C
Cathoholic
Guest
It doesn’t have to.
It has “duty” to defend ones self or others.
We have a right not to be murdered.
Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues
- Status
It has “duty” to defend ones self or others.
We have a right not to be murdered.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
What can I say to this??
Please go back and re-read the posts Motherwit. (There is a reason WHY nobody here is backing your statement up. Because it is irrelevant to the discussion.)
We were discussing Governments arming themselves. Just like the Government of the Vatican arms themselves. ALL of them do.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Leaf. You are equivocating and I just don’t have the time to take you through it again.
I am going to let you think that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That does imply the right to own a gun.LeafByNiggle:
It doesn’t have to.
It has “duty” to defend ones self or others.
We have a right not to be murdered.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
That’s correct. The implication is self-defense.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Just think. In four days you can stop worrying about it.
That’s all it implies. The right to act to defend yourself with whatever you have on hand. It does not imply the right to have any specific weapon on hand.
S
silentwitness
Guest
Yes this is correct. I understand the thinking to limit guns but it does become an issue of government dictate verse citizens rights.
If you are not allowed to purchase more than one gun a month we are conditioned to think government has this right.
What then stops the government of ‘deciding’ you can only buy 1 gun every 3 months? One gun every year? One gun every 5 years? One gun per family? etc.
Like the Covid, Left wing authoritarianism precedes slowly by gradually corrupting principles on the basis of an emotional argument that has some standing initially but then gets expanded legally to the maximum for the real reason why the initial argument was made. This is untruth and after many decades of it, it is sickening.
We have seen this in many moral questions such as abortion. Unfortunately we also see this deception in our church from some sources.
An initial liberal and false universalist position not built on Christian principles but narrow minded emotionalism and authoritarian ‘inclusivity’ that then leads to widespread sin.
oops i am not allowed to say sin, that is judgmental and rigid . That tells you exactly where we are in our church.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Another mass shooting stopped that will never go down in the books as a “mass shooting” (and will be defined as “gun violence” in the “studies”
to attack this good dad and other law-abiding citizens
to take-away their gun rights further).
This from back in 2018 . . . .
Alabama McDonald's gunman killed by armed dad, who is injured in shootout World News
to attack this good dad and other law-abiding citizens
to take-away their gun rights further).
This from back in 2018 . . . .
Thank the Good Lord for protecting us with the Second Amendment.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
They are sold in all the big box stores, very popular. For big jobs, use your grill propane tank. Every guy wants one after they see it in action, good for weeds and ice - it’s a year round tool!
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Blast from the past on this issue.
Here back in 2018, is one of the Government of Communist China’s stooges, Swalwell threatening American citizens.
When the blowback got bad, he acted like he was just joking.
Democrat Eric Swalwell: If Gun Owners Defy ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, ‘The Government Has Nukes’ World News
Someone ought to thank him for illustrating the attitude of exactly WHY the Founding Fathers WANTED the country’s law-abiding citizens armed.
Here back in 2018, is one of the Government of Communist China’s stooges, Swalwell threatening American citizens.
When the blowback got bad, he acted like he was just joking.
To the readers here. Please beware of people like this!
Someone ought to thank him for illustrating the attitude of exactly WHY the Founding Fathers WANTED the country’s law-abiding citizens armed.
Last edited:
Thrn you have no problem with others determining that your rights are not really rights and use government to strip yours away.
That’s the track the anti-rights, pro-strong government folks are on. While it is generally coming from the left, it is fascistic in nature.
Which enumerated right is this?
There is a specific reason for a 3 or 5 foot space. My putting a garage makes firefighting more difficult and fire spreading from my property to yours more likely. That doesn’t mean you get to decide if I have a garage or use a garage. That doesn’t mean you can get the government to confiscate not only my garage but every other garage in the community.
Law abiding Americans have an inherent right to keep and bear arms. That right is protected specifically in the Bill of Rights. Like the garage, I probably can’t discharge it in a way that infringes on your property rights.
Yes, when Democrats were violating the inherent and constitutionally protected rights of American blacks. The primary function of the general government is to protect individual rights.
It is not the general government’s responsibility to confiscate protected individual rights.
The general government has specific and limited authority and powers enumerated in the Constitution.
But it’s primary function is to protect the rights of the individual. If we agree that a soon to be born human being is a human being, numerous protected and enumerated rights apply to that child: due process, presumption of innocence, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are violated when they are executed in the womb, or denied care if they survive the abortion.
Last edited:
The only thing we don’t know is which “government” he was speaking of.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That depends on what you call rights. I do not have a problem abiding by society’s rules that may restrict some of what I do. I do not call those things rights as much as “wants”. I might want to erect a 40-foot amateur radio tower in my backyard (I actually did that in high school), but if society tells me that it is not allowed, oh well…I won’t do it. And if society tells me that I cannot buy two long guns at once in my city, no matter how badly I might want to do that, I won’t.
As you see, the only way you can support gun ownership being a right it by referencing a founding document of a country smaller than Canada in land area, and with less population than either China or India, but somehow thinks the laws of its young nation apply to everyone in the world. This proves my point that support of gun rights is legalism for legalism’s sake. At least Cathoholic had the right idea, trying to tie this supposed right to scripture passages, but he could only get as far as swords.
They have a legal right that applies only in this one country. Legalism.
Then you do see how the larger central government can sometimes be a better force for the common good than the local government. (Sometimes, but not always.) Good for you.LeafByNiggle:
Yes, when Democrats were violating the inherent and constitutionally protected rights of American blacks.
We can start with what has already been enumerated and protected, as found in the Bill of Rights.
We can negotiate what the ninth amendment might cover.
The differences between an amateur radio tower and a firearm are numerous. A firearm is a protected right. A radio tower is not. A firearm is an inherent right as part of our right to self defense. A denial of the means of self defense denies the right. Authoritarians are counting on that.
Actually, this is false. The right to arms goes back centuries and is born from the right to self defense.
One must be careful, though, to entirely trust any government entity on its word on the matter. Nor has the Church (speaking broadly) proved trustworthy about rights. The Diet of Worms and Second Diet of Speyer are examples where government and Church worked together to deny religious free exercise.
The brilliance of the American constitution is found in the limits placed on government, the specific rights that were chosen to be protected, and how difficult it is to undermine them.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Only if you want to stick to the strictly legalistic interpretation of “rights”, which I already conceded it there for the 4% of people who live in the US.
Again, a strictly legalistic distinction. It only applies in the US.
Nope. The right of self defense says nothing about which weapons a person must be allowed to possess.
I have no interest in going backwards and giving up rights to government, if that’s what you mean. I’ll be happy to join you in expanding what we consider individual rights.
Sadly true. It means billions are being denied their inherent rights. Is that the path you want us to travel?
I don’t see your point as disproving my position of affirming inherent rights. Your point demonstrates the necessity and brilliance of the American constitution
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany if their right to self defense was not denied them when arms were confiscated. That’s but one example.
Last edited:
If and only if it acts within the constitutional limits of the enumerated powers and acts only to defend individual rights.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Repeating the word “inherent” does not make it so.
Godwin’s law affirmed again. It is but one example, as you say. Can you list ten more?
It is likely the holocaust was the result of much more than gun control.
- Status