Why do some Christians defend 2nd amend over lives?

chandraclaws said:

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

Click to expand...

What semi-auto weapon fires 50 bullets?

chandraclaws said:

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

Click to expand...

Explain.....

civilwarbuff said:

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".

Click to expand...

Hi CWB,

Well, doesn't the country or community recognize the 2nd amendment to the constitution as regulating the actions of its members? If either a local or national jurisdiction were to attempt to make laws which abridge the 2nd amendment might they not be taken to court for 'breaking the law'? The imposition of fines or penalties of some sort is listed as an 'option' allowed for breaking the law and not a definite part of the understanding of 'law'.

'...and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.'

People and government entities are taken to court fairly regularly for abridging the 'laws' established through our constitution. Right now there is a battle going on in our legislature that has been taken to the Supreme Court that the healthcare act is unconstitutional. The city of New York, when they first enacted their sweeping firearms laws, was challenged in court over the constitutionality of the new laws.

Anyway, you aren't obligated in any way to read my posts. And you are free to explain your reason as being that you don't think that I understand what the constitution is. It's ok with me.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

civilwarbuff said:

What semi-auto weapon fires 50 bullets?

Click to expand...

Hi CWB,

I know! I know! Call on me, I know!

Any semi-automatic or automatic weapon for which the person operating has at hand 50 rounds is capable of firing those 50 rounds fairly rapidly. And, if the operator has a mega clip that holds 50 rounds, can do so without reloading.

Tell him what he's won, Johnny!

You see, I've done my time in the military. I've fired the M16A1 in both semi-auto and auto modes. One can go through 50 rounds pretty quickly, although full auto mode does the job much quicker, but is difficult to aim accurately.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I asked WHICH one does that? Can you name one that is sold which handles 50 rounds in one loading? I have never seen any thing over 30 that is legal to sell on the civilian market. We are not talking about something that requires special licenses just something the average person can purchase.

Ah, there is one......
http://www.auto-ordnance.com/Firearms/Thompson-T150DCR.asp
I retract my question.....

civilwarbuff said:

Ah, there is one......
http://www.auto-ordnance.com/Firearms/Thompson-T150DCR.asp
I retract my question.....

Click to expand...

Hi CWB,

Yes, well, if you'd really do the research concerning much that has been discussed in this thread, of course I'll understand if you don't want to read my posts because, 'I don't understand the constitution', you may find there are some other ideas and understandings that you're just wrong about.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

Hi CWB,

Yes, well, if you'd really do the research concerning much that has been discussed in this thread, of course I'll understand if you don't want to read my posts because, 'I don't understand the constitution', you may find there are some other ideas and understandings that you're just wrong about.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

We will just agree to disagree......

Hi all,

As most of you know if you've been following along with these posts, I'm advocating for the removal of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I believe that it is an amendment which no longer serves the purpose for which it was created and that it is now being used as a hammer to maintain the rampant death from firearms that our country 'enjoys'.

I was moved this morning in my thoughts to actually sit back and read the amendment and it seems to me that my position can be supported by the very amendment itself. Here it is:

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.

Maybe the framers of our constitution are wiser than I've given them credit for. They clearly state that the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon is that the state (federal government) will be able to maintain a well regulated militia.

In that day, that was a fine goal. There wasn't any standing army to speak of that could be called out at a moments notice. If the federal government felt the need to protect people on a national level, then all they had available to them was the general population. A call would be made for all able bodied men to bring their weapons and come fight for whatever national cause was in harms way.

Today, however, we have a well regulated militia that is paid and provided by our federal government. We have a very large and highly trained force which consists of the branches of army, navy, air force, marines and coast guard. They have the finest weapons and military hardware that is available on the face of the earth. There is no nation on this earth which can boast a larger or better trained military force than the well regulated militia that comprises the U.S. military.

I believe the time to change that part of our constitution has arrived. It wouldn't be an issue today except for the fact that wicked men now use that hammer to destroy rather than protect our nation. Now, instead of having the safest and most secure nation for the general citizenry, we have used the 2nd amendment to become the most dangerous and deadly nation for our citizenry.

Let's stop the killing. Let's be sensible men and women and take a stand that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not being used for the betterment and protection of our nation by a 'well regulated militia', but rather is being used to prevent our lawmakers from doing anything substantive to protect the citizens of this great nation to the best of their abilities.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

That's all been argued out in the courts, Ted. But if you think that amending the Constitution again would be advisable, I don't see any reason why you can't put your energies into that project just like dozens of other political movements that are interested in their own causes go at their lobbying, petitioning, and so on.

Albion said:

That's all been argued out in the courts, Ted. But if you think that amending the Constitution again would be advisable, I don't see any reason why you can't put your energies into that project just like dozens of other political movements that are interested in their own causes go at their lobbying, petitioning, and so on.

Click to expand...

Something tells me there would not be a groundswell of support for repealing the 2nd Amendment outside leftists, anarchists and funding by terrorists......

Albion said:

That's all been argued out in the courts, Ted. But if you think that amending the Constitution again would be advisable, I don't see any reason why you can't put your energies into that project just like dozens of other political movements that are interested in their own causes go at their lobbying, petitioning, and so on.

Click to expand...

Hi albion,

Thanks, but I've got plenty on my plate and working out a cause such as this takes a lot of time, effort and money. Send money!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

civilwarbuff said:

Something tells me there would not be a groundswell of support for repealing the 2nd Amendment outside leftists, anarchists and funding by terrorists......

Click to expand...

Hi CWB,

You could be right. After all, the truth of the Scriptures is only believed by a few also. Truth is often not a popular thing. Jesus said that few there be that find the way to eternal life. Even though we (born again believers) know it's the truth, there apparently won't be many to follow it.

I imagine that you're right. We will continue to be the most murderous nation on the face of the earth because we have this fine heavy hammer with which to support the continued deadly carnage.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

Hi CWB,

You could be right. After all, the truth of the Scriptures is only believed by a few also. Truth is often not a popular thing.

Click to expand...

Whoa. The impasse in this thread IMHO has been because you would prefer doing away with the second amendment and most of us would rather that such a thing didn't happen. We each have our own preferences.

To now switch into talking as though the POV of either one of those is hostile to "truth" and/or analogous to believing in divine revelation (!) seems way beyond the pale.

miamited said:

Hi albion,

Thanks, but I've got plenty on my plate and working out a cause such as this takes a lot of time, effort and money. Send money!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

So, you don't believe in your own cause enough to invest your own time and money. I suspected as much.

For my own part, I don't buy into the false dichotomy: "One can either support life or support the Second Amendment." I support both. And, I support the Second Amendment because I support life. In fact, I support the Second Amendment enough to invest hundreds of hours of volunteer time every year and thousands of dollars of financial support.

I don't think you actually believe in your cause because you aren't willing to do anything about it (other than argue on an Internet forum). On the other hand, I believe so strongly in my cause that I would be willing to die in support of it. That is why the Second Amendment continues to stand.

Again you fail , your militia wants our firearms or else they would be defending the Constitution , but the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed period .. Why don't you fix some sandwiches and go to your local drug hangout and feed the drug addicts or start a free speech 1rst amendment support group to free us from political correctness laws .. Cain took a mark and he was protected from being murdered , Abel should have been packing heat .. Take the mark or pack some heat ..

Hi mudinyeri,

You responded:

Mudinyeri said:

So, you don't believe in your own cause enough to invest your own time and money. I suspected as much.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! We can all have opinions and understandings of things and believe our position quite vehemently and not feel called upon to tackle the world over it. I'm sorry if I somehow gave you the impression that I was going to march on Washington this weekend.

It's good that you invest so much time and money for your causes. Some people find that to be their reason for being. Political activism is a strong force among some people all over the world.

I'm more of a believer who understands that this isn't my home. I have my understandings of how things might work better, but it really isn't my job to go out and change them for the temporary time that I am visiting here.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

4x4toy said:

Again you fail , your militia wants our firearms or else they would be defending the Constitution , but the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed period .. Why don't you fix some sandwiches and go to your local drug hangout and feed the drug addicts or start a free speech 1rst amendment support group to free us from political correctness laws .. Cain took a mark and he was protected from being murdered , Abel should have been packing heat .. Take the mark or pack some heat ..

Click to expand...

Hi 4x4,

Right! Well, there is always that position.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Albion said:

Whoa. The impasse in this thread IMHO has been because you would prefer doing away with the second amendment and most of us would rather that such a thing didn't happen. We each have our own preferences.

To now switch into talking as though the POV of either one of those is hostile to "truth" and/or analogous to believing in divine revelation (!) seems way beyond the pale.

Click to expand...

Hi albion,

Well, there is a truth here that needs to be determined and that I have proposed.

I believe it is true that tough limitations on ownership and possession of firearms by the general public does reduce homicide firearms deaths.

I have provided supporting evidence that seems to show that this position is true. So, yes, there is a matter of what is the truth that we need to determine. Whether we do anything about it or not isn't at issue as far as the claim being true or not true.

If the claim is true, then we can do something about all the senseless death and carnage inflicted across our nation by people owning and possessing firearms by taking them away, if reducing this morbidly high annual death count is something that we really want to do.

But don't be fooled here. There is a matter of truth that needs to be worked out before we can even begin to sway peoples ideas about firearms ownership in this country. If we can made a definitive determination that strict firearms restrictions do reduce homicide by firearm deaths, then all those, such as the many on this thread who make the claim that such laws wouldn't have any impact would be silenced. They can still believe what they believe, but it just wouldn't be the truth that they believed.

I've said it many times and I'll likely say it another hundred times before the Lord calls me home: What the born again believer seeks is the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted