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

[VermilionUK]

It's ok to say that a single Christian can make an intelligent decision and be sensible with guns, but what about groups of Christians? People with guns can be stupid, irresponsible, and irrational. It can become a case of mob mentality.

[MagusYanam]

That may be your opinion but its not the opinion of the courts. The way the second amendment reads is thus; 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.

The opinion of the courts has been since the mid-1800's that the second amendment to the US constitution confers a collective rather than an individual right, and that it is not an unconditional or an absolute right. The verdicts in US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, the Miller, Lewis and Printz cases, Higgins v. Farmer etc. establish a clear precedent for public regulation and confiscation of privately-owned firearms, if there is no 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'.

And it is their job to interpret the Constitution.

Automobiles are more dangerous as are other household products. The owner bears liability of the safe use of the weapons as they should. If someone is injured by ill responsible use we have laws to correct that.

As we should - we have registration laws for automobiles, legislation which severely regulates their operation and storage and mandatory training and testing to obtain a licence. All three of these considerations should apply also to firearms.

I wouldn't be totally against that. Those guys get to keep their full auto FALs, grenades and other neat equipment in their closets! I am sure the inner city gangs would love it! Just kidding. Yes its not a bad idea but we have a much different social makeup than those socialistic countries, however the way its (Obama land) going we may be calling each other comrade soon enough!

Obama is neither a socialist nor a communist. He is a capitalist of the Keynesian variety.

Christians aren't forbidden to defend themselves. Nor are they forbidden to participate in military service. And there those of us that have issues with some forms of governing and mistrust both law enforcement and government to varying degrees. Look at what happened after Katerina*. That was a preview of what could happen, and it was mild. Please prepare yourself so you will be an asset not a burden on those that are prepared with food clean water and the ability to defend their families and property against terror attacks or natural disaster etc.

Thanks for your reply I think your words are a response from fear mongering and a basic revulsion to weapons etc. You might want to read some pro gun pro survivalist material that originates from family oriented sources.

Personally, I have no more revulsion to guns than I have to cars. I have recreationally shot weapons myself - in a safe area a long way from any population centres. My sister has shot a howitzer recreationally, actually. I have friends who hunt and I have no objections to them doing so, as long as they have all the proper permits and licences. It's actually more than just a bit rich of you to accuse me of fearmongering while basing your position on a fantasy of a terrorist takeover.

But survivalism is just plain silly. No one can possibly lead a decent existence as a law unto himself - that goes against the entirety of Christian thinking, in which we are all members of the law as fulfilled in Christ. I was well-aware of what happened in Katrina - the only good that came out of it was made possible by a well-meaning civil society: aid from churches, NGOs, charitable organisations and well-meaning people who came together to help, not nutcases in the woods hoarding water and ammo.

And your perspective is only one on the Gospel, and in my opinion an incorrect and ill-informed one. Jesus did preach non-violent action and love for enemies. It can be interpreted that he forbade his disciples from using the sword (after your Luke quote, even though his disciples brought him two swords - insufficient for self-defence of such a large group - he told them 'enough'). Comparing the Gospel to an action movie is an insult to the Gospel - the ways of Jesus are not the ways of Hollywood; you should know better than that.

I don't really care what others think. If anyone, including the Government, wants to take away from legally armed non-criminal citizens (and that happened, without warrant, court order or any legal justification at all, in New Orleans after Katrina), my answer is the same as that of King Leonidas of Sparta

[olddeadmeme] THIS... IS... NOT... SPARTAAAAAA! [/olddeadmeme]

[McCulloch]

I agree the threat is low. Probably no greater than winning the lottery, but I do buy a lottery ticket every week.

Do you protect your house against elephant attacks as well? The lottery is a form of gullibility tax. You pay it more than I do, but I do understand how probabilities work. Which do you think poses a greater risk to your neighborhood: fanatical armed Islamic militants or some nutball who speaks to God and calls machine guns, cannons and grenades goodies and neat stuff?

Christians aren't forbidden to defend themselves.

What then does turn the other cheek mean? In context. While you might be able to make an argument for military action by Christians by an appeal to the greater good, you cannot make the argument for self defense from the teachings of Jesus.

Look at what happened after Katerina.

I see what you mean. If you live in a country with low regard for the rule of law and with incompetent government responses, such things will happen. Do you really believe that universal armament would be a step towards bringing civilization back to your country?

Nevertheless getting back to your statement, we have the right in this country to keep and bear arms, and with sufficient lobbying and the NRA we will keep it. Its my suggestion that if you love your rights join the NRA or rights group of your choice today.

To me the question is not about whether you have the right to arm yourself, apparently your constitution protects that right, but whether such a right should be protected to the degree that the NRA and others propose.

The real danger is people who make choices from paranoia and I am not talking about the gun owners but rather those that would take our rights away because of simple unfounded fear.

You mean the legion of sensible gun owners who feel that they need to be protected from the invading hordes of Islamic terrorists and who believed that the USA was in danger from WMDs in Iraq? Just who are you calling paranoid?

Jesus clearly said it was ok to defend ourselves when we have a closer look at the scriptures.

Oh really?
Luke 22:36 - In a single odd instance, Jesus indicates that his followers should have a sword. He makes no teaching about self defense.
Matthew 26:52-54 - Jesus warns against reliance on weaponry.

I think he also meant to exercise tolerance before retaliating (turn the other cheek etc).

I see where he teaches tolerance. I seem to miss where he mentions retaliation. Help me out here.

In most other forums where theology is discussed the rule is that one must provide the prior and preceding verse of scripture one is quoting. This is a good rule and I would hope that this forum would implement it.

Context is important to the proper understanding of any written material. I agree.

Yes I am reminded of a (black) grandmother that was shot to death by police that had the wrong address, or the unarmed (black) man shot so many times that his blood was running in the rain gutter while going to his wedding? Ask one of those brown people that you think you know so well what they think about the police vs a law abiding citizen owing a gun? You are out of touch with what is really going on Joey.

Are you claiming that these people would have had a better outcome if they had been armed? I, personally do not think that arming citizens is an effective solution to corrupt or inept policing. Do you?

I would say those that procure guns by unlawful methods the danger here,

I would agree. One favorite method of acquiring weaponry by unlawful methods is to break in and steal from lawful owners.

of course that's what most anti gun people are so damn ignorant of, (they think that banning guns would magically make the guns in the hands of criminals vanish)

I really have to call you on this one. Please cite an example from someone in the anti gun movement who displays this kind of navet.

[JoeyKnothead]

The armed Christian?

Authorities say a Cathlamet man wanted to spread religion in a Skamokawa taverns parking lot but ended up shooting a man in the stomach instead.
...A Wahkiakum County Superior Court judge ordered last week that Jack Sebade, 73, undergo a mental health evaluation to determine whether he is competent to stand trial for second-degree assault in the Oct. 24 shooting of 34-year-old Darren Hall of Longview.
...Shortly after he began talking to the woman, Sebade said, another woman angrily confronted him, putting her face near his. A man told him to get back into his van and leave, Sebade said.

Sebade took the gun out of his pocket and told the man that he is a sovereign citizen, according to the police report. He was struck on the side of his head and fell to the ground. Sebade said he was climbing back to his feet when he fired his weapon at the man.

[Pastor4Jesus]

The opinion of the courts has been since the mid-1800's that the second amendment to the US constitution confers a collective rather than an individual right, and that it is not an unconditional or an absolute right.

We have a precious few absolute rights, and absolute is the key word here. In practical terms the ruling of the courts means that we all have the right to own guns. The absolute rights are clearly spelled out. So when I say we have the right of gun ownership that is not an incorrect statement. I will add that personally I do not obey all of mans (positive) laws instead placing my trust in natural law, but thats another subject.

The verdicts in US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, the Miller, Lewis and Printz cases, Higgins v. Farmer etc. establish a clear precedent for public regulation and confiscation of privately-owned firearms, if there is no 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'.

WAKE UP CALL; In a major victory for gun control opponents, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the 2nd Amendment does protect the strictest forms of gun control by rejecting the argument of a more narrow interpretation - that the right is limited to militias. The ruling does not prevent reasonable efforts at gun control but it does prohibit the kind of outright ban of handguns that has existed in Washington D.C.

A precedent is simply that. Your precedent is shrinking and hopefully it will be plank sized very soon! Again ;We have a right to keep and bear arms. The government has their dirty tricks to seize weapons just as they have the dirty tricks to withhold medical marijuana , or to outlaw drugs as a tax issue (machine guns are really the same, they are simply priced out of the hands of average citizens).

I am sure the Gun opponents with the help of Sonia Sotomayor, had their way there would be no private gun ownership

And it is their job to interpret the Constitution.

Thats the myth, the truth is that Judges do too.

P4JC

[Pastor4Jesus]

The armed Christian?
Authorities say a Cathlamet man wanted to spread religion in a Skamokawa taverns parkin>>>>Brevity Snip<<<<man.

Was the weapon legal? By law (a class X felony) he shouldn't even have the gun in a drink establishment at all. I suppose a law banning guns would stop the bullets too? Its irrational belief that a law banning guns would prevent this kind of stupidity. I could fill this page with articles where the weapon saved an individual.

P4JC

[Pastor4Jesus]

I really have to call you on this one. Please cite an example from someone in the anti gun movement who displays this kind of navet.

(see above last sentence)

Isn't it obvious? Why ban guns if it will not reduce gun crime? Sorry for cherry picking your post I will reply to the rest soon.

P4JC

[Pastor4Jesus]

As we should - we have registration laws for automobiles, legislation which severely regulates their operation and storage and mandatory training and testing to obtain a licence. All three of these considerations should apply also to firearms.

I oppose any new gun regulations. FYI we do have licenses requirements on machine guns and other weapons such as 20mm Gatling guns. Too bad I think everything should be legal and easily obtained. However I unlike my counterparts trust the citizen far more than the government.

Obama is neither a socialist nor a communist. He is a capitalist of the Keynesian variety.

I was commenting on a militia. I said that I may be in agreement with that if like some of the members of the Nordic militias, we are allowed to stow fully automatic weapons and such at home, heh eh....Nah I would rather have the system currently in place. If only the machine guns and license requirements were not so expensive! As for your assessment of Obamas polices I sadly agree that you are correct. He is going to destroy the country. Obama wants to repeat the policies of Roosevelts New Deal. Wonderful eh? That little gem turned an ordinary two-year recession into an eight-year disaster, with unemployment in the high double digits (the high teens).

Personally, I have no more revulsion to guns than I have to cars. I have recreationally shot weapons myself - in a safe area a long way from any population centres. My sister has shot a howitzer recreationally, actually. I have friends who hunt and I have no objections to them doing so, as long as they have all the proper permits and licences. It's actually more than just a bit rich of you to accuse me of fearmongering while basing your position on a fantasy of a terrorist takeover.

I am actually kinda poor. However I am happy that you have working knowledge of firearms. You may need to use that knowledge. I will say that I may of originally misunderstood your intent (ie fearmongering). If so I apologize.

But survivalism is just plain silly. No one can possibly lead a decent existence as a law unto himself - that goes against the entirety of Christian thinking, in which we are all members of the law as fulfilled in Christ.

I am more of a survivalist in the short term. I am not so sure I would want to live in a world devastated by nuclear war for example. However short term survivability (from a month to a year) is just being responsible. What would you do if a natural disaster* hit your area? Starve? Wait on the police that have went home to check on their family? Hope the hospital that can only care for hundreds if hundreds of thousands need treatment? Will they attend to your or your families care? *(if you think that no one would dare fly an aircraft into the ny twin towers for example, thank God it contained only flammable fuel not a dirty bomb etc). No to not be prepared is highly irresponsible.

I was well-aware of what happened in Katrina - the only good that came out of it was made possible by a well-meaning civil society: aid from churches, NGOs, charitable organisations and well-meaning people who came together to help, not nutcases in the woods hoarding water and ammo.

I would suggest that most of the people that helped were nut cases that horded ammo and guns. Or at least were pro gun. Again if the disaster would of lasted long enough how would you protect yourself? You wouldn't. Its that simple. So I think those people that depend on others to take care of their families and themselves are lazy as well as irresponsible.

And your perspective is only one on the Gospel, and in my opinion an incorrect and ill-informed one. Jesus did preach non-violent action and love for enemies. It can be interpreted that he forbade his disciples from using the sword (after your Luke quote, even though his disciples brought him two swords - insufficient for self-defence of such a large group - he told them 'enough'). Comparing

In my opinion you are naive and do not understand basic principles of what Jesus taught, and it seems you are clueless of what I said. I feel that you should know better than to twist ones words. I am calling on everyone especially Christians to be prepared. As a leader of a church I feel its my duty to do so. You on the other hand seem to want to stick your hand in the sand and hope for the best, good luck hopefully if the worst does happen that sand will be nourishing and tasty.

P4JC

[McCulloch]

of course that's what most anti gun people are so damn ignorant of, (they think that banning guns would magically make the guns in the hands of criminals vanish)

I really have to call you on this one. Please cite an example from someone in the anti gun movement who displays this kind of navet.

Isn't it obvious? Why ban guns if it will not reduce gun crime?

There is a grand difference between reducing gun crime and magically make guns in the hands of criminals vanish. I believe that crime statistics bear out the claim that restricting gun ownership does reduce gun crime, even though it does not magically make the guns in the hands of criminals vanish.

Top ten countries for firearm homicide rate per capita Colombia, Paraguay, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Costa Rica, Belarus, Barbados, United States and Uruguay. Lowest ten countries for firearm homicide rate per capita Singapore, England & Wales, Chile, New Zealand, Qatar, Azerbaijan, Spain, Denmark,
Australia and Ireland.

Imagine two countries, both of which have populations of 250 million. Suppose 50,000 people in each of these countries are going to experience murderous impulses over the course of a year. One nation has a complete ban on guns. The other has universal gun ownership. Which nation will see the higher murder rate? Common sense would dictate that the nation with guns will realize its enhanced ability and feasibility to commit murder.

[MagusYanam]

However I am happy that you have working knowledge of firearms. You may need to use that knowledge. I will say that I may of originally misunderstood your intent (ie fearmongering). If so I apologize.

I don't see a complete collapse of the social order anytime soon, so I hope I don't have to use guns for anything other than recreation.

I would suggest that most of the people that helped were nut cases that horded ammo and guns. Or at least were pro gun.

I agree with you that many of the people who helped were pro-gun, but whether or not they were pro-gun is not important. The fact that they functioned as a civil society is. Survivalism is basically a radical denial of the possibility of civil society when the government finds itself incapable of addressing a crisis - and even a cursory inspection of American history shows how misguided that kind of viewpoint is. Tocqueville very astutely pointed out the ways in which Americans band together to solve problems, through churches / other places of worship, clubs, associations, labour unions, NGO's, et cetera.

In my opinion you are naive and do not understand basic principles of what Jesus taught, and it seems you are clueless of what I said. I feel that you should know better than to twist ones words. I am calling on everyone especially Christians to be prepared. As a leader of a church I feel its my duty to do so. You on the other hand seem to want to stick your hand in the sand and hope for the best, good luck hopefully if the worst does happen that sand will be nourishing and tasty.

That's your opinion, and I didn't twist your words. Didn't you say this?

Its like one of those B grade movie standoffs where there are ten guns on our hero. And our hero has only his one friend backing him up. Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place (probably he said slowly put it in its place!). That place was at his side. He didn't say throw it away, etc. Nevertheless, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves.

Life is not a B-grade movie, and the Gospel is certainly not B-grade movie material. Jesus gave himself up to die, even though he had the authority to pass judgment on the Roman Empire and the Second Temple state. He relinquished his right to self-defence in pursuit of the Kingdom. And the question of being prepared - being prepared for what? In the case of natural disasters (the only one possible here being a hurricane) - there are shelters and levees that have been built to code. And terrorists are not likely to want to attack Providence. They'll aim a little bit further along the Acela line, so I don't see any sense in being any more prepared for that than being prepared to be struck by lightning at the bottom of a dry valley on a clear day in winter. However, if something does occur, our church will be there with money and manpower to help. That's what we do.