Poll: If the 2nd A was constitutionally repealed…….

That really is quite a stretch of a hypothetical situation. It could never happen unless the liberals did some sort of illegal manipulation. The Romans 13 argument doesn't make a difference to me, because the Supreme Court declared abortion to be the law of the land - even though it has no constitutional support. I'm sure our country's founding fathers struggled with the question of whether to oppose the lawful government, and were ultimately convinced of the steps they took. I could no more accept the repeal of the 2nd Amendment than I could the repeal of the 1st, or any of the Bill of Rights. There was a reason the founding fathers put the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and that reason is just as valid today as it was back then.

 

I get your point regarding the priority of Scripture over man-made laws and our own opinions. On the other hand, we agree that man's laws often conflict with Scripture - e.g. legalized abortion or slavery. I've often pondered over what when through the minds of our nation's forefathers when they decided to rebel against the British Crown. I believe the Declaration of Independence lets us know how they justified their rebellion. In a similar vein, I think we are facing very similar circumstances.

Having said that, I do not believe the 2nd Amendment ever could legally be repealed. Using Scripture as the Supreme Authority, I appeal to the following passages for the right to bear arms: Exodus 22:2-3 (defend yourself against a thief in the night); Luke 11:21 (guard your home); Isaiah 49:25 (defense against tyrants). I do not believe the government has the God-given authority to take away our weapons.

 

It must be noted that the founding fathers were not following Christ Jesus in the writing of the Constitution. They were mostly Deists who lived by values found in the Bible. I do not worship our flawed father's, though I do admire they recognized all humans are corrupt by nature.

 

Be honest with the criticism. If Romans 13 requires Christians to support the government unequivocally, then should Christians stop opposing abortion once it becomes a state law in our state?

That is the sense in which Romans 13 advocacy for support of the Government is irrelevant when dealing with an evil government law. Oppressing “we the people” is ‘evil’ in the minds of some Christians (which is part of the “hypothetical” scenario).

 

Since I own no guns, I cannot really select an option from the poll. However, I can offer some thoughts on the INTENT of the Second Amendment and “what if it was repealed”.

It might be a step in the right direction towards achieving the goal of the 2nd Amendment in the modern world. Owning a handgun or semi-auto rifle in this day and age would be equivalent to allowing citizens to own a Bowie Knife in the 1700’s. That would hardly be an effective deterrent to a tyrannical government. That means that our handguns provide no real protection from the Government, but just offer an ILLUSION that we are armed against government tyranny. The status quo offers the worst of both worlds … access for tragedy, illusion of security from tyranny and no real protection from tyranny.

With the realities of MODERN TECHNOLOGY and a ban on gun ownership, one could easily acquire the INFORMATION and CAPABILITY to PRINT a L.A.W. (Light Antitank Weapon). Thus the citizens need OWN nothing, yet would retain the capability to ACTUALLY defend themselves against a tyrannical government (which was the intent of the Second Amendment). There are already online plans for full-auto weapons that can be manufactured with equipment purchased for hobbies at home.

I do not think that eliminating legal gun ownership is either practical or a solution likely to succeed even if tried. Nor do I think that civilian defense against the central government is our greatest threat. I am merely pointing out that the GOAL of the 2nd Amendment is no longer dependent upon “well regulated militias” … technology has changed the playing field.

For Christians, the battles and war will be won or lost on the home front as society embraces or rejects the “ways of God” … just like the nation of Israel. We seem to be circling the bowl as our world become more and more of a toilet. (The largest ‘Club’ in my daughter’s HS is the LGBQT Club … that bodes poorly for the next generation.)

 

Why do we assume that the only purpose for guns is to kill something? If my hobby was bowling and my right to enjoy it was protected by the 10 Pin Amendment, would I have to surrender my bowling balls if the amendment was repealed?

I don't own guns to kill animals, people, or anything I'd regret losing. I own guns to obliterate paper, tin cans, and the occasional pumpkin. If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

What is the purpose of the second amendment?

 

I don't own a gun but the silverware drawer is deadly... Brother Glen

 

Before Jesus claimed me, I was a gang member and an arsonist and a drug smuggler and a third generation chemist … I had no need of a gun. So for me the question of owning a gun for “Second Amendment” reasons is moot.

I have no desire to break any laws and no need for guns to overthrow a government. I prefer to be an Architect-Civil Engineer-Land Planner and create spaces that serve people (using my gift for the glory of God). Being an Anarchist holds no appeal.

So to your string of IFs … sure:

• IF I owned a gun
• IF owning a gun became illegal
• IF the government required citizens to surrender their legally registered weapons
• THEN yes, I would surrender my weapon.

HOWEVER, that would NOT leave me incapable of defending my family or fighting tyranny if the need arose. Technology has already rendered that option impossible for the government. Only Jesus Christ sustains the government … any government.

 

I flagged wetlands for a long time. I own more than one machete (used for work) and can chop down a 2” diameter tree in a single blow and a 4” diameter tree in multiple blows. I suspect that it would hurt someone intent on harm if the need arose.

(… imagine what my neighbor could do with his chainsaw?)

 

Generally speaking, I believe in a God who supports freedom of choice. I also don't believe in a government who can restrict sporting equipment.

 

Why is one “obviously evil” and the other “not at all an obvious evil”?

The GOVERNMENT declared that it was wrong to kill babies and right for people to own weapons to prevent tyranny. That SAME GOVERNMENT later declared that a baby was not a baby until it was born (so it was not wrong to kill an unborn baby) and that the people had no need to own weapons to prevent tyranny (ban on automatic weapons). So when you posit that this SAME GOVERNMENT someday decides that people need to own NO WEAPONS to prevent tyranny, what makes SOME decisions of the government GOOD and other decisions of the same government EVIL? A LAW is a LAW and you are asking if CHRISTIANS will obey the government (Romans 13) and obey the LAWS.

Is it so unreasonable to ask if the government that can support killing defenseless babies might support tyranny against defenseless citizens?