• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Protest / Right or No Right To Bear Arms

truthuprootsevil

Active Member
Mar 11, 2025
199
73
61
Houston
✟20,021.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced

Trump and Republicans supported Kyle Rittenhouse and him bearing arms in a protest, which resulted in him killing two people

Trump and Republicans supported January 6 rioters and their bearing loaded arms in protest while storming down the Capitol building injuring law enforcement authorities.

But now Trump and Republicans are saying you shouldn't bring arms to protest.

A complete opposite change of stance but only when it supports their agenda - their prejudices.
 

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,268
5,708
Native Land
✟413,544.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's okay for the right side to carry guns, but not the left side. The left side is nothing more, that evil terrorist to Trump. Even though Trump make the left side look like Angel's, compared to him.
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

you're in charge you can do it just get louis
Apr 14, 2007
31,409
23,148
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟618,553.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
People on the right have always abandoned the second amendment when the people they view as opposition start to excercise it. For example, the Mulford Act was introduced by californian republicans because black people started arming themselves.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,996
17,841
Here
✟1,581,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
With regards to "being armed at a protest", there's a difference between being one of the protestors, vs. being someone who's understandably concerned about the protestors getting out of line, and looking to make sure you can defend yourself.


It's the same reason I'd draw a distinction between those random guys who do those "open carry demonstrations" vs. the Rooftop Koreans during the LA riots back in the 90's.

One's clearly conveying on offensive position, while the other is conveying a defensive position.

One is a "I'm going to provocatively do/say this thing I know people won't like, but I dare them to do something about it"
The other is a "I just saw these protestors burn and loot 8 other stores within a 3 block radius, they're not taking my stuff or burning my place down"

As a general rule, given that protests are supposed to be ideological and intellectual expressions, and not a battle of force, if there was a cause I felt passionately enough about to go protest, I'd be leaving my guns at home.


Other nations (even the more gun-friendly ones) have caught on to that idea.

The Czech Republic for example actually has more robust concealed carry rights than most jurisdictions in the US for permit holders. They don't have "gun free zones", with one solitary notable exception:
The Czech law does not include any "gun-free zones" provisions, apart from prohibition of firearm carry during protests and demonstrations.
 
Upvote 0

KevinT

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2021
877
469
58
Tennessee
✟75,157.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I am very conflicted about all this.

The founding fathers seemed to want the general population to be able to be the ultimate check on governmental authority. They themselves had just thrown off the shackles of the British government, and that seems to me to be the ultimate goal of the right to bear arms. It is the foundation of the ability of people to counter and control their government.

But Oh!, what a mess when thinking about how this plays out in reality. Do any of us really want any or every fringe fraction to be arming up and shooting back against the police? I don't! So then I ask, when IS it OK for a citizen to apply force back against government with their home rifle?

I think the answer is that there is no neat answer. This sort of conflict resolution results only in messy horrific conflict and death. It is the "right" thing to do when suddenly hoards of people are so outraged by a situation that they all take up arms, and continue to take up arms even though many are gunned down.

I pray to God that we as Americans can find better ways to settle such problems!

It is my opinion that our adversary, the Satan, is doing everything he can to drive a wedge into our society. "Those on the Right are horrible!" ... "Those on the Left are horrible!" His goal is to get everyone going for each other's throats and killing each other.

It may be trite, but I find it helpful to think about what Christ would do. He never shrank from duty, but he also abounded in love and taught the valuable lesson of turning the other cheek.

Conclusion:

The constitution was written with the idea that citizens could force the government into submission. While ideal, this is a very problematic and horrific solution. It provides the "right" for citizens to shed their blood (or lives) for their cause. But it will never be anything other than awful.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,996
17,841
Here
✟1,581,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am very conflicted about all this.

The founding fathers seemed to want the general population to be able to be the ultimate check on governmental authority. They themselves had just thrown off the shackles of the British government, and that seems to me to be the ultimate goal of the right to bear arms. It is the foundation of the ability of people to counter and control their government.
I actually touched on this in another thread recently...

There certain things that were put in the document, that were done through the lens of the era.

We know from the other writings of many of the founders, they saw utility in the idea of firearms for self-defense.

However, two big questions with how it related to modern times:
1) Would they have, had they known just how advanced modern firearms would become? (possibly, but I suspect they'd perhaps have been more friendly to some restrictions for certain types of weapons had they had ability to see in the future)
2) It also begs the question, is the main purpose they leaned on (keeping their own government in-check) even relevant (or possible) anymore?

Back when it was written, there wasn't a huge difference between what the average civilian would have vs. what the regular army would have. That's obviously not the case today. In order for it to still be relevant, civilian armaments would've had to keep pace.


I actually think the way the Czech Republic worded theirs is more elegant with regards to a more modern lens and more realistic.
Theirs is simply:
"the right to defend one's own life or life of another person with arms is guaranteed"

However, they had the luxury of establishing their Charter of Rights in the early 90's after the fall of Communism in Europe, long after it had been more than well understood that a collective of average civilians is never going to be able to match up against a proper modern military.

200 years prior when the US founders were writing theirs, if you would've told them there'd be military flying machines that can traverse the entire landmass between the Atlantic and Pacific in a hour, and drop ordinance that can devastate acres of territory with pinpoint accuracy, and that an average infantryman would be carrying a weapon that could easily pop off 300 rounds in a minute, and special glasses that allowed them to see in the dark, that would make them more effective than 50 of their current-day troops combined, they'd probably assume you were psychotic.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: KevinT
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,833
2,148
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟346,604.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think the uprising in certain sanctuary States or cities is not an example of the right to bear arms. This is a insurrection the way people are now even willing to attack their own police. There is no moral basis.

The right to bear arms always comes with a responsibility. Its not just the right to use force when someome diagrees with a belief or political position. Man if that was the case there would be blood in the streets.

Peacefully protesting is one thing. Agitating and attacking with projectiles, disruption of federal law enforcement officers and destroying property. Even now assaulting citizens for simply reporting or supporting immigration law. Even being attacked in their own church. This is the exact opposite of what I think the founding fathers wanted.

Its more or less doing what they accused the Brits of doing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
44,073
13,933
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟940,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Alex was not just armed, he was armed and threatening. Being armed is not the issue.
He also had a history of physically attacking ICE officers before the one where he got shot. Clearly not a "peaceful" protester.
The Second Amendment is not absolute, or so we've been told before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesterton
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
23,790
14,609
Earth
✟279,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I think the uprising in certain sanctuary States or cities is not an example of the right to bear arms. This is a insurrection the way people are now even willing to attack their own police. There is no moral basis.
Government Agents have been indiscriminately “picking up” people in a dragnet-style operation; citizens don’t have to put up with such harassment and tend to get angry over the complications to their (and their communities’) normal course of business.


 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,453
17,970
56
USA
✟463,322.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The right to bear arms always comes with a responsibility. Its not just the right to use force when someome diagrees with a belief or political position. Man if that was the case there would be blood in the streets.
It's called a "well regulated militia".
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,833
2,148
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟346,604.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Government Agents have been indiscriminately “picking up” people in a dragnet-style operation; citizens don’t have to put up with such harassment and tend to get angry over the complications to their (and their communities’) normal course of business.
I don't know. I would like to see the facts on that. I know a lot has been exaggerated and even falsely turned into indescriminant detainment. Like the 5 year old who they claimed was kidknapped off the street.

When his father ran and abandoned him and his mother did not want to take him. The officers were forced to take him and he was looked after and reunited with his dad.

Its of benefit to twist the truth and make out these officers are bad. At the end of the day the vast majority are illegal criminals or illegal immigrants. The federal government is merely acting on a majority vote to do so.

But I agree they should now limit this to illegal criminals.

Why are people never outraged or protest the abduction and rape of women, molesting of children and murders of 100s of innocents at the hands of these illegal criminals.
 
Upvote 0

Perpetual Student

Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
Jan 28, 2025
377
377
55
Mechelen
✟50,473.00
Country
Belgium
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Alex was not just armed, he was armed and threatening. Being armed is not the issue.
This guy was threatening:
1770629607150.png



These guys weren't threatening:
1770629655218.png


note who is wearing masked and who isn't. Note also who is holding a gun and who isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
27,727
22,016
Flatland
✟1,154,715.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
26,531
8,638
Dallas
✟1,160,179.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Trump and Republicans supported Kyle Rittenhouse and him bearing arms in a protest, which resulted in him killing two people

Trump and Republicans supported January 6 rioters and their bearing loaded arms in protest while storming down the Capitol building injuring law enforcement authorities.

But now Trump and Republicans are saying you shouldn't bring arms to protest.

A complete opposite change of stance but only when it supports their agenda - their prejudices.
Rittenhouse was attacked and defended himself during a riot. It’s not really called a protest when people are looting and burning everything over a guy who was shot by an officer who was trying to prevent him from grabbing a knife from the car floorboard. The officer was practically ripping his shirt off trying to keep him out of the car. Once the guy broke free and grabbed the knife the officer was justified in the shooting. But that didn’t stop all the stupid people from going crazy and burning and looting everywhere. Yeah Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there and he shouldn’t have had a gun on him because he was only 17 but he shouldn’t have been attacked either.
 
Upvote 0