The world is a dangerous place, not just Tucson. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. I chose that scenario, because it happened recently. The woman had a gun. Unless you're skilled with your hands, a gun ban is a death sentence in that case.
If you believe God says no, then why does it matter what the Queen says? Is God suddenly OK with it as long as the gun is registered? You're not making any sense, but then intelligence is a stumbling block, isn't it?
John UK, intelligence is a stumbling block? I haven't read anything that silly in a long time.
Let's say you're a woman home alone with your two little girls, and a man breaks in. You hide in a closet, and you wait. He finds you, and you're trapped. Is the use of deadly force in defense of self OK then? If not, what is the appropriate response? You can't call the police, because they'll use guns to exercise deadly force on your behalf as well. Offer yourselves to the man as a service to God? Offer the little girls to him to sate him? Jesus did say to turn the other cheek and to repay evil with good, didn't he? How do you apply your principle here?
My argument: Consistently applying principle to a changing environment would lead one to the conclusion that the second amendment protects the right to own and carry firearms that were not around in 1791. It's no different than how you apply biblical principles to classify certain behaviors as sinful even though they could not have been imagined by its original audience.
Your characterization of my argument: The Bible and the constitution are on equal footing and should be considered as equally binding on the souls of men.
Barry, you can't be for restricting certain types of guns and then claim to not be a proponent of gun control. They don't go together. That's like saying you're pro-life but believe that abortion is a personal decision between s woman and her doctor.
Will, not to remove the rhetorical force of your question, but i believe federal law (the "no child left alive act") makes an exception for private property. However, in order to leave your property, your gun has to be "securely encased" until you're outside the "safe zone".
The Feds know Gun Free Zones don't work. Otherwise, they'd make the white house and Capitol building gun free zones and get rid of the armed guards. Don't hold your breath.
Temperance wrote: Please be specific with regard to the US Constitution's free speech protection of internet porn.
I never stated that the Constitution protects internet porn. I used internet as an example of how a principle (in this case prohibition of lust) regulates something that it doesn't necessarily foresee.
However, from a strictly legal standpoint, the US Constitution does protect internet porn as free expression, even though the Biblical principle, as you say, makes it sinful. It's the freedom of the press, even if the "press" has become somewhat of an outdated reference to an actual press.
Temperance wrote: The Bible forbids all forms of sexual immorality and lust.
Well stated. I agree, and by the same logic the Constution prohibits all forms of restrictions on the right to keep and bear (that means "carry") arms.
Why are my extensions illogical and anachronistic?
Temperance wrote: If the constitution did not create the rights and principles it protects, where did it find them?
The right to posess weapons and use them in defense of self, just like the Law of Conservation of Momentum, was created by God in the beginning. We just do our best to describe them. The right protected by the second amendment wasn't waiting around for someone to describe it in order to exist any more than general relativity was waiting for Einstein before it was true. Government and law do not create rights. They exist to protect pre-existing rights.
The ability to carry a firearm either openly or surreptitiously is protected by the second amendment, even if that type of firearm was not available in 1791. The validity of that statement and the principle that the second amendment describes rise or fall together.
Speaking of straw men, I asked you about whether or not the Bible prohibits internet porn, since Jesus's listeners would have understood it relative to adultery with a live woman, and whether the first amendment protects any speech in the internet. You conflated them.
You said "I reject your illogical and anachronistic practical extensions." Again, why are my extensions illogical and anachronistic?
No, i don't concede anything of the sort. I denied that it was anachronistic, and you accused me of a straw man so I dropped the argument.
The possessing of any type of weapon is adiaphorous- morally neutral. Until i use it to harm someone else, it remains an internal affair. That's the practical boundary. If you think otherwise, then let's arrest everyone who leaves a bar drunk, because they might drive drunk and kill someone. Better yet, let's arrest anyone who goes into a bar, because they might get drink and then drive drunk. Why not? Gun control is basically a thought crime.
Amen, Will. Talk like a free man long enough and someone here will suggest that you be watched by the FBI. I know from experience.
Jim, who said anything about making a killer out of every man? Again, please stop hijacking the Bible to force your anti-gun agenda on everyone else. If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
Really? You really think i have a right to carry a musket?
Can i carry a musket on a commercial aircraft without going to jail for ten years? Can i carry a musket within a thousand feet of a school without going to jail for five years? Can i carry a musket at all without bribing the police (except in AZ, WY, VT, and Alaska)? If i live in Chicago, can i carry a musket from my kitchen to my garage without going to jail? I might believe your statement if you advocated for gun control laws to pivot on the type of gun carried.
It's a non-sequitor to say that one agrees with the right to bear arms. It's like saying that one agrees that acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s2. It's a self existing reality that we try our best to describe with written laws. The long term survival of a society rises or falls on how well it's codified laws match natural law.
Principles cannot be anachronistic. They are eternal. On what basis is this extension illogical?
It affirmed the principle, the same way the first amendment protects free speech on the internet.
The Bible didn't predict surgical abortion or internet porn. Does that mean it doesn't address them? It's about principle, nor necessarily it's expression in codified law.
Laws requiring fee men and women to disarm or be thrown in jail violate the principle that the second amendment affirms. And yes, it existed long before 1791.
It's hard to change. The fascist finds much more utility in ignoring it or explaining it away using strained logic. Gun control is to the constitution as Biologos is to Genesis.
Also, repealing the second amendment does not take away anyone's right to keep and bear arms. That's a common misconception. The constitution did not create the rights it protects. It merely affirms them.
That's nice that you're worried for me. I also vote, own property, and worship freely. You gotta watch out for people like me. Yep, I'm a vigilante.
Government, for people with mindsets like yours, is a tool that allows you to satisfy your human desire to control other people's internal affairs. How very Orwellian of you.
By the way, the constitution is the highest human law in this country. You should submit to it and stop advocating for the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear (that means carry) arms.
Again, why is your opinion of what i "need" important? Why should i be required to demonstrate exigency? I'm fine with all free men and women carrying guns everywhere. What's your point? Does what you're "fine with" somehow trump what I'm "fine with"? Why?
If you don't think citizens should use guns to protect themselves, then why is it OK to pay the police to do it?. If it is contrary to scripture to use force in defense of self, then it is likewise scripturally prohibited to call the police. In case you haven't noticed, they would use a gun to protect you, but they wear a state issued costume while they do it. Somehow that makes it ok?
Be honest: you're just personally against guns. Please don't massage statistics or hijack Scripture to attempt to make your personal preferences binding upon me, Mike, or anyone else.
Thanks for demonstrating the progressive mindset The rest of us in America will continue to exercise our basic human right to bear arms, whether or not you "think" we should. Why should I care what you're "OK with"?
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, and it is not revocable because of the misdeeds of someone in CT.
1/15/13 7:06 AM
