Armed pro-Trump protesters gather outside Michigan elections chief's home

[MikeInVA]

I can just imagine Jesus endorsing lethal weapons

Luke 22:36
36 … But now it is time for a man to take his purse with him, if he has one, and his wallet too; and to sell his cloak and buy a sword, if he has none.

Cars have good reasons to have and operate them. Gun’s don’t.

Maybe you do not recognize the need for self defense, but our country does.

 

[Zacc]

Luke 22:36
36 … But now it is time for a man to take his purse with him, if he has one, and his wallet too; and to sell his cloak and buy a sword, if he has none.

I prefer Luke 19:27

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

Ah, the beauty of quote mining.

Maybe you do not recognize the need for self defense, but our country does.

Cars have general uses. If there would be no weapons, there would be no need for self-defense. But, let’s see. How many instances of self-defense occur as compared to aggressive uses of guns?

 

[RootKitWarrior]

That is the problem! Cars have good reasons to have and operate them. Gun’s don’t. I can just imagine Jesus endorsing lethal weapons, and consider them more important than peaceful transportation. Something is very wrong with this picture.

Neither Can I. At least not the Jesus I read from the New Testament as a whole.

 

[MikeInVA]

If there would be no weapons, there would be no need for self-defense.

I knew we’d end up here, with the anthropomorphizing of weapons. Weapons do not kill, people kill - with weapons or without. You could give my mom a fully loaded machine gun and nothing would happen. There are other people I know who I wouldn’t turn my back on if they had a ball point pen.

People kill people. If you can figure out how to stop that then we will no longer need weapons. Until then we need weapons to protect ourselves. If you don’t have a weapon yourself, then your safety is provided by others who do.

 

[RootKitWarrior]

Luke 22:36
36 … But now it is time for a man to take his purse with him, if he has one, and his wallet too; and to sell his cloak and buy a sword, if he has none.

From A Commentary on the New Testament , published by the Catholic Biblical Association, 1942, page 286, on Luke 22:34b-38:

34b-38. Peculiar to Luke. 35. Cf. Luke 9:3; 10:4. 36. It seems fairly certain that Jesus meant these words here in a figurative sense. Hitherto the Apostles had lived in peace and were without want, but now they will soon be confronted with all sorts of hardships and trials. To meet these dangers they must be perpared and armed with spiritual weapons. 37. Cf. Isaiah 53:12. 38. Understanding the words of 36 in the literal sense, the Apostles missed the point completely. Jesus replied, “ Enough, ” i.e., let us drop the subject. The Apostles’ misunderstanding of our Lord’s words about the sword is shown in Matthew 26:51f and parallels.

 

[Zacc]

I knew we’d end up here, with the anthropomorphizing of weapons.

Nonsense. Of course weapons do not kill on their own, but when they are readily available, people will use them easily. If they would have to go home, get their weapons out of the cabinet, find the ammunition, they would have time to cool off.

In Switzerland, everyone is part of the military, and everyone has weapons in their homes… but the people are civilized, and know how to live peacefully.

If you can figure out how to stop that then we will no longer need weapons.

Sure, and that is what we need to work upon. Shun and ostracize those who have this Wild West mentality. Ridicule them mercilessly. Expose them for what they are.

How many instances of self-defense can you show?

 

[RootKitWarrior]

Jesus was warning them about hard times ahead and the should be prepared for the diffuculties, but they thought he was talking about being armed to defend themselves, - then he just threw up his hands:shrug: “alright” (idiots)“that’s enough” - :doh2: (you still don’t get it, three years with me and you still don’t get it) - the preparness he was talking about was to be prepared spiritually and they where still thinking worldly.

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 36. That hath not, &c. Whilst the apostles are contending for prerogative, he reminds them that now is the time of danger and slaughter; for I, your Master, (says he) shall be led to a dishonourable death, and reputed among the wicked: as all which hath been foretold of me shall have their end; that is, be fulfilled. Wishing also to insinuate the violence of the assaults they themselves will have to sustain, he mentions a sword; but does not reveal all, lest they should be too much alarmed; nor does he entirely suppress the mention of it, lest sudden attacks might overpower them, had they not been forewarned. (Theophylactus)

Ver. 38. Behold here are two swords, &c. The disciples not understanding the hidden meaning of the words in the preceding verse, and thinking they should have need of swords against the attack of the traitor Judas, say, behold here two swords. (St. Cyril) — But if he had wished them to rely upon human aid, not even a hundred swords would have sufficed; but, if the power of man was unnecessary in their regard, even two swords are sufficient, and more than are wanted. (St. Chrysostom) — Even two swords are sufficient testimony of our Saviour’s having suffered spontaneously. One to shew that the apostles had courage to contend for their Master, and that their Lord had the power of healing the servant, Malchus, who was maimed; the other, which was not drawn from its scabbard, shews that the apostles were withheld from doing in his defence as much as they could have done. (Ven. Bede)

 

[MikeInVA]

How many instances of self-defense can you show?

Just years of being prepared, thanks be to God.

 

[vz71]

The constitutional right is not sacrosanct.

Yes, it is.
The founding fathers took it seriously enough to specify it.

It is simply ridiculous to see that gun ownership is considered less important than any other dangerous endeavors.

That is an opinion.
The various hoops one must go through to purchase a firearm say otherwise.

 

[JonNC]

If there would be no weapons, there would be no need for self-defense.

This is nonsense, as any woman being attacked by a man can attest, but for the sake of discussion:
Okay. So, here then are the grounds that law abiding citizens could give up the constitutional protection of their inherent individual right to be arms.

1. the government guarantees that no foreign power, entity or individual, criminal or otherwise, owns arms.
2. the government guarantees that absolutely no criminal owns arms of any kind.
3. the government guarantees that no government agency at any level owns any arms.

IOW, to fulfill your premise of no weapons, American citizen arms owners will hold them until this happens.

1. I would be remiss if I didn’t add the prerequisite voiced by my niece: males must give up testosterone first.

 

[Zacc]

Just years of being prepared, thanks be to God.

I am not talking about you, personally. How many instances of using firearms in SELF-DEFENSE are you aware of?

Yes, it is.
The founding fathers took it seriously enough to specify it.

It was the time when foreign powers were attacking the new republic. And the constitution was amended several times… and even the amendment was “de-amended”.

 

[vz71]

It was the time when foreign powers were attacking the new republic.

I thought that was what the army was for.

 

[JonNC]

How many instances of self-defense can you show?

Tens of thousands a year.

https://fee.org/internal-server-error?aspxerrorpath=%2Farticles%2Fmore-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents%2F

 

[MikeInVA]

It was the time when foreign powers were attacking the new republic.

Actually, the Constitution was written at the completion of the war.

 

[vz71]

Actually, the Constitution was written at the completion of the war.

I am ashamed to say…I missed that.

 

[pnewton]

One needs specific reasons to deny it.

I do not think that is in the Constitution either. But I noticed the conversation has shifted from the topic, where guns were carried outside a person’s house while yelling at them.

The courts have recognized that even general public safety reasons may be used to limit where they can be carried.

Here, if I had people that did not like me walk in front of my house screaming at me all the stuff they do not like and carrying guns, the police would intervene.

How would I feel if some people who did not like you did this to me? Would I be proud that they are exercising their right to free speech and bearing arms, or would it concern me. Just like the left picks some of the worst people to prop up as a rallying point for their agendas, this is a bad situation to hold up as an example of right to bear arms.

 

[JonNC]

That is the problem! Cars have good reasons to have and operate them.

It already is a right, as ownership of property is a right. It should be considered a protected right under the 9th amendment. I am all in favor of expanding protection of individual rights at the expense of government power

Gun’s don’t.

Of course they do. Self defense is a natural right. Individuals have a right to these commonly held tools of self defense.
Further, the prefatory clause of the second amendment sets out the primary reason for the protection of the pre-existing right: security of a free State. This can’t happen without the protection of the inherent right.

I can just imagine Jesus endorsing lethal weapons

Maybe not, but when the disciple struck the ear off of an adversary, Jesus told him to: Then Jesus saith to him: “Put up again thy sword into its place…”
He didn’t tell him to turn it over to the Roman authorities. He told him to put it in its place, in the disciple’s possession.

Now, Jesus also makes the comment about if you live buy the sword you shall die by the sword. The disciple’s actions were unprovoked, not in self defense.

 

[vz71]

Maybe not, but when the disciple struck the ear off of an adversary, Jesus told him to: Then Jesus saith to him: “Put up again thy sword into its place…”
He didn’t tell him to turn it over to the Roman authorities. He told him to put it in its place, in the disciple’s possession.

One has to also address where exactly did this sword come from.
One could readily see the disciple had been carrying it along with them all along…yet Jesus never spoke ill about it.

That sword was probably around for most of the Gospels.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Maybe not, but when the disciple struck the ear off of an adversary, Jesus told him to: Then Jesus saith to him: “Put up again thy sword into its place…”
He didn’t tell him to turn it over to the Roman authorities. He told him to put it in its place, in the disciple’s possession.

One has to also address where exactly did this sword come from.
One could readily see the disciple had been carrying it along with them all along…yet Jesus never spoke ill about it.

That sword was probably around for most of the Gospels.

And was probably quite common, even among occupied Jews.

 

[MikeInVA]

Two observations about this event:

1. Holding a protest at someone’s personal residence is wrong.
2. From the video that I saw, the protestors stayed in the street - they did not enter the yard, nor was there any violence on the part of the demonstrators. The fact that they were armed is not significant to the protest.