Do you support the second amendment?

[jcrichton]

…entitlements… like don’t murder your children in their mothers’ womb cause it is not constitutional?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Theo520]

I know it is a Constitutional right, and that legitimate self-defense is a legitimate right. I do not know that I have ever heard that owning a firearm is an inherent right. I do not see how this could be since firearms have not been around for most of history.

If owning some sort of weapon is an inherent right (I have never heard the Church say this), and if some weapons are not legitimate, I do not understand how any specific level of deadliness would be inherent.

What good is the right to self defense if you can’t actually act upon it? There is a reason they say ‘never bring a knife to a gun fight’

Weren’t the early disciples instructed to travel with a sword, what was then the equivalent to a gun in terms of self defense?

 

[jcrichton]

A rather snarky question.

First, who are “my folk”? Constitutional conservatives?

I think there is a significant risk of the US someday devolving into a socialist authoritarian system, yes. The regular erosion of defense of individual rights to ffee speech, due process, and particularly religious free exercise are very concerning.

That has nothing to do with the second amendment. That happens to be the result of incremental increase in government power which is always at the expense of individual liberty

The reality of the 2nd is not what is being argued; is the argument that the 2nd guarantees that the militia will keep tyranny from emerging.

Reason is left out.

Romance is embraced as proof of governance.

Everything that is offered to counter this idea (militia armed keeps constitution in place or will forced tyrannical agents to uphold constitutional rights) is met with 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, militia, militia, militia.

If a tyrannical agency were to abolish the constitution no militia would be able to keep it from happening; further, armed rebels (which that’s what opposition would be labeled) alone would not be able to cease power and return the nation’s constitutional status.

I only caricature the belief that an armed militia keeps the nation from tyranny or that in a regression to tyranny the armed militia would cease control and restore the constitution.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pnewton]

I will not argue with something explained so well. But just to clarify, it is the right to self-defense that is inherent, and the extension of this right to handguns, in this case, is based on the commonality of this weapon being chosen for this purpose by American society. I note they also struck down regulations that the weapons be kept locked or inoperable based on the same reasoning.

 

[jcrichton]

Do you not hear the urgency of the 2nd, the 2nd, the 2nd?

Consider too that not once have I advocated for government seizure of arms nor citizens being held as “persons” of interest because they own weapons.

So the urgency of secrecy, 2nd, militia, spells out the residual 50’s 60’s and 70’s anarchy mind-set: ‘the feds are coming; the feds are coming.’

We know from all historical accounts that when an government/tyranny is toppled the citizenry is caught up in the turmoil of the power struggles that rise–everyone with a little bit of power wants to become the next big thing–constitution and rights don’t apply!

Gun control does not translate to attack on the citizenry.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Weren’t the early disciples instructed to travel with a sword, what was then the equivalent to a gun in terms of self defense?

Actually, no.

The only time that a sword/knife was spoken off was right before Jesus apprehension–the passage was talking to the urgency of the impending event… interestingly enough, it also spoke of 'gun" control:

22:36 ‘No’ they said. He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it; if you have a haversack, do the same; if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one, 22:37 because I tell you these words of scripture have to be fulfilled in me: He let himself be taken for a criminal Yes, what scripture says about me is even now reaching its fulfilment.’ 22:38 ‘Lord,’ they said ‘there are two swords here now.’ He said to them, ‘That is enough!’ (St. Luke)

Even in the impending danger of the times Jesus spoke about gun control!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JonNC]

The reality of the 2nd is not what is being argued; is the argument that the 2nd guarantees that the militia will keep tyranny from emerging.

No. The 2nd was not argued that way. It was specifically argued and adopted to keep the government from eliminating the existence of the militia by taking arms out of the hands of citizens.
Read Heller.

 

[JonNC]

So the urgency of secrecy, 2nd, militia, spells out the residual 50’s 60’s and 70’s anarchy mind-set: ‘the feds are coming; the feds are coming.’

Which 50s, 60’s, 70s are you talking about?

 

[jcrichton]

Read Syria:

Syria executions: Did Assad’s government carry out a ‘policy of extermination’? (https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Mid...overnment-carry-out-a-policy-of-extermination)

A tyrannical agency does not respect guns or constitutional rights.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JonNC]

A tyrannical agency does not respect guns or constitutional rights.

And that’s why you want them to have all the guns ?

 

[jcrichton]

…do you know what vertigo is?

…this is the round…

God Bless!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JonNC]

…do you know what vertigo is?

…this is the round…

Just won’t answer that question.

 

[jcrichton]

Please, it’s been answer over and over and over and… that’s why it is a circular engagement… I say this, you say that–I say, fast, you say quickly…

No amount of engagement will suffice.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JonNC]

Please, it’s been answer over and over and over and… that’s why it is a circular engagement… I say this, you say that–I say, fast, you say quickly…

No amount of engagement will suffice.

Maran atha!

Angel

I’m not forcing you to post.

His peace.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Jon, sometimes I don’t think you fight fair with all of your facts.

 

[Theo520]

Actually, no.

The only time that a sword/knife was spoken off was right before Jesus apprehension–the passage was talking to the urgency of the impending event… interestingly enough, it also spoke of 'gun" control:

So you actually agree, a sword was deemed more important than having a coat when one is traveling alone.

Regarding Luke 22:36, naturally if you are together in a larger group, not everyone needs to be armed at the same time. Also this comment related to that evening where the outcome was foretold.

Luke 22:36
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

 

[Cathoholic]

jcrichton:

We know from all historical accounts that when an government/tyranny is toppled the citizenry is caught up in the turmoil of the power struggles that rise–everyone with a little bit of power wants to become the next big thing–constitution and rights don’t apply!

This is irrelevant.

Why?

Because I’m talking about today.

Because I’m talking about gun-grabbers trying to make political hay out of every tragedy.

Because I’m talking about principles, that if violated, ALL Constitutional protections (at least in principle) are up for “grabs”.

Rights that are SUPPOSED to “apply” right now.

And we are talking about now.

But let’s say someone like (the now late) Saddam came into power here back in 2002.

You would say: “Submit. He now has overwhelming power”.

But New Hampshire would say: “Live free” or they would be willing to fight back even if it meant their demise.

Just because YOU think nobody stands a chance, doesn’t mean YOU get to decide what the free citizens can or cannot do . . . Even if the free citizens would not be able to prevail.

There are a lot of free citizens with advanced military and law enforcement training and I think you sell them short against a proverbial Saddam.

But even if you are correct, even if our military and law enforcement and regular citizenry could not prevail, that does NOT give YOU or even todays Congressmen, the “green light” to ignore the rights of free citizens today.

.

As I said. If you’ve got an issue with the Second Amendment, take it up via the proper channels.

Change the Constitution.

You know it isn’t going to happen. I know that isn’t going to happen. And all the gun-grabbers out there know this isn’t going to occur.

Our wise forefathers had the foresight to set it up this way, because of the tyranny that they themselves were victims of.

Foresight (and spilled blood) that ungrateful progressives take for granted and often flippantly dismiss. (As they continue headlong on a socially self-destructive course)

 

[Cathoholic]

The Constitution was set up to protect the citizenry against overarching Government encroachment.

The “militia” term used here in this thread back when our Country was founded was “citizenry”. That’s the historical context of the “militia” and Second Amendment.

Citizens.

We are free citizens. Not “subjects”, employees, or Dalits.

This system is repulsive to the elitists and always will be.

 

[Cathoholic]

Do you know when gun proliferation for a law abiding citizenry has been encouraged by Governments?

When it’s expedient for politicians.

When Saddam saw his regime tumbling, Iraq was going house to house issuing AK-47’s to their citizens. I know this because I distinctly recall reading about it back then.

After Great Britain was in the process of stripping their subjects of their guns, they were threatened by Hitler and the Nazis.

England made frantic appeals to Americans to part with THEIR firearms and send them to England during World War II so they could get guns back in the hands of the “common folk” quickly. (Also their gun industry had been “going to seed” un-nurtured. So now when they needed guns and needed them quickly, they could not count on themselves.)

Politicians felt threatened and they wanted protection for themselves.

Protection not just from their military and law enforcement, but protection for themselves from their subjects too.

You see the flip side of that same principle by all gun-grabbing progressive politicians today.

You see them armed to the proverbial teeth. Armed guards. Military aviation accompaniments. Automobile motorcades that would make a police state blush.

Why?

Because it’s about elitism and not the law abiding citizens in their mind.

And unfortunately stooges prop up these liberal progressive agendas.

(The “progression” that they want to “progress” to incidentally . . . . is many times a “progression” to socialism)

 

[Cathoholic]

jcrichton:

A tyrannical agency does not respect guns or constitutional rights.

.

If you really believe that reasoning is a valid excuse to ignore the Second Amendment, then lobby for Governments (worldwide) to disarm themselves instead of free, law-abiding citizens.