Open Carry is kind of legal in CA. The current law states Open Carry is legal in counties with fewer than 200,000 people. A judge recently ruled that law unconstitutional, but the law has not yet been changed to reflect that ruling. Up until 2012, it was legal everywhere in CA, but cops would get you for brandishing if your gun wasn’t holstered in a way they deemed correct.
A) They can’t acknowledge the Bible was wrong about anything. The whole point of their religion is that the Bible is God’s words written down by man. Even when you know about the conclave that decided which of the hundreds of “biblical” stories were apocryphal and which were true, hundreds of years after the events of those stories supposedly happened, they will still say that God was guiding that conclave. Bringing up a bad translation also doesn’t help, since King James was guided by God to create his translation. The Bible CANNOT be wrong (according to Christians), since it is the word of God.
B) Historical context is important if you want to try interpreting God’s words instead of taking them literally. Romans had a very different lifestyle and view of sex and the role of men and women. It could be that God’s word was that the TYPE of male relationships the Romans had was not what God wanted, but just two dudes banging was fine.
So this study says that if you have already successfully done something before that you will be better at doing it again?
This could never have been predicted by anyone about a project involving Trump and oil regimes.
Yeah, I was really weirded out by all the interviews happening right now and how openly they are discussing what went on behind closed doors.
I hear he also blows Clinton.
And turn the situation around:
Some dude is standing outside a country-western bar when 3 black women start calling him a racist redneck. He runs over there to start shit, and they push him to the ground. How angry would we be if he pulled a gun on them in that moment?
I can’t find the actual video, but the descriptions I can find of the video will make it difficult to rely on self defense and stand your ground, per the language of the law in Wyoming.
She could be considered by a judge or jury the “initial aggressor” by approaching the three men, which negates stand your ground in WY. Or the guys could be considered the initial aggressors as they were yelling slurs at her. The video descriptions say she was walking toward them with her hand near her hip as if ready to pull a weapon, but the descriptions also say you can’t see where she was keeping the gun (it was found afterward in her bag… after she told the police she pulled a knife not a gun, and no knife was found).
The descriptions I’ve read (again, I haven’t found the video yet) say that the dude pushed her down and to the side as part of his walking forward motion and continued walking forward away from her. After she hit the ground she pulled her gun, while they were walking away from her.
Counterpoints:
It was a three on one situation while she was on the ground. That’s scary shit for anyone.
She didn’t shoot the gun at all, just pulled it to let it be known that the situation has changed and she is afraid enough to use it. She testified she pointed the gun at him briefly, so that is almost as dangerous as actually pulling the trigger.
20-30 million people dead, not followers.
And with gaps in fossil record that last for millions of years, who knows whether we will ever figure out the pathway to flight.
Murder is not defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, by either Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, American Heritage Dictionary, or Dictionary.com
Not one definition anywhere has the word “innocent” in it.
It is defined in one place as “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” How we define “justification” is important. I would call most war, “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
Other places has it as “unlawful or unjustified killing of a person.”
They are suing a local business owner who has been in business with this logo for decades… and are saying it is not “business-friendly” to support a local small business over a national mega-chain.
This is correct. While some of them are ashamed of their own feelings/desires and want that banned so it isn’t a temptation, the vast majority are going after this as a way to hurt people they want to hurt. Why they want to hurt them can be stem from many things.
It’s almost like there is a difference between an object that has only one purpose and a show that has many purposes, none of which involve killing people. I’m not saying we should ban guns, but your analogy is stupid.
And the reply to every single one of those people is, “If you think abortion is wrong BECAUSE it is murder, then what are your feelings on the death penalty or war?”
Bzzt. Wrong.
Try this instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-33Ef7gS0vE
I’m sorry to be nit-picky, but I think learning that was a requirement BEFORE you get to Heaven.
Many states do allow public facing corporations to forbid people from bringing guns into their places of business. There was even a law in Hawaii that said gun owners had to ask permission of the landholder before bringing a gun onto a property (it was recently struck down as being obviously impossible to regulate, but it is still legal to have a No Guns rule for public businesses).
Also, you might want to think twice before equating being born a certain color and choosing to carry a gun in public. People might think you are EXTRAORDINARILY stupid, and it might not be the look you are going for.