Featured Gun Ownership ... and my prediction!

How is that verse a metaphor?

Why do you believe that's the sole purpose of a gun? And, while you're at it, could you please explain why using a gun to protect an innocent person or subdue a violent criminal, even if it results in the death of the attacker or criminals, is inconsistent with "Gospel values", particularly in light of Romans 13?

 

And you base this unfounded assumption on what, exactly?

 

Then kindly explain the "101 Uses of a Gun" for us 'sophomores'.

 

In what way isn't it?

Please elaborate on the other uses, then.

I have no objection to the 'authorities' defending the innocent, if that's what you're alluding to. The military can and of course should be armed. I do however vehemently object to my neighbour being armed.

 

It is not unfounded at all. Your statements on our support of guns is ignorant.

 

Target shooting

Self protection

Protection against Tyrant governments

The protection of others

Stopping dangerous Criminals

I could go on but there is no need. Enough said.

 

First of all, it wasn't "immediately afterwards". They were two different incidents.

Second, how does cautioning someone not to pick a fight with a squad of Roman soldiers mean that Jesus' command to buy swords was metaphorical?

So, does he have a police officer stationed inside his home, who accompanies him on his daily rounds? Or would he have to get to a phone, call the police, and then wait for them to come to his aid?

An irrational fear on your part does not negate his right.

Could you please explain how depriving your neighbor of the right to defend himself is consistent with "Gospel principles"?

How is that loving toward your neighbor?

 

OK, apart from target shooting, all of your list involve inflicting death or injury as the purpose. I rest my case.

[cp with John Deere Fan, to whom: Jesus made it clear to the disciples that He was talking metaphorically when He rebuked them immediately afterwards for showing Him their swords. Right, that's your question answered, now please answer mine. As to my neighbour's right to defend himself (a) that's why we have a police force and (b) what about my right not to feel threatened by having a gun-toting guy living next door to me??!!!!]

 

You also forgot hunting and removing varmints.

We constantly use rifles to remove groundhogs. If one of our horses or cattle stepped in a hole, they could be injured and may have to be put down. So, killing varmints is not only necessary to prevent crop damage, but to protect our horses and livestock.

 

Both of those are fine. Not sure why you would need to do either outside a rural environment though.

 

People outside rural environments like to eat, too.

 

Boy your are kind of thick aint ya. That is your personal and chosen characterizations. It is not only wrongheaded but it is immature. More importantly it is not intellectually honest.

 

Thank you. I have a degree in law plus post-grad qualifications, so I am well aware that when protagonists resort to personal insults, they demonstrate that they know they are losing the argument.

 

There's grocery stores, you know.

 

Yeah...and? Perhaps they prefer game or, God forbid, they might just prefer to provide for themselves.

 

Yes well.....maybe in all of your "education" they should have taught you the difference between personal insults and giving a clear description of your behavior.


What I have learned in every day life is when someone has to pull out their education in order to prove a point they are not every secure with their position.

 

Yes well its ok is someone else does the killing them isn't it.

 

Gotta love the internet. Anybody can claim to be anything.

Over on CARM, we've got a guy who doesn't know the difference between the prone and supine positions, but claims to be a doctor, a person who doesn't know what an MLA or APA citation is, but claims to be an "editor of academic journals", a guy who thinks the General Welfare Clause refers to government entitlement programs, but claims to be a lawyer, an atheist who claims to have been a Christian pastor, but doesn't know even the most basic elements of Christian doctrine.

Of course, I don't believe they are those things any more than I believe somebody who doesn't understand the purpose or nature of the 2nd Amendment and thinks "tell me how it's not" is a valid defense for his claim that Luke 22:36 is metaphorical has a law degree.

 

They did. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You called me 'ignorant'. I felt obliged to disabuse you of your misguided assumption. You're welcome

 

Explain how this relates specifically to guns