I asked my Pastor to post a blog on Guns and the Bible..
Last week I was asked to write a blog concerning what the Bible has to say about gun control. With the recent slaughter of children at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, gun control legislation is a hot topic in local, state, and federal politics. The argument is that gun crime is increasing, and if the killer did not have access to semi-automatic weapons he would not have been able to kill all those children. Therefore it is the goal of some people to ban as many firearms as possible, if not altogether.
But would this help solve the problem? Studies have shown that the previous “assault-weapons” ban, in place from 1994 to 2004, did virtually nothing to stop crime, murder, or mayhem, despite promises by its supporters. One 2004 study by the National Research Council stated that the ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence."
Even the Justice Department explained that it had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” When the ban expired, anti-Second Amendment extremists claimed murder and mayhem would be sure to follow. Of course, that never happened.
From the FBI web site (FBI.gov), statistics show that in 1992 the violent crime rate was 757 per 100, 000 people. In 2011 it was 386 per 100, 000 revealing a big decline in violent crime. The murder rate in 1992 was 9.3 per 100, 000 and in 2011 it was 4.7, again this is a decline. The FBI statistics state that most of the robberies and violent crimes in the US are in inner cities, cities where strict gun bans already exist. The underlying problems for violence in these cities are broken families, poverty, gangs and drugs. But many politicians do not want to deal with these issues.
It is also asserted that there is very little violent crime in countries that have extremely strict gun laws. This is not necessarily true. In 2011, in England and Wales there were 1, 361 violent crimes per 100, 000! That’s 3 ½ times that of the US. Guns are a very convenient weapon for someone bent on killing. But suicide bombers demonstrate that there are other weapons one can use. The man who bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma city years ago used fertilizer! If criminals or psychotic people want to harm or kill someone they will find a way with or without a gun.
OK—you’re asking, “What about the Bible, Chuck?” The Bible doesn’t specifically deal with the issue of gun control. But there are principles we can learn from and apply. In Genesis 4 the Bible records the first murder. Cain killed his brother Able (Gen. 4:8). There were no guns at that time. Cain may have used a knife or a rock or even his bare hands. God’s response was not to ban rocks, knives or hands; He banished Cain. Later during the time of Noah (Gen. 9:6) God instituted the penalty of death for murderers. Rejecting God’s commandment, today’s wisdom locks murders in jail for a number years and then let’s them out!
Exodus 22:2-3 declares, “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.” In other words if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night you have the right to defend yourself even if it results in the thief’s death by rock, knife or gun. During the day you can punch his lights out but don’t kill him. Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that disarms it’s citizens, “They chose new gods, Then there was war in the gates; Not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel” God is not against self-defense and the second amendment to the US Constitution gives us the right to bear arms for defense against our enemies—foreign or domestic. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Amin and Chairman Mao all disarmed their citizens.
King David wrote, “God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1).” So we trust God to watch over us and protect us. But this does not contradict David’s praise where he exclaimed “Blessed be the Lord my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1).” At one time Jesus told his followers to arm themselves saying, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one (Luke 22:36).” Earlier when Christ sent out his followers they were to expect God to sovereignly meet their needs. But here they were to use normal means for their own support and protection. By the way, the sword was the best weapon a soldier could have in those days; the equivalent of an “assault-rifle.”
The problem is not rocks, knives or guns, it’s the human heart. Jesus declared, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies (Matthew 15:19).” Nowhere in Scripture does God make any commandment about any weapon used in crime or self-defense. God is concerned about our sinful hearts. People are responsible for what they do; the problem is not one’s weapon of choice. Most gun owners in the U.S. are law abiding and have never hurt anyone. They use their guns for hunting, sport and yes, if necessary self-defense. Banning guns takes them away from law abiding citizens, not criminals. And it doesn’t solve the problem of sinful hearts. Last year more people were killed with a hammer than with a rifle—think about it.
Originally posted by checkbaiterFirst....
I asked my Pastor to post a blog on Guns and the Bible..
Last week I was asked to write a blog concerning what the Bible has to say about gun control. With the recent slaughter of children at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, gun control legislation is a hot topic in local, state, and federal politics. The argument is that gun cr ...[text shortened]... nful hearts. Last year more people were killed with a hammer than with a rifle—think about it.
"Studies have shown that the previous “assault-weapons” ban, in place from 1994 to 2004, did virtually nothing to stop crime, murder, or mayhem, despite promises by its supporters. One 2004 study by the National Research Council stated that the ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence."😉
*****************************************************************
"From the FBI web site (FBI.gov), statistics show that in 1992 the violent crime rate was 757 per 100, 000 people. In 2011 it was 386 per 100, 000 revealing a big decline in violent crime. The murder rate in 1992 was 9.3 per 100, 000 and in 2011 it was 4.7, again this is a decline. The FBI statistics state that most of the robberies and violent crimes in the US are in inner cities, cities where strict gun bans already exist. The underlying problems for violence in these cities are broken families, poverty, gangs and drugs. But many politicians do not want to deal with these issues."
Ok I'm confused here. If I'm reading this right, the first paragraph says it does NOT help but then the second paragraph says it DOES?
Again if I'm understanding this correctly and it does make a differance, the what the heck? If it does help then by all means make the laws as tuff as possible and I'd bet it get's even lower.
Originally posted by checkbaiterSecond......
I asked my Pastor to post a blog on Guns and the Bible..
Last week I was asked to write a blog concerning what the Bible has to say about gun control. With the recent slaughter of children at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, gun control legislation is a hot topic in local, state, and federal politics. The argument is that gun cr ...[text shortened]... nful hearts. Last year more people were killed with a hammer than with a rifle—think about it.
((IF)) it was just a case of self defence, yes the Bible is correct but even then with stipulations. If you take a life you'd better be ready to answer to god for it.....
But the ((IF)) is the problem. Guns are not used just for self defence are they? Were those innocent children sitting in their school rooms killed because of "self defence"?
Were those people who are just like you and me in that movie theater killed because of "self defence"?
No, of course not. So this is the problem with the huge amount of assault weapons that have flooded this country.
None of the mass killing weapons are needed by anyone in the public here in this country and this is the weapon that either needs to be completely done away with or have such strict control over that very few would have them.
Make any sense to you and especially RJH at all?
Originally posted by checkbaiter"Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Amin and Chairman Mao all disarmed their citizens."
I asked my Pastor to post a blog on Guns and the Bible..
Last week I was asked to write a blog concerning what the Bible has to say about gun control. With the recent slaughter of children at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, gun control legislation is a hot topic in local, state, and federal politics. The argument is that gun cr ...[text shortened]... nful hearts. Last year more people were killed with a hammer than with a rifle—think about it.
this is a retarded argument. all the european countries and canada also disarmed their citizens and bloody regimes did not follow.
get it through your skull: the above asholes didn't succeed in establishing bloody regimes because they removed guns from untrained civilians. they succeeded because they had VERY trained military or paramilitary forces. they had police forces that instilled terror in the hearts of their citizens. they took advantage of some socio-political situation and came to power with the support of a big majority of their people.
they disarmed the citizens to maintain order and avoid problems, not because they were afraid some civilian will lead a powerful rebellion and depose the tyrants.
hitler was deposed by the military might of the allies. the soviet regime collapsed because gorbachev lighten it up, and a host of other reasons, none of each involved mighty citizens with guns. the revolution in my country involved citizens finally fed up with the communists protesting in the streets, and most of the romanian army deciding not to shoot mostly unarmed civilians.
so no, guns in the arms of civilians do jack when it comes to preventing tyranny.
Originally posted by galveston75Guns are inanimate objects and have no ability to murder anyone. History has shown that banning inanimate objects has never caused a decrease in murder. In fact, it has always resulted in an increase of murder and violence that has harmed law abiding citizens. So that idea has been proven to be stupid. It is just as stupid as the theory of evolution. You do believe the theory of evolution is stupid, don't you?
Second......
((IF)) it was just a case of self defence, yes the Bible is correct but even then with stipulations. If you take a life you'd better be ready to answer to god for it.....
But the ((IF)) is the problem. Guns are not used just for self defence are they? Were those innocent children sitting in their school rooms killed because of "self de ...[text shortened]... trol over that very few would have them.
Make any sense to you and especially RJH at all?
Originally posted by RJHindsLol. What a strange world your mind exist in.
Guns are inanimate objects and have no ability to murder anyone. History has shown that banning inanimate objects has never caused a decrease in murder. In fact, it has always resulted in an increase of murder and violence that has harmed law abiding citizens. So that idea has been proven to be stupid. It is just as stupid as the theory of evolution. You do believe the theory of evolution is stupid, don't you?
Originally posted by checkbaiterSo where is this well regulated militia? If it exist, has it done it's job to protect the public so the public does not feel it has to have these weapons of mass killing ability that anyione can get no matter the state of their mental health?
AMENDMENT II
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.
This is Law and why people should have weapons. Libs would love nothing better than to shred our Constitution.
As long as these guns of mass killing abilty exist within the publics possesion, there is no way either the government or the NRA can stop anyone who is either mentally sick or just plain flipped out and mad at someone, from getting their hands on them.
Again..this is the subject of concern. Let the public have a selection of the guns they feel they must have such as for hunting or for home protection. I personally don't support guns at all but it is a compromise that would work to make the gun people happy and to get these other guns out of the picture.
But for no reason does anyone in the public need these other weapons. These same weapons are the problem of giving no one a chance of survival if one is pointed at them.
Originally posted by checkbaiterAgain mans rules, not God's.
AMENDMENT II
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.
This is Law and why people should have weapons. Libs would love nothing better than to shred our Constitution.
Originally posted by checkbaiterin the 18th century, when a well regulated militia could actually do more than die in a face-off between army and civilians, when the standing army was not much better prepared than a civilian.
AMENDMENT II
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.
This is Law and why people should have weapons. Libs would love nothing better than to shred our Constitution.
i wonder how long will a redneck (who shoots at deer in his spare time with one hand while holding his beer with the other) last when confronted with a trained marine sharpshooter. or a green beret. or a fukin aircraft carrier .
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think your correct on this that civilians will get hammered if something ever went down like an armed insurrection or what have you. This does not change the original intent of the the 2nd amendment. I think Drones and armored vehicles and trained military most rednecks will get hammered no doubt. Does this nullify the right for civilians to have guns lawfully? I say lawfully? Guns have multiple uses. As a teenager I used to target shoot at a range and it was just fun. 50' with a .22 rifle. I did not want to go kill people afterwards LOL I was taught a healthy respect for guns and that they can kill you.
in the 18th century, when a well regulated militia could actually do more than die in a face-off between army and civilians, when the standing army was not much better prepared than a civilian.
i wonder how long will a redneck (who shoots at deer in his spare time with one hand while holding his beer with the other) last when confronted with a trained marine sharpshooter. or a green beret. or a fukin aircraft carrier .
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Yes I'm sure you are very respondsable Manny. Ones like you are not the problem but obviously many are because of mental issues or just ones who have had it wilth life for whatever reason and want to end it all and take down as many with them as they can.
I think your correct on this that civilians will get hammered if something ever went down like an armed insurrection or what have you. This does not change the original intent of the the 2nd amendment. I think Drones and armored vehicles and trained military most rednecks will get hammered no doubt. Does this nullify the right for civilians to have guns law ...[text shortened]... le afterwards LOL I was taught a healthy respect for guns and that they can kill you.
Manny
Also ones get paranoid with life for reasons and arm themselves to the teeth and then we have them go off.
So how can we stop those people who on the outside they look normal?
Or the theif tha tbreaks into a home or business and steals those high powered weapons or buy them outside the law?
Again if those type weapons would be removed from the public, these mass killings would have to be become less.
Originally posted by sumydid"Well regulated" by whom? The wording of the 2nd Amendment could be said to suggest that these militia should be well regulated by each State in the U.S., "being necessary to [their] security" [in the face of federal overreach, perhaps? ..."a free State"... "free" from whom?]
All over the country. Back when this was written, the militia basically consisted of anyone in town with a gun. Nothing new today, except we just have a lot more towns and people.
cf: "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."