At least 26 people killed in shooting at Texas church

Followers4christ

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!
Jun 17, 2005
5,103
805
Caldwell, Idaho
Visit site
✟30,651.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Except I am not talking about disarming anyone.

But restrictions of automatic guns is infringing on our rights just the same. According to the reasons we the people have the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from a government not just a animal.
 
Upvote 0

Followers4christ

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!
Jun 17, 2005
5,103
805
Caldwell, Idaho
Visit site
✟30,651.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The man who shot and chased the Texas church shooter gave an emotional account to authorities after the ordeal.

Cellphone video taken in the aftermath of the shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs on Sunday shows 55-year-old Stephen Willeford as he explains what happened when he encountered gunman Devin Kelley after he shot and killed 26 people and wounded 20 more.

Man who shot, chased Texas church shooter gives emotional account to police in video

The president went on to applaud "that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck" and shot the killer.

"If he didn't have a gun," Trump alleged, "instead of having 26 dead, you would've had hundreds more dead. So that's the way I feel about it. Not gonna help."

Trump says gun control would've made 'no difference' in Texas shooting
 
Upvote 0

Waterwerx

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2016
656
255
39
Hazleton, PA
✟63,759.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Single
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

It raises the viability of the 2nd Amendment giving allowance to the average citizen(s) of maintaining parity with the country's armed forces in regards to "bearing arms" in order to thwart a "government gone wild", so to speak.

I personally don't see anything good coming from separate "thrown together" citizens' militias or individuals having weapons such as 50 caliber machine guns, cluster bombs, fully automatic weapons, etc., just in case the government goes butt crazy. We already have mass shootings occurring on an almost regular basis. Regardless of who has the weapons, it just takes one disgruntled individual to get their hands on one and there goes the neighborhood.
Unless there's going to be a separate citizens militia set up in the country that maintains the same kind of screening, training, control, and discipline within its ranks that our country's regular armed forces have, then the 2nd Amendment is moot in this aspect.

Even with every citizen armed with fully automatic rifles, if for some reason or other the government decides to go all tyrannical, its not going to make much of a difference. If things go that far, its because people have the general attitude that if it doesn't affect them, they don't care as long as someone throws them a bone every now and then...

When you get to the root of the problem, its not something that can be rectified by arms and ammunition, but rather spiritual and what we're having psychologically shoved down our throats day in and day out. We're basically doing it to ourselves, not the government. The government's behavior is just a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well I could even use James Madison if that is better for you. James Madison goes along with what Mason said in the previous post.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison

And where is that "well regulated militia" that is composed of people "trained in arms?" When the Constitution was drafted communities had local militias that practiced on a regular basis. That is no longer the case.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But restrictions of automatic guns is infringing on our rights just the same. According to the reasons we the people have the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from a government not just a animal.
So the government shouldn't have regulations regarding the purchase of machine guns?
 
Upvote 0

Followers4christ

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!
Jun 17, 2005
5,103
805
Caldwell, Idaho
Visit site
✟30,651.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It raises the viability of the 2nd Amendment giving allowance to the average citizen(s) of maintaining parity with the country's armed forces in regards to "bearing arms" in order to thwart a "government gone wild", so to speak.

I personally don't see anything good coming from separate "thrown together" citizens' militias or individuals having weapons such as 50 caliber machine guns, cluster bombs, fully automatic weapons, etc., just in case the government goes butt crazy. We already have mass shootings occurring on an almost regular basis. Regardless of who has the weapons, it just takes one disgruntled individual to get their hands on one and there goes the neighborhood.
Unless there's going to be a separate citizens militia set up in the country that maintains the same kind of screening, training, control, and discipline within its ranks that our country's regular armed forces have, then the 2nd Amendment is moot in this aspect.

Even with every citizen armed with fully automatic rifles, if for some reason or other the government decides to go all tyrannical, its not going to make much of a difference. If things go that far, its because people have the general attitude that if it doesn't affect them, they don't care as long as someone throws them a bone every now and then...

When you get to the root of the problem, its not something that can be rectified by arms and ammunition, but rather spiritual and what we're having psychologically shoved down our throats day in and day out. We're basically doing it to ourselves, not the government. The government's behavior is just a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.

The founders disagree with you as it's why we were given that right. But to your statement that it wouldn't do much good, guerrilla warfare is very effective as we can see in other countries. If you have effective arms you can take on the military as there are far more people in the US then we have soldiers plus would all the soldiers follow orders or would they fight with their families. The people would win.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Followers4christ

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!
Jun 17, 2005
5,103
805
Caldwell, Idaho
Visit site
✟30,651.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So the government shouldn't have regulations regarding the purchase of machine guns?

Yes I agree with regulations like felons who have misused the freedom they were given or the mentally Ill should not be able to access guns. But the average law abiding citizen should be able to bear arms of any sort including fully automatic weapons as our rights should not be infringed on.
 
Upvote 0

Followers4christ

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!
Jun 17, 2005
5,103
805
Caldwell, Idaho
Visit site
✟30,651.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And where is that "well regulated militia" that is composed of people "trained in arms?" When the Constitution was drafted communities had local militias that practiced on a regular basis. That is no longer the case.

"Trained in arms" is simple every person trying to buy a gun has to take a class on gun safety and trained how to use one before they can purchase one. Today the people are the militia and we all have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The founders disagree with you as it's why we were given that right. But to your statement that it wouldn't do much good, guerrilla warfare is very effective as we can see in other countries. If you have effective arms you can take on the military as there are far more people in the US then we have soldiers plus would all the soldiers follow orders or would they fight with their families. The people would win.

But the founders were not thinking about the public engaging in guerrilla warfare against the government at the time the Constitution was drafted. We only need to look at the founding documents to understand that.

We first have to look at the use of the term "well regulated militia" in the Articles of Confederation, the frame of government in effect at the time the Constitution was drafted. Article six provides that "every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." So, under the articles the state government was responsible for providing for the militia; it was not a rag-tag group that would take up arms against the government.

Lets next look at the use of the term militia in the Constitution. Article one of the Constitution gives Congress certain powers over the state militias: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." So Congress has the power to call out the militia to suppress rebellions, but nothing is said there about the militias having power to take up arms against the US.

Article two of the Constitution also addresses the militias: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." So, if the President is Commander and Chief of the state militias when called into Federal service, how could those same militias have authority to take up arms against the US government?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes I agree with regulations like felons who have misused the freedom they were given or the mentally Ill should not be able to access guns. But the average law abiding citizen should be able to bear arms of any sort including fully automatic weapons as our rights should not be infringed on.
But there is nothing in the Constitution giving anyone the right to own fully automatic weapons.
 
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

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
"Trained in arms" is simple every person trying to buy a gun has to take a class on gun safety and trained how to use one before they can purchase one. Today the people are the militia and we all have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves.

The Bill of Rights uses the term "well regulated militia." None of the founders would have thought of that as simply being a class on gun safety. That meant a state militia that regularly practiced and drilled.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,736
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟651,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
When you get to the root of the problem, its not something that can be rectified by arms and ammunition, but rather spiritual and what we're having psychologically shoved down our throats day in and day out. We're basically doing it to ourselves, not the government. The government's behavior is just a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.

It seemed to work in the middle east recently.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,736
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟651,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
But there is nothing in the Constitution giving anyone the right to own fully automatic weapons.

The word used is "arms". That doesn't exactly limit what those arms are.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The word used is "arms". That doesn't exactly limit what those arms are.
But you are the one who keeps posting quotes by the founding fathers, and there is nothing indicating that any of them ever thought that automatic weapons would ever exist. They were think of single shot weapons.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,736
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟651,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
But you are the one who keeps posting quotes by the founding fathers, and there is nothing indicating that any of them ever thought that automatic weapons would ever exist. They were think of single shot weapons.

Then perhaps our military should be limited to single shot weapons? The military, or at least the National Guard, is what people who think along those lines believe the Second Amendment is about.
 
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

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Then perhaps our military should be limited to single shot weapons? The military, or at least the National Guard, is what people who think along those lines believe the Second Amendment is about.
The military needs to be equipped with arms necessary to deal with foreign threats. Private citizens do not. The battleship Pennsylvania, commissioned in 1916, had 14-inch guns. I don't know of any private citizen who ever had need of such a gun.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,736
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟651,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The military needs to be equipped with arms necessary to deal with foreign threats. Private citizens do not.

I know anybody who brings up Hitler is said to have lost the debate, but I'm someone who thinks history has lessons to teach us. Hopefully, British citizens won't forget. German ones too. The Jews certainly won't. BBC - History - Hitler plans the invasion of Britain (pictures, video, facts & news)

The battleship Pennsylvania, commissioned in 1916, had 14-inch guns. I don't know of any private citizen who ever had need of such a gun.

One never knows what they might be up against. A person living in the middle of New York will have needs that are different from someone living in rural Montana. Let each person figure out what his own "needs" are, even though the Second Amendment addresses a Right rather than just needs.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I know anybody who brings up Hitler is said to have lost the debate, but I'm someone who thinks history has lessons to teach us. Hopefully, British citizens won't forget. German ones too. The Jews certainly won't. BBC - History - Hitler plans the invasion of Britain (pictures, video, facts & news)

And our military should certainly have the weapons necessary to defeat the next Hitler.

One never knows what they might be up against. A person living in the middle of New York will have needs that are different from someone living in rural Montana. Let each person figure out what his own "needs" are, even though the Second Amendment addresses a Right rather than just needs.

So the person living in NYC should be allowed to have a 14" gun?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,736
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟651,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
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

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0