Following the discovery of a body in a field, God has launched an investigation into the first murder ever. The body of a local man, who has been identified as Abel, was discovered in a field apparently murdered. Lying near the body was the suspected murder weapon, a rock.
As we can see from this photo the rock was covered in the dead man’s blood. Following the discovery, God announced he had begun an investigation into the murder. We have learned from an undisclosed source, the number one suspect was the man’s brother Cain. It seems that there had been some, on going family disputes, concerning an inheritance from the men’s grandfather.
When questioned by God, about the whereabouts of his brother, Cain would only state that he was not his brother’s keeper. Cain was later found guilty of murder, and sentenced to live out his life in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Abel is survived by his brother Cain and his mother and father, Adam and Eve. The family has asked that in lieu of flowers, people should make donations to the charity, “Apples For Chastity”.
This violent act has sparked a Biblical debate about rock control. On the one side, you have those who believe that the world needs more control and restrictions on rocks. Obviously no one needs a bolder for hunting.
On the other side you have the National Rock Association (NRA) who feel it is everyone’s God-given right, to keep and bear rocks. God could not be reached for a comment on whether or not this is true.
Rock control proponents are calling for a complete ban on assault rocks, along with a limit on pebble pouch capacity for slingshots. They have also called for stricture background checks for all rock owners.
The NRA, along with their supporters, have argued that not only is it their God-given right to keep and bear rocks, but that they should not have to apply for a permit to carry a concealed rock.
Many believe that if there had only been a good man with a rock in the field that day, when Abel was slayed, they could have stopped Cain before he was able to slay Abel. The rock control lobby hold the position, that in that case, you would only put innocent people in the middle of a rock crossfire.
It seems to this reporter, this rock debate will obviously be an ongoing one. With one side believing that if only we could throw all of the rocks to the bottom of the sea, all murders would end. And the other side believing that if everyone had a rock, then the world would be a safer place.
In an unrelated story, authorities have taken a man named Samson into custody for the mass killing of one-thousand Philistines while wielding the jawbone of an ass.
Excellent. But it’s Abel.
Stick to the usual drivel. Will Rogers, you’re not.
On the other side you have the National Rock Association (NRA) who feel it is everyone’s God-given right, to keep and bear rocks. God could not be reached for a comment on whether or not this is true.
The National Rifle Association supports gun rights, as expressed in the Second Amendment of the Unites States Constitution. Unlike in Islamic countries, “God” doesn’t decide what the law is.
On the one side, you have those who believe that the world needs more control and restrictions on rocks. Obviously no one needs a bolder for hunting.
My God, does every word you utter come from Obama’s talking points? The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with being able to resist a corrupt, dangerous government, as expressed clearly in the Declaration of Independence. This is especially important in an age of standing armies- state police- being equipped with military-style weaponry.
The right to protect your self, your family, your property and to hunt is obvious. Unless you’re a Democrat.
Frandora, you go farther left by the day.
Delaware “Right” (LOL)…. Where are the conservatives?
Well at least it wasn’t twenty or thirty rocks thrown into a crowd as fast as someone could twitch their finger without having to pick up more rocks.
The Second Amendment also had nothing to do with semi automatic weapons. How about we apply some original intent to that well regulated militia.
Leave it to One Eyed Rick to see only one side of anything. Rick, the point was not to make either side of the debates points for them. It was to show the absurdity of both sides. And that the debate is futile since man has been killing man long before guns were invented and will be killing each other long after they are obsolete.
If you didn’t read with expectations based on your narrow minded agenda maybe you would have seen that.
And thank you Meyer, one of those little things auto correct can’t do and I missed it.
The Second Amendment also had nothing to do with semi automatic weapons.
Where does it say that? Another lib talking point.
How about we apply some original intent to that well regulated militia.
The militia is everyone. And it is only regulated by the Feds when actually called into service for the Feds, otherwise it’s state controlled. That’s in the Constitution, too.
Leave it to One Eyed Rick to see only one side of anything. Rick, the point was not to make either side of the debates points for them. It was to show the absurdity of both sides.
I don’t care about your “point,” only the effect. The post is emblematic of your endless search for “comromise,” i.e., appeasement. You either have Second Amendment gun rights, or you don’t.
I am not going to bother cut-and-pasting various writings of the Founders indicating the purpose of the Second Amendment. Clearly, fresh off the revolution, they knew that without the ubiquitous presence of firearms throughout the colonies, the independence effort would have had no chance of success.
Anyone who thinks that the American people and the Untied States are immune from political transgressions by a leader or a party intent on usurpation are obviously blind to the lessons of history. Times change, technology advances but man is still man. History repeats itself.
And Rick, your comments are emblematic of an embolism. You only see what you want to.
“The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with being able to resist a corrupt, dangerous government,…” – Rick
So when are the NRA, GOP and all the “responsible gun owners” going to take up arms to resist our corrupt and dangerous government ?
Or don’t you think it’s corrupt and dangerous enough?
There is nothing, Rick, nothing in the text of the Second Amendment which is meant to imply some sort of “right” to rebel against the government. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion with force, and one of the powers of Congress is:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
The idea of the militia was not to have some kind of standing rebel army, but to be called forth to execute the laws of the union and SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, not march around in the woods in camo outfits waiting for the “three percent” to rise up based on cockeyed notions of “Constitutional Sheriffs”.
If one grade schooler hit another with a rock
The solution is NOT to give all grade schoolers rocks
The rock.is taken away from the offending child and the playground cleared of rock
Unless certain children need those rocks
It really is ……..elementary…
But the children could still bring their parent’s rock from home to hit other children with.
“The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with being able to resist a corrupt, dangerous government,…” – Rick
Hunting is pretty much just for sport these days, and trying to fight the US government with a gun seems like it might be futile, but protecting your self and family from blood thirsty, desperate savages ,from which ever ilk they originate, is another story.
There is nothing, Rick, nothing in the text of the Second Amendment which is meant to imply some sort of “right” to rebel against the government.
Of course there isn’t. That’s because the right to rebel is a natural right. Natural rights are not codified by law- they are universal. This is clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The Second Amendment merely assures that The People have the means to protect their natural rights.
The militia (which, at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was potentially every able-bodied man) is, except when called upon by the president, a state entity (this was made quite obvious in 1860). Simply read what the Founders wrote about an armed citizenry, and you will come to understand that they knew that governments, however benevolent at their inception, could decay into oppressive dictatorships. And they knew from the recent experience at Lexington, Concord and elsewhere that the best defense against a corrupt and aggressive power structure was an armed citizenry. In case you didn’t know it, most Minutemen brought their own guns.
To believe that The People should be reliant upon the very government that oppresses for arms to be used to resist that same government is an absurdity. Try reading the Declaration of Independence- or, do you concider that to be a subversive document?
Madison, from Federalist # 46:
“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”
Try again, fishbite.
“And they knew from the recent experience at Lexington, Concord and elsewhere that the best defense against a corrupt and aggressive power structure was an armed citizenry….” – Rick
That you had to reach back over 2 centuries to find an example to support your argument shows you are over 2 centuries behind the times.
That you had to reach back over 2 centuries to find an example to support your argument shows you are over 2 centuries behind the times.
What a monumentally stupid comment. But, apropos for a “liberal.”
First of all, we were discussing the intent of the Second Amendment. Hence, it would be prudent to at least give a cursory look at the writings of those who were actually there, and had an influence on the purpose and formulation of the amendment, and the circumstances extant which precipitated its being passed through Congress and sent to the states for ratification.
Second, you fall victim to the vacuous “times change” nonsense, like any good card carrying (albeit unwitting) victim of Marxist dialectics. Yes, times change- anyone with a watch and a calendar knows that. And technology changes- anyone with a car or a comouter knows that. But people don’t “change.” The same human characteristics that existed in Biblical times- avarice, compassion, lust, jealousy and so forth- exist today. And among human characteristics is the desire for power- however derived.
The Founders, being educated and prescient, understood this; the fool never will.
“card carrying (albeit unwitting) victim of Marxist dialectics.” – Rick
Hmmm… may I ask what that card looks like?
I checked my wallet and there is nothing that says dialectics, Marxist or victim on it.