[sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Inside Orlando’s first machine gun theme park
- From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:24:00 -0500
RR,
If our laws have their root only in what is passed by the government, then
only the government can dictate what our "rights" are.
Our country was based on Natural Law, not what you propose.
There is a difference between a theocracy and a nation based on natural
rights given by the Creator as is stated in our Declaration of
Independence, one of the foundational documents of our nation.
Our nation is not a theocracy
But that doesn't mean that it isn't under moral law.
Moral Law is a general rule of right living; especially: such a rule or
group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the
sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural
justice as revealed to human reason.
Moral Law can be recognized without even speaking of God, but that doesn't
mean our nation was founded without acknowledging God, it was and it is
clearly in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed
Government is subservient to Man and it is Mankind that is endowed by their
Creator with natural unalienable Rights.
Government does not give rights, does not create rights, it protects rights
that are given to us by our Creator.
There is a really big difference here.
You have things in the wrong order.
73
DR
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> DR,
> Those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the exact
> opposite of forcing a woman to bear a child because of your religious
> beliefs.
>
> Once again you are confusing morals with laws. Morals are personal rules
> that we live by for reasons of our own. Laws are passed by governments to
> enslave and control people. Only in theocracies are they one in the same.
> This is why Muslims, Jews and Catholics are always trying to enforce their
> moral values, both good and bad, on other people. This is the exact
> opposite of what our country was founded upon.
>
> -RR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
> Sent: Feb 13, 2015 12:19 PM
> To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Inside
> Orlando’s first machine gun theme park
>
> RR,
>
> When you legalize moral standards you don't have a theocracy.
>
> Our nation's foundation documents, the Declairation of Independence and
> Constitution affirm that we have natural rights given to us by our Creator.
>
> Thus natural law is the basis of our legal system.
>
> Natural law is the basis of British common law which is the system of law
> in the United States (except for Louisiana).
>
> There are also "irreconcilable differences" by people refusing solely to
> cooperate.
>
> When the courts give preference to people who will not cooperate, they
> fail to understand that failure to cooperate is a means of control, thus a
> method of violence.
>
> If that we're acted upon, we'd certainly have much different outcomes.
>
> There should be a presumption of shared parenting with joint physical and
> legal custody of children.
>
> Unfortunately that would upset the women who only wanted to divorce
> because it enables them total control,
>
> Which of course, is a form of violence.
>
> But we no longer call things what they really are: abortion is a choice,
> refusal to cooperate is "irreconcilable differences". Women (but not men)
> at least in Massachusetts can perjure themselves without punishment - so
> says our Supreme Judicial Court.
>
> But not men. If a man does it, he goes to jail.
>
> 73
>
> DR
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> DR,
>> Control is forcing people to perform, or prohibiting them from
>> performing, certain actions. By definition they must be alive. Murder is
>> the antithesis of control, i.e. "Give me liberty (freedom from control) or
>> give me death" (murder me)
>>
>> The marriage you speak of is a legal contract. If you believe you have
>> been treated unfairly in a divorce then you need a better lawyer or should
>> have had a pre-nupital agreement more to your liking.
>>
>> You are confusing moral standards with law. When you legalize moral
>> standards you have a theocracy like ISIS, which is just as bad as communism.
>>
>> I personally know one man who has custody of his 5 year old daughter and
>> his ex wife does not have visiting priviledges. In most cases the mother is
>> given custody because in most cases the man doesn't want to be shackled
>> with the responsibility of caring for a child. I can also understand the
>> reasoning behind why a single parent should have the right to prohibit the
>> ex-spouse from visiting their children because it could be a dysfunctional
>> environment for the children. Sometimes you just have to move on. There is
>> such a thing as unreconcilable differences and it doesn't mean that either
>> party is at fault, but anytime there is a winner unfortunately there must
>> also be a loser
>>
>> -RR
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
>> Sent: Feb 13, 2015 8:35 AM
>> To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re:
>> [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Inside Orlando’s first machine gun theme
>> park
>>
>> RR,
>>
>> Murder doesn't have to be defined by the government. We know what murder
>> is. The government can define what it wishes to codify as crimes.
>>
>> Some marriage contracts do specify "until death do us part". Again (It
>> is getting tedious answering false accusations) I am not confusing contract
>> law with religious beliefs. Religious beliefs aren't contract law at all,
>> I never said so, and it would be insane for me to think so.
>>
>> Murder especially when it is done by the state is often a method of
>> control. I will kill you unless you give me something. That's certainly
>> control. I want to kill you because it would make my life easier, I'd have
>> no responsibility for my actions.
>>
>> The "left - socialists, communists" call them what you wish has a stated
>> objective to destroy marriage, destroy family, destroy the 2nd admendment
>> so that the People could not defend themselves. They have effected change
>> - for one they used "agitprop" - agitation and propaganda from the Russian
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitprop - to eliminate the mental illness
>> of homosexuality from *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
>> Disorders* (*DSM*)
>>
>> The following regarding the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973
>> was written as a matter of verifiable fact:
>>
>> *“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric
>> Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in
>> 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A
>> political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry,
>> with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few
>> outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than
>> scientifically refuted. Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the
>> conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking for the
>> first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of
>> diagnosis was decided by popular vote than by scientific evidence…”(page 9)*
>> *https://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-truth-on-how-homosexuality-was-removed-from-the-dsm-by-apa-commentary-on-dr-yiks-response-to-lawrence-khong/
>> <https://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-truth-on-how-homosexuality-was-removed-from-the-dsm-by-apa-commentary-on-dr-yiks-response-to-lawrence-khong/>*
>>
>> Regarding marriage, there still is a crime for desertion. Originally no
>> fault marriage was meant when two people agreed on ending a marriage.
>> Agitprop - the same as the homosexual and abortion agenda - using tactics
>> to slightly modify meanings of words with devious intent. No one had an
>> argument when two people agreed.
>>
>> But what gives ONE person the right to destroy a family? Then you get
>> into the sexists legislation of Violence Against Women Act - VAWA - that
>> gives money to court and police for child support, restraining orders - and
>> get this - if the police start giving arrests to women, it's in the law
>> that the police will be "RE-EDUCATED" so that the percentage of men arrests
>> versus women arrests is what their statistics from "research" state.
>>
>> In other words - if the police doing on scene investigation find that
>> women are using fraud, perjury and other crimes to control an outcome and
>> the men have not threatened or use physical force, the police will be sent
>> to re-education courses.
>>
>> Sounds like communism to me.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> DR
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> The murder you speak of is defined by the government. Is it murder to
>>> kill people in a war? Is it murder for Obama to kill hundreds of innocent
>>> women and children with drone strikes as well as suspected "terrorists" who
>>> were never given a trial?
>>>
>>> Marriage contracts do not specify "until death do us part". You're
>>> confusing contract law with religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Murder isn't control. Control is making somebody do something for you.
>>>
>>> Somebody has been brainwashed but it's not me.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
>>> Sent: Feb 12, 2015 8:15 PM
>>> To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Inside
>>> Orlando’s first machine gun theme park
>>>
>>> OK, then we should try the woman for murder.
>>>
>>> Also "freedom" of divorce in todays courts means absolute freedom from a
>>> contract made.
>>>
>>> It is the only place a contract can be ended one sided.
>>>
>>> Killing an unborn child isn't controlling?
>>>
>>> Boy, have you been brainwashed.
>>>
>>> DR
>>> On Feb 12, 2015 9:56 AM, "Ron Ristad" <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> DR,
>>>> Nobody should be able to force a woman to give birth to a child if she
>>>> doesn't want to.
>>>>
>>>> Having to pay child support and not being allowed to see the child is a
>>>> case of making a bad choice in a mate and/or of having made other bad
>>>> choices.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to force a woman to bear a child then you want control over
>>>> her life and are no different than a communist.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to deny a woman the freedom of divorce, for any reason,
>>>> then you are no different than a communist.
>>>>
>>>> The man you describe is called a "controlling personality".
>>>>
>>>> Many things in life we simply have no control over. We have no control
>>>> over other people, unless we force them at the point of a gun and that kind
>>>> of control is only temporary. The best we can do is live our lives
>>>> according to our own moral principles. We cannot force our moral principles
>>>> on others. Nor should we be surprised when others do not share our moral
>>>> principles, even though we may have been taught them since early childhood.
>>>> To think that our moral principles are superior to those of other peoples,
>>>> races and religions is nothing but arrogance and ignorance on our part and
>>>> can only lead to disappointment and conflict.
>>>>
>>>> -RR
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
>>>> Sent: Feb 11, 2015 2:01 PM
>>>> To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re:
>>>> [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee]
>>>> Inside Orlando’s first machine gun theme park
>>>>
>>>> Comrade,
>>>>
>>>> Its all about control.
>>>>
>>>> A married couple is having a new baby, wife decides she does not want
>>>> the child, she can abort the child, the father of the child has no say, and
>>>> cannot protect his unborn child.
>>>>
>>>> If insteadvof aborting the child, the above wife wants a divorce, even
>>>> though both are under a contract, the husband can not defend himsrlf under
>>>> no fault divorce. If husband does not want the child he will still pay.
>>>> If husband insists on joint custody, wif3 knows what to do, say she is
>>>> afraid of husband, she gets a restraining order based on fear even though
>>>> she was never threatened or abused. Husband has that for the rest of his
>>>> life: It is a civil order that appears on his criminal record.
>>>>
>>>> It is all about control.
>>>>
>>>> Those are some very big reasons I say NO to communism.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>>
>>>> DR
>>>> On Feb 11, 2015 2:00 PM, "Redacted sender sblumen123@xxxxxxx for
>>>> DMARC" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>> Wowee, from one single shooting amusement park you have expanded it to
>>>>> a multiple bunch of issues I haven't the
>>>>> time to respond to each one. It is not up to you to say what the
>>>>> commies want, you are no expert in my humble socialist
>>>>> opinion. Gun safety like trigger locks is different from gun control
>>>>> like age limitations on ownership. No fault divorces is
>>>>> first I hear about? Divorces is divorces friendly or not friendly is
>>>>> all I know? Abortions is very complicated depending
>>>>> on many circumstances which I thought was already decided after much
>>>>> investigations, discussions, etc. Abortions don't fit
>>>>> all circumstances and you yourself once wrote that it is not up to us
>>>>> men to force our decisions on wimen on this matter?
>>>>> To much for me to comment on all the other stuff you brought up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Stanley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> To: sparkscoffee <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Sent: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 7:54 am
>>>>> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Re:
>>>>> [sparkscoffee] Re: [sparkscoffee] Inside Orlando’s first machine gun theme
>>>>> park
>>>>>
>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't about gun safety. It's about gun control. One thing that
>>>>> the commies want is no one to be able to defend themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you got rid of the #1 thing that is causing school shootings, it
>>>>> would help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Get rid of no fault divorces and abortions.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's another form of people control resulting in millins of
>>>>> fatherless children.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you noticed that all the boys who were involved in school
>>>>> shootings were children of divorce. The fellow who was in the Marshfield,
>>>>> MA plan to shoot up the school actually turned in the ones who had weapons
>>>>> thinking he'd be doing the right thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. The police used him as a scapegoat. He went to jail for the
>>>>> longest time. Some say it's because the local police wanted to punish his
>>>>> father who is president of the Boston patrolman's union.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2006/05/the-lost-boys-1/
>>>>>
>>>>> No Fault Divorce, Abortion, Restraining Orders are all part of "new
>>>>> law" where you cannot protect your family. If your wife says she is
>>>>> "afraid" of you, even though you have not raised your voice, or your hand
>>>>> towards her, if your wife doesn't want to co-parent anymore, she can just
>>>>> divorce you and get complete control of the children, and by law you
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> defend yourself against no-fault divorce. If you get a restraining order
>>>>> based on fear even though they're not supposed to be issued for just that,
>>>>> you can never remove it from your criminal record, which means you cannot
>>>>> do even volunteer work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that some Republicans aren't much better, but the TeaParty
>>>>> Republicans are - at least as a diverse group from all races, all sexes:
>>>>> They don't want this crap. I'm with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Men (especially because the war is against them) should be able to
>>>>> defend themselves. Attorneys that lie, police that lie should go to jail.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you've ever encountered a moment when the whole system works to
>>>>> hurt you and your family, you know how much they can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the court keeps the records and the records are your proof that
>>>>> they're lying, those records can be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not stop. The police won't investigate these crimes -
>>>>> because they're part of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73
>>>>> DR
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
