US gun laws – particularly with “open carry”

[probinson]

That is the time that it made the least sense to use a sword. Jesus was going with the guards willingly. Violently opposing what He fully intended to do would have not only been counterproductive it would have created the appearance that He went unwillingly.

Right. Jesus had the disciples take swords so that it would be clear that He went willingly. It demonstrated that He had the means to fight back but chose not to. Why else would Jesus instruct them to take a sword and then admonish them to not use it?

There is no record of the first disciples doing a lot of things that they likely did. I'm sure they bathed from time to time, but by that logic I guess they didn't.

Come on, Jim. You know that's not what I'm suggesting.

People are very quick to point out that Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword, as if this is somehow an endorsement from our Savior to arm oneself for self defense at all times. But then scripture goes silent. If one is going to point to Jesus specific instruction to the disciples to take a sword, then they should also point to the fact that it was for a specific purpose.

Realistically, they probably never took up the sword in self-defense, or in defense of others, but we don't know that.

Fair enough.

We do know that in other parts of scripture the God who is the same yesterday, today and forever instructs His people to defend themselves with deadly force.

We know that in other parts of scripture, God instructed people in specific circumstances to use deadly force.

What I don't like in the inductive line of reasoning is taking what isn't documented and making dogma from the absence of evidence. The worst doctrines in Christianity come from that line of "reasoning."

Indeed. Argument from silence proves nothing. That's why I've posted scriptures that I believe support my position.

Anyway, I'm not out to win this argument. I am just giving my views. I don't think anyone here is going to be swayed.

Probably not.

We all have our scriptures, and we all see them with bias.

You keep saying this, but I have yet to see them. I've posted the scriptures that I believe are supportive of my belief. In doing so, I was accused of "cherry picking" scriptures.

So while you are correct that no one is likely to be swayed, I would be genuinely interested in reading the scriptures that you believe support your belief.

 

[probinson]

I realize this is a worn out premise,but let's look one more time.
I will use a fictional narrative.

We have stricter gun ownership laws in place in order to stop crazy guy from getting a gun.
Keep in mind the name crazy guy.

So crazy guy builds a bomb; what can we do to stop him?
Crazy guy gets a car heads for a parade
Crazy guy gets a ax sword or any other lethal garden tool.
Crazy guy builds his own gun or buys one on the black market.

Now if there are more people allowed to carry guns that are normal,do you think crazy guy would
Be stoped sooner when he go's on a rampage?

I'm not sure if "crazy guy" is determiend plant a bomb how someone with a gun would be able to stop him. Chances are, "crazy guy" is going to covertly plant his bomb. He's not going to advertise that he has a bomb so that someone with a gun can stop him.

Likewise, if "crazy guy" decides to drive full speed into a parade of people, someone with a gun would have to be pretty darn fast and an absolutely amazing shot to stop the damage any sooner than if they did not have a gun.

But if normal people cannot defend themselves or others because of gun restrictions,how far can crazy guy go before he gets stopped.
Factor in police response time verses the armed citizen response time.

Bottom line is criminal behavior is not conditional on legal gun availability.

Agreed.

However, this argument seems to be predicated upon the fact that people don't need guns to inflict damage, so why should we limit a criminal's ability to acquire a gun since they can cause plenty of damage without them?

Hopefully we agree that giving someone prone to criminal behavior a gun is a bad idea. Background checks can help in this regard. No, it will not eliminate criminal activity, but it also will not prevent any "good guys" from being able to obtain firearms.

 

[jiminpa]

So while you are correct that no one is likely to be swayed, I would be genuinely interested in reading the scriptures that you believe support your belief.

We can start with the book of Judges. Nehemiah 4. Jahu coming against Ahab and Jezebel, and much of the rest of the books of Kings and Chronicles, much of the books of Samuel. There is a large body of scriptural evidence that God approved of His people defending themselves, and taking up arms against evil.

 

[probinson]

We can start with the book of Judges. Nehemiah 4. Jahu coming against Ahab and Jezebel, and much of the rest of the books of Kings and Chronicles, much of the books of Samuel. There is a large body of scriptural evidence that God approved of His people defending themselves, and taking up arms against evil.

Unsurprisingly, I would have to disagree. These are not scriptures in support of self defense, but of following the specific instructions of the Lord that included lethal force. They are not carte blanche endorsements for using lethal force whenever we deem necessary. They are specific instructions in specific circumstances.

OTOH, the words of Jesus are applicable to all of us. "You have heard it said... but I say". Jesus said this repeatedly in Matthew 5. What people thought they knew from what they'd heard, Jesus corrected.

 

[hislegacy]

With regards to "open carry", would you support police officers being able to stop anyone carrying a gun at any time to ask them to see their license?

They are already able to....

That being said:

It is the same as someone walking down the street unarmed. Are the Police able to stop you and ask for ID. They certainly can. In this day and age, they better have a reasonable cause to do so.

 

[jiminpa]

Unsurprisingly, I would have to disagree. These are not scriptures in support of self defense, but of following the specific instructions of the Lord that included lethal force. They are not carte blanche endorsements for using lethal force whenever we deem necessary. They are specific instructions in specific circumstances.

That doesn't even make sense to me. Throughout those books Israel had full-time professional soldiers. It is no more stated each time they defended themselves than it is every time a man of God had a meal. Again, you seem to be inducing from a lack of evidence. "It is documented that God gave instructions in certain times to go to war, therefore every time Israel went to war they had instructions from God or where in sin." But the body of the text does not support that conclusion. You would have a better case if you were trying support that every time they initiated the conflict they had God's instruction, or were disobedient, but even that is a weak, (but not implausible), argument.

We even have a statement that the Kings went to war at a certain time of year, and David fell into sin being in the city rather than off to war. We don't have a list of the times David did go to war in the spring, just a particular time that he didn't and that he fell into sin while the army was at war and he stayed home.

 

[probinson]

That doesn't even make sense to me. Throughout those books Israel had full-time professional soldiers. It is no more stated each time they defended themselves than it is every time a man of God had a meal. Again, you seem to be inducing from a lack of evidence. "It is documented that God gave instructions in certain times to go to war, therefore every time Israel went to war they had instructions from God or where in sin." But the body of the text does not support that conclusion. You would have a better case if you were trying support that every time they initiated the conflict they had God's instruction, or were disobedient, but even that is a weak, (but not implausible), argument.

We even have a statement that the Kings went to war at a certain time of year, and David fell into sin being in the city rather than off to war. We don't have a list of the times David did go to war in the spring, just a particular time that he didn't and that he fell into sin while the army was at war and he stayed home.

I guess where we differ is that I don't see any of the scriptures you post as directive scriptures. They are descriptive accounts.

OTOH, the scriptures I've posted in support of my position are directive statements from our Savior.

Much like it makes no sense to you what I am saying, your position makes no sense to me. It seems to be something along the lines of, "God sanctioned war and killing in the OT, so that means I can defend myself to the death when necessary, even though it doesn't explicitly state that anywhere in scripture."

At best such a position is based on unclear inferences and assumptions, at worst it is based on complete silence.

 

[probinson]

They are already able to....

That being said:

It is the same as someone walking down the street unarmed. Are the Police able to stop you and ask for ID. They certainly can. In this day and age, they better have a reasonable cause to do so.

I don't disagree.

However, others on this thread claimed that a police officer asking to see your license for a firearm violates the Constitution. This is the kind of thing I am talking about when I say any kind of "common sense" gun control is opposed at every turn. You presented something I believe is "common sense"; someone carrying a firearm should have a valid license to do so, much like someone driving a car should have a driver's license. But there is no way to ensure that is the case, since it is deemed in violation of the Constitution to even ask to see that license.

 

[Alithis]

This is kind of getting silly. Obviously, at this point, it's basically just two groups, one who would protect their families and others, and one who claim they would not. However, I don't believe for a moment they would not, because they are arguing to preserve their honor and pride over a matter of opinion online, something of far less value than the life of a loved one. They are meeting perceived force with an attempt at equal or greater force. Their actions give them away. It's actually those who will not take a stand on the subject who I actually believe would be more likely to be passive in violent situations.

Also, something to consider, when Jesus told Peter to put the sword away, He didn't actually tell him to get rid of the sword. Peter walked out of that garden still fully armed.

" one who would protect their families and others, and one who claim they would not." .... a gross misrepresentation . None have said they would not.
they have implied there is no need to do so with sword or gun and that God is able.
and i have directly stated we should individually seek the lords will on the matter ,thereby walking in obedience to the holy Spirit.which of course all charismatic believers should not hesitate to do.rather the act from worldly reasoning.
this is what the word of God declare to be the correct action .very unambiguously .

 

[StephanieSomer]

Were I in the situation where imminent danger was posed to myself or my child, my first response would be to get out of that situation. If that were not possible, then I would not hesitate to use force (but not life threatening force) to protect myself or my child.

So, were you in the situation where imminent danger was posed to your child, you would not hesitate to use force (but not life threatening force) to protect your child.

Ok. I'll define the imminent danger for your hypothetical situation. An assailant has grabbed your child and has a razor at their neck and threatens to slice their throat. Death under such circumstances would be rather swift and certain. And you are saying that you would NOT use life threatening force to stop it from taking place.

Wow.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Something else to consider; when Jesus told Peter to put the sword away He also said, "...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52)

Well, we do know that Peter drew a sword. Do you remember how Peter died. Not a sword.

 

[StephanieSomer]

I don't disagree.

However, others on this thread claimed that a police officer asking to see your license for a firearm violates the Constitution. This is the kind of thing I am talking about when I say any kind of "common sense" gun control is opposed at every turn. You presented something I believe is "common sense"; someone carrying a firearm should have a valid license to do so, much like someone driving a car should have a driver's license. But there is no way to ensure that is the case, since it is deemed in violation of the Constitution to even ask to see that license.

Drivers licenses and gun licenses are apples and oranges. They can't be compared as you keep doing. We have a legitimate right to a gun, and to carry it. There is no such right concerning driving a vehicle. Driving is a privilege that costs money and education. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a right. You must EARN a driver's license. There is nothing to earn for a gun.

A license is a document that permits specific behavior. A driver's license permits you to drive a car on the public roads. The Constitution is the document that permits gun ownership. The Constitution is, in itself, my license to own and carry a gun. Further license requirements beyond that do infringe that right by providing hurdles which must be crossed, and money to be spent. Neither of those are even alluded to in the Constitution.

You keep saying that such laws don't infringe anyone's rights because they can still get a gun. I say it is an infringement because it complicates the process of gun procurement beyond Constitutional boundaries. "Infringe" means to limit. If a law limits access, it IS an infringement.

Common sense, when in direct opposition to the prescribed methods of modifying the Constitution to resolve societal issues, is illegal.

(No doubt, that last statement will be taken out of context and thrown at me.)

 

[probinson]

So, were you in the situation where imminent danger was posed to your child, you would not hesitate to use force (but not life threatening force) to protect your child.

Ok. I'll define the imminent danger for your hypothetical situation. An assailant has grabbed your child and has a razor at their neck and threatens to slice their throat. Death under such circumstances would be rather swift and certain. And you are saying that you would NOT use life threatening force to stop it from taking place.

Wow.

And now I see we've come full circle back to the "Just in case" fallacy.

Oy.

 

[probinson]

Well, we do know that Peter drew a sword. Do you remember how Peter died. Not a sword.

My bad. You're right. Jesus was wrong.

Wow indeed.

 

[Frogster]

My bad. You're right. Jesus was wrong.

Wow indeed.

Well, did Peter dies on a cross, or a sword?

The bottom line here, still holds, I would not let a man rape and kill my daughter while I stood there trying to be in faith, I would choose to shoot, instead of watching some low life have his way, with my daughter, to me, that is called taking care of family.


So as the thread progresses, your posts area apparent, passivity rules, subordinate to a man (creepy low life) that lives for drugs, and violence, and put his fleshly desires above common sense and my family.


Question, if this guy was trying to wipe out your bank account or take away your business, where if he did it would hurt your family would you show the same passivity, while he cleaned out your biz, and account?.

Yes or no?

 

[probinson]

Drivers licenses and gun licenses are apples and oranges. They can't be compared as you keep doing. We have a legitimate right to a gun, and to carry it. There is no such right concerning driving a vehicle. Driving is a privilege that costs money and education. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a right. You must EARN a driver's license. There is nothing to earn for a gun.

It's disturbing to me that you actually believe that's why the second amendment exists. Maybe we should just start handing out guns at birth. "Good luck, kid. No money or education is required. Here's your God-given gun."

A license is a document that permits specific behavior. A driver's license permits you to drive a car on the public roads. The Constitution is the document that permits gun ownership. The Constitution is, in itself, my license to own and carry a gun. Further license requirements beyond that do infringe that right by providing hurdles which must be crossed, and money to be spent. Neither of those are even alluded to in the Constitution.

You keep saying that such laws don't infringe anyone's rights because they can still get a gun. I say it is an infringement because it complicates the process of gun procurement beyond Constitutional boundaries. "Infringe" means to limit. If a law limits access, it IS an infringement.

You still have failed to demonstrate in what way one is limited from owning a gun by being required to have a license. You keep saying there is a limit, but have not shown in what way this is limiting.

The only people limited from owning a gun are those who should not have them, although I'm really starting to wonder if you think we should just hand out guns freely to criminals so that we don't accidentally violate your bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

Common sense, when in direct opposition to the prescribed methods of modifying the Constitution to resolve societal issues, is illegal.

Wow.

 

[Frogster]

Jesus said, "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’". So where exactly did they hear that said? It could have been here;

Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
​

or here...

Leviticus 24:14-20
17 “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.
​

or here...

Deuteronomy 19:16-21 (NIV)
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
​

In each of those places where the disciples may have heard it said, "eye for eye", the context was also "life for life". You said in your post that if someone threatens your life, you are to use equal or greater force than your attacker, and if you were reading any of the above accounts, you'd be absolutely right. However, Jesus said they had heard it said eye for eye and tooth for tooth, BUT He said something different.

You're placing qualifications on Jesus' words that simply are not there. So instead of asking me to prove a negative, why don't you provide the scripture that supports what you believe?

how many wrath verses do you want, that are present tense, and future tense? Eye for an eye? heck, how about the hell fire verses too?

 

[probinson]

The bottom line here, still holds, I would not let a man rape and kill my daughter while I stood there trying to be in faith, I would choose to shoot, instead of watching some low life have his way, with my daughter, to me, that is called taking care of family.

Is appeal to emotion the only tool in your intellectual arsenal?

So as the thread progresses, your posts area apparent, passivity rules, subordinate to a man (creepy low life) that lives for drugs, and violence, and put his fleshly desires above common sense and my family.

Subordinate to a man? Not hardly. Jesus Christ has overcome the world, and in that, I find great peace.

Question, if this guy was trying to wipe out your bank account or take away your business, where if he did it would hurt your family would you show the same passivity, while he cleaned out your biz, and account?.

What on earth does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[probinson]

how many wrath verses do you want, that are present tense, and future tense? Eye for an eye? heck, how about the hell fire verses too?

I'd like to see just one directive verse.

 

[Frogster]

Unsurprisingly, I would have to disagree. These are not scriptures in support of self defense, but of following the specific instructions of the Lord that included lethal force. They are not carte blanche endorsements for using lethal force whenever we deem necessary. They are specific instructions in specific circumstances.

OTOH, the words of Jesus are applicable to all of us. "You have heard it said... but I say". Jesus said this repeatedly in Matthew 5. What people thought they knew from what they'd heard, Jesus corrected.

red above, who are you to say that they were just specific to some, about lethal force?

So again rednecks in PA on a dark road see you stuck in a ditch, with your family, they are drunk, they are killers and rapists, just sit there and wonder what text would apply to you?

Passivity in that extreme can have ramifications for the rest of your life!