• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

The Second Amendment

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by morningstar2651, May 7, 2021.

See the Question in Post #1

  1. Yes

    25.0%
  2. No

    75.0%
  1. morningstar2651

    morningstar2651 Senior Veteran

    +2,446
    Pagan
    Single
    US-Others
    If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. morningstar2651

    morningstar2651 Senior Veteran

    +2,446
    Pagan
    Single
    US-Others
    My answer: The police should not be able to shoot or kill you for exercising your second amendment right. You don't have the right to bear arms if you can be killed by law enforcement for doing it.
     
  3. SummerMadness

    SummerMadness Senior Veteran

    +11,526
    Catholic
    Interesting question, I would say they did not have their right to bear arms. There is another thread on about a diner pulling a gun on protesters and the argument was that he could pull his gun because some of the protesters were armed. Of note, none of the protesters pointed their weapons at the man, yet people were arguing it was okay for him to point a weapon at people exercising their right to bear arms.

    I think it's obvious that the right to bear arms is only seen as applicable to some people. Cliven Bundy and his group can point their weapons at law enforcement and the usual suspects will defend them. Philando Castile will just inform you he has a gun is his car and be blown away and the usual suspects will defend the shooting. The right to bear arms is either a right or not, but from my observation, it is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
  4. Gene2memE

    Gene2memE Newbie

    +4,336
    Atheist
    Private
    Depends on the circumstances.

    I'll preface this by saying from the outset that I'm not a fan of US gun laws, nor the adversarial approach to policing some US law enforcement agencies appear to take.

    However, with a widely armed population and a very high rate of gun violence in the US, policing has taken on certain characteristics. One of those is the assumption that anyone wielding a gun intends to use it. This is not an unjustified assumption - there's plenty of evidence to support it - but applying it as a blanket assumption is not a good practice, as it leads to some 'shoot first, ask questions later' incidents.

    For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved. Similar examples could be raised for police shooting individuals who were seeking to run away.

    Unfortunately, as with most things, there's a trade off. If you teach your officers to respond by not assuming someone bearing a gun - or even a fake gun- is going to use it, one day pretty soon a cop is going to get killed.

    Police have to prioritize their own safety, I'm not going to disagree there. The questions are: where does the risk/reward line lie when it comes to the tradeoff between the lives of the public and the police?; and how do you change the approach of US law enforcement in a way that doesn't involve getting a bunch more cops shot?

    Personally, my reading of history is that the Second Amendment was constructed as a doctrine for the defense of the nation against a foreign power (as the US initially didn't have much truck with standing armies), rather than a doctrine of individual access to firearms. That meaning changed in common and legal interpretation through the latter third of the 20th century, to mean (close to) unfettered personal firearms use, which was codified in DC vs Heller.
     
  5. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +4,515
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I said "No" in the poll because I don't believe people have some sort of absolute right to bear arms and your example somewhat demonstrates that. I think a cop is right to shoot someone who has a gun if they are "brandishing" it or using it in a threatening manner. For example, a cop shouldn't hit someone just because that person has hands, but if that person uses his hand to make a fist and threaten with it then the cop has a right to defend himself and others by hitting that person. Same with a gun. However, with guns, just the possession of a gun is subject to certain additional rules and laws, specifically because guns are so dangerous (incredibly much more so than hands/fists), so they are naturally going to be more aggressive towards someone who simply possesses a gun in certain situations. Sometimes the cops are in the wrong with this but typically they are right to be overly cautious.

    But the way the 2A folks pretend the 2A is some kind of absolute right to bear arms is a complete joke, anyway. If they REALLY believed in the 2A in that way there would be more people campaigning for the right to own missiles, bombs, rockets, even atomic and nuclear arms. Obviously, it's not just some open right to "bear arms" - the 2A is clear about it being part of a well-regulated militia. The 2A crowd is really just a bunch of gun lovers who want their toys. And I can understand that - if you're into something you want to have it and play with it and you will support whatever allows you to do that. But their 2A argument is disingenuous as I see it - they know deep down that there is no actual "right to bear arms" but they will twist the 2A to leverage it in support of their passion for guns.
     
  6. disciple Clint

    disciple Clint Well-Known Member

    +3,503
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I think you are misunderstanding the reason that officers shoot someone, simply having a gun is not justification but having a gun and using it in a way that causes the officer to fear for his life does justify use of deadly force.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  7. disciple Clint

    disciple Clint Well-Known Member

    +3,503
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The officer was not found guilty of any wrong doing in the Castile case. Bundy was not found guilty of anything either. Neither of these cases supports the ridiculous, inflammatory, narrative that The right to bear arms is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.
     
  8. disciple Clint

    disciple Clint Well-Known Member

    +3,503
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    over all I agree with your post and feel it is well balanced. I do want to point out that in both the Rice and Lopez incidents the following:
    1. Both guns had been modified to look like real guns.
    2. in one case the kid turned towards police elevating the gun in the other case the kid when ordered to put his hands up, instead reached for his waist were the gun was.
    3. There is very little time to make a shoot, dont shoot decision when someone is reaching for a gun or elevating a gun in your direction. Neither officer was found to have used excessive force under the circumstances.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. SummerMadness

    SummerMadness Senior Veteran

    +11,526
    Catholic
    [​IMG]

    This is everything wrong with the second amendment and who can bear arms. White guy pointing a gun at federal agents, yeah it's okay.

    Or how about LaVoy Finicum who thought it would be smart to initiate a shootout with the government. The same people that cheer on the shooting of Tamir Rice and Philando Castile were livid about a man that wanted to go to his death in a shootout.
     
  10. disciple Clint

    disciple Clint Well-Known Member

    +3,503
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I do not know of anyone who cheered on the shooting of Rice or Castile, who are those people? Is there any evidence they exist? What is the point of this entire post? It is well known that white people shoot at police, what does that have to do with anything, is it another attempt at an excuse? Or some kind of justification?
     
  11. 98cwitr

    98cwitr Lord forgive me Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    +2,984
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Missing data and therefore cannot vote.

    Was the firearm pointed or brandished at the officer? If so, justified. If not, then it's not. Castile's a good case for an example of an unlawful shooting from what I can tell. Look at the VDCL rallies in Virginia, thousands of people walking around with assault rifles, no one shot, cops dont bat an eye. There's much more to dig into before answering the OP question.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  12. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote Supporter

    +9,350
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I saw this quote yesterday. Chief Justice Burger served on the Supreme Court from 1969-86, and just seeing this meme made me realize how much our nation's interpretation of the Second Amendment has deteriorated in my lifetime. I agree completely with Justice Burger.

    When I express my beliefs about the Second Amendment, its proponents almost uniformly treat my comments with pugnacious outrage, derision, aggression, and hostility. That concerns me, because it shows me how tempermentally unsuited these people are to be carrying guns. These individuals who confront me are bullies, plain and simple, rendered more dangerous because they are armed bullies.

    Police officers are professionally trained (and I support additional training). As an added check and balance, many of them now wear body cameras. We want them to be a "well-regulated" militia.

    If you carry a gun I think you have to realize that in split-second decisions a policeman may interpret your actions differently from what you want. Hopefully that would make you more prudent and less confrontational. The police officer will be wearing a camera--so he will probably be more cautious.

    Anyone who cannot control his emotions should not be trusted with a weapon.

    warren earl burger.jpg
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  13. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +624
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    I think the Second Amendment needs to be altered to say that Americans have the right to carry toy guns until we learn how to behave around real guns.

    I grew up in a hunting household. My dad had a number of guns and I don't recall anything like the kind of "gun worshipping" I see from modern day 2nd Amendment Fetishists. My dad would no more take a gun into a Starbucks (even if open carry were a thing then) than he'd dress up in a clown outfit and urinate in public!

    America has a pathological relationship with guns at this point in time. And it's tearing us apart. We THINK we are so safe and free, but we are about the only developed nation on earth where it is not just possible but LIKELY that any one of us will die for the bad decision of going to the grocery store on the wrong day.

    We, as a nation, watched a psychopath gun down LITTLE KIDS and we didn't do a damn thing afterwards.

    What is wrong with us?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  14. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +29,775
    Anglican
    Married
    Whatever it is, it's not because guns exist or the people are allowed to have them. That's for sure. You referred to the attitude of some few gun owners, which is a clue to the underlying and only real issue.

    Outlawing guns and repealing or amending the Second Amendment is not going to fix the problem. It's a matter of the mindset of the people involved, and it is perfectly obvious that new restrictions on ownership will not succeed because the cities (Chicago?) which have the highest rates of shootings are also the ones which already have laws that are supposed to prevent such acts.
     
  15. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +29,775
    Anglican
    Married
    Do police have that right? To shoot someone merely because a gun is found on the person or the seat of his car? I don't think so.

    But if he brandishes it, if he points it at someone, that's a different matter, and we should all be able to see that it is.
     
  16. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +624
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    Yet, mysteriously, every other developed nation on earth has a SIGNIFICANTLY lower gun homicide and gun violence rate than the US and they almost all, to a country, have more restrictive gun laws. Hmmmm.

    Perhaps Americans are just evil? I find that hard to believe, being an American...but if we can't limit guns to solve the problem perhaps we are just too evil a nation.
     
  17. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +624
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    Tamir Rice and Philandro Castile beg to differ.
     
  18. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +29,775
    Anglican
    Married
    You are assuming that the one has caused the other. There is no reason to take that approach, especially in view of the situation I referred you to in which American cities that have verrrrry strict gun laws also have thousands of shootings every year. The "quick fix" that you think is the solution obviously is missing something.
     
  19. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +624
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    While I realize correlation is not causation, I can't help but remember that we in the US watch DAILY as mass shootings happen. These things happen almost nowhere else on earth with the frequency they happen here. Why do you suppose that is? Certainly in no first world country.

    We've tried thoughts and prayers and they don't work.

    Then Americans just must be evil. I can think of nothing else to try. MAYBE we could treat mental illness better (with a massive surcharge on guns and ammo that goes to a fund for mental health) but you and I both know that when the ammosexuals talk about "mental health" they don't really want to see any change that will impact their fetish. ;)

    No, we're stuck I guess. More AMericans will die this year due to guns on a per capita basis than any other developed nation on earth and we just sit back and wonder why.

    The blood is fully on our hands. And I don't want to have to explain it should that time ever come where we have to.
     
  20. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote Supporter

    +9,350
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    When there are more guns in the U.S. than people, and when people can buy guns without background checks legally at gun shows it is all too easy for people to get their hands on them.

    No matter what laws cities have the wide availability of guns makes them very easy to circumvent.

    In addition, the types of weapions available--semi-automatic weapons and adapters that can turn them into fully automatic weapons--make them much more dangerous.

    What you are saying, Albion, is that "guns" aren't the problem, people are. And so it stands to reason that if almost every other civilized country has far fewer murders and "guns" aren't the problem, then the problem is that the American people are, by default, more violent and homicidal than people in other countries. And if that is the case, then a lot of them should not be owning the means to kill.
     
Loading...