Barack Obama today announced a sweeping set of directives that he intends will cut down on Americans’ access to guns, setting the stage for a constitutional battle with states where lawmakers already are openly defying the latest power grab by the White House.
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey summarized the resistance to more gun control, and the resistance.
“When you’ve got people like [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein talking about major bans and Biden telling us that all they need is an executive order, you know these folks are willing to go all the way. So, it’s good to see these folks in Missouri go all the way as well, all the way in support the 2nd Amendment without any ifs, ands, or butts. The feds have absolutely zero constitutional authority to make any laws over personal firearms. Period.”
The center noted, “The Second Amendment was not created to give...
I would just look it up. I don't have the definition memorized.
When gun grabbers talk about a "civilized" world not needing guns, they usually mean some utopian view in which 6,000 years of human history is somehow recently overturned. It's basically modernistic hubris. If you're saying we don't need guns because humanity has organized itself into functional groups, that's really a non-sequitor.
Yes, I, as a Christian, believe God ordains government. You're getting dangerously close to another straw man.
False - the normal state of affairs is clearly seen when restraint is removed. The world is not civilized, because the individual is not civil without restraint.
If civility were the norm, government would not be necessary. Progressives always seem to be befuddled when the laws they advocate based on their model of "normal" produce contrary results, and their solution is usually to enhance the bad policies and make the problem worse. It's like a pilot who flies into a cloud, can't see the ground, and continues to apply the wrong command inputs.
It's evil to force a man to be defenseless, whether you do it yourself or if you do it through your government. Casting a ballot in support of taking away another man's rights is just as evil is clubbing him over the head yourself. You're a perpetrator in either case, but doing it through government saves you the difficulty of feeling guilty since the man in the dark colored costume with the pointy hat does it for you.
For the record, a straw man argument is a made-up version of an opponent's argument that can easily be defeated. In your case, you refuted an argument for anarchism. Since I was not advocating anarchism, it was a straw man argument. To make an error of fact (I'm not conceding that I did) is not a straw man.
John UK wrote: Thanks Lurker for your reply, which helps a little. But I have no notion of this "executive order" you mention. Do not your politicians lead, and make the laws like they do in this country? Are you saying that the populace has a say in making laws? Or is it that the leaders are being illegal themselves in changing certain things?
Ah, now I see why this is confusing for you.
We have three branches of government.... legislative, executive and judicial. It's supposed to provide checks and balance of power. The legislative branch (the elected representatives of the people; state senators and district representatives) are the law makers elected to pass legislation for the benefit of their constituents (states or districts within states).
Obama, whose job it is to execute the laws enacted by the legislative branch, is attempting to bypass that branch and enact laws of his own making on the order of a king. This is what I was referring to as executive order. It's a power grab and he should be impeached, imo.
Salesman wrote: No, it is very much about what he wants to accomplish.
So it's OK for Obama to trample the constitution as long as he keeps his hands off your 50 round magazine. Got it.
Lurker wrote: But, again, the problem we are having is the erosion of rights which have not been willingly surrendered to the government. The people of this nation may well approve of some of Obama's proposals for the safety of children but confiscation of rights by executive order is tyranny.
Thanks Lurker for your reply, which helps a little. But I have no notion of this "executive order" you mention. Do not your politicians lead, and make the laws like they do in this country? Are you saying that the populace has a say in making laws? Or is it that the leaders are being illegal themselves in changing certain things?
John UK wrote: 1) Thank you bro for your help in this. I take it that the three things you mentioned are the "laws" of America?
2) Now what do these laws say about "arms"? For example, you walk into a gun store - what sort of weaponry can you purchase? Does "arms" have a wide interpretation?
1) Correct.
2) Sorry, but I can't give you an answer, John. I started at the beginning (Declaration of Independence (1776), the Constitution and Bill of Rights which followed) and your question is present day. In the beginning of this nation, all rights belonged to the people. Some of those rights were granted to the federal government because it was more efficient e.g.: national defense, national infrastructure development, etc.
A nuclear weapon is considered "arms" but obviously the average citizen has no need for such armament. Since the federal government has been granted the responsibility and authority of national defense, that is the place where nuclear weapons belong.
But, again, the problem we are having is the erosion of rights which have not been willingly surrendered to the government. The people of this nation may well approve of some of Obama's proposals for the safety of children but confiscation of rights by executive order is tyranny.
Kyle wrote: Salesman, your rebuttal leads me to believe that you don't know what a straw man argument is. Get a dictionary. The world is not civilized. If post-Katrina New Orleans or post-earthquake Haiti is not proof of that, then you're blind.
civilized adjective ( DEVELOPED ) (UK usually civilised) /ˈsɪv.ɪ.laɪzd/
Definition describes a society or country that has a well developed system of government, culture and way of life and that treats the people who live there fairly
For an expert in strawman argumentation such as yourself, it is notable that you opted for two catastrophes that impacted negatively upon the operation of government and the rule of *law*. Thereby demonstrating that the normal situation is civilised.
Please provide your definition of "civilized" since the dictionary definition does not suit your purposes.
Kyle wrote: all forbidding me to be armed in public accomplishes is victimizes me without making the perpetrator suffer a bruised conscience.
Imaginary perpetrators don't have consciences - bruised or otherwise.
Mike wrote: Just curious, John. Why does it need to be a NT example?
Because we are no longer in a theocracy, and must be subservient to conscience and "the law of Christ", and the ruling power. As I said to Frank, if you want to make use of the old testament, you can't mix and match according to what you like or dislike.
Is that fair? Or am I up a gum tree without my wellies?
John UK wrote: You know, folks, I would really be grateful for a new testament example of when arms were legitimately used in self-defence. This would help me much better to reach a conclusion of God's will, than pragmatic hypothetical examples.
Just curious, John. Why does it need to be a NT example?
Kenny, the principle you cite is just as valid at Dairy Queen or at Applebees at noon as it is inside my big wooden box at 2:00 in the morning. That is why I DO go about carrying a gun. Even if I had no such obligation, i would still have the right to do so if I choose.
Does my obligation to provide for and protect my family stop at my front door? Then why should my right to possess the means to provide equivalent protection do so? Are the police going to provide the same level of protection? If not, then all forbidding me to be armed in public accomplishes is victimizes me without making the perpetrator suffer a bruised conscience.
Gun control is just the contemporary expression of the evil human nature that seeks to control other people's lives.
You know, folks, I would really be grateful for a new testament example of when arms were legitimately used in self-defence. This would help me much better to reach a conclusion of God's will, than pragmatic hypothetical examples.
Lawyer, you're doing the same thing others have done here. Because the modern day expression of the principle is different than what the expression was when it was last written down, the principle is said to be inapplicable today. Others have used that argument to say that the second amendment applies to only flint locks. Hogwash.
Salesman, your rebuttal leads me to believe that you don't know what a straw man argument is. Get a dictionary. The world is not civilized. If post-Katrina New Orleans or post-earthquake Haiti is not proof of that, then you're blind.
Your fear of armed neighbors is culturally driven not Biblically driven. Don't mix the two.
Lurker wrote: The opposition to Obama's current attempt to appease the Sandy Hook massacre aftermath is not so much about what he wants to accomplish with additional gun control measures but rather the method he has chosen to accomplish it.... executive order.
No, it is very much about what he wants to accomplish. The constitution is just another tool manipulated by left and right to suit themselves and their own prejudices.
Lurker wrote: Bro John, In this country, the right of the citizens to bear arms is considered an inalienable right endowed by our Creator according to our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whether this declaration is biblically true, or not, is another matter altogether which should not be intermixed with the civil POV.
Thank you bro for your help in this. I take it that the three things you mentioned are the "laws" of America?
Now what do these laws say about "arms"? For example, you walk into a gun store - what sort of weaponry can you purchase? Does "arms" have a wide interpretation?
Christopher I like your take on this. The thief on the cross next to the Son of God was a murderer. We don't know if he strode into someone's house and killed them, but he certainly killed someone, and he was paying the price, under Roman rule, of such an act. Now I am rather glad he wasn't killed before the cross, because on that cross he said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Today, thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Some folks hate it when sinners are forgiven by Jesus, while that same sinner tells them that their "good and upright life" is taking them straight to hell.
Kyle wrote: Salesman, please drop the anarchist straw man. I'm not against having laws. Yes, it's legal where I live to own and carry guns. It's even legal to do so without asking the government for permission. Owning weapons is not evil. Killing, except in very limited circumstances, is evil. Yes, possessing weapons is a human right Whether or not the government in a particular place suppresses it is not relevant. Would I do it if it were not legal? That's a tough question. I am not ready to answer that. Was it legal when Jesus told his followers to buy a sword?
Purchase a sword then. And yet Jesus didn't use one.
If we are going to get perfectly legal then Guns aren't mentioned in the Bible.
John UK wrote: Kyle, as I am unaware of the laws you have over there, could you explain to me if it is legal to own and carry a gun?
Bro John,
In this country, the right of the citizens to bear arms is considered an inalienable right endowed by our Creator according to our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whether this declaration is biblically true, or not, is another matter altogether which should not be intermixed with the civil POV.
The opposition to Obama's current attempt to appease the Sandy Hook massacre aftermath is not so much about what he wants to accomplish with additional gun control measures but rather the method he has chosen to accomplish it.... executive order.
An inalienable right can be voluntarily surrendered by the people, for the better common good, through due process but it should never be allowed to be forcibly taken away (executive order) against the letter and spirit of our constitution by the one, the POTUS, who has sworn (again just this morning for another four years) to uphold and defend that constitution.
When the bare facts are considered, it is clear that Obama lied on a stack of two bibles for he has no intention of defending the constitution but rather to impose his will.
Salesman, please drop the anarchist straw man. I'm not against having laws.
Yes, it's legal where I live to own and carry guns. It's even legal to do so without asking the government for permission. Owning weapons is not evil. Killing, except in very limited circumstances, is evil.
Yes, possessing weapons is a human right Whether or not the government in a particular place suppresses it is not relevant. Would I do it if it were not legal? That's a tough question. I am not ready to answer that. Was it legal when Jesus told his followers to buy a sword?
I don't carry a gun around and don't particularly get excited about guns - it would be nice if they were not necessary. But I do have a wife and my oldest daughter still lives at home. I have an obligation to protect them. That's why God made me bigger than them.
If you come into my house uninvited and I don't know who you are, I will not ask you who you are, what you want or why you are there. I will shoot you in the center of your chest immediately upon eye contact and will continue firing until you are on the ground. If you don't understand that then you must not have a wife and/or children at home.
24
There are a total of 63 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
beaver: "please reinstate my post.
there was no graphic filth in it."
