RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 6:16:54 PM)

quote:

Guns are designed to do one thing only - to kill and/or maim.


ajlewis,

Over the last 30 years I have fired most likely 20,000 rounds and nothing was killed or maimed. So am I just a bad shot or am I using a firearm for another purpose?

I do not mind discussing firearms with you or anyone else but you cannot come in with extremely wrong statements (or accustaions of not being a christian) and expect to be taken serious in any manner. And I will just quote the one of your statements based in ignorance. That is not a slam, you are just ignorant of the subject.



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 6:19:31 PM)

Now back to the topic

John McCain today issued the following statement on District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief to the Court calling for a ruling in keeping with the clear intent of our Founding Fathers, which ensures the Second Amendment rights of the residents of District of Columbia are reaffirmed."



SteveSund -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 6:45:49 PM)

With the possible exception of Romney, McCain has the worst gun record of any of the Republican candidates. I am glad he is changing his tune, but I would have preferred any of the others over him.



mapachito13 -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 6:57:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

Those that rely on guns more than God to protect them from evil should come under the "O ye of little faith clause in the Good Book".

I'll admit it's arrogant when you show me where in the Bible it says Christians need to be armed! Plenty of quotes from politicians but none from the Bible.


mapachito13,

Do you want the other posters here to start going through your life and all you do or use that is not mentioned in the Bible? Why do you not go to doctors and dentists and such? Obviously you do not since you have too much faith for the need.

Now here is the deal, you either change your tune or move on. You make one more post leaning to an accusation that someone here is "less of a Christian" than you becasue they choose to own firearms and I will ask you to be banned from the conversation.


Computers (and many other things I use) aren't covered in the Bible but weapons and violence are. I am just asking a question. I am sorry it put you on the defensive but I still like some Bible quotes about why individual Christians (not soldiers or police only) need a weapon to protect themselves.

If you are a Christian and own a gun I am not inferring any moral superiority because we are all the same in God's eyes and I don't think Jesus died for all of us but me or you.



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 7:26:58 PM)

quote:

Computers (and many other things I use) aren't covered in the Bible


Computers are only good for porn and I just do not see why a Christian would have one and porn is covered in the Bible

quote:

I am sorry it put you on the defensive but I still like some Bible quotes about why individual Christians (not soldiers or police only) need a weapon to protect themselves.


Since you are so wrapped up in having to have an actual word for word passage in the Bible that says it is ok for Christians to own weapons or not. Have you ever stopped to think that Christians owning weapons is a "non-issue" as far as God is concerned and is therefore not mentioned one way or the other word for word?

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,"

How was he smitten?

"And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff."

Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required. Oh my gosh, I bet they had them at home!

"And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day"?

God was very clear on the Sabbath was he not? See I can pull out a scripture all day for everyone that you do.

Now if you as a Christian do not want to own a firearm or any other weapon, then by all means follow that. But in wagging your finger and attempting to tell others who chose to do so how wrong they are shows a bit of immaturity to me on your part.

Now one more time I am suggesting nicely that you back off.



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 7:28:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund

With the possible exception of Romney, McCain has the worst gun record of any of the Republican candidates. I am glad he is changing his tune, but I would have preferred any of the others over him.


He is just another politician who will go mostly where the wind blows.



Starbucks880 -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 8:14:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund

With the possible exception of Romney, McCain has the worst gun record of any of the Republican candidates. I am glad he is changing his tune, but I would have preferred any of the others over him.

He's only changing his tune because he has an election to try to win. He has to swing all the conservatives to his side and gain their favour, since not all like him. I guarantee you if the Republican base that he has to impress suddenly became pro-gun control and wanted to ban all guns, he would change his tune again. He is a poltician that will say whatever he thinks the voters want to hear to get their support.



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 8:44:59 PM)

U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban

Several justices indicate they believe the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution protects individual rights.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.

But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," not to give gun rights to individuals.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.

Link

So a question. If the militia is the government, government run, who do you go to for arms for defense when the bad guy is the government? Seems the founders understood that to be rather stupid.



rnershigh -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 8:51:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

Those that rely on guns more than God to protect them from evil should come under the "O ye of little faith clause in the Good Book".

I'll admit it's arrogant when you show me where in the Bible it says Christians need to be armed! Plenty of quotes from politicians but none from the Bible.


mapachito13,

Do you want the other posters here to start going through your life and all you do or use that is not mentioned in the Bible? Why do you not go to doctors and dentists and such? Obviously you do not since you have too much faith for the need.

Now here is the deal, you either change your tune or move on. You make one more post leaning to an accusation that someone here is "less of a Christian" than you becasue they choose to own firearms and I will ask you to be banned from the conversation.


Computers (and many other things I use) aren't covered in the Bible but weapons and violence are. I am just asking a question. I am sorry it put you on the defensive but I still like some Bible quotes about why individual Christians (not soldiers or police only) need a weapon to protect themselves.

If you are a Christian and own a gun I am not inferring any moral superiority because we are all the same in God's eyes and I don't think Jesus died for all of us but me or you.


mapachito,

With the verse you are referring to (when you said O ye of little faith clause in the Good Book), you're implying those who have to rely on a gun for defense against a criminal or intruder rather than God (for instance, a robber breaks into your home. will you sit there and close your eyes and pray for God to help you, or will you protect your home, your self and your family with a gun or whatever weapon is handy near-by?) has little faith, i.e., not as good a Christian as someone who doesn't.

So I can see why TomTurn was a bit offended. Instead of criticizing another for the choice to own one (or several), just know that some people view this subject differently than your own. There are some Christians (myself included) that see nothing wrong with owning a gun.

Anyways, from the posts I've read you seem to be contradicting yourself. You cite that "little faith" verse, then you agree that your words were arrogant when you questioned how a Christian could own a gun so when TomTurn mentions your attitude, you then respond back saying you aren't trying to come across as morally superior when all that you've written thus far implies otherwise. And if that's not enough, you put it back on TomTurn saying you're sorry it put him on the defensive, yet not really apologizing for your words at all.



rnershigh -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 8:57:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban

Several justices indicate they believe the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution protects individual rights.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.

But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," not to give gun rights to individuals.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.

Link

So a question. If the militia is the government, government run, who do you go to for arms for defense when the bad guy is the government? Seems the founders understood that to be rather stupid.


That's a good question Tom. I'm amazed there are even a few Supreme Court justices that seem to be siding with the DC government! The founding fathers are so apparent where they stand on the 2nd amendment rights. The militia was and is the people, no question about that. I highly doubt the American people would stand for this right for individuals to bear and keep arms to be infringed upon by the government. Any kind of national ban or regulation would result in an uproar like you've never seen. The fact that the citizens of DC allowed the DC government to ban handguns for over 30 years is still a bit surprising to me, although I shouldn't be surprised with voter apathy and indifference and lack of education about the constitution and American history.[8D]



Closie -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 9:04:44 PM)

Should guns be available for purchase by anyone, no questions asked? Like right next to the paper towel or ketchup at Kroger?



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 9:06:43 PM)

Who do you turn to when the tyrant is the police?

Video



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 9:08:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Closie

Should guns be available for purchase by anyone, no questions asked? Like right next to the paper towel or ketchup at Kroger?


No and show me anyone who says otherwise.



rnershigh -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 9:19:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Closie

Should guns be available for purchase by anyone, no questions asked? Like right next to the paper towel or ketchup at Kroger?


No and show me anyone who says otherwise.


Took the words out of my mouth Tom.[:D]



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 9:21:45 PM)

But although the implications of striking down the D.C. gun ban are limited, a decision upholding an unqualified individual right in Heller would still be a significant victory for individual rights and constitutionalism. To shrink from enforcing a clear mandate of the Constitution -- as, sadly, the Supreme Court has often done in the past -- would create a new precedent that would be far more dangerous to liberty than any weapon in the hands of a citizen.

Source



Closie -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 10:17:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Closie

Should guns be available for purchase by anyone, no questions asked? Like right next to the paper towel or ketchup at Kroger?


No and show me anyone who says otherwise.


I didn't mean to imply that it said that somewhere. I asked a question.
I wonder what restrictions or questions would not be a violation of the 2nd amendment.



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/18/2008 10:52:24 PM)

quote:

I wonder what restrictions or questions would not be a violation of the 2nd amendment.


Is late for me and I need to get to bed but four off the top of my head of people not allowed to own firearms;

Non-citizens

Career criminals (i think some felons who have done their time should be allowed)

In this day and age am going to have to say minors not allowed to buy but can "own"

History of a mental illness that should preclude firearm ownership



SteveSund -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 7:31:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rnershigh
The militia was and is the people, no question about that.


I don't really have the time to dig around fo it, but there is a section of US code that defines the militia and essentially says it is the 'people.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Closie
I didn't mean to imply that it said that somewhere. I asked a question.
I wonder what restrictions or questions would not be a violation of the 2nd amendment.


Id like to see the same 'strict scrutiny' standard that is applied to some Constitutional issues applied to the 2nd Amendment. A gun law should satisfy all three prongs to pass the standard:

1. Compelling governmental interest.
2. Narrowly tailored to achieve the goal.
3. Least restrictive means.

Most gun laws would probably fail the test. While the gov't has a compelling interest in protecting the citizens, a law must have evidence that it will do what it says it will do. Most gun control measures lack conclusive evidence that they reduce crimes and protect people.



Closie -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 8:13:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund

Id like to see the same 'strict scrutiny' standard that is applied to some Constitutional issues applied to the 2nd Amendment. A gun law should satisfy all three prongs to pass the standard:

1. Compelling governmental interest.
2. Narrowly tailored to achieve the goal.
3. Least restrictive means.




I don't understand. Can you clarify what you mean by those goals as it relates to the 2nd Amendment?



ajlewis -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 8:16:50 AM)

quote:

I do not mind discussing firearms with you or anyone else but you cannot come in with extremely wrong statements (or accustaions of not being a christian) (???) and expect to be taken serious in any manner. And I will just quote the one of your statements based in ignorance. That is not a slam, you are just ignorant of the subject.

whatever



mapachito13 -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 8:23:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

Computers (and many other things I use) aren't covered in the Bible


Computers are only good for porn and I just do not see why a Christian would have one and porn is covered in the Bible


But you can't point a computer at someone and kill or maim them.

quote:

I am sorry it put you on the defensive but I still like some Bible quotes about why individual Christians (not soldiers or police only) need a weapon to protect themselves.


quote:

Since you are so wrapped up in having to have an actual word for word passage in the Bible that says it is ok for Christians to own weapons or not. Have you ever stopped to think that Christians owning weapons is a "non-issue" as far as God is concerned and is therefore not mentioned one way or the other word for word?

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,"


All this means is that the eye for an eye mentality from the OT (that Jesus overturned in the NT) could not be used for the theif's family to take revenge for his or her death. Read it in context please.

quote:

"And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff."

Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required. Oh my gosh, I bet they had them at home!


Did you notice that these men were in an army? That's covered under Romans 13 which gives the GOVERNMENT the authority.

quote:

"And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day"?

God was very clear on the Sabbath was he not? See I can pull out a scripture all day for everyone that you do.


And this means.........?

quote:

Now if you as a Christian do not want to own a firearm or any other weapon, then by all means follow that. But in wagging your finger and attempting to tell others who chose to do so how wrong they are shows a bit of immaturity to me on your part.

Now one more time I am suggesting nicely that you back off.


Or what? You'll shoot me? I grew up in one of the roughest neighborhoods outside ELA. Most young men had guns and they were gang members. I learned not to fear that evil (though I walked many times in the valley of the shadow of death) but that was because of my faith in God not because I was packing too. But all I saw from that plethora of guns was death, death and more death.

I guess you are not a big proponent for the First Amendment just the second.

BTW, you are wagging your finger at me too! Implying that I am somehow un-American if I don't support unrestricted gun rights. So I guess we're both at fault. I wouldn't bring this issue up in a secular forum but I thought this was a Christian one. So how the Bible relates to this issue should be a fair topic.

BTW2, if guns are so good for a civilized society why are EVERY law enforcement agency in the US (city, state and federal) for gun control and against Joe Blow's unrestricted access to guns?

Oops, I guess I didn't back off.



TomTurn -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 8:28:22 AM)

quote:

Or what? You'll shoot me?


Thank you for proving my point on your arguments



mapachito13 -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 9:35:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rnershigh

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

Those that rely on guns more than God to protect them from evil should come under the "O ye of little faith clause in the Good Book".

I'll admit it's arrogant when you show me where in the Bible it says Christians need to be armed! Plenty of quotes from politicians but none from the Bible.


mapachito13,

Do you want the other posters here to start going through your life and all you do or use that is not mentioned in the Bible? Why do you not go to doctors and dentists and such? Obviously you do not since you have too much faith for the need.

Now here is the deal, you either change your tune or move on. You make one more post leaning to an accusation that someone here is "less of a Christian" than you becasue they choose to own firearms and I will ask you to be banned from the conversation.


Computers (and many other things I use) aren't covered in the Bible but weapons and violence are. I am just asking a question. I am sorry it put you on the defensive but I still like some Bible quotes about why individual Christians (not soldiers or police only) need a weapon to protect themselves.

If you are a Christian and own a gun I am not inferring any moral superiority because we are all the same in God's eyes and I don't think Jesus died for all of us but me or you.


mapachito,

With the verse you are referring to (when you said O ye of little faith clause in the Good Book), you're implying those who have to rely on a gun for defense against a criminal or intruder rather than God (for instance, a robber breaks into your home. will you sit there and close your eyes and pray for God to help you, or will you protect your home, your self and your family with a gun or whatever weapon is handy near-by?) has little faith, i.e., not as good a Christian as someone who doesn't.

So I can see why TomTurn was a bit offended. Instead of criticizing another for the choice to own one (or several), just know that some people view this subject differently than your own. There are some Christians (myself included) that see nothing wrong with owning a gun.

Anyways, from the posts I've read you seem to be contradicting yourself. You cite that "little faith" verse, then you agree that your words were arrogant when you questioned how a Christian could own a gun so when TomTurn mentions your attitude, you then respond back saying you aren't trying to come across as morally superior when all that you've written thus far implies otherwise. And if that's not enough, you put it back on TomTurn saying you're sorry it put him on the defensive, yet not really apologizing for your words at all.


OK. Point taken. I withdraw the "O ye of little faith" statement. And I apologize to those that I made feel they were less Christian for their gun ownership. I am a sinner and God will judge me for many bad choices in my life. But I am still just asking questions for a Biblical basis for having a weapon in the house for individual protection. I am trying to debate this from this Christian's standpoint in a Christian forum. Differences in opinion are still covered under the First Amendment aren't they?



its_GO_time -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 9:42:18 AM)

Luke 22...

35 He also said to them, "When I sent you out without money-bag, traveling bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Not a thing," they said.

36 Then He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn't have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. 37 For I tell you, what is written must be fulfilled in Me: And He was counted among the outlaws. Yes, what is written about Me is coming to its fulfillment."



mapachito13 -> RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court (3/19/2008 9:45:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

Who do you turn to when the tyrant is the police?

Video


Are all police like this? And there are channels to address this in the courts. There have been many LAPD officers who have had their sheilds confiscated due to abuse under the color of authority. Police officers are human and there are bad ones as well as good ones but I will not let one or a group of bad apples spoil the whole bunch.

And what do you want to do if the police are too oppressive? Have the people use their personal firearms to help overthrow the tyrants? Revolutionary War II?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI