The armed Christian

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Pastor4Jesus
Sage
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:41 am
Location: Far East TN Mountains

The armed Christian

Post #1

Post by 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.

Image

P4JC
When Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow on his formulation of the constants of nature at last summer Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship lectures, Barrow laughed and said, “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you aren''t really a scientist. You''re a biologist ! (Woo Hoo you go Barrow!)

User avatar
Coyotero
Scholar
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:41 pm
Location: Tempe, Arizona

Post #2

Post by Coyotero »

While I agree with you on principal (Except for the whole "Being a Christian" part). I can't say I'm terribly afraid of Islamic militants making any sort of organized mass-effort on our soil. Suicide attacks, I can foresee, not an organized military action though.

I am, despite being what some would call a "liberal" (Whatever the hell that means.). A heart-and-soul believer in the second amendment. While I am thankful to have fast, responsive police in my town, I have too much at stake to have to wait for them in a crisis. The ability to defend oneself and one's family (with deadly force if necessary) from those who would try to harm or kill, is a basic human right as far as I am concerned. I believe in castle doctrine and open-carry.

Pastor, PM me sometime, I'd love to hear what's in your corral.

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #3

Post by MagusYanam »

Coyotero wrote:While I agree with you on principal (Except for the whole "Being a Christian" part). I can't say I'm terribly afraid of Islamic militants making any sort of organized mass-effort on our soil. Suicide attacks, I can foresee, not an organized military action though.

I am, despite being what some would call a "liberal" (Whatever the hell that means.). A heart-and-soul believer in the second amendment. While I am thankful to have fast, responsive police in my town, I have too much at stake to have to wait for them in a crisis. The ability to defend oneself and one's family (with deadly force if necessary) from those who would try to harm or kill, is a basic human right as far as I am concerned. I believe in castle doctrine and open-carry.
What does it mean, a 'heart-and-soul believer' in the second amendment? The second amendment as worded and as interpreted by one and a half centuries of Supreme Court precedent recognises the necessity of maintaining a militia for the purposes of civil defence and qualifies the right to own weapons on that contingency. It is not (and never has been, up until recently) a guarantee of an individual right to own guns.

Unregulated private gun ownership should not be considered a right, nor should it be defended as a duty. Trusting weapons to those who are under no obligation to be extensively and exhaustively trained in their proper use, maintenance and storage is both dangerous and irresponsible.

Instead, I think national service should be a universal duty, whether military or civilian, as it is in several European countries (such as Switzerland and the Nordic countries). For Christians, to whom the sword and retaliatory violence are forbidden by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew, civilian service should be the preferred option, but the military discipline should be respected for those who choose it out of civil obligation.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

User avatar
Coyotero
Scholar
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:41 pm
Location: Tempe, Arizona

Post #4

Post by Coyotero »

MagusYanam wrote: What does it mean, a 'heart-and-soul believer' in the second amendment? The second amendment as worded and as interpreted by one and a half centuries of Supreme Court precedent recognises the necessity of maintaining a militia for the purposes of civil defence and qualifies the right to own weapons on that contingency. It is not (and never has been, up until recently) a guarantee of an individual right to own guns.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sounds pretty clear to me.
MagusYanam wrote: Unregulated private gun ownership should not be considered a right, nor should it be defended as a duty. Trusting weapons to those who are under no obligation to be extensively and exhaustively trained in their proper use, maintenance and storage is both dangerous and irresponsible.
I see your point, but I'm not calling for disestablishment of all regulations. That's anarchy.

MagusYanam wrote: Instead, I think national service should be a universal duty, whether military or civilian, as it is in several European countries (such as Switzerland and the Nordic countries).
I'm inclined to agree with you here, although I don't think it should be compulsory.

It's interesting, I was discussing the illegal immigration issue with a friend once, and I brought up the idea of offering immigrants (Whether legal or not) full citizenship at the end of a military tour of duty. I think it would be an effective program, but we're getting off the subject.
MagusYanam wrote: For Christians, to whom the sword and retaliatory violence are forbidden by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew, civilian service should be the preferred option, but the military discipline should be respected for those who choose it out of civil obligation.
I can't say anything about this. In my religion you get props for slaying foes and dieing honorably in battle. So I digress.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #5

Post by Goat »

Coyotero wrote:
MagusYanam wrote: What does it mean, a 'heart-and-soul believer' in the second amendment? The second amendment as worded and as interpreted by one and a half centuries of Supreme Court precedent recognises the necessity of maintaining a militia for the purposes of civil defence and qualifies the right to own weapons on that contingency. It is not (and never has been, up until recently) a guarantee of an individual right to own guns.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sounds pretty clear to me.
Yes, it does. The people have the right to belong to a Militia of the state. The people as in the people of the state in the defense of their country , rather than individuals. Absolutely and totally clear.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #6

Post by McCulloch »

[mrow]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution [mcol]Jesus as quoted in the Gospel of Luke[row]"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[col]"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. "
It could be just me, but I see a conflict between these two statements. And only one of them is held to be a revelation from God, right?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #7

Post by MagusYanam »

Coyotero wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sounds pretty clear to me.
'People', in the plural, 'Arms' in the plural and in the context of the 'well regulated Militia' clause. It does not seem to me to be a guarantee of an individual right to gun ownership.
Coyotero wrote:I can't say anything about this. In my religion you get props for slaying foes and dieing honorably in battle.
You are an adherent to some flavour of satr or Heathenism, correct? I'm actually sympathetic to Heathenism, and I believe that Heathen values have had a salutory effect on Christian thinking in Northern Europe and Britain. (My thoughts on the subject here, here and here, if you'd like to read them.)

The Heathen concepts of personal honour, kin loyalty and responsibility for one's own actions and wyrd I take very seriously, and I think they are fully compatible with a Christian worldview. However, Christians are responsible to Jesus as their king and the Church as their kin, and must seek to find honour in following his example. Martyrdom in pursuit of the Kingdom is honoured in Christianity - see the German Baptist Martyr's Mirror.

(Note that I'm not telling you how to follow your religion, only saying that I can respect your religion even if it serves its values by different ethical norms than mine does.)
McCulloch wrote:It could be just me, but I see a conflict between these two statements. And only one of them is held to be a revelation from God, right?
There may be a conflict, but I'm not sure where you're arguing it is.

The Constitution was a document written with the express purposes of creating and running a modern nation-state in the Westphalian model. The Gospels were written as guides to a new faith / political community on how to live a utopian vision within the context of empire.

Christians may respect the rule of law and the laws of the state (I think the Book of Romans offers some pointers on that), without betraying the vision of the Kingdom they seek to bring about. The law of the United States only says there must be a well-regulated militia and that there is a collective right to self-defence. The radical-nonviolent standpoint is that Christian practice may be considered to waive that right although it does not waive its other responsibilities to uphold the rule of law in general - this may be done through civilian service.

The just-war standpoint argues that Christians do not waive the right to self-defence, but that it is a last resort. The conflict for Christianity is largely between the radical-nonviolent view and the just-war view (with a few notable outliers - mostly in the United States nowadays - who call for holy war).
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

Fisherking

Post #8

Post by Fisherking »

MagusYanam wrote:Unregulated private gun ownership should not be considered a right, nor should it be defended as a duty.
:roll:


"Topic #1.
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT ABOUT "GUN CONTROL"
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

Topic #2:
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY THE "MILITIA"

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Topic #3:
MODERN LEADERS THOUGHTS ON GUN CONTROL:

Adolf Hitler: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun
registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead."
(Chancelor's Speech, 1935)

Charles Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "All we ask for
is registration, just like we do for cars." (Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)

Adof Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to
possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militias." (Hitler's Secret Conversations,
1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must
command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of
War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in
your guns' -I would have!" (Statement on TV program 69 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the
act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ("Gandhi, an Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi,
446)

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, (not to violate it,
criticize it, and belittle it)) "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical
Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was
assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is
being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)

TOPIC #4:
FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
to be masters." (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson) "
http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2576 times

Post #9

Post by JoeyKnothead »

That's all we need is more zealots with more weaponry.

Pity the poor brown-skinned man who knocks on one of these doors.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm
Has thanked: 1 time

Post #10

Post by micatala »

My view is that the second amendment was enacted so that the people would have the capacity to overthrow the government should the government become tryannical.

I have no objection to individuals bearing arms, but I do think the government should have the capacity to enact reasonable regulations on the ownership of weapons.

As far as arming all Christians in order to defend against potential takeover of American towns by extremists, I think this is extremely far-fetched.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Post Reply