What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Less than 13 hours mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

Then again, the current US Constitution was written in response to Shays' Rebellion. The Articles of Confederation were not considered strong enough to prevent chaos, so they were replaced by the Constitution. It originally said nothing about militias bearing arms. That was an amendment added later.
 
Last edited:
Canada was a United Kingdom province until the '70's. Separate but still under the UK hegemony.
At one point Canada was upset about border towns and even came south and destroyed a town in a retaliation military action. The whole "54-40 or Fight" campaign was the name of that skirmish.

But a decentralized and weak Federal Government in favor of strong State's rights of rule was the overriding prevailing wisdom.
The first 10 amendments AKA "Bill of Rights" was all about removing power from any government be it state or Federal.

Your state AKA "church" was in charge of you the people...the Federal Government was more of a buying and selling co-operative than a Government.

Things have drastically changed over the years... almost 250 of them.
 
Michael74 said:
Of course, the situation is different today. The US lavishes more resources on its standing army than the next several global powers combined. Local neighborhood militia self defense groups are no longer a significant part of the national defense plan if invaded by a foreign despot. Some theorize that local militias could resist if a local despot took control of the USA. Thus their rationalization for keeping them armed.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they wouldn't be able to.
 
Bull of the Woods said:
Pretty sure they wouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghan guerrillas kept the US military busy for years. Local militias can't win a conventional battle against front line combat troops. They can only fight guerrilla wars for decades. Only if the despot is not willing to attack civilians who don't pledge loyalty to him though. The Mongols simply depopulated any area that had rebellious tendencies. Very effective. The Mongols didn't have to deploy any troops for garrison duties.
 
Last edited:
Michael74 said:
Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghan guerrillas kept the US military busy for years. Local militias can't win a conventional battle against front line combat troops. They can only fight guerrilla wars for decades. Only if the despot is not willing to attack civilians who don't pledge loyalty to him though. The Mongols simply depopulated any area that had rebellious tendencies. Very effective. The Mongols didn't have to deploy any troops for garrison duties.
Click to expand...
If it came to that the US would be unrecognizable and unlikely to become again as it was. We would be more like Afghanistan than the good old USA.
 
Michael74 said:
They compromised at the 49th parallel, without a war. Moderates in Britain wanted peace. President Polk didn't want to fight Mexico and Britain at the same time.
Click to expand...
The Mexican War was pretty much our doing to grab land. Southern states held significant sway in congress and wanted to expand slavery. Lincoln was in the House and demanded, rhetorically "where is the spot the Mexicans crossed into the US".
 
Bull of the Woods said:
Wonder why militias are the central purpose for the 2nd amendment?
First, are all gun owners members of a state or national militia?
Could the "people's right to bear arms" have meant a collective "people" meaning the right of states to arm a militia rather than an untouchable individual right?
Click to expand...
Hi Bull! Question, didn't the landmark Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller specifically remove the restriction that firearm ownership be connected to a public militia?

"According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." -Heller
Click to expand...
 
KevinK said:
Hi Bull! Question, didn't the landmark Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller specifically remove the restriction that firearm ownership be connected to a public militia?
Click to expand...
I recognize the authority the Supreme Court has. But they don't always get it right. Sometimes later on, years, the court reverses. So that may be the legal standard today.
The Supreme Court once ruled that blacks were ineligible for citizenship. They had no rights that anyone was bound to recognize. Dred Scott decision.
As a Christian I don't tend to regard the Constitution as infallible, nor the Supreme Court.
 
WIP said:
But now consider this. This incident happened in Texas. Texas residents are the third highest state per capita for carry permit holders and as such why was there nobody able to respond to the shooter in defense? I hate to admit it but this really seems to fly in the face of our pro-gun argument that armed citizens would affect the result by reducing the damage.
Click to expand...
Texas is becoming decidedly leftist in some places, so I don't think this argument flies any more. El Paso County is now moderately liberal.

El Paso Politics
 
Truthfrees said:
amen
Click to expand...
But that is a matter of the people of the church being used of God to lead people to Christ.
A job of government is providing security. I think God instituted that because this is a fallen world. At any given time in most of history people have needed protection from one another. Whether that was as a nation protected from other nations, or within the nation from those of us who commit evil.
Practically speaking we are not likely to see the day, until Christ comes, when there aren't a significant number of killers and other evil types.
Yes people need Christ. We also need government actions.
 
Carlos Leon said:
“This truly is a safe city,” El Paso County Commissioner Carlos Leon told HuffPost. “When I first heard this, I said, ‘This is not an El Pasoan. I know El Paso’s character. I know El Paso’s culture.’ Of course, it turned out to be a domestic terrorist coming from Dallas.”
Click to expand...

Carlos said it was a relatively safe city until recent events.
 
Last edited:
Bull of the Woods said:
I think, as a Christian, I first feel for the victims of this kind of violence.
If I err, I would rather have it be because I feel compassion for my fellow human beings than because I feel protective of a right that I am not really sure I have.
Some of our favorite rights have limits.
I can't say just anything I choose. I don't think I can threaten a person with physical harm. Shout "fire" in a theatre.

My choice of means of worship can't include slaughtering dogs or going nude in public. I can't marry multiple wives legally saying it's part of my religion.

I think we accept I shouldn't be able to have my own grenade launcher and grenades or a bazooka. Nor a flamethrower. So some weapons are illegal.

I think something needs to be done about weapons designed to kill a lot of people. We can defend a home with a pistol, shot gun or conventional rifle.
Click to expand...
At type 4,3 so when you see a ww2,ww1 Vietnam rereenactment it should be fake ,movies use functional tanks ,fully auto weapons that shoot blanks



Besides kill dozer negates your argumebt cops couldn't stop him ,look him,up,and why.theb read about the stolen tank from the national guard.the worse mass murdered occurred when the cav was sent into indian towns and took out indians all ages.

Native Americans wont let that go.they weren't unarmed just out armed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top