God or Guns?

[zone]

I'm actually not against his proposal because he's not taking guns away; he' s just eliminating guns that are meant for military and having background checks so violent people are less likely to obtain guns in the future. REally not a bad Idea.

hi needmesomejesus
i see what you are saying.
but notice a couple of things.

1) military-style assault weapons

one little word - style.
this leaves it wide open.
even a single shot 'military-style' rifle can be banned.


2) the insistence on "mental health" screening is an old soviet ploy.

in fact, many were killed, tortured or persecuted eventually through their "mental health" system.
it was set up and used for the kind of "re-education" we saw Mao in China use.
this proposal by Obama will open the medical files (previously considered confidential) of everyone to the gov't.
the gov'ts have traditionally stacked that institution with their own loyal.
this kind of ploy leads to anonymous tips; frame-ups; lifetime labels etc.


3) NOW IS THE TIME [the title of Obama's proclamation] is a call-out term in Marxism-Communism - now is the time for revolution.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/01/politics/obama-gun-control-plan/index.html < click

so, i have no doubt this is first salvo of the second american civil war.
these guys mean business.

 

[Ariel82]

I understand wholly, that you believe you are right by law in doing what is necessary to prevent harm to your family, even unto killing. But I ask you to think and question (as I myself have questioned within me), will such legality exist within the life that you have in eternity?

well in eternity there won't be someone threatening to kill your family so the scenario would be moot...

I believe killing someone will hurt the person doing the killing more than the one being killed. therefore all force should be use to prevent someone from committing such a crime. the intent, motives, etc. would be to save a life and a soul more than to take one. A gun can be used for preventative measures. you see it every day in the hands of the police.

however, this isn't really about guns anymore.

 

[needmesomejesus]

hi needmesomejesus
i see what you are saying.
but notice a couple of things.

1) military-style assault weapons

one little word - style.
this leaves it wide open.
even a single shot 'military-style' rifle can be banned.


2) the insistence on "mental health" screening is an old soviet ploy.

in fact, many were killed, tortured or persecuted eventually through their "mental health" system.
it was set up and used for the kind of "re-education" we saw Mao in China use.
this proposal by Obama will open the medical files (previously considered confidential) of everyone to the gov't.
the gov'ts have traditionally stacked that institution with their own loyal.
this kind of ploy leads to anonymous tips; frame-ups; lifetime labels etc.


3) NOW IS THE TIME [the title of Obama's proclamation] is a call-out term in Marxism-Communism - now is the time for revolution.

Obama on curbing gun violence: 'Now is the time' < click

so, i have no doubt this is first salvo of the second american civil war.
these guys mean business.

Well, we can't make that judgment about military assault weapons until he actually gives details.
The mental institution is to prevent people who have had a mental breakdown from hurting others not to kill or hurt them.

 

[sabaqtani7]

well in eternity there won't be someone threatening to kill your family so the scenario would be moot...

I believe killing someone will hurt the person doing the killing more than the one being killed. therefore all force should be use to prevent someone from committing such a crime. the intent, motives, etc. would be to save a life and a soul more than to take one. A gun can be used for preventative measures. you see it every day in the hands of the police.

however, this isn't really about guns anymore.

As I went on to explain. You're right in what you say.

It's understandable to feel that way, but again, like you say, in eternal life, the whole scenario is moot. This life is part of eternal life, in the bigger picture. This one ends, and another, immortal life, begins.

the distinction I tried to make is that in this one, for some reason, it is thought of differently. Perhaps mortality scares people. The consequences of decision and the cause and effect we have in a mortal life, is a scary, and sometimes, seemingly permanent thing.

But the point I tried to make is, if none of this is prevalent in eternal life, and all that exists is then faith, hope, joy and love, in the prescence of God, each person being shown intentions of the heart, willfully dismissive of any sinful intent, then why not cultivate that kind of presence of mind within the life we currently inhabit?

I believe that abstaining from hateful desire, malicious or harmful desire, from fear, from expectation, is not just a mindset of the future life, but one that man can bring ourselves to inhabit in this one.

I think Jesus had it.

I think Jesus did what he did for the glory of God. Throughout his whole life.

Because to me, the point of this life is to show God's glory to him, so people will see. it saves from the consequences of sin if a person disengages from it. Do you know what I mean?

It is like the man who realises life's pointlessness, as the author of Ecclesiasties did. And this is like being in the tundra or the desert. Then we see God's eternal life that he gives us, like a fire in the tundra, or a well in the desert. And we drink from the well, or feel the fire's warmth.

Then a person comes along, and that moment for me was like this;

'Ahh, friend, this life is pointless, just a chasing after the wind.But now you are here. I do not know you, stranger, but you have given me purpose. If I can love you, I love my father'

I found that the person mattered more than the well that I showed him to.

He himself is what gave me purpose. To love Him, who I cannot see, is to love my father, who I can see. So the well is what I can give him, but himself, to love, is what he can give me. Simply his 'being there' has brought me purpose for God.

Do you know what I mean?

I pray that each person receives the peace in these realisations, that I have received.

 

[Ariel82]

Then a person comes along, and that moment for me was like this;

'Ahh, friend, this life is pointless, just a chasing after the wind.But now you are here. I do not know you, stranger, but you have given me purpose. If I can love you, I love my father'

I found that the person mattered more than the well that I showed him to.

He himself is what gave me purpose. To love Him, who I cannot see, is to love my father, who I can see. So the well is what I can give him, but himself, to love, is what he can give me.

Do you know what I mean?

I pray that each person receives the peace in these realisations, that I have received.

yeah i get you.

just that sometimes God shows a use of force may be needed to protect that person or others from themselves.

i agree it should be done in love and because of the love you have for that person. not anger or fear.

 

[sabaqtani7]

yeah i get you.

just that sometimes God shows a use of force may be needed to protect that person or others from themselves.

i agree it should be done in love and because of the love you have for that person. not anger or fear.

I agree with you. Earlier I tried to put this in the perspective of how people change, yet God stays the same.

For instance, with the mentality that many modern believers have, we can comprehend the mental process that leads us into good thought. Internalize our thoughts and realise our desires, fears, and even our motives.

But I think, somehow, that people closer to the time of Adam, such as Abraham, did not have that kind of internalization. Everything they saw of God was an outward action or reaction.

a parable of their life, if you will allow that expression.

Perhaps today, some still think in this manner. I am not saying that is 'wrong'. The dilemma of a malicious invasion of ones home, would reduce anyone to their primal, or perhaps 'set in' instincts, I just put forth the idea that perhaps the mentality of some allows them to see this; to forego instinctive desire in this kind of situation, althought extremely difficult, might be the wholly righteous thing to do, as Jesus did.

Peter's instinctive desire was to strike out, understandably. But Jesus (and it's hard for ANYONE, even the most patient person, to do as Jesus does, so I'm not saying 'be this way'), but Jesus said for Peter to put his sword away. I mean, how crazy faithful is that, in God?? :O

Mind-boggling.

 

[nkz0]

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

praise God we are told to love our enemies but not his enemy the devil so what are we going to do with guns which cannot war against principalities, rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness?

 

[CDavid]

[SIZE=+4]University Study Confirms
Private Firearms
[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
By J. Neil Schulman
4-20-7[/SIZE]

 

[CDavid]

Member, NRA Board of Directors
President, Assoc. of NJ Rifle & Pistol Clubs
​

​

Guns Save Lives

Official NRA Bio ​

American Rifleman Profile​

Hear Scott on NRA News!​

Star-Ledger Blog​

Media Appearances​

NJ Bear Hunt​

Fifty Caliber Advocacy​

Quotes ​

Jersey City Gun Ban Defeated!​

Lawsuit to Stop Arrests of Armed Travellers​

Legal Win Stings Anti-gun Schools​

NH CCW Expanded​

MN CCW Restored​

Re-Election
Flyer​

Home ​

WHEN AN ARSONIST lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?

The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.

The same is true of firearms.

Firearms are employed every day by police, military, and law-abiding private citizens to deter crime, participate in competitions, hunt, and in the gravest extreme, to save the life of a victim of murder, rape, or serious assault. Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks.

To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.

Every police officer who has made an arrest or stopped a crime understands this principle. Every soldier who has known battle understands this as well. And every private citizen who has ever faced a violent criminal alone, and knows the feeling of an impending, untimely death at the hands of a merciless savage, understands the importance of being able to own and carry a firearm, whether or not he or she ever has to fire it.

Guns Stop Crime

Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies, estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it's not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don't hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?

Yet when a single criminal goes on a tragic rampage, that's ALL you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms. Why?

Media Bias

A recent study by the media watchdog Media Research Center (Alexandria, Virginia) concluded that media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased to the negative, noting that between 1995 and 1999, television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.

Unfortunately, we are only being told one side of the story. When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further. Biased media coverage controls public opinion by controlling public perception.

We have been conditioned to associate gun ownership with criminal activity, when in fact the opposite is true. There are nearly 80 million law-abiding gun owners in America, whose use of firearms is entirely for sport and self-defense. For these millions of people, firearms represent safety, security, and recreation. Shooting is even an Olympic sport, and the first medal of the 2000 Summer Olympics was gold, and was won by an American woman in a shooting event.

When a lone criminal misuses a firearm, does that negate the hundreds of thousands of times each year that firearms are used by citizens to prevent crime? Should the misdeed of a single wrongdoer be seized upon as an opportunity to recast all firearms and their law-abiding owners into evil entities to be ostracized, regulated and banished from society? Should you be compelled to turn in your matches because of the acts of an arsonist; or to turn in your steak knife because of the acts of a slasher; or to turn in your car because of the acts of a drunk driver? Of course not.

Crime Control, Not Gun Control

The public outcry for justice after a tragedy is both understandable and correct. But rather than calling for specific justice -- the apprehension and punishment of the particular wrongdoer so severely that future criminals will be effectively deterred -- we have been conditioned to emit an emotional response decrying guns and gun owners, and calling for urgent new regulation in the name of public safety.

This ignores the fact that there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and every act perpetrated by the criminal was already in violation of existing law. What makes us think that new laws will have any more influence over the criminal mind than the existing ones?

New laws may make us feel good for the moment, satisfying the emotional need for a sense of justice after a tragedy, but all they really accomplish is to further restrict the rights of those who already follow the law.

Like the arsonist and his match, it is the wrongdoer who must be punished, not the law-abiding owner or manufacturer. Arson was already illegal when the fire was started. What will a new law accomplish, except making it more difficult -- perhaps impossible -- for you to light your fireplace when you need its warmth to stay alive?

Self Defense Hindered

Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her?

One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed?

The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive.

For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms?

And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed?

Gun Ownership Reduces Crime Rates

The surprising truth is that there is a direct connection between lawful ownership and possession of firearms and the reduction of violent crime rates. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John R. Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press) provides the most comprehensive and statistically reliable study of firearms and crime ever conducted, analyzing the relationship between gun ownership and FBI crime statistics for each of the 3,045 counties in America over an 18 year period.

The study’s irrefutable conclusion: crime rates for murder, rape and robbery drop six to ten percent, and are sustained at reduced rates, when and where law-abiding adult citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms. The reason for this is obvious: some criminals are deterred when they think that their intended victims may be armed.

This principle is not novel. For several years, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia had an ordinance requiring every resident to keep at least one firearm in the home. As a result, the home burglary rate in Kennesaw fell by over 80%. A similar regulation was recently passed in the town of Virgin, Utah.

Before you conclude that Georgia and Utah are populated by the misguided, consider the nation Switzerland, which actually issues military firearms and ammunition to be kept in the home. Possession of pistols and semi-automatic firearms by civilians is only modestly regulated. The resulting crime rate is surprisingly low – lower, in fact, than the crime rate in Great Britain, where gun control laws are the most restrictive in the western world.

Guns Prevent Oppression

Movements to ban and overregulate firearms and demonize their owners are based on fear and misunderstanding of the role that firearms play in a free society. Private firearms ownership insures personal safety when police are delayed or unavailable, and collective firearms ownership by a population is an insurance policy against government oppression and extreme abuses of power. This is what the men and women who founded America had in mind when they acknowledged the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights, next to the First Amendment.

If you don't think that governments oppress and commit atrocities against their own people, think again. During the 20th century, while Americans were building cars, factories, and shopping malls, at least seven major genocides occurred throughout the world, in which more than 50 million people were exterminated by their own governments (Germany, USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala, and the Ottoman Empire). Each of these state-run atrocities was preceded by "common sense" gun control, registration, and eventual confiscation by the government, all under the pretext of advancing public safety.

The most well-known example is Nazi Germany. Prior to the murder of 13 million people throughout Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, a gradual and systematic program of gun control and registration was implemented. Public safety was the stated justification. Once gun owners had been identified through registration, an aggressive gun confiscation program to disarm the population (and in particular, Jewish people) was implemented. As a result, the population was rendered defenseless against the slaughter that followed. Said Hitler in his Edict of March 18, 1938: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

How might the outcome of the Holocaust and other government-organized genocides have been different if the victims had not first been disarmed under the pretext of public safety?

Even the great pacifist leader Mahatma Ghandi comprehended the significance of a population's right to be armed. Said Ghandi in an autobiography: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Guns Save Lives

The bottom line is that firearms stop crimes, prevent oppression, and save lives. Like any tool or instrument, they can also be misused. The solution is not to restrict or eliminate the tool in general, but rather to punish and banish the specific misuser. Restriction or elimination of the tool creates the mere illusion of justice while depriving everyone else of its undeniable benefits.

—Scott L. Bach
(Publication Pending)

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[PS]

An excellent example of biased writing.

 

[iog]

What did Abraham do when his nephew Lot was taken captive?

Genesis 14: 11 The four kings seized all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food; then they went away. 12 They also carried off Abram's nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom. 13 One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.15 During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus.16 He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people. 17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

What an evil man Abraham must have been, taking up arms against his enemies. Shouldn't he have just turned the other cheek? Shouldn't he have just forgiven them and said, take my nephew, would you like my wife also?

But no, wait! Melchizedek said he (Abraham) was blessed by God most High, and Abraham paid a tithe. What's going on here. This evil man who took up arms to save his nephew.

I guess he didn't have as much faith as many of the people on this thread claim to have. But wait. Paul said that Abraham's faith was credited to him for righteousness. Oh well! What did Paul know!

are you abraham?

did the Lord talk to you!

Genesis 12:1-3
King James Version (KJV)


1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

 

[iog]

yeah i get you.

just that sometimes God shows a use of force may be needed to protect that person or others from themselves.

i agree it should be done in love and because of the love you have for that person. not anger or fear.

so you will blast a thief away in love?

you will use a assault rifle on a 25 year old for stealing your cell phone.

most people will use there firearm out of anger

 

[iog]

Member, NRA Board of Directors

President, Assoc. of NJ Rifle & Pistol Clubs ​

Guns Save Lives

Official NRA Bio


American Rifleman Profile


Hear Scott on NRA News!


Star-Ledger Blog


Media Appearances


NJ Bear Hunt


Fifty Caliber Advocacy


Quotes


Jersey City Gun Ban Defeated!


Lawsuit to Stop Arrests of Armed Travellers


Legal Win Stings Anti-gun Schools


NH CCW Expanded


MN CCW Restored


Re-Election​

Flyer​

Home ​

WHEN AN ARSONIST lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?

The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.

The same is true of firearms.

Firearms are employed every day by police, military, and law-abiding private citizens to deter crime, participate in competitions, hunt, and in the gravest extreme, to save the life of a victim of murder, rape, or serious assault. Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks.

To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.

Every police officer who has made an arrest or stopped a crime understands this principle. Every soldier who has known battle understands this as well. And every private citizen who has ever faced a violent criminal alone, and knows the feeling of an impending, untimely death at the hands of a merciless savage, understands the importance of being able to own and carry a firearm, whether or not he or she ever has to fire it.

Guns Stop Crime

Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies, estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it's not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don't hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?

Yet when a single criminal goes on a tragic rampage, that's ALL you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms. Why?

Media Bias

A recent study by the media watchdog Media Research Center (Alexandria, Virginia) concluded that media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased to the negative, noting that between 1995 and 1999, television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.

Unfortunately, we are only being told one side of the story. When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further. Biased media coverage controls public opinion by controlling public perception.

We have been conditioned to associate gun ownership with criminal activity, when in fact the opposite is true. There are nearly 80 million law-abiding gun owners in America, whose use of firearms is entirely for sport and self-defense. For these millions of people, firearms represent safety, security, and recreation. Shooting is even an Olympic sport, and the first medal of the 2000 Summer Olympics was gold, and was won by an American woman in a shooting event.

When a lone criminal misuses a firearm, does that negate the hundreds of thousands of times each year that firearms are used by citizens to prevent crime? Should the misdeed of a single wrongdoer be seized upon as an opportunity to recast all firearms and their law-abiding owners into evil entities to be ostracized, regulated and banished from society? Should you be compelled to turn in your matches because of the acts of an arsonist; or to turn in your steak knife because of the acts of a slasher; or to turn in your car because of the acts of a drunk driver? Of course not.

Crime Control, Not Gun Control

The public outcry for justice after a tragedy is both understandable and correct. But rather than calling for specific justice -- the apprehension and punishment of the particular wrongdoer so severely that future criminals will be effectively deterred -- we have been conditioned to emit an emotional response decrying guns and gun owners, and calling for urgent new regulation in the name of public safety.

This ignores the fact that there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and every act perpetrated by the criminal was already in violation of existing law. What makes us think that new laws will have any more influence over the criminal mind than the existing ones?

New laws may make us feel good for the moment, satisfying the emotional need for a sense of justice after a tragedy, but all they really accomplish is to further restrict the rights of those who already follow the law.

Like the arsonist and his match, it is the wrongdoer who must be punished, not the law-abiding owner or manufacturer. Arson was already illegal when the fire was started. What will a new law accomplish, except making it more difficult -- perhaps impossible -- for you to light your fireplace when you need its warmth to stay alive?

Self Defense Hindered

Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her?

One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed?

The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive.

For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms?

And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed?

Gun Ownership Reduces Crime Rates

The surprising truth is that there is a direct connection between lawful ownership and possession of firearms and the reduction of violent crime rates. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John R. Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press) provides the most comprehensive and statistically reliable study of firearms and crime ever conducted, analyzing the relationship between gun ownership and FBI crime statistics for each of the 3,045 counties in America over an 18 year period.

The study’s irrefutable conclusion: crime rates for murder, rape and robbery drop six to ten percent, and are sustained at reduced rates, when and where law-abiding adult citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms. The reason for this is obvious: some criminals are deterred when they think that their intended victims may be armed.

This principle is not novel. For several years, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia had an ordinance requiring every resident to keep at least one firearm in the home. As a result, the home burglary rate in Kennesaw fell by over 80%. A similar regulation was recently passed in the town of Virgin, Utah.

Before you conclude that Georgia and Utah are populated by the misguided, consider the nation Switzerland, which actually issues military firearms and ammunition to be kept in the home. Possession of pistols and semi-automatic firearms by civilians is only modestly regulated. The resulting crime rate is surprisingly low – lower, in fact, than the crime rate in Great Britain, where gun control laws are the most restrictive in the western world.

Guns Prevent Oppression

Movements to ban and overregulate firearms and demonize their owners are based on fear and misunderstanding of the role that firearms play in a free society. Private firearms ownership insures personal safety when police are delayed or unavailable, and collective firearms ownership by a population is an insurance policy against government oppression and extreme abuses of power. This is what the men and women who founded America had in mind when they acknowledged the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights, next to the First Amendment.

If you don't think that governments oppress and commit atrocities against their own people, think again. During the 20th century, while Americans were building cars, factories, and shopping malls, at least seven major genocides occurred throughout the world, in which more than 50 million people were exterminated by their own governments (Germany, USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala, and the Ottoman Empire). Each of these state-run atrocities was preceded by "common sense" gun control, registration, and eventual confiscation by the government, all under the pretext of advancing public safety.

The most well-known example is Nazi Germany. Prior to the murder of 13 million people throughout Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, a gradual and systematic program of gun control and registration was implemented. Public safety was the stated justification. Once gun owners had been identified through registration, an aggressive gun confiscation program to disarm the population (and in particular, Jewish people) was implemented. As a result, the population was rendered defenseless against the slaughter that followed. Said Hitler in his Edict of March 18, 1938: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

How might the outcome of the Holocaust and other government-organized genocides have been different if the victims had not first been disarmed under the pretext of public safety?

Even the great pacifist leader Mahatma Ghandi comprehended the significance of a population's right to be armed. Said Ghandi in an autobiography: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Guns Save Lives

The bottom line is that firearms stop crimes, prevent oppression, and save lives. Like any tool or instrument, they can also be misused. The solution is not to restrict or eliminate the tool in general, but rather to punish and banish the specific misuser. Restriction or elimination of the tool creates the mere illusion of justice while depriving everyone else of its undeniable benefits.

—Scott L. Bach
(Publication Pending)

God's commandments stops violence
God's laws prevenat oppression
God's words stops crime

Guns kill!

 

[iog]

[SIZE=+4]University Study Confirms [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+4]Private Firearms [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]By J. Neil Schulman[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]4-20-7[/SIZE]

If everyone was taught to keep God's commandments guess what

we would not have crime!!!!

if Adam and Eve had obeyed God this money making machine producing weapons would not exist.

 

[iog]

What did Abraham do when his nephew Lot was taken captive?

Genesis 14: 11 The four kings seized all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food; then they went away. 12 They also carried off Abram's nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom. 13 One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.15 During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus.16 He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people. 17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

What an evil man Abraham must have been, taking up arms against his enemies. Shouldn't he have just turned the other cheek? Shouldn't he have just forgiven them and said, take my nephew, would you like my wife also?

But no, wait! Melchizedek said he (Abraham) was blessed by God most High, and Abraham paid a tithe. What's going on here. This evil man who took up arms to save his nephew.

I guess he didn't have as much faith as many of the people on this thread claim to have. But wait. Paul said that Abraham's faith was credited to him for righteousness. Oh well! What did Paul know!

Was Abraham right to take up arms when the Lord would have handled the business?
Remebber Abraham grew weak when he listened to his wife Sarah over God and slept with Hagar

Now Lets look at what righteousness is and then you decide if Abraham should have taken up arms


Deuteronomy 6:24-25

24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

righteousness is keeping the commandments of God

when Melchizedek came to Abraham with the blood and wine the Lord had to clean Abraham up
when is what the passover(blood and wine) does

Abraham should have listened to God when he said he will "curse them that curse you"

anyway Abraham as we had his struggles also

 

[iog]

I truly think that Communism is coming. For a while I've thought this would happen. I hope we're not here for much of it but all things will come to pass.

Disarming citizens would create more crime because the bad guys will still have guns and they will know that everyone else is disarmed. This is an obvious. The ones wanting to disarm citizens are doing it for control purposes.

I read somewhere that China is demanding that US citizens be disarmed. The US must owe to China for them to have any kind of say in US matters. It certainly could benefit China in a way, if you think about it.

My husband has a large collection of guns and samurai sword (he does martial arts, not with the actual sword, it's just to look at, lol) and I've learnt how to use a gun. There are dangerous people out there with firearms, but I know God protects me. He once sent someone to my aid at the exact moment I needed help, the guy had a loaded shotgun. Recently I left the back door unlocked in my house while my husband was away on a business trip. The Holy Spirit alerted me to this by having me put out recycling when I didn't need to. It was a random urge to put out recycling, but I felt protected. God protects us

Anyway these are just my thoughts.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ixd0J5GqC4[/video]

a dictator is coming and his name is JESUS

lets read

Revelation 12:5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Revelation 19:
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Jesus will rule this earth as a ABSOLUTE dictator

he will rule with a rod of Iron.

 

[iog]

It was a rescue mission, they got back what had been stolen and nobody was hurt.

I'm reading that Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine and blessed Abraham..

Conclusion: The path into which God calls the believer may often be trying to the flesh, but this does not necessarily indicate that he is out of God’s will. (From the summarised Bible)

May I remind you that Christians are living under a New Covenant.

what is that NC you speak of?

Abraham was a follower of Jesus

Jesus is Melchizedek

the blood and wine is not new it is very old

Melchizedek participated in it
Jesus participated in it
we are to participate in it today

there is nothing new under the sun!!!

weapon in our day a money making business
weapons in yesterday a money making business
weapon in the future a money making business

PREPARE FOR WAR said the Lord

 

[iog]

most gun owners are protecting there material items and there families

listen to what the Lord said about this

Matthew 6:24-26



24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

the birds of the air has enemies

thik about it!

 

[iog]

Did Abraham kill anyone else after the battle with the kings?

i will have to do a little more research I don't recall, I cant remember if he did or not?

 

[iog]

the gentiles are behind the NRA and the weapon manufacturers, most gentiles are gun owners. The gentiles seek these things.



Matthew 6

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall
take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.