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

[AustinC]

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

I did not read it. Why pull a gun? Drug addicts are quite prominent in big cities with no reason to pull a gun out. Paranoia strikes deep...

 

[Reynolds]

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

Not much more in the early years of American involvement.

 

[Reynolds]

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

Shows your ignorance of The Constitution.

 

[atpollard]

At the risk of ending up on an FBI watch list, I would point out the following fact just as a “point of information” for consideration:

Were the government to become “tyrannical” and I to join a civilian militia seeking to exercise our Second Amendment protection …

• With an AK47 Assault rifle (technically a carbine), I might kill hundreds (optimistically on a ‘good day’ of attacking the government).
• As the son of a chemist and grandson of a chemist (who got an A in High School Chemistry), and an Architect who took all of those “Structural Engineering” courses in College, I could destroy a building and kill thousands while being miles away and planning the next attack.

My point is not that I am particularly dangerous. My point is what every “terrorist” already knows … there are weapons more dangerous than guns available to us every day. Power does flow from the people to the government and not the other way.

 

[canadyjd]

At the risk of ending up on an FBI watch list, I would point out the following fact just as a “point of information” for consideration:

Were the government to become “tyrannical” and I to join a civilian militia seeking to exercise our Second Amendment protection …

• With an AK47 Assault rifle (technically a carbine), I might kill hundreds (optimistically on a ‘good day’ of attacking the government).
• As the son of a chemist and grandson of a chemist (who got an A in High School Chemistry), and an Architect who took all of those “Structural Engineering” courses in College, I could destroy a building and kill thousands while being miles away and planning the next attack.

My point is not that I am particularly dangerous. My point is what every “terrorist” already knows … there are weapons more dangerous than guns available to us every day. Power does flow from the people to the government and not the other way.

Any post that begins with “at the risk of ending up on an FBI watch list….” probably shouldn’t be posted. Just saying describing how you could commit acts of violence that kill thousands goes beyond saying you won’t give up your weapons.

I think I’ll report your post and let the moderators decide whether it’s appropriate.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

I did not read it. Why pull a gun? Drug addicts are quite prominent in big cities with no reason to pull a gun out. Paranoia strikes deep...

I guess the drug addicts in the big city aren’t violent, except for the stabbings, shootings, bearings, robberies and murder…. Other than that, no problems in the big city.

The drug addicts in the country must be made from a little tougher mold. Good thing we in the boondocks still have rights to protect ourselves and our families.

Peace to you

 

[atpollard]

Any post that begins with “at the risk of ending up on an FBI watch list….” probably shouldn’t be posted. Just saying describing how you could commit acts of violence that kill thousands goes beyond saying you won’t give up your weapons.

I think I’ll report your post and let the moderators decide whether it’s appropriate.

peace to you

Fair enough, but you missed the point.

I never said I would do any of those things. (Actually, I CHOOSE not to own a firearm).

That was just an example of an Architect using his knowledge as a weapon (so taking away all guns will not ‘disarm’ the populace).

A truck driver has driven his truck through a crowd as a weapon (so taking away all guns will not ‘disarm’ the populace).

Airplanes destroyed the WTC and Pentagon (so taking away all guns will not ‘disarm’ the populace).

What about Doctors? Biologists? Computer Programmers?
Anyone thinking that the population is defenseless without guns, has not been paying attention to the news.

It was, as stated, merely an acknowledgement of reality.

 

[AustinC]

I guess the drug addicts in the big city aren’t violent, except for the stabbings, shootings, bearings, robberies and murder…. Other than that, no problems in the big city.

The drug addicts in the country must be made from a little tougher mold. Good thing we in the boondocks still have rights to protect ourselves and our families.

Peace to you

LOL, do you always jump to extremes and express them as the norm?
Yes there are really bad humans in this world. This is why God ordained governments and law enforcement. God never told us as Christians to take the law into our own hands. You ever read about Jim Elliott, Nate Saint, Peter Fleming and their fourth partner who laid their guns down, were martyred for the faith, and now that tribe is Christian as a result of their non-violence under attack. Gun use by Christians to fight back is not a Godward solution.

 

[canadyjd]

Fair enough, but you missed the point.

I never said I would do any of those things. (Actually, I CHOOSE not to own a firearm).

That was just an example of an Architect using his knowledge as a weapon (so taking away all guns will not ‘disarm’ the populace).

A truck driver has driven his truck through a crowd as a weapon (so taking away all guns will not ‘disarm’ the populace).

Airplanes destroyed the WTC and Pentagon (so taking away all guns will not ‘disarm’ the populace).

What about Doctors? Biologists? Computer Programmers?
Anyone thinking that the population is defenseless without guns, has not been paying attention to the news.

It was, as stated, merely an acknowledgement of reality.

I understood your point exactly and find it unnerving.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

LOL, do you always jump to extremes and express them as the norm?
Yes there are really bad humans in this world. This is why God ordained governments and law enforcement. God never told us as Christians to take the law into our own hands. You ever read about Jim Elliott, Nate Saint, Peter Fleming and their fourth partner who laid their guns down, were martyred for the faith, and now that tribe is Christian as a result of their non-violence under attack. Gun use by Christians to fight back is not a Godward solution.

Except for the false allegation in your first sentence, you have finally made a reasonable attempt at debate on this subject.

The church has debated since the beginning when solders were saved whether Christians should use force to protect themselves, especially from persecution for the cause of Christ.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

Except for the false allegation in your first sentence, you have finally made a reasonable attempt at debate on this subject.

The church has debated since the beginning when solders were saved whether Christians should use force to protect themselves, especially from persecution for the cause of Christ.

peace to you

What is your answer? I know what the Apostles answer is and I know what the early churches answer was.

 

[canadyjd]

What is your answer? I know what the Apostles answer is and I know what the early churches answer was.

You are absolutely correct. The early church was largely pacifists. They embraced those passages of scripture that declared not to return evil for evil, but rather pray for those that persecute, leave room for the vengeance of God, not to rebel against the government etc…

Most of those passages are talking about personal suffering, persecution, for the cause of Christ. Paul admits his persecution of the church included men and women, so whole families were involved and that persecution often led to death.

Is that pacifism required for violent attacks not related to persecution for the cause of Christ? Most in the early church would probably say yes.

Quite frankly, I would defend my family against a criminal if given the opportunity and ask God for forgiveness later. Just saying

I admit to often cringing when Christians on BB express enthusiasm for using violence against criminals or an oppressive government.

peace to you