You can either accept what the Bible tells you or reject it. That is on you, not me.
You provide no biblical argument for your radical individualism, independence and anarchical thinking. If you have a biblical argument then make it.
-
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!
Greenwood Park Mall Shooting
- Thread starter Squire Robertsson
- Start date
You provide no biblical argument for your radical individualism, independence and anarchical thinking. If you have a biblical argument then make it.
Your terms, not mine.
I quoted the Bible. I showed you we are a communal people. You don't seem to like this truth.
As for the OP, I said that having this good Samaritan around saved lives, but I ask, had we established gun laws would this have even been necessary?
I think you mean banned firearms, which is a violation of the Second Amendment.
I do not mean to be unkind, but you seem to take the position of the Billionaires and Nazi gun banners, who wish to ban peasants from owning firearms, or that of a slave, who is not allowed to own firearms. I am certain that you mean well, but I don't think you do well.
It is not against the 2nd Amendment to regulate what types of weapons a citizen can own. For example, you cannot own and operate a howitzer.
No, we are not a "communal" people. As for gun laws, you are living in a fantasy world. In the U.S. at least, stricter gun laws would just allow the bad guys to do what they do.
I can buy a Sherman Tank, and fire it with live ammunition. Well, I can't begin to afford one, but some collectors can, and they do fire live ammunition. True it is cost prohibited. But some rich collectors can and do have that fun. Hollywood doesn't own these tanks, they go to collectors with working tanks and rent them. Anyone can own a civil war cannon. And they can fire them with live ammunition as well. True it is not a howitzer, but you can buy ww2 howitzers, when they're on the market. They may be extremely rare, and command a huge price.
The only reason that wicked people have guns is because you have no desire to restrict guns from wicked people. Also note that you and I are one bad decision away from being one of those wicked persons.
Also, we are a communal people. In every part of the Bible we see believers as communal, covenantal, people. We are commissioned to encourage one another and keep each other from sin. Solomon tells us that a cord of three cannot be broken. Never do we see God telling us to live individualistic and independent lives apart from unity in the church.
One of the sins of the church in the US is the extreme individualism and people who just show up at church to get and never to give of themselves in communal fellowship.
My goodness, we partake of "communion" with Christ, not independence with Christ.
That is not true at all. You are describing democrat's such as 0bam0, who on purpose did not enforce federal law which said any convicted felon would receive 5 years for illegally possessing a gun. You and 0bom0, cl0nt0n and b0d0n are the ones that don't want law abiding citizens to have firearms but do want criminals to miss use them so you can have ammunition for Nazi gun bans. You are not acting right, but are trying to enforce Nazi gun bans. There are unbelievers who know better than that.
If that is what you believe then that is your problem. You should be better than that.
This is not an excuse to become the slaves of tyrants. You know, hitler,stalin,moe, c, 0, b.Gates, so on and so forth.
You realize that everyone is a "law abiding citizen"...until they choose not to be. This means that every "law abiding" citizen that owns a gun is just one bad decision away from being a murderer with the gun they own.
Your other responses are purely your fears coming out as your rational for gun ownership.
If you actually read my comments on guns, you would know I support legal hunting and persons keeping their hunting weapons in locked gun cabinets. These guns should be minimal use and single shot. If you are a good, responsible hunter, you only need one shot.
The most hideous form of gun control and the gun banners first argument. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with "hunting & fishing". You do not respect the US Constitution, nor peoples God given Rights, the right of all men to be free. Keeping your hunting guns always in a locked case means you cant use them in self defense, meaning you think people dont have the right to stop being murdered. Your attitude is one of a slave trying to enslave others. Your form of gun control makes sure law abiding people will not have guns to defend themselves while criminals who will not obey the law will have firearms to use against us. You are no better than a Nazi gun banner, and no one should listen to you. You are trying to convince people they are slaves of men and to accept their fate of being inslaved to not only Tyrants and Tyranny, but slaves of even petty criminals as well. Your views should be rejected by everyone. Not for an instant should anyone consider your views as they are wrong and disastrous for human beings.
If we were to substitute "liquor" for "guns" in this snip from your longer post, and ponder the effects of Prohibition, we might be cautious about heavily restrictive gun laws. Though your posts concerning a complete ban on private ownership of firearms have been consistently against it, there are many within the radical Left who are strongly in favor of such a ban.
timtofly
Well-Known Member
Except Christians currently do not control the whole earthly community. Unless you live in isolation, free from all other humans, your community is mostly non believers.
There is a church in nearly every town in the United States. There is zero excuse for not living in community with other believers. Any believer living in isolation in the United States is doing so in direct violation of scripture.
Liquor kills the person drinking, not others. Now the drunk may kill another person with some other tool because they were drinking to excess, but the only person the alcohol will kill is the person it has poisoned.
I understand what the far left is wanting. I am not a part of the far left, despite the extreme far right people posting on the BB.
You realize that people around the world live in peace without a need for our 2nd Amendment.
Unfortunately the early SCOTUS, interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. The founders were calling for each State to have a militia and that militia would have the right to bear arms. They did not intend for anarchical gun use. How is this true? George Washington utterly destroyed the Whiskey Rebellion where people attempted to have anarchical behaviors and gun use.
What we have today is a result of poor interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the past which has led to insane gun use today.
Disclosure: I got my legal degree in forestry school. (And this post is intended for all, not in response to any particular poster.)
However, it's opinion more than established fact whether SCOTUS has misinterpreted 2A, as I've read (in the past) legal opinions on both sides, written by people with real legal credentials. One facet of 2A is the phrase "...the right of the people...", wording found in only 3 of the first 10 amendments, 1, 2 and 4. The militia interpretation would have 2A relevant to only a portion of the people while 1 and 4 obviously apply to all. Also, the BOR was enacted not all that long after the minutemen gathered at Lexington and Concord, and IMO the concept of "militia" was a lot closer back then to "minuteman" than to current practice such as the National Guard.
That said, gun violence is getting worse and worse, in part because people are getting more and more polarized both politically and socially, and available firearms are more powerful (though Dan'l Boone's Kentucky rifle could take down deer at long range - one at a time.)
My earlier post mentioned Prohibition, which I likely would've supported, having seen alcoholism ravage loved ones. However, that act failed for a number of reasons. Among them:
--A large segment of the population didn't agree and were willing to flout the law, which led to a black market that included organized crime.
--Alcohol was easily acquired (or made) such that its exclusion was essentially impossible.
IMO, attempts to stringently limit private ownership of firearms would have unintended consequences that might be worse than those during prohibition. Easy to state a problem, much more difficult to fix it.
However, it's opinion more than established fact whether SCOTUS has misinterpreted 2A, as I've read (in the past) legal opinions on both sides, written by people with real legal credentials. One facet of 2A is the phrase "...the right of the people...", wording found in only 3 of the first 10 amendments, 1, 2 and 4. The militia interpretation would have 2A relevant to only a portion of the people while 1 and 4 obviously apply to all. Also, the BOR was enacted not all that long after the minutemen gathered at Lexington and Concord, and IMO the concept of "militia" was a lot closer back then to "minuteman" than to current practice such as the National Guard.
That said, gun violence is getting worse and worse, in part because people are getting more and more polarized both politically and socially, and available firearms are more powerful (though Dan'l Boone's Kentucky rifle could take down deer at long range - one at a time.)
My earlier post mentioned Prohibition, which I likely would've supported, having seen alcoholism ravage loved ones. However, that act failed for a number of reasons. Among them:
--A large segment of the population didn't agree and were willing to flout the law, which led to a black market that included organized crime.
--Alcohol was easily acquired (or made) such that its exclusion was essentially impossible.
IMO, attempts to stringently limit private ownership of firearms would have unintended consequences that might be worse than those during prohibition. Easy to state a problem, much more difficult to fix it.
timtofly
Well-Known Member
The law forbids harming people.
How is that affected by owning a howitzer and firing off a couple of rounds every now and then?
There are restrictions in place to stop "wicked people". You have it all wrong. Wicked people should be locked up if they are as wicked as you imply.
timtofly
Well-Known Member
We are not talking about church membership. We are talking a about a community that allows the wicked to carry on as normal, and to keep their drug business going, they need guns.