Divemedic

It seems that I touched a nerve yesterday when I compared Christianity and the Muslim faith when it came to application of Sharia law. In the comments, I was accused of being dishonest when I only quoted from the Old Testament to show that religion is a bunch of primitive men practicing according to outdated and cruel practices. In order to believe that the Old Testament, with its commands to kill disrespectful children, and kill those who work on the Sabbath, we must ignore In Isaiah 40:8 God says that the word of the Lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25.

Even so, to be fair, here are some New Testament quotes:

Jesus was a horse thief. In Mark 11:1-3 we find this transaction:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.’ “

Jesus advocated hate. In support, we find Jesus saying this in Luke 14:26:

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Jesus was a misogynist. Proof is here:

1 Corinthians chapter 14:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Under Christianity, women should be veiled, just as in Sharia:

1 Corinthians 11:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

1 Timothy chapter 2:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this:

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Seen enough yet? Again I say:

You must understand that both of these religions were written by primitive men, using primitive standards. Enforcing the Bible in a strict manner will yield similar results as strictly enforcing Sharia. It wasn’t all that long ago that Christians were conducting the inquisition, or even the crusades.

A woman is raped by six armed men. The men receive sentences ranging from 2 to 9 years in prison. The woman is sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail. The woman’s attorney is now prohibited from practicing law, and is facing further punishment.

Why? Because under Sharia law, women can incite men to commit rape if they commit various acts, including being in the company of a man she is not related to, not covering her body from head to toe, or even driving her own automobile. Of course, it doesn’t help that her and her attorney were openly critical of the court and of sharia. A crime which is punishable by death, as a criticism of sharia is a criticism of the Muslim faith, and even of Muhammad himself.

In the comments, one person had this to say:

Doesn’t logic tell you that worshiping a God that is so brutal and unforgiving may be the wrong thing to do?
Long live Jesus Christ – a forgiving God.

Let me point out a few things about Christianity, lest you think that they are any better:

Consider Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

Then there is Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. All homosexuals need to be killed.

What about this:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

You must understand that both of these religions were written by primitive men, using primitive standards. Enforcing the Bible in a strict manner will yield similar results as strictly enforcing sharia. It wasn’t all that long ago that Christians were conducting the inquisition, or even the crusades. The Catholic church was busy selling indulgences, and the rich were buying tickets to heaven, all sanctioned by his Holiness the Pope.

It is time that we all decide that all humans are born in possession of the same rights and freedoms, and that it is the job of government to protect those rights, ensuring that no person’s right overshadows another’s.

Americans affiliated with a foreign terrorist group would be stripped of their U.S. citizenship under bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Joseph Lieberman.

“Those who join such groups join our enemy and should be deprived of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship,” Lieberman said at a Washington news conference today.

The proposal would broaden the existing law to include joining or working with extremist groups designated by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations. Citizens would have the right to appeal.

In the House, Republican Charlie Dent and Democrat Jason Altmire, both of Pennsylvania, are proposing similar legislation.

Notice how he refers to your NATURAL RIGHTS as “privileges of U.S. citizenship?”

From this article:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks he’s found a work-around on the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism: Strip their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo.

“If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” Lieberman said.

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family’s pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on.

They found a “small amount” of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

So smoking pot = “child endangerment.” Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone’s safety.

Just so we’re clear.

Here is the video of the brave “heroes” taking down a suburban family and their pet:

With these rights in mind, would you like to answer questions?

No, you fucking douchebag, I want my fucking lawyer.

These military style raids are good at killing animals and roughing up suburban families, but get their asses handed to them when met by real resistance. Pussies. I mean, shooting a corgi? How can a corgi possibly be a threat to an armored SWAT team?

In his statement, the Police Chief states that the initial shot missed the pit bull and the dog then attacked officers. Funny, on the tape I can hear the first shot, and the pit bull yelps until it is shot again. The Chief gets one thing right: The dog wasn’t shot by mistake.

In the end, all the cops got was a plea deal for misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Why don’t I feel safer knowing these cops are looking out for us?

Any time a vote comes up for cutting police funding, pay, or benefits, I will do so.

Tip from The Agitator

I just wanted to say  that I do not claim to be an expert on 1911s. I didn’t even own one until about 2 years ago. I always thought that it didn’t make sense to buy a pistol that requires hundreds or thousands of dollars in gunsmithing to work properly. I want a weapon that is reasonably accurate and reliable without a lot of work. Hearing how fickle 1911s were with ammo and reliability, I put off buying one for quite a long time.

I  am not nearly the pistol expert that Tam (who knows more about guns and is a better shooter than I will ever be) is, but I have my own opinions on what works for me, and that is what I base my opinions on. Having only started buying 1911s less than 3 years ago, my opinion stands: you don’t and shouldn’t need to spend gobs of money for a reliable, reasonably accurate pistol.

Pistols, at least the ones you carry, need only be accurate to a point. I do not see myself needing to take 50 yard headshots with a handgun. To me, the requirements for a carry handgun are simple:

1 It must be reliable above all else. A gun that jams every 50 rounds, or even every 500 rounds is just not going to cut it when my life depends on that weapon’s proper function.

2 I must be comfortable shooting it AND carrying it.  A gun that is uncomfortable to shoot or carry will likely be left at home, and a gun at home does not help you much when you need it away from home. This is a good reason for NOT carrying a Desert Eagle.

3 I must be able to rapidly score multiple hits in a short amount of time, using that particular handgun. Not every gun is best for every shooter. As far as I am concerned, I think Glock makes a fine handgun, but I just don’t shoot as well with them as I do others. I despise the Taurus Millennium, because it feels like the trigger is dragging an iron plate across a gravel parking lot. Others like that handgun. To each his own.

4 It must be in a caliber that will be an effective defense round. I have decided that a primary defense gun should be 9mm or larger for autos, and .38 Spl or larger for revolvers.

5 With that being said, I have tried out a lot of pistols. I have owned, or do own the following: Glock 26, 27, 19, 17; S&W 59, 5906, 4506, 4566, 637; Beretta 3032, 92; Ruger P85; Taurus PT92, PT945, PT-111, Sig 220, 226, 229 (in 9mm and .357 Sig). Colt 70 Combat Commander, Kimber Pro Carry, Eclipse Custom, Pro Carry, Ultra Carry. ( I am not including non-defense pistols in this list, such as .22’s or even backup guns)

6 I carry each gun as situations dictate. There are times when I can carry a full sized gun, and times when I will not. I do not trust the Colt, it is a jam-o-matic. I don’t carry a revolver much, but that is my personal preference. My mom carries a .38 revolver. I don’t prefer the Glocks, but my wife does.

My preferences are:

For a compact SA pistol, my favorite is the Kimber Ultra carry. It is small, powerful, and reliable. Mine is fitted with Crimson Trace laser grips.

For a full sized SA, my preference goes to the Kimber Eclipse Custom. Due to its size, I rarely carry a full sized pistol. This one has TruGlo tritium fiber optic sights. I may put a set of them on the Pro carry, and carry that one as a mid sized SA. I don’t know- maybe some XS Ashley sights. I haven’t decided.

For DA pistols, I prefer the Sig 229 in .357 Sig. That pistol just seems to seek out the target every time. I have even shot a few IDPA matches with it, and it has won me a few trophies.

I like guns that shoot, and shoot well. I don’t need to tinker with them, I don’t need to spend gobs of money fixing them up. What I need os for them to go ‘bang’ every time I pull the trigger, and I need them to make the bullet go where I was pointing the gun. That’s it.

The Phoenix Suns announced that they will honor hispanics by wearing jerseys that say “Los Suns.”

The Phoenix Suns will wear “Los Suns” on their jerseys Wednesday for Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals, owner Robert Sarver said, “to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation.”
The decision to wear the jerseys on the Cinco de Mayo holiday stems from a law passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer that has drawn widespread criticism from Latino organizations and civil rights groups that say it could lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. President Barack Obama has called the law “misguided.”

Lets call this what it is: This is a step to honor MEXICANS. Cinco de Mayo is a MEXICAN holiday, not a hispanic holiday, unless you want to claim that all hispanics are Mexican. Heck, you can’t even make the claim that all Mexicans are hispanic. Mexican is not a race. Mexican is a nationality.

The secret here is that the law in Arizona has nothing to do with race, and everyone knows it. This is just another example of race-baiters opposing something they don’t like by using the “racism” boogieman.

How exactly can the Suns honor the diversity of their league? Can anyone name a single hispanic player in the NBA?

How does the NBA honor white people? That one is easy. A team wishing to honor whites simply loses to the Celtics.

I am sitting here listening to my collection of MP3s from the 80’s. Right now, The Outfield is performing Say it Isn’t So. Am I missing the 80’s, or am I becoming an old man who is missing his youth?

I mean the Hutaree. Like I said before, maybe they didn’t do anything. The judge thinks the Government has a weak case. Of course, that doesn’t stop the FedGov from using their unlimited resources to side step the issue.