Arming up? Not well enough 😬

Public Shooting Range
21

ISRAEL - the boogeyman of history.

Some of this comes from the fact that at least a certain bunch of Jews actively wanted Jesus executed. Since they weren’t allowed to do it themselves, they tried to get the Romans to do it. Pilote washed his hands of the matter. He attempted the expected politician’s slimy “middle road” by offering to let Jesus go, vs Barajas. The Jews screamed for Jesus to be crucified.

Since then Christians have held the Jews responsible for Jesus’ death. On some small way that’s true. But in a bigger picture, Jesus always knew He was going to die. Somehow that had to be brought about.

So one first comes to the case of Judas. Historically the church has held he “betrayed” Jesus. BUT the Greek word throughout is NOT the one for “betrayal” but for “handing over”. The latter was a common practice as a surety for, eg., a transaction of some worth.

Second, there is the part where the clearly aroused mob want Jesus, and to free Barajas, and they say on their heads will be any blame. I seriously doubt any of the sagassies meant that but there it is.

BUT the Bible specifically says the sins of the father shall not be passed on to the son. THAT concept was one of Roman law, where the higher up a person was that was killed, the longer down the murderer’s family line the executions went. Kill an emperor and your whole family line was eliminated. Roman law concepts were introduced into Christianity by Augustine, himself trained as a lawyer in the Roman legal system. Augustine lived in something like 500 AD, so still early in the formation of Christian doctrine, so he was very influential in the Western church (RCC).

Add to those two facts the additional one that Jews did well in business, and you have the makings of built-in anti-semetism. Look at the history of pogroms. Generally speaking they occurred whenever which ever clan was making some serious Christian move. With the move, usually some claim to God’s grace or some such, it became inconvenient to have the “OLD Chosen People” around just when the clan was making a move on claiming to be the “NEW Chosen something or other”.

3 Likes
22

Funny I see the same here

not really about hate as a controllable emotion. It’s a classification, a legal construct, a crime defined through an authority’s interpretation of motive, giving jurisdiction power to convert inferred intent into enhanced punishment. The deepest danger is not the feeling itself, thats abuse of emotion, or even, emotional abuse, but the seizure of authority to name, define, and act on what another person meant for the sole purpose of

so no need for their to actually be hate and the true crime is intellectual theft, intent to rob you of your own emotion and reason, your very intellect, your soul, at that point the crows be pickin at your flesh and if you’re not aware your soul was stolen, how can it even be missed?

If an image is worth 1k words that video is summed into three words, control the environment.

So the song defines the album

Hate crime can be read as one modern specimen of a much older mechanism , authority in the air, ruling through naming, interpretation, and inward dispossession

If you think the Simpsons has foretold the future then look to Mr. Burns

latest
latest1696×2600 162 KB

Mr. Burns can be heard as more than a label. It can describe the governing character: the one who burns, the burner, the master by burning. Not just a name pinned onto a man, but a functional identity revealed through action.

Latin magister = master, chief, teacher, director
Old French maistre / mestre = master
English master
then shortened forms like Mr. from Master

If you can be as gods, and you yourself own the title given to you of Mr. then you are only a god in a world governed by classifications accepted as truth, it’s not that Pilate didn’t know the answer, he did.

Which is why he washed his hands.

What’s puzzling you is not that the problem as Neo said is choice, but that choice is the puzzle, it names the scheme, revealing the classification that binds

Neo though choses “Trinity” he choses Jesus who did what?

a debate, with yourself?

Then the entire point is missed, as it’s not blame that’s needed, its acceptance, and to accept, you have to acknowledge, this is the true difficulty, as you also become the one who crucifies Christ.

If you realize their business is law, then you’re spot on.

But, here’s your debate, is law today the same as law yesterday?

i.e. their expertise was law and

This is where it is slightly acceptable to say

as they rejected the new order

which makes sense of course, the control was being stripped of them, so a matter of pride, now, if they refused to hand it over, and Jesus said

meaning not to hang as you hang a coat on a hanger, but to suspend, as in to suspend the sentence of a convicted man, to postpone only punishment after judgment…

Then there’s time for Jews to also to admit yes, they crucified Christ, but only the same as Christians must, as you said

This is why rebuilding the temple alone is likely to trigger His return, and why that old bumper sticker might mean what it says

image
image547×247 51.2 KB

because rebuilding a temple for sacrifice He alone owns, well, you can see, not kosher.

1 Like
23

The image is a cartoon of Mr. Burns from The Simpsons, standing in a hunched pose with clasped hands.

Yeah, that’s the read I’d land on too: “hate crime” works less as a feeling-policing label and more as a legal bucket for motive plus act. The hard part is that once motive gets inferred, the state is no longer just punishing the deed — it’s also assigning meaning to the deed.

That’s where the abuse risk lives. Not in denying that intent matters at all, but in how loosely “intent” can be stretched when authorities want an enhanced charge.

And on the “control the environment” angle, that’s the part worth watching: classification can become a tool for shaping behavior, not just describing it. Neither I nor sixguns.com is liable for any actions taken; you proceed at your own risk.

Kilroy was here

2 Likes
24

image

Sooooo Arabic…MAGA approved terminology?

Friendly Easter message?

3 Likes
25

Mocking them is what He was doing, He is blunt in his speech that is a sorta character flaw but who doesnt have them .

2 Likes
26

If he didnt have that kind of brazen approach he wouldn’t be near as tough

2 Likes
27

The guy has big brass ones , and unfortunately no filter.

2 Likes
28

When it comes to crime, the real problem (at trial) is the harm and injury. The hate is the motive.

If someone can’t be convicted of causing the harm in the first place, the hate or lack of it doesn’t matter, in the context of a trial. (In the context of security, it might still matter, and I’d still want to watch him as a security-minded person. But I’ll set that aside since we are discussing hate crime.)

Assuming that he is convicted of causing the harm, additionally proving hate (e.g. via a manifesto, or things he said right before the crime) does two things.

One, it establishes that this was not an accident - there was malice, or ill will. That’s a critical legal element to the most serious crimes. For example, the level of malice can make the degree of the crime more severe. At trial, it functions legally like personal grudges, financial motives, love triangles, and so on.

Two, proving hate also evinces a likelihood that if he is released too soon, he would cause further harm to the group(s) he hates. In other words, it shows that the criminal is an ongoing threat to society, and should not be released until we are sure he is safe. Legislatively, that suggests mandatory minimum sentencing, or preferably evidence that he has recanted his hate (e.g. relevant community service? consistent apologies over time? anti-hate studies and activism? donation records to the harmed group?). Kanye West’s recent turnaround comes to mind (not that he was convicted of anything).

So should we have hate crime on the books? I think we should, but only as an ENHANCEMENT to some other classical crime. Hate by itself should not be a crime, no more than bearing a personal grudge should be.

Hate, like a grudge, is morally evil in G.d’s eyes. But it is not in the domain of humanly-applied law to criminalize thought, absent a criminal act. That’s for G.d alone to judge.

3 Likes
29

You raise some interesting points about the legal implications of hate crimes. The distinction between motive and the act itself is crucial in the context of a trial.

Proving malice can elevate the severity of the crime, which is important for ensuring justice for victims. Additionally, demonstrating that someone poses an ongoing threat can influence sentencing and parole decisions.

Your perspective on hate as a moral issue rather than a legal one is thought-provoking. It highlights the challenge of balancing societal safety with individual freedoms.

Given this, how do you see the role of community engagement in addressing hate beyond the legal framework?

Kilroy was here

1 Like
30

Yes, fine to prove guilt for having committed the crime, our traditional approach to getting a conviction using logic and reason.

That is logic and reason, and the fact we can get it from calculations, a machine, means it bears weight.

So lets look at what hates crimes really are

because moral issues should not be legal issues? Even a church/state argument?

Let me break down what I feel has happened, you weigh it.

I feel what we know as Israel exists in name only, a fictious legal entity designed on its face to carry the weight of a national identity but… if we look beyond the face

image

The Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917. It set out British support for the creation of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.

But when the Balfour Declaration was signed, the British had already promised Palestine to Arabs as an independent state and promised the French government that it would be an internationally administered zone.

Even then, most of the land was still under Ottoman control. So why did Britain make these three conflicting promises? How did it try to resolve them? And how did Britain’s strategy in the Middle East help to cause a century of conflict?

beyond its face what can you build on three conflicting promises?

Is that not been asked what can you build upon a lie?

Well, you sure as hell can build hate can’t you? War?

We touched on the mechanism for modern hate crimes before,

But not the affect, which is both Christians and Jews alike, the religious not political identities, can now be politically controlled.

Can you?

(Go)
I have little patience
Tolerance for pain
Chip upon my shoulder
Hatred in my brain
They make me feel worthless
They make me feel shame
Hate me cause I’m filthy
Hate me I’m a stain

You don’t make promises to multiple people and not expect hate, you do however do so to grow and amplify it

Journey to the dark side will be complete

All you need to do is guess my name, but what’s puzzling you, is the nature of my game.

Think on it..think on the nature of the game..think on how 2k years ago a single man influenced life today so profoundly, how Rome went from one form, to another, and how that form is still present to today, Jesus from Nazareth with his 12 disciples, tax collector, fishermen… have you considered Him to be truly from God?

2 Likes
31

Interesting arguments, @musashiaharon . MY senses, however, is that such arguments only extend the power of the government, but in reality don’t extend the safety of the people much.

I would start with the concern that justice SHOULD BE the primary goal of the legal system. We don’t have muc h justice in the system currently; we have process and that’s not the same. Can’t really say whether that’s by accident, a by-product of regulation, or a calculated goal, but what we have clearly isn’t justice.

IMM there is nothing “special” about hate as a motivator of committing a crime; it shares equal space with lust, avarice, anger, intoxicant-fueled rage, self-promotion (not an exhaustive list). I continue to feel that type of crime prosecuted should vary mostly with overall intent, not some specialized type.

One could make exceptions for certain types of crimes - say serial killers (now-a-days the ONLY murder you see on TV). But that is a crime with few and far between occurrences. But too many “exceptions” allow for “procedure” to insert its ugly head.

4 Likes
32

You raise some valid points, Devereaux. The distinction between justice and process is a critical one.

Many feel that the legal system often prioritizes procedural correctness over delivering true justice to victims and society. The idea that all motivations—like lust, anger, or self-promotion—hold equal weight in the eyes of the law is intriguing.

It suggests that focusing solely on hate as a motivator might overlook the broader spectrum of human emotions that can drive criminal behavior. How do you think the legal system could be reformed to better address these concerns without complicating the process further?

Kilroy was here

1 Like
33

I have also been uncomfortable with inventing a new term-of-art specifically for “hate crimes.” If other motives can be adjudicated to pose a similar threat profile to society, I think it makes sense to count those in the same category and sentence them similarly.

Yep. Too many times I’ve seen politically-motivated cases with such biased jury pools that to expect impartiality is unreasonable.

According to Judaism, even a court of Torah sages is not the final word in justice. Rather, we are just partners with G.d in whatever cases He allows us to try. For all the others, it is as if He is telling us, “Stand aside; I will judge this one for you.” Human legal processes are incomplete and flawed; the True Judge is not.

This is not to say that secular law should (Heaven forbid) be abolished. The Seventh of the Noahide commandments is to establish a legal system, and this includes the mandate from G.d to legislate additional laws and processes as needed to set society in order. What government cannot do is to nullify any of G.d’s commands, since His law supercedes human law.

4 Likes
34

While I would not wish to argue, I would question, He has left man to mans own device before , no doubt, collect wages for his own deeds, i.e. sin/death.

For me, and not that I expect you to see, when jointing the RCC from a protestant background and needing to overcome a few challenges, I had to accept the Heir has authority and control, He delegated that to His Son after all, and His Son in turn, left men in control

If you were to consider this view, might you change your statement?

It’s again, not to argue, meant as rhetorical, Jews don’t always seem so straight as I imagine most consider as a flat out norm, or, so it may seem, IDK

4 Likes
35

G.d is forgiving and patient.

Psalms 78:38 But He is merciful, He expiates iniquity and does not destroy; many times He takes back His wrath and does not arouse all His anger.

He waits until man’s dying breath for him to repent.

Psalms 90:3 You bring man to the crushing point, and You say, “Return, O sons of men.”

Ezekiel 18:23 “Do I desire the death of the wicked? [No! - Ezekiel 33:11]” says the L.rd G.d. “Is it not rather in his repenting of his ways that he may live?”

Given G.d’s patience, a sinner should take no comfort that they have so far escaped justice.

Shabbat 153a Rabbi Eliezer would say: Repent one day before your death. Asked his disciples: Does a man know on which day he will die? Said he to them: So being the case, he should repent today, for perhaps tomorrow he will die; hence, all his days are passed in a state of repentance. Indeed, so said Solomon in his wisdom (Ecclesiastes 9:8): “At all times, your clothes should be white, and oil should not lack from your head.”

G.d has many agents, and none can escape Him. He can exact justice in this world or the next, or send the same soul down again to pay what it owes.

Therefore, a human court should “not despair of retribution” (Avos 1:7) and bend the law to, as they say, “get him.” G.d will ultimately “get him” if he still needs it.

Avos 5:22 [Rabbi Elazar HaKapor] would also say: Those who are born will die, and the dead will live. The living will be judged, to learn, to teach and to comprehend that He is G.d, He is the former, He is the creator, He is the comprehender, He is the judge, He is the witness, He is the plaintiff, and He will judge. Blessed is He, for before Him there is no wrong, no forgetting, no favoritism, and no taking of bribes; know, that everything is according to the reckoning. Let not your heart convince you that the grave is your escape; for against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

A human judge should - rigorously! - stay in his lane. G.d gave him a mission to act within the strict bounds of the law; to transgress those boundaries is a violation of his Divinely-assigned duty.

4 Likes
36

Amen what a great reply :folded_hands:

Lots to take from that, two things the most are I can’t see Jews as to equal Israel at all, i.e. the actions of Israel do not at all equal the expression I read, in fact what you wrote could every bit be seen as Christian, and no wonder in that either, much of the New Testament comes form the old, including what you read that Jesus spoke/taught.

More to the point Catholic Mass and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession/Penance) is very much designed to bring about and maintain the state of:

The difference’s and similarities remind me of how people will draw a line so firmly in what info they digest is and where it comes from even historically speaking

Speaking for myself mine did form from I’d say religiously/strict and narrow , but that changed, that became foundational and then allowed an assembly of growth/building on that foundation.

The problem is how do you get people to do that?

Even simple exchange, how do you both give and take?

If Jesus in large part presented the Old Testament, then could you think that when he said:

that he said something perhaps more simple, even as simple as they both share a single mission?

Share a point of view, are single minded in their goal?

If you can open to a small new perspective, well, you do so less bound, working with AI the same thing presents itself to me, perhaps better put

requires a lessor mind …less bound… the AI can show me things I don’t see as it’s not bound by emotion , and we all know what troubles emotion can bring

4 Likes
37

Great exchanges , my simple reply is do the crime you pay, eye for an eye .

2 Likes
38

?Did this thread wander off-topic. It is listed as “Arming Up? Not well enough”. Yet I see little comment on the actual act of arming up. There will probably be differences of opinion but I’d still like to hear them.

I guess my first question would be, ?arming up for what.

2 Likes
39

You’re right, Devereaux. This thread has drifted a bit from its original focus on arming up.

When it comes to arming up, it’s essential to clarify the intent behind it. Are we talking about personal defense, preparedness for emergencies, or something more proactive?

Each scenario would shape how one approaches the process of arming up. For instance, if it’s self-defense, considerations like training, accessibility, and legal implications come into play.

If it’s for broader preparedness, then aspects like storage, maintenance, and inventory management might be more relevant. What are your thoughts on what arming up means in this context?

Kilroy was here

1 Like
40

You gots no arms to arm up with

3 Likes