Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[Divide]

Imagine caring if something is military grade or not as though the military has the moral right to use certain arms that the civilian population shouldn't have.....goodness me.

They should be happy that we arent building our own laser beam weapons and missles, lol!

 

[FireDragon76]

I think this might be the silliest question so far today.

Protect my family. Hmm, I wonder what that could mean?!

It's not a silly question. When having a discussion, we need to use clear terminology. "Protecting ones family", as I have pointed out before, has entailed many things in American history, and often it has been used to justify aggression, vigilantism, or retaliation, all of which are sinful.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It's not a silly question. When having a discussion, we need to use clear terminology. "Protecting ones family", as I have pointed out before, has entailed many things in American history, and often it has been used to justify aggression, vigilantism, or retaliation, all of which are sinful.

I am pretty sure in this case protecting one's family would mean keeping safe from people who wished to do them harm and if that required violence then so be it.

 

[Postvieww]

First off, I object to such a ridiculously offensive hypothetical question. Being a pacifist doesn't mean being a coward, or indifferent, or passive.

And, what exactly do you mean by "protect your family"? Somehow I think alot of Americans of a certain political or cultural persuasion take a "Dirty Harry" approach as legitimate, that any amount of violence is permissable in kind. I disagree.

I was clear in my original post and also in my response to your response. Sorry you find that offensive but it says a lot that the question couldn’t be answered without diversion. It is a perfectly plausible hypothetical scenario. Which can and does happen in our world today. I have no problem answering the question. I would do whatever is necessary to provide protection for my family. Bringing Dirty Harry into this is pointless.

 

[FireDragon76]

I was clear in my original post and also in my response to your response. Sorry you find that offensive but it says a lot that the question couldn’t be answered without diversion. It is a perfectly plausible hypothetical scenario. Which can and does happen in our world today. I have no problem answering the question. I would do whatever is necessary to provide protection for my family. Bringing Dirty Harry into this is pointless.

OK, I turn this question around on your own assumptions...

What makes you think my partner can't protect herself? I don't take a patriarchal view of family life as normative. I view marriage as a partnership between equals.

 

[dogs4thewin]

OK, I turn this question around on your own assumptions...

What makes you think my family can't protect themselves? I don't take a patriarchal view of family life as normative. I view marriage as a partnership between equals.

Well, if your family can protect themselves and you are not around then they are still (in most cases) entitled to the same tools you would be. Moreover, sometimes even in cases where someone uses a gun in self defense they are not supposed to have due to being a convicted felon for example to protect themselves or others( family or otherwise sometimes the DA will not charge that crime as the person otherwise acted legally and did not start anything. ( This s particularly the case if it was a non-violent who finished their sentence years or even decades earlier.).

 

[Derf]

and just about anything can be a weapon if used in such a way.

Like kitchen knives or nail guns. Or spoons if sharpened.

I sat on a jury once where we convicted a guy of assault with a deadly weapon. It was a pipe.

In Samson's day, they would be banning ass jawbones.

 

[Postvieww]

OK, I turn this question around on your own assumptions...

What makes you think my partner can't protect herself? I don't take a patriarchal view of family life as normative. I view marriage as a partnership between equals.

Another diversion from the main point. Your partner may very well be trained in self defense and could still be overcome by a criminal. It appears some just can’t admit the possibility of a need for self defense for one’s self or others particularly a family member in this senerio. Why the need to turn it around it’s not a hard question to answer?

 

[FireDragon76]

Another diversion from the main point. Your partner may very well be trained in self defense and could still be overcome by a criminal. It appears some just can’t admit the possibility of a need for self defense for one’s self or others particularly a family member in this senerio. Why the need to turn it around it’s not a hard question to answer?

It's not a diversion. You're appealing to an extreme situation that is stastistically very unlikely, and arguing that's a normative basis for challenging my ethical principles. Appeal to extreme situations isn't a good way to discern general ethical principles.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It's not a diversion. You're appealing to an extreme situation that is stastistically very unlikely, and arguing that's a normative basis for challenging my ethical principles. Appeal to extreme situations isn't a good way to discern general ethical principles.

that rarely happens general crime happens a LOT. Mass shootings are rare especially true mass shootings but crime is not.

 

[Derf]

It's not a diversion. You're appealing to an extreme situation that is stastistically very unlikely, and arguing that's a normative basis for challenging my ethical principles. Appeal to extreme situations isn't a good way to discern general ethical principles.

But killing another human being in self defense is exactly the sort of extremes we are discussing. Certainly going to war against an evil government or killing in self defense are not everyday events. But you are now admitting that they can happen, and that extreme measures for Christians are ok in extreme circumstances. This is wonderful progress!

Now, how does one prepare himself for such extreme circumstances? Do you wait until you and your family are threatened, and then attempt to buy a firearm, ammunition, spend time training how to use it safely, etc. to protect yourselves?

 

[FenderTL5]

What about that free state needs protecting..

Are you suggesting there's no need for national defense? Do away with the military?

Nothing you quoted contradicted what I said. Yes, there was opposition to a standing army in favor of a citizen militia. I said as much prior.
Why does any country/nation/state need defense?
New York stated it well.

New York, April 20, 1777
whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.

Virginia June 12, 1776
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State;"

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

Maryland, November 11, 1776
That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

North Carolina, December 18, 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;

Vermont, July 8, 1777
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State;

Massachusetts, June 15, 1780
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.


The purpose of 2nd Amendment was to have a citizen militia to defend the state instead of an army. It was not to stand in opposition to the newly formed government. Which makes one wonder, since the USA now spends more on defense, a standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force and Marines, has the 2nd Amendment outlived it primary purpose?

 

[YorkieGal]

Are you suggesting there's no need for national defense? Do away with the military?

Nothing you quoted contradicted what I said. Yes, there was opposition to a standing army in favor of a citizen militia. I said as much prior.
Why does any country/nation/state need defense?
New York stated it well.

New York, April 20, 1777
whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.

Virginia June 12, 1776
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State;"

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

Maryland, November 11, 1776
That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

North Carolina, December 18, 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;

Vermont, July 8, 1777
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State;

Massachusetts, June 15, 1780
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.


The purpose of 2nd Amendment was to have a citizen militia to defend the state instead of an army. It was not to stand in opposition to the newly formed government. Which makes one wonder, since the USA now spends more on defense, a standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force and Marines, has the 2nd Amendment outlived it primary purpose?

No, next question, lol

 

[Derf]

Are you suggesting there's no need for national defense? Do away with the military?

Nothing you quoted contradicted what I said. Yes, there was opposition to a standing army in favor of a citizen militia. I said as much prior.
Why does any country/nation/state need defense?
New York stated it well.

New York, April 20, 1777
whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.

Virginia June 12, 1776
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State;"

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

Maryland, November 11, 1776
That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

North Carolina, December 18, 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;

Vermont, July 8, 1777
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State;

Massachusetts, June 15, 1780
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.


The purpose of 2nd Amendment was to have a citizen militia to defend the state instead of an army.

The STATE was the individual states, not the federal government. Read and see that the constitution never refers to the United States as "the state".
The purpose of all 10 of the first amendments was to protect the people and the states from the potential overreach of the new federal government. You cited a bunch of state constitutions which individually were trying to protect themselves from enemies. The state governments, not the federal government. And one of the potential enemies was the federal government. Of course they knew they were stronger when united, but they also knew that the federal government was a potential threat to their freedom.

It was not to stand in opposition to the newly formed government.

Yes, it was...potentially.

Which makes one wonder, since the USA now spends more on defense, a standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force and Marines, has the 2nd Amendment outlived it primary purpose?

Absolutely not! As the federal government has grown in power, the states have continually made themselves weaker. The antidote is to go back to what the states originally reserved for themselves and their people--the Bill of Rights.