Should Christians Have Guns?

[Drew]

Strange as it may seem, I want to repost what Old Tractor has written (and I have bolded some parts of it):

The fact that the US homicide rate is 5.00 is perhaps indicative of cultural factors. Where the race of the perpetrator is known, african-americans represent 51% of perpetrators while only 12% of the total population (Dept Of Justice - FBI Uniform Crime Reports). Once african-americans are factored out, the crime rate of "europeans" in the US is comparable to "europeans" in europe.

There you have it.

Any of the rest of you gun advocates want to publically go on record as endorsing this line of reasoning. We know that Deavonreye agrees.

Not all at once, please.

 

[Drew]

Again, let me post something that Old Tractor has written (I added the bolding)

As usual, there is always the person who desires to make a "loaded" comparison of crime rates in the US vs. effeminate Euro countries, Japan, etc.

There you have it.

Any of the rest of you gun advocates want to publically go on record as endorsing this line of reasoning. Do any of the rest of you share this view about Japan and European countries being "effeminate" ?

Not all at once, please.

 

[Oats]

Well, does your "big daddy government" allow you to get drunk and drive a car? Your objection is really besides the point - it is the proper role of government to protect its citizens. The "freedom" argument really does not work since I suspect you are all in favour of restricting the freedom of someone to drive drunk.


If I used your line of reasoning, I could equally well post this:

If you believe that you should not drive drunk then don't drive drunk, I believe differently - that its my right to drive drunk - and that belief is between God and myself.

Do you see the problem?

i agree with you

 

[Pebbles]

I would point out that jasoncran is correct in regards to the UK. Knives have simply replaced guns as the principle weapon in homicides. Since the effete British goverment has failed in its attempt to control crime by depriving their subjects (as opposed to citizens ) of firearms ownership they are now working on the problem by creating "anti-stab" knives:

Is that a joke I can't tell with you pepole.

Begin a good christian manly man involves having guns and murdering people... That's what you seem to imply with your post.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Is that a joke I can't tell with you pepole.

Begin a good christian manly man involves having guns and murdering people... That's what you seem to imply with your post.

How an intelligent person can get "murdering people" from the posts in this thread is beyond me.

We in the USA are not 'subjects', we are citizens. The government is to exist only at our pleasure, not the other way around. Part of freedom is the freedom to defend oneself. With a gun, I can be elderly or disabled and the perp can be a body builder - and I can still defend myself.

THAT is what it is about, it is not about murder, it's not about politics and it's not about feelings.

It is really quite simple, you break into my home while I am there - and you pay with your life. Your decision, not mine.

Altho, there is something else. WHen I pulled my gun during the carjacking, I had made up my mind that the perp HAD to respond by backing away. Had he not backed away immediately, I'd had fired.

This was in keeping with the instructions I received when I got my permit. The deputy told me: "Now, understand, you do not THREATEN anyone with a gun - if you pull your weapon on someone, it is to kill. Those who try to use a gun as a deterrent usually get their weapon taken from them by that perp and are then killed with their own gun."

As I was pulling the gun from it's holster (hidden beside me in the car) I had made up my mind he was to back down very fast or die.

It is indeed amazing how fast a fat, middle-aged creep can move when he wants to live!

 

[Sam21]

This is not a valid argument - it involves the same error as the "we should ban cars since they kill more people than guns" argument. Clearly "hands" are vital tools for living. Guns are not - many societies get by quite nicely without them.

Then may I recommend that you join one of those societies so that you will fit in with that kind of thinking because here in the good old USA we do not agree with you, your ideas do not fit in and hopefully never will.

 

[Drew]

Then may I recommend that you join one of those societies so that you will fit in with that kind of thinking because here in the good old USA we do not agree with you, your ideas do not fit in and hopefully never will.

Two points:

1. You are not actually dealing with my point - that many societes do quite well without guns. But you are not alone - most of the gun advocates here are silent on this point, almost certainly because the facts are against them - many societies do better than the USA (in terms of violent crime) without guns.

2. I live in Canada - we have stricter gun control than in the USA, but not as strict as elsewhere. I think that, with exceedingly rare exceptions, no private citizen should have a gun. Besides, please don't bore us with the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument. It is entirely besides the point.

 

[Cornelius]

it doesnt always work that way.

and jesus tells someone buy something and not use it?

that makes no sense.

that would be like someone here who says prostitution is legal and moral as hoshea married one and God told him to marry a prostitute.

your argument would have a case if the bible said and they bought the swords and never was mentioned of jesus telling them to buy a sword.

I have already given the Biblical reason why Jesus told them to buy a sword.

Plus I do not have an "argument" I am merely saying what the Bible says.Mat 5:39 but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil:

 

[bibleMAN]

"Getting the drop" on the bad guy is really just a way of being better than the enemy at using his own tools.

Yes true. In all honesty, I would protect my love ones at pretty much all costs. However I do believe that killing is wrong for us to do in all circumstances.

In an ideal situation, you can take someone out and remove loved ones from a bad situation without shooting the enemy.

I think it's obvious that Jesus was referring to violence when he said "Turn the other cheek."

 

[Deavonreye]

Sorry Drew, but your rhetoric here is exactly what the left leaning liberals say all the time, and I will not abide it. The issue isn't GUNS. The ISSUE is the society in which we live. It comes down to the individual person. PERIOD!

You have no evidence that my firearms will ever hurt anyone. Millions of gun owners around the country are in the same boat as me. Law abiding, sane, level headed. We keep our guns locked up, . . . and/or teach our young people how to PROPERLY use them safely so accidents don't happen. I will not be infringed upon because a few idiots harm others.

And with that thought, I am done with addressing you on this issue, Drew. Say your last words, but they are not at all persuasive.

 

[WIP]

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

<ST1lace w:st="on">free state</ST1lace></st1:State>, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.â€

As I read through this thread I saw a lot of arguments going nowhere as usual with this topic. The thing is, our 2nd amendment was not created to gurantee we can have firearms for personal protection against would-be intruders or for hunting or shooting sports. We often forget that the United States of America are not just one country. We are 50 independent states united together in an unusual alliance. The primary reason for the amendment was to guarantee the states the right to maintain an armed population for the purpose of maintaining a militia in order to defend from a tyranical central government and maintain their sovereignty. Once the population becomes disarmed, it is much easier for a dictatorship to take over and the writers of this amendment feared such an event.

I take offense to being identified as careless or unChristian simply because I own firearms. Like about 95% of those that own firearms, mine are stored in a locked cabinet or safe separate from my ammunition. To suggest that the presence of my arms in my home increases the risk of me using them against my family is ridiculously absurd. If there is that kind of atmosphere in my home then there is a much greater problem to address. Without my firearms I could just as easily…actually it would be easier to just grab any one of the boning knives, fileting knives, butcher knives, meat cleaver, claw hammer, screw driver, or any other of a host of handy weapons around my home as well as yours and the job could be done faster and with more pain than with one of my guns.

Arms are not only for self defense. Some people have the idea that taking an animal in the wild is somehow barbaric and uncivilized compared to raising them from birth, protecting them from predators, sheltering them from the elements, caring for them when they are ill, even loving them, and then parading them into a stockyard to be systematically slaughtered by the thousands. I, on the other hand, see hunting as a natural and biblical activity. God has provided game for food for us to eat, skins for clothing, and other parts for a host of other purposes and I use my arms to that end. I also enjoy some target shooting once in a while. I see it no differently than a basketball player that spends time just shooting baskets or dribbling a ball to hone their skills.

Every time a person gets behind the wheel of a car influenced by alcohol (even one drink) or drugs, texts while driving, talks on a cell phone while driving, talks to others while driving, takes their eyes off the road for any reason while driving, has thoughts that take their attention away from their driving, listening to the radio while driving, fiddling with temperature or other controls while driving, etc. is every bit as dangerous if not more so than a person owning a firearm. We do not need automobiles in this society. I invite you to come here for a visit and I’ll introduce you to neghbors that do not use them. They don’t use electricity or most other modern conveniences either and they are content with their lives. The automobile has proven time and time again to be our most deadly weapon on the face of the planet. More deadly than all the wars and crime that have happened in our lifetime combined. The difference is people such as yourself are as defiant about giving up that precious car as we are about giving up our precious arms. It’s probably best for both sides to just agree to disagree.

 

[Pizzaguy]

First, WIP -

Second: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I take this to be the expression of two thoughts that are, of course, connected.

First, it does say what WIP has stated. But I also believe it expresses a concern that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is also noted.

Remember, the amendments, all of them, are limits on government. Go read the other nine and you will see LIMITS placed on government.

The second works the same way - it LIMITS government in that it dis-allows the government to prohibit private ownership of guns. IT IS NOT written to give the gov't authority to raise a militia - not at all. It is a "government limiting" idea, same as the other nine.

 

[bibleMAN]

You have no evidence that my firearms will ever hurt anyone. .... I will not be infringed upon because a few idiots harm others.
.

According to this logic, atomic bombs don't kill anyone either, so you'd say it's fine to have a bomb in your backyard for protection.

With a gun, I can be elderly or disabled and the perp can be a body builder - and I can still defend myself.

With a nuke, you can be elderly or disabled and defend yourself against China.

It is really quite simple, you break into my home while I am there - and you pay with your life. Your decision, not mine.

I feel Jesus would strongly disagree with that. He said forgive 77 times and turn the other cheek.

There's a difference between self defense and shoot to kill. In most situations I think you could shoot someone in the leg rather then the head and fix the situation without taking something that God values dearly: Human life

And it doesn't matter WHOSE human life that is: Jesus died for us all.

It is YOUR DECISION to decide that the penalty for breaking into a house = death. Not even a court of law agrees with that: Burglary would get a hefty prison sentence, not a death penalty.

The second works the same way - it LIMITS government in that it dis-allows the government to prohibit private ownership of guns.

So according to you the government should not be allowed to prohibit private weapons, including WMDs, right? I mean the amendment doesnt say "The citiznes are allowed to carry guns BUT NOTHING MORE DANGEROUS THEN THAT".. It just says "right to bear arms", so that means ANY arms according to you, right?

The point is, we can't allow people to defend themselves using ANYTHING. Guns may be okay, but things more dangeous like bombs or something are NOT okay for 'self defense.'

 

[Deavonreye]

According to this logic, atomic bombs don't kill anyone either, so you'd say it's fine to have an atomic bomb for protection.

Really?? You said that? 2

I hope the thread doesn't turn this way.






:twopistols

 

[bibleMAN]

Really?? You said that? 2

I hope the thread doesn't turn this way.
:twopistols

Yes, duck around it cos you have no response.

The simple fact is that society needs to have a limit on what can be classed as normal "protection" becuase we can't have crazy people building bombs and having it allowed becuase they "have the right to protect themselves"

While guns may be okay for self defense, there are things which are NOT okay. So where should society draw the line?

 

[Deavonreye]

Yes, duck around it cos you have no response.

The simple fact is that society needs to have a limit on what can be classed as normal "protection" becuase we can't have crazy people building bombs and having it allowed becuase they "have the right to protect themselves"

While guns may be okay for self defense, there are things which are NOT okay. So where should society draw the line?

I didn't respond because your post was ridiculous. Why even bring up "nuclear weapons".

As for "limits", we have plenty of them. We don't need more . . . that criminals won't follow anyway.

 

[Cornelius]

Does anybody here think that the Name of Jesus has enough power to be the solution in any situation ?

 

[bibleMAN]

To show how horrible society would be if we had no limits and we let anyone use any weapon they wanted.

I didn't respond because your post was ridiculous. Why even bring up "nuclear weapons".

Does anybody here think that the Name of Jesus has enough power to be the solution in any situation ?

I do. However it may not actually work in EVERY situation, depending on God's will and other variables I guess. We do have to physically defend ourselves too though.

 

[Sparkey]

This is not a valid argument - it involves the same error as the "we should ban cars since they kill more people than guns" argument. Clearly "hands" are vital tools for living. Guns are not - many societies get by quite nicely without them.

Your evaluation of my question as an argument aside, the question, in response to the thread remains: What is your point? That's all that I've asked. The first question is, "Should Christians have guns?" right? Your statement that my counter-question, "Should Christians have hands?" isn't valid only points out that your argument isn't valid.

RECAP:
Should Christians Have Guns? [Rhetorical Voice]
Should Christians Have Hands? [Rhetorical Reply]​

Either support your point (which I assume is that moral individuals need to be prohibited by law from using guns for immoral purpose) or admit that your argument (not mine) is not well framed. If your argument (it is yours --not mine) now becomes: "We need to ban the use of all non-essential [to life] tools that can be abused", so state. Tools are useful (obviously). They are mis-used when they are not applied to their intended purpose, they are abused when their mis-use includes harm.

Fair enough analysis?

 

[Deavonreye]

To show how horrible society would be if we had no limits and we let anyone use any weapon they wanted.

Okay. There are various regulations. If you want a fully automatic weapon, you must pass tough checks from the BATF and FBI. I wouldn't have one, though I would pass the checks. Too much money to operate it with ammo prices as they are.