U.S. soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians

PrintSmith wrote: If you are going to use the words of Jesus, please invest the time and effort to understand what it was He was conveying with those words instead of seizing upon them devoid of all understanding in an attempt to use them as a bludgeon as many "progressives" are so fond of doing. Those who have sought the wisdom and guidance of Jesus recognize instantly when His words are hijacked for intentions other than the ones He intended. The laws of nature and Nature's God allow for self defense when attacked by another. That is one of the rights endowed upon each of us by our Creator. When the intent is to insult, and not assault, one should not respond with an assault, they should instead ignore the insult and offer the other cheek to show that the insult is ineffective. This is the way of Christ Jesus - let not your own peace and your state of grace with your Creator be affected by insults hurled against you. Insult to you, especially insult to you because of your faith, do not do harm to you and should be ignored.

PS, that's all part of the "global" problem, in my opinion. It doesn't matter whether it's the Bible, the Quran, or some other religious tome. They are ALL written by men, subject to individual interpretation, both men and women. You state,

Those who have sought the wisdom and guidance of Jesus recognize instantly when His words are hijacked for intentions other than the ones He intended.

with a very clear intent, given the tone of your post, to give the impression only "progressives" are guilty of doing this. By the same token, those of a more "conservative" bent are prone to the same fallacy, if you will. It's rather condescending of you to make the assertion and not include both sides in it. Mankind is invariably fallible. Recognize it, accept it, and TEACH PEACE.

Give me an example of what you accuse Z so that we might discuss it further. I am not saying that what you allege is untrue mind you, simply looking for some substance to support your premise. Please understand, I am not talking about the folks along the lines of the Westboro Baptists - pretenders like that are not to be taken seriously by either side in a reasoned discussion and both of us would agree that they would not qualify as an example of conservatives taking the words of Jesus out of context. I would like to keep this within those parameters Z - taking the words of Jesus out of context and using them as a bludgeon against others.

PrintSmith wrote: Give me an example of what you accuse Z so that we might discuss it further. I am not saying that what you allege is untrue mind you, simply looking for some substance to support your premise. Please understand, I am not talking about the folks along the lines of the Westboro Baptists - pretenders like that are not to be taken seriously by either side in a reasoned discussion and both of us would agree that they would not qualify as an example of conservatives taking the words of Jesus out of context. I would like to keep this within those parameters Z - taking the words of Jesus out of context and using them as a bludgeon against others.

PS, I'm not so sure it boils down, necessarily, to taking Jesus' words out of context. Rather, I believe it is how we, individually, interpret the meaning(s) of His words. Here's just one link to an article that goes into this topic: http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/02/23/how-would-jesus-vote/
A specific passage from this article is:

It is no wonder religious people are all over the map when it comes to politics, since human beings are quite ingenious in finding ways to justify whatever they want to do.

The article goes on to say their findings are not Earth-shattering, but it does, in my opinion, give a pretty definitive explanation of how politics and religion can sometimes be very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile.

Your use of the word "bludgeon" at the end of your post is, in my opinion, a rather dubious choice of words to use to describe this type of discussion. While I understand the metaphorical nature of usage in this context, I don't believe anyone uses Jesus' words out of context to "bludgeon" anyone else. Violence begets violence. TEACH PEACE.

We're getting close now Z - we're on the verge of why "interpreting" something, whether it is something that someone says, or the written law, is a very poor way of determining what either contains. No matter what one "interprets" the meaning to be, whether said, or written, those interpretations have little bearing on what the person, in this case Jesus, was originally intending to communicate precisely because "human beings are quite ingenious in finding ways to justify whatever they want to do."

Now, apply the same principle to the laws of this union. "Interpreting" what the Constitution says has little bearing on what the law actually is for precisely the same reason that interpreting what a sacred tome imparts has little bearing on what it actually says. "Human beings are quite ingenious in finding ways to justify whatever they want to do."

Example. The law is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because the security of a free state rests upon them retaining that right. The law prohibits infringement on that right, any infringement on that right, not just little infringements, not just large infringements, it says that it shall not be infringed. It doesn't carve out an exception for reasonable infringements, or only strike down unreasonable ones, it doesn't provide for any infringements at all. Infringements on the right have to be "interpreted" into being allowed to exist because the law says that infringement "shall not" be allowed under the law. Governments may pass a law which provides for one to be punished "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" if their actions harm the rights of someone else with the arms they keep and bear, but they may not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

If a law to show a photo ID is an infringement on the right to vote, as the general government holds it is, how can requiring one show a photo ID in order to purchase a firearm not also be an infringement of the law which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If one may be required to pass a background check in order to purchase arms without causing infringement, why then would requiring one to pass a background check before voting be an infringement which violates the law?

The answer to that lies in how one "interprets" the two laws, right? And we both agree that "human beings are quite ingenious in finding ways to justify whatever they want to do" with their "interpretations", or at least I think we do.

PS - I'm not so sure we are getting as close as you think we are. If, as you say, "interpreting something, whether it is something that someone says, or the written law, is a very poor way of determining what either contains" then your entire post, and anything I might write in response, would BOTH be a very poor way of determining what either contains. You'll be sticking to your interpretation, and I'll be sticking to mine - not to say either of us is right or that either of us is wrong, that's just the way it is.

Example - I would also add to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that it isn't necessarily the right to "bear arms" that I would question (that's been well established and doesn't merit further discussion here as far as I'm concerned). Rather, it would be the "type" of arms that would concern me more. As I'm sure you're already aware, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, most Americans had single shot, muzzle loading muskets because that's all that was available to them, for the most part. As technology improved, Americans acquired more advanced weaponry. At what point does the "right to bear arms" also cover weapons of war and/or even mass destruction? If that's the type of "infringement" you are talking about, then we will probably need to agree to disagree on some level, because I do not believe the term "arms" should necessarily include rocket/grenade launchers, or even AK-47's or similar such weapons of war. Unless we, as a society, decide to arm ourselves as militias in order to defend ourselves against illegal search and seizure by military personnel which, it is my understanding, the 2nd Amendment was more meant to cover than anything else, I can see no rational reason for anyone to be in possession of the kinds of weaponry so many want the 2nd Amendment to cover. There was a recent school shooting in Florida in which the perpetrator carried an assault rifle into the school, shot and killed the head master, and then killed himself. I do not pretend to believe the shooter in this tragedy would not have carried out the shooting if he had no access to an assault rifle, but in a talk radio show that aired later, it was put out there that the only way to eliminate these types of tragedies is to arm teachers and administrators and train them in the use of deadly force: http://armedamericanradio.org/2012/03/3-4-2012-hour-1/ Is this what we are coming to as a nation? Following the events at Columbine High School, one of the questions being asked was whether to increase security at schools (including arming teachers and administrators), and the overwhelming majority of students replied they did not want their schools to be turned into "prisons" as they put it. What has happened to us? That's why I'm advocating teaching peace along with all the other important lessons to be learned from history. How each of us defines the word "PEACE" also defines us as human beings and, in my opinion, sets us apart as a species from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Long rant, sorry.

I'll counter with this Z. At the time of the founding the most common arm found in the hands of the infantry was a muzzle loading musket. We both agree on that point. Can we also agree that infringing on the right to keep and bear a select fire small arm such as the M16 or AK47 in the here and now would be the functional equivalent of infringing on the right to keep and bear a muzzle loading musket at the time of the founding since this is the most common type of arm found in the hands of the infantry today?

And under what invention would you premise the ability to infringe on a "type" of arm when the clear and precise language of the law is that there shall not be infringement? At the time of the founding there were mortars, field artillery pieces, fixed cannon, grenades and other arms in use when war was prosecuted, and in private hands, in addition to the Brown Bess musket. I do not see in the language of the law where an exception is carved out that in any way establishes that the right shall not be infringed except in the case of certain "types" of arms. Thus I would have to say that logic alone dictates that infringement due to "type" of arm is not allowed either when one limits themselves to the language contained in the law. If you see an exception for infringement based on the "type" of arm within the language of the law, please point it out to me.

The other point I would like to raise is that even under the narrowest "interpretation" of the law, it would be precisely the arms used in war that were not to be infringed given the purpose, as established by the preamble, is to ensure the security of a free state. If the people were summoned to come to the defense of their free state with the arms in their possession, how could it be hoped that a force with no artillery, no mortars, no grenades and grossly inferior battle rifles could accomplish that task?

PS - I won't agree "that infringing on the right to keep and bear a select fire small arm such as the M16 or AK47 in the here and now would be the functional equivalent of infringing on the right to keep and bear a muzzle loading musket at the time of the founding since this is the most common type of arm found in the hands of the infantry today". In my opinion, that logic is flawed unless we, as a nation, decide it necessary to establish, train, and be ready to use such a "volunteer civilian militia/infantry" outside the parameters of the U.S. military and/or National Guard.

The clear and precise language of the 2nd Amendment isn't so clear and precise as you would have us believe, either. You ask "under what invention" would I premise the ability to infringe on a "type" of arm. That's precisely the question I've been asking. So, in answer to your question, I don't know. You don't see in the language of the 2nd Amendment where an exception is carved out regarding certain types of arms. Neither do I. That's why I've said it is open to individual interpretation which we've both pretty much established might not be a very good way to determine 2nd Amendment contents. I will counter to you with a question regarding the use of the term "militia" in the language of the 2nd Amendment. There are those who have argued the term "militia" means the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies specifically and solely in that capacity. I don't personally agree, but who's to say a "strict" interpretation of the language makes them wrong?

If your last point is to be taken at face value, in my opinion it, too, is flawed. Again, if "militias" are what we "need" to provide for the "security" of a free state, then they need to have the proper equipment. I just don't see that as a requirement at this point in our history. Will it ever get to that point? Time will tell.

The 2nd Amendment is fraught with vagueness - very open to individual interpretation. I support the right to keep and bear arms. I just don't know how far that right should be allowed. TEACH PEACE!

The definition of what was meant by militia is only vague when one seeks to use a definition for that body that is materially different from the one that was used when the law was written. When the definition in use is applied, there is no vagueness.

As to not needing it at this point in our history I will say that it wasn't necessary at the time it was written either. It was written because at some point in might be necessary - the people who ratified the Constitution wanted to make certain they retained the power to rescind their approval if this government became despotic and tyrannical. During the ratification debates those seeking approval of the new constitution argued in every instance that there was no need to have a Bill of Rights because the government would be strictly limited to the enumerated powers, which had nothing to do whatsoever with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is well for us that they were not believed at the time, for if they were the federal government would claim the power to disarm you entirely under their power to regulate interstate commerce.

The citizens of the States were not sure that the government being proposed would not do exactly what King George had done and attempt to take their arms from them - that is why they insisted on the 2nd Amendment - and history has shown they were right to be jealous of that right, it would now be gone if they had not been.

Again, PS, your interpretation is yours - mine is mine. I don't think either of us is going to hold out any illusion of "giving up" to the other on this issue. Getting into minutiae and individual interpretations is not something I'm willing to continue with. I'm not saying you are right or wrong - and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. We're just going to need to be willing to agree to disagree. The OP was about a U.S. soldier who went rogue and killed 16 innocent Afghan civilians. If you'd be willing to go back to a discussion of that issue, I'll be willing to go with you.