Why do some Christians defend 2nd amend over lives?

[Mudinyeri]

Hi mudinyeri,
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.

Since you're talking about taking away my natural rights, I'm forever grateful.

 

[Albion]

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 by "truth" you mean only "the conclusion that I, Ted, have arrived at," I understand, even though I think it's a little much to demand that what one person thinks is the truth must be agreed to by everyone else. But be that as it may, here's what I read:

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.

There's a lot of "God's on my side" mixed in with simply saying "I think I've proved my case about gun deaths," if you ask me.

 

[Circle Christ]

I think the most zealous anti-gun persons are easy to figure out if you listen to their rhetoric. It's rather simple really and especially when it happens to be a non-government public figure doing the talking.

They don't trust you, the community you not any one in particular, to have a gun.
While very often those with a high profile and lots of material worth do believe they should either own guns in order to protect said wealth. Or retain security that is armed to do that.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

They don't trust you, the community you not any one in particular, to have a gun.

Well, I see a lot of people walking around with guns on their hip (it's legal here ),
and I don't know that I trust any of them .....

 

[miamited]

Hi albion,

No! Absolutely not. I'm not so fickle as to think that I'm always right or that only I know the truth. Jesus said there would be few that find the way to eternal life, not just one. So, I know that there are others who know the truth. And by the use of the word 'truth', I mean to say what is the reality of what is.

As I wrote in the post that you are responding to, there is a truth in this matter. It doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe or what anyone else believes; there is a truth. Is it true that such restrictions as are being discussed here do reduce firearms homicide deaths or is it not true?

Doesn't matter what I believe or you believe. Is the claim true? Now, what I believe or what you believe may sway us in our position as to whether or not we believe the claim to be true, but there is a truth that answers the question.

You also responded:

There's a lot of "God's on my side" mixed in with simply saying "I think I've proved my case about gun deaths," if you ask me.

No. You mistook the inference from my statement. The point is that, according to Jesus, most people don't know the truth about the things of God and I believe that also carries over to a lot of other things. All I'm saying is that there is a truth to the claim of whether or not strict firearms restrictions reduce homicide by firearm. It is either a true statement or it is not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

No! Absolutely not. I'm not so fickle as to think that I'm always right or that only I know the truth. Jesus said there would be few that find the way to eternal life, not just one. So, I know that there are others who know the truth. And by the use of the word 'truth', I mean to say what is the reality of what is.

As I wrote in the post that you are responding to, there is a truth in this matter. It doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe or what anyone else believes; there is a truth. Is it true that such restrictions as are being discussed here do reduce firearms homicide deaths or is it not true?

A number of people here seem to think it's not true, and I am not at all persuaded that you can take some Australian statistics and slap them on the American situation. Not at all, especially when the states and cities which have the most stringent anti-gun laws already have not experienced a solving of the problem. Maybe more important, there are so many variables that it is impossible to say with any certainty what doing away with the second amendment would produce.

All I'm saying is that there is a truth to the claim of whether or not strict firearms restrictions reduce homicide by firearm. It is either a true statement or it is not.

It IS either true or not. The fact is, however, that we do not know which one it is.

 

[Mudinyeri]

... I am not at all persuaded that you can take some Australian statistics and slap them on the American situation.

You CAN'T. I just went into some detail as to why not in one of the many similar threads on this topic.

Two words: Inductive Reasoning

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, I see a lot of people walking around with guns on their hip (it's legal here ),
and I don't know that I trust any of them .....

But how many of these people have shot at you or anyone else?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But how many of these people have shot at you or anyone else?

I don't stick around long enough to count them.....!

 

[chandraclaws]

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.

So it can only blow people away 30 bullets at at a time? Oh, well then. These guns still have absolutely no purpose but to shoot and kill people. . .

 

[civilwarbuff]

So it can only blow people away 30 bullets at at a time? Oh, well then. These guns still have absolutely no purpose but to shoot and kill people. . .

Preferably bad guys.....

 

[chandraclaws]

Explain.....

Seriously. Automatic or semi-automatic guns are designed for active combat, and of course blowing crowds of innocent people away quickly in clubs and colleges, mass murdering people in theaters or killing lots of children in schools. What possible legitimate use would they have? Keeping them on hand to kill the government with seems a little premeditated, not to mention paranoid.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Seriously. Automatic or semi-automatic guns are designed for active combat, and of course blowing crowds of innocent people away quickly in clubs and colleges, mass murdering people in theaters or killing lots of children in schools. What possible legitimate use would they have? Keeping them on hand to kill the government with seems a little premeditated, not to mention paranoid.

But if the bad guys have them why should I only be allowed a muzzle loader? Why should I legally be forced into a disadvantage?

 

[graceandpeace]

To try and protect the rights of someone not to be shot, by removing the right to bear arms, ultimately undermines the rights of everyone not to be shot.

Please re-read the OP & post #62.

"Oh, there is a protest we don't like... let's just shoot them!" If a government sufficiently controls the police and military, this can happen. We see it around the world.

Yet if the local population is permitted to bear their own arms and form their own militias, it is a thornier situation for government to shoot and abuse its constituency. Doing it when they bear arms can lead to civil war, and so the government remains answerable to some degree because of the threat of civil war.

The US boasts the most powerful military force in the world, funded & supported by our tax dollars. There is simply no possible way a handful of states or "good guys with guns" will stop or deter the US military machine. It's just not possible, & it's too late to go back.

The whole liberal mindset only makes sense if we assume our government is always beneavolent and they can always successfully bear arms for the population.

They assume government would never be that corrupt.... but what about people like Donald Trump? Why can't he just appoint himself dictator after replacing all the high ranking generals in the military? If the military wants that sort of coup even, then you have a huge problem. Yet if you have armed citizenry, or even armed state militias, it's a much more problematic issue because you have to deal with policing your own country heavily before coups can just unilaterally be enforced.

Again, it's too late. The US military machine is more powerful than the country's citizens, guns or no guns.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The US boasts the most powerful military force in the world, funded & supported by our tax dollars. There is simply no possible way a handful of states or "good guys with guns" will stop or deter the US military machine. It's just not possible, & it's too late to go back.

Oh, I don't know about that. The Vietnamese did a pretty good job of doing just that. They continually chipped away until we gave up and left......We have been in the ME for about 15 years.....still fighting the same people.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Oh, I don't know about that. The Vietnamese did a pretty good job of doing just that. They continually chipped away until we gave up and left......We have been in the ME for about 15 years.....still fighting the same people.

Those who make unequivocal statements about Second Amendment supporters not being able to stand up to the "military might" of the United States' do not understand the military. They do not understand the 3%. They do not understand asymmetrical warfare. They do not understand what happened during the Revolutionary War.

 

[miamited]

Since you're talking about taking away my natural rights, I'm forever grateful.

Hi mudinyeri,

You're joking of course, right? Natural rights? What 'natural right' am I talking about taking away from you?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

You see, that's another thing I don't get. You guys in the 'I want my firearm' camp throw around, what seems to me, a bunch of lame ideas and excuses to support your position.

One poster says that somehow there is a 'natural right' that is involved in this. Another tries to claim that the Constitution of the United States is somehow a work inspired by God. Another claims that there are no 50 round magazines and then does a mea culpa that, oops, oh yes there is.

And you expect people who really research this issue to take any of that seriously. To me, and I'm only speaking for myself, this sounds like a kindergarten playground argument about who's dad is toughest. A bunch of false claims and illogical statements to support an issue that without doubt causes the death of thousands of people every year. Dozens every day.

Really? And this is what it's supposed to look like as we follow Christ?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well miamited, I at least have the intellectual honesty to correct my statements when I discover I am wrong.....

Another claims that there are no 50 round magazines and then does a mea culpa that, oops, oh yes there is.

 

[Aldebaran]

You see, that's another thing I don't get. You guys in the 'I want my firearm' camp throw around, what seems to me, a bunch of lame ideas and excuses to support your position.

You seem to think the founders of this country just had a bunch of lame ideas when they created the constitution, which the basic structure has allowed 315 million people (at the current count) to live in the country that enjoys the most freedom in history. Yeah, pretty lame, isn't it? You don't seem to realize what you have and what the cost was to achieve or defend it.