Gun Control in the USA

[Mike]

I really think this stems from violence more than gun manufacturers. Most people would have to be in counseling if they took the life of another human being. I've read many times where even policemen have to see a therapist. A balanced person would never be the same. I can't even conceive of the mere notion that I ended the days a person would ever breath on this earth again, because of what I had done, families would never talk with this person again.

I'm talking about taking innocent life. I disagree with capital punishment, but I understand the counter points. I understand if someone breaks into your house. I'm talking about every day death. Video games and movies hardly ever show the ramifications of the death they wrought. The killer is the hero, and the murdered are just a sidebar to the story. Though most people are not twisted enough to have become numb to real life death, it seems to me a growing segment of society is. The life of another person is nothing, means nothing.

I know this is offensive to U.S. citizens who rally around the right to bear arms, but it's an amendment I'd like to see rescinded. There are some liberties we don't have anymore, because a minority has ruined it for the majority. There are violent people who live throughout America, and we can't do a litmus test and move them all to an island. They are violent people that contribute to a violent society. Our society has proven, beyond any doubt, that it can't handle the power that comes from behind the barrel of a gun; not all or even most of it, but enough of it.

If we were to make guns illegal tomorrow, there would be many circulating illegally. That's for sure. But over the decades, by attrition, the number of illegal guns would decline. And maybe our children's children's children will know an America that doesn't wave them around like toys. Some will say they will not decline because they will be smuggled in to the country. They might cite our war on drugs as evidence. I'm not a border patrol officer, but it seems safe to say an pound of heroin is easier to smuggle in than 100 semi-automatic rifles. I don't think they'd be so easily replaced after they were confiscated.

 

[phantom309]

It's obvious that the 2nd amendment has had a large part in the so-called God-given right to keep a militia for self defence. That was written over 200 years ago, in a very different context. Looking at the situation from that angle alone, the 2nd amendment should be removed.

Eh,not quite..Id say thats a pretty strong reaction we might later regret.

Bear in mind the reason the constitution allowed for the keeping/bearing of arms and local militias.This wasnt limited specifically to personal or family defense,but was mainly meant to discourage or deal with a corrupt,tyrannical govt such as what inspired the american revolution.

Checks and balances alone are not enough to keep a corrupt govt at bay when that govt loses its respect for and a fear of the people it governs.Hence,the revolution we had.People had enough of being taxed to death,being forced to house troops in their homes and just generally being harassed.Enough was enough.

Our founding fathers knew what a later govt would be capable of,and in realizing this laid the groundwork for a subsequent revolt if need be.I believe this very topic was why multiple quotes from several of them stressed the importance of citizens possessing firearms and the importance they have played in attaining and maintaining our way of life.

In recent years we have begun to see a very similar scenario.Govt grows bigger each year,and ignores the will of the people on a regular basis.Were already taxed to the breaking point,but instead of taking sensible steps to cut back and spend more sensibly we get taxed more.Eventually taxation alone wont repair the damage done and the people can only be strained so far before the system breaks.At some point civil unrest will occur,though to what degree is anyones guess.

In the meantime rather than give up my freedoms due to criminal actions by others,I would suggest dealing with these criminals we mention more sensibly.Take off the velvet gloves and handle business.

I agree that 200 years ago Washington,Jefferson,Franklin and the boys wouldnt have had the foresight necessary to address mass shootings,school slayings and the like.However,rest assured that in that day the punishment for such a crime would not have been life imprisonment,coddle time in an asylum or failed attempts at rehabilitation.Such a criminal would have been immediately hung or subjected to a firing squad.Not only would this have removed the problem person from further public exposure,but would serve as a harsh reminder to those who might be tempted to repeat such behavior.

Of course I must also agree again with the assessments that the larger issue is the mental/spiritual state of those in question long before they commit such a crime.A look into their past reveals childhood problems,abuse,bullying and other such factors that weigh in pretty heavily.Im all for trying to help people before they become a criminal,and in many cases even rehabilitate current ones.When someone crosses that line,though..immediate action needs to be taken.Not a year long wait for trial followed by 5 years of appeals at sentencing and further delayed penalties.

Enough is enough..if you wish to do the crime then be prepared for the results.But dont infringe on the majority,the law abiding citizens,on account of those who refuse to play by the rules.

 

[Free]

This is pretty much spot on for my thoughts on the matter:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/16/f-rfa-macdonald-guns.html

 

[Nick]

Eh,not quite..Id say thats a pretty strong reaction we might later regret.

That's why I said the issue is more complex. Read the rest of that post you quoted.

Bear in mind the reason the constitution allowed for the keeping/bearing of arms and local militias.This wasnt limited specifically to personal or family defense,but was mainly meant to discourage or deal with a corrupt,tyrannical govt such as what inspired the american revolution.

Checks and balances alone are not enough to keep a corrupt govt at bay when that govt loses its respect for and a fear of the people it governs.Hence,the revolution we had.People had enough of being taxed to death,being forced to house troops in their homes and just generally being harassed.Enough was enough.

Our founding fathers knew what a later govt would be capable of,and in realizing this laid the groundwork for a subsequent revolt if need be.I believe this very topic was why multiple quotes from several of them stressed the importance of citizens possessing firearms and the importance they have played in attaining and maintaining our way of life.

In recent years we have begun to see a very similar scenario.Govt grows bigger each year,and ignores the will of the people on a regular basis.Were already taxed to the breaking point,but instead of taking sensible steps to cut back and spend more sensibly we get taxed more.Eventually taxation alone wont repair the damage done and the people can only be strained so far before the system breaks.At some point civil unrest will occur,though to what degree is anyones guess.

This is so sad.

A country that believes the government must be fearful of its people, and people who believe they must bear arms because they are so fearful of the government, just in case it oversteps its mark they're ready to knock down the doors of hte White House.

Seriously, that is a country that I would never wish to live in. It is a country of fear.

In the meantime rather than give up my freedoms due to criminal actions by others,I would suggest dealing with these criminals we mention more sensibly.Take off the velvet gloves and handle business.

I agree that a hard line needs to be taken on these criminals. The exact question of how, and how much money is where it gets really interesting.

 

[watchman333]

There was a popular bumper sticker in the 1960's: Outlaw guns and the only ones with guns will be the outlaws.

 

[phantom309]

I'm talking about taking innocent life. I disagree with capital punishment, but I understand the counter points. I understand if someone breaks into your house. I'm talking about every day death. Video games and movies hardly ever show the ramifications of the death they wrought. The killer is the hero, and the murdered are just a sidebar to the story. Though most people are not twisted enough to have become numb to real life death, it seems to me a growing segment of society is. The life of another person is nothing, means nothing.

Even being a fan of various action movies and certain games,I have to agree here.In the past,extreme action was at least tied to a justifiable reason/plot.Now it seems that the story behind the deeds grows darker with each release.The "hero" is no longer action from conscience or on behalf of some good cause but is instead presented as a morally numb or outright callous individual,hardened by war and enjoying the carnage that follows.The story itself seems to draw strength from and reside in those grey or fuzzy areas,encouraging dark thoughts and utilizing he shock factor to keep the viewer/player hooked.I dont think it will be long before I can no longer justify handing over money for much of it.

I know this is offensive to U.S. citizens who rally around the right to bear arms, but it's an amendment I'd like to see rescinded. There are some liberties we don't have anymore, because a minority has ruined it for the majority. There are violent people who live throughout America, and we can't do a litmus test and move them all to an island. They are violent people that contribute to a violent society. Our society has proven, beyond any doubt, that it can't handle the power that comes from behind the barrel of a gun; not all or even most of it, but enough of it.

Ill have to disagree here.Should you compare the number of legal gun owners to the number of criminals who grab the headlines through the misuse of guns I think we would have to admit that america has,thus far, handled the responsibility of firearm ownership quite well.

I know that when we have events occur,such as the recent school shooting,it evokes strong emotion.Noone likes to see our children needlessly die at the hands of some loser who decides to twist off and hurt someone.Nobody wants to get the news that a coworker killed their fiancee,or that a wife lost her husband to an angry soup chef.These are horrible things,all would agree.

What is being overlooked in the process is the fact that for every bad action grabbing media attention there are lives saved by the same instruments that conveniently never get reported.Look them up some time.I regularly read police and military magazines and always look forward to the true accounts of a grandparent stopping a home invasion,a single mom repelling an attempted rape,a business owner defending his property,even sometimes kids coming to the rescue of a parent or neighbor..by using guns.There is a stigma associated with guns today that is largely unfair and largely uninformed.Ive found that the majority of those uncomfortable with their presence are typically those who are either unfamiliar with them or who havent looked beyond the media demonizing guns and gun owners.That comment isnt meant as a lump insult to those against gun ownership,but simply an observation from my point of view.

If we were to make guns illegal tomorrow, there would be many circulating illegally. That's for sure. But over the decades, by attrition, the number of illegal guns would decline. And maybe our children's children's children will know an America that doesn't wave them around like toys. Some will say they will not decline because they will be smuggled in to the country. They might cite our war on drugs as evidence. I'm not a border patrol officer, but it seems safe to say an pound of heroin is easier to smuggle in than 100 semi-automatic rifles. I don't think they'd be so easily replaced after they were confiscated.

Were they to be banned today then I would somewhat agree that over decades the existing firearms might decline.However,in the meantime I would not want to leave my family at home while I work away,knowing that the only thing my wife and stepdaughter have in between them and an assailant would be pepper spray and a butcher knife.An unarmed man could bust through that front door and without the intervention of a firearm my wife would be another statistic.

As far as firearm smuggling,it would actually be easier than smuggling drugs.Firearms can be disassembled,thus reducing the amount of room it takes to transport multiples,and if scrubbed to remove carbon deposits dogs would likely even have trouble detecting them.The problem isnt as easy to solve as we would like.

Ultimately,you made the best point yourself.There are liberties we dont have anymore because the minority have ruined it for the majority.To that,I ask "Why?"Why must we continue to make the law abiders suffer because of the criminals?Where does the line get drawn? When do we honestly step up and demand adequate punishment for those who rebel rather than put more restraints on the honest man who doesnt have a record?

Just for the record,Im not going out of my way to dispute any and all claims associated with firearms or other weaponry.There are some things out there that cross the line of self defense and push into the territory of unnecessary risk.I honestly dont think its a good idea for people to ride through town with a tripod-mounted M-60 or stash an AT-4 in the trunk for whatever reason they think they might need one.Believe it or not,its an incredibly exhaustive process just to legally own a fully automatic firearm.It requires applying for an Federal Firearm License which involves extensive background checks,paperwork and most times is limited to dealers,police and military.Strictly speaking from a practical standpoint a full auto is a huge,inaccurate waste of ammo and is the primary reason why I have no interest in owning one.Fortunately most people cant hit the broad side of a barn with one.

At any rate,I just ask those who are for a total ban to think about all sides..especially considering that the only side of the second amendment we see broadcast is how bad it can be when wielded inappropriately.If I honestly thought it would eliminate the problem,I would personally dismantle mine and go along with a total ban.History doesnt show this to be effective,as can be displayed by areas in which its been tested.Till then Ill do what I can to protect that right and encourage others to weigh the consequences of going down that path.

 

[Potluck]

Overload the economy, reduce individual income, promote and propagate government dependency, divide the people against each other, make a certain class of people evil (the rich in this case), take the guns...
Get control of energy should be in there somewhere. Already getting control of the healthcare system.

 

[phantom309]

That's why I said the issue is more complex. Read the rest of that post you quoted.

I did.As stated with Mike,Im not trying to be overly critical,not quite sure how you took the response.

This is so sad.

A country that believes the government must be fearful of its people, and people who believe they must bear arms because they are so fearful of the government, just in case it oversteps its mark they're ready to knock down the doors of hte White House.

Seriously, that is a country that I would never wish to live in. It is a country of fear.

Sad? No,not really.As previously stated,Washington and crew laid provisions for the american people to have the ability to rise up and preserve their rights and freedoms should there come a time in the future when govt overstepped its powers and again started infringing on them.This is not terrorist activity,its simply keeping corrupt power in check when all legal means to do so fail.Its funny how we applaud them for their heroic deeds not so long ago,yet today criticize those same ideals when applied.

I never stated that we should break down the doors of the white house for slight infractions,youre carrying things a bit far there and quite frankly twisting the context of the original meaning.Not quite sure why youre so defensive on the matter,but Ive merely offered my comments here in a respectful manner just as others have.I view 2nd amendment matters as important to our country,and as such usually like getting involved in such conversations.

I agree that a hard line needs to be taken on these criminals. The exact question of how, and how much money is where it gets really interesting.

Fortunately,rope is cheap.

 

[Vanguard]

Fortunately,rope is cheap.

And reusable!

 

[Nick]

I did.As stated with Mike,Im not trying to be overly critical,not quite sure how you took the response.

Sorry if I took your response badly. But I generally agreed with your position that repealing the 2nd amendment is not going to solve anything here. And yet you quoted one part of my post that made it look like I had advocated for the 2nd amdendment to be repealed.

Sad? No,not really.As previously stated,Washington and crew laid provisions for the american people to have the ability to rise up and preserve their rights and freedoms should there come a time in the future when govt overstepped its powers and again started infringing on them.This is not terrorist activity,its simply keeping corrupt power in check when all legal means to do so fail.Its funny how we applaud them for their heroic deeds not so long ago,yet today criticize those same ideals when applied.

I never stated that we should break down the doors of the white house for slight infractions,youre carrying things a bit far there and quite frankly twisting the context of the original meaning.Not quite sure why youre so defensive on the matter,but Ive merely offered my comments here in a respectful manner just as others have.I view 2nd amendment matters as important to our country,and as such usually like getting involved in such conversations.

Yes, it is sad that armed force is veiwed as necessary against the state. Take it however you like it, but most people in Western countries other than the US will disagree with you, I would think.

 

[from dust to life]

Great responses, and if I may, without offending anyone here, ask what happened to Christ's teaching regarding eye for an eye? Are we as 'believers' still under the law?

Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, I sincerely ask you if you really 'believe' that our Lord Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords, or that is something that will come in some distant future, after we die and are resurrected into that New and eternal Kingdom?

Well that is not how I understand it, the Kingdom is here and arrived at Pentecost. Those who are 'born again' can enter that Kingdom NOW.

Here while in the flesh we 'walk' in and out of that Kingdom, and as the Bible says'

Colossians 4:5, 1 Timothy 3:7

1 Thessalonians 4:12
that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing.

Revelation 22:15
But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

While in the flesh we walk in and out of the Kingdom of God, but whether in or out (out is when we work, go to school or do our business) our King is Jesus Christ who commanded us to "turn the other cheek".

Don't you know that the god of this present world is Satan? If our rulers are not 'believers', they are led by Satan, so are we going to send our kids to fight wars for Satan?

I mean once you join the army, can you pick and choose which war you will fight in and which one you as a Christian consider immoral? Of course not, if you are ordered to kill men women and children in a country that your rulers consider enemy, you have to do it or face court-martial, isn't that right?

We war against principalities and the powers of darkness, not go and kill fellow Christian Believers in other countries. I mean you could just have converted a family, or just started a church in that country, and now you will kill them because your worldly ruler commended you to do so?

I have no gun to protect myself, my Lord and King said He will protect me and my family, so I place my trust in Him. So far He has kept that promise, and I am pretty sure I have gone through as many dangerous situations as anyone here has, and I have no reason to believe God would abandon me or my family now.
We all die, but I won't die killing my fellow man whose life I should be saving.

If you're a believer and say you follow Biblical teachings of Christ, then stop sending your sons and daughters to train and fight for Satan, he is training them to wipe YOU out, and everyone that bares the name of Christ.

Satan creates our enemies, he defines who is to rule with him on this earth and who is not. And if you think that Satan will allow even a weak Christian to remain in his kingdom, you better think again. He hates the very mention of Jesus, so what makes you think that he will tolerate you 'believer'?

The 'beast' that was mortally wounded has risen, it is a nation, and that great Dragon Satan has given them his power and his kingdom. Are you going to send your kids with guns to fight for the beast, or are you going to fight the Dragon that controls the beast, with the power of Gods Word?

Satan has instructed the 'beast' (this now ruling nation) on how he wants this earth to be. Agenda 21 spells it all out clearly; all humanity is to be reduced by 95%, and the remaining is to live like mindless robots like the people in North Korea. It is Satans dream model country where everyone bows to the beast.

The video games like Grand Theft Auto and all those horrific war games have raised a great army of confused children ready to do whatever they are asked to. Killing young school children is a bonus in these games, or haven't you seen them yet? (the games I mean)

This along with teaching them the Theory of Evolution where they believe they are no more than animals, the stage is set, the battle has started, WELCOME to Gog and Magog

Revelation 20:8
and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Which side are you on 'believer'? Two President Bushes have made it very clear; "Either you're with us, or against us!" and this is in line with what Jesus said; "... you cannot serve two masters", Luke 16:13 and our money spells it out; "In God We Trust" ... yes on our money, only left out the word 'this', like "In this God we trust", for the world is run on money and whoever controls the money, controls the WORLD and all the people in it.

Well not me, so how about you friend? You think this country is fighting evil? No my friends, it is spreading evil, such evil as we seen last friday at this school, and they will stop at nothing because Satan guides them. Until there is only one nation left with billions and billions dead, then Satan will convince that nation to take a ride on a comet or something and take their own lives to become one with the universe, just as Jim Jones at Jonestown, and the church called Heavens Gate in San Diego a few years back has.

Satan hates every human on the face of this earth, ... because we were created in Gods image. Only it will not end that way, for Jesus and His Angels are standing ready, the last trumpet is to be sounded. The war is on, so beware Matthew 24:24

God bless you all

Odon

 

[phantom309]

Considering were discussing US interests/affairs Im honestly indifferent to the opinions of other countries,most of whom have their own problems that they seem unable or inadequate to solve.

If I were to adhere to popular opinion as a guideline for everything then I suppose I would have to renounce christian beliefs too..after all it certainly isnt the most politically correct set of beliefs,and God forbid someone disagree.

 

[Kaliani]

as gun owners it is our responsibility to make sure that our guns are secure in our homes. Trigger locks, barrel cables, gun safes, removal of ammo from magazines, etc. can be done.

Also, keeping an eye on the mental state of the people closest to us and our guns. I do believe that is a valid aspect of being a responsible gun owner.

People always say 'We couldn't have seen it coming, he was a nice, quiet kid' and all I hear is 'Am I my brother's keeper?'

 

[Mike]

Even being a fan of various action movies and certain games,I have to agree here.In the past,extreme action was at least tied to a justifiable reason/plot.Now it seems that the story behind the deeds grows darker with each release.The "hero" is no longer action from conscience or on behalf of some good cause but is instead presented as a morally numb or outright callous individual,hardened by war and enjoying the carnage that follows.The story itself seems to draw strength from and reside in those grey or fuzzy areas,encouraging dark thoughts and utilizing he shock factor to keep the viewer/player hooked.I dont think it will be long before I can no longer justify handing over money for much of it.



Ill have to disagree here.Should you compare the number of legal gun owners to the number of criminals who grab the headlines through the misuse of guns I think we would have to admit that america has,thus far, handled the responsibility of firearm ownership quite well.

I know that when we have events occur,such as the recent school shooting,it evokes strong emotion.Noone likes to see our children needlessly die at the hands of some loser who decides to twist off and hurt someone.Nobody wants to get the news that a coworker killed their fiancee,or that a wife lost her husband to an angry soup chef.These are horrible things,all would agree.

What is being overlooked in the process is the fact that for every bad action grabbing media attention there are lives saved by the same instruments that conveniently never get reported.Look them up some time.I regularly read police and military magazines and always look forward to the true accounts of a grandparent stopping a home invasion,a single mom repelling an attempted rape,a business owner defending his property,even sometimes kids coming to the rescue of a parent or neighbor..by using guns.There is a stigma associated with guns today that is largely unfair and largely uninformed.Ive found that the majority of those uncomfortable with their presence are typically those who are either unfamiliar with them or who havent looked beyond the media demonizing guns and gun owners.That comment isnt meant as a lump insult to those against gun ownership,but simply an observation from my point of view.



Were they to be banned today then I would somewhat agree that over decades the existing firearms might decline.However,in the meantime I would not want to leave my family at home while I work away,knowing that the only thing my wife and stepdaughter have in between them and an assailant would be pepper spray and a butcher knife.An unarmed man could bust through that front door and without the intervention of a firearm my wife would be another statistic.

As far as firearm smuggling,it would actually be easier than smuggling drugs.Firearms can be disassembled,thus reducing the amount of room it takes to transport multiples,and if scrubbed to remove carbon deposits dogs would likely even have trouble detecting them.The problem isnt as easy to solve as we would like.

Ultimately,you made the best point yourself.There are liberties we dont have anymore because the minority have ruined it for the majority.To that,I ask "Why?"Why must we continue to make the law abiders suffer because of the criminals?Where does the line get drawn? When do we honestly step up and demand adequate punishment for those who rebel rather than put more restraints on the honest man who doesnt have a record?

Just for the record,Im not going out of my way to dispute any and all claims associated with firearms or other weaponry.There are some things out there that cross the line of self defense and push into the territory of unnecessary risk.I honestly dont think its a good idea for people to ride through town with a tripod-mounted M-60 or stash an AT-4 in the trunk for whatever reason they think they might need one.Believe it or not,its an incredibly exhaustive process just to legally own a fully automatic firearm.It requires applying for an Federal Firearm License which involves extensive background checks,paperwork and most times is limited to dealers,police and military.Strictly speaking from a practical standpoint a full auto is a huge,inaccurate waste of ammo and is the primary reason why I have no interest in owning one.Fortunately most people cant hit the broad side of a barn with one.

At any rate,I just ask those who are for a total ban to think about all sides..especially considering that the only side of the second amendment we see broadcast is how bad it can be when wielded inappropriately.If I honestly thought it would eliminate the problem,I would personally dismantle mine and go along with a total ban.History doesnt show this to be effective,as can be displayed by areas in which its been tested.Till then Ill do what I can to protect that right and encourage others to weigh the consequences of going down that path.

Phantom, you have some great points, and I respect your opinion on this complicated matter. I'm not trying to persuade anyone else with my arguments. It's the way I feel, and I'm expressing it.

From the time I was a child, I learned the concept that my class couldn't do certain things because a few of the kids abused the freedom to do them. Throughout my life I've seen this. It's always frustrating when this happens, but the big picture needs to be in focus. You can't take a firearm on an airplane. Why? Because a very, very few took that right from you. We have speed limits to promote safety even though most drivers would be concerned for their safety enough to to stay in control.

Besides the highly visible stories that grab our attention, there are the nightly homicides that go unreported or overlooked. We've had this freedom to bear arms, and look what has come of us. We know where society in America is trending, and almost all of us cringe when we think about it. This is my way of finally doing something to impact the degradation we're seeing.

For my part, I find it incomprehensible that some people feel it's okay for a citizen to own a semi-automatic machine gun that unloads 45 rounds a minute. It seems gun advocates are unwilling to concede even the most obvious extremes in weaponry.

Great responses, and if I may, without offending anyone here, ask what happened to Christ's teaching regarding eye for an eye? Are we as 'believers' still under the law?
Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, I sincerely ask you if you really 'believe' that our Lord Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords, or that is something that will come in some distant future, after we die and are resurrected into that New and eternal Kingdom?

No offense taken, but you might want to avoid implying that people who disagree don't believe the Lord. I understand your point, though.

If you're willing to adhere to the "eye for an eye" verses, are you willing to gauge your eye out if it looks at a woman lustful? Jesus support or non-support for weapons has been debates endlessly, and it's still at a stalemate.

The vast majority of Americans want violence in society addressed. Respect should be given to both sides, but we cannot do nothing differently and expect change. Spiritual revival first as our greatest weapon, but even with the greatest revival, there will be those with evil intent.

 

[stovebolts]

For my part, I find it incomprehensible that some people feel it's okay for a citizen to own a semi-automatic machine gun that unloads 45 rounds a minute. It seems gun advocates are unwilling to concede even the most obvious extremes in weaponry.

If you look at statistics, I'm sure you'll find the odds of one of those guns being used in an illegal manner that results in loss of human life is slim to none. I'd almost be willing to bet your odds of getting hit by a car and dying are greater than the odds of that gun being used to kill another human. Both have the potential to take human lives if used inappropriately... and to think, motorcyclists no longer have to wear a helmet in Michigan... wow.

 

[stovebolts]

I saw this on Facebook some time ago. Not sure if it's accurate or not, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

[andyboylester]

Hi everyone .I'm not American, and have no particular right to involve myself in this debate, so I'll just say, my wife and I grieve for you, and are praying for you. I hope that you can resolve these issues in love and glorify God in the doing of it. Bless you all.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I've considered all the opposing points: only outlaws will have guns, the black market will surge, etc., but I tend to think we need to address the message we send by saying guns are romantic, heroic, or even acceptable. Our land needs healing. Our people need the Lord. Personally, I need a society where I don't have to explain to my children why this kind of violence happens.

Cain didn't need a gun. The problem is a problem of the heart, it is the fallen state of man.
It is sure to grow worst as time draws near.

We need our families back! One man, one woman raising their own kids.

You may not think these issues are related, but I believe they are. As the family unit continues to disappear so do the morals we hold.
We learn respect for others and discipline at home. But when mom and dad have no respect or discipline for themselves, neither will the kids.
There are more and more disconnected adults because of how they grew up.

Excellent points by both of you, but I believe Seagull has a better grasp of the issues that face our nation. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. As long as there are problem people, there will be violence, disrespect of life, assault, rape, murder. It was going on long before guns or even gunpowder were invented and it will continue until Christ sets foot on the battlefield to bring an end to it all, once and for all.

Mike, I admire your convictions, but they are too narrow if you are going to focus on one small aspect of the overall problem. I know from your post you don't care for the cliches, but they are nonetheless true: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns probably make it easier and less personal, but if we don't address the mind- and heart-set we will only be addressing the problem peripherally.

 

[from dust to life]

No offense taken, but you might want to avoid implying that people who disagree don't believe the Lord. I understand your point, though.

Greetings and thank you Mike.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians was that 'he heard' that a member was living in adultery and the church was even proud of this guy, remember? He then 'implied' that they warn this guy, and if he doesn't repent, kick him out of the church and treat him as an unbeliever in hopes he would eventually realize the sin and repent.

If you remind me of my faults, or actions that don't fit a Christian, you would be implying I change, right? People who disagree with the teachings of Christ must be reminded and admonished, after all their actions could have eternal concequences, and even 'leaven' the whole church, ... wouldn't you agree?

If you're willing to adhere to the "eye for an eye" verses, are you willing to gauge your eye out if it looks at a woman lustful? Jesus support or non-support for weapons has been debates endlessly, and it's still at a stalemate.

A stalemate, ... why? What part of 'if someone takes your coat, give him your shirt also' was Jesus not clear on? When did the Apostles argue with Jesus about all those New Commandments He gave them? Was there ever a 'stalemate' even when Jesus outright went against Moses laws?

Yes, the Pharisees did find it offensive and refused to accept Christ's new commands, but as we know, the darkest of darkness awaits their eternal souls.

The plucking of the eye is an example Jesus gave to the danger of letting sin creep in on us, that we should do just about anything even to the point we would have no other choice but to pluck our eye out, than let pornography rob us of our soul. (Lord how guilty I am of that too )

The vast majority of Americans want violence in society addressed. Respect should be given to both sides, but we cannot do nothing differently and expect change.

Amen brother, only we should not confuse respect for keeping silent. This is why we must speak out against lies, we must reveal corruption, we must fight not with guns, but with words quoting Scripture in proper context. Sure we will offend, sure we face danger, even President Kennedy paid for his speech against this evil that has crept in our country, he was shortly shot dead for it. He didn't just loose an eye, but his life, and I believe he will be greatly rewarded for that, right?

Spiritual revival first as our greatest weapon, but even with the greatest revival, there will be those with evil intent.

I agree with you there too my dear friend, we must return back before the official establishment of Constantine's 'Christian Religion', back to being simple and humble 'believers'. If the world wants to call us Christian (Christ-like), fine, but we must recognize the difference between being called Christ-like (Christian) and going forth in the name of some 'Christian Religion' and converting the world with the sword. THAT my friend is not Christ like I'm sure you'll agree.

We must go beyond our 1,700 year old Christian Religion that has worshiped Deities and mediums lead by their divinations for all these years. Let us forsake these demonic forces that has split 'believers, followers of Christ' into something like 38,000 different denominations each with their unique doctrine, and return to the Lord who sent the Holy Spirit to teach us.

Thanks again

Odon

 

[Sparkey]

I don't like government control of individual choice and would not want laws enacted that restrict choices of law-abiding citizens. I don't own any firearms but if I ever found myself in a situation where somebody was shooting I'd like to have my son (who is 'pro-gun') nearby. He is a very responsible multiple gun owner and also has the heart of a hero beating within his chest.

Most active shooter scenarios last a very short amount of time (less than 10 minutes) and usually active shooters do not end up being shot by the police, they shoot themselves when they encounter armed resistance (cop or not) and lethal force.

My son is a concealed carry permit holder. He has the mindset, tactics, skill and gear needed to resist violent action by others. Who among us would not want him nearby if confronted by a violent armed criminal? Who would rather wait the 10 minutes for the police to respond? Enacting laws that restrict the heart of a hero is like abandoning the sheep and pulling the teeth of the sheep-dog.

I've heard other voices in this thread that remind me of my son and would personally thank God for them if the situation/need would arise and my loved ones remained safe (and alive) because of their act.