Bring guns to church?

[LongingSoul]

The second amendment was not written during the Revolution, but roughly ten years after it ended.

The American Government was no longer led by foreign imperials. There was not a standing army, yet, but there were American troops. Not British redcoats.

The conditions prevailing then are not the same as those prevailing now (for one thing, we have 100X more population), but they are comparable.

ICXC NIKA

The threat from imperialist nations was very real in that era as I’ve said previously. There’s absolutely no likelihood of force from Britain, Spain or Holland these days and the Islamic State is not going to be influenced by any constitution if they get hold. The second amendment is a defunct principle.

 

[josh987654321]

If this has already been posted I apologize but Jesus did approve of weapon ownership! “But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” Luke 22:36 (my emphasis added).

I believe you have misquoted that verse.

I believe this was for the sole purpose of fulfilling scripture where it said that ‘He was reckoned with transgressors’, as later He admonished Peter for using it.
The Gospel of Luke:

Purse, Bag, and Sword

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

The Gospel of John 18:10-11:

The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus

10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?”

Jesus to Catalina:

The Passion - loveandmercy.org/Eng-TP-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

**15) The episode of My capture, well examined, has much importance. If Peter had not struck Malchus that blow, I would not have had the opportunity to call to your attention the method I want you to use in fighting for Me.

1. Then I made use of a proverb to admonish Peter and I restored Malchus’ ear because I do not like violence, being that I am the Lord of liberty. But notice that apart from that, I expressed to Peter the firm desire that My Passion should be fulfilled, and I caused him to reflect on the fact that if I wanted, the Father could have Me defended by My angels.
2. Do you see how many things there are in just one episode? But the main thing is precisely the lesson that I had to give to all of you in the struggle against your enemies. Whoever is like Me acts in this way: he allows those who surround him to take him where they will, because he will have his strength in the moments which are not those sought after by the world (by man), by human experience, and by the shrewdness of self-love.
3. No, whoever is like Me will find and obtain unrecognizable and vigorous strength to dominate those who suppress him, by remaining in the situation where he is placed. My true disciple does the most improbable things without interrupting in the least My designs for him. The world delights in uniqueness, in excelling and demonstrating its own superiority. This is the spirit that I have fought and conquered. That is why I told all of you to take courage, because as I have conquered it that world can now do nothing to sever your union with Me, provided that you do not unite with it. If you do, you would have to suffer the consequences with the added difficulty that since I Myself oppose its victory with worldly weapons; many times you will have as adversaries the world and Me - the world because of its self love, and Me for pure Love, out of genuine Love for your well-being.
4. Therefore, strike no blows like Peter’s to the ears of your enemies without full acceptance of the Chalice that I offer you. A Chalice in which you should see My Will as I saw that of My Father when I asked the beloved Peter: “Do you not want Me to drink from this Chalice that My Father gives Me?”**

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Brendan]

I believe you have misquoted that verse.

I believe this was for the sole purpose of fulfilling scripture where it said that ‘He was reckoned with transgressors’, as later He admonished Peter for using it.

He admonished Peter because Christ HAD to die, not because self defense is an immoral act.

You can see the justification for the admonishment one of the verses you quoted

Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?”

 

[Gorgias]

It was at the time the imperialist nations were sailing all over the place colonising lands. The British were busy in Australia and in Canada and the Spanish and Dutch were all around looking to be the boss of everyone. In that climate, it makes sense for the US to have a threatening clause embedded in the laws of the day. Those conditions don’t apply today.

The point of a militia isn’t to form up from scratch to meet threats after they arise; it’s to be ready in place already, should a threat emerge. Moreover, a nation with a citizen militia is a deterrent to hostile forces that might wish to infringe on the citizenry’s rights, from whatever source that threat might emerge.

You’re right, I think, that having just come out of the Revolution, the framers of the Constitution still remembered why they were able to throw off the yoke of England: it was because they were able to form a militia, already armed and (somewhat?) prepared to defend themselves. In other words, they were looking backward at lessons hard-learned and looking forward at how to apply those lessons in the future.

We seem to have gotten off-topic, though. Given that the 2nd amendment affirms this right of the citizenry (after all, the clause about ‘bearing arms’ is directed toward the people not the militia), how do you propose taking away those rights? Why should it be reasonable to take away those rights?

 

[on_the_hill]

Ok, I have to confess, I set you up a little with that question.

Contrary to the early reports, Dylan Roof did not receive a gun for his birthday, he purchased the gun with money he received for his birthday. He did not have a criminal record, or a mental health record, and he did in fact pass a Brady background check.

Had he been legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and someone knowingly purchased it for him, (known as a “straw purchase”), both the purchaser and receiver would have been committing felonies.

Exactly. Contrary to early reports, Roof was not a felon. He was accused but not convicted. Setting aside my feelings about firearms, I do believe we have to draw a line somewhere. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[on_the_hill]

Honest question. Not a strawman.

What are the murder/violent crime rates in Western nations that have strict gun control?

For example, does anyone know England’s murder rate by type of weapon, and how it compares to the U.S. murder rate by type of weapon?

I guess I’m wondering how the argument that “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” holds up in Western nations aside from the U.S.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Honest question. Not a strawman.

What are the murder/violent crime rates in Western nations that have strict gun control?

For example, does anyone know England’s murder rate by type of weapon, and how it compares to the U.S. murder rate by type of weapon?

I guess I’m wondering how the argument that “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” holds up in Western nations aside from the U.S.

There are huge problems with comparing data from different nations, England and US define murders differently. England, for example, doesn’t count a dead body as a firearm related murder unless someone is caught and convicted. The US identifies a murder based on the autopsy ruling regardless of whether someone is charged. Firearm homicides also include suicide in the US and account for a significant portion. (Suicides in other nations like Japan and UK are higher, yet don’t count into the numbers. Partly they’re not using firearms and you go down the rat hole of whether suicides in the US would drop if firearms were less widely available) Rape, sexual assault, sexual assault are defined differently in different nations crime stats (and in the US differently in different states. Yes Virginia, in some US states men can be raped as the definition includes more than simple penetration.) As soon as you start trying to compare, you have to do an analysis of what the differences are in methodology and reporting.

England has lower rates of gun crime than the US (although higher than in the past). But right now has a much higher rate of violent crime than the US and much of Europe, and in fact there’s a big push to ban knives (well at least ‘pointy’ ones) since no one needs a pointy knife. Even famous chefs have weighed in that you don’t need a pointed knife to cook/prepare food. Police have been urging citizens to turn in knives.

countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/british-police-calling-for-knife-ban/

There is a lot more affecting crime rates and violence rates then firearms laws. Mexico has very strict gun laws and high rates of firearm violence. Chicago has strict gun control laws and high rates of violence. In the first case, there are large and very well organized drug gangs operating along with law enforcement and political corruption. Hence, the rise in some portions of Mexico of citizen militias where they ignored the laws, armed themselves and pushed the cartels out, dramatically reducing the violence and restoring peace. Politician’s response was to crack down on the citizen militias, with a corresponding resurgence in cartel violence. Chicago had high rates of violence prior to the strict gun control laws, and they remain so. So- while you may favor ensuring the victims have the means to defend themselves and point to areas with higher rates of gun ownership/legal carry with much lower crime rates- doesn’t mean crime rates in Chicago will decrease. Many other factors…

The US constitution protected the existing right the people had to keep and bear arms under British common law (well protestants, not us catholics or jews etc.) against tyranny by the crown and for self-defense and hunting. The founding fathers saw it as essential to the requirement to have a well regulated militia, among it’s other benefits.

They never thought that US citizens or politicians would be better than any other folks through the centuries. They knew the history of the world and the rise and fall of tyrants and dictators and didn’t think our leaders would be immune from the same temptations that leaders have been exposed to throughout history.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Unfortunately it doesn’t answer any of my questions. You say that the ‘governments’ army swears to defend against ‘domestic’ enemies? The militia who have the right to guns because they have an equally solemn duty to defend against the ‘government’ armies. Does that mean that you consider yourself part of the ‘government’ army or the ‘militia’. I doubt that you could have any genuine loyalty to either side considering your government military history.

So the militia is armed because of the threat from the ‘government’ army but you are part of the government army. Which side would you take in battle?

I am not a part of the military, the "standing army (I was actually in the Navy but irrelevant). I do not meet the definition of the militia because I am too old. There is an actual federal statute that defines the militia.

The militia is to ensure the government does not turn into a tyrannical regime.

I have loyalty to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the ultimate law of the land. I have loyalty to the legitimate authority of government so long as the government acts within its constitutional power and limits. Very little of that actually happens these days.

The groups and individuals I associate with just want to be left alone and enjoy our freedom. We will tolerate no further infringements.

 

[Humanae_Vitae]

… and to anybody outside the US, at least in any civilised country.

I wouldn’t sweat it. I am sure many Americans feel the same way about your customs and history. Since they are different, and all…

 

[Brendan]

I am not a part of the military, the "standing army (I was actually in the Navy but irrelevant). I do not meet the definition of the militia because I am too old. There is an actual federal statute that defines the militia…

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[LongingSoul]

The point of a militia isn’t to form up from scratch to meet threats after they arise; it’s to be ready in place already, should a threat emerge. Moreover, a nation with a citizen militia is a deterrent to hostile forces that might wish to infringe on the citizenry’s rights, from whatever source that threat might emerge.

EddieMac posted a legal definition of the militia that states… Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

The expectation of the 2ndA is clearly that a militia is properly equipped and** trained** to be an ‘effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.’ Is that really the case in the US? If the government and its army turned on ‘the people’ with their state of the art weapons and highly trained SAS and intelligence personnel, are ‘the people’ equipped and trained to defend?

I think that the 2ndA is being used as a meaningless platitude and its true intent is completely ignored. There is another agenda at work that is hiding behind a bad interpretation of a document and its creating an environment of war and fear among the citizens.

We seem to have gotten off-topic, though. Given that the 2nd amendment affirms this right of the citizenry (after all, the clause about ‘bearing arms’ is directed toward the people not the militia), how do you propose taking away those rights? Why should it be reasonable to take away those rights?

The 2ndA is not separate clauses… it is one long interrelated sentence. If there was indeed meant to be a clear clause affording virtually unconditional rights to owning weapons of war (as opposed to tools of trade and sport)…the sentence wouldn’t have been prefaced with definition of the nature of gun ownership; well regulated militia… or purpose of gun ownership; security of the State.

The topic is one of global interest because it is recognised around the world that the US culture via Hollywood, media and gaming culture, have an overwhelming influence on all of the younger generations and guns are promoted, far from defensive tools in service of the common good, as weapons of conquest, power and dominance.

 

[Tomdstone]

He admonished Peter because Christ HAD to die,…

?

 

[LongingSoul]

I am not a part of the military, the "standing army (I was actually in the Navy but irrelevant). I do not meet the definition of the militia because I am too old. There is an actual federal statute that defines the militia.

The militia is to ensure the government does not turn into a tyrannical regime.

I have loyalty to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the ultimate law of the land. I have loyalty to the legitimate authority of government so long as the government acts within its constitutional power and limits. Very little of that actually happens these days.

The groups and individuals I associate with just want to be left alone and enjoy our freedom. We will tolerate no further infringements.

The problem with your argument is that you are trying to defend gun ownership as an ‘inalienable’ right of the people by appealing to the 2ndA which is not saying that at all. It is a conditional right justified by a very serious duty to State. The Amendment is very much a defense of the State, not of the individuals personal rights. It therefore stands to reason that if gun ownership is primarily in service to the State it should be seriously examined as to whether it is actually causing more harm than good to the State. It’s obvious that this examination is absolutely rejected by the pro gunners because whenever there is another big massacre or gun tragedy, they try to shut down any examination at all of the value of guns in the community. They immediately appeal to the 2ndA to shut down examination when actually the 2ndA being a defense of the State, warrants that very examination in spades.

 

[LongingSoul]

We seem to have gotten off-topic, though. Given that the 2nd amendment affirms this right of the citizenry (after all, the clause about ‘bearing arms’ is directed toward the people not the militia), how do you propose taking away those rights? Why should it be reasonable to take away those rights?

It’s not about taking away rights… it about being responsible. Rights come with responsibilities. Let the question have an airing… ‘are guns in the community doing more harm than good?’ and see what comes out of that.

 

[Faber]

It’s not about taking away rights… it about being responsible. Rights come with responsibilities. Let the question have an airing… ‘are guns in the community doing more harm than good?’ and see what comes out of that.

Double speak. It’s an established right in the USA regardless of your views or my views. Certainly each right comes w/ attendant responsibilities; Convicted felons for example, have limited gun rights. Whether guns in YOUR community do more harm than good depends on your point of view and you may lobby for change as you desire, but your experience is not mine.

 

[LongingSoul]

Double speak. It’s an established right in the USA regardless of your views or my views. Certainly each right comes w/ attendant responsibilities; Convicted felons for example, have limited gun rights. Whether guns in YOUR community do more harm than good depends on your point of view and you may lobby for change as you desire, but your experience is not mine.

‘Established’ right only means accepted for a long time. It doesn’t mean ‘inalienable’ or ‘divine’ and immutable. A civil or political right has to be justified by its value to the civil or political life of the community. If you are saying that the negative effect of a gun rich community ie. rates of violence and unwarranted deaths directly associated with them… are outweighed by the capacity of gun owners to defend their community from the government army… that would indeed be relevant. I’m posing the question to you though… do you think that the private gun owners of the US are equipped and trained and ready to be and effective defense against the government army of the US? If the answer is no, then the whole basis of the right has to be examined.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
It is a conditional right justified by a very serious duty to State.

No. It is a right, which pre-existed the constitution which the founders deemed necessary to continue to uphold by the people. To not be infringed upon by the government.

It’s to be retained by the people in service to and defense of the people— NOT the organized state. That’s what the militia concept is about-- it isn’t a government run or controlled organization-- it is the people in defense of themselves.

Hence the wording of the second amendment. You can’t have a well regulated militia if the people are not armed, it is a logical impossibility. The ultimate check on government authority— the possibility of folks taking up arms.

Perhaps this line from the ‘Declaration of Independence’ would help illustrate the point;

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The founding fathers did not expect to hand over the government to series of saints. But to just plain ordinary people. Just as they’d violently rebelled against a legitimate government, they believed that sometime in the future the same cycle could repeat. The government, the State, would no longer act in the people’s best interests and the people would have that same ‘right to alter or abolish it’. They included 2A to ensure the people would have the means.

In reality-- a well armed public is a check on the appetites of those in power. No one wants a civil war, no one wants that kind of destruction and mayhem. It helps to ensure the evils of government remain just sufferable…

 

[Eddie_Mac]

The problem with your argument is that you are trying to defend gun ownership as an ‘inalienable’ right of the people by appealing to the 2ndA which is not saying that at all. It is a conditional right justified by a very serious duty to State. The Amendment is very much a defense of the State, not of the individuals personal rights. It therefore stands to reason that if gun ownership is primarily in service to the State it should be seriously examined as to whether it is actually causing more harm than good to the State. It’s obvious that this examination is absolutely rejected by the pro gunners because whenever there is another big massacre or gun tragedy, they try to shut down any examination at all of the value of guns in the community. They immediately appeal to the 2ndA to shut down examination when actually the 2ndA being a defense of the State, warrants that very examination in spades.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment enumerates an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision stated such. The 2A has not been addressed very often by SCOTUS. Early on the court was leaning to a collective right but DC vs Heller and subsequently Chicago vs McDonald further addressed the individual right. McDonald also broached the Second Amendment incorporation to the states under the 14th amendment.

The Heller decision also stated that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as “fundamental” by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, enumerated rights that are incorporated are so fundamental that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.

Your insistence that we are obligated to the state because of the 2A does not hold water. What holds water is that there never was supposed to be a standing army. There didn’t used to be. The Second Amendment ensures that we can protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. That is it. In a nutshell. We, the people. Fundamental right.

There has been some great legislation passed over the history of the US by visionaries that saw what the national government could do if WE did not keep it in check. The Civil War proved that governments need to be kept in check. Lincoln suspended Constitutional Law and declared Martial Law to “save the republic”. After reconstruction the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to prevent the US military (the never supposed to be standing army) from being used against citizens. Many of us freedom loving citizens felt we had Posse to back us up in the event the shooting started.

Then came NDAA 2014.

Congress just passed the gigantic $625 billion dollar sweeping National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 with a vote in the House 350 to 69 and in the Senate 84 to 15. Establishment media coverage seemed to center on what did not make it into the act such as, a crackdown on sexual assault in the military and provisions making it easier to close Guantanamo, rather than upon what did. Most maintained the image that the annual act merely funded the military for another year, as has been the case formerly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Left in place was the extremely controversial 2012 provision authorizing the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, and detain without trial, and held indefinitely, American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.” Simply stated it defied Habeas Corpus (your constitutional right not to disappear at the hand of government), the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (preventing the military from having a law enforcement function in the United States), and essentially gutted large portions of the Bill of Rights especially amendments 4, 5, and 6 with secondary damage to 1, 2 and possibly 8. It is the single most dangerous law passed by Congress in U.S. History.

libertyunderfire.org/tag/ndaa-2014-nulifies-posse-comitatus-act-of-1878/

Goodbye Bill of Rights and Posse Comitatus.

You can give all of whatever foreign spin to our rights and responsibilities you want, put down our way of life all you want, misrepresent and misunderstand our founding documents as much as you see fit. It really does not matter.

Governments never allow their subjects to obtain more freedom. It is against government’s nature. If governments allow their subjects more freedom they become free citizens and government shrinks. Governments do not like to shrink.

The national government does not like the idea of armed citizens. The only thing that has kept the snowball from rolling faster and faster is that the states (except the socialist utopias of California, New York, Vermont, etc) have recognized the beast the national government has become and reacted to protect their powers and people’s rights.

We exist and the government knows it. There’s gonna be a fight.

Did you look up the III% like I asked?

 

[LongingSoul]

No. It is a right, which pre-existed the constitution which the founders deemed necessary to continue to uphold by the people. To not be infringed upon by the government.

It’s to be retained by the people in service to and defense of the people— NOT the organized state. That’s what the militia concept is about-- it isn’t a government run or controlled organization-- it is the people in defense of themselves.

Hence the wording of the second amendment. You can’t have a well regulated militia if the people are not armed, it is a logical impossibility. The ultimate check on government authority— the possibility of folks taking up arms.

Perhaps this line from the ‘Declaration of Independence’ would help illustrate the point;

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The founding fathers did not expect to hand over the government to series of saints. But to just plain ordinary people. Just as they’d violently rebelled against a legitimate government, they believed that sometime in the future the same cycle could repeat. The government, the State, would no longer act in the people’s best interests and the people would have that same ‘right to alter or abolish it’. They included 2A to ensure the people would have the means.

In reality-- a well armed public is a check on the appetites of those in power. No one wants a civil war, no one wants that kind of destruction and mayhem. It helps to ensure the evils of government remain just sufferable…

All of that would be credible if gun ownership came with mandatory training in defense and an official commitment to own and carry a gun for that primary purpose. But that is the very thing that pro gunners protest against. They are saying that people should not be force trained or needs swear legally to any organised controls. That protest feeds people the sense that they have an unconditional right in service to themselves (and those that matter to them personally), rather than being a right in order to serve the state.

In Switzerland, where gun ownership is nearly as high as the US… every able bodied male is mandated to do military training where a true sense of selfless patriotic obligation is instilled in them. It’s not just a worn out platitude. The attitude towards guns is so respectful that despite their great presence in the community, there is very little abuse and carnage.

If the US took the 2ndA seriously and mandated all gun owners to do serious military training to include the true patriotic selfless code of a good militia man… it’s likely that the US would start to see a drop in random, senseless gun deaths also.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…Governments do not like to shrink…

No bureaucracy likes to shrink. Have you ever read ‘The Peter Principle’? Great book at understanding bureaucracy-- imagine all these folks in all these offices in government. Now imagine how many senior leaders/mid-level manager bureaucrats there are. What do they produce? Rules, lots and lots of rules, regulations and policies. They got promoted into these positions, want to feel productive, want to show they’re making a difference-- how do they show the boss they’re mover and shakers? Produce more rules… that and along with trying to get a bit more budget next year and you have any government. A growing organization making so many rules and policies they become contradictory, confusing, unenforceable and unmanageable.

If we restrict freedoms and liberties, not based on the acts of the law abiding, but on the acts of the criminal, then the criminal dictates how much freedom and liberty the law abiding have. Instead of holding the criminal accountable for their actions, and permitting freedom the law abiding, we strip the freedom from the law abiding and they suffer the consequences.

I prefer to hold the evil accountable for their actions, and to permit free men and women to have rights and privileges.