false expectation.
Our first duty is not to you but out ourselves and ours. Why should we
risk
ourselves, if there is a safe way for us and ours to get to safety.
After all, 97+% of the population CHOOSE not to arm themselves for their
own
defense.
That is a morally corrupt mindset.

And the answer the other side of your question ,turn it around
Since the only people one needs to fear are those with criminal intent,
why
would you feel less safe if there are armed law-abiding people around you
?



Valid questions. Agreed.. having a person (not a cop) carrying a gun
near by doesn't obligate them to use it for my protection. I guess
that's why I can't feel safer or not in this situation but I would
feel unsafer if I felt (or worst knew) a certain individual should not
have a gun had one.

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not have a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a gun, or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:17:49 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:37:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


I wasn't but now I will..... personally I think everyone who wants a
gun (with some restrictions) should be allowed to have a gun legally.
I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people (in most cases).

I'll go farther. Everybody who wants a gun should have one PROVIDED by
the
government (if they can't afford one on their own).

Here's the rationale: The courts have held that an individual charged
with
a
crime is entitled to a lawyer, at state expense if necessary, so that
his
constitutional right to legal representation can be fulfilled.

It follows that if we have a right to own a gun...


Interesting opinion but expense of representation for me doesn't
equate to having the ability to kill someone.

Where do you presume you have to go out and kill someone ?


Presume no, potential yes

The word equate does NOT mean "potential by any stretch of the English
language
And if you're male, then does the fact that you have a penis mean that
you're automatically a "potential" rapist ?
And if you're female does your vagina, mean that your automatically a
"potential" prostitute ?

You're really really grasping at straws.

Does the US Constitution say "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, unless the person meets one of the following criteria"?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Atila Iskander" wrote in message
...

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not have a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a gun, or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:29:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:16:01 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:03:58 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Concealed weapons save lives
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161?localLinksEnabled=false


Interesting article if the facts are true. I'm going to guess that
if the movie house didn't have any sign, only a few would carry guns
on them into the movie house.

That is correct only 1-2% of the population chooses to be armed in most
States
The rest of the population is willing to do nothing and depend on luck,
the
police (who usually show up after the incident is over, or the hope that
those 1-2% who carry are around and will respond to save them too.


I guess then an argument could be made
that if someone had a gun, they could have shot the shooter. I
think this is a valid point. I guess we need to ask ourselves with
what happened in this movie house in mind, if we went to a movie or
concert or any venue with a lot of people, would we feel safer with
some people carrying a gun or not?

Frankly, I hope you don't feel any safer if you choose to be passive about
your own protection
And you should definitely not count on others saving your bacon for you
when
you are not willing to make the effort for yourself
After all, the expectation that people who carry will automatically stand
and respond is also a false expectation.
Our first duty is not to you but out ourselves and ours. Why should we
risk
ourselves, if there is a safe way for us and ours to get to safety.
After all, 97+% of the population CHOOSE not to arm themselves for their
own
defense.
That is a morally corrupt mindset.

And the answer the other side of your question ,turn it around
Since the only people one needs to fear are those with criminal intent,
why
would you feel less safe if there are armed law-abiding people around you
?



Valid questions. Agreed.. having a person (not a cop) carrying a gun
near by doesn't obligate them to use it for my protection. I guess
that's why I can't feel safer or not in this situation but I would
feel unsafer if I felt (or worst knew) a certain individual should not
have a gun had one.

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not have a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a gun, or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily


I agree.
Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

On 2012-07-25, Doug wrote:

Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

Since most members of a "gang" hafta commit, or have been convicted,
of a major felony to earn their "street creds", they're not likely to
qualify fer a firearms anything. It's one of the primary reasons very
evil gangs recruit very young kids.

Yer not too knowledgeable about gangs, are you?

nb

--
"I didn't know I worked here.
I must've forgot my apron"
Support labelling GMO foods
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

On 25 Jul 2012 20:25:56 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-07-25, Doug wrote:

Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

Since most members of a "gang" hafta commit, or have been convicted,
of a major felony to earn their "street creds", they're not likely to
qualify fer a firearms anything. It's one of the primary reasons very
evil gangs recruit very young kids.

Yer not too knowledgeable about gangs, are you?

nb

Yep. Gang members get "jumped in" as early as 13 years of age. They
cannot buy or own a gun at that age. By the time they reach legal age
to buy a gun, they do not qualify under the law because of criminal
activity.

Some gangs have a secret hidden gun that is shared by other members.
Not attributed to a single member unless caught with the weapon.

Oren -- former prison gang monitor
--

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:51:56 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

Giggle.

Ever heard of "Blood in - Blood out"?
--

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:29:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:16:01 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:03:58 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Concealed weapons save lives
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161?localLinksEnabled=false


Interesting article if the facts are true. I'm going to guess that
if the movie house didn't have any sign, only a few would carry guns
on them into the movie house.

That is correct only 1-2% of the population chooses to be armed in most
States
The rest of the population is willing to do nothing and depend on luck,
the
police (who usually show up after the incident is over, or the hope that
those 1-2% who carry are around and will respond to save them too.


I guess then an argument could be made
that if someone had a gun, they could have shot the shooter. I
think this is a valid point. I guess we need to ask ourselves with
what happened in this movie house in mind, if we went to a movie or
concert or any venue with a lot of people, would we feel safer with
some people carrying a gun or not?

Frankly, I hope you don't feel any safer if you choose to be passive
about
your own protection
And you should definitely not count on others saving your bacon for you
when
you are not willing to make the effort for yourself
After all, the expectation that people who carry will automatically
stand
and respond is also a false expectation.
Our first duty is not to you but out ourselves and ours. Why should we
risk
ourselves, if there is a safe way for us and ours to get to safety.
After all, 97+% of the population CHOOSE not to arm themselves for their
own
defense.
That is a morally corrupt mindset.

And the answer the other side of your question ,turn it around
Since the only people one needs to fear are those with criminal intent,
why
would you feel less safe if there are armed law-abiding people around
you
?



Valid questions. Agreed.. having a person (not a cop) carrying a gun
near by doesn't obligate them to use it for my protection. I guess
that's why I can't feel safer or not in this situation but I would
feel unsafer if I felt (or worst knew) a certain individual should not
have a gun had one.

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not have
a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a gun,
or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily


I agree.
Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

Another loaded question
Are you completely UNABLE to ask an honest question ?

So let's make your question more honest
Does it matter if gang members can carry guns ?
The answer is not really

Why not ?
Making it illegal for them to carry has NOT stopped them at all from having,
carrying or using guns to commit crimes
100+ years ago, when you left the pen, you were considered to have served
your time
And your gun was returned to you.

So why waste time making it illegal
IT ACHIEVES NOTHING

All we need to do, is if they commit a crime with a gun, they go to jail.
After the 2nd or 3rd one, they get the chair.
And what they did as minors is NOT erased but is counted.

It's a much simpler solution

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

"Atila Iskander" wrote in message
...

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not have
a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a gun,
or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily


Does the US Constitution say "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, unless the person meets one of the following criteria"?



Don't even ned to go that far
Prohibition, making it illegal for them to have guns, does NOT work
They have NO PROBLEMS in ANY COUNTRY, WHATEVER the restrictions may be, to
get, carry and use guns to commit crimes
They'll even make their own if nothing else is available.

So why bother ?

I don't' really care if they commit a crime with a gun or a knive or a
bucket of water, or their bare hands.
If they commit a crime, they go to jail or get the needle
PERIOD
If they are repeat offenders in or out of jail
The either spend the rest of their lives in hard labor or they can
choose suicide
Problem solved

Atila Iskander wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

My 22" 2048 * 1536 HP monitor died on me.

Was it glaucoma or LEDcoma?


Bad 'fryback'. ;-) That monitor weighed over 70 pounds.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:11:04 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:29:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:16:01 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:03:58 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Concealed weapons save lives
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161?localLinksEnabled=false


Interesting article if the facts are true. I'm going to guess that
if the movie house didn't have any sign, only a few would carry guns
on them into the movie house.

That is correct only 1-2% of the population chooses to be armed in most
States
The rest of the population is willing to do nothing and depend on luck,
the
police (who usually show up after the incident is over, or the hope that
those 1-2% who carry are around and will respond to save them too.


I guess then an argument could be made
that if someone had a gun, they could have shot the shooter. I
think this is a valid point. I guess we need to ask ourselves with
what happened in this movie house in mind, if we went to a movie or
concert or any venue with a lot of people, would we feel safer with
some people carrying a gun or not?

Frankly, I hope you don't feel any safer if you choose to be passive
about
your own protection
And you should definitely not count on others saving your bacon for you
when
you are not willing to make the effort for yourself
After all, the expectation that people who carry will automatically
stand
and respond is also a false expectation.
Our first duty is not to you but out ourselves and ours. Why should we
risk
ourselves, if there is a safe way for us and ours to get to safety.
After all, 97+% of the population CHOOSE not to arm themselves for their
own
defense.
That is a morally corrupt mindset.

And the answer the other side of your question ,turn it around
Since the only people one needs to fear are those with criminal intent,
why
would you feel less safe if there are armed law-abiding people around
you
?



Valid questions. Agreed.. having a person (not a cop) carrying a gun
near by doesn't obligate them to use it for my protection. I guess
that's why I can't feel safer or not in this situation but I would
feel unsafer if I felt (or worst knew) a certain individual should not
have a gun had one.

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not have
a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a gun,
or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily


I agree.
Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?

Another loaded question
Are you completely UNABLE to ask an honest question ?

So let's make your question more honest
Does it matter if gang members can carry guns ?
The answer is not really

Why not ?
Making it illegal for them to carry has NOT stopped them at all from having,
carrying or using guns to commit crimes
100+ years ago, when you left the pen, you were considered to have served
your time
And your gun was returned to you.

So why waste time making it illegal
IT ACHIEVES NOTHING

All we need to do, is if they commit a crime with a gun, they go to jail.
After the 2nd or 3rd one, they get the chair.
And what they did as minors is NOT erased but is counted.

It's a much simpler solution



You're evading my question but okay. If you represent the pro gun
people, then I guess you want no restrictions. I can never agree to
that no matter what you cite. Now if you want to resort to calling
me stupid or whatever, go ahead and make your day.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
m:

HeyBub wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:


One assumes you did the legal thing and stopped after the event
and reported it?


Legal?

What law, statute, ordinance, or common sense mandates an individual
risk his life when retreat or escape is possible?


That is from the front cover of the coward's handbook.

cowards handbook? heh... It's a fool who is not armed who faces off
against one who is.




--
Things look bad from over here. Too much confusion and no solution.
Everyone here knows your fear. Your out of touch and you try too much.
Yesterdays glory will help us today. You wanna retire? Get outta the way.
I ain't got much time. Young ones close behind. I can't wait in line.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

Was the replacement window expensive?

Around 40 for the glass and a couple of hours putting the damn thing in...


--
Things look bad from over here. Too much confusion and no solution.
Everyone here knows your fear. Your out of touch and you try too much.
Yesterdays glory will help us today. You wanna retire? Get outta the way.
I ain't got much time. Young ones close behind. I can't wait in line.

Dustin wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
m:

HeyBub wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:


One assumes you did the legal thing and stopped after the event
and reported it?


Legal?

What law, statute, ordinance, or common sense mandates an individual
risk his life when retreat or escape is possible?


That is from the front cover of the coward's handbook.

cowards handbook? heh... It's a fool who is not armed who faces off
against one who is.


Fools were mentioned quite often in the bible:





OpenBible.info

Geocoding Topical Bible Realtime Bible Search Labs Blog

What does the Bible say about ?

A ? B ? C ? D ? E ? F ? G ? H ? I ? J ? K ? L ? M ? N ? O ? P ? Q ? R ?
S ? T ? U ? V ? W ? X ? Y ? Z
Bible Verses about Fool

Proverbs 18:2

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his
opinion.

Proverbs 26:19

Is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!”

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom
and instruction.

Proverbs 29:11

A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it
back.

Proverbs 18:6

A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.

Matthew 5:22

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be
liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the
council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of
fire.

Proverbs 26:3-12

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of
fools. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him
yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his
own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own
feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is
a proverb in the mouth of fools. ...

Proverbs 28:26

Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom
will be delivered.

Proverbs 29:9

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and
laughs, and there is no quiet.

Proverbs 18:7

A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul.

Titus 3:1-11

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient,
to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid
quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all
people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray,
slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and
envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and
loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of
works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by
the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, ...

Proverbs 10:23

Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of
understanding.

Proverbs 14:7-9

Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of
knowledge. The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the
folly of fools is deceiving. Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the
upright enjoy acceptance.

Psalm 14:1

To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no
God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does
good.

Proverbs 15:20

A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish man despises his mother.

Proverbs 3:35

The wise will inherit honor, but fools get disgrace.

Proverbs 15:21

Folly is a joy to him who lacks sense, but a man of understanding walks
straight ahead.

Proverbs 26:18-19

Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who
deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!”

Proverbs 14:15

The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his
steps.

Proverbs 17:28

Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his
lips, he is deemed intelligent.

Proverbs 14:16

One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is
reckless and careless.

Ecclesiastes 7:9

Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the
bosom of fools.

Proverbs 15:14

The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths
of fools feed on folly.

Proverbs 12:16

The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an
insult.

Proverbs 9:13-17

The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing. She sits at
the door of her house; she takes a seat on the highest places of the
town, calling to those who pass by, who are going straight on their way,
“Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” And to him who lacks sense
she says, “Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is
pleasant.”

James 1:19-20

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow
to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the
righteousness of God.

Ecclesiastes 4:5

The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.

Proverbs 10:8

The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will
come to ruin.

Proverbs 1:22

“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will
scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?

James 2:20-24

Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works
is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he
offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active
along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the
Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was
counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You
see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Luke 12:20

But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and
the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’

Proverbs 15:2

The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour
out folly.

Titus 3:3

For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to
various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy,
hated by others and hating one another.

Romans 12:2

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of
your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what
is good and acceptable and perfect.

Proverbs 20:3

It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will
be quarreling.

Proverbs 10:14

The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.

Psalm 53:1

To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool
says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable
iniquity; there is none who does good.

1 Peter 5:8

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around
like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his
commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring
every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Proverbs 9:6-8

Leave your simple ways, and live, and walk in the way of insight.”
Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a
wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

Luke 12:16-20

And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced
plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have
nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear
down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain
and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid
up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him,
‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have
prepared, whose will they be?’

Proverbs 14:1

The wisest of women builds her house, but folly with her own hands tears
it down.

Proverbs 14:29

Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty
temper exalts folly.

Proverbs 10:1

The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish
son is a sorrow to his mother.

Proverbs 17:25

A foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to her who bore
him.

Proverbs 17:24

The discerning sets his face toward wisdom, but the eyes of a fool are
on the ends of the earth.

Proverbs 15:5

A fool despises his father's instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is
prudent.

Proverbs 13:20

Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools
will suffer harm.

Proverbs 10:13

On the lips of him who has understanding, wisdom is found, but a rod is
for the back of him who lacks sense.

Psalm 107:17

Some were fools through their sinful ways, and because of their
iniquities suffered affliction;

Psalm 14:1-4

To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no
God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does
good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if
there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned
aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good,
not even one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my
people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?

Ecclesiastes 10:11-15

If the serpent bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage to the
charmer. The words of a wise man's mouth win him favor, but the lips of
a fool consume him. The beginning of the words of his mouth is
foolishness, and the end of his talk is evil madness. A fool multiplies
words, though no man knows what is to be, and who can tell him what will
be after him? The toil of a fool wearies him, for he does not know the
way to the city.

Psalm 111:10

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice
it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!

Ecclesiastes 10:15

The toil of a fool wearies him, for he does not know the way to the
city.

Proverbs 10:18

The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander
is a fool.

Proverbs 10:10

Whoever winks the eye causes trouble, but a babbling fool will come to
ruin.

Psalm 5:5

The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.

1 John 4:18

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has
to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is
Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver,
precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one's work will become manifest,
for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and
the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that
anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself
will be saved, but only as through fire.

Matthew 7:26

And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be
like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.

Ecclesiastes 10:2

A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the
left.

Proverbs 21:20

Precious treasure and oil are in a wise man's dwelling, but a foolish
man devours it.

Proverbs 19:13

A foolish son is ruin to his father, and a wife's quarreling is a
continual dripping of rain.

Proverbs 17:12

Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs rather than a fool in his
folly.

Proverbs 15:24

The path of life leads upward for the prudent, that he may turn away
from Sheol beneath.

Proverbs 14:9

Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the upright enjoy acceptance.

Psalm 74:18-22

Remember this, O Lord, how the enemy scoffs, and a foolish people
reviles your name. Do not deliver the soul of your dove to the wild
beasts; do not forget the life of your poor forever. Have regard for the
covenant, for the dark places of the land are full of the habitations of
violence. Let not the downtrodden turn back in shame; let the poor and
needy praise your name. Arise, O God, defend your cause; remember how
the foolish scoff at you all the day!

James 2:25-26

And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works
when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For
as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from
works is dead.

1 Corinthians 1:27

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose
what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

Romans 8:1-39

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ
Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law,
weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in
order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in
us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For
those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of
the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on
the things of the Spirit. ...

Luke 16:19-31

“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who
feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named
Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from
the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.
The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The
rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he
lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. ...

Luke 15:21-22

And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and
before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father
said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him,
and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.

Luke 10:20

Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to
you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Mark 7:21-23

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual
immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit,
sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things
come from within, and they defile a person.”

Matthew 25:1-13

“Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their
lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and
five were wise. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil
with them, but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. As the
bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. ...

Proverbs 26:1-28

Like snow in summer or rain in harvest, so honor is not fitting for a
fool. Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a
curse that is causeless does not alight. A whip for the horse, a bridle
for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool
according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool
according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. ...

Proverbs 15:7

The lips of the wise spread knowledge; not so the hearts of fools.

Proverbs 14:8

The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools
is deceiving.

Proverbs 13:16

In everything the prudent acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his
folly.

Proverbs 6:1-35

My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor, have given your
pledge for a stranger, if you are snared in the words of your mouth,
caught in the words of your mouth, then do this, my son, and save
yourself, for you have come into the hand of your neighbor: go, hasten,
and plead urgently with your neighbor. Give your eyes no sleep and your
eyelids no slumber; save yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the
hunter, like a bird from the hand of the fowler. ...

Luke 12:16-21

And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced
plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have
nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear
down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain
and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid
up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him,
‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have
prepared, whose will they be?’ ...

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

1 Corinthians 5:5

You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Psalm 5:1-12

To the choirmaster: for the flutes. A Psalm of David. Give ear to my
words, O Lord; consider my groaning. Give attention to the sound of my
cry, my King and my God, for to you do I pray. O Lord, in the morning
you hear my voice; in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for you and
watch. For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not
dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate
all evildoers. ...

Revelation 11:10

And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry
and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to
those who dwell on the earth.

2 Peter 2:4

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into
hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until
the judgment;

Romans 1:20

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine
nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the
world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Matthew 23:17

You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has
made the gold sacred?

Romans 11:19-22

Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted
in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but
you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if
God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note
then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who
have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his
kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

John 6:67-71

So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon
Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are
the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the
Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of
Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

Luke 16:23

And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham
far off and Lazarus at his side.