|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 21 2012 17:17 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:43 heliusx wrote:On December 21 2012 16:31 binkman wrote:On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own. Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings. 1. Their are plenty of efforts to stop the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Spearheaded in some cases (eg Iran) by the US government. We don't want or let civilians have nukes, we even try and stop other countries getting them or developing their own. Or are you suggesting that since the US has nukes (and lots of them), Iran should be free to develop their own too? North Korea? The cold war was fun enough the first time round, I don't think the world needs a repeat with even more players. 2. Guns more easily available -> more shootings (your final sentence). But creating greater regulations and restrictions on those who can get a weapon (legally), thereby reducing the ease of access to them (in the long run), won't help? People will totally take you serious when you use the nuclear weapon argument in a gun control debate. The point is that the main legitimate utility of handguns is to kill criminals with handguns. But if criminals didn't have handguns, law-abiding citizens would have no need to, since other guns do other purposes much more effectively than handguns. They're not very useful for killing soldiers, for example, in the sense the 2nd amendment is meant to provide for.
According to multiple supreme court cases thats a false statement.
The Supreme Court held:
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
district of columbia vs heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
|
I myself felt a lot better knowing my dad had a gun during the aftermath of hurricane Sandy, he is a police officer so he has a small glock, where I live there was looting (mostly generators) so a gun defiantly made us safer. But I don't think it necessary to own an assault rifle, as I've been to gun ranges and shot ak47's ar-15's etc, and don't see why someone would need something that powerful. It doesn't make any sense that someone would need something like that, that is designed for the military. So I think maybe there should be a limit on the kinds of weapons, and more strict rules for those who can buy them.
PS I live in US NY
|
I myself felt a lot better knowing my dad had a gun during the aftermath of hurricane Sandy, he is a police officer so he has a small glock, where I live there was looting (mostly generators) so a gun defiantly made us safer. But I don't think it necessary to own an assault rifle, as I've been to gun ranges and shot ak47's ar-15's etc, and don't see why someone would need something that powerful. It doesn't make any sense that someone would need something like that, that is designed for the military. So I think maybe there should be a limit on the kinds of weapons, and more strict rules for those who can buy them.
|
Wow the NRA just doesn't get it.... I think they've gone off the deep end.
|
It must be terrible to live in a place where you feel you cannot even be safe in public on a daily basis and fearfully carry a gun with you at all times.
|
United States24665 Posts
On December 22 2012 04:33 a176 wrote:
It must be terrible to live in a place where you feel you cannot even be safe in public on a daily basis and fearfully carry a gun with you at all times.
Well I can't speak for the whole united states but it isn't like that where I live. In poor, crime-ridden places, that's true... and it's not just a matter of guns.
|
On December 22 2012 04:35 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 04:33 a176 wrote:
It must be terrible to live in a place where you feel you cannot even be safe in public on a daily basis and fearfully carry a gun with you at all times. Well I can't speak for the whole united states but it isn't like that where I live. In poor, crime-ridden places, that's true... and it's not just a matter of guns.
ah right, that was meant in response that nra statement saying there should be guards in all schools across the US
|
"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."
I read this as, if you are in a Militia organization you have the rights to have a gun. There should be a poll in the thread and people should discuss the lacking psychiatric care.
|
On December 22 2012 04:53 StickyFlower 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."
I read this as, if you are in a Militia organization you have the rights to have a gun. There should be a poll in the thread and people should discuss the lacking psychiatric care.
Back then a militia was simply a group of civilians with guns, generally those who would pick up their hunting rifle and go off to fight. The civilians knowing how to shoot was an asset and was what created the original continental army against the Brits.
|
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory.
|
On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory.
everyone should know not all christians can be considered a "real christian", its often riddled with hypocrites and double standards, rely/believe in god only when convenient or needed...i think me as a agnostic atheist is more of a christian than some christians in terms of interest in the bible and doing good to others.
|
Imagine people could kill people by snapping their fingers. Wouldn't that be horrible? Well, carrying a gun is nothing different basically. It gives people the possibility to kill others whenever and whereever they want.
Just think of it like that: In Europe , there is a number of possibilitys to kill people. In the USA , there is a bigger number of possibilitys to kill people, because there are guns also. And on top of that, guns are the nr. 1 choice of weapons, when someone wants to kill as many people as quickly as possible. So how on earth would it make sense to think that being able to carry guns legally, would make anyone safer?
But no matter what others think about this, i got respect for their opinions.
Sorry for my weird english
And yumyumgranola i really like your post ^^
|
On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory.
Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle.
|
On December 22 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 17:17 HunterX11 wrote:On December 21 2012 16:43 heliusx wrote:On December 21 2012 16:31 binkman wrote:On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own. Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings. 1. Their are plenty of efforts to stop the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Spearheaded in some cases (eg Iran) by the US government. We don't want or let civilians have nukes, we even try and stop other countries getting them or developing their own. Or are you suggesting that since the US has nukes (and lots of them), Iran should be free to develop their own too? North Korea? The cold war was fun enough the first time round, I don't think the world needs a repeat with even more players. 2. Guns more easily available -> more shootings (your final sentence). But creating greater regulations and restrictions on those who can get a weapon (legally), thereby reducing the ease of access to them (in the long run), won't help? People will totally take you serious when you use the nuclear weapon argument in a gun control debate. The point is that the main legitimate utility of handguns is to kill criminals with handguns. But if criminals didn't have handguns, law-abiding citizens would have no need to, since other guns do other purposes much more effectively than handguns. They're not very useful for killing soldiers, for example, in the sense the 2nd amendment is meant to provide for. According to multiple supreme court cases thats a false statement. Show nested quote +
The Supreme Court held:
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
district of columbia vs heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
I didn't mean to imply that that was the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment, but it clearly is at least part of the point, seeing as it's explicitly written.
|
On December 22 2012 05:46 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory. Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle. ]
Do you think citizens of other countries should have the right to own rifles?
|
On December 22 2012 05:46 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory. Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle.
Well as a non-Christian it's not exactly hypocritical for you to feel that way. I was just pointing out a hypocrisy I've noted. I mean it's also fair to say that Christians can believe in non-violence, but also believe that people should be allowed to have guns and defend themselves, even if they won't take that option themselves (the same libertarian attitude Christians should take towards homosexuality imo). But that's not what I typically see. It seems like the most heavily Christian states are all about guns, defending yourself with violence, executing criminals, and supporting military action and spending on fancy new weapons of death.
|
On December 22 2012 05:51 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:46 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory. Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle. ] Do you think citizens of other countries should have the right to own rifles?
Don't really care. Sounds like a lot of countries are safe enough to not really have the need. Not the same in America though
|
On December 22 2012 06:02 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:51 KingLol wrote:On December 22 2012 05:46 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory. Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle. ] Do you think citizens of other countries should have the right to own rifles? Don't really care. Sounds like a lot of countries are safe enough to not really have the need. Not the same in America though
So if guns were introduced to those countries, do you think they would be safer as a result?
|
On December 22 2012 05:57 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:46 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory. Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle. Well as a non-Christian it's not exactly hypocritical for you to feel that way. I was just pointing out a hypocrisy I've noted. I mean it's also fair to say that Christians can believe in non-violence, but also believe that people should be allowed to have guns and defend themselves, even if they won't take that option themselves (the same libertarian attitude Christians should take towards homosexuality imo). But that's not what I typically see. It seems like the most heavily Christian states are all about guns, defending yourself with violence, executing criminals, and supporting military action and spending on fancy new weapons of death.
Your observation is correct. The thing is, most Americans that arnt Christian have to deal with religious hipocracy so often that we are practically numb from it.
|
On December 22 2012 06:12 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 06:02 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:On December 22 2012 05:51 KingLol wrote:On December 22 2012 05:46 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory. Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle. ] Do you think citizens of other countries should have the right to own rifles? Don't really care. Sounds like a lot of countries are safe enough to not really have the need. Not the same in America though So if guns were introduced to those countries, do you think they would be safer as a result?
Depends. Whats their crime like right now? Do they have a gun culture like the US? Besides crime rates, what the status on gang related activity?
Not all country's are the same. Americans have always had the right to bear arms, which is why some of TL's bleeding heart liberals sound absolutely ridiculous proposing the idea of getting rid of guns. There is most defiantly room for reform though. The NRA's response is horrible, but so are these ideas of getting rid of "military like assault rifles." Thats such a vague description. Any rifle painted black with a broomstick handle could take that appearance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
