Should Christians STRONGLY support the 2ND AMENDMENT?

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
Our weapons will be useless against the Anti-Christ. The only hope we would have is the power of the Holy Ghost. There is NO theological reason for us to have guns.

Nor is there ANY theological reason for us not to have guns.

A Gun is a tool; an implement to be used for a purpose.

My Winchester Model 70 Rifle is a tool that I use to harvest Deer.

My Ruger Over/Under Shotgun is a tool that I use to harvest pheasants and quail.

My Beretta Automatic Pistol is a tool that I use to protect my home and for self defense. Thank God I have never had to use it except for target practice.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Although there is no theological reason to have weapons for self defense and to provide for in a militia is not a theological question is it?

 

[Benjamin]

(1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not (be prepared beforehand) for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


Peter carried a sword and knew how to use it.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Although there is no theological reason to have weapons for self defense and to provide for in a militia is not a theological question is it?

For what areas of your life do you believe your faith doesn't apply? Let's see there's (1) guns, (2) militia.... What else?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Benjamin:
(1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not (be prepared beforehand) for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


Peter carried a sword and knew how to use it.

And Jesus told himj to put it away after he healed the soldier.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Benjamin:
(1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not (be prepared beforehand) for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


Peter carried a sword and knew how to use it.

And Jesus told himj to put it away after he healed the soldier. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I think Peter was confused with all that progressive revelation stuff going on; he wasn’t suppose to be protecting right then.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Benjamin:
(1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not (be prepared beforehand) for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


Peter carried a sword and knew how to use it.

And Jesus told himj to put it away after he healed the soldier. </font>[/QUOTE]Put it away - back in its scabbard or back behind his robe's sash. He didn't tell him to throw it away or sell it when he got back to town.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Benjamin:
(1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not (be prepared beforehand) for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


Peter carried a sword and knew how to use it.

And Jesus told himj to put it away after he healed the soldier. </font>[/QUOTE]Put it away - back in its scabbard or back behind his robe's sash. He didn't tell him to throw it away or sell it when he got back to town. </font>[/QUOTE]Free will. But he (and we) know what Jesus' example was.

 

[Hardsheller]

Which brings up an interesting question.

Did Jesus have a right to defend himself knowing that he was the Savior of the World?

The obvious answer is - Of Course not.

There could be no ambiguity in his PURPOSE or his PARTICIPATION in the PLAN of God for the Salvation of Mankind.

 

[jmcneely01]

We don't decide what rights our savior has. We are the ones who are unworthy, not him. Jesus Christs' example was indeed to overcome Hate with Love and prayer. But in a life and death situation, when the life and safety of you, or your family is involved it is necessary to protect it.

If guns were abolished, taken completely off of the market, does the liberal public actually believe crime will go down? That all will be at peace? Is this how a violent, dangerous person obtains a firearm:
"Hello, I'd like to purchase this gun please. I will be sure to fill out all of the necessary forms with my most personal information, so you will find me when I commit my horrible crimes."?
Criminals know how to get their hands on a gun. But the general public doesen't. Abolishing the 2nd amendment will leave us to be sitting ducks without anything to protect us in the event of this particular type of emergency.

Hating others, and fighting those who persecute you is contrary to our example left by our Lord. But protecting our own lives is a different matter altogether. Eventually, conservatives will lose this battle, and I hope I'm not around to see what happens when it is lost.

---Justin

 

[Crusader]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Which brings up an interesting question.

Did Jesus have a right to defend himself knowing that he was the Savior of the World?

The obvious answer is - Of Course not.

Jesus had the right and ability to finish His mission, which would include sparing His own life to accomplish what He started. He came to earth to die for the remission of sins and do so in a manner consistent with Messianic prophecy, and to that end He guarded His life.

John 10
17: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18: No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Jesus gave His life at the behest of the Father and in the way that He wanted.

If Jesus had been killed by someone before He could go to the cross, we wouldn't be here today. Albeit this was impossible, since He had power over life and death, as seen in his resurrection of others.

But more to topic: I am a martial artist and a gun owner. If I was in the presence of someone robbing, raping, or roughing up someone else, I would intervene. I would not kill unless there was no other alternative, but I would not allow someone to be victimized. That is why God would place me there to begin with.

If, however, one day I am delivered up by God for a testimony unto death, I will not resist.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

I'm not a martial artist or a gun owner but I would also intervene if a serious crime were being committed.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

where did Jesus get the whip? The Bible says he fashioned a scourge. He made it.

 

[RayMarshall19]

Word express ideas. When the founding fathers wrote the words that comprise the constitution they had ideas in their minds. We should remain faithful to their ideas and not twist their words to mean something they did not intend.
This applies to the all the constitution, not just the Second Amemdment and, of course, the First.

If you read the writings of the founding fathers OUTSIDE the actual constitution you will find that they fully intended for the population to be armed and they fully intended for our goverment to be a Christian one.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ray,

I would like to learn more. Can you document the thought that the founding fathers favoured an armed populace and a Christian govenment please?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Even Jefferson, who was a deist, supported the Judeo-Christian principles of morality. "The Federalist Papers" are a good read.

Besides, if the seoncd amendment only applies to the government or to people with special permits, what about the first amendment?

I, for one, supply much of our family's food without a gun, and I have personally prevented three robberies (before I moved here) with a concealed firearm. (As a by-product, I also helped the police capture some wanted criminals.)

But, the primary purpose of the second amendment was for the populace to protect themselves from tyranny in government, if necessary.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Even Jefferson, who was a deist, supported the Judeo-Christian principles of morality. "The Federalist Papers" are a good read.

Jefferson was also a staunch supporter of the separation of chruch and state, but when that argument doesn't suit some people, they disregard that tidbit of into.

The Fed Papers were required reading when I was in high school and college, btw.

Besides, if the seoncd amendment only applies to the government or to people with special permits, what about the first amendment?

The difference between Amendment I and II is that Amendment II begins by addressing the need for a "well regulated militia". Requiring permits for certain firearms falls within the right to bear arms being well regulated.

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by C4K:
Ray,

I would like to learn more. Can you document the thought that the founding fathers favoured an armed populace and a Christian govenment please?

Thomas Jefferson:"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselvs against tyranny in government."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Tench Coxe: "Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldieir, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Note the contrast between militia and governments.)

Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constiture a force superior to any band of regular troops."

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

And, if you still have doubts about what was meant in the constitution by "militia". .George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Dear C4K:

This should make it clear that when the founding fathers referred to the militia they were talking about the armed citizens, not the government military. The purpose of the militia is to protect the citizens from the government.

Now, would that be possible today? I don't know. But that doesn't change the founding fathers' original intent. If we no longer like this idea and want to change it there is a process by which the Constitution can be amended. In the meantime, people should quit lying about the original intent.

The same is true for the First Amendment. The founding fathers intended for this to be a fully Christian nation. The "separation clause" was intended to simply prohibit a state religion, not to keep Christianity out of government. For a better treatment of the "myth" of the separation of church and state you could go to www.wallbuilders.com

 

[PASTOR MHG]

AMEN and AMEN!!!

 

[just-want-peace]

The biggest miscarriage of justice re: the freedoms we claim, is the unmitagated crap that spews from the MSM that passes for "NEWS"!

It's a crying shame that the forefathers did not include some type of accountability to accompany "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS"!