Is the price we pay for 2nd amendment freedom too high?

[canadyjd]

Who do you imagine you are defending against? Is your area of the US so overrun with local warlords that you have a need for a compound full of weaponry to combat against these warlords?
Honestly, Reynolds, do you not read the history of the early church and then look at yourself and cringe at how far removed you are from them?
Your own words reveal a person who is living in paranoia rather than in joyful faith that the Commander of the Lord's Army has you in the palm of his hand.

I know you addressed this to Reynolds, but I want to respond.

Why do you always go into attack mode when discussing issues? Why mock them (combatting warlords)? Why question someone’s mental health (paranoid)? Why question their commitment to God (cringe at how far they have moved from God; don’t have joyful faith)?

You never offer a substantive argument; only bitter attacks toward Christians who you disagree with that derail substantive debate in the issues.

This debate has been substantive so far. I started the thread. I’m asking you to bow out so we aren’t detailed into personal attacks. Please.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Let’s move forward on this debate. I’m not saying I support the following arguments, but see them as needing to be addressed.

Some may believe Christians shouldn’t own guns for self protection, but rather trust God to defend themselves and their families. Christian history is full of martyrs who did not resist the evil done to them, but trusted God’s sovereignty, even unto death.

Some may believe scripture specifically prohibits Christians from engaging in violence, especially killing someone. God says not to repay evil for evil and remember “vengeance is Mine, so saith the Lord.” And as far as possible, live in peace with all men.

Given the regular use of weapons by criminals to kill and maim and cause chaos, shouldn’t Christians support gun control efforts, at a minimum, or even the repeal of 2nd amendment?

Wouldn’t that be a better witness toward the teachings of our Lord Jesus?

What say you?

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Who do you imagine you are defending against? Is your area of the US so overrun with local warlords that you have a need for a compound full of weaponry to combat against these warlords?
Honestly, Reynolds, do you not read the history of the early church and then look at yourself and cringe at how far removed you are from them?
Your own words reveal a person who is living in paranoia rather than in joyful faith that the Commander of the Lord's Army has you in the palm of his hand.

Baptist distinctives separate church and state.

Who do you imagine you are defending against? Is your area of the US so overrun with local warlords that you have a need for a compound full of weaponry to combat against these warlords?
Honestly, Reynolds, do you not read the history of the early church and then look at yourself and cringe at how far removed you are from them?
Your own words reveal a person who is living in paranoia rather than in joyful faith that the Commander of the Lord's Army has you in the palm of his hand.

In your typical leftist fashion, you attempt to make one justify a need for a Constitutionally granted right. The founders did not say one "needed" a reason to use their given rights. I personally don't think leftists such as yourself need any First Amendment rights, but COTUS gives them to you.

 

[Revmitchell]

Who do you imagine you are defending against? Is your area of the US so overrun with local warlords that you have a need for a compound full of weaponry to combat against these warlords?
Honestly, Reynolds, do you not read the history of the early church and then look at yourself and cringe at how far removed you are from them?
Your own words reveal a person who is living in paranoia rather than in joyful faith that the Commander of the Lord's Army has you in the palm of his hand.

Nothing about this post is true. At all.

 

[poor-in-spirit]

Consider an objective opinion from someone who will not bear arms for any reason. But I got eyes and ears.

Reynolds nailed it earlier in this thread.

A quick read of 2A (actually the original bill of rights) explains why it was ratified in 1791.
Armed citizenry was how common Americans obtained their freedom from elitist tyranny.
Armed citizenry was designed solely for the purpose of the common man (i.e. the people) to "by law" maintain their freedom from elitist tyranny by forming militias to remove oath breaking politicians by force. Meaning: The Constitution is the final authority for all government and law in the U.S. Politicians however, are interchangeable and have zero guarantee to remain in office once they break their oath to said Constitution. The Constitution is your governing authority, not politicians.

The type of weaponry intended for militias when ratified were considered military arms and were at least as effective as British muskets. In many cases superior since most American militiamen carried rifles and not muskets and these militias had every type of weapon including canons that the British did (just not as many). The entire meaning of 2A is moot if weaponry is limited for these militias. Did you get that?

Here is the point:
The firearms act of 1934 nullified the 2A as written so in reality there is no 2A. That was the real coup against the United States some 88 years ago but hardly anyone even noticed after being softened up by crime wave after crime wave with the "gangsters" back then. Does the softening up part sound familiar? Seems they replaced gangsters with hopped up trannies shooting up schools but the results will be the same. You can thank those still alive from the "greatest" generation for giving away your true 2A rights in 1934 and then again for allowing it to be even more restrictive in 1968 after the race riots and assassinations of the early sixties. Undoubtedly IMO all false flags that served multiple purposes for your true rulers. Don't know who your true rulers are? Research the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to find out. The so called "greatest" generation were just as easily manipulated by fabricated fear back then as we are today. Notice how human history is on a sinful loop and it never changes.

This time they will take away every pee shooter you got including your daisy. Not because they fear you armed folks overthrowing them but because they still have a lot of compiling for you to do. Your obeisance will be needed in many areas again. That is most likely why they will take the anemic arms they have been allowing since 1934 from citizens.

The walls and fences around government are for intimidation only. They know current day Americans have been conditioned to have little stomach for hardship and war; Have no possible way to organize on a mass scale since the globalist government has total control over all forms of communication and have no weapons to match the potential woke US military or UN (Chinese) troops thanks to 1934.

I hate to say it but it is ironic that 2A defenders keep defending an amendment that exists only in a museum. What they are really defending are the assumptive scraps of 2A, like home defense and hunting. 2A in itself is long gone. Ever wonder why you have to answer all the "fermenting the overthrow of the US" questions when you purchase a firearm? Under 2A as originally written the reason citizens would seek arms is to overthrow tyrannical government who ignore the Constitution when necessary. See the treachery? They turned the tables on America long before most of us were even born. And Americans have been bragging about a 2A lie their whole lives.

Give up on arms friends, that is the way of fallen Adam, not your Perfect Savior. Be "perfect" in your heart just like Him and let the dead fight for their rights from the dead.

 

[JonC]

We actually do have sufficient weapons. The military can not defeat the armed population without totally destroying the nation completely. I am good friends with a lot of SF and retired SF. They are all 100% convinced the military will not fight the American people.

I do not believe they would fight the American people either. But I disagree that they would have difficulty defeating an armed population. Defeating does not necessarily mean killing or even disarming. Once you make the armed people irrelevant, they are defeated.

 

[JonC]

You try to kill an entire sounder of hogs before they run off. 30 and a mag change is common.

I NEED what I need for self defense. I don't want to bring sufficient firepower. I want to bring overwhelming firepower.
Go back and look at the 2A. Pay close attention to what the definition of Militia was when it was ratified. Pay even closer attention to what "regulated" meant.
"Well regulated militia" does not mean what most today try to say it means.

We don't have Constitutional rights because we can demonstrate need. We have them because COTUS enumerated them.

What is a sounder (about how many)?

Do you kill 'em for food or are they destructive?

 

[AustinC]

Nothing about this post is true. At all.

Who do you imagine you are defending against?

Last night both my cars were rummaged through while I slept. We keep nothing of value in our cars so really no foul.

Should I be outside with a gun to kill them next time? No, I don't think so. What I take from this is that I need to have Bible tracts and Bibles in my cars so those who rummage might be evangelized when they look around. What I own is paltry and temporal. What Christ has done in redeeming me is eternal. I will not shoot someone over a temporal thing.

My guess is it was some juvies who were hoping we were leaving something of value in the cars. All they did was look around and leave.

Who do you imagine you are defending against?

 

[Reynolds]

I do not believe they would fight the American people either. But I disagree that they would have difficulty defeating an armed population. Defeating does not necessarily mean killing or even disarming. Once you make the armed people irrelevant, they are defeated.

Look at our history against fighting a guerilla/insurgent army. It's not very good. Early victories but ultimately lose the war.

 

[Reynolds]

What is a sounder (about how many)?

Do you kill 'em for food or are they destructive?

I have seen 3 in what I call a sounder and I have seen over 40. I guess they average around 20. Some people eat them, but I don't. Carry too much disease. They are destructive. They can wipe out 100 acres of crops in a few days. They probably eat 1% and stomp and root 99%.

 

[Reynolds]

Who do you imagine you are defending against?

Last night both my cars were rummaged through while I slept. We keep nothing of value in our cars so really no foul.

Should I be outside with a gun to kill them next time? No, I don't think so. What I take from this is that I need to have Bible tracts and Bibles in my cars so those who rummage might be evangelized when they look around. What I own is paltry and temporal. What Christ has done in redeeming me is eternal. I will not shoot someone over a temporal thing.

My guess is it was some juvies who were hoping we were leaving something of value in the cars. All they did was look around and leave.

Who do you imagine you are defending against?

I did work LE most of my life. Defending against quite a bit. Robbery, murder, rape, etc. etc....
Again, It is NOT about what I "need" a gun for. It is about The Constitution. It does not say I need a "need". Jefferson said it was about a strong populous and weak central government.
Joe Brandon and the left lie. Individuals did indeed own artillery pieces at the time of the ratification of COTUS.

 

[canadyjd]

Who do you imagine you are defending against?

Last night both my cars were rummaged through while I slept. We keep nothing of value in our cars so really no foul.

Should I be outside with a gun to kill them next time? No, I don't think so. What I take from this is that I need to have Bible tracts and Bibles in my cars so those who rummage might be evangelized when they look around. What I own is paltry and temporal. What Christ has done in redeeming me is eternal. I will not shoot someone over a temporal thing.

My guess is it was some juvies who were hoping we were leaving something of value in the cars. All they did was look around and leave.

Who do you imagine you are defending against?

I do not believe any State allows the use of deadly force in a situation of petty theft as you described.

Only in situations where a clear danger of serious bodily harm or death to you or others is deadly force allowed.

Please quit trying to start a fight by attacking your brethren personally. Argue your point without using the words “you” or redneck or fearful or faithless or any such personal attacks.

The question is “is the cost of 2nd amendment freedoms too high”? Just stick to making your point for or against.

If you can’t, please stop trying to derail this thread with personal attacks by just not posting.

If you read what pro-2nd amendment folks post, you may gain insight into why they believe what they do.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Look at our history against fighting a guerilla/insurgent army. It's not very good. Early victories but ultimately lose the war.

Armed citizens does not a guerilla Army make.

 

[JonC]

Another interesting question is how many Christians would be faithful and obedient to God should the law prohibit gun ownership (Constitutional amendment, SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, etc.).

 

[canadyjd]

Another interesting question is how many Christians would be faithful and obedient to God should the law prohibit gun ownership (Constitutional amendment, SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, etc.).

That is a very good question. Judging from some of these posts, I’d say not very many.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Armed citizens does not a guerilla Army make.

Viet Cong

 

[JonC]

Viet Cong

The National Liberation Front of South Vietnam was more than armed citizens.

 

[AustinC]

I do not believe any State allows the use of deadly force in a situation of petty theft as you described.

Only in situations where a clear danger of serious bodily harm or death to you or others is deadly force allowed.

Please quit trying to start a fight by attacking your brethren personally. Argue your point without using the words “you” or redneck or fearful or faithless or any such personal attacks.

The question is “is the cost of 2nd amendment freedoms too high”? Just stick to making your point for or against.

If you can’t, please stop trying to derail this thread with personal attacks by just not posting.

If you read what pro-2nd amendment folks post, you may gain insight into why they believe what they do.

peace to you

Let's agree, you drop the "leftist" term so I have no compulsion to bring up redneck.

In this thread, I simply ask Reynolds an honest question. He claimed he needed his guns and ammunition to defend himself. My question still remains. Against whom is Reynolds thinking he has to defend himself?

I then state that the early church never felt any compulsion to defend themselves with physical weapons.

 

[AustinC]

I did work LE most of my life. Defending against quite a bit. Robbery, murder, rape, etc. etc....
Again, It is NOT about what I "need" a gun for. It is about The Constitution. It does not say I need a "need". Jefferson said it was about a strong populous and weak central government.
Joe Brandon and the left lie. Individuals did indeed own artillery pieces at the time of the ratification of COTUS.

I have no objection to you owning a flint lock rifle, Reynolds...

 

[canadyjd]

Let's agree, you drop the "leftist" term so I have no compulsion to bring up redneck.

In this thread, I simply ask Reynolds an honest question. He claimed he needed his guns and ammunition to defend himself. My question still remains. Against whom is Reynolds thinking he has to defend himself?

I then state that the early church never felt any compulsion to defend themselves with physical weapons.

Did you not read Reynolds account of a man, just recently, probably a drug addict, attempting to sneak up in him and he pulled his pistol and the man ran off?

I am encouraged at the restraint he demonstrated.

Concerning the early church, that might be a debate worth pursuing.

peace to you