Should Christians strongly support the SECOND AMENDMENT?

[ROBERTGUWAPO]

Guns in the hands of citizens make for a strong citizenry that can counter an abusive government. An abusive government, as historically proven, always paves the way to an erosion of our basic freedoms such as religion, assembly, and free speech. Therefore, should we not support the Second strongly? :thumbs:

(I asked this question ten years ago when we were way fewer.)

 

[InTheLight]

Guns in the hands of citizens make for a strong citizenry that can counter an abusive government. An abusive government, as historically proven, always paves the way to an erosion of our basic freedoms such as religion, assembly, and free speech. Therefore, should we not support the Second strongly? :thumbs:

(I asked this question ten years ago when we were way fewer.)

Citizens should have the right to possess firearms, like pistols and rifles. But grenade launchers, machine guns, flamethrowers, bazookas, anti-tank weapons, stinger missiles, I'm not so sure of.

 

[Greektim]

Guns in the hands of citizens make for a strong citizenry that can counter an abusive government. An abusive government, as historically proven, always paves the way to an erosion of our basic freedoms such as religion, assembly, and free speech. Therefore, should we not support the Second strongly? :thumbs:

(I asked this question ten years ago when we were way fewer.)

I'm torn on this one. As far as citizenry goes, it is a good thing. But is this really a Christian problem? Not only should Christians avoid violence, but we should be focused on gospel issues.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Citizens should have the right to possess firearms, like pistols and rifles. But grenade launchers, machine guns, flamethrowers, bazookas, anti-tank weapons, stinger missiles, I'm not so sure of.

I have a good buddy in Alberton who has a full cannon in his from yard. Sometimes we shoot beer cans full of concrete up into the mountain. It's pretty awesome.

 

[ROBERTGUWAPO]

I'm torn on this one. As far as citizenry goes, it is a good thing. But is this really a Christian problem? Not only should Christians avoid violence, but we should be focused on gospel issues.

Were not the early citizens mostly Christians? Had they avoided "violence," you would still be a part of England. England today is mostly atheistic and is overrun by mosques.

 

[rivers1222]

Opinion 1. Without the second amendment, all others fail. Especially the first. Warts and all.
Opinion 2. Cannon, concrete beer cans, mountains? Bro. Curtis is instantly cool in my book.

 

[padredurand]

I have a good buddy in Alberton who has a full cannon in his from yard. Sometimes we shoot beer cans full of concrete up into the mountain. It's pretty awesome.

Just when I was thinking how cool my new potato cannon was....

 

[Aaron]

Guns in the hands of citizens make for a strong citizenry that can counter an abusive government. An abusive government, as historically proven, always paves the way to an erosion of our basic freedoms such as religion, assembly, and free speech. Therefore, should we not support the Second strongly? :thumbs:

(I asked this question ten years ago when we were way fewer.)

I think the real question is this: is the defense of one's life, liberty and property a natural right?

To answer that I would have to look at nature and see if any other living creature was given an offensive mechanism by which to repel an assailant. I see stingers, fangs, venom, claws, musk, even fire (the bombardier beetle), etc. Organisms without defenses seem to be the exceptions.

So, I would have to answer, yes, self defense is a natural right.

The next question is, are men expected to use tools in self defense? Actually, man appears to be the only creature that needs tools for every aspect of his existence. He appears uniquely equipped to fashion and manipulate sophisticated and complex tools. Even apes with their opposable thumbs lack design elements in their extremities that would give them the dexterity necessary to be proficient manipulators of sophisticated and complex tools.

So, I would have to answer, yes, men have the natural right use offensive tools (e.g. weapons) for the protection of their life, liberty and property.

So, I would also then have to answer yes, in our mission to teach all nations all things that God has commanded men, that teaching would have to include the instruction that a just government would protect the natural right of men to keep and bear arms.

So, Christians must not only strongly support the 2nd Amendment, but are commanded to illuminate the righteousness thereof.

 

[HAMel]

Christians should be armed to the teeth! In church, out of church, be licensed to carry concealed, have a good stock pile of ammo, teach their wives and children how to shoot and when the bad guys comes through the door at 2 AM to satisfy their drug habit..., arrange an appointment betwix him and the Lord.

 

[PreachTony]

I'm torn on this one. As far as citizenry goes, it is a good thing. But is this really a Christian problem? Not only should Christians avoid violence, but we should be focused on gospel issues.

I've had similar discussions in the past and actually had a man tell me that Christians should not even defend themselves or their families or property. After all, Jesus said to turn the other cheek. This man actually believed that Christians should just allow the world to kill them and not even try to protect themselves.

Most people I've talked to have a similar approach as that man, though they will at least say it's "human nature" to defend yourself. Almost everyone is 'surprised' to hear that Jesus actually once told His followers that if they lacked a sword, they should sell their garment and buy a sword. The meaning of that can be debated (The man mentioned in the first paragraph actually told me that when Jesus said buy a sword He didn't mean to buy a sword. I'm not a strict literalist or anything, but even that one rubbed me wrong).

 

[Greektim]

Were not the early citizens mostly Christians? Had they avoided "violence," you would still be a part of England. England today is mostly atheistic and is overrun by mosques.

1) What USA's founders did doesn't make it right. I'm not so sure they should have revolted against England.

2) I don't care which country is ruling the USA. I currently live in Central America... so Spain not England.

3) There is a deeper issue at work here. I think some Christians are so star-spangled for USA that they ignore where their true citizenship lies. If Christians had the same vigor for Jesus (and Jesus' methods) as they do for right-wing politics and patriotism, revival would be around the corner.

 

[InTheLight]

I have a good buddy in Alberton who has a full cannon in his from yard. Sometimes we shoot beer cans full of concrete up into the mountain. It's pretty awesome.

Sounds like fun. I guess ownership of that sort of thing would be up to local jurisdictions. I don't think I'd want owning a cannon to be considered a constitutional right.

 

[HAMel]

3) There is a deeper issue at work here. I think some Christians are so star-spangled for USA that they ignore where their true citizenship lies. If Christians had the same vigor for Jesus (and Jesus' methods) as they do for right-wing politics and patriotism, revival would be around the corner.

Don't step on my patriotism, pal. I wore the uniform to maintain the freedom's that we enjoy, such a this forum.

As for the "revival"..., ain't gonna happen and know for sure, I'm a proud Conservative. You remain "left-wing" and I'll stay Conservative.

 

[go2church]

There isn't a biblical mandate, thus saith the Lord, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, it is something our founders thought would be a good idea for a host of reasons.

If one person wants to arm themselves or their family, as long as it is done in accordance with the law, no problem. If a person feels otherwise, that too is not a problem. Your position on this issue doesn't make you a less or better Christian. Do what you will according to the dictates of your conscience and allow others the same.

 

[go2church]

3) There is a deeper issue at work here. I think some Christians are so star-spangled for USA that they ignore where their true citizenship lies. If Christians had the same vigor for Jesus (and Jesus' methods) as they do for right-wing politics and patriotism, revival would be around the corner.

I would agree, however this isn't a new problem. Our history is full of people co-opting God into their cause.

 

[Rolfe]

There isn't a biblical mandate, thus saith the Lord, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, ...

Niether is there a Scriptural prohibition.

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus was very clear regarding arming ourselves for the purpose of self defense.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

There are two types of people in the world (and in this thread). Those who believe the bible and those who don't.

Which are you?

 

[corndogggy]

An abusive government, as historically proven, always paves the way to an erosion of our basic freedoms such as religion, assembly, and free speech.

Romans
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

[corndogggy]

Jesus was very clear regarding arming ourselves for the purpose of self defense.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Except it wasn't for self defense. The only way you can make it sound like this is if you stop where you did. Problem is, that's cutting him off halfway into his statement. What's the very next two verses? Something that tells you exactly why he wants the swords and exactly how many are enough:

Luke
22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.


Cross reference this with the old testament and you will see that he was trying to fulfill a prophecy:

Isaiah
53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


Also common sense should tell you that if twelve people were walking into a bad situation, if they really wanted swords for self defense they wouldn't have abruptly stopped at two of them.

Nevermind that when Peter drew one of these swords Jesus told him to put it up, that those who live by the sword will die by the sword.

 

[corndogggy]

Citizens should have the right to possess firearms, like pistols and rifles. But grenade launchers, machine guns, flamethrowers, bazookas, anti-tank weapons, stinger missiles, I'm not so sure of.

All guns were military weapons at one point. The 12 gauge pump shotgun that we think nothing of was actually so destructive that Germany tried to have it banned from the theater of war.