Second Amendment gun fight...

[Evanescence]

The Supreme court will soon attempt to clearly define what the constitution means by, "We have the right to bear arms.."

Being the gun toting hick that I am, I am kinda torn about gun restrictions. We DO have speed limits for safety purposes.....so why not restrict guns for people in dangerous situations and cities?

But, if its unconstitutional to stop someone from owning a gun....taking away their right to bear arms....then it should not be.

Or should it?

[clemsontigers23]

We like to hunt and we want to have a way to defend ourselves if some idiot tries to break into our house. So no, guns should not be outlawed. I actually think the country would be better off if everyone carried a gun at all times.

[Backpacker777]

The right to bear arms is designed to protect us from a tyrannical government. Look at the annals of history. Who or what is the greatest murderer of innocent people on the planet? Is it criminals, hoodlums, or thugs? No, it is tyrannical governments!

Infinitesmally more people have been murdered at the hands of their own government than by any other cause. In the last century alone over 200 million were murdered by their own governments by the most conservative estimates. The book Death by Government documents this.

Look at what happened in Rwanda in 1994. 800,000 hacked to death with machetes in the course of a few months at the hands of their own govt. The govt. of the Sudan is massacring it's own people by the droves while the 'benevolent' nations of the world stand by idly and do little or nothing to stop it.

The founding fathers knew that govts. can and do become tyrannical if not kept in check. Think it can't happen here? Our government already murders over 3000 of its citizens every day through abortion as it is.

[Evanescence]

We like to hunt and we want to have a way to defend ourselves if some idiot tries to break into our house. So no, guns should not be outlawed. I actually think the country would be better off if everyone carried a gun at all times.

ha, Clemson, I like the way you think....

What about restrictions in big cities where crime is rampant?

I like the idea od stiff and I do mean stiff jail time for illegal gun sales and possesion. Sell a gun on the street and go away for a long time !!!!

[clemsontigers23]

ha, Clemson, I like the way you think....

What about restrictions in big cities where crime is rampant?

I like the idea od stiff and I do mean stiff jail time for illegal gun sales and possesion. Sell a gun on the street and go away for a long time !!!!

Well, that's the thing. Regulation is key. I believe every law-abiding citizen should carry a gun with them at all times as a crime deterrent, but no criminal should get that right.

Do I believe in background checks? Of course. They are essential to gun safety and control.

[danbos]

Restrictions on guns will do nothing other than prevent people from defending themselves. Criminals will still find a way to get them. Just look at all the good that prohibition did. :rolleyes:

Ron Paul wouldn't vote for gun control. ;) :P

[Andi]

Ron Paul wouldn't vote for gun control. ;) :P

Nothing wrong with a little shameless plug....lol

Dr. Paul 2008



Did I mention that I own a gun. Well - several guns. I like to shoot guns. But not at people. Or even at animals. But I love to shoot cans. I am actually pretty good at it. ;)

My husband is a hunter (I actually haven't seen him since September...I hope he's OK...lol) so ya'll know where I stand on this issue. Gotta keep the peace in the family unit. ;)

:cool: :P :D ;)

[middletree]

we want to have a way to defend ourselves if some idiot tries to break into our house.

I'm not for outlawing guns, but I am curious about this statement, as made by any Christian. Not picking on you specifically.

How do you reconcile the stance above with this passage?

Luke 6:27-30 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back."

I'd use a gun to defend someone else, but these verses seem very clear about not using violence to defend myself or my property. If they do not mean that, then please explain what they do mean, as I am not willing to ignore them.

[Jake]

I'm not for outlawing guns, but I am curious about this statement, as made by any Christian. Not picking on you specifically.

How do you reconcile the stance above with this passage?

Luke 6:27-30 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back."

I'd use a gun to defend someone else, but these verses seem very clear about not using violence to defend myself or my property. If they do not mean that, then please explain what they do mean, as I am not willing to ignore them.

I wouldn't shoot someone over posessions. If someone came at me with a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to pull one of mine out though. There's a difference in turning the other cheek and LETTING SOMEONE KILL YOU. And I'd shoot someone in a second to protect my family.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I think the second amendment is pretty straightforward..
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/1213/1therighttobeararmsqd4.jp g

[Mr.Elwood]

I think the second amendment is pretty straightforward..
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/1213/1therighttobeararmsqd4.jp g

must be winter... that's some long hair... looks like a Llama..;)


Going to be interesting. If you just ban "handguns" but not larger weapons are you really infringing on someone's Second Amendment rights?

I think the court will take that stance, I don't like it, but I think that is their out and a way to make everyone (not "We the People" of course) politically happy.

[Pouye]

Using that logic, they could whittle down the weapons to slingshots and popguns.

Handguns are the only practical and portable firearms available for self-defense. Unfortunately, they work pretty good for committing crimes, too.

With a society already saturated with guns of all shapes and sizes, I'm not sure if there are any quick solutions to some of these problems.

Rock

[WeaselInYerFoot]

must be winter... that's some long hair... looks like a Llama..;)


Some guys like to look manly. And bear arms can do the job!

[sandyandporter]

Some guys like to look manly. And bear arms can do the job!

NOW I get it! LOL!

[Jesuslove]

I believe firearms should be strictly controlled. I have no problem with someone owning one or two guns to protect themselves. There is no need for civilians to have semi-automatic weapons. I work in Philadelphia. Here, in the last 6 weeks, there have been 5 police officers shot, including one fatally. Furthermore, Philadelphia is on pace to have a record number of murders this year, more than one a day on average. We definitely need gun controls in place. There is no need for civilians to have arsenals in their homes. Again, I have no problem with civilians owning one or two guns, but there is absolutely no need for civilians to have more than two weapons.

I'm curious.... two questions.....

Why doesn't Canada have high murder rates? Why is the murder rate in the US far higher than in other countries?

Also, WWJD? Would Jesus support gun ownership? Would he feel that citizens have the right to bear all firearms? I'm not sure if scripture tells us the answer... at least the answer isn't coming to mind.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Interesting questions Jesuslove, but would gun control get those weapons out of the hands of criminals in the first place? After all, they are criminals and I don't think they'd be very much concerned about obeying a law. Wouldn't the only ones to turn their guns in, be the demographic that already abides by the law?

[Jesuslove]

Interesting questions Jesuslove, but would gun control get those weapons out of the hands of criminals in the first place? After all, they are criminals and I don't think they'd be very much concerned about obeying a law. Wouldn't the only ones to turn their guns in, be the demographic that already abides by the law?

I don't disagree.. but are thirty guns going to protect you more than one gun? Not likely. Again, I have no problem with gun ownership, but I see the need for controls.

[middletree]

There's a difference in turning the other cheek and LETTING SOMEONE KILL YOU.

Could you elaborate on what that difference is? Because like I said, I am just looking at Jesus' words and actions, and what I see is that when someone wanted to attack Him, He sometimes fled, and at least once let it happen. But He never got violent to defend Himself. Neither did the disciples. And then there are those words of Jesus that I quoted in the earlier post.

[Evanescence]

Just some quick comments...

Jesus' words have NO bearing on the USA and/or gun laws. His words were not the foundation of the Constitution which allows all men the right to bear arms...unless they are criminals. This country allows Atheists, Pagans, Christians and Muslims the same rights to bear arms....and to protect themseleves from crime AND a corrupt Govt.

Canada has less crime becuase of less people AND a different mentality. Their kids don't idolize hip-hop gangsters and strive to get their nipples peirced by age 18. They are out in the fields or woods working and not playing Vid games, Texting their buddies or getting into mischief and/or crime. Crime isn't a way of life for Canadians...like it is for some here in the US.

[middletree]

Just some quick comments...

Jesus' words have NO bearing on the USA and/or gun laws.

I know that. Gun laws as I understand them are for defense of the common good. That point has been made and nobody seems to disagree that defending one's country from foreigners or even our own govt is a good thing. So now please answer my question, which has nothing to do with that.

It has to do with using violent means (guns) for defending one's person or personal property. Not his country, and not his family. I make that distinction because those are the two things actually mentioned by Jesus.

If the verses do not mean that we are not to use violent means to defend our persons or our property, then what do they mean? That's what I am asking. Nobody has addressed what those verses mean so far.

[Evanescence]

I know that. Gun laws as I understand them are for defense of the common good. That point has been made and nobody seems to disagree that defending one's country from foreigners or even our own govt is a good thing. So now please answer my question, which has nothing to do with that.

It has to do with using violent means (guns) for defending one's person or personal property. Not his country, and not his family. I make that distinction because those are the two things actually mentioned by Jesus.

If the verses do not mean that we are not to use violent means to defend our persons or our property, then what do they mean? That's what I am asking. Nobody has addressed what those verses mean so far.

That's what I figured Tree and I wasn't discrediting your comment, which is very valid and thought provoking.

[Andi]

I know that. Gun laws as I understand them are for defense of the common good. That point has been made and nobody seems to disagree that defending one's country from foreigners or even our own govt is a good thing. So now please answer my question, which has nothing to do with that.

It has to do with using violent means (guns) for defending one's person or personal property. Not his country, and not his family. I make that distinction because those are the two things actually mentioned by Jesus.

If the verses do not mean that we are not to use violent means to defend our persons or our property, then what do they mean? That's what I am asking. Nobody has addressed what those verses mean so far.

What do you think James? If someone broke into your home while you and your family were home, and your life was threatened........would you turn the other cheek?

This is a hard one for me, because I know what I would do. In a heartbeat - no hesitation. Is that bad? Would I be condemned? I don't think so. But I don't know. Only God knows our hearts. So I leave judgment up to him.

That is a tough one for sure.

This is yet one more reason why I am 100% sure that being a Christian is so much harder than any other belief system out there.

[Backpacker777]

Excellent article on why self-defense is Biblical.

http://www.lawandliberty.org/defense.htm

[Pouye]

What do you think James? If someone broke into your home while you and your family were home, and your life was threatened........would you turn the other cheek?

This is a hard one for me, because I know what I would do. In a heartbeat - no hesitation. Is that bad? Would I be condemned? I don't think so. But I don't know. Only God knows our hearts. So I leave judgment up to him.

That is a tough one for sure.

This is yet one more reason why I am 100% sure that being a Christian is so much harder than any other belief system out there.

I've addressed it before, so my stance is probably already known.

I make a distinction when it comes to motives. Jesus knew the motives of people who were trying to kill him. So did Stephen. It was obviously religious persecution. In the same vein, if someone is crazed or drunk or not in their right mind, turning the other cheek is foolish. It is better to flee in such situations, but sometimes you can't -- and that means you have to defend yourself with force or let your attacker kill you.

A good example is a rapist. If a strange man attacks/grabs a woman while she is alone, this is most likely not religious persecution. She should scream and fight like all billy heck... and if she has a gun, I see no reason for her not to use it to end his life.

If your interpretation of this verse, Middletree, never allows a Christian to protect himself/herself, then if a strange man grabs your wife while alone, entering her car at the store, and tries to force her into his car, she would have to simply turn the other cheek. To me, that is a very poor way to deal with such a situation.

The motive DOES matter. Since I don't always know the motives of people, it takes wisdom to know how to act. Jesus (and Stephen, etc.) were standing against an institutional authority. Jesus' teaching on turning the other cheek was, I believe, in the context of religious/moral persecution. There are many verses in the Bible that talk about suffering for doing what is right, and how it is commendable in the eyes of God. However, this is in the context of persecution.

There is also the reverse. Not resisting an evil person as a testimony to your faith. This can be seen in the story Les Miserables. When the thief bites the hand that fed him, the hand did not turn the thief into the police, but actually lied to the police and said that he gave the things to him. Then the person went even further and gave him even more than he had stolen. In this way, God worked through the man to bring a thief to Christ.

So, Middletree, how do you apply this verse to a rapist?

Rock

[middletree]

What do you think James? If someone broke into your home while you and your family were home, and your life was threatened........would you turn the other cheek?

I probably wouldn't, but what I would do isn't the question. I can think of lots of hypothetical situations where I would do the wrong thing.

The question is: what did Jesus mean when He said that we are not to return violence for violence, and when someone steals something from us, give him even more than he tried to steal? The question isn't what I would do, but what did Jesus mean?

[Andi]

The question is: what did Jesus mean when He said that we are not to return violence for violence, and when someone steals something from us, give him even more than he tried to steal? The question isn't what I would do, but what did Jesus mean?


I am going to ponder that and get back with you. I need to read and study and pray on that one for sure.

Happy Thanksgiving James!

[middletree]

It was obviously religious persecution.

No that obvious to me. How is stealing your shirt religious prosecution? And how does adding your coat to the deal make it better?

sometimes you can't -- and that means you have to defend yourself with force or let your attacker kill you.

Not really. If Jesus tells us to not defend ourselves with violence, there are more than the two choices you describe above. Perhaps breaking into hymn-singing, or witnessing to the guy, or just simply telling him, in the name of Jesus, to put the gun down. Now, maybe those tactics don't work, and you die. But if so, you die obeying Jesus. If so, you wouldn't be the first person to do so.

A good example is a rapist.
But that's not the same as the verse described. Rock, I am asking about someone trying to steal your shirt, not rape you. Please address my question, which has to do with those verses. Bringing in other situations only gets away from my question.

If your interpretation of this verse, Middletree, never allows a Christian to protect himself/herself, then if a strange man grabs your wife while alone, entering her car at the store, and tries to force her into his car, she would have to simply turn the other cheek. To me, that is a very poor way to deal with such a situation.

Then what does Jesus' command in those verses mean?

However, this is in the context of persecution.

Perhaps the turning the cheek thing is in that context, but there is not way to prove that by those verses. Either way, that doesn't address the stealing the shirt scenario.

So, Middletree, how do you apply this verse to a rapist?

I don't, because that verse doesn't mention rape. And you didn't address the verse.

[middletree]

Happy Thanksgiving James!

Same back atcha!

[Evanescence]

Do Turkeys have the right to self defense????????

:cool:

[tugboat]

Do Turkeys have the right to self defense????????

:cool:

Yes, but whenever they stick their head up over defense..........that's when
you bust a cap at 'em! :D

[kiwisongbird]

Just some quick comments...

Jesus' words have NO bearing on the USA and/or gun laws. His words were not the foundation of the Constitution which allows all men the right to bear arms...unless they are criminals. This country allows Atheists, Pagans, Christians and Muslims the same rights to bear arms....and to protect themseleves from crime AND a corrupt Govt.

Canada has less crime becuase of less people AND a different mentality. Their kids don't idolize hip-hop gangsters and strive to get their nipples peirced by age 18. They are out in the fields or woods working and not playing Vid games, Texting their buddies or getting into mischief and/or crime. Crime isn't a way of life for Canadians...like it is for some here in the US.


I think it would take a lot to change the US now - my only other comment would be this...

What came first? The chicken or the egg?

[Pouye]

No that obvious to me. How is stealing your shirt religious prosecution? And how does adding your coat to the deal make it better?


I believe this is in the context of institutionally corrupt seizure:

"If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too." Matthew 5:40-

Again, institutional corruption:

If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles."

I believe this is also in the context of abuse by authorities:

"But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other, too."

Because: "Then they spit in Jesus' face and hit him with their fists. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who hit you that time?”

I, too, would not fight back in such a situation. Remember, Jesus was speaking to Jews who were subjects of cruel Roman authorities. It was easy for them to put this into context.


Not really. If Jesus tells us to not defend ourselves with violence, there are more than the two choices you describe above. Perhaps breaking into hymn-singing, or witnessing to the guy, or just simply telling him, in the name of Jesus, to put the gun down. Now, maybe those tactics don't work, and you die. But if so, you die obeying Jesus. If so, you wouldn't be the first person to do so.


There is this option. A gun makes a big difference, since Jesus never mentioned a gun in the scenario.


But that's not the same as the verse described. Rock, I am asking about someone trying to steal your shirt, not rape you. Please address my question, which has to do with those verses. Bringing in other situations only gets away from my question.


No, it is YOU who are dodging me. The verse says this:

"But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other, too."

That's it. Period. Many times, the first thing a rapist does is slap his victim across the cheek to show the woman that he has the upper hand and to place fear in her. Tell me how this verse doesn't apply to this situation? Why not? You are trying to apply it broadly, but excluding situations like this isn't helping your argument.

Until you deal with rape scenario, and how turning the other cheek applies, then maybe I'll continue.

Rock

[middletree]

I believe this is also in the context of abuse by authorities:
Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
v.28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
v.29 "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

No mention of the courts or religious prosecution in that passage.

There is this option. A gun makes a big difference, since Jesus never mentioned a gun in the scenario.
No, but the options He mentioned were all non-violent.


No, it is YOU who are dodging me.

Now let me get this straight: I ask about a particular situation mentioned in verses, and you bring up another crime, and tell me that by insisting that you answer my question, which I asked first, I am dodging your question?

I don't see this the same way you do, and am punting. I think you're way out of line, and am a little hurt at being treated like this and accused of dodging your questions, when you haven't answered mine. Therefore, I withdraw the question in the interest of not furthering the opportunity for division.

[Pouye]

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
v.28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
v.29 "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

No mention of the courts or religious prosecution in that passage.


That's why there are parallel passages;).

No, but the options He mentioned were all non-violent.


I hope so... the other guy has a gun!


Now let me get this straight: I ask about a particular situation mentioned in verses, and you bring up another crime, and tell me that by insisting that you answer my question, which I asked first, I am dodging your question?


Here is your question:


If the verses do not mean that we are not to use violent means to defend our persons or our property, then what do they mean? That's what I am asking. Nobody has addressed what those verses mean so far.

(underline and bold mine)

I gave you a scenario where a person is being assaulted, turning the question back on you. If I answer your original question as "yes, in ever situation", then I would have to answer my rape question with "yes, she should not defend herself and turn the other cheek if slapped" which is ridiculous. So the question is, did Jesus mean to never resist an evil person in all cases? Are there some cases where it would logically not apply? In my opinion, not everything Jesus said is to be taken as an absolute for every case/situation.


I don't see this the same way you do, and am punting. I think you're way out of line, and am a little hurt at being treated like this and accused of dodging your questions, when you haven't answered mine.


That's because your question is a catch 22 question. It is like the question the Pharisees asked Jesus: "The law of Moses says that if a woman is caught in adultery, we should stone her. What do you say?"

Jesus didn't answer their question, because either answer would be wrong. Instead, he turned it back on them.


Therefore, I withdraw the question in the interest of not furthering the opportunity for division.

No need to. I'm not angry, or hurt. I'm sorry if you are hurt -- I'm simply trying to get you to think beyond a simply "yes or no" and look at situations that might not apply.

As for your question about property, if someone wants my shirt, they can have it -- and my watch. I'm not going to get killed over such things. However, if the guy is a punk and I can tell the gun he is holding is actually a squirt gun with the front bored out to like like a real gun, I might try to take him down and immobilize him. Then I'll call the cops.

Rock

[Tribal]

Armed we are citizens; unarmed we are subjects.


Don't wanna break into my house. This is what my 16 year old daughter shoots...:cool:

[iLoVeJeSuS23]

Yes, but whenever they stick their head up over defense..........that's when
you bust a cap at 'em! :D

daddy,
im so happy to call you my father lol

HE IS SOOOOOOOOO FUNNY!!!