Christians and the Second Amendment

[reba]

I thank the LORD for the gun my husband used to keep us safe when the bad guys kicked in our door.

 

[jasoncran]

for the record, tasers and oc spray dont work that often to stop someone high. see that video on shot placement as that kid wasnt high imho. he still talked etc and if he wanted too he could have if killed the gun weilder if he was high enough and had a weapon.

never just shoot once, shoot till the threat is stopped. one shot may do it, then again it may not.

 

[felix]

for the record, tasers and oc spray dont work that often to stop someone high. see that video on shot placement as that kid wasnt high imho. he still talked etc and if he wanted too he could have if killed the gun weilder if he was high enough and had a weapon.

never just shoot once, shoot till the threat is stopped. one shot may do it, then again it may not.

I believe God will never put us in such a situation if we put our trust in Him. I think you should remove such thoughts of using guns and read Psalms 91.

 

[G. White]

seconds count and calling the cops which i have in similar situations they(on the cell phone ) will ask where you are and what is the nature.

"When second count, police are just minutes away."

May be we can use something that does not kill the criminal but immobilize, instead of a gun which can actually kill people.

Like what? A taser? Tasers are unlawful for civilian use here in New York. Handguns/pistols, rifles, and shotguns are lawful AND a Constitutional Right. Pepper spray? What's that going to do against someone who is not affected to a high degree by OC chemicals, and what if I'm upwind from the armed assailant?

I do agree with most of you here.... that I will not be watching any crime against my family member if it happens, but never to the extend of actually taking a gun and killing someone for self defending.

Who says you have to fire the weapon? I bet there are many cases where criminals ran away in fear for their lives at the mere sight of a handgun or the loud distinctive sound of a pump action shotgun chambering a round.

 

[jasoncran]

i have been both tazered and oc sprayed, if i can get the barb off of me, its on, and one spray, you will get hit at the same time if you are downwind. and if i am not hit in the eyes. i will get you.

 

[jasoncran]

I believe God will never put us in such a situation if we put our trust in Him. I think you should remove such thoughts of using guns and read Psalms 91.

lol. dude., serious. several months ago i was asked to call 911 for a dying baby.

that baby was long since dead, i nor the neighbor was able to save that baby. so God doesnt allow that? and theres no promise of total safety from death nor harm. i have faced death numerous times in country and God's grace was the only reason i wasnt harmed. some werent so blessed.

i have risked my life to warn others that a car was on fire as the driver didnt know. i have also and will help those in harms way. will you just drive by a rapist doing the very deed? or ignore the cry for help. one doesnt have to be a hero and no i am not suggesting that but if one is the only means of assistance and you have the gun to do so. you can stop the crime.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea,

I did read your posts. What you have to say about method is interesting. I would agree that the scientific method is a great way of gaining facts about our physical world...but you have to know that it is no more reliable than a Christian's dependence upon the Bible and Holy Spirit in determining what is truth...truth being a religious/philosophical issue.

Truth is not a religious/philosophical issue, though.
Getting to the truth of why methylated amino acids protect genetic function is not religious. But it is truth.
Getting to the truth of whether a child broke a lamp is not religious. But it is the truth of the matter.

You may consider that religion owns the word truth, but that word is used by many people in many contexts, and it means more than a religious idea. So that's kind of a red herring to lay claim to a word and use that to make an argument for religion, I think?

I do know that non-Christians are "confused" about we Christians.

And, of course, you Christians are confused about atheists. I assume you agree with this? I know that Reba doesn't. But I hope you can agree that Christians very often are confused about atheists - calling them rebellious when they are in fact questioning; calling them lacking in morals, when they are clearly exhibited, etc.

And, the note about personal gain...not sure why you are internalizing it or thinking it's a personal attack against you.

I did not say it was an attack. I said I did not understand it and did not know why it would be applied to me. I was hoping for an answer of what it meant in answer to my saying that many of us atheists had been Christians in the past. Your reference:

The passage that its in reference to is speaking to those who use God's word for personal gain.

Does not make sense as a reply to me saying that some of us were Christians in the past and therefore would have read the scripture WHILE being spirit filled.

I'm not saying that the Christian is any better about this than anyone else...we're not. But, we are answerable to God and to each other. And the Church, for all of her imperfections and infighting, still is comprised of people who are essentially following the same directions to the same conclusions. Will this remain confusing to outsiders...yeah. Will we also come to different conclusions about things like gun control amongst each other, yeah to that as well. Because the Church is imperfect.

But, our method for determining what is true about our faith...and why we can determine that Jeffs isn't of our faith...is the right method for us.

My question is how can the method be pointed to as the support for your conclusion when Christians cannot reliably and repeatedly come to the same conclusions using the method.

I'm not comparing whether scientific method is better than spirit-revealed method in determining religious doctrine, I am saying that
1. Scientific method is a useful method in its field because it is repeatable.
2. Religious method you have just told me is not repeatable among people who are using it correctly, but you are willing to say you have a correct answer using a method that you just said often gives wrong answers.

This doesn't mean I'm suggesting you should use the scientific method, and I apologize for confusing things by bringing it up. I only meant, the method you are claiming to support that you have the right answer, you have just finished telling me is an unreliable method, but I should trust that you have the right answer because I'm not able to discern right answers, and even though you just told me that you are not able to discern right answers either, I should know that you are right and I am wrong.

And yes, that is very very confusing.
And yet you say it here...

I'm a Christian, you are not. We will employ different methods to arrive at truth in our life. As a Christian, I must employ the method according to the Bible. Since I'm not perfect, nor is Reba, G. White or any other around here...differences in opinions will come up.

if I can rephrase,
If Rhea agrees with the Amish, then Rhea is wrong but the Amish are not necessarily wrong because they could be right, but Rhea cannot be right, even if she agrees with someone who might be right, because she is incapable of being right, even by chance, because she doesn't have the spirit-filled option of being wrong by internal bias, she is just plain wrong, no matter what, whereas the Amish are spirit-filledly wrong because of a bias, and that's a different kind of wrong that might be right, even when it agrees with Rhea, who is definitely wrong.


Yes, when trying to decide what is right, that is very confusing. I'm not comparing the method to science, I'm comparing it to itself. Is it useful and repeatable? Does it reliably give a common answer such that one can claim, "by using this method I can be sure I'm right"

So back to direct topic (I think indirectly the ability to claim one's answer is "true" is a diversion that is very fruitful)... but back to direct topic,

I had been bringing up arguments that are made by other christian sects for argument. It does not matter that I am atheist, the arguments are made by spirit-filled Christians and are worth discussing, I think?

The Amish feel "resist ye not evil" is a strong command from Jesus to not defend oneself if it means using violence. Felix is saying the same.

 

[theLords]

May be we can use something that does not kill the criminal but immobilize, instead of a gun which can actually kill people.

I do agree with most of you here.... that I will not be watching any crime against my family member if it happens, but never to the extend of actually taking a gun and killing someone for self defending.

I also agree it is perfectly ok for cops and soldiers to have guns:
Rom 13:4 For he (authorities) is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.

Having said that, no one must not put our trust on guns but on the Lord. I believe as long as a Christian puts his trust on the Lord, Second Amendment shouldn't be a problem.

Very nice to see you explain yourself in detail. I agree with alot of what you've said. But, the world will never truly get rid of guns, because the criminal underworld needs them and will always make sure to have them. The solution is not disarming the law abiding citizen, but dealing with the law breakers.

 

[WIP]

As I read through this thread...well most of it...I get the impression that there is a misunderstanding about what the 2nd amendment to our constitution really means. The primary reason for the 2nd amendment was not to provide private citizens the right to own firearms but before you jump for joy, Felix, please hear me out. The primary objective of the 2nd amendment starts with an understanding of what the United States really is or are.

The United States is not a single entity like most other countries. The United States is actually a cooperative of 50 individually governed states. The first thirteen states signed the original constitution but one of their greatest concerns and quite frankly a strong stumbling block for signing the document was a fear of a central oppressive government. The states wanted to be sure they would not be denied the ability to protect themselves from this situation, ergo, the 2nd amendment was finally ratified to protect the right of the individual states to organize, keep, maintain, and equip their own individual militias in order to deter and/or guard against a strong central oppressive government. Now in order to do that the amendment included wording that allows us citizens, the members of said militias, the right to keep and bear arms. Using them or hunting, target shooting, self-defense of ourselves or others, or for military purposes is not defined in the 2nd amendment.

To my knowledge there has only been one instance when states exercised their right to form militias for protection against an oppressive central government and that was in the mid-nineteenth century and finally erupted into our war between the states.

Does owning a sword, knife, gun, automobile (probably the most deadly piece of hardware anyone ever owns), bow, spear, or rock preclude that we will die by such article? I don't agree with this. I submit that it is not the sword that Jesus was refering to but the heart and the motive.

I own several firearms. I do not own them because I feel some need for self-defense. I own them becasue I enjoy hunting and sport shooting. If I die by the gun it is likely that I will be in the wrong place at the wrong time and I will not even be armed when it happens. And in the unlikely event that I should ever encounter a situation where I must choose to use a firearm against another person, I will trust that the Lord will guide my hand.

 

[theLords]

WIP, that totally reminded me of this:

<embed width="600" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" allowNetworking="all" wmode="transparent" src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf" flashvars="file=http%3A%2F%2Fvid51.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff359%2FRahman1937%2Ffamily_guy_right_to_bear_arms.mp4">

Well, it's not working. Here's the link: Family Guy - Right To Bear Arms - mobile9 OR

http://gallery.mobile9.com/f/155503/

 

[Mike]

Felix, I wonder how far you will take the point you have made about Christians seeking to save their lives. If every effort to save our own life is in conflict with Luke 17:33, demonstrating a focus on self as opposed to things of His Kingdom, wouldn't this apply to seeking medical attention? By your reasoning, if we are fully trusting in Him, we will forego any effort to defend our welfare, whether the threat comes from an aggressor or an aggressive disease. In the end, in order to be consistent, it seems you would have to take the same stance.

Personally, I don't own a gun, and I support more gun control than most of my fellow conservatives, but the pacifist argument based on that Luke verse could be taken to extremes. I don't believe such extremes are consistent with prudence.

 

[felix]

lol. dude., serious. several months ago i was asked to call 911 for a dying baby.

that baby was long since dead, i nor the neighbor was able to save that baby. so God doesnt allow that? and theres no promise of total safety from death nor harm. i have faced death numerous times in country and God's grace was the only reason i wasnt harmed. some werent so blessed.

i have risked my life to warn others that a car was on fire as the driver didnt know. i have also and will help those in harms way. will you just drive by a rapist doing the very deed? or ignore the cry for help. one doesnt have to be a hero and no i am not suggesting that but if one is the only means of assistance and you have the gun to do so. you can stop the crime.

Ps 34:19 Many [are] the afflictions of the righteous, But the LORD delivers him out of them all.

Surely God does allow that. Look at what God had done to Job. Yet, He blesses him in the end much more.. There could be are several reasons for it according to Scriptures. Only God can protect us from all evil.

 

[reba]

St John was boiled in oil and lived

John the baptist was beheaded

Stephen was stoned

Etc

Might be nice to understand what we call evil.

I do not look for death i am not afraid of death . God give me my will to live this earthly life.

I would like to think i could be as Stephen

I also dont go out to the freeway and play with the trucks

I am thankful Hubby did not have to shoot the bad guys

I am thankful the bad guy had only a single shot shotgun it went off in the ceiling.

Christ staying with us, never leaving us,

Psa 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Does not mean to me i should not protect my family and self from harm.

 

[jasoncran]

sometimes we are the rescue and answered prayer to said believer in that plight.

the victim may have prayed. oh god help.and you are that help.

 

[G. White]

Only God can protect us from all evil.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

God does indeed do that, but there is also a fact that God has set all things in motion has no real influence on the outcomes in many events. That is why when you are involved in an accident God is not to blame. If you develop a disease, don't curse him. If you cut your finger God never had any hand in on it, nor is he going to get you some alcohol and a bandaid. Do it yourself!

Figure out things for yourself!

If you believe God is really going to "physically" intervene in any serious situation you might encounter, I am completely in support of your belief. OTOH, I (myself) like to believe that God gave me a decent functioning brain and enough common sense behind it to acquire personal defense for myself and loved ones.