Yes, Millions of new criminals because millions of gun owners will not surrender arms to comply with new (unConstitutional)laws.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The ugly truth behind Obama's war on the Second Amendment
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
Though you have not called for total confiscation, others have, some in high places. That's how the "millions of new criminals" would originate. IDK how many gun owners there are in the US - would make a very rough guess that it's in the (broad) range of 25-50 million. How many of those would refuse a confiscation order? On a somewhat related subject, experiences with alcoholism in loved ones make me wish that recreational drinking had never become a thing. However, we see what a catastrophe nationwide prohibition was; why would we think that a gun prohibition would be any less a disaster. (Probably 10X worse.)
And though you've not called for confiscation, you did include semi-autos in your go-away list in another post. There are millions of 10-.22 semi-autos out there, more millions of semi-auto centerfire hunting rifles and shotguns. My deer rifle is a .30-06, firing a far more powerful round than was used by the Vegas coward. It's a pump action, like semi-autos,(banned in Australia, but like most semi-autos (other than rimfires like the 10-.22) it holds only 5 cartridges. So we throw that baby out with the bathwater?
Are you insinuating the Lord Jesus Christ is not his Master?
From YOUR article.
"This might be a first: a black man shoots a white man in self defense … and he does not get charged with murder."
By their works you shall know them.
The Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as allowing general ownership of firearms.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
In other words, the court actually stated that the real meaning of the Second Amendment was to ensure a strong militia. They allowed private ownership only because they would be regulated under the national Firearms Act of 1934. This seems to be a bizarre interpretation which has been twisted in later years. besides that I haven't seen much regulation of guns as the court assumed.
Second Amendment
My belief is that the framers of the Constitution would not support the largely unregulated status of guns in the U.S. today. The situation is bad and getting worse. You can choose to support more and more guns and the proposed silencers and stocks to convert semi-automatic to automatic weapons. I don't.
Yeah... you might want to check out District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008.
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
You obviously have not studied the founders.
You are talking about the Same Supreme Court that said murdering babies is a Constitutional right. The same Court that said prayer and Bible reading in schools was unconstitutional.
Yep. A rare instance the court got something right.
SheepWhisperer
Active Member
Not "my" article. But the FACT without the interjected SPIN is that a black man, shot a white attacker and was not charged in the state of FLORIDA which is contradiction to your little racist comments.
I get along just fine with all of my black friends, neighbors and acquaintances. My wife and I do business with black people on a daily basis, repeat customers... My black neighbors just drive right up in my yard to visit, and sometimes with GUNS in their pickup trucks OOOOOH!!!!!! And I'm good with that. They eat at my house, I eat at theirs, we work together and go fishing together. Why do people like you need to try to stir up a STINK with the constant "racism" garbage? Give it a rest, bro!
I don't believe that you have studied the founders. I have. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist not a Christian and created his own 'bible" by cutting out any references to miracles? He also had 3 children by one of his slaves.
Jefferson and other "natural law" theorists assumed that individuals in a mature society would follow a common set of ethical principles, independent of the different religious beliefs held by individuals.
Washington, Franklin and Madison also were not Christian but instead were Deists who believed in the existence of an all-powerful God but not the Christian Deity and never mentioned Jesus Christ in their writing or speeches.
"Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.
When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."
George Washington and Religion
Ben Franklin
Franklin himself wrote in his autobiography: "I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and tho' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day, I never was without religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteem'd the essentials of every religion; and being to be found in all the religions we had in our country, I respected them all, tho' with different degrees of respect, as I found them more or less mix'd with other articles, which, without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serv'd principally to divide us, and made us unfriendly to one another. This respect to all, with an opinion that the worst had some good effects, induc'd me to avoid all discourse that might tend to lessen the good opinion another might have of his own religion; and as our province increas'd in people, and new places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary contribution, my mite for such purpose, whatever might be the sect was never refused."63. ...Franklin's "main difficulty with established religion...had to do with its incapacity to help individuals be of service to each other and its tendency to set people against each other, rather than to support the formation of community.
...in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
Madison
Religion scholar David L. Holmes wrote: "Like so many other founding fathers, James Madison seems to have ended up in the camp affirming the existence of a Deistic God." In 1825 Madison wrote that religious belief 'is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources."184
I'm simply referring to the article you posted. It seems to prove the opposite of what you claim.
SheepWhisperer
Active Member
No, it disproved what you claimed.
Please prove this statement or retract it.
The NRA does not have control over the GOP. The GOP agrees with the NRA. There is a difference.
Still waiting for you to prove this was a terrorist attack.
You read talking points of liberals.
In another thread he made the claim he either always or at least usually supports his claims with evidence. So far in this thread he has made many claims but no effort in any way to support them. I pointed out he regurgitates the current DNC talking points and he did nothing to disprove that. It looks like he is a DNC operative which scours the web putting those talking points out as often as they can.
Last edited:
- Status