Guns????

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i am talking perfect sense, the arrangement of God is one thing, the way a ruler
acts under that arrangement quite another, the Christian is therefore counselled to
respect the arrangement. Johnny I don't mean to be rude, but in order for you to
make a proper evaluation of the passage, its helps if you understood why it was written
initially.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You remind me of the person who built his house on the sand. He looked up and saw no clouds, just a bright sunny day, thinking why not build on the sand?
There are many storms coming my friend....🙂

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
It was written by a nut who heard voices from the sky.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
On one hand you said, "I am not ensnared by fear, other than fear for those who don't trust God", yet your comments show otherwise on the other.

Is your fear of "tyranny" and "slavery" really so great that you're willing to accept the deaths of school children as "collateral damage"?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We Christians believe the souls of the children are being cared for by Christ and/or His angels. We feel sorry for the parents and those that loved them. But they must learn to deal with death and get on with righteous work for the Lord and with enduring to the end.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by googlefudge
And?


Just because a famous person says something that doesn't make it true.

A quote war is not how to decide if something is actually true/right.


If you are right (you are not) then you should be able to produce the reasoned arguments and
evidence that shows it.

Nobody should give a damn that a famous bloke from another time apparently* ...[text shortened]...


*According to this 'out of context' quote relating to a different era and circumstance.

Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
[Editor: You can argue about the numbers, but the point here is that disarmed citizens are vulnerable, and that there are many historical examples of disarmed citizens being killed and oppressed by their own government. The excuse given by authorities that they need to take guns away from citizens in order to lower crime rates is not supported by facts. Even if a government does not turn on its own citizens after disarming them, people are less safe - because unarmed citizens are easy targets to criminals. Over and over again, it has been clearly shown that taking guns away from citizens does not lead to a decrease in crime but rather a dramatic increase.]
Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.
I guess the criminals did not turn their weapons in. Only the innocent law abiding citizens turned in weapons.
In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate.
The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, or deer hunting. It is about having the ability and the right to defend oneself and your family. It doesn’t matter if that threat is a burglar, or the Federal Government. A disarmed population is fair game for any president who may be aspiring to become a dictator. Having its citizens armed was the plain and simple intent of the founding fathers of our country.

http://warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 2 ...[text shortened]... ntry.

http://warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 2 ...[text shortened]... ntry.

http://warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so you honestly think that bubba the redneck can defend himself from the us army with a hunting rifle?

or that a french man or woman, should his/her government turn on the tyranny, cannot bash a soldier over the head and steal his gun, should he really want to fight his oppressors?


governments instituting oppressive regimes is a lengthy and compl ...[text shortened]... ression anywhere. american gun nuts are like people in the saharan desert stockpiling raincoats.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Once again:
On one hand you said, "I am not ensnared by fear, other than fear for those who don't trust God", yet your comments show otherwise on the other.

Is your fear of "tyranny" and "slavery" really so great that you're willing to accept the deaths of school children as "collateral damage"?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 2 ...[text shortened]... ntry.

http://warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

Originally posted by boonon
You keep using the term 'bubba the red neck' . If your intent is to insult my southern brothers you are actually doing the opposite. They are quite proud of their red neck roots.

When these red necks were recruited into WWII, they were found to be the only recruits that were competent at shooting a rifle. Why?? Because they all owned and fired rifles on th ...[text shortened]... any of my red neck brothers could give a hoot what your thoughts are on us, or our country.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]When these red necks were recruited into WWII, they were found to be the only recruits that were competent at shooting a rifle. Why??

the young russian, british and german soldiers seemed to pick it up pretty easy despite not having a bunch of red-necks to show them which end to point at the enemy.[/b]