|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 8:20:32 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2789
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
My 12 year old nephew is into environmental stuff.
Can't bring religon into schools unless it is radical environmentalism. But Earth worship is perfectly OK. Easy to see why so many young 'ens are into WICCA.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 9:44:38 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
He got charged because he did break the law. He'll not likely do time if he requests a jury trial but the fact remains he broke the law.
Hopefully, since the law is absurd... The law in question puts a higher value on the life of a bear than what was created in God's image...
quote:
There were things he could have done to prevent the situation, most importantly having a properly fenced home and keeping the garbage can in his garage until trash day.
Any idea the cost of a fence that would keep a bear out?
quote:
I don't think a bear can break down a metal door like that.
I have seen what a bear can to a hunting cabin and I don't know of a door I would be comfortable with having between me and a bear....
quote:
Common sense could have prevented this entirely.
If common sense was applied this wouldn't be much to do about anything and a person wouldn't be facing charges for defending himself from a wild animal...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 10:06:55 PM
|
|
|
ddave12000
Posts: 77
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
He got charged because he did break the law. He'll not likely do time if he requests a jury trial but the fact remains he broke the law.
Hopefully, since the law is absurd... The law in question puts a higher value on the life of a bear than what was created in God's image...
quote:
There were things he could have done to prevent the situation, most importantly having a properly fenced home and keeping the garbage can in his garage until trash day.
Any idea the cost of a fence that would keep a bear out?
quote:
I don't think a bear can break down a metal door like that.
I have seen what a bear can to a hunting cabin and I don't know of a door I would be comfortable with having between me and a bear....
quote:
Common sense could have prevented this entirely.
If common sense was applied this wouldn't be much to do about anything and a person wouldn't be facing charges for defending himself from a wild animal...
John
John, I'm with you on this one. Another example of the absurd in the US these days.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 10:18:37 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
He got charged because he did break the law. He'll not likely do time if he requests a jury trial but the fact remains he broke the law.
Hopefully, since the law is absurd... The law in question puts a higher value on the life of a bear than what was created in God's image...
quote:
There were things he could have done to prevent the situation, most importantly having a properly fenced home and keeping the garbage can in his garage until trash day.
Any idea the cost of a fence that would keep a bear out?
quote:
I don't think a bear can break down a metal door like that.
I have seen what a bear can to a hunting cabin and I don't know of a door I would be comfortable with having between me and a bear....
quote:
Common sense could have prevented this entirely.
If common sense was applied this wouldn't be much to do about anything and a person wouldn't be facing charges for defending himself from a wild animal...
John
It's illegal to kill bears in the guy's state for a reason. He bought, or built, a house in an area where there were bears and took no precautions. I don't think he'll do any time but be serious. He broke the law, the police only did their job.
He had options that were common sense solutions and he took none of them. I'm not saying he was wrong to shoot the bear but he did and there are consequences for breaking the law. He should own up to it and face it like a man.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 10:29:23 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2789
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
We have problems in this country when a bear has more value than an unborn baby. To those who support Barry's position on abortion do you see him as 3/5 of a man? And don't think for one second that radical environmentalism and abortion are not related.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 10:46:55 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
It's illegal to kill bears in the guy's state for a reason.
No reason is greater than the value of a human life...
quote:
He bought, or built, a house in an area where there were bears and took no precautions. I don't think he'll do any time but be serious. He broke the law, the police only did their job.
The police doing the their job isn't the issue.... The law is absurd...
quote:
He had options that were common sense solutions and he took none of them. I'm not saying he was wrong to shoot the bear but he did and there are consequences for breaking the law. He should own up to it and face it like a man.
The law is tyrannical in nature and a violation of the basic human right to defend oneself... Why should a person have to turn their home into a compound because some folks believe an animal's life is on par with what is created in God's image...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 11:35:19 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
It's illegal to kill bears in the guy's state for a reason.
No reason is greater than the value of a human life...
quote:
He bought, or built, a house in an area where there were bears and took no precautions. I don't think he'll do any time but be serious. He broke the law, the police only did their job.
The police doing the their job isn't the issue.... The law is absurd...
quote:
He had options that were common sense solutions and he took none of them. I'm not saying he was wrong to shoot the bear but he did and there are consequences for breaking the law. He should own up to it and face it like a man.
The law is tyrannical in nature and a violation of the basic human right to defend oneself... Why should a person have to turn their home into a compound because some folks believe an animal's life is on par with what is created in God's image...
John
I don't think the man did anything morally wrong in shooting the bear. However he could have called animal control, the police, built his house with a sturdy fence, or kept his trash in his garage. It was an avoidable situation. All it would have taken is forethought on his part, and to be honest he should have seen this coming if he knew there were bears in the area.
It's called holding a person accountable for their actions.
Edited TOS 6
< Message edited by Kath -- 7/31/2008 10:29:37 PM >
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 11:51:26 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2789
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
However he could have called animal control, the police, built his house with a sturdy fence, or kept his trash in his garage
And waited for them to come while the bear was a threat to his family. The man did what the leader/protector of the family is supposed to do.
It is just a bear. But to the enviromentalist wackos bear=human.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/30/2008 11:55:54 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
quote:
However he could have called animal control, the police, built his house with a sturdy fence, or kept his trash in his garage
And waited for them to come while the bear was a threat to his family. The man did what the leader/protector of the family is supposed to do.
It is just a bear. But to the enviromentalist wackos bear=human.
You totally ignored what I said earlier about it not being morally incorrect.
You cannot deny that the situation was avoidable had he bothered taking the right steps. He didn't and now he needs to be held accountable for breaking the law. As some of you are so fond of pointing out Jesus advocated upholding the laws of the land you live in. Since he broke the law he should man up and accept responsibility.
Edited TOS 6
< Message edited by Kath -- 7/31/2008 10:30:59 PM >
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 12:01:50 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
You cannot deny that the situation was avoidable had he bothered taking the right steps. He didn't and now he needs to be held accountable for breaking the law. As some of you are so fond of pointing out Jesus advocated upholding the laws of the land you live in. Since he broke the law he should man up and accept responsibility.
Not every law man creates is just... Any law that places the life of an animal over that of man, who is created in God's image is wrong...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 10:52:56 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3983
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
There were things he could have done to prevent the situation, most importantly having a properly fenced home and keeping the garbage can in his garage until trash day.
Any idea the cost of a fence that would keep a bear out?
The fence would keep the precious dog contained. The bear attacked because that is his instinct when threatened. If the animal in question had been a mountain lion, it would have run away unless it got cornered (cats generally attack prey if they don't believe it will put up a fight). Recall the details: the dog chased the bear off the property twice. A fence would have limited the dog's range. Additionally, the garbage being contained and away from the fence would be less inviting.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 11:11:17 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3983
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
We have problems in this country when a bear has more value than an unborn baby. To those who support Barry's position on abortion do you see him as 3/5 of a man? And don't think for one second that radical environmentalism and abortion are not related.
A. This thread is not about abortion
B. This is not about radical environmentalism. These laws have been around as long as people have been required to get hunting and fishing licenses.
C. If Davy Crockett here gets no consequence, there will be an increase in "self-defense" bear killings. BTW, a stuffed black bear goes for about $1000.00 on the "unofficial" market......
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 12:28:02 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The fence would keep the precious dog contained.
The dog wasn't the issue...
quote:
The bear attacked because that is his instinct when threatened.
Of course, and the person defended himself...
quote:
Recall the details: the dog chased the bear off the property twice. A fence would have limited the dog's range.
Which means what? What does the range of the dog have to do with the bear?
quote:
Additionally, the garbage being contained and away from the fence would be less inviting
A fence to simply contain the dog isn't going to deter a bear... If he can smell the garbage he will look for it...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 12:30:49 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
The run for office and change it.
I don't live in the state...
quote:
Stop whining and do something.
I donate money for the right to bear arms, have taught Hunter Safety and have managed the local gun range on weekends...
quote:
Talk is cheap after all.
This is a forum, "talk" is what goes on here and it's pretty silly to "say" talk is cheap....
quote:
It's interesting that you ignore so much of what I've said, while at the same time trying to be as insulting as possible. How very Christian of you.
I read every word.... And you make statements with no support and expect not to be called on it? Sorry if it offends but when the bible says you can take the life of someone breaking into your home and you say self defense is murder I am going to speak up...
John
Now who's equating a bear to a human?
You have nothing of any real import to say on the reality that the entire situation could have been avoided. This man made the choice to have a home where there was the potential to have a bear problem. He then chose to not have a high fence to keep his dog in and he chose to not keep his garbage inside his garage and away from foraging animals, like the bear in question. Because he took no precautions a bear showed up on his property, big shock there, and he chose to break the law rather than get his dog inside and call the authorities.
I'm not saying he did anything morally wrong in shooting the bear, but he did break the law and he should be held accountable. Because that's the law and as I've been repeated told by other Jesus was an advocate of obeying the law, unless it violated God's law and a don't shoot the bears law is not an unGodly law.
And before some of you start with the insipid notion that I'm somehow against the second ammendment I direct you to my repeated statements that I do, in fact, support it. I do support a man's right to defend himself, but believe it or not you can do so without killing and if you do kill a man it still requires attonement in asking God's forgiveness. That's just how I feel and I make no apologies for that.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 12:32:02 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
B. This is not about radical environmentalism.
Yes it is....
quote:
These laws have been around as long as people have been required to get hunting and fishing licenses.
He wasn't poaching...
quote:
C. If Davy Crockett here gets no consequence, there will be an increase in "self-defense" bear killings. BTW, a stuffed black bear goes for about $1000.00 on the "unofficial" market......
What should the consequence be for defending himself?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 12:39:00 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
Actually, it isn't clear that there were bears in the area when he purchased the property - the article even states:
Goodyear said there hasn't been a confirmed black bear living in Coshocton County for almost 15 years, but the population could be on the rise, especially if female bears start settling in eastern Ohio.
And bears are prone to wander - so there may have been little reason up to this time to have the measures you spoke about. And there doesn't seem to be any legal requirement that he did so.
But the final estimation should be whether or not he had a reasonable basis for considering his girlfriend's life to be threatened, and if that is the case, then no rational law should be interpreted to uphold the states interest in maintaining a bear population over the life of a person.
edited only to remove a quoted post that has been deleted for TOS
< Message edited by Kath -- 7/31/2008 10:16:03 PM >
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 1:56:48 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3983
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The fence would keep the precious dog contained.
The dog wasn't the issue...
quote:
The bear attacked because that is his instinct when threatened.
Of course, and the person defended himself...
quote:
Recall the details: the dog chased the bear off the property twice. A fence would have limited the dog's range.
Which means what? What does the range of the dog have to do with the bear?
quote:
Additionally, the garbage being contained and away from the fence would be less inviting
A fence to simply contain the dog isn't going to deter a bear... If he can smell the garbage he will look for it...
John
It's clear you are woefully undereducated about the behavior of black bears in the wild and, perhaps, domestic dogs as well.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 5:28:07 PM
|
|
|
radiorobert
Posts: 63
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
Wow....
It's clear that the animal worship in this country is spinning out of control.
Animals are LESS than humans. They are subject to humans. Period. We have no obligation to them, no cause for concern for their well being, other than what suits and serves our own purposes as human beings. We are to subdue the earht. Which while meaning it's proper care (for our own uses) also means the creatures in it below humans are subject to our authority.
Animals are, no less, part of God's creation. But God did not say we are to tip-toe around them or be in any way subject to them outside of taking care of them for our own purposes.
Some of you have been so brainwashed by the eastern religious overtones and feminisim that have spread into our culture at large, you can't even recognize it. It amazes me how far gone even some of our churches are today. They mix earth and animal worship into scripture and disguise it as 'God telling us to care for his creation'. Oh, he certainly wants us to care for it all right. But or the express purpose of making it more comfortable for mankind. Thus making the spread of the gospel easier.
As for the killing of another human being in self-defense. No atonement is necessary. Self defense is just that, self-defense. Atonement would somehow imply that the killing was still sin and that it would need to be covered by Christs blood, when the person who was killed was actually committing the sin to begin with. This is the most twisted, satan inspired garbage I have ever heard.
Additionally, how can taking a life be simultaneously morally acceptable, while also needing to be atoned for at the same time? 
quote:
And before some of you start with the insipid notion that I'm somehow against the second ammendment I direct you to my repeated statements that I do, in fact, support it. I do support a man's right to defend himself, but believe it or not you can do so without killing and if you do kill a man it still requires attonement in asking God's forgiveness. That's just how I feel and I make no apologies for that.
Huh...there must be some magical way you can know if your going to kill someone by accident or not. Didn't see that part highlighted in scripture where it talks about praying that you 'get it right' if you're going to defend yourself cause if you screw up and accidently kill somebody, you'll need to atone for it whether you meant to or not. Cause ya know, God's looking at our literal actions here and not the heart. The heart may intend one thing but God knows you were just too bad at defending yourself properly and therefore your screwup warrants an atonement b/c someohow despite actions of the criminal coming to kill you or your family, your inability to precisely defend yourself and magically incapacitate the criminal are somehow unacceptable. 
In other words, we as Christians are subject to everyone elses sinful desires/whims. Guess I'll have to take my non-fatal physical defense class required by scripture, so I know I won't screw up and accidently commit a sin, thus needing an unforseen forgiveness of my sin I didn't know I ever wanted to commit. 
And to think, all this seen through the prism of defending ones self or property from an animal of all things.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 6:18:42 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: radiorobert
Wow....
It's clear that the animal worship in this country is spinning out of control.
Animals are LESS than humans. They are subject to humans. Period. We have no obligation to them, no cause for concern for their well being, other than what suits and serves our own purposes as human beings. We are to subdue the earht. Which while meaning it's proper care (for our own uses) also means the creatures in it below humans are subject to our authority.
Animals are, no less, part of God's creation. But God did not say we are to tip-toe around them or be in any way subject to them outside of taking care of them for our own purposes.
Some of you have been so brainwashed by the eastern religious overtones and feminisim that have spread into our culture at large, you can't even recognize it. It amazes me how far gone even some of our churches are today. They mix earth and animal worship into scripture and disguise it as 'God telling us to care for his creation'. Oh, he certainly wants us to care for it all right. But or the express purpose of making it more comfortable for mankind. Thus making the spread of the gospel easier.
As for the killing of another human being in self-defense. No atonement is necessary. Self defense is just that, self-defense. Atonement would somehow imply that the killing was still sin and that it would need to be covered by Christs blood, when the person who was killed was actually committing the sin to begin with. This is the most twisted, satan inspired garbage I have ever heard.
Additionally, how can taking a life be simultaneously morally acceptable, while also needing to be atoned for at the same time?
quote:
And before some of you start with the insipid notion that I'm somehow against the second ammendment I direct you to my repeated statements that I do, in fact, support it. I do support a man's right to defend himself, but believe it or not you can do so without killing and if you do kill a man it still requires attonement in asking God's forgiveness. That's just how I feel and I make no apologies for that.
Huh...there must be some magical way you can know if your going to kill someone by accident or not. Didn't see that part highlighted in scripture where it talks about praying that you 'get it right' if you're going to defend yourself cause if you screw up and accidently kill somebody, you'll need to atone for it whether you meant to or not. Cause ya know, God's looking at our literal actions here and not the heart. The heart may intend one thing but God knows you were just too bad at defending yourself properly and therefore your screwup warrants an atonement b/c someohow despite actions of the criminal coming to kill you or your family, your inability to precisely defend yourself and magically incapacitate the criminal are somehow unacceptable.
In other words, we as Christians are subject to everyone elses sinful desires/whims. Guess I'll have to take my non-fatal physical defense class required by scripture, so I know I won't screw up and accidently commit a sin, thus needing an unforseen forgiveness of my sin I didn't know I ever wanted to commit.
And to think, all this seen through the prism of defending ones self or property from an animal of all things.
Hoss you need to think very carefully before you step to people the way you just did. I don't take kindly to the things you're implying so I'll set you straight.
The man in the refrenced story broke the law, plain and simple. There were things he could have done to avoid the situation but he didn't. I've got no real problem with him shooting the bear, but he did break the law and he should be held accountable, which in legal terms he should face due process. If he has a jury trial, which he'd be fairly foolish not to, he'll very likely be found innocent of any charge. Nothing even remotely resembling animal or nature worship there so kindly don't accuse people like that again.
Second, if you get a gun and mean to kill a man that breaks into your home, that's hardly an accident. That's intent by definition. It is my personal belief that an individual, so as not to be confused with the police or the military, who kills a person with intent needs to attone for that killing. It's called having a conscience if nothing else. I've said in earlier threads that taking a human life should never be taken that lightly or done so callously.
Self defense doesn't mean kill a guy. There are means of defending oneself without killing a person. With animals that's not always the case.
I'd like to hit on your other point about making the world better for humanity. Exactly whose definition are we to use? By my understanding being a good caretaker means keeping enough trees and plants around so we have oxygen to breathe, making sure said air is clean enough to breathe and making sure our drinking water is clean. All the comforts in the world don't matter a thing if you can't breathe and don't have potable water. The great commission doesn't say make people comfortable to spread the gospel easier. It just says to go out and spread the gospel. NO provisions are made involving it being easy OR comfortable.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What is wrong with those environmentalists? - 7/31/2008 6:31:54 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
The man in the refrenced story broke the law, plain and simple.
The fact that something is law doesn't grant is validity because it's on the books...
quote:
There were things he could have done to avoid the situation but he didn't. I've got no real problem with him shooting the bear, but he did break the law and he should be held accountable, which in legal terms he should face due process. If he has a jury trial, which he'd be fairly foolish not to, he'll very likely be found innocent of any charge. Nothing even remotely resembling animal or nature worship there so kindly don't accuse people like that again.
You own words give weight to the fact that the law in question is absurd and has no merit...
quote:
Second, if you get a gun and mean to kill a man that breaks into your home, that's hardly an accident.
Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
That takes care of that....
quote:
That's intent by definition.
Bible doesn't agree with you... Not even a mention of being threatened...
quote:
It is my personal belief that an individual, so as not to be confused with the police or the military, who kills a person with intent needs to attone for that killing.
First, that implies that every killing done by the police and anyone in any military is isn't murder... Wrong...
Second intent would make it murder...Not self defense...
For the record your first mention of this spoke of no exceptions and you have groomed your response every time you mentioned it...
John
John
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
