Amid Terror in Paris, Gun Control Leaves French Defenseless
With terrorists rampaging through Paris for a second time this week after gunmen massacred 12 victims in the Charlie Hebdo attack, at least four more victims are dead as panic grows across the city and even the nation of France. And thanks to draconian gun-control laws severely infringing on the French peopleās right to keep and bear arms, actual and potential victims of the ongoing slaughter have been left largely defenseless, to cower in the face of Islamists armed with Kalashnikovs and other weaponry. Despite all of that, rather than discussing more respect for gun-rights and liberty, experts say it is unlikely that the people of France under Socialist Party rule will be able to even have a real debate any time soon ā much less lawfully protect themselves from terrorists and criminals.
The French government and the European Union both impose extraordinarily strict restrictions on firearm...
no sovereignty wrote: WCF 23/1. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good, and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the **defense and encouragement of them that are good,** and for the punishment of evil-doers.**a a. Rom 13:1-4; 1 Pet 2:13-14. 4. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates,a to honor their persons,b to pay them tribute and other dues,c to **obey their lawful commands,** and to be subject to their authority, for conscienceā sake.
I starred the items which make my point, and do not help make yours. With unjust magistrates there is no justice, and to assume fallen men are just is nonsense. I'm surprised the WCF didn't note this when reinterpreting Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.
Will exchange of nomenclatures increase the efficiency of debate, or improve the comprehension of either sides polemics?
The unbiblical Arminian humanistic ideology must come from natural man. The reason is that Arminianism opposes Biblical Calvinism. Natural man is dominated by sin. The religious Arminian free will theory which emerges from natural man excludes the idea that he is totally depraved therefore considers him to be less sinful that the Bible declares. Thus do we find the Arminian convicted that sin does not hold the complete influence over his mind and heart hence sin is believed by the Arminian to be less of a problem in their religious philosophy. This enables them to believe that they are good enough to contribute to their own salvation.
WCF 9 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;a so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,b and dead in sin,c is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.d a. John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7. ā¢ b. Rom 3:10, 12. ā¢ c. Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13. ā¢ d. John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.
Westminster Confession Catechism. Excellent Bible teaching and sound doctrine by true Christians.
Q12: What are the decrees of God? A12: Godās decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained: Whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men.
Q13: What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men? A13: God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleases), hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.
1. I Tim. 5:21 2. Eph. 1:4-6; II Thess. 2:13-14 3. Rom. 9:17-18, 21-22; Matt. 11:25-26; II Tim. 2:20; Jude 1:4; I Peter 2:8
No sovereignty just because you haven't been in a situation where you needed a gun doesn't mean others haven't and just because you believe wrongly doesn't mean others have to I can't believe people are so immature that thy are still arguing two days after the article was written everyone has different beliefs just drop it at that ad move on
There you have it folks, when confronted with the Word of God, NS post the word of man. Not only that, in the NS world if man acts then God is not sovereign. Therefore because man does act, he lives up to his moniker, he believes that when it comes to God Almighty, He has no sovereignty. What a weak God he portrays.
Michael Hranek wrote: no sovereignty Just asking? Who are you? Have you ever posted under a different moniker? If so which ones?
Michael H, whether we agree with it or not, no SA rule says one can't post under a different moniker every time they do, how do you think we get the man with a thousand monikers (probably who NS is), your question does not add to the discussion. (especially because we all know it will never be answered)I would much rather you share your insights and thoughts.
no sovereignty, do you think the civil magistrates prefer that good men do nothing and they show up to a bloodbath that could've been avoided?? ask them! many laws in fact back this up. do you know your own laws? if you did you should honor and obey your laws and if the law says that a man can protect the innocent in his home, then he should follow the law. maybe you are just a law breaker because you do not respect the law of the land?
WCF 23/1. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good, and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.a a. Rom 13:1-4; 1 Pet 2:13-14.
4. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates,a to honor their persons,b to pay them tribute and other dues,c to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscienceā sake.d Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrateās just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him:e from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted;f much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.g a. 1 Tim 2:1-2. ā¢ b. 1 Pet 2:17. ā¢ c. Rom 13:6-7. ā¢ d. Rom 13:5; Titus 1:3. ā¢ e. 1 Pet 2:13-14, 16. ā¢ f. 1 Kings 2:35; Acts 25:9-11; Rom 13:1; 2 Pet 2:1, 10-11; Jude 1:8-11. ā¢ g. 2 Thes 2:4; Rev 13:15-17.
Thanks Jim, but consumer stun devices are ilegal here...I've checked. Yeah, pepper spray is always an alternative, but sometimes that just makes people even angrier, especially if you don't. Get a good shot in. Personally, if my life was on the line, I'd prefer something that didn't require close contact, but would take anything at that point.
Gen_14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants...
guess he didn't trust in the Lord
Num 32:16 And they came near unto him, and said, We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle, and cities for our little ones
guess they didn't trust in the Lord
1Sa_21:9 And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth ...: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.
guess he didn't trust in the Lord
Neh_4:18 For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me.
another one that did not trust in the Lord
Luke_22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
what He didn't trust the Lord?
2Ch_26:9 Moreover Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, and at the valley gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them
guess he didn't trust the Lord
David, Solomon and numerous other kings did the same, guess they didn't trust in the Lord. In fact in the NS universe, let us throw out the entire book of Nehemiah (see also Acts 23:16-35 for Paul)
no sovereignty wrote: --- Justice is upheld in civilised society by police and the judiciary. ---
If justice is upheld at all, it is after the fact. That's why we say justice is meted out. Justice doesn't happen before the crime is committed. We're talking prevention of criminality, and you're talking justice after the crime.
Another thing, justice in a civilized society assumes the police and judiciary are just. As you can see from the unjust antics of our judiciary, justice is not its purpose, but rather social engineering according to the man, not according to the law. Perhaps the same across the pond?
no sovereignty wrote: --- I have lived sixty five years and never owned a gun and never required a gun. I see absolutely no situation which prevents me from trusting only in God for my life and my tomorrow and that of my family. ---
You as a believer trust only in God for your life and that of your family. Yet you trust fallen men for justice, expecting them to be civilized. Any problem here?
Christopher000 wrote: Seems to me that the examples of Christ succumbing peacefully to his arrest, along with Peter drawing his sword, etc, are not really valid when speaking to the common scense of protecting ourselves. Christ came to die and had to sacrifice himself to save our sorry selves, so He went in peace, and did so to fulfill prophesy. The last thing I would want to.do is to kill someone, no matter what the situation, but unless I had no other option, I wouldn't just do nothing and hope for the best outcome. I just feel that we are expected to protect ourselves from harm.
It seems to me Chris, I gave you some information on pepper-spray, or a year or so back, here's some more info on stun devices -- they aren't very expensive -- though probably not that effective either unless your in touching distance. [URL=http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=self-defense+weapons&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=13440284610&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=12987497812807397352&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_jbog9e5xh_b]]]self-defense weapons"[/URL]. I did see some pepper-spray stuff for less than $10
no sovereignty wrote: I have lived sixty five years and never
well goody two shoes to you!
I've known men who stopped robberies and murders because they had defense with them.... that is bloodshed was stopped because they were there. That's what Christians do is deescalate the chaos of the world per Romans 13, ministers of peace. The police worked with them, you see, no division.
FG wrote: 1. This is not an Arminian vs. Calvinist issue. 2. The type of Calvinism that would not allow for self defense or defense of family may well be a form of hyper-Calvinism
1. Why not? Are they both not equally allowed to express opinion in your country? 2. Oh here we are again??? If you do not agree with my form of Calvinism - Then you are hyper. I am so glad you guys are perfect, otherwise I would not be able to accept your expert theology.
Just because you require access to lynch mob justice and carry the necessary armament to do so does not mean everybody thinks your way.
Justice is upheld in civilised society by police and the judiciary.
Why do you require to walk around carrying a gun? The answer apparently posted by those in support below is to either defend yourself - or defend your family. That thinking means you want, desire and need to be able to kill people in your society because of your insecurities.
I have lived sixty five years and never owned a gun and never required a gun. I see absolutely no situation which prevents me from trusting only in God for my life and my tomorrow and that of my family.
Apparently you cannot trust God for your life - As much as you trust your gun!!!
This is not an Arminian vs. Calvinist issue. The type of Calvinism that would not allow for self defense or defense of family may well be a form of hyper-Calvinism that would not even allow for the open call of the Gospel. And I say this as a Calvinist myself. I also say that there is nothing unbiblical about self defense. Even Jesus recognized that that there were times when it was necessary to be armed. Luk_22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Luk_22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. You see it's one thing to live by the sword and another to defend yourself with one, or a gun for that matter. I hope that I do not have to explain that that principle applies to both swords and guns. While I myself do not own a gun (though maybe I ought to), I support the individual's right to bear arms, and if the bible has anything to say about it, it looks like Jesus would not have had anything against an armed populace. And no, there was no evidence in that passage that Jesus was merely engaging in hyperbole.