The Gun Control Debate

[rebeccajo 14]

Miranda -

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

The post wherein the member claimed he owned his gun to protect himself and not others was sickening to me. He comes back to the thread later and expounds upon how he would supposedly, of course, protect others should a time of national oppression actually arise. I think that's back-peddling.

No Back-peddling here. Just the facts. I have not been trained to protect the masses. Nor do I want to be trained to protect the masses. I am not a policeman nor do I want to be a policeman. I have accepted the responsibility to get proper training and to have continuous training to protect myself and my family. Firearm training is just part of the whole picture. The biggest part of personal protection is not putting yourself in a position to be a victim. I will probably never be in a position to protect someone other than myself or my family. I stay away from areas and situations where people become victims. And if you (plural) happen to be in those areas or situations. I won’t be there to help because I am somewhere else. Not because I am a coward or don’t care. It is truly because I stay out of those situations and areas.

By the way. I have served my country in the military. But that is not the same as the militia and I imagine that you have disdain for both. But, that is an assumption, straighten me out.

“and eventual personal ridiculue of me.”

Not once have I ridiculed you. But I have twice been called a “donkey” by you. Sorry I don’t cuss. I’m a bible thumper.

I didn't call you a donkey. I referred to your backside. They use the word 'a$$' in the bible, albeit in a different manner than I did. I didn't cuss. I was crude. Sorry if that offends.

My feelings on gun control have nothing to do with my support of the military. You are incorrect in your assumptions.

[EKO1 0]

I didn't call you a donkey. I referred to your backside. They use the word 'a$$' in the bible, albeit in a different manner than I did. I didn't cuss. I was crude. Sorry if that offends.

My feelings on gun control have nothing to do with my support of the military. You are incorrect in your assumptions.

No offense, been called much worse. Just pointing out hypocrisy

Edited February 17, 2008 by EKO1

[rebeccajo 14]

I didn't call you a donkey. I referred to your backside. They use the word 'a$$' in the bible, albeit in a different manner than I did. I didn't cuss. I was crude. Sorry if that offends.

My feelings on gun control have nothing to do with my support of the military. You are incorrect in your assumptions.

No offense, been called much worse. Just pointing out hypocrisy

None taken. Been called much worse by people who don't claim to be christians while doing it.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have to say that to see christians support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection does seem to me the greater hypocrisy. However, I probably have misunderstood something fundamental about what it means to be a christian.

[GaryC 7]

I have to say that to see christians support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection does seem to me the greater hypocrisy. However, I probably have misunderstood something fundamental about what it means to be a christian.

It seems you have a great deal to learn about Christianity. It looks like all you think you know comes from prejudice and stereotypes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Stereotypes? No, I doubt the christians I know are stereotypical. As for prejudice, do you think I somehow don't like christians as a group or something?

[Cassie 8]

I have to say that to see christians support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection does seem to me the greater hypocrisy. However, I probably have misunderstood something fundamental about what it means to be a christian.

I am a Christian and do not support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection. I am not the only one.

[GaryC 7]

Stereotypes? No, I doubt the christians I know are stereotypical. As for prejudice, do you think I somehow don't like christians as a group or something?

All I have to go by are your comments. But so far you have told me that I cannot understand human rights if I take them from the bible and you think it is hypocritical for Christians to own guns for self defense. If that is your true feelings then your understanding of what it means to be Christian is seriously flawed. Look, I am not the kind of Christian that debates my faith or tries to push it on someone else. I feel rather uneasy even discussing it. You are entitled to you opinion but I feel I must point out that you are wrong if those two comments are how you really see us.

I have to say that to see christians support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection does seem to me the greater hypocrisy. However, I probably have misunderstood something fundamental about what it means to be a christian.

I am a Christian and do not support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection. I am not the only one.

Being Christian does not preclude the idea of gun ownership for self defense.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't view christians by how I view one person Gary, that would be silly. The christians I know are by and large a very peaceful lot and don't believe in gun ownership for personal defence because they believe that that goes against their principals.

Your views regarding human rights are wrong. Human rights and christianity are quite simply not the same thing. Again, you seem to believe that that somehow diminishes your faith. I don't understand why you think that but I do know you don't understand the principal of human rights if you believe it has anything to do with the bible or christianity.

[GaryC 7]

I don't view christians by how I view one person Gary, that would be silly. The christians I know are by and large a very peaceful lot and don't believe in gun ownership for personal defence because they believe that that goes against their principals.

Your views regarding human rights are wrong. Human rights and christianity are quite simply not the same thing. Again, you seem to believe that that somehow diminishes your faith. I don't understand why you think that but I do know you don't understand the principal of human rights if you believe it has anything to do with the bible or christianity.

We will have to leave it at that. I don't care to debate religion here.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who exatly is debating religion? Again, I can't be clearer, human rights have nothing to do with religious belief. This statement is one of fact and not a personal attack on your faith.

As for the gun ownership by christians/hypocrasy, well, that's my opinion on it but it doesn't make me anti christian.

[Cassie 8]

Stereotypes? No, I doubt the christians I know are stereotypical. As for prejudice, do you think I somehow don't like christians as a group or something?

All I have to go by are your comments. But so far you have told me that I cannot understand human rights if I take them from the bible and you think it is hypocritical for Christians to own guns for self defense. If that is your true feelings then your understanding of what it means to be Christian is seriously flawed. Look, I am not the kind of Christian that debates my faith or tries to push it on someone else. I feel rather uneasy even discussing it. You are entitled to you opinion but I feel I must point out that you are wrong if those two comments are how you really see us.

I have to say that to see christians support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection does seem to me the greater hypocrisy. However, I probably have misunderstood something fundamental about what it means to be a christian.

I am a Christian and do not support the idea of gun ownership for personal protection. I am not the only one.

Being Christian does not preclude the idea of gun ownership for self defense.

nor does it demand it.

[bgreed 0]

"Sell your cloak and buy a sword." Jesus

[Peikko 1,575]

GREAT QUESTIONS OF THE BIBLE:

"Lord, should we strike with our swords?"

Luke 22:49

___By John Tunnell,

___Pastor, First Baptist Church, Albany

___"When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, 'Lord, should we strike with our swords?'" (Luke 22:49). This is one of those bewildering places in Scripture where Jesus seems to contradict himself. Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus tries to tell his disciples they should expect radical changes in how they would be treated while trying to minister.

JOHN TUNNELL

___In the past, Jesus had instructed them to take no money or luggage or even an extra pair of sandals when they traveled from city to city. The people would take care of their needs, but when the religious leaders unleashed their full hatred on Jesus, the disciples also would be hated.

___Jesus issued new procedures. "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag, and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." If we take this passage literally, Jesus was instructing his disciples to acquire arms and be prepared to defend themselves with deadly force. Apparently, this is what the disciples thought Jesus meant. Two of them even acknowledged possessing swords. Jesus even commented the two swords would be enough.

___Immediately after his conversation, Jesus led the disciples to the Mount of Olives, where he asked them to pray. We know the disciples were exhausted and, in fact, fell asleep.

___It is no wonder that when the contingent of soldiers arrived to arrest Jesus, Peter sprang to his defense. After all, Peter probably still was smarting from Jesus' rebuke, predicting Peter would deny his Lord within a few hours. To prove his allegiance to Jesus, Peter, perhaps in a half-daze, struck one of the men, cutting off his ear.

___ To Peter's amazement, Jesus not only did not compliment him on his fine swordsmanship, but rebuked him again and healed the enemy's ear.

___ Despite the fact Jesus stopped the disciples from defending him with force, some today use these passages to defend their position of using deadly force to protect themselves and their interests. In fact, some right-wing military survival groups who call themselves followers of Christ advocate armed resistance as Christian duty.

___ It is true that using deadly force on enemies was practiced by God's people in the Old Testament. God himself instructed his people at times to destroy every inhabitant of certain cities. King David became a national hero by "bearing his sword" against Goliath.

___ However, Jesus came announcing a new covenant. God's weapon of choice was no longer the sword but was now love and mercy. Jesus made his position clear when he said, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I say to you, 'Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'" Jesus also said, "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

___ Even if there was room for confusion in what Jesus said, there was no doubt about what he did. The Scripture tells us he had legions of warrior angels at his disposal, but he chose to endure the brutality, the scourging and the cross without so much as a verbal abuse.

___ Enough said.

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

Ever read this?

"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 bolded part of this should put an end to any discussions about taking them away, although i doubt that would happen.

You know, I've always been opposed to guns. But now I've even more convinced. Because collectively, you aren't interested in owning a weapon for the good of the masses. You are interested in owning one to protect your sorry a$$ from an imagined home invader.

i've never stated i owned any firearms to protect joe the average citizen nor is it expected. are you suggesting that i or others put our lives and the possibilty of having to defend our actions in court for someone who didn't take the prudent actions that could defend themself? nowwhere have i run across anything that legally requires me to put my life at risk for someone else. if someone wants protection, hire a freaking bodyguard.

Don't ever talk to me again about your 'rights'. You don't even begin to know the meaning of them.

indeed.......refer to the bolded above.......