Gun Control

[Lynden1000]

so, despite being legally allowed to carry a firearm, when you finally blow someone away for threatening to kill you, you go to prison anyway. Makes sense to me.

Fortunately here in Florida you can shoot an intruder and not be charged. This makes perfect sense to me. Since only my husband and I live in the house and we have no kids and no family nearby, anyone who comes wandering into my house uninvited is obviously looking for trouble.

 

[stan1980]

Self defense, national defense, hunting, recreation...

As someone else mentioned, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. Do you only bother listening to Jesus when it suits you? I personally can't see how a REAL christian can justify owning a gun, certainly not when citing self defense as a reason anyway.

 

[fated]

Another month, another shooting in the US. It is very tragic, I'm just waiting for US government to pull their finger out and try and do something about it. It really sickens me that this must happen again and again before people will understand it, and how may cases will it take for the government to take measures?

Do you think that US needs gun contol, or do you have other ideas about preventing shootings from happening?

Note: Blaming death metal rockers doesn't count as doing something about it.

Tough issue. There will always be legal rifles and shotguns in Illinois. Should there be legal handguns too?

I don't like handguns, particularly, but criminals have handguns, this is a difficult judgment call to make in the current environment.

I would think you would need to change the gun dynamic over time.

 

[quatona]

Fortunately here in Florida you can shoot an intruder and not be charged. This makes perfect sense to me. Since only my husband and I live in the house and we have no kids and no family nearby, anyone who comes wandering into my house uninvited is obviously looking for trouble.

Personally, I don´t see shooting someone as the appropriate response to him "obviously looking for trouble".
On another note, I can think of several reasons why a person comes wandering into my house uninvited. One of the worst case scenarios is that he isn´t exactly looking for trouble but for things to steal. To which I personally don´t see shooting him as the appropriate response, either.

 

[fated]

As someone else mentioned, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. Do you only bother listening to Jesus when it suits you? I personally can't see how a REAL christian can justify owning a gun, certainly not when citing self defense as a reason anyway.

Actually, this is a very good defense for owning a handgun, especially for Roman Catholics.

 

[quatona]

Actually, this is a very good defense for owning a handgun, especially for Roman Catholics.

Well, yes, I guess with a bit of training it´s possible to turn the other cheek and shoot the guy simultaneously.

 

[MikeMcK]

As someone else mentioned, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek.

"Turn the other cheek" is referring to not seeking revenge. It has nothing to do with self defense, national defense, hunting or recreational use of firearms.

Do you only bother listening to Jesus when it suits you?

Do you mean the same Jesus who commanded His disciples to go out and buy swords to defend themselves with?

I personally can't see how a REAL christian can justify owning a gun, certainly not when citing self defense as a reason anyway.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that we should not own firearms.

 

[fated]

Well, yes, I guess with a bit of training it´s possible to turn the other cheek and shoot the guy simultaneously.

It is fairly clear that he did not say "stand by with your daughter ready while your wife is raped." That is absurd. There are reasonable ways to interpret that teaching. First, in the case of minor indignances, just ignore them. Or course it dealt with the law of Moses as well, so, perhaps it could be fitting to be punished under a good law though you are innocent, as long as you attempt to defend yourself in the regular way (before a judge).

Thanks for asking.

 

[Wednesday]

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that we should not own firearms.

The *scriptures* were written way before any firearms were invented

Christy

 

[MikeMcK]

The *scriptures* were written way before any firearms were invented

Anybody with any sense would understand that the same moral principles that applied to the weapons of that day can be applied to firearms today.

Oh and what moral principles were you talking about? Weapons and moral principles?

For instance, if there were a command or teaching against having swords to protect yourself or your family with, then we could assume that those teachings also apply to having a firearm to protect yourself or your family with.

 

[Wednesday]

What about A-bomb, H-bomb and biological weapons. Of course they are a lot more destructive and harmful that the weapons that existed 2000 years ago.

Oh and what moral principles were you talking about? Weapons and moral principles?

 

[quatona]

It is fairly clear that he did not say "stand by with your daughter ready while your wife is raped."

I don´t recall having claimed that it says that.

That is absurd.

Well, if Christ´s teaching are anywhere close to being as earth shaking as believers would us believe, they can be expected to appear as absurd by what someone considers common sense.

There are reasonable ways to interpret that teaching.

Sure, but that would make "what I find reasonable" the determining authority, as opposed to the bible.

First, in the case of minor indignances, just ignore them. Or course it dealt with the law of Moses as well, so, perhaps it could be fitting to be punished under a good law though you are innocent, as long as you attempt to defend yourself in the regular way (before a judge).

Wow - all that is meant by "turn the other cheek"?

Thanks for asking.

I haven´t asked. But thanks for giving your opinion, anyways.

 

[fated]

I don´t recall having claimed that it says that.

Well, if Christ´s teaching are anywhere close to being as earth shaking as believers would us believe, they can be expected to appear as absurd by what someone considers common sense.


Sure, but that would make "what I find reasonable" the determining authority, as opposed to the bible.

Wow - all that is meant by "turn the other cheek"?


I haven´t asked. But thanks for giving your opinion, anyways.

Moral teaching is rarely Earth shaking, especially in a culture that is the "progeny" of the culture of Europe under the Roman Catholic Church for 2000 years.

Well, I when you apply your view of what the Bible is saying, you should attempt to understand it like it has been understood for the last 2000 years.

Further, taking one verse, one must compare it to others the might contradict in some way in order to discern the full teaching on the matter.

Rather than say, just saying its a contradiction and putting the book down without reflection.

And much more is meant by "turn the other cheek..."

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church was one of the few and a very strong supporters of logical thought through the last 2000 years. They are thoroughly reasonable.

 

[Lynden1000]

Personally, I don´t see shooting someone as the appropriate response to him "obviously looking for trouble".
On another note, I can think of several reasons why a person comes wandering into my house uninvited. One of the worst case scenarios is that he isn´t exactly looking for trouble but for things to steal. To which I personally don´t see shooting him as the appropriate response, either.

Then that's where we disagree.

 

[quatona]

Moral teaching is rarely Earth shaking, especially in a culture that is the "progeny" of the culture of Europe under the Roman Catholic Church for 2000 years.

Well, since you have common sense introduced as the determining criterium for interpreting it, I think we don´t need this book anyways. We can just go with this common sense.

Well, I when you apply your view of what the Bible is saying, you should attempt to understand it like it has been understood for the last 2000 years.

Should I?

Further, taking one verse, one must compare it to others the might contradict in some way in order to discern the full teaching on the matter.

Then do that. Not without explaining why verse A qualifies verse B and not vice versa, please.

Rather than say, just saying its a contradiction and putting the book down without reflection.

You know what? When I think violence is not an acceptable means, I will keep to that notion, no matter what the different interpreters of your holy book say it means.

And much more is meant by "turn the other cheek..."

This is well possible, but all I have seen are mere assumptions on your part.

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church was one of the few and a very good supporter of logical thought through the last 2000 years. They are thoroughly reasonable.

That´s debatable.

 

[ElizabethVu]

And on another post: No matter how many background checks, fingerprint scans, photographs, licencing and paperwork someone with an AK-47 might have...it's no use after they've killed 20 then topped themself, is it?

The people who go though the legal means to get those guns, would be the least likely to use them.

And on another post: When people say that gangs and black market make it easy to obtain firearms. Only because they're legal. What's to stop thieves boosting crates of SMGs at the docks before they reach "Bob's Country Gun Gallery". They're cheaper to buy on the market, cos they're easier to get...Or you could just boost "Bob's Country Gun Gallery" and get the ammo, silencers, scopes and accessories thrown in!

I'm sorry, but what are talking about? Criminals get their guns completely seperated from the methods that Bob's Gun Store goes though to get guns.

God would deem guns unessisary. In this day and age we no longer need to hunt to feed ourselves, if someone strikes us we are supposed to turn the other cheek. So in the end there are just no good reasons to have guns... They are this terribly dangerous hazard to have around, where even the well meaning and rule abiding citizens can have fatal accidents, or have their arms stolen and used in bad ways. Truely if the founding father's were alive today they would recognize many errors in their good intentions with the constitution, they would see all the gun crime and accidents and INSTANTLY realize the right to bare arms was a mistake, never would they have imagined the scenarios of today.

Then you are ignorant of the founders. If they were alive today, they'ld call for the abolition of our standing army and they call for the populas to be allowed the same type of conventional guns that the army is allowed to use. The modern world has not done away with despots and the need to challenge, sometimes violently, the govenrnment.

Also, I'm not Christian. For you to force the "turn the other cheeck" crap on me is no different than you going around arresting gays for being gay. You would disarm me, leave me defenceless and then prosecute me if I had the gall to defend myself because your warped since of morality tells you to. Well honey, you stand around and let yourself be raped, let your kids be taken, let evil people run right over you and abuse you anyway they want. I'm going to defend myself. From them, and from people like you. You're both just as dangerous AFAIC.

Do you think there will be Guns in heaven?

The most retarded question I've seen yet, concerning guns.

 

[fated]

Well, since you have common sense introduced as the determining criterium for interpreting it, I think we don´t need this book anyways. We can just go with this common sense.

Should I?

Then do that. Not without explaining why verse A qualifies verse B and not vice versa, please.

You know what? When I think violence is not an acceptable means, I will keep to that notion, no matter what the different interpreters of your holy book say it means.

This is well possible, but all I have seen are mere assumptions on your part.

That´s debatable.

The issue here is the "That's debatable." Which is true. Philosophers have been doing this for hundreds of years. Do you think that "one day" the Roman Catholic Church will be soundly defeated in theology logic after all this time, proving that they should not exist?

 

[KhlulHloo]

(slightly modified from the original)

"Learn to resolve personal issues without guns, lawyers or therapists. That you as a society need many lawyers and therapists shows that your society is not adult enough to resolve issues in an acceptable way. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or whining to a therapist, you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. "

Signed,
"Not John Cleese"

 

[cerad]

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church was one of the few and a very strong supporters of logical thought through the last 2000 years. They are thoroughly reasonable.

Especially when it comes to demon possession and exorcism.

 

[fated]

Especially when it comes to demon possession and exorcism.

What is your experience with demon possession?