Gun Control in the USA

[Sparkey]

I came across a blog this morning,written by a novelist with an extensive background in firearms both with the civilian and LE/Military communities.It basically addresses some of the anti-gun opinions and gives good reasoning as well as evidence on why gun bans dont work,complete with examples of countries who have tried with backfire results.

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

Thanks Phantom309, the Larry Correia article you provided was well written, authoratative and comprehensive. Good find. Too bad that although it only took one (1) hour to write, gun control advocates will likely say it takes too much time for them to read.

 

[Sparkey]

Yesterday, my son and I went out to the indoor range. It was busier than I thought. With the exception of two clean-cut college aged guys the clientele were all middle aged or elderly. Most of the people looked like they could have served in Vietnam War. We met a friend and her disabled mother and very much enjoyed the time together. What I observed was a bunch of people who would otherwise be undefended practicing with an assortment of small bore weapons.

My son brought the 22 caliber Ruger that I had given him and his Christmas present, a red-dot sight. We were able to scope it in well enough so that both of us were able to produce a 50¢ piece sized cluster of 5 shots at 75-yards. The handicapped grandmother was new to shooting and was learning how to handle her little Walther P22. Altogether a fun time with friends and family.

Tell me why you want to mandate defenselessness for me and my friends again?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Tell me why you want to mandate defenselessness for me and my friends again?

Exactly.

For the most part, it is because they deny the reality, that gun ownership reduces crime and violence, rather than the converse and incorrect view that it increases both.

 

[from dust to life]

I interpret this as suggesting that the "beating of swords into plowshares" lies in the future. I believe that time has already come. I think we disagree on the timing of Jesus rule - I believe He is already installed as ruling King over this earth. But perhaps to get into that debate would derail this thread.

Thanks again my friend.

No, ... I believe that for us believers, discussing Christ rule here on earth IS a very big part of this debate regarding 'gun control' whether here in the US, the Americas or anywhere in the world. If Christ is our King of kings here and now, and we walk in and out of that spiritual-kingdom then the subject of owning a gun is really irrelevant for us 'believers', because we as believers would never, ... yes never use it to harm any other human being.

Laws apply only to those living under the law, and those concerned in upholding the law (those still living for the world) bear the sword, but as the Bible explains (especially Romans) that we are NOT under the law, and owning a gun would be no different than owning an Ipad or an exercise bike. I'm sure if I threw an Ipad hard enough and just the right way, I could kill someone with it, ... right? That goes with an exercise bike too. But that is not why I have one, nor would it be any different if I owned a gun.

But why would I, a believer (Christian) own a gun and want to beat it into plowshares? Why would I buy a gun in the first place?
If I lived out on a farm with foxes attacking my chickens, or wolves stealing my sheep, it would be very useful to own a gun, right? And this brings us to what you said, and to what I too agree, that Jesus is already installed as ruling King over this earth but ONLY for those who have been 'born again', who walk NOT according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. In the spirit, we are in HIS Kingdom that has arrived at Pentecost, but for now in the flesh we live here on this earth. The laws governing us is NOT of this worlds, but of Christ's, which is to love those that despitefully use us and persecute us. So if I owned a gun, it would be for a useful purpose as I have mentioned above, not to protect myself from my fellow man. For me to live, is for Christ, and to die is but gain.

I can't say I fully understand what is coming, or why we would need to beat our swords into plowshares if God will destroy this here physical earth and will create a New Heaven and a New Earth, and have the old ones vanish, ... where even the 'elements' be burnt up with a fervent heat? This is where I believe the Thousand Year Reign comes in, where Jesus will rule on this physical earth for a thousand years, and under HIS rule, there won't be any more use for guns or tanks.

Then after that thousand years is over, Satan will be released for a short while and he will round up all those who lived under Christ rule for that thousand years, but hated it, and just couldn't wait to war against this goody-goody lifestyle under Christ, and will gather together with Satan for a final war against Christ and those that serve Him.

I mean it makes sense doesn't it? Then as the Bible says, Jesus will win over Satan with His Word (the sword of Truth) and will cast Satan and all those multitude that followed him into hell, which is also called the second-death, because a life without the presence of God (for all good things come from God) is NOT life, but a state of eternal damnation and darkness, which cannot be considered 'life' by any means, but death and those living there called the 'living dead'.

So until Christ comes to rule for that thousand years, I myself wouldn't be 'beating my swords into plowshares' just yet.

What do you and others think on this?

In Jesus name

Odon

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

From Dust to Life ...

While I don't agree with you that Christians would never use a gun to harm another person ... someone breaking into my house intending to steal my property or do me harm will be met with force, and I'm absolutely confident God has sanctioned that kind of rare circumstance ... you are quite right that we should not be beating our swords into plowshares just yet. Isaiah referenced that time, and it corresponds to the Millenial Kingdom on earth. Not just yet.

 

[Sparkey]

We probably can't expect gun control advocates to contribute much to this thread until another tragedy happens (which sadly seems to be their M.O.) but in the meantime it might do well to keep to the topic and find other threads to discuss other subjects so the moderators won't have to do another "clean up".
totopic

 

[phantom309]

Dust,

I can see where youre coming from,and many of your sentiments are echoed by those of us who wish to keep and bear arms.

We all stand on the same side in regards to not maliciously harming our fellow man.Murder,maiming and all around hell-raising in general are of course unacceptable to all of us.None of us even like the idea of being put in a situation which would force us to use those arms against someone.

I believe where we differ,then, is on the notion of self defense.I have never seen anything in the bible or had someone else bring anything to my attention that would even remotely suggest I would be placing myself in spiritual jeopardy for defending myself against someone attempting to harm myself or my family.Until that point comes I stand firm on the issue.Again I have no reason,either scriptural or rationalized,that would make me think for a second that God would condemn me for putting down a man that deliberately breaks into a home and attempts to rape,murder or otherwise endanger my wife,stepdaughter or anyone else therein.

As for your reference of living by the sword,I honestly wish those who continually use this context would apply it to the proper people.I am an owner of multiple firearms.I have a clean criminal record,dont cause any trouble and work relentlessly to provide for my family.We go to church,help where we can and try as hard as possible to act right in general.I am not living by the sword.If I stand between an armed or determined man who has it in his mind to bring harm to my family and am forced to injure or kill him to prevent that dark desire coming to fruition I am still not living by the sword.I am simply a man defending those he loves.The people who are living by the sword are those who choose to do the break-ins,commit the robberies,commit the murders,do the drive-bys,etc.You are completely applying this statement to the wrong people.My life is a life of peace until the moment comes when any man decides to harm myself or others.It is not a terroristic act to defend another person by force if necessary.

Furthermore,this great country we live in would not have been as great had men and women years ago not fought against a tyrannical form of govt that oppressed and abused the people on a regular basis.We all praise the heroic acts of Washington and the people who banded together for freedom.Why,then,is it different now?We think its ok for a mob of people to stage a rebellion,killing untold numbers of british military along the way but a man at home with his wife and kids is somehow wrong or less of a christian because hes willing to fight and potentially give his life to preserve that of others?This makes zero sense to me.

If you have some scriptural backing to what you say then by all means share it and plead your case.The vast majority of the opposition to self defense Ive seen here amounts to personal opinion,emotional reaction and/or personal agenda.I have yet to see a single verse used that I can agree is relevant to the topic.The people who have defended the second amendment have basically been called crazy,paranoid,irresponsible and other things..yet again,Ive seen nothing of substance that would validate the call to stand down,give away the guns and be content in a defenseless state while trying to figure out afterwards what we would do to protect our home.

 

[Sparkey]

Scripture gives an example of the application of the saying "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword," when Peter took up a sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the High-Priest:

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:51-53

Peter was defending Jesus and when Jesus saw this, he admonished his disciple, "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." In a parallel passage found in Luke we find Jesus instructing his disciple, "Suffer it..."

When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

I believe that Jesus knew (and had specific knowledge of this specific case) that may have influenced his choice of admonition, similar to when he said on other occasions, "for Scripture to be fulfilled." I am not convinced that this admonition can be demonstrated to be universal (as seen here). Yet there are other examples we can look to for that. My personal opinion is that we, as Christians, are not to resist evil with evil. There are Scriptures that tell soldiers to do no violence (see Luke 3:14): "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse [any] falsely; and be content with your wages.

In summary, things just don't seem all that clear to me. For instance, if I had a weapon in my possession while I saw my loved ones threatened with grievous harm, I would hope that the Holy Spirit would be there personally to guide me in my choice. I can become convinced of my duty to others and act on a need to prevent harm and I don't see this conviction as bad or ungodly. I don't think there is sufficient weight of Scriptural evidence to say point-blank that Christians must be passive in every case and that self defense is wrong or sinful. To me, it's a matter that must be decided prayerfully and may even vary according to circumstance, hence my support of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Kaliani]

We probably can't expect gun control advocates to contribute much to this thread until another tragedy happens

I am actually not picking a side on this gun control debate simply because I think it's the wrong debate to be having anyway.

Guns didn't cause Lanza's madness and guns would not have cured it. Yes, a gun may have saved all those people's lives but could he have been saved too?

Still totopic

 

[from dust to life]

Scripture gives an example of the application of the saying "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword," when Peter took up a sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the High-Priest:
....
In summary, things just don't seem all that clear to me. For instance, if I had a weapon in my possession while I saw my loved ones threatened with grievous harm, I would hope that the Holy Spirit would be there personally to guide me in my choice. I can become convinced of my duty to others and act on a need to prevent harm and I don't see this conviction as bad or ungodly. I don't think there is sufficient weight of Scriptural evidence to say point-blank that Christians must be passive in every case and that self defense is wrong or sinful. To me, it's a matter that must be decided prayerfully and may even vary according to circumstance, hence my support of the 2nd Amendment.

Thank the Lord and you Sparrowhawke, and considering that for the past 2,000 years we have accumulated approximately 38,000 Christian denominations and non-denomination denominations in the world today, and it is growing by the day, it is no small wonder that as you said; "things just don't seem all that clear to me." I agree my dear friend.

So what are we to do? Which Christian Denomination, or non-denominational denomination (because there are thousands of non-denominational denominations popping up every week) do we turn to, to get the answer to such life-saving question that has eternal consequences as killing another human being has? Where do we turn?

In the Bible Jesus said; "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you" ... so do you think we should hold Christ to His Word, or just wing-it and pick a denomination and accept their man-made doctrine and go with that?

The reason I'm saying this is because according to the Bible, Jesus was pretty firm on this subject, one that comes to mind is the woman who was caught in adultery (funny isn't it, that the man committing the adultery with her is not mentioned!?!) Jesus said: "Let him without sin cast the first stone!" Now of course if this was today in the US, He would have probably said; 'let him without sin pull the trigger on his gun first', ... I'm sure you would agree, right?

So IMHO I would suggest as 'followers of Christ', we take another good look at what the Bible has to say about this subject, and you already mentioned a few instances.

What do you think?

Thanks again, and may the Lord bless you.

Odon

 

[Vanguard]

For those quoting the Bible and trying to choose a side...

The Ten Commandments speak volumes about how the Hebrews were supposed to act. However, when they speak of "neighbor," you have to look at it in context. It's not referring to our next door neighbor, one house over. It's referring to their fellow Hebrew neighbors [other Jews]. Anyone who is a Gentile is fair game, and it's also why God commanded them to commit genocide on certain people. Since those that they slew were not Hebrew, they were subject to acts of violence carried out by the Hebrews.

If you want to go to the NT and use Matthew 5:38-45 we can look at that too. Jesus tells us to "turn the other cheek, pray for your enemies" etc. The verses are actually in support of the original OT "eye for an eye" principle found. However, people started using EFE in the name of personal vengeance, not justice by court. It started being the excuse to commit acts of violence. Jesus spoke to correct the understanding of how it was to be used. Turning the other cheek simply means not to take personal vengeance out on someone. However, it does not mean you can't defend yourself or anyone else, if they are attacked. It's all about the context.

 

[Sparkey]

[video=youtube;WhB8hNm1kow]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhB8hNm1kow[/video]

 

[Drew]

I have been away for awhile. Busy right now, but I might return to this thread in the reasonably near future. And, yes, I am aware that some will be less than thrilled to know this.

 

[reba]

Drew I welcome you around here. We may not agree all the time, you are polite and you love the Lord!

 

[Mike S]

I have been away for awhile. Busy right now, but I might return to this thread in the reasonably near future. And, yes, I am aware that some will be less than thrilled to know this.

I'm pretty sure you'd be welcome here. Strong opinions get strong responses, but they're always welcome.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I have been away for awhile. Busy right now, but I might return to this thread in the reasonably near future. And, yes, I am aware that some will be less than thrilled to know this.

You sell yourself short, and your critics shorter. Please don't mistake opposition for rejection.

 

[Sparkey]

I have been away for awhile. Busy right now, but I might return to this thread in the reasonably near future. And, yes, I am aware that some will be less than thrilled to know this.

Yes, welcome back Drew.

Today, there was another school shooting (Taft Union High, California) leaving two wounded. The suspect used a shotgun and is in custody. As you may know, the Vice President was charged to head up a gun task force in the wake of of the Newtown school shooting. There was a closed door meeting between the Administration, the NRA, and other gun groups. The NRA said they were "disappointed" with the direction of the task force so far.

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," the NRA wrote in a statement after a closed-door meeting with administration officials and other gun groups. "While claiming that no policy proposals would be 'prejudged,' this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans."
Source: NBC News.com​

The Vice President seemed focused on high capacity magazines (not something I particularly agree would be effective - but hey! they are politicians and must be seen as 'doing somthin' 'bout it'. On the other hand, Biden's comments before the meeting gave me some hope that he is listening:

"There is a surprising -- so far -- recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks, not just [to] close the gun show loophole, but total, universal background checks, including private sales," Biden said.​

It almost sounded to me like Biden had been reading this thread. Even Mike's comments about violent video games were addressed. The politics of gun-control have decidedly changed since Newtown. The VP spoke about other issues: 'Gun Safety' and the 'Responsibility of Gun Ownership'. He didn't directly address restricting various specific types of weapons except to focus on the example of high capacity magazines. My little 10-shot, 22 caliber Ruger seems safe so far.

I heard nothing about mandated treatment plans to keep out-patient mentally ill on their medications, nothing about addressing the legal barriers and boundaries established by health care laws. Apart from addressing private sales and so-called 'universal' background checks and problems in getting felony information entered into the NICS, most of what was discussed seems little more than first steps toward the national registration of all guns (shhhhhh.... don't tell). Sounds to me like we might expect an upcoming Presidential Executive Order to address the issues that are agreed upon and set the stage for further legislative action from the 2013 Congress.

 

[Sparkey]

Hey! Here's a quick song to welcome you back:

Imagine there's no firearms;
It isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for
And no mass-murders too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You... you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one.

Imagine there's no weapons.
I wonder if you can.
No need for crime or violence;
A brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people sharing all the world.

You... you may say that
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one.​

If only everybody would clap their hands (at the same time) the guns would disappear; weapon manufacturers would realize the evil of their ways.
We could pass a law, yeah! That's the ticket! "Mommy, I can't make bad men go away. Make the bad guns go away." Suspend me from 1st Grade for pointing my finger and saying "POW".

PS. I would probably need to apologize to our more sensitive members. I know that John Lennon's "Imagine" was banned by ClearChannel after the 9-11 tragedy and can not be played anymore due to voluntary compliance with the Bush Administration directive through the FCC about playing songs that might be considered insensitive. How's that for an example of accomplishment -- there's about 165 songs that won't be heard by the coming generation. Including Simon and Garfunkle's "Bridge Over Troubled Water," Cat Stevens "Peace Train," Peter, Paul and Mary "Blowing in the Wind" and 160+ others that fell to "political correctness" and "appropriateness" combined with zero tolerance. When will we realize that we simply can not legislate morality? Essentially the government clapped their hands and our music is *poof* gone. Forget the 1st Amendment. Don't think this isn't happening to 2nd Amendment too. Rant over.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

Thanks again my friend.

No, ... I believe that for us believers, discussing Christ rule here on earth IS a very big part of this debate regarding 'gun control' whether here in the US, the Americas or anywhere in the world. If Christ is our King of kings here and now, and we walk in and out of that spiritual-kingdom then the subject of owning a gun is really irrelevant for us 'believers', because we as believers would never, ... yes never use it to harm any other human being.

Laws apply only to those living under the law, and those concerned in upholding the law (those still living for the world) bear the sword, but as the Bible explains (especially Romans) that we are NOT under the law, and owning a gun would be no different than owning an Ipad or an exercise bike. I'm sure if I threw an Ipad hard enough and just the right way, I could kill someone with it, ... right? That goes with an exercise bike too. But that is not why I have one, nor would it be any different if I owned a gun.

But why would I, a believer (Christian) own a gun and want to beat it into plowshares? Why would I buy a gun in the first place?
If I lived out on a farm with foxes attacking my chickens, or wolves stealing my sheep, it would be very useful to own a gun, right? And this brings us to what you said, and to what I too agree, that Jesus is already installed as ruling King over this earth but ONLY for those who have been 'born again', who walk NOT according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. In the spirit, we are in HIS Kingdom that has arrived at Pentecost, but for now in the flesh we live here on this earth. The laws governing us is NOT of this worlds, but of Christ's, which is to love those that despitefully use us and persecute us. So if I owned a gun, it would be for a useful purpose as I have mentioned above, not to protect myself from my fellow man. For me to live, is for Christ, and to die is but gain.

I can't say I fully understand what is coming, or why we would need to beat our swords into plowshares if God will destroy this here physical earth and will create a New Heaven and a New Earth, and have the old ones vanish, ... where even the 'elements' be burnt up with a fervent heat? This is where I believe the Thousand Year Reign comes in, where Jesus will rule on this physical earth for a thousand years, and under HIS rule, there won't be any more use for guns or tanks.

Then after that thousand years is over, Satan will be released for a short while and he will round up all those who lived under Christ rule for that thousand years, but hated it, and just couldn't wait to war against this goody-goody lifestyle under Christ, and will gather together with Satan for a final war against Christ and those that serve Him.

I mean it makes sense doesn't it? Then as the Bible says, Jesus will win over Satan with His Word (the sword of Truth) and will cast Satan and all those multitude that followed him into hell, which is also called the second-death, because a life without the presence of God (for all good things come from God) is NOT life, but a state of eternal damnation and darkness, which cannot be considered 'life' by any means, but death and those living there called the 'living dead'.

So until Christ comes to rule for that thousand years, I myself wouldn't be 'beating my swords into plowshares' just yet.

What do you and others think on this?

In Jesus name

Odon

Very good post Odon!

Nice to see someone who understands the Christian position in regards to worldly matters.

We are ‘in’ the world, not ‘of’ the world.

What the world does the world does, because they do not know or have God to look to, and trust in.

It is not for us to judge how those live outside the Body of Christ, for it is God who will judge them.

1Co 5:12 For what is it to me to also judge those who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
1Co 5:13 But God judges those who are outside. Therefore put out from you the evil one.

The Christian is to:

1Pe 3:9 Never give back evil for evil, or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, giving blessing, knowing that you are called to this so that you might inherit blessing.

We (the Christian) are to follow the example given us by Christ.

1Pe 2:21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving behind an example for you, that you should follow in His footsteps,
1Pe 2:22 "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth";
1Pe 2:23 who, being verbally abused, did not return verbal insults, when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

We are to follow in His footsteps.
Does Christ depend upon carnal weapons defend Himself, or some worldly constitution and laws to protect His so called rights?

If His feet have not tread there before us, then how can we claim to be following Him?

 

[Sparkey]

Okay, I'm going to admit it. There is something different between my faith and the faith that Jesus had. Think of all the miracles. My life and acts haven't made the local newspaper, let alone change the world. And think about the things he says, "Think you not that I could pray and The Father would send legions of angels?" If somebody here has the key to that kind of effectual prayer today, that kind of faith today, good. I mean that. I have been in situations where I felt my life was threatened. And like a child who believes himself to be immortal it was impossible for me to conceive of my death. Of course that belief is simply false.

"If His feet have not tread there before us, then how can we claim to be following Him?" Pardon the reductio ad absurdum, but we don't need to isolate our feet to Bethlehem. Jesus was never married, but we see examples in the Bible of others who were. Jesus never worked for a corporation; and we have no record of him doing so many things, did he attend public school? There is no reasonable way to say that because Jesus didn't own a Ruger that I can't.

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul stated (here in the New American Standard Bible wording) that "Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called" while specifically adding that "Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that." Although it's true that Jesus did not depend on the US Constitution for his "rights" the Bible clearly supports the 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery. I would suggest here that there are other decisions made by God fearing men should not be abandoned lightly. Is it possible that the Lord gave wisdom to our forefathers when they asked? It seems clear to me that He did.