2nd Amendment in light of the Light of Christ

[TheGrungeDiva]

With the tragedy in Colorado, much discussion has come up about guns. There's a lively and loving discussion going on in the Christian News thread about the event, but it occurred to me that it veers just slightly off-topic when we bring up the 2nd amendment. For our sisters and brothers who are not familiar with US law, our "2nd amendment" states:

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.

This amendment has come under fire (no pun intended) for decades in the US, with two sides arguing basically as follows:

Anti-gun: The founding fathers had no inkling of how arms would develop. They certainly did not intend for a non-military person to be able to own automatic rifles, let alone bombs. It is not unreasonable to put restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned and by whom. The 2nd amendment needs re-interpretation in light of modern technology.

Pro-gun: "not be infringed" means just that. No restrictions. If you start messing with the 2nd amendment, what keeps you from messing with the first? Slippery slope. The 2nd amendment is the "insurance" that enables the people to force the government not to mess with the 1st.

(I know I have over-simplified both sides of the argument -- I mean no disrespect to either, but am seeking to summarize two polarized views.)

Since this is a Christian chat room, I'm wondering where Christ fits in all of this? What Would Jesus Do?

 

[tribesman]

I am not an american but give my voice on this anyhow. I would have checked the second alternative, had not it also stated that "Jesus was a revolutionary", something I do not think He was (at least not by the modern definition). Being ethnic minority I am definitely pro-gun. With this not said that I necessarily have to "use" that right. But I believe that right to be most essential and that it must be safeguarded. There are too many examples in history when ethnic and religious minorities were unarmed by a police state only to become victims of genocide. People must have the right to protect themselves.

 

[tribesman]

...There are too many examples in history when ethnic and religious minorities were unarmed by a police state only to become victims of genocide. People must have the right to protect themselves.

Ehrrmm...disarmed rather. To prevent grammar nazis. :

 

[OFM]

We need to bee allways Prayerfully Praying Peace Warriors Now and Forever AllWays>>>>AMEN<<<<

 

[episcopotic]

Jesus was asked on multiple occasions, essentially, if his movement would be yet another Jewish revolt trying to get out from under Roman authority and taxation by means of violence. Was he a Zealot, in other words? Should he be put down on the spot, to prevent the inevitable? He said no.

When it came to protecting his own person, he laid down his life. His followers, at least for a few centuries, often did the same. Common sense, that one should protect his and his own, didn't begin until Christianity came into power and no longer needed the blood of the martyrs.

For most of us, it's impossible to translate those sort of teachings into our own time. Most of us aren't being hunted down by Diocletian. Jesus didn't say much about this sort of world.

 

[OFM]

i totally fully compeletly agree well written well ahared >>>>amen<<<<....

 

[resurrection33]

With the tragedy in Colorado, much discussion has come up about guns. There's a lively and loving discussion going on in the Christian News thread about the event, but it occurred to me that it veers just slightly off-topic when we bring up the 2nd amendment. For our sisters and brothers who are not familiar with US law, our "2nd amendment" states:

This amendment has come under fire (no pun intended) for decades in the US, with two sides arguing basically as follows:

Anti-gun: The founding fathers had no inkling of how arms would develop. They certainly did not intend for a non-military person to be able to own automatic rifles, let alone bombs. It is not unreasonable to put restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned and by whom. The 2nd amendment needs re-interpretation in light of modern technology.

Pro-gun: "not be infringed" means just that. No restrictions. If you start messing with the 2nd amendment, what keeps you from messing with the first? Slippery slope. The 2nd amendment is the "insurance" that enables the people to force the government not to mess with the 1st.

(I know I have over-simplified both sides of the argument -- I mean no disrespect to either, but am seeking to summarize two polarized views.)

Since this is a Christian chat room, I'm wondering where Christ fits in all of this? What Would Jesus Do?

I don’t think it’s unchristian to protect ourselves and those we care about.

 

[OFM]

yes in peacefull ways only as a christian i personally spiritually believe only and allways>>>>amen<<<<.

 

[edward99]

Matt Gurney: When you’re out of good ideas, call for a handgun ban

Matt Gurney Jun 13, 2012 – 1:29 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 13, 2012 1:45 PM ET

...a rational examination of all available evidence, and simple common sense, would show that banning guns would have no real impact on gun violence. And yet it’s called for anyway, again and again. Good heavens. That almost sounds like an emotional dislike of guns, rather than a rational public policy proposal.

There are many who simply don’t like guns and don’t wish their neighbours and fellow citizens to possess them, and argue that there is no “need” (or “rational reason,” if you prefer) for a citizen to own a firearm. That’s generally true. But it misses the point. Living in a free society means that citizens do not need to demonstrate a rational reason to do as they please and own what they will, so long as they are law-abiding.

Those who would lightly strip away the property of others on the basis of them not needing it should also tread carefully. Smokers don’t need cigarettes, which, according to the Toronto Department of Health, kill about 120 times more people annually than guns did in Toronto last year. Citizens don’t need alcohol, sharp knives, soda pop or motorcycles either. Isn’t it funny how that’s never reason enough to call for their banning?

.....Chicago and Washington both banned handguns and saw increases in gun violence, as criminal enterprises did not hesitate to simply illegally acquire their pistols elsewhere. And Australia, the only country in the world to have an entire continent to itself, saw no appreciable change its levels on gun crime after a sweeping ban on firearms (not just handguns) in 1996. So much for the Star‘s love of evidence.

Everyone is horrified when innocent people are hurt in an act of random violence. But banning guns has been tried elsewhere, and failed. Canada’s close proximity to, and porous border with, the world’s largest manufacturer of handguns settled this issue for us long ago. Cracking down on law-abiding citizens is simply the go-to option for those who have nothing useful to suggest and see nothing wrong with taking out society’s problems on their fellow, law-abiding citizens.

Gun Control and Handgun Bans: When you're out of good ideas, call for a handgun ban | Full Comment | National Post

 

[edward99]

Revelation 13:4
they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"

No one is able to make war with the beast, since "he"/it plans to disarm EVERYONE everywhere EXCEPT himself/itself.

 

[edward99]

A nonviolence gun sculpture on display at the United Nations in New York City.

Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares sculpture at the United Nations in NYC.


Sounds nice. But they mean all of us - NOT THEM.
They have initiated all world wars (including the 3rd happening right now) to bring in this "New Order" of global "Peace and Safety".

To make the world so weary of all the "terrorism", it will finally agree to Global Rule by a tiny few.
Those who will not submit to this will be (and are being) killed.

The United Nations Headquarters in New York - pictures


_


October 23, 2008
Eliminating 25 million Americans
Thomas Lifson


That was the plan of the Weather Underground after taking power. The same Weather Underground headed by Barack Obama's friends William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the people in whose house he launched his political career, and with whom he has worked and spoken on the subject of educational reform.

Confederate Yankee discovered a video clip of testimony given by former Weather Underground member/FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, in which he speaks the following chilling words:

I asked, "well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" and the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

Archived Blog: Eliminating 25 million Americans

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Edward: Your comments are confusing to me. You quote a lengthy article again gun control, then you post two anti-violence posts -- and I LOVE the pictures you've got in the second, by the way: stunning! The first post, though, the one with the article saying that gun control is a bad idea .... Can I assume that you forgot to put your own commentary on that post, saying you disagree with it? It's actually a strong, compelling argument against gun control, and you don't seem to offer any viable rebuttal to the valid points it raises: that legislation limiting guns does nothing to decrease gun violence. If your goal is a decrease in violence (which I think it is ... isn't everyone's?) Then simply banning guns is not the answer: we have to be smarter than that, more careful than that, more intentional than that.

Cigarettes don't kill all by themselves; you have to light them up and smoke them, and then they become the cancer sticks we all hate. The US tried prohibition and it failed miserably, so we know we don't want to try that again. We tried ad campaigns to get people to stop, that didn't work. You know what has worked: limiting the places people can smoke. In some states, you cannot smoke in public at all any more. You can smoke like a chimney in the privacy of your own home, if you like, but not anywhere where there are other people. This has actually reduced smoking (duh!) Sure, there are still people who smoke, but a lot of people have taken that opportunity to quit. And that's good: it's their choice. The state passes laws to protect others, and the individual makes choices to protect him or herself. That is exactly what is supposed to happen.

Similarly, as trite as the saying is, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The gun is a tool. People can kill with knives; shall we outlaw all knives? (Steak eaters will hate you forever.) People can kill with their bare hands. Shall we cut off everyone's hands? Obviously not. Even cutting off the hands of someone who has killed with their bare hands is extreme (though called for in the New Testament).

I have no problem with some of the controls requested: waiting periods, registrations, etc. But an outright ban, as it has already been proven, will not reduce crime. It will actually increase crime. Therefore, I am against it. Not only because of the 2nd amendment, but also because I don't want to see crime rise.

 

[OFM]

it does reduce crime like not watching t.v. reduces t.v. watching time.

 

[edward99]

Edward: Your comments are confusing to me. You quote a lengthy article again gun control, then you post two anti-violence posts -- and I LOVE the pictures you've got in the second, by the way: stunning! The first post, though, the one with the article saying that gun control is a bad idea .... Can I assume that you forgot to put your own commentary on that post, saying you disagree with it? It's actually a strong, compelling argument against gun control, and you don't seem to offer any viable rebuttal to the valid points it raises: that legislation limiting guns does nothing to decrease gun violence. If your goal is a decrease in violence (which I think it is ... isn't everyone's?) Then simply banning guns is not the answer: we have to be smarter than that, more careful than that, more intentional than that.

I am against the gun control being imposed by THE BEAST.
It's not for OUR good. It's for theirs.

Cigarettes don't kill all by themselves; you have to light them up and smoke them, and then they become the cancer sticks we all hate. The US tried prohibition and it failed miserably, so we know we don't want to try that again. We tried ad campaigns to get people to stop, that didn't work. You know what has worked: limiting the places people can smoke. In some states, you cannot smoke in public at all any more. You can smoke like a chimney in the privacy of your own home, if you like, but not anywhere where there are other people. This has actually reduced smoking (duh!) Sure, there are still people who smoke, but a lot of people have taken that opportunity to quit. And that's good: it's their choice. The state passes laws to protect others, and the individual makes choices to protect him or herself. That is exactly what is supposed to happen.

A lit cigarette will not stop
a) an intruder from raping one's wife
b) a robber from shooting you in the face after he robs the til.
c) a tyrannical gov't from breaking your door down and dragging your daughter to GITMO

You missed the point.

Similarly, as trite as the saying is, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The gun is a tool. People can kill with knives; shall we outlaw all knives? (Steak eaters will hate you forever.) People can kill with their bare hands. Shall we cut off everyone's hands? Obviously not. Even cutting off the hands of someone who has killed with their bare hands is extreme (though called for in the New Testament). .

We are to believe "terrorists" are making WMD they wear in their underwear to bring down planes.
Enough with the "guns" thing.

This is about ONE thing. The takedown of America.

I have no problem with some of the controls requested: waiting periods, registrations, etc. But an outright ban, as it has already been proven, will not reduce crime. It will actually increase crime. Therefore, I am against it. Not only because of the 2nd amendment, but also because I don't want to see crime rise.

OK.

Controls?
Under whose authority? The same corrupt "gov't" (CIA/DHS) which was nailed for "Fast & Furious"?
You want THEM to have all the names and personal information on the people who have a right under the 2nd to bear arms?

Don't you see the folly in that?
Who do you think will be first to go?

I agree wholeheartedly that its all out of control. This is not necessarily that fault of ordinary citizens...this is plan, the script of the BEAST, who MUST create chaos where there wasd none, in order to bring in a New Order (per the UN stuff). This is not rocket science.

 

[OFM]

edward u write so dark u have alot of dark isusses thoughts feelings and hatefull hating hate in u i will pray for ur christian salvation.o.k.

 

[edward99]

edward u write so dark u have alot of dark isusses thoughts feelings and hatefull hating hate in u i will pray for ur christian salvation.o.k.

Uh. If you say so.
Why do you click LIKE on the posts then?

 

[edward99]

it does reduce crime like not watching t.v. reduces t.v. watching time.

Statistics say the opposite.

 

[OFM]

i am right so that means u are wrong you have a right to be wrong and are wrong on this Ha Ha Ha Ha

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I am against the gun control being imposed by THE BEAST.
It's not for OUR good. It's for theirs.

I am not familiar with any gun control imposed by Satan. According to my faith, Satan has no power. Jesus has already conquered him. So ... not sure where you're going with that?

A lit cigarette will not stop
a) an intruder from raping one's wife
b) a robber from shooting you in the face after he robs the til.
c) a tyrannical gov't from breaking your door down and dragging your daughter to GITMO

You missed the point.

Ummm, no, clearly YOU missed the point.

I was not comparing cigarettes to guns in their ability to prevent crime. I was comparing guns to cigarettes in the futility of each to be prohibited. I have no idea where you got your idea. Are you not fluent in English? I can try to dumb it down for you, if you're having trouble understanding me.

Controls?
Under whose authority? The same corrupt "gov't" (CIA/DHS) which was nailed for "Fast & Furious"?
You want THEM to have all the names and personal information on the people who have a right under the 2nd to bear arms?

I never said the government -- and certainly not the federal government -- should be in charge of these controls. If any government should have said information it would have to be local law enforcement ONLY, and even then, I know the FBI would be breathing down locals' necks to get their hands on it, so that's risky. I have no problem with private control of said database, and I absolutely agree that the information should be kept private, even from -- especially from -- the government.

Don't you see the folly in that?
Who do you think will be first to go?

Indeed I do which is why I brought it up.

For some reason you seem to be assuming that I am anti-gun. I can only guess that, from my other posts in other threads, you have seen me lean a little to the left in some ways, and you are assuming that if I'm liberal in one area, I must therefore be in lock-step with the democrats across the board. That's ludicrous.

In fact, the "liberal" stance on gun control is anti-control, or pro-gun. I know a lot of democrats are in favor of gun control. In that issue, these democrats are "conservative," while more republicans are "liberal." (The "libertarian" party is more consistently liberal -- they don't want government intervention in anything, economic, social, everything.)

And you know what they say about "assume."

So, rather than me responding to your posts point-by-point, why don't you take a step back, take a deep breath, and then re-read my posts, this time without the filter of assumption that I'm some blue-dog democrat lackey who has no opinions of her own and can only go party-line. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Uh. If you say so.
Why do you click LIKE on the posts then?

I used to think OFM was a troll. I'm starting to think maybe he's just ... umm.... special. He reminds me of a puppy. Cute, full of love, easily distracted, and completely well-intentioned. The more I read his posts with that in mind, the more sense they make. But now I'm the one "ASSuming," so there's irony for ya.