The Insanity of the "right" to have guns!

[CadyandZoe]

I don't know if the article is right but who cares. I can just say it's for hunting or sporting or farming or work. The point is I can still get a gun

Remember the context of the discussion. We are talking about an event that took place in the United States. Unlike Australia (apparently) The United States was established to secure the rights of the individual. The founders believe that human beings, not just Americans, are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." At the ratification of our constitution, it was amended to explicitly enumerate other rights such as the right to free speech, the right to practice religion, the right to bear arms and etc.

What does it mean, "bear arms?" Does it mean "own a gun?" Partly, but it is more than that. The founders were talking about forming militias, which meant that everyone in town, having purchased a gun, had the right to protect the town against those who intend to infringe on their liberty.

In our context, this means that if someone in Washington decides to cede national sovereignty to a bureaucrat in Brussels, who dictates that each citizen of the world receive a mandatory vaccine, the citizens of the US have the right (and duty) to fight the invaders house-to-house if necessary. And because a majority of citizens in the US not only bear arms but have substantial fire power, no rational war planer would ever think about sending troops to the US to enforce such a decree.

Having said all that, remember the context. We are talking about a country, my country, predicated on the fear of tyranny, having established a form of government for the sole purpose of protecting the liberty of the individual, is under siege by those who wish to subjugate the world under a centralized government, not caring about the rights of individuals.

To our embarrassment and utter shame, during WWII, our country placed Japanese citizens into concentration camps. The rationale for this effort was the protection of Japanese citizens but in truth, the effort was probably born of fear. The enemy uses fear to motivate decent people to do awful and evil things. Currently, the enemy is using fear of death from disease to motivate human beings to effect harm, injury, and death around the world.

My hope is that Australia will repent, wake up, and end the quarantine camps.

Revealed: The Locations of Australia’s Quarantine Camps | Exclusive

 

[CadyandZoe]

@CadyandZoe

Look you guys in America have been lied to by your media. They used us as propaganda
"Look at Australia no guns no mass shootings"
That's all it is my friend. Propaganda

I don't listen to the News Media in the United States. If you say that our news media is broadcasting this propaganda message, I don't doubt it. It reflects the kind of thinking we find on the Left.

The propaganda coming from the right is this. Australia is being run by corrupted and conflicted leaders, who decided to enforce the will of bureaucrats in Brussels through draconian means reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the USSR. It is said that if Australians had not given up their guns, Australian leaders would not have license to effect such crimes against humanity as we are seeing in your country.

Is there any truth to that?

 

[Wrangler]

What does it mean, "bear arms?"

I heard the newest Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it means that we have the Constitutional right to roll up our sleeves. I guess those crazy gun nuts have been distorting what it means all along.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And there you go again... Asserting the propaganda that they have drummed into your head...

Every farm owner has a gun. How do you think they take care of pests and vermin... LoL... You Americans sure live in a bubble

You don't seem to understand the distinction I made.

Okay, every farm owner has a gun. But, and this is essential to my point, can the farmer use the gun to protect his family from trespassers? How will the Australian courts respond to a case of self-defense? If someone were to enter the farmers house in the middle of the night, is the farmer allowed to use his gun to kill the intruder or not? If not, then the farmer doesn't actually "own" his gun. In fact, the farmer has essentially "leased" his gun from the government, who limits its use to the activities of farming.

What about it, can the farmer protect his wife and kids with the gun in his possession? Will the courts rule in favor of the farmer? Will the government confiscate his weapon?

 

[CadyandZoe]

@CadyandZoe

If I have 2 guns and you take one I'm still armed. You haven't disarmed me unless you take both my guns...

So your wrong which ever way you try to twist it.

And yes we own the guns. That idea that the government owns it is just American propaganda. It's all designed to get Americans to hand in their auto guns like we had to and bring in tougher restrictions like they did here

I am disturbed a bit by your accusation that I am twisting something. Surely, those who are having a discussion about a fundamental reality of our existence have two ways to proceed. We can either embrace nuance and make important and significant distinctions, or we can talk in platitudes and generalities.

The fundamental truth behind my argument comes from a quotation written by one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson. ""When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Our impression of Australia, given your current state of affairs is that the people fear the government and consequently, there is tyranny in Australia.

Our Second Amendment is intended to protect the individual person from tyranny. Because Americans are well armed and because they have demonstrated their resolve to use these arms against their own government when necessary, our government fears the people.

At the moment, our resolve is fading.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No need to

So you don't leave home. Then you have not had a reason to enter a no-go zone. So you have no idea what is happening in your own city.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I heard the newest Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it means that we have the Constitutional right to roll up our sleeves. I guess those crazy gun nuts have been distorting what it means all along.

Agreed. She is compromised, foolish, and ignorant and willing to take an honored seat as payment for her loyalty to the cabal.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't know if the article is right but who cares. I can just say it's for hunting or sporting or farming or work. The point is I can still get a gun

Liberty is based in truth, not subterfuge.

Such secondary purposes for private ownership do not replace the primary purpose, which distinguishes a subject from a citizen.

Subjects fear their government. In a republic, God-given rights are recognized - such as the right to life and liberty and the right to protect that life and liberty to the death. Therefore, in such God-centered governments, government fears the citizenry.

There are 3 boxes upon which liberty stands against those who confuse being our servants with our masters.

1. voting
2. jury
3. cartridge

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

So you don't leave home. Then you have not had a reason to enter a no-go zone. So you have no idea what is happening in your own city.

Just a joke

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Yet the radical left and progressives in the Democratic party who want to transform the United States into a Godless, borderless, marxist, socialist, disarmed, Sodom and Gomorrah America understand what morality is?

There are some who are supposed to be evangelical and yet homosexual and get divorced and have abortions

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Okay, up front, I am on the Right.
There are three facets of this dilemma:
1. SATAN is in control of the world for a short time and he is having a field day. The gun is not evil, it is the person who pulls the trigger and he is being strongly influenced by Satan.
2. The Second Amendment is antiquated. Hold on my fellow Right-wingers! This law was made centuries ago during a time when 15 year old boys could run their fathers farm and knew all the business. They were responsible young men amd probably all could handle a gun at that age.
They were more mature. Today, psychologists say the average boy turns into a man at age 30. Yes there are exceptions, but kids are nowhere near as responsible and I shouldn't have to go into the vast problems of our troubled youths. They are playing games, not doing chores or working but milking their parents instead of cows.
Do you know that you have to be 27 years old to rent a jet ski in Texas. Why? Younger "men" are irresponsible, wild, sometimes dangerous. You have to be 25 years old to rent a car too. Car insurance drops at the age 25. Yet, you can buy a deadly weapon without training at a young age? Hello!
3. Kids are killing people with play guns on video for entertainment! And they like it. They want to get a bigger rush ... make it real, esoecually when they can't control their temper. Then Satan gets a foothold.

Solutuon >>>> 1. Up the age to at least 25 years old to purchase a gun AND require education and training classes, and a legal certificate similar to a drivers license. Unless you were in the military or you are a policeman.
>>>>> 2. Ban all violent video games that involve killing people.

We require education and training to get certain jobs and we should require the same to buy a gun ... unless of course you can prove that at 15 years old you ran your father's farm.
+ A pre- psychological profile should be included before training is approved. Three signatures from family members swearing under oath that you are not a violent person. Someone who is prone to bar brawls, beating their wife, often flying off the handle and losing their cool, should be considered a high risk and denied.

BTW, I just copied this and sent it to my Senator, Ted Cruz. If you agree, copy and paste and send it to yours.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Romans 12:18 KJV
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Hebrews 12:14 says:
“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:”

So Romans 12:18 is in view and context to following after peace with all men.
So I don’t think Romans 12:18 is talking about how we should not make peace with all men.
I believe Romans 12:18 is talking about different personalities traits among men who are more prone to making peace with others, but this does not free our obligation in following peace with all men. At the very least, we should pray and do good towards our enemies. We should love our enemies as Jesus said. You cannot love your enemy if you shoot them dead in self defense.

Also, when I asked you how do you view New Testament Non-Violence, this appears to be in view that you can have a weapon to defend yourself if necessary. But again, besides the incident with Peter misusing the sword, we don’t see anywhere else in the New Testament where the disciples had swords let alone protecting themselves with them.

It is. I am successfully showing that they did have swords and you are unsuccessfully claiming they didn't. And I'm not going on your "maybe". I'm not going on what you meant. I am going on what you said.

This is just childish. Nowhere did I tell you before that when Jesus was arrested that the disciples did not have swords. I already told you this several times unless you hit your head and forgot about our previous conversations. So you should have known that was not what I was referring to. You are just trying to catch me in my words (not being perfectly communicated in one post) so as to make a case that I simply did not make. Instead of admitting that you are wrong here, you simply doubled down. Did I admit that my words were not perfect in that one post and could seem confusing? Yes. But you should have known that is not what I meant by our previous conversations. So you are trying to twist my words from my previous conversations to make a case that I did not even make. So you are not being honest here with everything that I stated (unless you ignored what I said previously or you forgot about it).

Not going to bother with this. The swords had nothing to do with the prophesy as I have clearly shown. The Bible gives and explains the prophesy. Your attempt to include it is not biblical and I do not accept it. Peter was not a transgressor in this prophesy. The Bible explains the prophesy and that's enough for me.

So you believe the prophetic statement of being numbered with the transgressors in Luke 22:37 was just strung in between Luke 22:36 and Luke 22:38 about a conversation about swords was just a random occurrence that in no way relates? Is God the author of confusion? This is what you must believe if you think Luke 22:37 has no bearing in context to the immediate conversation or context involved. In other words, it seems like just because you don’t like the idea of the swords being tied in with Jesus being numbered with the transgressors in addition to Mark 15:27-28.

Your logic is flawed and so are your accusations. I never said or pretend they were carrying swords. I stated that the Bible doesn't say either way. Your logic is that they would've fought back if they had swords. That's stupid. It's short sided. But if you don't understand why Jesus didn't refer to guns and deny obvious reasoning, I am not surprised.

While you did not say it in the past tense, you said it in your very next post.

You said, I quote:

“Historically, it is not surprising that some disciples had swords. They traveled alot and there were robbers on the roads. The disciples were being trained, but they also were a security team. It was a deterrent to travel in large groups and even more so if they were armed. Those things are not in the Bible, but historically, they are correct.” Quote by: FHII.​

This looks to me like you are not being honest with us in what you really believe from the very beginning. While it is true that you never said in the past tense they were carrying swords, in your very next post you said that they did carry swords. So you are not being consistent in what you are saying here.

When did I say that? Did you catch the point I made when I said I don't own a gun? Where did I say that even if we have it we must use it?

Your very next post of you saying that some disciples historically had swords and how they were a security team to protect themselves against robbers on the road. Funny, how you did not provide any reliable historical sources to prove your words here.

This is rediculous... Your interpretation of prophecy is false, your accounts of what I said is false and your accounts of the Bible is at worse false and at best mere speculation.

It’s not speculation unless you believe Jesus throws in prophecies at random in mid-conversation that has nothing to do with what He was talking about.

Go ahead and defend yourself, but bother no more with it.

I am not defending myself, but I am defending what the Bible says.

 

[Cristo Rei]

Okay. I was misinformed then. My apologies.

No probs. The media tend to hype up such things and use it as propaganda.
They're trying to take away automatics and introduce tougher gun laws in the USA like they did here

 

[Naomanos]

Okay, up front, I am on the Right.
There are three facets of this dilemma:
1. SATAN is in control of the world for a short time and he is having a field day. The gun is not evil, it is the person who pulls the trigger and he is being strongly influenced by Satan.
2. The Second Amendment is antiquated. Hold on my fellow Right-wingers! This law was made centuries ago during a time when 15 year old boys could run their fathers farm and knew all the business. They were responsible young men amd probably all could handle a gun at that age.
They were more mature. Today, psychologists say the average boy turns into a man at age 30. Yes there are exceptions, but kids are nowhere near as responsible and I shouldn't have to go into the vast problems of our troubled youths. They are playing games, not doing chores or working but milking their parents instead of cows.
Do you know that you have to be 27 years old to rent a jet ski in Texas. Why? Younger "men" are irresponsible, wild, sometimes dangerous. You have to be 25 years old to rent a car too. Car insurance drops at the age 25. Yet, you can buy a deadly weapon without training at a young age? Hello!
3. Kids are killing people with play guns on video for entertainment! And they like it. They want to get a bigger rush ... make it real, esoecually when they can't control their temper. Then Satan gets a foothold.

Solutuon >>>> 1. Up the age to at least 25 years old to purchase a gun AND require education and training classes, and a legal certificate similar to a drivers license. Unless you were in the military or you are a policeman.
>>>>> 2. Ban all violent video games that involve killing people.

We require education and training to get certain jobs and we should require the same to buy a gun ... unless of course you can prove that at 15 years old you ran your father's farm.
+ A pre- psychological profile should be included before training is approved. Three signatures from family members swearing under oath that you are not a violent person. Someone who is prone to bar brawls, beating their wife, often flying off the handle and losing their cool, should be considered a high risk and denied.

I agree with your first two points. Those are great points and a good solution. However, I do not agree with the video game aspect.

"Previous research has found little evidence of a connection between violent video games and real-life violence.

The possible link is often brought up after mass shootings where perpetrators had an interest in violent video games.

But some experts suggest that other factors, such as mental illness and/or easy access to guns, are more likely explanations for mass shootings."

Found here: No Evidence Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence: Study | Health News | US News

What can be linked is that those kids that do have higher aggression can and do play violent video games. I will agree with that, but it doesn't make kids more violent. If that were the case, we would have a lot more mass shootings than we do.

 

[mailmandan]

There are some who are supposed to be evangelical and yet homosexual and get divorced and have abortions

There are genuine Christians and there are "nominal/pseudo" Christians. There are genuine believers and there are make believers.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

There are genuine Christians and there are "nominal/pseudo" Christians. There are genuine believers and there are make believers.

What about Ravi Zacharias?

And

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/04/usa.religion

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Folks, I am bowing out of this conversation. Let me offer my conclusion.

I abhor violence on all levels and I understand the outlash some may have. I want to say whe I have owned a gun, I do not currently own one. I haven't owned one in 30+ years and have no plans to buy one. I owned one for 2 years that was given to me. While I did some target practice with it, I never used it or brandished it for defense.

But this testimony of your life does not align with what you actually believe. You said in your very next sentence about how to ignore the Old Testament is ridiculous and how there are many wars and defenses in it. So you are implying that believers can go to war, and use self defense by violence based on the Old Testament. But then you turn around and contradict even this by saying that things are clearly different in the New Covenant but you don’t say how it is different.

To ignore the Old Testament is ridiculous. And we see many wars and defenses in it. Even so a d being under a new convenent, we are clearly different.

This is a contradictory statement.

But the fact remains that Jesus did tell his disciples to buy swords and in fact, some of them already did. For those who don't know... Guns didn't exist then.

But what was the result of them having or buying the swords? Jesus rebuked Peter in five ways for using the sword in violent self defense (Note: I updated this from four ways Jesus rebuked Peter for taking up his sword in violence). After the sword blunder with Peter, we see no mention of the apostles carrying swords let alone them using them in violent self defense. In fact, certain narratives would not make any sense in Acts of the Apostles if you were to read them (with the thinking that the disciples were carrying swords). Acts of the Apostles 5:40, and Acts of the Apostles 7 are just two examples.

Historically, it is not surprising that some disciples had swords. They traveled alot and there were robbers on the roads. The disciples were being trained, but they also were a security team. It was a deterrent to travel in large groups and even more so if they were armed. Those things are not in the Bible, but historically, they are correct.

Please provide verifiable historical references for these claims.
Were these faithful brethren or disciples or were they a part of a false sect?

Jesus never once said don't own a weapon. In fact, he did say to do so. Today's Christian should rely on God, but still he doesn't say not to own a weapon.

Jesus rebuked Peter with these words,

“for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52).

So it’s obvious that Jesus did not want the disciples to use the swords for violence (if Jesus even meant the disciples to have swords beyond his words spoke in context of Luke 22:37). Anyways, after the sword blunder incident involving Peter, we see no mention of any swords being carried by the disciples let alone them using for violent self defense. Christians were beaten, and persecuted and that would be difficult to do if they carried swords.

One of the best things you can do to deter an attacker is to own a gun. An even better thing is to have buddy's around you that to. It's a pretty good method of keeping peace. It may not prevent violence, but it's a factor.

This is a contradictory statement. You say that one of the best things you can do to deter an attacker is to own a gun. You say this is a good method of keeping peace. But then you contradict yourself and say it may not prevent violence. To prevent violence is keeping the peace.

If anyone can provide a foolproof plan to rid the entire world of guns, I am all ears! I am on board! They have banned guns in New York City and Chicago.... and it isn't working.

So you are for some pie in the sky pipe dream of getting rid of the entire world of guns (that you know will never happen), but you don’t have a problem with a person carrying a gun to keep the peace. This again sounds contradictory.

The draconian measure is to go from house to house and confiscate 100% of all guns. Not only will that not be possible, but is that what youwant?

I am not in approval with the OP. Removing the guns by law (or by method of worldly political activism) is not the way we should deal with this. Christians should preach Non-Violence as taught in the New Testament to other Christians (and not to unbelievers). Christians should pray for the violence with guns to subside.

If it were possible, what would it change? There are still evil people who will find ways to do evil.

That's it.

Well, I think what would change is that one can do more damage with a gun to more people than say a knife, etcetera.
But I believe that trying to change the world by political means is a worldly way or method that God has not called us to partake in. God wants us to follow what His Word says, but besides Peter’s sword blunder, nowhere will you find anywhere in the New Testament of any swords being carried by any disciples (let alone them being used for violent self defense purposes).

 

[mailmandan]

What about Ravi Zacharias?

What about him? Can I infallibly judge his heart or is that judgment call above my pay grade?

 

[Grailhunter]

is William Barr a Democrat?

Is Don Trump Jr wrong? ‘He’s got to condemn this …’: Panel releases urgent Jan. 6 texts from Donald Trump Jr., lawmakers and Fox hosts

The Trump haters are a funny group.

I use to tell people that doing drugs will get you nowhere.....I cannot say that anymore, Biden and his son and the vice president are druggies. Biden and his son are child molesters and they are both traitors to this country....and they all give a thumb's up for murdering 600,000 babies a year....

 

[BarneyFife]

@Qoheleth I think recent posts show that thought to a significant extent is geographical. Probably with @ByGraceThroughFaith I would have a fairly similar outlook; I would also recognize that his views on some issues will be strongly influenced by his geographical provenance. (As I'm sure mine would be also...)

I'd just as soon have a society without offensive weapons of any kind. But people will always find a way to fashion one. And think the time for practical eradication of firearms, both politically and logistically, is long gone. I also think that, while regarding people's free speech, Christians could make much better use of their time than debating such matters, simply IMO, tho. I imagine somebody'll blow up now - lol.