Firearms

[Servant68]

So, I am beginning to get the idea of this site, now. Guns, God, and Gays as targets.

1 Peter Chapter 2 vs 1-3

1So get rid of all evil behavior. Be done with all deceit, hypocrisy, jealousy, and all unkind speech. 2Like newborn babies, you must crave pure spiritual milk so that you will grow into a full experience of salvation. Cry out for this nourishment, 3now that you have had a taste of the Lord’s kindness.

 

[PRESIDIO]

So, I am beginning to get the idea of this site, now. Guns, God, and Gays as targets.

This is an absolutely horrible thing to say that has added nothing to this conversation.

 

[ChavaK]

This is an absolutely horrible thing to say that has added nothing to this conversation.

I agree, horrible thing to say and not true. Hasn't he heard of Pink Pistols, or of all the gun groups that offered to train gays for free after the Florida shooting so they could protect themselves? Nothing like stereo typing a group you don't like.

 

[Tallguy88]

ADMIN HAT

Political campaigning is off topic to this forum. That includes advocating for or against gun control. The OP's question is a good one to discuss, so let's keep the thread on topic and not go off into politics or outright moralizing guns one way or the other.

 

[381465]

Luke 22:36 “He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”

Nehemiah 4:17-18 “Who were building on the wall. Those who carried burdens were loaded in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and held his weapon with the other. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built. The man who sounded the trumpet was beside me.”

Just do a little substitution. Yesterday's sword = today's Glock 19/Colt 6721.

The firearm is an object. It is neither evil nor righteous.

 

[D2wing]

In my opinion it is lawful to have guns as a Christian. And in the U.S. it is a matter of citizenship. An armed citizenship is deterent to tyranny, and also as proved in World War Two, a deterent to foreign invasion. Then there is the matter of police and soldiers which is addressed in the new Testament. All that is in addition to personal defense. It has been proven many times that armed citizens prevent crime.
Many of us have many reasons to own guns. Protection of course as well as shooting competition, target shooting for fun, hunting and gun collecting.
On the other hand some feel that they should not resist evil. That they should rely completely on God to defend them and it is better to die than harm others. Also that we should preemptively forgive our enemies who might do us harm. Some do not even believe in using a weapon to deter attack.
This part can be difficult. As a soldier, you have to decide that you are going to use your weapon to maximum effect before you need to. The same is true for personal protection.
I respect either view as valid. I am glad I live in a place where I have the option.

 

[chuckpeterson]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.[8]

Carrying a firearm into public places with the intent to harm others is not a constitutional right

Buying a firearm with the intent to harm others is not a constitutional right

The public has a God Given right to prevent people who want to harm others from buying a firearm.

One method to insure the publics safety is to require background checks before selling a firearm to an individual. That is my right.

 

[chuckpeterson]

In my opinion it is lawful to have guns as a Christian.

Your views do not preclude background checks. In my view, those who reject background checks are those who fear what would be reveled if such a checks were made.

 

[marineimaging]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.[8]

Carrying a firearm into public places with the intent to harm others is not a constitutional right

Buying a firearm with the intent to harm others is not a constitutional right

The public has a God Given right to prevent people who want to harm others from buying a firearm.

One method to insure the publics safety is to require background checks before selling a firearm to an individual. That is my right.

In fact, the public in general does not have ad hoc rights like you are referring. The Republic of duly elected representatives and the laws themselves do participate in defending the innocent, and you participate in the election process, but the Public and You alone do not. Especially when considering that you have not indicated any legal method or case to prove that a person is purchasing a firearm in order to hurt someone and just how those background checks can prevent that? Background checks cannot show intent in the future. Background checks cannot override God's will in our lives. Background checks do not help in the cases where a man or woman has given their lives to the Lord. Furthermore, background checks show one thing and that is the fact that a person was caught, eventually, and that the agency(ies) involved did not mess up the paperwork. I understand your desires, but your "rights" trumping my my "rights"..., I don't think so. This is not a free country if we assume everybody is guilty without a trial and without proof.

 

[marineimaging]

Your views do not preclude background checks. In my view, those who reject background checks are those who fear what would be reveled if such a checks were made.

I forget the premise of this forum is not to debate ownership, which I jumped right in the middle of. Any background check to own a firearm makes it conditional so that makes it a privelege, not a right. Which it is.

 

[marineimaging]

As long as we have good reasons for possessing them (sport, protection, etc.), follow the law regarding them and respect the dangers involved, I don't see a problem. I believe God can be glorified through proper ownership of firearms.

What if I just like them. Like the historical technical art I consider them. Wouldn't that be a good enough reason in a free country?

 

[Silverback]

Is it proper for Christians to bear firearms?

If they are used for lawful purposes such as hunting, shooting sports, collecting, and lawful self defense.

 

[marineimaging]

Yes, yes, and yes.

 

[pescador]

To buy a gun which is the right of every individual, including you does not require a background check civilian to civilian? And I don't want to submit to a background check for every gun I buy or sell, but I have nothing to hide. What does that say about me?

It says that you support unregulated sales and ownership of firearms. I am in favor of everyone who owns a firearm should be required to be licensed. Guns are lethal weapons that should belong to responsible, licensed people -- only. There will, of course, be people that own and use guns illegally, just as there are people who drive without a license.

 

[marineimaging]

Your views do not preclude background checks. In my view, those who reject background checks are those who fear what would be reveled if such a checks were made.

Respectfully, the question is it appropriate for Christians to own firearms. Not under what conditions. It has already been addressed as to whether we have the right to and the conditions are laid out by law.

 

[pescador]

Respectfully, the question is it appropriate for Christians to own firearms. Not under what conditions. It has already been addressed as to whether we have the right to and the conditions are laid out by law.

What do you mean by appropriate? Christians, at least in the US, have the right to own and use firearms, just like other citizens. Is it appropriate to ask if Jews, Muslims, Hindus, JWs, and others should own firearms? Why would it be inappropriate?

All believers in the US, of whatever stripe, are allowed to keep and bear arms under -> secular <- law. It would be discrimination if otherwise.

 

[pescador]

Luke 22:36 “He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”

Nehemiah 4:17-18 “Who were building on the wall. Those who carried burdens were loaded in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and held his weapon with the other. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built. The man who sounded the trumpet was beside me.”

Just do a little substitution. Yesterday's sword = today's Glock 19/Colt 6721.

The firearm is an object. It is neither evil nor righteous.

There is no comparison between a sword and a Glock. For one, you can't kill anyone at a distance with a sword.

 

[marineimaging]

There is no comparison between a sword and a Glock. For one, you can't kill anyone at a distance with a sword.

The poster is making the comparison to a weapon of the times. Not whether one contains gunpowder or steel or both. You are making arguments that are not necessary.

 

[marineimaging]

What do you mean by appropriate? Christians, at least in the US, have the right to own and use firearms, just like other citizens. Is it appropriate to ask if Jews, Muslims, Hindus, JWs, and others should own firearms? Why would it be inappropriate?

All believers in the US, of whatever stripe, are allowed to keep and bear arms under -> secular <- law. It would be discrimination if otherwise.

The original poster was simply asking if it was appropriate, I believe from the standpoint of Christ has clearly indicated that we are not to murder. In that context the association between owing a firearm and using it wrongly must be distinguished and I think the OP understands now. Owning a firearm is does not make one a killer. There are many sports that use firearms AND owning one in the US is a fundamental right for all citizens. As for being a Christian and owning one, there is no reason not to. It is not what you have, it is what you do with it that Christ warned us against.