Of course not, because calling it "hunting swords" is redundant as calling it "killing swords".
Yeah, because Jesus was talking about "hunting swords" in Matthew 26.
Upvote
0
Good News! More Americans Support Gun Rights Over Gun Control
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Maybe Christians are happy when the Constitution isn't being dismantled. The Second Amendment is part of the constitution, and in many ways is a cornerstone of it. If the security of a free state isn't maintained, then we lose our free state to a police state. I don't think anyone really wants that.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Right. We already have that. Problem is, gun haters will never think there is enough gun control. 20,000 laws isn't enough control?
Here's the true agenda of people who want "gun control" How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
Upvote
0
Hetta
I'll find my way home
- Jun 21, 2012
- 16,925
- 4,875
- Country
- France
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
Yeah, I don't read nonsense links, but thanks.
I think I can probably guess it from here. First Obama will take our bullets. Then Obama will take our guns. Then Obama will melt our guns. Then Obama will corral us all. Then Obama will shoot us all.
Something along those lines.
I'm content with the gun laws for now. We have guns that we legally purchased and we obey the laws on gun handling. I will not be happy when open carry occurs in my state. I will not be open carrying myself, nor will I carry concealed, and I'll be very nervous about who is carrying and why. By then we probably won't even live here anywhere, which will be a relief to put all of this gun nonsense behind us.
I think I can probably guess it from here. First Obama will take our bullets. Then Obama will take our guns. Then Obama will melt our guns. Then Obama will corral us all. Then Obama will shoot us all.
Something along those lines.
I'm content with the gun laws for now. We have guns that we legally purchased and we obey the laws on gun handling. I will not be happy when open carry occurs in my state. I will not be open carrying myself, nor will I carry concealed, and I'll be very nervous about who is carrying and why. By then we probably won't even live here anywhere, which will be a relief to put all of this gun nonsense behind us.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Instead of guessing, and then posting about those guesses, it would have taken less time, and you would be more accurate, by simply reading what I showed you instead of assuming it is "nonsense".
BTW, we have concealed carry here, and had open carry for far longer. I never have seen anyone open carry, and have seen no changes in anything or anyone since concealed carry became law. As for me, I never bothered getting the permit since it's illegal to carry even with a permit to the places I go to that seem to harbor the people most likely to need defense against anyway. So what's the use?
Upvote
0
Except an armed citizenry is no longer relevant to the security of a free state. Whether constitutional or not we now have a standing army. And our police departments are looking more and more like our military. What use are rifles and handguns against airplanes and tanks?
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
That's like saying that the foundation of your house was laid over 50 years ago, so it is no longer relevant to the modern appliances and conveniences you now enjoy inside the house. Remove the foundation of anything, and it crumbles.
The insurgents in Iraq had rifles. Did our airplanes and tanks do everything needed against the people there? Nope! Why? Because taking over an area involves more than just blowing up everything and everyone in sight by using planes and tanks.
Upvote
0
Sorry, your analogy doesn't work. We aren't talking about the entire Constitution we are talking about a single amendment. You want to retain it when the thing it was meant to replace, namely a standing army, it no longer replaces.
The problem with the insurgents isn't their guns, it is their bombs. Would you have everyone in the US possess a bomb?
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Yes, but it's that one amendment that is a foundation upon which the others rely on to be enforced. If the government decided to turn tyrannical, the people need to have a means to overthrow it. I know that may sound rather "third country", but there is no other way of overthrowing a tyrannical government that is armed when the people are disarmed.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
True, but my post was in response to the person that says that our issues arise from the fact that we "love guns", I was simply pointing out that there are other nations that love guns as well, and I mentioned that Switzerland was one of them (which is true). They even have their own version of the NRA called "Pro-Tell" and take great pride in the sport of shooting as can be shown by their national shooting festival in which 50,000 people participate.
I still stand by my original position that revamping our education policy to allow for free college and ending our failed war on drugs will reduce violence far more than attempting another re-hash of failed gun control policies we've tried in the past.
My post wasn't meant to compare their gun control measures to ours.
Upvote
0
My whole point is that your thinking on this issue is anachronistic. They don't have the means to overthrow the government no could they without putting us all in grave danger. We would have to allow private citizens to own tanks, bombs, and nuclear weapons before they would be in any position to overthrow the government.
The right to bear arms as a means of preventing tyranny is better suited to medieval times than it is to a modern state.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I'd prefer we try individual measures first to see what works...no need to kill an ant with a sledgehammer when the fly-swatter works just fine.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You are assuming that the armed forces and the police forces would support an obviously tyrannical government (although big city police forces might support gun confiscation).
American government, by nature, is pretty liberal, therefore the tyranny would first begin with attacking conservative values/rights, such as gun ownership. The liberal half would have no problem with that, so the tyranny might proceed uncontested by one-half of the population. It would be all downhill from there.
Of course the real means of addressing tyranny is elections. For a tyranny to succeed elections must be abolished. I don't see this happening. However, a liberal government, with enough liberal support could indeed turn tyrannical under everyone's nose. Before we know it we would be in the same hot water with that frog.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, this issue has been discussed here before...while I agree with most that a tyrannical government overthrow isn't something we'll ever need to worry about in our lifetime...just for fun we can discuss the logistics.
From a logistics standpoint, it's not as cut and dry as one might think.
I actually watched a cool documentary on the matter that describes a couple scenarios in which a situation like that could play out.
A couple of bullet points to keep in mind.
- Armed Citizens outnumber Armed combat troops by a ratio of close to 100:1.
- Government has heavy arms (tanks, etc), citizens do not.
- Police forces (who do have some more sophisticated weaponry than citizens) are a wild card, history has examples of police forces joining the federal military to suppress an uprising, and examples of police joining the coup to assist the people.
- Outside governments often interfere in uprising situations...if a government elsewhere (who's not a fan of the US government) is opportunistic, they'll back the coup with munitions and support.
- Terrain means everything...depending on the terrain you're in guerrilla warfare is more effective than tanks, or vice versa. (US military is very familiar with this truth)
...but the documentary ended (and I wish for the life of me I could remember what the name was, it was on Netflix a couple years back) by stating that a situation like that occurring in the US is very unlikely and even if it were to occur, a stalemate would be the most likely outcome. The government can't just nuke the population...they won't be able to get to everybody and there's certain areas where they'd be outgunned and unable to employ heavy arms, plus, killing the taxpayers essentially puts themselves out of business, and on the flip side the citizens will never be successful in taking down the authority structure of the government unless someone high ranking flipped and joined the coup since high ranking people will be in underground shelters that are heavily armored and heavily guarded.
It'd essentially be a stand-off in which coup citizens held certain pockets of territory spread out from the rest of the country, cut off from each other so they wouldn't be able to mount a mass attack, and the military resources would be spread too thin to take any of those pockets back...it go on like that for a while until both sides came to an agreement.
On of the former Lt. Col. they were interviewing in the documentary said it would likely resemble that of the conflict involving the IRA & The British from back in the day.
...but like I said, the general consensus is that nothing like that would ever happen in our lifetime. Things would have to get much worse before people would be pushed to that "point of no return" sort of thinking.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Did people have those things when the "Arab Spring" happened? How about Libya, Egypt, etc?
The Jews managed in some cases to resist capture when all they had were mostly handguns. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
Don't assume that just because someone is better armed, that they are automatically the winner of a conflict.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 7, 2003
- 17,038
- 2,806
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Let's see, you posted this on the 24th and today is the 27th. You're still here.
You don't understand. The gun is just a tool, a weapon. If every law abiding, armed citizen laid down their gun tomorrow, killing would not stop. Violence would not stop. Even if most gun ownership was banned, the criminals would still be able to get them as they do now. And if it wasn't a gun, it would be a knife, a baseball bat, a hammer, gasoline and a match, etc. Evil, violence and murder happen. The question I have for you, is why do you think the innocent should be victims and not victors?
Further, you have completely taken Jesus' words out of context and distorted their meaning. As in all biblical passages, you need to read what comes before and what comes after. Only then can you establish the context in which the words were written to understand the point. You keep harping on one single phrase without knowing what it means or why Jesus said it. But rather than explain it to you, I give you this:
Biblical Self-Defense: What does the Bible say about self-defense? Bible study about self-defense questions: Can a Christian own a gun? What do the Scriptures say about using lethal force for self-protection?
Matthew 26:51-56 51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" 55 In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
John 18:10-11 10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"
In these three passages, you get a sense that Jesus is saying, "Though we have a right to employ our swords in defense of this unrighteous arrest, we are intentionally putting aside our lawful right, and I am allowing myself to be taken without resistance." See how this is expressed: "Lord shall we strike with the sword?" "No more of this." "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." "Put up your sword... or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father... all this was done that the Scriptures...might be fulfilled." "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup...?"
In this context, Jesus was NOT speaking about self-defense. He was allowing the plan His Father had to save us from our sins. In fact, no where in the bible are Christians rebuked for preserving an innocent life including their own.
Yeah, like a theocracy. Something our Constitution doesn't allow.
It's already begun in my state. The uber-wealthy Left have formed an anti-gun coalition comprised of Bloomberg, Gates, Soros, etc. They funded the WA initiative to begin the process of disarming the citizens. The new law now in effect, makes it a felony for me to lend my firearm to a friend who might be a victim of a stalker. Further, all new gun purchases whether through private hands or retailers must be registered. One of the first steps in in confiscating guns is to determine who has them. That's what the registration process is for.
You can't be serious. All dictators disarm their citizenry before committing atrocious acts. China, Germany, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe. Way to many examples.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
