Some Justice for New Orleans Gun Owners

</font>[/QUOTE]He didn't need a gun either. Jesus Christ would suffice. But that's just my thinking...

 

Posted by King James...

How come the Jewish nation in biblical times didn't have this 'right'?

Whhaaaaaatt ? Do you ever read your bible ? The O/T Jewish nation eemployed several guerilla tacticts. They killed without mercy. They kept the heads of their enemies as warnings to other nations. Firearms were not invented yet, but if they had cannons, you can bet your bottom dollar they would have used them.

I don't know where the Bible tells us to kill in order to protect our family.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven....A time to kill...."

Ecclesiastes 3

But that's just my thinking...

If that is true, then perhaps you could be wrong. And if you could admit you may be wrong, perhaps you should stop telling us we are wrong.

 

Yeah I've read my Bible. I guess I was wrong, but they were told by God to do that. Today, we aren't.

Wouldn't that time to kill be in a just war?

Of course I could be wrong. I even acknowledged it in my post when I said "I am open...please show me where it says it". But I don't follow how you said if I could admit I may be wrong, then perhaps I should stop telling you all you are wrong. The fact that I may be wrong doesn't mean I can't tell someone else that they are wrong. Not at all.

 

Did you know they make a .50 Magnum now ? I could not believe what it did to a 4x6 beam. It completely shattered it. Very impressive.

 

haha...did you know that I used to be in the army and I got to shoot a machine gun. It was fun.

 

It sure is. I target shoot with a .230.

My mom has a Baretta shotgun that collectors all over America have wanted to get their hands on. She had it appraised at $12000.

I was in the Navy, and got to shoot a big 5" 54 cal cannon all the time. The kick would sent the ship 20 yards in the other direction. We used it in Beruit, and got the Expeditionary medal for it.

The point is, we disagree about self-defense. I take the verses in Ecclesiastes 3 to mean that I can protect what is mine. I don't expect to hear word one about it when I face God. I see no verses in the Bible that tell me I can't eliminate an immediate threat to me or mine. It does your argument no good to keep invoking the name of Jesus, when you can't show us where he said let others hurt your family.

 

Yeah it is fun. That's cool that you were in the Navy. I bought a silver dollar kind of medal with "U.S. Navy" on it.

Well, I am open to be convinced on self-defense. But I don't believe we are to kill anyone in self-defense. I see no verses that tell us to eliminate a threat to me or mine. Mind you, I'd probably do it. But I believe I would be wrong.

It does your argument no good when you don't show me where Jesus said not to let others hurt your family. If you are a Christian family and the government has outlawed Christianity and is about to kill you all...I believe God would want us to let them. Easy? No. The right thing? I believe so.

 

I allready did. I said Ecclesiastes 3 tells me to enjoy the fruits of my labor. It does not tell me to let others enjoy it, at my expense.

 

No...it doesn't say to kill anyone. Scripture actually says if someone takes your coat offer him your cloak. No disrespect to you but who do I believe?

 

You gotta add context. Jesus is talking to the Jewish nation, at the time. The Jews were under Roman control, and soldiers could take the coats the Jews were wearing. The giving of the cloak was an act of defiance. Not obediance.

 

Oh.

Why was it an act of defiance to give the cloak as well? Especially in the context that Jesus was talking about going the extra mile.

 

I beleive if you study it, you'll find out.

I can't debate it anymore. Gotta work. Have a great day.

 

Ok, no problem. I don't know where to begin to study it because I've never even heard that interpretation before but I can try. I gotta work in a few hours. You have a great day too.

 

The U.S. Soldiers who fought the Apaches in the Southwestern part of the USA always tried to save one .45 pill in their U.S. Army Revolver for themselves in case of capture. Women on the frontier were especially cautioned not to ever allow themselves to be taken alive by the Apache.

 

The Commandment that usually reads - "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in the English Translations is more properly translated "Thou shalt not Murder".

The whole argument behind a Just War Theory for nations is very compatible with a self defense theory for individuals. The agressor must be stopped in his pursuit of unsocial behavior before the crime becomes too grievous to bear.

Where will the agressor stop? Will he stop if seen trespassing outside the home? Will he stop after he kicks in a door or breaks in through a window? Will he stop after he picks up the property in the home? Or is he intent on greater mayhem?

Will he stop with rape? Or does he not stop until his bloodlust is sated?

What man, Christian or not, can afford to take chances with such men when precious wives and babies are in danger?

I'd rather ask forgiveness from God who already has proven his steadfast love for me than to face a lifetime of regret over the needless loss of a wife or a child.

 

Good point Hardsheller. Like I said though, I'd probably do something too...but I wonder if it is right. Maybe it is right to protect someone else but not yourself? I don't know.

This isn't as simple as many people make it. It is very complicated. God tells us to pray for our persecutors, etc. But common sense tells us to defend ourselves and others. I wish I didn't even have to think this through...but thinking it through, I am.

 

Look into Roman laws (and customs) that governend the Roman citizens. Roman legioniares by law couldn't order an inhabitant of an occupied area to carry their pack for more than one mile. To do so would get the soldier into big trouble. Going the extra mile caused a dilemma for the soldier and his superiors.

Turning the right cheek also caused a dilemma for the one doing the striking. I don't know if I would classify it as defience but it would put the srtiker on unfamilar ground in a hurry and force him to make a decision he was unprepared for.

A smack on the right cheek in the first century had a very different meaning than it does today.

 

Thanks poncho...that's interesting.

 

Didn't they seize weapons because lunatics were shooting at them and rescue workers though?