God or Guns?
- Thread starter iog
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
No... I mean PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.... the instrument they use to perform the act is of very little consequence. There are two types of killing described in the bible... just killing and MURDER. It is my opinion and that of many others that the most efficient instrument to use defensively is a gun... but there are other instruments available...we understand that GOD used the bible to give us his word and instruct us on JUST KILLING and MURDER... thus we understand the issue isn't guns OR God... but guns AND God.
B
oh... I see it isn't about justice, or good and evil or killing or murder... its just about guns. I realize you didn't offer it as an option... but I could provide a very exhaustive list of MURDERERS who did not use guns. Do you enjoy the "protection" of police or military? Furthermore... buddy you had better be a vegetarian for all your hype... because if you benefit from guns by eating meat... you are surely a hypocrite.
The following is from Highbeamresearch.com. Harvest your own conclusions.
In the last Debunker, we examined the relationship between gun ownership and the murder rate. We found that the most recent statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed that annual gun purchases increased by more than 60 percent over the past decade, while the murder rate declined by more than 14 percent. We concluded that either "(1) there is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate, or (2) gun ownership is negatively correlated with the murder rate
In the last Debunker, we examined the relationship between gun ownership and the murder rate. We found that the most recent statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed that annual gun purchases increased by more than 60 percent over the past decade, while the murder rate declined by more than 14 percent. We concluded that either "(1) there is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate, or (2) gun ownership is negatively correlated with the murder rate
A
you can use a butcher knife to prepare dinner or kill someone.
people have used ropes to hang people but its also needed to tie things down on ships.
would you bann knives and ropes?
you could use gasoline to burn someone to death perhaps we should bann that as well?
as I said before guns can be used to hunt deer and bears and such.
I don't see the need for semiautomatice machine guns in the hands of most people but I don't believe there should be a bann of guns or things that can be used as "deadly" weapons, because you could use misltoe as a poison or even bleach or other things purchased for many other uses.
people have used ropes to hang people but its also needed to tie things down on ships.
would you bann knives and ropes?
you could use gasoline to burn someone to death perhaps we should bann that as well?
as I said before guns can be used to hunt deer and bears and such.
I don't see the need for semiautomatice machine guns in the hands of most people but I don't believe there should be a bann of guns or things that can be used as "deadly" weapons, because you could use misltoe as a poison or even bleach or other things purchased for many other uses.
A
you can catch deer with a seatbelt noose for details
go to www.huntingwithabiding.com
so dont ban seatbelts please
go to www.huntingwithabiding.com
so dont ban seatbelts please
well my niece will be disappointed she can't play the piano anymore....no wire.
no more baseball for my grandnephew...no bats.
no driving to work...my car is a lethal weapon.
i guess i may as well tell my brother not to take the job on the pipeline - no more TNT.
and, i suppose i have to surrender my hammer? how will i hang a picture? a shoe?....oh wait. i could take the laces out of a shoe and.....
what do we do about those who might use their fists or hands?
NO MORE HANDS! NO MORE HANDS! < Piers Morgan first.
no more baseball for my grandnephew...no bats.
no driving to work...my car is a lethal weapon.
i guess i may as well tell my brother not to take the job on the pipeline - no more TNT.
and, i suppose i have to surrender my hammer? how will i hang a picture? a shoe?....oh wait. i could take the laces out of a shoe and.....
what do we do about those who might use their fists or hands?
NO MORE HANDS! NO MORE HANDS! < Piers Morgan first.
you can catch deer with a seatbelt noose for details
go to www.huntingwithabiding.com
so dont ban seatbelts please
go to www.huntingwithabiding.com
so dont ban seatbelts please
Your statement is nonsense. This is part of an article I just read in today news that happened in Joilet, Ill.
"According to police, the four youths intended to rob Glover and Rankins when they lured him to a home in the 1100 block of North Hickory Street in Joliet, strangled them to death and proceeded to "party" and play video games together on Thursday."
Well these people didn't need any weapon to do what they did.
"According to police, the four youths intended to rob Glover and Rankins when they lured him to a home in the 1100 block of North Hickory Street in Joliet, strangled them to death and proceeded to "party" and play video games together on Thursday."
Well these people didn't need any weapon to do what they did.
M
If I may take a moment to address this statement, it may help to provide a clearer understanding of just what our 2nd Amendment rights are for
In order to understand Amrican rights we must first understand why and how America was first founded by the Forefathers in the beginning.
Is our guns main purpose for hunting ... collecting ...for sport ...or for self-defense against criminals?
Surprisingly the answer is No, although these have been offered as justification for firearms existence. A guns sole purpose is to secure an individual's right for self-defense against government.
This is is the Second Amendment. In order to understand the Second Amendment's constitutional purpose, one first must recognise the distinction between the "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights". The Constitution establishes a government of limited powers; thus the 2nd Amendment deals exclusively with power.
Conversely, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) was adopted to secure
individual rights against government's intrusion; thus it deals exclusively with individual rights.
The importance of this distinction is indispensable when one attempts to discern the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. For example, if the Second Amendment is designed to secure a right against government's intrusion, then the question is raised:
"How can one argue that the amendment's purpose is for self-defense against criminals? "
The answer of course, is that one cannot because the Bill of Rights does not secure an individual's rights against other individuals but against government.
Accordingly, present-day opponents and proponents of gun control are engaged in a debate that does not address the principle of government vs. individual but improperly and deceptively makes attempts to redirect the publics focus to individual vs. individual.
This misinformed and illogical debate would offend the Founding Fathers of the Country.
Another misconception about the Second Amendment is the unfounded assertion that the amendment's language is ambiguous. The Second Amendment provides this statement:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In order to understand this statement it is good to understand what the word Militia means and why our Wise Founding Fathers chose to purposely word the document this way.
This language is not ambiguous but clear if one properly analyses the amendment according to Thomas Jefferson's instructions, "On every question of constructions of the Constitution lets take ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted and recollect the spirit manifested in the debates".
In order to find the purpose behind the Second Amendment, one needs to only recall the Founders' objection of government's abuse of power.
Specifically, the Founders feared a standing army, which is different from a Militia.
A standing army is defined as an army of professional soldiers kept permanently prepared. For example, it was Britain's standing army as assembled in 1770 that caused the Boston Massacre.
The universally understood view of the Founders was articulated by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention:
"The greatest danger to liberty is from standing armies".
In this regard, after the signing of the "Declaration of Independence" and prior to the ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions secured the right to keep and bear arms. For example, Section 14 of the Declaration of Rights to Vermont's Constitution (adopted 1777) provides that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms ... as standing armies are dangerous to liberty".
Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "raise and support armies". In addition, Article I, Section 10, prohibits states from keeping troops, without the consent of Congress.
These two provisions clearly placed the exclusive power to establish a standing army with the federal government, which had the effect of disarming the states and their inhabitants.
This situation sounded the alarm that caused the Founders to adopt the Second Amendment. (is it any wonder why the alarm is being sounded again with the Govt. recent and blatant claims and activities of gun control)
---Militias vs. standing armies
Present-day opponents against the Second Amendment try to argue that the word "militia" means an army designed to provide for the common defense of our nation.
These opponents, therefore, incorrectly argue that because we have the greatest military that ever existed, a militia is not necessary; and, therefore, there is no need for the right to keep and bear arms. This assertion is incorrect and contrary to history surrounding and debates concerning the Second Amendment.
The word "militia" is not synonymous with the term "standing Army".
A "militia" isgrab your seats... is everyone ready?
--a non-professional citizen army which is not assembled on a permanent basis.-- Conversely, standing armies are permanently assembled and are comprised of professional soldiers.
The Founders were not confusing the standing armies that could be established by Congress with those comprised of common inhabitants of the states. Common inhabitants and citizens were not assembled by, or loyal to, the federal government but to their own local neighborhoods and state.
Accordingly, any present day opponents' arguments claiming that the right to keep and bear arms is not necessary because "militia" is synonymous with "standing armies" is false.
"Shall not be infringed"
The Second Amendment provides that the government shall not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
As understood by the Founders, the term "infringe", as it relates to rights, means:
"to encroach on or upon". This means to invade gradually. Thus, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with this right, no matter how minimally; no matter how subtly. This includes indirect interference, such as oppressive taxation or regulation.
Furthermore, the use of the command "shall not" was used to eliminate any argument that the right was subject to the government's discretion. The Founders did not use the term "shall not be infringed" by accident but by design.
In Legal matters the word Shall is used as an absolute, it assigns a duty thereto.
Conversely the word "may" when used is permissive and is used to escape responsibility.
Shall indicates a responsibility assigned.
I would highly belive that the verbage SHALL was taken from the bible in the same ways that God commanded to us his laws.
Thou SHALT not steal muder etc.
The Forefathers of our Country intended to preclude the government from implementing sophisticated means by which to encroach upon this right. After all, the amendment was designed to be a check against government's abuse of power, because they had the foresight it would be in the government's interest to encroach upon or eliminate this right. Which is better than the hindsight of saying I wish we would have done this instead. Virginia delegate George Mason stated it most clearly for all people to understand, "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them".
And once enslaved through the inability of regualting those in power(remember the saying how power corrupts ?) The country is no longer a free country but becomes a slave nation.
Who wants to be a member of a slave nation or of a free country?
So it isnt that the citizens would be acting out of any fear.
It is more that they are acting upon Authority.
The Citizens have been given the right and authority to keep its own government in check, in balance through the only means that is effectively after the option of negotiation has been exhausted.
What the Govt. is attempting to do to the citizens of its own country is remove any and all authority we have to to keep our own Govt. in check.
One could look at it similarly to an officer of the law has a gun because that individual has been given the authority to carry it. Although that authority has been granted to him, "By The People"
It must be clearly understood that the citizens of these United States have been given the same authority to bear their own firearms again I reiterate,
mainly for the sole purpose of the citizens being able to protect themselves as a Nation, as a well regulated militia from The Tyranny of Govt.
Ok so we have been foretold biblically whats going to happen in the end times.
And theres going to be two kinds of people in those end times.
Those who will sit back and watch just waiting for it to all be over with
And those who proactively take part in the fulfillment of prophecy.
Revelation Chpt. 9
13The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the hornsb of the golden altar that is before God. 14It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” 15And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number.
Notice these four angels didnt accomplish this without help.
I dunno, I personally choose to not be part of the third of mankind who sits back and does nothing is all.
Why? to be effectively utilized by God while were all here for the sake of others, because other Christians are going to need one another.... till the very end.
In order to understand Amrican rights we must first understand why and how America was first founded by the Forefathers in the beginning.
Is our guns main purpose for hunting ... collecting ...for sport ...or for self-defense against criminals?
Surprisingly the answer is No, although these have been offered as justification for firearms existence. A guns sole purpose is to secure an individual's right for self-defense against government.
This is is the Second Amendment. In order to understand the Second Amendment's constitutional purpose, one first must recognise the distinction between the "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights". The Constitution establishes a government of limited powers; thus the 2nd Amendment deals exclusively with power.
Conversely, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) was adopted to secure
individual rights against government's intrusion; thus it deals exclusively with individual rights.
The importance of this distinction is indispensable when one attempts to discern the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. For example, if the Second Amendment is designed to secure a right against government's intrusion, then the question is raised:
"How can one argue that the amendment's purpose is for self-defense against criminals? "
The answer of course, is that one cannot because the Bill of Rights does not secure an individual's rights against other individuals but against government.
Accordingly, present-day opponents and proponents of gun control are engaged in a debate that does not address the principle of government vs. individual but improperly and deceptively makes attempts to redirect the publics focus to individual vs. individual.
This misinformed and illogical debate would offend the Founding Fathers of the Country.
Another misconception about the Second Amendment is the unfounded assertion that the amendment's language is ambiguous. The Second Amendment provides this statement:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In order to understand this statement it is good to understand what the word Militia means and why our Wise Founding Fathers chose to purposely word the document this way.
This language is not ambiguous but clear if one properly analyses the amendment according to Thomas Jefferson's instructions, "On every question of constructions of the Constitution lets take ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted and recollect the spirit manifested in the debates".
In order to find the purpose behind the Second Amendment, one needs to only recall the Founders' objection of government's abuse of power.
Specifically, the Founders feared a standing army, which is different from a Militia.
A standing army is defined as an army of professional soldiers kept permanently prepared. For example, it was Britain's standing army as assembled in 1770 that caused the Boston Massacre.
The universally understood view of the Founders was articulated by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention:
"The greatest danger to liberty is from standing armies".
In this regard, after the signing of the "Declaration of Independence" and prior to the ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions secured the right to keep and bear arms. For example, Section 14 of the Declaration of Rights to Vermont's Constitution (adopted 1777) provides that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms ... as standing armies are dangerous to liberty".
Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "raise and support armies". In addition, Article I, Section 10, prohibits states from keeping troops, without the consent of Congress.
These two provisions clearly placed the exclusive power to establish a standing army with the federal government, which had the effect of disarming the states and their inhabitants.
This situation sounded the alarm that caused the Founders to adopt the Second Amendment. (is it any wonder why the alarm is being sounded again with the Govt. recent and blatant claims and activities of gun control)
---Militias vs. standing armies
Present-day opponents against the Second Amendment try to argue that the word "militia" means an army designed to provide for the common defense of our nation.
These opponents, therefore, incorrectly argue that because we have the greatest military that ever existed, a militia is not necessary; and, therefore, there is no need for the right to keep and bear arms. This assertion is incorrect and contrary to history surrounding and debates concerning the Second Amendment.
The word "militia" is not synonymous with the term "standing Army".
A "militia" is
grab your seats... is everyone ready?--a non-professional citizen army which is not assembled on a permanent basis.-- Conversely, standing armies are permanently assembled and are comprised of professional soldiers.
The Founders were not confusing the standing armies that could be established by Congress with those comprised of common inhabitants of the states. Common inhabitants and citizens were not assembled by, or loyal to, the federal government but to their own local neighborhoods and state.
Accordingly, any present day opponents' arguments claiming that the right to keep and bear arms is not necessary because "militia" is synonymous with "standing armies" is false.
"Shall not be infringed"
The Second Amendment provides that the government shall not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
As understood by the Founders, the term "infringe", as it relates to rights, means:
"to encroach on or upon". This means to invade gradually. Thus, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with this right, no matter how minimally; no matter how subtly. This includes indirect interference, such as oppressive taxation or regulation.
Furthermore, the use of the command "shall not" was used to eliminate any argument that the right was subject to the government's discretion. The Founders did not use the term "shall not be infringed" by accident but by design.
In Legal matters the word Shall is used as an absolute, it assigns a duty thereto.
Conversely the word "may" when used is permissive and is used to escape responsibility.
Shall indicates a responsibility assigned.
I would highly belive that the verbage SHALL was taken from the bible in the same ways that God commanded to us his laws.
Thou SHALT not steal muder etc.
The Forefathers of our Country intended to preclude the government from implementing sophisticated means by which to encroach upon this right. After all, the amendment was designed to be a check against government's abuse of power, because they had the foresight it would be in the government's interest to encroach upon or eliminate this right. Which is better than the hindsight of saying I wish we would have done this instead. Virginia delegate George Mason stated it most clearly for all people to understand, "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them".
And once enslaved through the inability of regualting those in power(remember the saying how power corrupts ?) The country is no longer a free country but becomes a slave nation.
Who wants to be a member of a slave nation or of a free country?
So it isnt that the citizens would be acting out of any fear.
It is more that they are acting upon Authority.
The Citizens have been given the right and authority to keep its own government in check, in balance through the only means that is effectively after the option of negotiation has been exhausted.
What the Govt. is attempting to do to the citizens of its own country is remove any and all authority we have to to keep our own Govt. in check.
One could look at it similarly to an officer of the law has a gun because that individual has been given the authority to carry it. Although that authority has been granted to him, "By The People"
It must be clearly understood that the citizens of these United States have been given the same authority to bear their own firearms again I reiterate,
mainly for the sole purpose of the citizens being able to protect themselves as a Nation, as a well regulated militia from The Tyranny of Govt.
Ok so we have been foretold biblically whats going to happen in the end times.
And theres going to be two kinds of people in those end times.
Those who will sit back and watch just waiting for it to all be over with
And those who proactively take part in the fulfillment of prophecy.
Revelation Chpt. 9
13The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the hornsb of the golden altar that is before God. 14It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” 15And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number.
Notice these four angels didnt accomplish this without help.
I dunno, I personally choose to not be part of the third of mankind who sits back and does nothing is all.
Why? to be effectively utilized by God while were all here for the sake of others, because other Christians are going to need one another.... till the very end.
M
P.S. A killer without a weapon is a person who is a murderer already in their heart.
And convinces others to do the killing for them so they dont have to.
Like Manson did
Very similar to how some governments use their military to do their dirty work for them,
with its troops not even knowing what theyre fighting for but just following orders
And convinces others to do the killing for them so they dont have to.
Like Manson did
Very similar to how some governments use their military to do their dirty work for them,
with its troops not even knowing what theyre fighting for but just following orders