Why do some Christians defend 2nd amend over lives?

[civilwarbuff]

Perhaps you are right - let's test something . (re "the most vulnerable one we have") ...

There might not even be anything to test - I don't know yet - but if we can ,
here it is :

Are the american people given any true and constitutional protection concerning freedom from corporations controlling the medical industry ?

i.e. Is there ANYTHING in the constitution or other laws, that offer any kind of protection in this regard ?

The comparison (re vulnerability) here is, if there is any legal / constitutional protection in this regard,
then it
and not the right to bear arms
is the one that not only was most vulnerable,
but was done away with already.

You argument was nonsensical......

 

[Ubogion]

when God get back to smiting business i stop protecting family then

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Who is advocating for automatic rifles? Semi- Auto, yeah.....might want to learn the difference....

Mute point, if saving lives is the goal.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You argument was nonsensical......

Too bad. I was hoping you, or someone else, would know of some constitutional or legal protection for the american public
from something that kills over ten times as many people as guns. (best guess how many)

 

[civilwarbuff]

Too bad. I was hoping you, or someone else, would know of some constitutional or legal protection for the american public
from something that kills over ten times as many people as guns. (best guess how many)

Try rephrasing the question in a way that makes sense and not in a way to force a certain answer.....

 

[miamited]

This may have already been said but I believe the 2nd Amdendment is the most vulnerable one we have, especially in today's atmosphere. My concern is if you can essentially nullify the 2nd by legislation/court opinion then the rest of the Amendments also become vulnerable. If we get to the point where the 2nd can be "ignored" what happens when religion offends someone?....Limit what can be preached. The press offends politicians?..... muzzle them. Don't like protests?....arrest them. People may say that will never happen? Look at the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The federal govt. has grabbed all the power it can.....and it is not stopping here.

Hi CWB,

So, your position is that doing away with a bad part of our constitution would open the door to people starting to make all kinds of changes to our founding documents. I can understand that and suggesting that we repeal the 2nd amendment isn't something that I enter into or take lightly. I too, have great respect for our constitution and all that it stands for, but...

If that's really the thing that's keeping us from doing the right thing in this matter of firearms control, then is it still a good law? Friend, there are laws that change all the time and this part of our constitution is nothing more than a law by which we have established a practice of our country. But laws come and go with change and technology. Go ahead and look up archaic laws on our books.

Now, most of these laws don't present problems because what they are set up to prevent just isn't happening much anymore and so no one cares. These laws get written off in time.

When our founding forefathers established our constitution, we were living in a time where many governments were tyrannical and, of course, the most dangerous firearm was a muzzle loaded shotgun or long pistol. That's pretty much changed around the world. Most governments of industrialized nations now understand and recognize that it's the people over which they govern that they are set in place to protect and serve.

Today a government wouldn't dare to take the position of Marie Antoinette in telling the starving masses to go out and eat cake. So, my position is that just like the laws that once littered our books about tying up your horse before entering a saloon, this right to bear arms has become a very, very dangerous right and needs to be addressed.

I'm just not willing to say that a bad law should stay on the books just because I'm afraid that if we mess with one we'll start messing with all of them. I certainly don't think that other constitutional amendments get as much publicity as the 2nd and, of course, it takes a major agreement of our legislature and a large majority of the states to make any change. I really doubt that just because we change one, then suddenly we're going to be sending out dozens of constitutional amendments to be changed. It's a big deal and it won't be taken lightly by anyone. This isn't like some Supreme Court Justice can just nullify a constitutional amendment.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[civilwarbuff]

So, your position is that doing away with a bad part of our constitution would open the door to people starting to make all kinds of changes to our founding documents.

Before I even read further please explain "bad part of our constitution"......

 

[civilwarbuff]

Hi CWB,

So, your position is that doing away with a bad part of our constitution would open the door to people starting to make all kinds of changes to our founding documents. I can understand that and suggesting that we repeal the 2nd amendment isn't something that I enter into or take lightly. I too, have great respect for our constitution and all that it stands for, but...

If that's really the thing that's keeping us from doing the right thing in this matter of firearms control, then is it still a good law? Friend, there are laws that change all the time and this part of our constitution is nothing more than a law by which we have established a practice of our country. But laws come and go with change and technology. Go ahead and look up archaic laws on our books.

Now, most of these laws don't present problems because what they are set up to prevent just isn't happening much anymore and so no one cares. These laws get written off in time.

When our founding forefathers established our constitution, we were living in a time where many governments were tyrannical and, of course, the most dangerous firearm was a muzzle loaded shotgun or long pistol. That's pretty much changed around the world. Most governments of industrialized nations now understand and recognize that it's the people over which they govern that they are set in place to protect and serve.

Today a government wouldn't dare to take the position of Marie Antoinette in telling the starving masses to go out and eat cake. So, my position is that just like the laws that once littered our books about tying up your horse before entering a saloon, this right to bear arms has become a very, very dangerous right and needs to be addressed.

I'm just not willing to say that a bad law should stay on the books just because I'm afraid that if we mess with one we'll start messing with all of them. I certainly don't think that other constitutional amendments get as much publicity as the 2nd and, of course, it takes a major agreement of our legislature and a large majority of the states to make any change. I really doubt that just because we change one, then suddenly we're going to be sending out dozens of constitutional amendments to be changed. It's a big deal and it won't be taken lightly by anyone. This isn't like some Supreme Court Justice can just nullify a constitutional amendment.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You seem not to understand the difference between a "law" which can be changed at the discretion of a legislature and the Constitution which can only be changed by the people.....huge difference.

 

[miamited]

You seem not to understand the difference between a "law" which can be changed at the discretion of a legislature and the Constitution which can only be changed by the people.....huge difference.

Hi CWB,

No, I do get it. As a matter of fact I wrote what is required to change a constitutional amendment. I agreed that it was something not to be taken lightly, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do. I don't understand how you could have read my post and come away with some idea that I don't seem to understand this 'huge' difference you're talking about. It's exactly because it is such a huge difference that we shouldn't have to worry that making a change to one would open up changes to all the others. We have added constitutional amendments several times in our history. I understand completely.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Before I even read further please explain "bad part of our constitution"......

Hi CWB,

That's ok, you don't have to read further if you don't want to. After all of this discussion if you can't figure out what I mean when I say 'bad part of our constitution', and in light of your last post claiming that 'I don't seem to understand the difference between changing a law and changing a constitutional amendment', it would appear that I'm not speaking your language. I would, therefore, imagine it's a waste of your time to read any further.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[civilwarbuff]

Hi CWB,

No, I do get it. As a matter of fact I wrote what is required to change a constitutional amendment. I agreed that it was something not to be taken lightly, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do. I don't understand how you could have read my post and come away with some idea that I don't seem to understand this 'huge' difference you're talking about. It's exactly because it is such a huge difference that we shouldn't have to worry that making a change to one would open up changes to all the others. We have added constitutional amendments several times in our history. I understand completely.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Because you refer to the Constitution as a "law"; so no, I don't believe you really understand the Constitution if it is just a "law".

 

[4x4toy]

If you believe that the Constitution was God inspired like others do and I do then keep your filthy hands off of it .. It was intended to give a Godly nation of people who could govern themselves from Godly principles from within .. You have the right to or not to bear arms so don't worry about my right .. You have already allowed abortion and removal of God from our schools and now almost any mention of God .. Cowards did not win our freedom but cowards want to take it away ...

 

[miamited]

If you believe that the Constitution was God inspired like others do and I do then keep your filthy hands off of it .. It was intended to give a Godly nation of people who could govern themselves from Godly principles from within .. You have the right to or not to bear arms so don't worry about my right .. You have already allowed abortion and removal of God from our schools and now almost any mention of God .. Cowards did not win our freedom but cowards want to take it away ...

Hi 4x4,

Why would anyone think that our constitution was God inspired? Most governments have articles of agreement that state the 'what', 'when' and 'how' of the running of an ongoing government. It's ok that you think me a coward, I've been called a lot worse.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

the clincher: greed is bad.

 

[miamited]

Because you refer to the Constitution as a "law"; so no, I don't believe you really understand the Constitution if it is just a "law".

Hi CWB,

The constitution is the law on which our government rests. Frankly, I don't think you understand what the constitution is. Here it is explained in black and white by legal definition for you. I hope this is in your language.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Constitution



God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[chandraclaws]

Have you read about "people" even just in the Bible ?
They're not peaceable, kind, generous, wise, etc etc etc .....
They are subject to the prince of the power of the air(the devil) until and IF Redeemed(even believers are).

So we need to be able to gun them down 50 bullets at a time?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So we need to be able to gun them down 50 bullets at a time?

What the Bible says ?
Or Foxes Book of Martyrs ?
We are as harmless as doves (we who belong to Jesus).
That never changes.

 

[4x4toy]

So we need to be able to gun them down 50 bullets at a time?

Mark 3:27 .. How many are there , obviously you wouldn't be there to help reload .. Think of guns as vaccines against harmful bacteria on a different level , you go to the Dr. to preserve your life , right , we even have Obama care ? .. There was a time when you could challenge a liar to a duel , don't you think that was a great way to keep liars more honest and quiet ? Straight and to the point .. You could even trust Bible school more back then . Do you give terrorists or thugs what they demand today and expect it to be over .. You think this or the next generation will offer hope without God ?

But when they succeed at getting the guns of law abiding citizens , what's next ?

 

[chandraclaws]

Who is advocating for automatic rifles? Semi- Auto, yeah.....might want to learn the difference....

But really, who cares? They're both unnecessary and ridiculous.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Hi CWB,

The constitution is the law on which our government rests. Frankly, I don't think you understand what the constitution is. Here it is explained in black and white by legal definition for you. I hope this is in your language.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Constitution



God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

law
lô/
noun
1.
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
Please show me where the Constitution conforms to the definition of "Law".