ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: Should people be allowed to physically defend themselves from violence?
Yes 48 92.31%
No 4 7.69%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll
Page 4 of 5
< 1234 5 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Poll: Should people be allowed to physically defend themselves from violence?
Discuss Thrower 10:09 AM 08-27-2019
Simple question
[Reply]
-King- 05:45 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
So you do want to disappoint Jesus smh. You think he sent himself to die for your sins just for you to be violent?
[Reply]
stevieray 05:57 PM 08-27-2019
...is this a trick question?
[Reply]
Frazod 05:58 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Why shouldn't people be allowed to protect themselves?
You really went around the block for this one. :-)
[Reply]
WhiteWhale 06:02 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by -King-:
Because taking a beating builds character and as the Bible says, you're supposed to turn the other cheek. When you resort to violence, your not only losing your character, but you're disappointing Jesus. You want to disappoint Jesus?
Turning the other cheek refers to not seeking retribution.

Self defense isn't retributive.

Retribution is more old testament shit.
[Reply]
stevieray 06:02 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by -King-:
You think he sent himself
No, but you do.
[Reply]
WhiteWhale 06:03 PM 08-27-2019
I'll go another step:

Pacifism is immoral because it, by definition, requires one to do nothing in the face of evil. It's a coward patting himself on the back.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 06:03 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by -King-:
So you do want to disappoint Jesus smh. You think he sent himself to die for your sins just for you to be violent?
The guy who drove the money changers from the temple with a whip, and then trashed the area, was really taking and advocating a 100% peace approach? C'mon. I know you're trolling, but try not to suck so much at it.
[Reply]
Frazod 06:08 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
I'll go another step:

Pacifism is immoral because it, by definition, requires one to do nothing in the face of evil. It's a coward patting himself on the back.
Hmm, that's an interesting take. Can't say I really disagree with it.
[Reply]
-King- 06:16 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
The guy who drove the money changers from the temple with a whip, and then trashed the area, was really taking and advocating a 100% peace approach? C'mon. I know you're trolling, but try not to suck so much at it.
How dare you besmirch Christ. Apologize this instant or so help me and Stevie!
[Reply]
-King- 06:18 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by stevieray:
No, but you do.
God is Jesus. Jesus is God. Do I need to invite you to my Bible study class Steve?
[Reply]
stevieray 06:48 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by -King-:
God is Jesus. Jesus is God. Do I need to invite you to my Bible study class Steve?
Jesus is part of the trinity.

You are made in God's image.

Hence body, soul and spirit.

You're contradicting the single most definitive verse in the Bible. The verse, if there were only one to choose, would be sufficient for the entire world.

John 3:16

Find a new Bible study.
[Reply]
Bowser 07:41 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Simple question
Well, it could be a complex answer.....

- Will the attacker feel discriminated against if he's beat down?
- Will the attacker enter a deep depression for failing at trying to assault?
- Will the attacker have his feelings hurt if his victim mocks him after beating him down?

These are the things we have to consider in this day and age before we just "assume" it's somebody's right to defend themselves from violence with violence.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 09:24 PM 08-27-2019
Originally Posted by -King-:
How dare you besmirch Christ. Apologize this instant or so help me and Stevie!
Even for you, that's pathetic.
[Reply]
Inspector 09:41 PM 08-27-2019
When I was confronted by what I perceive as violence, I jumped into action, pulled off my belt and dealt a beat down that will be remembered for a long time.

Then I turned and made sure they would always remember this event by saying: "Dammit gramma, I told you NO mustard on my baloney sandwich!!!"

I showed her.
[Reply]
2bikemike 09:06 AM 08-28-2019
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
I am all for the second amendment.

But at what point does the person know, making the decision that he or she is threatened, is the right one and when to use deadly force?

Can we define the circumstances and maybe issue a license for stable people?

So some nut thinks they are threatened and opens fire.

It is my understanding that the potential shooter in the recent Missouri Walmart incident had called the store and received authorization to carry that weapon in the store. :-) Why in the **** would they agree? Holy shit!

A citizen did get involved and I am glad he didn't decide to shoot.
Walmart was notoriously (out here in Calif. anyway.) not a gun free zone. I used to belong to a CCW rights group that advocated to change the law from "May Issue" to "Shall Issue". Several counties in the State do issue. There was a running joke about your first trip out with your new permit and firearm was to head out to Walmart and get Nachos.

I am not really sure how that got started. It was kinda wierd deal.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 5
< 1234 5 >
Up