Me too, but look at it this way. I’m a trained martial artist, I own a number of scary weapons, including swords. If someone broke in I wouldn’t use one though, I’d defend my home with a boken, or nunchuks, something that would work without being lethal. This is how self defense is taught in the Bible BTW.Would we not equate owing a gun with “taking up our swords” to defend? I mean, when it comes to defending the life of my family, I will not “turn the other cheek” and let an intruder do what he wishes to my family. i will defend the lives of my family.
Do you know how it works in other countries? Same as that.Okay.
I am curious as to how you propose to take guns away from criminals. Remember they already ignore the law so a legal course of action is not an option.
Man, lucky you…you have Martial Arts under your belt, no pun intended, however I don’t so the thought of someone coming in and threating my family has given me motivation to get a CHL. Although it would be really cool to just use some kung fu on the intruder and leave him with something to remember me by.Me too, but look at it this way. I’m a trained martial artist, I own a number of scary weapons, including swords. If someone broke in I wouldn’t use one though, I’d defend my home with a boken, or nunchuks, something that would work without being lethal.
It means the whole body of the people. Here is a good collection of the thoughts of our founders on the matter: eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.htmlI guess the concesus is that we need more guns as the only way to stop shootings.
Anybody want to explain their interpretation of the phrase in the 2nd Ammendment: “well regulated militia?”
Precisely. So given enough guns out there, perpetrators with their propensity to kill will seek weapons of MORE destruction. Isn’t the whole idea of assault rifles to counter lesser inflicting weapons?Perpetuator could use a bomb or another device which could kill as many if not more than they would with a gun
Our founding principles allowed us to amend the Constitution, including replacement of obsolete wording. Words in the English language change meanings all the time. All it takes to amend the Constitution is ratification by 3/4 of the states, without any necessary action by Congress or President. Just saying.There are those who would overturn our founding principles. Don’t join that crowd.
Fully automatic rifles are bannedPrecisely. So given enough guns out there, perpetrators with their propensity to kill will seek weapons of MORE destruction. Isn’t the whole idea of assault rifles to counter lesser inflicting weapons?
This discussion has gone further than laws or bans. We can argue till the cows come home about whether this law would work or that law won’t work; won’t solve the moral issues involved.Fully automatic rifles are banned
I am sorry that you were treated that way, it was wrong and should not have happened. I fully support our military servicemen and women. Its the politicians I don’t trust.The 2nd Ammendment is about a well regulated militia. That is the national guard.
I enlisted in the army and went to Nam. Nevertheless I almost reenlisted to make it a career…When I returned to Ft Dix our welcome home speech told us not to wear uniforms off base because it was not safe for us. When I arrived at O’Hare Airport in Chicago at 11 PM. Soldiers getting off the plane were shoved (including me) and others were spit on. Rejection for jobs and insults were quite commmon. A couple of times secretaries told me not to admit to being a vet or I would not get hired. Several times I received 3AM phone calls asking me what it feels to to “kill a baby.” I eventually moved and told nobody that I am a vet (and still proud of it).
I am not reading any such direct comments here. But I am still catching some of the same anti servicemen comments here. And today’s military does not scare me.
No one is talking about the role of the nation on the world stage. We are talking about individual rights and liberty. If you want to have a thread on the ways in which nation-states have acted stupidly or against the moral teachings of the Church, go for it. There are many examples.So maybe the question is where exactly do the moral principles come into play and have we not as nation defied them in order to become the superiors of others?
Richard Henry Lee wrote in a letter to the Republican from the Federal Farmer XVIII 1788, MayThe Second Ammendment in its entirety
“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.”
Called the father of the Constitution, James Madison spoke of in 1784A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves
He compared that toothe advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation
I Annuals of Congress 434 June 8, 1789 he saidthe military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms
Called father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason saidThe right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country
There is zero evidence from federalist papers, founding fathers, supreme court decisions or American legal commentators from the earliest days of the founding of America that say the 2nd amendment was only for a state or goverment ran militiaI ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them
cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htmThe Second Ammendment in its entirety
“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.”
Called the father of the Constitution, James Madison spoke of in 1784A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves
He compared that toothe advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation
I Annuals of Congress 434 June 8, 1789 he saidthe military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms
Called father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason saidThe right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country
There is zero evidence from federalist papers, founding fathers, supreme court decisions or American legal commentators from the earliest days of the founding of America that say the 2nd amendment was only for a state or goverment ran militiaI ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them
You are assuming that guns that are now in the hands of criminals belonged to a law-abiding citizen and managed to find their way to the hands of criminals. What about guns that were purchased in the black market?lets say you are a bubonic plague farmer. but you are a bit lax about your fences. so a thief breaks into your fields and steals your bubonic plague. after killing a few people with the plague he sells it to someone else who also uses it on others.
the responsibility ultimately rests on the original farmer. if he had mended his fences those people could not have died that way.
if you own a gun you could be made responsible for whoever uses it with or without your permission. a heavy penalty, like many years in prison, on gun owners for crime committed with their guns would almost guarantee that the guns are made safe and kept out of reach of anyone.
maybe when a registered owner of a gun dies their weapons should be returned to the state instead of being willed to family or friends.
In other countries, you mean like in Europe or Canada?Do you know how it works in other countries? Same as that.
And the moral implications?The Second Ammendment in its entirety
“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.”
?And the moral implications?
some of those were stolen, some were smuggled in; either way those weapons would eventually be mopped up by the police and customs, that is their job. your job as a gun owner is onerous, keep your gun secure, so that it cannot enter the market. there should be a penalty for any who are weak in security of their weapons. many crimes are committed with stolen guns, much could be done to prevent this by enforcing severe penalties on owners whose gun security measures are poor or non-existant.You are assuming that guns that are now in the hands of criminals belonged to a law-abiding citizen and managed to find their way to the hands of criminals. What about guns that were purchased in the black market?
Book/chapter/verse, please?Me too, but look at it this way. I’m a trained martial artist, I own a number of scary weapons, including swords. If someone broke in I wouldn’t use one though, I’d defend my home with a boken, or nunchuks, something that would work without being lethal. This is how self defense is taught in the Bible BTW.