The armed Christian

[Pastor4Jesus]

DISCLAIMER; THIS THREAD ADDRESSES THE HIGHLY RADICALIZED AND MILITRIZED ISLAMIC TERRORIST. I DENOUNCE ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THOSE THAT CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN. I HAVE NO BIAS AGAINST ANY RELIGION OR ATHEIST BELIEFS. I PERSONALLY LOVE MY PEACEFUL MUSLIM BROTHERS AND SISTERS, AND PRAY THAT THEY PRACTICE THE RELIGION IN A NORMAL NON-RADICALIZED AND REJECT THE RADICAL FALSE PROPHETS.



I think all Christians should be armed where legal and if its not legal those Christians should diligently work to change policy to make it legal. I would suggest that all Christians have several weapons which would include a battle rifle and a pistol then a back up of each with at least a thousand rounds of ammo for each. Also provisions should be stored for a month or more.

Why do I say this? Self defense. There is a radical element in Islam that is intent of destroying the United States, Israel, and what she stands for (the perceived Christian West and values). Of course I am speaking of the highly radicalized/Militized Muslim element. With lets talk about it Obama in office I predict a major terrorist attack on the USA or the west before he leaves office.

As the Islamic terrorists demonstrated they would use any weapon from a box cutter to a AK-47 to explosives to airliners filled with fuel to kill citizens of the west. Their MO in areas where they have free reign is to support coups and takeovers. Considering those facts, I don't think its too conspiracy theorist extreme to envision well funded terrorists attempting to take over a small town or part of a city. Maybe if the terrorists know that a particular group of citizens may be heavily armed, maybe they will pick on someone else. Going armed would send a message to radical Islam and more importantly if all Christians would go armed it would serve a practical purpose if terrorists decide to make an example out of your town.



P4JC

[East of Eden]

This discussion is a moot point, the 'Heller' SCOTUS decision declared the 2A to appy to private citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

[micatala]

This discussion is a moot point, the 'Heller' SCOTUS decision declared the 2A to appy to private citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

I concur. Whatever the founders intentions, I think the individual right to bear arms is settled law, and I certainly have no problem with that. I do think reasonable regulation is appropriate.

As a sidelight, I ran across this quote.

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. -- George Washington

I have not verified it. It is from the following site.

http://www.conservatismtoday.com/my_web ... uotes.html

[Goat]

This discussion is a moot point, the 'Heller' SCOTUS decision declared the 2A to appy to private citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

I concur. Whatever the founders intentions, I think the individual right to bear arms is settled law, and I certainly have no problem with that. I do think reasonable regulation is appropriate.

As a sidelight, I ran across this quote.

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. -- George Washington

I have not verified it. It is from the following site.

http://www.conservatismtoday.com/my_web ... uotes.html

It's a fake

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

[micatala]

Thanks for the legwork goat. My bad for not checking it out first.

[DeBunkem]

Most colonials were not owners of firearms and certainly had none of the somewhat demented love affair that gun-huggers of today display. It was an expensive item that would not be used enough to justify itself by the typical shirttail farmer of the well-settled colonies. Most could neither afford the powder nor lead required to become proficient hunters for depleted big game. For that matter, the typical Congregationist colonial was not very religious, either, and was much more likely to spend Sunday in the alehouse than in church.

Gun Ownership in Early America: A Survey of Manuscript Militia Returns
Robert H. Churchill
The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 615-642
(article consists of 28 pages)
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3491553

[East of Eden]

Most colonials were not owners of firearms

What did we fight the Revolution with, then?

"Most Colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms and had to equip themselves. Many simply wore their own farmers' or workmans' clothes, while others had buckskin hunting outfits. Some added Indian-style touches to intimidate the enemy, even including war-paint. Most used fowling pieces, hunting muskets, and rifles[citation needed], which did not have bayonets (rifles, however, were accurate at long range). "

Wikipedia

and certainly had none of the somewhat demented love affair that gun-huggers of today display. It was an expensive item that would not be used enough to justify itself by the typical shirttail farmer of the well-settled colonies. Most could neither afford the powder nor lead required to become proficient hunters for depleted big game. For that matter, the typical Congregationist colonial was not very religious, either, and was much more likely to spend Sunday in the alehouse than in church.

Gun Ownership in Early America: A Survey of Manuscript Militia Returns
Robert H. Churchill
The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 615-642
(article consists of 28 pages)
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3491553

That theory has been debunked:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/ ... _count.htm

[cnorman18]

Most colonials were not owners of firearms

What did we fight the Revolution with, then?

"Most Colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms and had to equip themselves. Many simply wore their own farmers' or workmans' clothes, while others had buckskin hunting outfits. Some added Indian-style touches to intimidate the enemy, even including war-paint. Most used fowling pieces, hunting muskets, and rifles[citation needed], which did not have bayonets (rifles, however, were accurate at long range). "

Wikipedia

and certainly had none of the somewhat demented love affair that gun-huggers of today display. It was an expensive item that would not be used enough to justify itself by the typical shirttail farmer of the well-settled colonies. Most could neither afford the powder nor lead required to become proficient hunters for depleted big game. For that matter, the typical Congregationist colonial was not very religious, either, and was much more likely to spend Sunday in the alehouse than in church.

Gun Ownership in Early America: A Survey of Manuscript Militia Returns
Robert H. Churchill
The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 615-642
(article consists of 28 pages)
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3491553

That theory has been debunked:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/ ... _count.htm

Thanks for the links. Incompetent scholarship is annoying, but deliberately faked scholarship produced to serve an agenda is despicable.