If machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have machine guns

[Dcopymope]

It just seems to me that you are saying we should fight against people taking our guns because ultimately that is the plan of Satan/Antichrist. Which also implies that the Body of Christ should be a militant group that arms itself if the agenda of Satan is to disarm them. I see no biblical justification for such a concept.

Finally, I am speaking of your implied teachings which has a name. This has nothing to do with a denomination. People who are futurists or dispensationalists come from a variety of denominations. If your view is that there is a coming Great Tribulation led by an Antichrist who has an agenda to set up a one-world government, persecute God's people and exalt himself in a rebuilt Temple...then that is a futurist view of Revelation that coincides with a teaching known as Dispensationalism. It is just a term used to help identify a theological viewpoint. Yet you need to understand that not all Christians hold that viewpoint and thus your assumptions about prophecy and how it ties into future gun laws is something that is certainly not shared by all Christians. You keep implying that it is a cut and dry Biblical issue....when many Christians would disagree.

Oh I understand perfectly well that there are many different denominations out there, of which I could care less about. You know why? Whenever you have these many groups that identifies themselves as believers in the Bible, yet they can't even agree with each other on the basic message of the Gospel that is stated in plain English, then they've got nothing to more to say to me. I want to vomit whenever these groups claim to be of the body of Christ. Christianity has been a running joke, especially for the last one hundred years. Now what do you believe about what Jesus said about the Great Tribulation? Is it occurring already or is it something that takes place in the future?

 

[ScaliaFan]

There are some people who just don't understand the concept of incrementalism - they'll never accept that their liberty is actively, gradually being eroded until Martial Law is declared and even then, they'll still be unsure until they check with there local governmental authorities to see if they can obtain a permit to join a militia.

yeh, for sure

liberals know enough to take our rights away slowly... without even seeming to do so in the slightest...

first euthanasia is voluntary.. dont want to kill yourself, then just dont... then it goes to cajoling people into killing htemselves... which leads to mandatory suicide,

 

[Wormwood]

Oh I understand perfectly well that there are many different denominations out there, of which I could care less about. You know why? Whenever you have these many groups that identifies themselves as believers in the Bible, yet they can't even agree with each other on the basic message of the Gospel that is stated in plain English, then they've got nothing to more to say to me. I want to vomit whenever these groups claim to be of the body of Christ. Christianity has been a running joke, especially for the last one hundred years. Now what do you believe about what Jesus said about the Great Tribulation? Is it occurring already or is it something that takes place in the future?

Just because there are different groups that believe different things does not mean that they are not all Christians. It is understood that most denominations agree on the essentials and recognize each other as fellow believers. So, I dont think we need to be so harsh on these matters. Personally, I belong to a non-denominational group so I understand your disdain for schisms in the body. I also think it is very sad. My point was simply that you clearly have some very specific eschatological views that are shaping your views on guns and not all believers share those views. So I dont think its as simple as "the Bible predicts the disarming of people as part of the Antichrist's agenda" type arguments you have been giving. As for the tribulation matter, I think that is something that should be discussed in an eschatological thread. If you want to start a discussion on the tribulation, I'd be happy to contribute.

 

[Phoneman777]

Well, I have been following and contributing to this thread, and I dont know where anyone would get the idea that those who have commented in favor of restrictions on personal weapons lack critical thinking skills. The implication, again, is that because you may support something a Democrat says, then you must be brainwashed by a system that has impeded your decision making. Whereas, if you support the Republican ideas on weaponry, then you haven't bought into the propaganda and are therefore more intelligent.

The reality is, both political parties have their agendas and propaganda on this issue. IMO, many of these politicians dont even care about the issues at all. The only thing they care about is getting elected and having power. They regularly flip-flop on issues such like these toward whatever side they think will garner the most votes. The reason politicians have become more liberal in their stances is because the public has become more liberal and the politicians want to get elected. The leaders of this country are a biproduct of our society. They are not guiding the thinking of our society...its quite the opposite. There's a reason McDonald's sells fatty, greasy fries with their meals. Its not because they have a secret agenda to make America fat and kill people off. Its because Americans like greasy, fatty, unhealthy food and its what they want to buy...and McDonald's wants to make money. The system is set up to be driven by the desires of the people.

In any event, I dont think having an AK-47 is a Satan vs. God issue. To suggest this is part of Satan's end-times plans is preposterous. Seems pretty self-absorbed for us as Americans to think that our gun laws...or any of our laws for that matter, hold the key to the world's ultimate demise. Countries like our have come an gone since Jesus ascended.

Wormwood, the idea that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of those who don't obey the law is not seemingly the product of thinking critically, it is seemingly the product of reckless, willful ignorance. Criminals have no regard for laws, especially gun control laws. The evidence - FBI, statistical, anecdotal, etc. - supports the irrefutable conclusion that levels of gun violence are directly proportional to levels of gun control laws enacted, and that where there is the least gun control, there is the least gun violence.

 

[Wormwood]

Actually Phoneman777, I have a family member who was a Regional Agent in Charge of the ATF. You'd be amazed at how much evil and devistation is prevented from people not being allowed to stockpile explosives or high-powered machine guns. Of course there will always be criminals who find ways to get ahold of dangerous and illegal weapons. If a criminal is able to buy a dirty bomb on the black market, does that mean citizens should be able to access such things as well? If a terrorist can purchase a chain gun and sets it up on a building and mows down hundreds of people in the streets below, does that mean we should all be able to mount chain guns on the roofs of our cars to protect against such an attack? Where do you draw the line? Why is the line you draw better than the line I draw? What if the guy who thinks he should be able to protect his home with chain guns and land mines thinks you are the liberal, brainwashed person in league with the agenda of the coming Antichrist for preventing him from defending his land with such devices?

That is my major question. Who comes up with the magical line that says, "hey we agree chain guns and land mines are unnecessary, but I say 30 shot clips are needed and you say no more than 12! You must be a bleeding heart liberal who hates America and the 2nd Amendment!" Really? These lines seem incredibly grey and to label people with such harsh terms and imply that they are part of some Antichrist agenda just seems asinine (this is directed more at Scaliafan and Dcopymope, not you). I am in total agreement that people should have the right to have guns. I just dont think they need military grade assault-style weapons that are designed for a battlefield for the killing of dozens of people in seconds.

An assault rifle is defined as: "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use." Again, I ask, if Joe Citizen was able to have such a weapon, would it really protect him in the event of a terrorist attack? Would Joe Citizen actually be walking in a parade with his assault rifle, or hanging out at the gay bar with it? Terrorists arent stupid. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible. They can always find large crowds of unarmed, unaware people. And allowing Joe Citizen to have a safe full of assault rifles is not going to stop such a killing. However, not only will legalizing such weapons NOT stop such killings, what it WILL do is flood our streets with infantry weapons and make it really easy for crazy people or someone who has a bad day at work and decides hes going to go out with a bang to drop by the local gun shop and pick up such a weapon to achieve as much carnage as possible before he goes. It also makes it much easier for the next Waco cult to create a small army depot of explosives and highly destructive firepower so their cult leader can institute the next Jonestown massacre, except with his disciples shooting everyone in sight rather than just drinking a cup of tainted Kool-Aid to ride the magic comet to paradise. Plus, it would make it way easier for Mr. Gangbanger to get ahold of such a weapon for his next drive by...in which he strikes 10 innocent bystanders rather than 1 or 2 that he might have struck with his glock if he didnt have such easy access to these weapons.

Plus, as someone who is very familiar with such things because of my background, police and ATF are able to nab a lot of criminals prior to their violent acts. When criminals try to market and ship such weaponry, they sometimes get caught and are incarcerated before they can make use of the weapons. Average citizens arent in the business of exchanging assault rifles, drugs and other such contraband and so innocent people stay out of jail. Yet if such weapons are legalized, then stopping such deadly weapon trafficking goes out the window, as well as one more preventative means of getting to criminals before they can hurt others.

 

[Phoneman777]

Actually Phoneman777, I have a family member who was a Regional Agent in Charge of the ATF. You'd be amazed at how much evil and devistation is prevented from people not being allowed to stockpile explosives or high-powered machine guns. Of course there will always be criminals who find ways to get ahold of dangerous and illegal weapons. If a criminal is able to buy a dirty bomb on the black market, does that mean citizens should be able to access such things as well? If a terrorist can purchase a chain gun and sets it up on a building and mows down hundreds of people in the streets below, does that mean we should all be able to mount chain guns on the roofs of our cars to protect against such an attack? Where do you draw the line? Why is the line you draw better than the line I draw? What if the guy who thinks he should be able to protect his home with chain guns and land mines thinks you are the liberal, brainwashed person in league with the agenda of the coming Antichrist for preventing him from defending his land with such devices?

That is my major question. Who comes up with the magical line that says, "hey we agree chain guns and land mines are unnecessary, but I say 30 shot clips are needed and you say no more than 12! You must be a bleeding heart liberal who hates America and the 2nd Amendment!" Really? These lines seem incredibly grey and to label people with such harsh terms and imply that they are part of some Antichrist agenda just seems asinine (this is directed more at Scaliafan and Dcopymope, not you). I am in total agreement that people should have the right to have guns. I just dont think they need military grade assault-style weapons that are designed for a battlefield for the killing of dozens of people in seconds.

An assault rifle is defined as: "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use." Again, I ask, if Joe Citizen was able to have such a weapon, would it really protect him in the event of a terrorist attack? Would Joe Citizen actually be walking in a parade with his assault rifle, or hanging out at the gay bar with it? Terrorists arent stupid. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible. They can always find large crowds of unarmed, unaware people. And allowing Joe Citizen to have a safe full of assault rifles is not going to stop such a killing. However, not only will legalizing such weapons NOT stop such killings, what it WILL do is flood our streets with infantry weapons and make it really easy for crazy people or someone who has a bad day at work and decides hes going to go out with a bang to drop by the local gun shop and pick up such a weapon to achieve as much carnage as possible before he goes. It also makes it much easier for the next Waco cult to create a small army depot of explosives and highly destructive firepower so their cult leader can institute the next Jonestown massacre, except with his disciples shooting everyone in sight rather than just drinking a cup of tainted Kool-Aid to ride the magic comet to paradise. Plus, it would make it way easier for Mr. Gangbanger to get ahold of such a weapon for his next drive by...in which he strikes 10 innocent bystanders rather than 1 or 2 that he might have struck with his glock if he didnt have such easy access to these weapons.

Plus, as someone who is very familiar with such things because of my background, police and ATF are able to nab a lot of criminals prior to their violent acts. When criminals try to market and ship such weaponry, they sometimes get caught and are incarcerated before they can make use of the weapons. Average citizens arent in the business of exchanging assault rifles, drugs and other such contraband and so innocent people stay out of jail. Yet if such weapons are legalized, then stopping such deadly weapon trafficking goes out the window, as well as one more preventative means of getting to criminals before they can hurt others.

OK, I'm beginning to think that this conversation is a "doubtful disputation" taking away from the ever present priority of spreading the everlasting Gospel of Jesus, so I'll give you the last word after saying for every confiscation, many more get past, that pipe bombs and dirty bombs are kept out of range not by 911 calls, but by a good long range rifle with a good scope, and there is an active agenda by Luciferians to take massive control of the world by first disarmament of the populace followed by compulsion by armed authorities, and that you need to stop being "ignorant of his (Satan's) devices" by ceasing the eye rolling and fix them on the self-incriminating pages of the written confessions by the very Luciferians whose intentions are unwittingly the fulfillment of prophecy which is fast unfolding all around us - statements they make without fear because of how effective they are at blinding their "useful idiots" who deny end time deception, and cast reproach against those like me who "expose them" (Ephesians 5:11 KJV), though supersonic deception was the first thing Jesus warned us about when revealing the future to us.

 

[Brother James]

Consider two political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes said it is a very dangerous world, lots of scary criminal types that mean us harm, and that men organize governments to protect them from the natural state of man which is war and chaos. He argued that we have to give up as much of our personal liberty as it takes in order to secure our safety. Locke argued that government is necessary, but an evil necessity, because it tends to abuse the personal rights of the individual when it asserts too much power. Therefore, men should yield the absolute minimum liberty necessary to preserve order but not so much as to lose personal freedom.

A person can subscribe to one or the other or something in between and he can do it in good faith. I lean far more toward Locke's position, but Hobbes was not a fool or idiot just as I tend to agree more with St. Thomas Aquinas and less with St. Augustine for similar reasons. Neither was stupid or irrational. I'm just more persuaded more by one than the other. I put a high value on personal liberty. After all, is it for freedom that Christ made us free. I won't voluntarily put myself into bondage.

If I thought for a minute that giving up my guns would make the world safer, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But we have severe social issues that are the cause of violence, and until we address them no amount of gun legislation is going to change anything. Look at what happened in Germany today. You can't buy a gun in Germany unless you demonstrate some need that the government deems to be "legitimate". Their restrictive gun laws don't seem to have protected them from gun violence.

 

[michaelvpardo]

God gives one individual, a pacifist and a liberal thinker, the faith to believe Him and confess Christ as His Lord and Savior. God gives one individual, an aggressive fighter and defender of his community, the faith to believe Him and confess Christ as His Lord and Savior. The two may have diametrically opposed views on life, freedom, human rights, etc. so was God confused or does He accept us as we are? And if He has a purpose in the pacifist, doesn't He continue to have a purpose in the militant, the warrior? To the extent that these two submit themselves to the word of God, the pacifist will in time move to a more war like understanding of life, while the militant one will tend to become more desirable of peace than of conflict and isn't it God, through relationship with His Son and the guidance of His Spirit that makes the way for both to follow?
I was taught how to shoot and how to handle a gun safely when I was a child. I was taught a little more while in the military. I enjoy shooting at targets and what gun enthusiasts refer to as "plinking" though I haven't done this in many years, because I don't own a gun or possess a firearms ID card. Where I live, I'm unable to obtain a firearms ID card, because of my wife's medical history which includes psychiatric care, while she owns a 22 caliber rifle which no one has fired in over 10 years and a fire arms ID card which she obtained during a previous marriage. You figure that one out.
You can take the weapons of murder out of a man's hands, but you can't take murder out of a man's heart. In France there was a recent attack where a truck plowed through a crowd of people celebrating Bastille day, killing many of them intentionally. Should we outlaw the use of motor vehicles to those suspected of being capable of committing a terrorist act or on some watch list? Would that stop them from grabbing a set of car keys and jumping behind the wheel?
I've read and heard that there are presently enough guns in the hands of citizens of the United States to arm every man, woman, and child, and for some reason that makes me feel a little more comfortable about the future, though I know that this is what the Lord might call "the arm of the flesh". However, to not be willing and ready to defend others would be not only denying myself, what I am, but denying what God has made me to be. He is sovereign over creation and understanding that will change your perception of things, but it doesn't change who you are.

 

[Wormwood]

I agree, Brother James. I appreciate your comments. However, if you look at Australia, it would seem their bans have had tremendous success in lowering such horrible acts of violence.

At the end of the day, I agree with you that (and my point has always been) we can all be Jesus-loving Christians and have differing opinions on such irrelevant issues. What saddens me is to see so-called Christians spewing hateful words towards both believers and non-believers over something as silly as whether or not someone should be able to have an assault rifle in their gun safe at home. Suggesting such views make someone an "antichrist" or in league with the devil is one of the most irresponsible and unChristian things I have ever heard.