US gun laws – particularly with “open carry”

[Biblicist]

Fair enough.

So I'll ask you the same question, amended slightly; If correct procedure were followed, would you personally support the creation of an additional Constitutional amendment to require background checks or other "gun control" measures before one could purchase a firearm?

Unfortuantely this might be the only time that I can jump onto the forum today and even this will be a bit short.

When it comes to background checks, this is certainly an admirable idea but I cannot imagine that it would have much of an impact. How are the States to decide who is mentally or even emotionally fit to own a weapon and would this require that psychological tests be performed yearly as peoples emotional states can dramatically change over time. As with all such things, it would be relatively easy to find a 'friendly' psych who would be more than happy to be compliant for a handful of dollars and undoubtedly the overall physical presence of some 'applicants' would be enough to ensure that a small undersized psych would tick off the right squares.

Undoubtedly there would be many psychologists who would make a killing (great pun) out of such a scheme as they would be able to rake in huge amount of dollars. I wonder how a psych report would be able to stop an unstable teenager from grabbing his legally licenced (and sane) fathers gun and then walking down to the local school where he precedes to open fire?

I seriously doubt if any psychological profile test would be able to pick up if a well respected individual would flip if they were placed in an unusual emotional situation. But, what a great way for an employer to work out if someone is deemed to be an emotional and mental bastion of stability; they could say, "Only licensed gun owners need apply".

When it comes to background checks where they ban anyone who has a criminal record from owning a gun, I would imagine that there would be a massive increase of criminal charges being laid under color of law where the police misuse their power to control the citizenry - this is a big enough issue now in the US so I don't think that anyone would want to see this problem being exasperated any more than what it is. This would be a great political weapon that any local police officer could use against a neighbour or an ex-girl friends spouse - it would be an utter social disaster.

As much as background controls are certainly a grand ideal they would undoubtedly cause more problems than what they are worth.

 

[Biblicist]

PS. Could we maybe have a moratorium with references to the Old Testament. As someone who supports private gun ownership, I would love to spend all our time within the Old Covenant but we are now in the New Covenant which is where we really need to be concentrating on.

Hopefully we will be seeing some more input with how US Christians, and particularly with how US Full Gospel Christians in the US relate to the US Constitution (so far...thank's StephanieSomer).

 

[jiminpa]

PS. Could we maybe have a moratorium with references to the Old Testament. As someone who supports private gun ownership, I would love to spend all our time within the Old Covenant but we are now in the New Covenant which is where we really need to be concentrating on.

Hopefully we will be seeing some more input with how US Christians, and particularly with how US Full Gospel Christians in the US relate to the US Constitution (so far...thank's StephanieSomer).

The OT is still scripture and was inspired by the same God as the NT, and He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[probinson]

Unfortuantely this might be the only time that I can jump onto the forum today and even this will be a bit short.

When it comes to background checks, this is certainly an admirable idea but I cannot imagine that it would have much of an impact. How are the States to decide who is mentally or even emotionally fit to own a weapon and would this require that psychological tests be performed yearly as peoples emotional states can dramatically change over time. As with all such things, it would be relatively easy to find a 'friendly' psych who would be more than happy to be compliant for a handful of dollars and undoubtedly the overall physical presence of some 'applicants' would be enough to ensure that a small undersized psych would tick off the right squares.

Undoubtedly there would be many psychologists who would make a killing (great pun) out of such a scheme as they would be able to rake in huge amount of dollars. I wonder how a psych report would be able to stop an unstable teenager from grabbing his legally licenced (and sane) fathers gun and then walking down to the local school where he precedes to open fire?

I seriously doubt if any psychological profile test would be able to pick up if a well respected individual would flip if they were placed in an unusual emotional situation. But, what a great way for an employer to work out if someone is deemed to be an emotional and mental bastion of stability; they could say, "Only licensed gun owners need apply".

When it comes to background checks where they ban anyone who has a criminal record from owning a gun, I would imagine that there would be a massive increase of criminal charges being laid under color of law where the police misuse their power to control the citizenry - this is a big enough issue now in the US so I don't think that anyone would want to see this problem being exasperated any more than what it is. This would be a great political weapon that any local police officer could use against a neighbour or an ex-girl friends spouse - it would be an utter social disaster.

As much as background controls are certainly a grand ideal they would undoubtedly cause more problems than what they are worth.

OK.

So are you opposed to any and all types of gun control, or do you have other ideas that you would support?

At work, I'm not allowed to pick apart a problem unless I also offer an alternative solution. There are too many people stating what won't work. So do you have any thoughts on what would work?

 

[Frogster]

With regards to God "allowing" something to happen...

The word "allow" carries with it the connotation of permission being granted for a specific purpose. For example, if my son asks me if he is "allowed" to go to the park, he is asking me to grant specific permission for him to do something. With that in mind, I don't believe that God explicitly "allows" one to be sick, or to be killed or raped.

However, we live in a fallen world. I believe that God "allows" pretty much everything by default. IOW, when someone is raped or killed or has a terminal illness, these are all things that are "allowed" within the parameters God has defined and set in motion. I don't believe that God explicitly grants permission for these individual things to occur, but I do believe that they are "allowed" by default because of the fallen state of the world we live in.

I also believe that God can intervene in the natural order of things. When we're sick, He can heal us. When we're threatened, He can protect us.

Additionally, I believe that God works all things together for good for those who are called according to His purpose.

Lastly, the game is fixed; We win. Even if an attacker or an illness claims our natural life, we have the assurance of an eternity spent with Him.

red's above, sounds like a contradiction.:o

So if God allows illness, we can seek a doctor. So why can't we seek a gun?

 

[jiminpa]

OK.

So are you opposed to any and all types of gun control, or do you have other ideas that you would support?

At work, I'm not allowed to pick apart a problem unless I also offer an alternative solution. There are too many people stating what won't work. So do you have any thoughts on what would work?

1. Your policy at work is comparable to not being allowed to pull the fire alarm unless you are a certified firefighter with available firefighting equipment. One of the things that I loved when I worked at Fedex Home Delivery was that I could identify a problem and try to get it addressed before it had major impact even if I did not have enough information to resolve it myself. Of course if I had a possible solution I presented it, but usually identifying a problem put me in the collaboration loop with people higher on the geek food chain than I was. I really miss that job. [That's one of my soapbox issues with companies run by MBAs with a degree and no actual thinking ability or sense. "If you try to identify a problem that you can't solve yourself you're just a whiner." Okay fine, moron, I'll go buy some hotdogs for the coming weenie roast while you scratch your head and try to figure out why your company's burning down.]

2. Some of us have offered the solution of abiding by the Constitution, which is the law that all other laws of the United States must adhere to, (at least at the Federal level), and you just don't accept that as a solution.

 

[Alithis]

red's above, sounds like a contradiction.:o

So if God allows illness, we can seek a doctor. So why can't we seek a gun?

your right ,we "can" seek a doctor ...of course an even better course of action is to seek God and the right thing to do is seek God FIRST ... and the lord may say ..go see a doctor ,or he may say go see your elders ..or he may say whatever is his perfect will for that situation and he may say it in a myriad of differing ways to differing people.

and so it is with anything in our lives .. seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness ....

 

[jiminpa]

your right ,we "can" seek a doctor ...of course an even better course of action is to seek God and the right thing to do is seek God FIRST ... and the lord may say ..go see a doctor ,or he may say go see your elders ..or he may say whatever is his perfect will for that situation and he may say it in a myriad of differing ways to differing people.

and so it is with anything in our lives .. seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness ....

You know, I think most of us have already agreed with that approach. Seeking God and doing what He tells us is pretty much what Pentecostals/Charismatics believe in doing in all things. Sometimes we don't all hear as clearly as we would like, and hopefully we have a God-given gameplan already in place at those times. That gameplan doesn't have to be the same for all of us. God's big enough to have a different plan for each of us, and to manage that plan at all times.

 

[Alithis]

You know, I think most of us have already agreed with that approach. Seeking God and doing what He tells us is pretty much what Pentecostals/Charismatics believe in doing in all things. Sometimes we don't all hear as clearly as we would like, and hopefully we have a God-given gameplan already in place at those times. That gameplan doesn't have to be the same for all of us. God's big enough to have a different plan for each of us, and to manage that plan at all times.

yes ,well,it should be our approach. buts its a long thread ,if you scroll back you find some were so determined to defend their earthen carnal right to have a gun ,it came across as if God has no say in it and was incapable of looking out for us.
even the term "gameplan" is just excusing oneself by giving it a general nature and attempting to exclude oneself from personal responsibility in relationship with God.

 

[now faith]

Yes, but at least 2 people on this thread believe those background checks to be "unconstitutional".



Godwin's law proved true once again.

Sounds like you have been around a few debates
Do you post much in the WOF forum?

 

[now faith]

I'm not sure if "crazy guy" is determiend plant a bomb how someone with a gun would be able to stop him. Chances are, "crazy guy" is going to covertly plant his bomb. He's not going to advertise that he has a bomb so that someone with a gun can stop him.

Likewise, if "crazy guy" decides to drive full speed into a parade of people, someone with a gun would have to be pretty darn fast and an absolutely amazing shot to stop the damage any sooner than if they did not have a gun.



Agreed.

However, this argument seems to be predicated upon the fact that people don't need guns to inflict damage, so why should we limit a criminal's ability to acquire a gun since they can cause plenty of damage without them?

Hopefully we agree that giving someone prone to criminal behavior a gun is a bad idea. Background checks can help in this regard. No, it will not eliminate criminal activity, but it also will not prevent any "good guys" from being able to obtain firearms.

Agreed!
Not infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Hypothetical Question:
During the cold war if guns would have been banned in America,do you think the Soviets
Along with allies would have invaded the U.S ?
As well with our major cities falling under occupation in short order,would that have stopped a counter nuclear response from US?

Do you think it would be impossible to put foreign troops here with millions of armed citizens
Engaging them with guerilla warfare along side our conventional troops?

Quite frankly a Marshall law inforced gun ban would open a wide door for invasion.
I don't think Obama can compete with Putin's aggressive and experienced tactics.

Banning guns is a liberal altruistic ideal,with no consideration of the world theater.

 

[now faith]

A bit off topic but Australia would be in the mix.
Russia seeks to gain wealth by supporting Palestine to destroy Israel
Russia forges a deal with China to provide arms for battle.
Considering China's economy and ability with their manpower it could be over in a month.
The US debt to China would prohibit economic sanctions against them.
The US gives the green light to Israel to use short range nuclear weapons.
The Pope outwardly condemns the US.
Consider the massive amounts of illegal immigrants from Mexico residing here.
They are for the most part Catholic,by means of propaganda and promises the illegals begin a civil war
Right here.
Our military has been cut to the bone and is bogged down in Afghanistan.
Russia invades Israel.
To top it off right before it all begins Marshall law is enforced here and Americans are unarmed.

This may be a fictional circumstance,or Armageddon.
it's ironic I do not own guns due to raising children,but I can see the purpose in them.
God Bless I'm out for now.

 

[Biblicist]

The OT is still scripture and was inspired by the same God as the NT, and He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Okay, so the next time that the elders of a given congregation discover that a congregational member is committing adultery, then maybe they could swap the obligatory stoning (no need for prayer) for that of a firing-squad.

I have no doubt that every Christian gun owner would be thrilled to see any debate over gun ownership being based under the Old Covenant. The problem is that the OT provides a wealth of evidence for the legitimacy of using lethal force but things are not so clear in New Testament.

 

[Biblicist]

OK. So are you opposed to any and all types of gun control, or do you have other ideas that you would support?

As I’m sitting in a very comfortable and safe suburban environment on the other side of the ocean, I need to answer your question as if I was living in a US residential area where many of my neighbours were not only private gun owners but who also valued open carrying on the occasion. But thankfully I am not residing in what could be a fairly charged environment so it will allow me to probably be a bit more open, where others may feel that they need to be a bit restrained with their answers.

So are you opposed to any and all types of gun control, or do you have other ideas that you would support?

Wow! Even as an Australian I can appreciate the enormity of this question but I would agree that in theory that I would not be opposed to appropriate background measures. But of course I have inserted “in theory” into my answer which needs some clarification. In my previous post I provided a number of reasons why I thought that gun control measures and particularly character checks would not work and I could see how the various State police and other para-military agencies would begin to harass local citizens under the guise of colour of law.

As much as I would love to believe that certain gun control measures would work, I seriously doubt that this would be the case, so at this stage, I would have to give a resounding no.
If there were some viable options I could certainly change my mind but nothing that I have read regarding gun controls over the past few months seems viable. I would go as far to say that if gun control Amendments were made to the US Constitution that it would only serve to push the US further into a state where it is governed not by the Constitution but by martial law.

At work, I'm not allowed to pick apart a problem unless I also offer an alternative solution. There are too many people stating what won't work. So do you have any thoughts on what would work?

Is there a viable solution, well that’s a tough one but I guess that each individual American citizen could maybe ensure that their para-military forces first abide by the Constitution which is why I see individuals open carrying to be a way of reinforcing your Constitutional Rights. From what I have been observing, this seems to be something many of your police forces only give lip service to.

I agree with one US commentator who said that the problem is not guns but with the wickedness of the human heart which of course is something that only the Body of Christ in the US can properly address; but it can be legitimately asked, is the Church in the USA still equipped for this task or are there too many congregational members who are maybe more interested in obtaining the latest new car and home?

 

[Biblicist]

Agreed!
Not infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Hypothetical Question:
During the cold war if guns would have been banned in America,do you think the Soviets
Along with allies would have invaded the U.S ?
As well with our major cities falling under occupation in short order,would that have stopped a counter nuclear response from US?

Do you think it would be impossible to put foreign troops here with millions of armed citizens
Engaging them with guerilla warfare along side our conventional troops?

Quite frankly a Marshall law inforced gun ban would open a wide door for invasion.
I don't think Obama can compete with Putin's aggressive and experienced tactics.

Banning guns is a liberal altruistic ideal,with no consideration of the world theater.

I'm not all that sure that private gun ownership would have been a factor for the old Soviet Union during the cold war; I suspect that they were more concerned with the thousands of land based nuclear missiles that were pointed in their direction along with the numerous submarine missile launchers that were prowling the oceans around Russia.

The idea of the US being invaded by anyone is probably a bit dated as there would not be anyone willing to undertake such a foolhardy adventure. From my perspective, I feel that NATO should be abolished as there is no longer a need for Europe to protect itself from anyone.

 

[probinson]

[That's one of my soapbox issues with companies run by MBAs with a degree and no actual thinking ability or sense. "If you try to identify a problem that you can't solve yourself you're just a whiner." Okay fine, moron, I'll go buy some hotdogs for the coming weenie roast while you scratch your head and try to figure out why your company's burning down.]

Actually, our policy at work has done a remarkable job of creating problem solvers instead of fault finders. You don't have to have THE solution for a problem. You have to have A solution for a problem, and it doesn't even have to be a full, comprehensive solution. It causes a paradigm shift in the way people think when implemented properly. IOW, instead of just picking something apart and pointing out everything that's wrong, that won't work, etc. (which anyone can very easily do), we're looking for people who look beyond the problems to figure out ways to actually address the issues as opposed to just complaining about them.

If someone constantly points out faults but never has any solutions, then even though I have no MBA to speak of, I would tend to agree that such people are whiners.

2. Some of us have offered the solution of abiding by the Constitution, which is the law that all other laws of the United States must adhere to, (at least at the Federal level), and you just don't accept that as a solution.

But we've already talked about how there are varying interpretations of that second amendment. For example, you adamantly believe that the second amendment is first for protection from the government, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the text. The text of the second amendment simply says;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
​

It says absolutely nothing about being instituted for protection from the government, and in fact it's actually referring to a well regulated Milita. It amazes me how people will fight for a literal interpretation of the phrase "shall not be infringed" yet have no problem adding to it that it's for protection from the government.

Now you've explained why you believe this amendment was written for protection from the government which may well be accurate, but in doing so, you've moved from the literal reading that you say you want to an interpretation of the founding father's intent. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I don't for one minute think that the founding father's wrote the second amendment so that we would just hand out guns willy nilly to anyone who had enough money to purchase one. As the amendment reads, they thought the right to bear arms was necessary to the security of a free state. When someone uses those guns to threaten the security of a free state, then their "right" no longer exists. But there is no way to even attempt to ascertain what someone intends to do with those guns if there are absolutely no controls in place.

 

[probinson]

Sounds like you have been around a few debates
Do you post much in the WOF forum?

Years ago I used to, but not so much any more.

 

[probinson]

Agreed!
Not infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Hypothetical Question:
During the cold war if guns would have been banned in America,do you think the Soviets
Along with allies would have invaded the U.S ?
As well with our major cities falling under occupation in short order,would that have stopped a counter nuclear response from US?

Do you think it would be impossible to put foreign troops here with millions of armed citizens
Engaging them with guerilla warfare along side our conventional troops?

Quite frankly a Marshall law inforced gun ban would open a wide door for invasion.
I don't think Obama can compete with Putin's aggressive and experienced tactics.

Banning guns is a liberal altruistic ideal,with no consideration of the world theater.

I know there are groups out there that want to "ban" guns, but that is not my position. Most people on my side of this debate aren't looking to "ban" anyone from owning guns. We are simply looking for common sense controls to be universally enforced in an effort to help keep guns away from people who should not have them.

Yes, I realize that people don't need guns to do damage, and yes, I realize that opinions and common sense solutions are trumped by the Constitution, but I think it is absolutely foolish to pretend like guns in the hands of the wrong person aren't dangerous and to just throw up our hands and pretend like NOTHING can be done to help reduce this problem.

However, as I said earlier in the thread, I honestly don't beleive we'll ever see any progress toward any common sense gun control in my life time.

 

[probinson]

I have no doubt that every Christian gun owner would be thrilled to see any debate over gun ownership being based under the Old Covenant. The problem is that the OT provides a wealth of evidence for the legitimacy of using lethal force but things are not so clear in New Testament.

The old refrain "God is the same yesterday, today and forever" is often used and that's a true statement. However, while God has not changed, His covenant with us has changed. Drastically.

The use of lethal force for "self-defense" is not so clear under the New Covenant. I'm pretty convinced there is not a single directive scripture to support that position. Otherwise, one certainly would have been posted by now.

 

[probinson]

As I’m sitting in a very comfortable and safe suburban environment on the other side of the ocean, I need to answer your question as if I was living in a US residential area where many of my neighbours were not only private gun owners but who also valued open carrying on the occasion. But thankfully I am not residing in what could be a fairly charged environment so it will allow me to probably be a bit more open, where others may feel that they need to be a bit restrained with their answers.

Understood. I appreciate your perspective.

Wow! Even as an Australian I can appreciate the enormity of this question but I would agree that in theory that I would not be opposed to appropriate background measures. But of course I have inserted “in theory” into my answer which needs some clarification. In my previous post I provided a number of reasons why I thought that gun control measures and particularly character checks would not work and I could see how the various State police and other para-military agencies would begin to harass local citizens under the guise of colour of law.

As much as I would love to believe that certain gun control measures would work, I seriously doubt that this would be the case, so at this stage, I would have to give a resounding no.
If there were some viable options I could certainly change my mind but nothing that I have read regarding gun controls over the past few months seems viable. I would go as far to say that if gun control Amendments were made to the US Constitution that it would only serve to push the US further into a state where it is governed not by the Constitution but by martial law.

Is there a viable solution, well that’s a tough one but I guess that each individual American citizen could maybe ensure that their para-military forces first abide by the Constitution which is why I see individuals open carrying to be a way of reinforcing your Constitutional Rights. From what I have been observing, this seems to be something many of your police forces only give lip service to.

It is indeed a big question, and I don't pretend otherwise. However, it seems to me that too many people are absolutely unwilling to even attempt to find a solution and I find that troubling.

I agree with one US commentator who said that the problem is not guns but with the wickedness of the human heart which of course is something that only the Body of Christ in the US can properly address; but it can be legitimately asked, is the Church in the USA still equipped for this task or are there too many congregational members who are maybe more interested in obtaining the latest new car and home?

I also agree that the problem is wickedness of the human heart, but to use that as an excuse to not do ANYTHING at all in the practical sense is, IMO, not wise.