Forget about reloading your own ammo, you'll soon be a criminal...

another freedom out the door, obama really hates the constution doesn't he.

 

Yep...........................

 

The government can do one of two things to me if that law passes

1. They can cuff me & stuff me

or

2. They can bag me & tag me

Either way, that won't stop me. I guess if they want to make sure I don't load or reload my guns, they might want to consider the bagging & tagging option.

 

people fought and died to obtain freedoms for us, people they would never know, and then along comes obama and his bunch, and there you go, working to take away our freedoms. he is trying to tear apart this country, and so many mindess obedient followers of the new messiah just follow, never caring whats being taken away from them, the messiah said so.

 

According to many on THIS THREAD
it is unchristian and ungodly to stand up for your constitutional rights.

So regardless of how your rights are systematically being ripped away by the government, you are required to play dead and take it or else you're ungodly.

 

I'm skeptical about the veracity of this story, but if it's true, good luck catching me.

 

I don't mean to get off topic, but I've heard this argument before and it's flawed.

Yes, we are to submit to our leaders, but under the system of government God has placed in this country, our leaders are only authoritative inasfar as they're acting in accordance with the Constitution.

Biblically, we have no mandate to submit to Unconstitutional acts because in order for our leaders' authority to be legitimate, they must defer to the Constitution.

So, if somebody comes to my house to perform an illegal search, I'm going to fight them tooth and nail. I don't want to be arrested and I certainly don't want them to do to me what they did to Randy Weaver, but I'm an American citizen and, by God, they're going to treat me like one.

((And, yes, I realize that my use of the words "Randy Weaver" probably puts me on some government watch list.))

 

A constitutional right to keep explosives in your house? Most of the complaints of you all against our elected leaders and bottom line caused by the sloppy writing of the Constitution by John Adams, Thos Jefferson, and the rest who wrote the Constitution. Turns out that the objections and predictions of the anti-federalists were correct.

Were lawyers really that ignorant in the early 1800's? For an example of a wonderfully crafted "law," see the Athanasian Creed. It exactly nails down what a Christian may not believe about the Trinity. A parallel well crafted amendment about the government NOT banning personal firearms could have been written but wasn't. Didn't those Philadelphia lawyers know that the ammo was as important as the guns? Why didn't they realize that a later lawyer would know that the Constitution did not authorize the possession of gunpowder, their explosive of choice? (black powder explodes, smokeless doesn't)

 

OK, I've read billwald's post at least a half-dozen times, and I have no idea what he's talking about...

 

billwald -"(black powder explodes, smokeless doesn't)"



(Let's just make that your own little secret.)

http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/17562

 

Actually, the argument is that it is okay to stand up for rights so long as we do it in a godly way. In the thread, the issue should not have been standing up for rights, but the godless way in which it was done that brought shame on the gospel.

In this case of ammunition, you have an entirely different type of issue. So don't confuse them.

 

I have a question for you. How do you define an "unGodly" way of standing up for your rights? This may sound like a stupid question, but think about it. If you came home from work late one night, & found a burglar in your home endangering your wife & kids, what would you do? How would you protect thier right to life? My first thought would be to pounce on him (if he didn't have a gun) & proceed to ensure that he doesn't endanger anyone else again.

 

A Quaker was awakened by the sound of a burglar rummaging through the house. The Quaker picked up his shotgun, descended the stairs and confronted the intruder who was stuffing the family silver in a sack. Quietly the Quaker spoke, "Sir, I mean thee no harm but thou stands where I am about to shoot."

 

I agree. Remember that when Paul was persecuted, the first thing he did was to appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen.

 

I don't know that a paragraph or two can boil that down. But belligerence and the like certainly doesn't qualify. I can't understand how anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Scripture can defend what Anderson did. That is beyond question.

Standing up for our rights never calls for ungodly attitudes towards authority and towards other people made in God's image. James 3 comes to mind that with the same tongue we bless God and curse those made in his image. Those things do not go together.

A quiet and gentle spirit is certainly the biblical command. Read 1 Peter 2:12-17 and see how Anderson measured up. Not well by any measure.

His behavior was not excellent, he was not submissive, he used his freedom to cover up evil. In the things in which they slander Christians as evildoers, Anderson played right into their hands. It was shameful. The guy is unquestionably disqualified from gospel ministry, and truth be told, was long before this incident for his behavior and doctrine.

Contrast that to loading your own ammo. That can be fought in court without resorting to the type of behavior Anderson used. Whether or not we should load our own ammo, I don't really care.

Our first responsibility is to live for the gospel, not for gun rights, or freedom from searches. We have a higher calling.

First, recognize that this is an entirely different scenario. In Anderson's case, no one's life is threatened. In the case of reloading your ammo as in this thread, no one's life is threatened.

It would depend on the situation. If he is in their room, pointing a gun at them, that's one thing. If he is downstairs with his back turned towards me that is another thing. If I could use something to hit him and render him temporarily incapacitated, I would do that first. If he was out in the shed, I would call the police and keep an eye on him. So without knowing specifics, it is hard to say.

That would certainly be acceptable. You could shoot not to kill were that an option. You could shoot to kill if there was imminent danger of life. That would be a last resort, it seems to me. A burglar might, if you made yourself known, flee.

 

I see what you are talking about as far as belligerence goes. I may be a bit on the disrespectful side at times, but never belligerent. I don't regard rebellion as unGodly as long as its done in the proper manner. It all depends on what you are rebelling against & how you do it. Rebellion may mean breaking laws the are considered to be unjust.

For example: If the federal government suddenly made it illegal for any citizen to own or posess a gun (pistol, shotgun, or rifle). I garantee you that I won't give up my guns. As I have said before, they'll have to pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

If the federal government made it illegal for people to attend church, that also wouldn't stop me. The truth is, church is when you have a group of like-minded believers meeting in the same place to worship. Its more than just a building. I know in time this will happen & people will be killed for it.

 

Even this would be out of line, according to Scripture: Submit and honor seem inconsistent with "a bit a the disrespectful side."

BTW, this oft-repeated notion that we answer to the constitution not the government is a silly false dichotomy. The constitution sets up rulers and gives the government the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. The idea that we don't have to follow government, we just have to follow the Constitution is an invitation to anarchy. It is socially silly since it won't work, and it isn't biblical.

 

If the government made illegal for Christians to gather to worship, would you abide by that law?

I don't believe in anarchy, but I also don't believe that we should allow ourselves to be steamrolled.

 

No, but that would be a call to direct disobedience. Allowing your car to be searched isn't. Not being able to reload your ammo isn't. Furthermore, I would abide by the law as much as possible. For instance, if the law said no gatherings over 30 people, we would keep it under that. If it said no gatherings in certain places, we would abide by that. The point is that we abide by the law as much as possible until it requires us to disobey God (not requires us to be inconvenienced or do something we think the constitution doesn't require).

I don't either. But allowing each person to decide what the constitution means leads to anarchy. Where we have opportunity and means to challenge the law, we are certainly able to, but we have to decide if it is worth it. Quite honestly, my work in the gospel is way too important to complain about someone wanting to search my car and getting arrested and having a criminal record and all that. It just isn't worth it. Steamrolled? Searching my car isn't going to bother me. I got better things to worry about.