Why do some Christians defend 2nd amend over lives?

[graceandpeace]

Are Christians not to protect themselves and their families?

Sure, Christians can protect their families, but I don't believe that means Christians or any other average citizens should own assault weapons that are more suited to a battlefield than a home.

 

[graceandpeace]

Just a friendly reminder ...

The OP does not call for all guns to be illegal. What I do believe is that some restrictions & regulations would reduce gun violence, without violating the 2nd Amendment.

Would it be enough? Honestly, probably not, because the more dramatic measures needed would probably not make it through Congress. However, I think movement in the right direction toward creating a safer, more peaceful society is something to champion as Christians. Even a slight reduction in gun violence ,through some appropriate measures, is something to achieve.

 

[Circle Christ]

Yes ? .... It was in answer to your question as you probably know.
And other Scriptures in other threads, as have many people.....

I have read where people do share passages to further their position in a discussion. What I am pointing out is that you introduced this particular passage, Romans 14, and are now backtracking on its meaning as pertains to your position.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The meaning of Romans 14 ? Just what do you think Romans 14 means ?
(I still think, as always, it means exactly what God says it means: never changed what I said -- why did you ? )

I have read where people do share passages to further their position in a discussion. What I am pointing out is that you introduced this particular passage, Romans 14, and are now backtracking on its meaning as pertains to your position.

 

[Razare]

Why do some followers of the Prince of Peace think it is more important to protect the right of someone to buy an assault rifle than it is to protect the rights of people to not be shot by a stranger?

Because the bearing of arms is the basis upon which national peace of the US democracy is built.

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. "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 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.

So it's liberals and modern society wanting to live in fairy tale land where guns are no longer needed because governments take care of us and would never hurt us. We could just stop being Christian and start worshiping our government? If it provides for us and is the basis of our protection, we should certainly give thanks to it during our mealtime instead of God.

 

[miamited]

Hi CC,

You responded:

The point of my statement being, gun control was very strict in France and yet that had nothing to do with stopping firearm massacres in France.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You try to show people that other nations have found a better way. The person you're talking to then comes up with some explanation that on Mars there's this thing that happened and so that means none of your claims are true or your effort will make any difference.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT STRICT FIREARMS CONTROLS WAS GOING TO STOP ANYONE FROM EVER DYING BY FIREARM HOMICIDE!!!!!!!!!

Yes, there are still going to be people that get past the effort, but not as often. My claim here is not that strict firearms regulations will stop any and all homicide by firearms death. My claim here is that it does greatly reduce the total number. Yes, the Charlie Hebdo and other few firearms homicides that France has had are certainly terrible events, but...

They don't have those events with anywhere near the regularity that we do. Their total homicide by firearms rate per 100,000 people is .21. That's point 21. That's less than 1//4th of 1 percent. By contrast our homicide by firearms rate stands at 3.43 per 100,000 people. Friend, do the math!!!! Even with their every once in a while firearms death; even with the Charlie Hebdo incident, the French enjoy a homicide firearms death rate that is 14 times less than ours. For every one of those deaths at the Charlie Hebdo paper, 14 people died in the U.S./100,000 people.

Let me repeat for those who just don't seem to be able to grasp simple explanations, I'm not bringing all this up because I think that stricter firearms controls will STOP homicides by firearms completely and absolutely and bring our rate to zero. I don't think that such a dream is even possible, but I'd be more than happy to listen to anyone who thinks that they have a plan for that, that is feasible.

So, please, get a thinking cap. The fact that in Paris there was a mass murder perpetrated with men who used firearms has absolutely no bearing on the intent of the discussion at hand. All I'm hoping to do is bring our homicide by firearms rate down under 1% or .5%. Do I expect that there will still be people who die in the U.S. by firearms under such restrictions? Yes!!! Absolutely!!! I've read the Scriptures. Man's heart is wicked! Who can know it?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi CC,

You also wrote:

If gun control laws worked to stop violence we would never read of a single incident of mass murder using firearms in any country where strict gun control laws are in place.

You really believe that's the truth, don't you?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[chandraclaws]

Why do some followers of the Prince of Peace think it is more important to protect the right of someone to buy an assault rifle than it is to protect the rights of people to not be shot by a stranger?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10440698.html?yptr=yahoo

I once again find myself asking this sort of question. I support some gun ownership - for hunting, for sport. But some guns just should not be available to civilians. It is mind boggling to me that so many - including some Christians - can not admit this to be true.

The problem is not with any one ideology or religion or even mental illness; the problem is with us. Until we, as fellow Americans, can stand up & petition for something to change - to "fight the good fight" - we will continue on this path where mass shootings are the norm. How can we be shocked when these things happen, at an elementary school or a church or a club? Until things change, these mass shootings will continue. Any one of us could be the victim.

My personal plea? Pray, of course, but not just pray. Act.

Write your senator, your representative. Donate, campaign. Whatever you think you should do. Let's be peacemakers.

Now is the time. I just can't fathom why people think there is any reason automatic assault rifles should be legal. What are they used for other than mass shootings?

 

[Circle Christ]

Hi CC,

You responded:


See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You try to show people that other nations have found a better way. The person you're talking to then comes up with some explanation that on Mars there's this thing that happened and so that means none of your claims are true or your effort will make any difference.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT STRICT FIREARMS CONTROLS WAS GOING TO STOP ANYONE FROM EVER DYING BY FIREARM HOMICIDE!!!!!!!!!

Yes, there are still going to be people that get past the effort, but not as often. My claim here is not that strict firearms regulations will stop any and all homicide by firearms death. My claim here is that it does greatly reduce the total number. Yes, the Charlie Hebdo and other few firearms homicides that France has had are certainly terrible events, but...

They don't have those events with anywhere near the regularity that we do. Their total homicide by firearms rate per 100,000 people is .21. That's point 21. That's less than 1//4th of 1 percent. By contrast our homicide by firearms rate stands at 3.43 per 100,000 people. Friend, do the math!!!! Even with their every once in a while firearms death; even with the Charlie Hebdo incident, the French enjoy a homicide firearms death rate that is 14 times less than ours. For every one of those deaths at the Charlie Hebdo paper, 14 people died in the U.S./100,000 people.

Let me repeat for those who just don't seem to be able to grasp simple explanations, I'm not bringing all this up because I think that stricter firearms controls will STOP homicides by firearms completely and absolutely and bring our rate to zero. I don't think that such a dream is even possible, but I'd be more than happy to listen to anyone who thinks that they have a plan for that, that is feasible.

So, please, get a thinking cap. The fact that in Paris there was a mass murder perpetrated with men who used firearms has absolutely no bearing on the intent of the discussion at hand. All I'm hoping to do is bring our homicide by firearms rate down under 1% or .5%. Do I expect that there will still be people who die in the U.S. by firearms under such restrictions? Yes!!! Absolutely!!! I've read the Scriptures. Man's heart is wicked! Who can know it?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

The people that read member remarks here can only go by what the member stated. Interjecting insolence that is directed toward respondents is not helpful. And it does not serve to erase the the insolent one's own ill conceived remarks.

Circle Christ said: ↑
I believe the individual is what is being discussed here. Their personal choice. The millions around the world do not speak here.
In that concern, I believe the individual is the one for whom the choice is to be made with regard to firearms. No one person's opinion against firearms may repeal the opinion of the one who believes they are entitled to own firearms.

It is relative to a person's own sense of security. As well as that level of personal security necessary for their region of the world.|/end Circle Christ said|
Your response:

Right, well, then people will just keep dyin' round here.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

And this after your observations about the 2nd amendment in post 28

I will consider this matter closed. Insolence is unacceptable in a civil Christian community.

 

[4x4toy]

Now is the time. I just can't fathom why people think there is any reason automatic assault rifles should be legal. What are they used for other than mass shootings?

If you understood the 2nd , you would know

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If gun control laws worked to stop violence
....(then)..........we would never read of a single incident of mass murder using firearms
........................................in any country where strict gun control laws are in place.
....
Shalom Ted:
That's simply and IF - THEN Conditional Statement
How could it not be true ?

"You really believe that's the truth, don't you?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted"

 

[Circle Christ]

The meaning of Romans 14 ? Just what do you think Romans 14 means ?
(I still think, as always, it means exactly what God says it means: never changed what I said -- why did you ? )

Never did.
This discussion is now decidedly unhealthy. I shall consider it finished between us.

 

[miamited]

If gun control laws worked to stop violence
....(then)..........we would never read of a single incident of mass murder using firearms
........................................in any country where strict gun control laws are in place.
....
Shalom Ted:
That's simply and IF - THEN Conditional Statement
How could it not be true ?

"You really believe that's the truth, don't you?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted"

Hi Jeff,

If/then claims can and are often wrong.

If the moon were made of green cheese, then there'd be rats all over it.


No there wouldn't. Rats need oxygen to breathe just as much as we do. If/then statements have to be tested just as much as any other claims.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Now is the time. I just can't fathom why people think there is any reason automatic assault rifles should be legal. What are they used for other than mass shootings?

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).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Never did.
This discussion is now decidedly unhealthy. I shall consider it finished between us.

Fine with me.... there was never anything between us to finish.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Hi G&P,

Fear and pride.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

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.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Test yes.
The IF THEN in question though, was IF it worked. <<
and the conclusion was apparently proper.
A FEW people do want to stop violence (even if it never will be stopped).

IF (anything) stopped violence,
THEN violence is stopped.

Too simple perhaps ?

(anything) cannot stop violence, even Jesus return is with great violence.

So, there is no possible condition of the "IF" being satisfied.

But "IF" it was satisfied, then there would be no violence.

i.e. it is not possible, but it is a true , simple, statement. (even if the motives are wrong and false OR if the motives are pure and holy)

You are correct that "If/then claims can and are ((or MAY BE)) often wrong."
But not about this one that was posted.
It was tested, and it passes the test.

QUOTE="miamited, post: 69769847, member: 270136"]Hi Jeff,
If/then claims can and are often wrong.
If the moon were made of green cheese, then there'd be rats all over it.
No there wouldn't. Rats need oxygen to breathe just as much as we do. If/then statements have to be tested just as much as any other claims.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted QUOTE

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This may have already been said but I believe the 2nd Amdendment is the most vulnerable one we have, especially in today's atmosphere. ,,,,,The federal govt. has grabbed all the power it can.....and it is not stopping here.

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.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now is the time. I just can't fathom why people think there is any reason automatic assault rifles should be legal. What are they used for other than mass shootings?

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

 

[4x4toy]

Daniel 7:25 ..