|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/16/2008 11:29:20 AM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''
article link
"And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''
All one has to do is look at the writings of the founding fathers to get the original meaning. It means exactly what it says. The Right of the People
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/16/2008 11:37:16 AM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Of course this is the court that turned it's back on property rights, so I do not expect much from them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/16/2008 5:54:26 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TomTurn
Of course this is the court that turned it's back on property rights, so I do not expect much from them.
Apples to oranges. As you say, the right to bear arms has much more support than property rights. The portion of the Constitution dealing with arms say 'shall not be infringed.' Emienent Domain says property can be taken for 'public use.' I think Kelo was decided wrongly, but I have a harder time seeing how the Court can deny an individual right to bear arms.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 10:10:52 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
an individual right to bear arms.
I'll exercise my individual right not to bear arms. You can have your guns but I want them registered so when they get stolen or misplaced and a criminal gets ahold of them there is some sort of traceability.
Our cars are registered and no one whines about that but try to make someone register their precious little gun and you have a bunch of crybabies shouting "2nd Amendment". What does a Christian person need a gun for anyway (unless they are in law enforcement or the armed forces)?
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 11:54:44 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4611
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
Good, maybe the ban will be overturned and when the citizenry can start "Packing" the atrocious murder rate of D.C. will decline.
Thsnks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 4:37:03 PM
|
|
|
betterisoneday
Posts: 168
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Our cars are registered and no one whines about that but try to make someone register their precious little gun and you have a bunch of crybabies shouting "2nd Amendment". What does a Christian person need a gun for anyway (unless they are in law enforcement or the armed forces)?
There are quite a few who do have problems with cars being registered. And I (even though am armed forces) find a firearm quite helpful in keeping my sons safe when some strange man is trying to open my door at 0130 and neither the police nor neighbors care.
< Message edited by betterisoneday -- 3/17/2008 10:31:58 PM >
_____________________________
No reserves. No retreat. No regret.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 4:49:51 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
"Good, maybe the ban will be overturned and when the citizenry can start "Packing" the atrocious murder rate of D.C. will decline."
Am sure it will and we know that lawful concealed carry has everywhere it has been applied
< Message edited by TomTurn -- 3/17/2008 5:00:23 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 4:51:08 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
"However, that shall be my only post in here because comments such as yours make me worry a little too much about people"
Just ignore them. Would sure appreciate it if you joined in on the conversation
< Message edited by TomTurn -- 3/17/2008 8:38:59 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 4:55:43 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
"An armed society is a polite society." And I love this, as I own a quite a few shootin' irons."
I have 20 or so various pistols, rifles and shotguns and am starting to add one or two new ones a year that are made in the U.S.A. It was a sad day when Winchester closed down in CT.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 5:37:31 PM
|
|
|
Starbucks880
Posts: 111
Joined: 3/11/2008
Status: offline
|
I have seen enough violence in my life to know that I want nothing to do with guns. I told my husband that he better find a good place to hide the pistol, because I would get rid of it if I ever saw it. We don't hunt for food, neither of us need a gun for our jobs, so there really is no point in having one. I have seen enough guns, I don't want to see them again. I believe in common sense gun control. To just hand out guns to anybody-no questions asked would be a disaster. We don't need everybody carrying a gun and there are some people who have no business being near them--for example those proven to be mentally unstable. Those are the last people I would want with a gun. I am not naive enough to think that just banning guns would work, because that would just make the black market more healthier, but I would not go to the opposite extreme. I am not sure if giving more guns would reduce violence. In many cases, I can see another gun in the picture making things worse, unless you are a sharpshooter who can take them out in one shot. The last thing we need is to have more bullets flying like the Old West. The same thing with the argument that letting college kids carry concealed weapons would have stopped the campus shooting deaths. Again, that could make things worse and it isn't likely that some girl would pull a gun like Annie Oakly and take him out in one shot. Plus it could be disastrous when the police come, since they wouldn't know which person with a gun was the one killing student.
It will be interesting to see what comes of this, since there is more than one way to interpret what the Second Amendment means.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 6:06:31 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Those that rely on guns more than God to protect them from evil should come under the "O ye of little faith clause in the Good Book".
I lived 29 years in one of the roughest neighborhoods in LA. Cholo gangs were everywhere. I witnessed my first drive-by at age 10. I never owned a gun nor did I feel I needed to. And I came out of there OK. My mom prayed for our safety everyday because we had to walk one mile to the school that went past some of these gang members. I attribute our safety to those prayers of a faith filled mom.
A friend of the family who owned a gun ended up shooting his own son by mistake as he came home late one night. He had bought the thing to "protect" his family. It ended up destroying it. As it has with many others. As the Bible says, He who lives by the sword shall perish by it."
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 6:52:04 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
It will be interesting to see what comes of this, since there is more than one way to interpret what the Second Amendment means.
For almost 250 years there has only been one way, since there is only one. DC just thinks they are exempt becasue they are not a State. And there ia a possibility Montana will pull their trump card out in all this.
.....
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(4) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
< Message edited by TomTurn -- 3/17/2008 6:59:06 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 8:01:32 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TomTurn
quote:
It will be interesting to see what comes of this, since there is more than one way to interpret what the Second Amendment means.
For almost 250 years there has only been one way, since there is only one. DC just thinks they are exempt becasue they are not a State. And there ia a possibility Montana will pull their trump card out in all this.
.....
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(4) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
I forget is Montana "Big Sky Country" of "Not Gun Shy Country"? 
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 8:38:41 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Keep pushing
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 8:56:26 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
I'll exercise my individual right not to bear arms.
That would be your choice.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
You can have your guns but I want them registered so when they get stolen or misplaced and a criminal gets ahold of them there is some sort of traceability.
Our cars are registered and no one whines about that but try to make someone register their precious little gun and you have a bunch of crybabies shouting "2nd Amendment".
Cryababies? Precious little gun? Prior to your whiny rant, this discussion was rather factual and interesting. Cars and guns aren't the same. While there is a long history of a right to bear arms, the same can't be said about the right to drive cars. What part of 'shall not be infringed' is hard for you to understand?
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
What does a Christian person need a gun for anyway (unless they are in law enforcement or the armed forces)?
The same as any other person does...to defend themselves from death or great bodily harm. Only law enforcement or the armed forces deserve the means to defend themselves?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Starbucks880
I am not sure if giving more guns would reduce violence. In many cases, I can see another gun in the picture making things worse, unless you are a sharpshooter who can take them out in one shot. The last thing we need is to have more bullets flying like the Old West.
There are some studies that suggest link between loosening concealed carry laws and a decrease in crime. There is certainly evidence that says gun control laws do nothing to reduce crime. Can you give me an actual example of another lawfully owned gun making a situation worse? I am sure it does happen, but the instances of where it saves a life are far more common. The violent crime rate in the old west was much lower than it is today, so I would love to have that today.
< Message edited by SteveSund -- 3/17/2008 9:08:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/17/2008 10:51:46 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Second Amendment an individual right
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District.
The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.
A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.
BRAD JOHNSON
Montana secretary of state
Helena, Mont.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 8:45:52 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TomTurn
Second Amendment an individual right
The collective rights theory isn't supported by most scholars and students of the Constitution. It also isn't supported by previous Supreme Court decisions. "Supreme Court Gun Cases," by Kopel, Halbrook, and Korwin provides a lengthy analysis of cases dealing with the right to bear amrs. They clearly indicate an individual right.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 9:42:13 AM
|
|
|
ajlewis
Posts: 276
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: State of Confusion
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
What does a Christian person need a gun for anyway (unless they are in law enforcement or the armed forces)?
The same as any other person does...to defend themselves from death or great bodily harm. Only law enforcement or the armed forces deserve the means to defend themselves? There are plenty of statistics that show that you are more likely to be shot by a family member than some thug.
I don't have so much a problem with owning a gun if you need it to hunt responsibly for food, etc. But when the NRA supports allowing 15 year olds and those with impaired mental conditions to run around with assault rifles - that's where I draw the line.
Guns are designed to do one thing only - to kill and/or maim.
...and many lump this in with a "pro-life" agendas?? Excuse me, did I miss something here??
< Message edited by ajlewis -- 3/18/2008 9:50:12 AM >
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 10:14:51 AM
|
|
|
Starbucks880
Posts: 111
Joined: 3/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ajlewis
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
What does a Christian person need a gun for anyway (unless they are in law enforcement or the armed forces)?
The same as any other person does...to defend themselves from death or great bodily harm. Only law enforcement or the armed forces deserve the means to defend themselves? There are plenty of statistics that show that you are more likely to be shot by a family member than some thug.
I don't have so much a problem with owning a gun if you need it to hunt responsibly for food, etc. But when the NRA supports allowing 15 year olds and those with impaired mental conditions to run around with assault rifles - that's where I draw the line.
Guns are designed to do one thing only - to kill and/or maim.
...and many lump this in with a "pro-life" agendas?? Excuse me, did I miss something here??
I very much agree with everything you said. Common sense gun control and actually realizing that not all people should have a gun isn't really infringing on rights in my opinion, and is much safer. I will never agree with giving everyone a gun without any questions asked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 11:32:02 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ajlewis
There are plenty of statistics that show that you are more likely to be shot by a family member than some thug.
Source? Are you talking about the widely discredited Kellerman study. Here is one of many detailed critiques.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ajlewis
I don't have so much a problem with owning a gun if you need it to hunt responsibly for food, etc. But when the NRA supports allowing 15 year olds and those with impaired mental conditions to run around with assault rifles - that's where I draw the line.
This is false. Where has the NRA supported 15 year olds being able to 'run around with assault rifles'? Where have they supported the mentally impaired doing the same? In the past two years they have supported legislation that would improve the system designed to keep guns from mnetally ill people that are dangerous and increase funding for this program (which Congress has refused to fund in the past).
quote:
ORIGINAL: ajlewis
...and many lump this in with a "pro-life" agendas?? Excuse me, did I miss something here??
Killing a person in a lawful self-defense is somehow the same as aborting a baby? I must be the one missing something here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 2:38:13 PM
|
|
|
rnershigh
Posts: 1770
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: DC metro area
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
an individual right to bear arms.
I'll exercise my individual right not to bear arms. You can have your guns but I want them registered so when they get stolen or misplaced and a criminal gets ahold of them there is some sort of traceability.
Our cars are registered and no one whines about that but try to make someone register their precious little gun and you have a bunch of crybabies shouting "2nd Amendment". What does a Christian person need a gun for anyway (unless they are in law enforcement or the armed forces)?
Okay, please you just did not say such an arrogant statement as that! 
I find it interesting that so many opposed to firearms because of crime with firearms and the fear of what guns can do. Look, the basics of the 2nd amendment is not hard to figure out. It's just so many anti-firearm people are intent on saying it means only a militia should be armed and not the people. If we just read the 2nd amendment by itself, yes you could say it says that, but when you look at what some of our founding fathers have stated about 2nd amendment rights they did not include or favor this amendment because they thought people would need protection against a petty and armed criminal from invading their person or property. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was in case the government ever got tyrannical and despotic, the people would have the means to arm themselves and overthrow such a government. An unarmed populace is less difficult to quell and put down than an armed populace. The founding fathers and early Americans realized this. They knew that one step toward a tyrannical government (not that I"m saying we're heading in that direction, but they were dealing with what if's and wanted to cover every possible scenario that could occur into posterity) is disarming the people by the government.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776
"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms.
--James Madison
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
--George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
--George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
--George Washington
First President of the United States
There is nothing to fear from guns. Law-abiding citizens will uphold and obey the law when it comes to gun bans, but criminals have no thought in regard to obeying the law. After all, they are a criminals and breaking the law is nothing to them so why should they care about a gun ban? I live outside DC and I've heard all the arguments of those who are in favor of the gun ban. When the former police chief of DC, Ramsey, still had that position, he toed the government response to the gun ban which was, he was in favor of it and he believed it deterred crime. When the gun ban was going to be re-visited and it was found to go to the Supreme Court he was interviewed again after he resigned his position as police chief and he admitted the gun ban did NOTHING to deter crime in DC or to decrease crime with guns.
It's clear all this gun ban is doing is preventing citizens from owning a handgun, while criminals have no care at all about whether this ban affects them because it doesn't. They'll just go and get a gun anyways, they don't care.
< Message edited by rnershigh -- 3/18/2008 2:52:28 PM >
_____________________________
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 5:50:45 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
Okay, please you just did not say such an arrogant statement as that!
I'll admit it's arrogant when you show me where in the Bible it says Christians need to be armed! Plenty of quotes from politicians but none from the Bible.
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 6:04:57 PM
|
|
|
rnershigh
Posts: 1770
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: DC metro area
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
Okay, please you just did not say such an arrogant statement as that!
I'll admit it's arrogant when you show me where in the Bible it says Christians need to be armed! Plenty of quotes from politicians but none from the Bible.
Hmmm, can you show me where it says we don't need to be armed? Anyways, we still in a fallen and sinful world yes, but I don't see where it's a sin or bad to own a gun in the Bible, do you?
Anyways, there are plenty of reasons people (and Christians) own a gun. Some people like to go hunting or recreational shooting. Some people are collectors of guns. Why should it only be allowed for those in law enforcement and the military? Didn't I just quote the reasons WHY we need the 2nd amendment? I don't own a gun, but I won't begrudge someone that wants to and I support the right for individuals to bear and own firearms.
< Message edited by rnershigh -- 3/18/2008 6:11:30 PM >
_____________________________
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 3/18/2008 6:10:45 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Those that rely on guns more than God to protect them from evil should come under the "O ye of little faith clause in the Good Book".
I'll admit it's arrogant when you show me where in the Bible it says Christians need to be armed! Plenty of quotes from politicians but none from the Bible.
mapachito13,
Do you want the other posters here to start going through your life and all you do or use that is not mentioned in the Bible? Why do you not go to doctors and dentists and such? Obviously you do not since you have too much faith for the need.
Now here is the deal, you either change your tune or move on. You make one more post leaning to an accusation that someone here is "less of a Christian" than you becasue they choose to own firearms and I will ask you to be banned from the conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
And I love this, as I own a quite a few shootin' irons.
