JJ Johnspon Speaks to Senate about militia

Personally, I believe that unless things get MUCH worse (and they might) that the rule of law and order must be maintained. One thing that JJ doesn't seem to know is that a search of your residence without a search warrant or probable cause is LEGAL under the Patriot Acts. If people don't like this and I for one think it's unconstitutional, they should lobby their Congressman and Senators to get these unconstitutional laws repealed. If we're a little bit safer but have lost our freedom in the process what do we have? Not the America of our founding fathers. That's for certain.

I don't see a problem with having a rifle for hunting especially in rural areas. A handgun kept at home might make sense although I don't plan to ever own one. But why do private citizend need automatic weapons or why do they need to carry around concealed weapons on the street? In Georgia, a law was passed to allow for people to do this. The Mayor of Atlanta put down her foot when it came to carrying concealed weapons in the Atlanta airport. Do we really need for people to carry concealed weapons in the world's busiest airport? Why?

The general leval of violence in our society is increasing. Someone needs to stand up and say it must stop here. Guns are not the solution. Jesus Christ is the solution.

 

When the Bill of Rights was written the "arms" of the Second Amendment were talking about state-of-the-art military grade weapons (i.e. the flintlock rifle). Fast forward to 2008. The "arms" of the Second Amendment is still talking about state-of-the-art military grade weapons (i.e. the AR-15 assault rifle, and the .50 cal Dessert Eagle handgun etc.). Why the need of the everyday citizen for such weapons? It ensures that we can stand against the enemy from without (terrorist or otherwise) and from within (the tyrant).

 

If she is a godly mother why would she teach her daughter that she is wicked. My mother believed strongly in positive reinforcement. She kept telling us that we were good boys and if we worked hard we could do anything we set our minds to. (She was a teacher for over 30 years and she was good at this kind of thing,) Now imagine a mother telling her child every night that they are wicked and good for nothing. That approach will harm the child and take away their self-esteem. As Christians should we build our children up or tear them down?

 

You all just don't understand. The government has already succeeded in taking away many of our constitutional rights including Habeas Corpus and the right to not have our homes invaded without a search warrant or probable cause. That happened under the Patriot Act. Did you storm Washington with your automatic weapon and burst into Bush's office? Dids you even know that it had happened?

 

How many times have Americans had to do this since the Civil war? Remember, were not talking about hand guns or rifles in a person's home. I'm talking about carrying concealed firearms on the street or automatics. Besides, if you require state-of-the-art weapons what about suitcase nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or biological weapons?

 

All our righteousness is like filthy rags to God (Isa. 64:6). For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (Rom. 3:23). All we like sheep have gone astray... (Isa 53:6). There is none righteous, no not one (Rom. 3:10). Sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and through sin death spread to all men, because all have sinned (Rom. 5:12). Sorry, but I don't see a problem with a parent teaching their child that they need forgiveness in Christ for their sins and that no matter how "good" they think they are they can never be "good enough" to earn salvation.

Now you mom's positive reenforcement may have been good for you after you were saved in order to remind you who you were in Christ. However, before you were saved, according to the Scriptures, you (and all of us) were anything but "good."

 

The Civil War demonstrates the point. The better question to ask would be how many times would Americans have had to try to defend themselves if we did not have the Second Amendment? As far as nukes, chemical and biological weapons go you are talking nonsense and hyperbole. We have laws and international treaties, which do not violate the Second Amendment, that strictly control these weapons. We are talking about firearms (guns) not missiles and warheads.

It used to be no uncommon thing to see people with guns on their belts, or walking through town with a rifle or shotgun over their shoulder. I have pictures of my dad from the 1950s with a pistol on his hip out in public. However, when the anti-gun folks out there started freaking out when this happened states started issuing concealed carry permits so that people could still carry their guns according to the 2nd Amendment without people knowing they were armed. I don't care much for concealed carry, but I would fight tooth and nail to keep those laws in place. However, I favor just carrying your guns out in the open so that potential criminals and other threats know I’m armed right up front.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Last time I checked, chemical and biological weapons were prohibited by the Law of Armed Conflict. Nukes and napalm are still legal....

You wanna know why people need personal weapons for protection?

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/2034532.html

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=31186

http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/5591480p-5522882c.html

http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/weapons_law_works.htm

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0202.htm

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=4241768

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/06/self-defense-gun-use-stories.html

There's many more. There's a reason people feel like they need something to protect themselves on the streets and in businesses these days.

And don't come back with "that's the job of the police." Find out how many people live in your area, and then find out how many policemen/women are actually employed to protect that number of people.

The area where I grew up was a bunch of scattered small towns. The largest town had one policeman on duty each shift. The highway patrol (2) and county sheriff (around 5) were responsible for the entire county.

Yes, militia is the primary reason of the 2nd Amendment, to protect against the government taking advantage of the people its supposed to protect through force; but let's not forget that the Constitution is a framework, and the laws define that framework.

 

I agree that the most important thing she and my father did was to give me a good Christian home. However, you seen to be saying that if a little girl isn't a Christian it doesn't matter whether her father abuses her. We're talking about the mother's behavior not the child's.

 

We're talking about the mother's behavior not the child's. Whether the child is a Christian or not doesn't make child abuse acceptable, for instance.

 

Congratulations. I wasn't sure how you'd bring in Bush as the bad guy on this thread, but as usual, you managed.

 

When you make statements like the bolded part above I really wonder how your mind works. How in the world did you get that idea from what I said? I did not mention the girl's father and I certainly did not imply that it would acceptable for anyone to abuse anyone else who happens to not be a Christian. I simply pointed out what the Bible says about everyone being unrighteous wicked sinners before we are saved by Christ.

I am fully aware of who and what we are talking about. I said I don't see a problem (based upon the Scriptures I quoted) with a parent teaching their child about his/her lost spiritual condition and his/her need for Christ to save him/her.

 

Are you trying to suggest that a parent teaching a child about his/her lost spiritual condition (based upon the Scriptures I referenced) and need for Christ as Savior somehow equates to childabuse?

 

Umm...are we talking about militias, or child abuse?

 

Militias. However, this side-issue sprang up in response to something Christianyouth posted about a woman and her child in the UK. Now back to the topic of the OP...

 

This is what you said:

Now you mom's positive reenforcement may have been good for you after you were saved in order to remind you who you were in Christ. However, before you were saved, according to the Scriptures, you (and all of us) were anything but "good."


We weren't talking about the child's behavior or their relationship to God. This OP is about christianyouth's statement:

In England, because a Mom taught her four year old daughter that she is wicked, the mom is at risk of having her kids taken away. This isn't a news story. This is a woman who's blog I occasionally read. A godly mom.

How does this say anything about whether or not the child was saved and whether the child's works were Godly or filthy rags? So you were actually off topic. Your statements about my mother's behavior were without merit.

<deleted PA - LE>