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

[Goat]

You're missing the point of gun rights. They were put in place by our founding fathers for the citizens to be able to defend themselves aganist government tyranny

No, they weren't.

They were put there before there was a 'standing army', so that citizens could join a lawful militia run by the state to protect the state against invaders. The 'ARMS' at that time were considered as 'swords and black powders rifles, and other small weapons. It was for the defense of the state, not defense against the state.

However, with a standing army, and with the advancement of weaponry, the needs of the people, and the needs of the state have changed, as well as the interpretation of what that meant to meet the needs of people.

[East of Eden]

Faith in God is all very well, but we Jews learned what God's promises of protection are worth aboul a half-century back. Old Arabic saying: "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel."

The idea that civilized people go unarmed is worth rethinking in the modern world. I carry daily, no one knows that, and I have displayed my gun twice and thereby prevented or ended a violent crime. If you have a signed note from God guaranteeing that there will never be a third occasion when I need my firearm, I'll stop carrying. Otherwise, yeah; I trust my pistol to protect me more than I trust God.

I believe in God. I just don't think He's my personal bodyguard. Moses didn't have one.

I don't expect that you or any non-Christian would understand; I was addressing the OP who advocated, as a Christian, that Christians ought to carry guns for protection. My point regarding his message is that it is incompatible with Christianity. Again, that is not to say that carrying a gun is always an incompatibility with Christianity; as Christians, we should reasonably use what God has given us to take care of ourselves. I have faith in God to provide for me if I need food, clothing, shelter, and even other things; however, I am not going to just sit at home and not work, because I should do what I can to help myself. Even then, I'm not going to go to extremes to where my faith in God is displaced by faith in something else, such as a job. If I have a job, it is by God's grace that I have one and He is the one who gives me that opportunity. If I don't, He is in charge of that, too. From my end, I am expected to do what I reasonably can do to support myself.

When it comes to protecting myself, things are no different. I am careful if I'm in a dangerous neighborhood, I lock my car and my home, I keep my money in a bank; all of these are safety/security measures, and they are reasonable. But to carry a gun around is going to an extreme. If I REALLY wanted to be safe, I wouldn't venture out amongst crowds where there could be people who want to harm me, but that's a ridiculous extreme also. Now, if I lived out in the desert or the country where I was all alone, I'd keep a gun in the house; still, I wouldn't take it with me into town or otherwise tote it around when I'm interacting with society. THAT is the stuff of gun nuts. That is what's extreme and unreasonable, and for a Christian it bears the added stigma of indicating a lack of faith in God.

So, what you think or do really has no bearing on what Christians are supposed to do. I would expect the world of non-believers to be a scary place where they want to carry guns around to protect themselves, as death is scarier for them anyway. I'm surprised more of them don't do it. But for Christians it is a different matter, we have God in whom we put our faith. If it is His Will that we be protected, we will be protected, gun or no gun. If it is His Will that we fall victim to crime, then that will happen, gun or no gun. Guns are no guarantee against victimization by crime, no matter how much the idiotic gun nuts try to present this argument.

I'm glad I live in a state that is one of the safest in the nation and where the gun nuts don't have their way. I definitely see a correlation there. If we allowed people to carry guns there would be certainly far more shootings and killings, like in the more backwards states in the USA. Thank God I live in New Jersey where we are tough on crime and believe in Liberty and Prosperity.

See John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime". Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the most murder and mayhem.

An honest armed citizen is society's free cop.

If armed citizens are wrong are armed cops and military also wrong?

[East of Eden]

Faith in God is all very well, but we Jews learned what God's promises of protection are worth aboul a half-century back. Old Arabic saying: "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel."

The idea that civilized people go unarmed is worth rethinking in the modern world. I carry daily, no one knows that, and I have displayed my gun twice and thereby prevented or ended a violent crime. If you have a signed note from God guaranteeing that there will never be a third occasion when I need my firearm, I'll stop carrying. Otherwise, yeah; I trust my pistol to protect me more than I trust God.

I believe in God. I just don't think He's my personal bodyguard. Moses didn't have one.

I don't know about that. I have never carried a gun, and never got robbed, or mugged, or threatened. Yes, things happened around here, but the fact I can go a life time without any of that happening shows that it can happen.

Guns aren't for everyone. If you aren't comfortable carrying, or if you wouldn't be willing to use your weapon in extremis, you shouldn't carry one.

Yes, just don't try to infringe on our 2A rights.

A concealed-carry firearm is like an insurance policy. You hope you never need it, and few licensed carriers ever do; even cops typically never fire a single shot in earnest in a 20-year career.

Exactly, a gun is also like seatbelts, you hope you never need it but if you do and don't have them, it will significanly change your life for the worse.

But as some formerly anti-gun politician said after she was mugged and changed her tune, "Few people will ever need a gun. But if you do need one, nothing else will do." I've been in that situation twice, and I count a third time, as I've related elsewhere, when my guns saved my life without my even knowing it till after the fact.

No disrespect to those who decline to carry or even to those who think it unnecessary, but I'm not givin' 'em up. Sometimes it is necessary. That's a fact.

[East of Eden]

You're missing the point of gun rights. They were put in place by our founding fathers for the citizens to be able to defend themselves aganist government tyranny

No, they weren't.

They were put there before there was a 'standing army', so that citizens could join a lawful militia run by the state to protect the state against invaders. The 'ARMS' at that time were considered as 'swords and black powders rifles, and other small weapons. It was for the defense of the state, not defense against the state.

However, with a standing army, and with the advancement of weaponry, the needs of the people, and the needs of the state have changed, as well as the interpretation of what that meant to meet the needs of people.

Tench Coxe, a friend of James Madison:

"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... [The] unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

[micatala]

You're missing the point of gun rights. They were put in place by our founding fathers for the citizens to be able to defend themselves aganist government tyranny

No, they weren't.

They were put there before there was a 'standing army', so that citizens could join a lawful militia run by the state to protect the state against invaders. The 'ARMS' at that time were considered as 'swords and black powders rifles, and other small weapons. It was for the defense of the state, not defense against the state.

However, with a standing army, and with the advancement of weaponry, the needs of the people, and the needs of the state have changed, as well as the interpretation of what that meant to meet the needs of people.

Tench Coxe, a friend of James Madison:

"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... [The] unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Well, I am open to persuasion on this, but my understanding agree's with East of Eden and disagrees with goat. One reason for the second amendment was to provide citizens the means to combat or overthrow an unjust government. Yes, militias existed to serve as security for the state but that is not the only reason for ensuring gun rights.

[cnorman18]

You're missing the point of gun rights. They were put in place by our founding fathers for the citizens to be able to defend themselves aganist government tyranny

No, they weren't.

They were put there before there was a 'standing army', so that citizens could join a lawful militia run by the state to protect the state against invaders. The 'ARMS' at that time were considered as 'swords and black powders rifles, and other small weapons. It was for the defense of the state, not defense against the state.

However, with a standing army, and with the advancement of weaponry, the needs of the people, and the needs of the state have changed, as well as the interpretation of what that meant to meet the needs of people.

Tench Coxe, a friend of James Madison:

"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... [The] unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Well, I am open to persuasion on this, but my understanding agree's with East of Eden and disagrees with goat. One reason for the second amendment was to provide citizens the means to combat or overthrow an unjust government. Yes, militias existed to serve as security for the state but that is not the only reason for ensuring gun rights.

And I would agree as well. The intent of the First Amendment is to make sure the Federal government does not have a monopoly on information; the Second Amendment is to make sure that the government does not have a monopoly on force of arms. Since all the Amendments are about limiting the power of the Government, not establishing it, the idea that the Second merely authorizes the Government to organize a formal standing National Guard is ludicrous on its face. If the Second Amendment gives the right to bear arms to only to state or federally administered "militias," then the First Amendment gives the right of freedom of the press only to state- or federally-authorized newspapers. Notice that both refer to rights of "the people," not "the government."

Times do change. But it is still an absolute right, in my opinion, for a person to defend his life and those of his loved ones; and the right to do it implies the right to own and carry the means. That would remain small arms, just as it was in the 18th century.

If anyone thinks that firearms for self-defense are obsolete and unnecessary, and that civilized people go unarmed in the modern world - well, you're entitled to your opinion; but I suspect an encounter with the large individual who attempted to mug me outside of an ATM, or the two guys who invaded my home at three in the morning, might change it.

Unless you ARE a cop yourself and carry a weapon on and off duty, you can't depend on the police to protect you. That's not their job, anyway; the police are there to find and arrest criminals after the fact. You want to prevent crime, it's up to you to protect yourself. That's not going to change anytime soon.

[micatala]

As a follow up to cnorman, it is worth noting the discussion of armed forces precedes the bill of rights in the constitution.

In article two, section two we have:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

In article one, section 8 we have:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The constitution provided for standing military forces prior to the enactment of the second amendment. I could see that part of the reason for the 2nd amendment relates to the mention of militias above, but I have a hard time seeing how the amendment can be interpreted in the way goat is based on the rest of the constitution.

[Goat]

The constitution provided for standing military forces prior to the enactment of the second amendment. I could see that part of the reason for the 2nd amendment relates to the mention of militias above, but I have a hard time seeing how the amendment can be interpreted in the way goat is based on the rest of the constitution.

Let's look at the legal definition of what a militia is.

from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Militia


A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government.

In the United States, as of the early 2000s, the National Guard serves as the nation's militia. Made up of volunteers, the National Guard acts under the dual authority of both the federal and state governments. According to the Constitution, Congress can call the National Guard into federal service for three purposes: to enforce federal laws, to suppress insurrections, and to defend against invasions. State governors can call upon the National Guard for emergencies that are prescribed by state law.

The American militia system has its roots in ancient English tradition, dating back to the Anglo-Saxon militia that existed centuries before the Norman Conquest in 1066. This militia, known as the fyrd, consisted of every able-bodied male of military age. It was traditionally used for defense only, and the sovereign could call upon the fyrd to fight if the men would be able to return to their homes by nightfall. Fyrd members were required to supply their own weapons, which they could use only in the service of the king.


and after going into the definition of the roots of the english militia, it futher goes on to say


When the English began to establish colonies in North America in the seventeenth century, the colonial governments continued to require all able-bodied free men to possess arms and to participate in the colonial militias. Each colony formed its own militia unit, appointing officers, providing training, and building its own fortifications. The function of each colonial militia was principally to defend the settlers' homes and villages against Indian raids, and at this they were largely successful.


and when it comes to the history of the consitution, this further explains


When state delegates met in 1787 to create the Constitution for the new United States of America, the principal division was between those delegates who favored a strong central government and those who preferred to leave more power to the states. The former wanted a strong standing military, and the latter argued for greater reliance on the state militias. The issue of a standing military was particularly controversial because many Americans were suspicious of the very concept of a standing army, associating it with the tyranny they had experienced under Great Britain. Nevertheless, because most of the delegates were more concerned about invasion than domestic tyranny, Congress was given the power to create a standing army if it so chose. Advocates of state power did achieve a partial victory, however, in that authority over the state militias was divided between the federal government and the state governments. Congress was given the authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, but states were given the power to appoint officers and provide training. Congress, not the president, was given the power to summon state militias into federal service for just three specific tasks: "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions" (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cls. 15, 16).

[micatala]

Very good. But this still speaks to winepusher's original point that the second amendment was enacted, at least in part, to prevent government tyranny.
I am willing to amend my position from the second amendment being designed to allow individuals or loose groups of individuals from rebelling against the government to having militias fulfilling that role, but I think the point stands that the founders were concerned about the possibility of the central government becoming unjust to the point that it necessitated taking up arms against it.

I am not saying this would be a good idea today, nor am I endorsing the modern 'militia movement', but I do think this was the original intention.

[Goat]

Very good. But this still speaks to winepusher's original point that the second amendment was enacted, at least in part, to prevent government tyranny.
I am willing to amend my position from the second amendment being designed to allow individuals or loose groups of individuals from rebelling against the government to having militias fulfilling that role, but I think the point stands that the founders were concerned about the possibility of the central government becoming unjust to the point that it necessitated taking up arms against it.

I am not saying this would be a good idea today, nor am I endorsing the modern 'militia movement', but I do think this was the original intention.

It addressed that

Nevertheless, because most of the delegates were more concerned about invasion than domestic tyranny, Congress was given the power to create a standing army if it so chose