Christians and Guns?

[The_Patriot21]

that they are that they are. Gotta love them texans.

[oldzimm]

Wow! have I been missing a good thread today.

A armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

In a Democracy, the government must fear its citizens. If the government doesn't fear the citizens, we no longer have a free state.

The main reason why we have a second amendment and when we really need the second amendment, is when the government tries to take the second amendment (constitution) away from us.

Shoot out the lights, Oldzimm is on the thread.

[The_Patriot21]

I would prefer if you would leave the lights alone, I like to see what Im aiming at

[oldzimm]

I would prefer if you would leave the lights alone, I like to see what Im aiming at

Hey were Americans, don't you know that we are to shoot first and ask questions later?

[~candice~]

A armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

Ludicrous. Your position as a citizen is never affected by whether you choose to carry. That is just more hyperbole and rhetoric that makes these debates harder to navigate by effectively denigrating those who choose not to carry.

[oldzimm]

A armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

Ludicrous. Your position as a citizen is never affected by whether you choose to carry. That is just more hyperbole and rhetoric that makes these debates harder to navigate by effectively denigrating those who choose not to carry.

Now, now ~candice~ don't get in a up roar. I'm not saying every citizen should own a gun, that is an individual choice and a free citizen has the right to make that choice, not the government. It is the armed citizenry at large that makes all the people citizens, instead of subjects.

As an American citizen I assure you that my last post is not hyperbole nor rhetoric and the reasoning is in the rest of that post.

Why would any government fear an unarmed citizen?

Hitler's first order of business was to disarm the citizens of Germany and turn them into subjects (ask the Jews).

Japan would not invade the United States because of the armed citizens, it would of been a military disaster for Japan. I believe Japan said it something like this,"there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" and they were right.

[RedMomma]

[/bWOWEEEEEEE Im reading both sides here and the question that comes to my mind is all da battles da Lord had say like joshua,king david etc if were not to defend are we guilty of not helping in someones time of need? i dont like guns myself however i dont know how to use them but i am glad my hubby has da knowledge for we have security im not gonna sweet talk bad guys from hurtin my family come on we dont use swords anymore just modern weapons nowadays even shepards has a weapon for their sheep right?]

[The_Patriot21]

Im in agreement with oldzimm here, if it wernt for citizens having guns, America would not be free today-we would still be part of great britain. The American revolution was not fought by a rich government buying its soldiers guns, but by farmers, shopowners, and yes, even clergy folk who took up their own private weapons and went to war for a cause they believed in-freedom from oppression. Believe it or not, entire platoons in the revolution were churches-it was not uncommon for the pastor of a church to show up on sunday carrying a rifle, call the men out, and the pastor led all the men of the church to war as their leader. You of course, won't find that in todays text books-but it is a documented fact, as is the declaration of independence founded on 27 biblical principles, and 50 (possibly 52) of the original 55 members of the continental congress were not only members of their local churches, but active members, deacons, elders, pastors. Sure, there are countries today like austraila and britain that remain free without guns, but here comes the question, if they were to turn into a dictatorship and strip their citizens of their rights, who would stop them? Theres really only two options-A: hope another country comes in and takes care of it, which isnt likely unless their making nuclear weapons, or B: their citizens rise up and stop them, which has the best chance for success, only they can't because they have no weapons. Do I think everyone should have a gun? no, thats up to them, but I do think that everyone should have the right to have one, and I also think everyone should know how to handle one safely, even if they dont like them. Libya, right now figured out why you should fear your citizen-they got away with it, but if we look at syria right now, their government is running rampant through their country, shooting lots of innocent people. Do the rebels have guns? sure they do, but the syrians have more and dont care if the people theyre shooting at have them or not. Right now, the rebels are likely going to need international aid, or more guns and more people to fight because I don't see them winning, and that is one country where I think they have every right to rebel. Would I like everyone to have a gun? sure it would be good, do I expect everyone to? no, and I respect those who don't wish to own one, but I also stand that the right to own them should be maintained.

I believe in gun education, not gun control, and lets look at it this way, if you dont like guns and dont want to own one thats fine, and you dont have any in the house, thats fine to. But lets look at your kids, now their in your house, theyve never seen a gun before because you don't have one, and their over at a friends house, and their not so bright dad leaves a gun on his coffee table, and your kids find it, and since theyve never seen one think its a toy and start playing with it. Or, your out hiking and find one or your kid hands you one, you should know how to handle it safely, and the rules involved, and if your kids have a basic knowledge theyll know not to play with the gun they found at their dads place.

For example, I read this article awhile back over in britain, this guy found a shotgun in his backyard. He, thinking he was doing the right thing, picked it up, unloaded it, and carried it down to the local police station and turned it in. Seems smart right? well he was arrested on the spot-according to the law, even having a gun in his hands counts as possession, if the guy had called the cops and not touched it, he would have been fine. If he had a basic gun education, especially concerning the laws of the land he wouldn't of ended up in jail. In America we read of kids getting shot all the time on accident because they find a gun and not realizing what it is. If it were me, instead of putting this "dont even say gun" in schools, they should require a basic gun safety course to kids. No im not saying give them guns and teach them how to shoot-least not an a young age, what I mean is sit them down, and show them this is a gun, its not a toy, and this is what you do if you find one. And each year go a little more advanced, to the point when they leave high school they have at least been taught how to safely handle one and store one. I think that would greatly reduce gun accidents.

[~candice~]

A armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

Ludicrous. Your position as a citizen is never affected by whether you choose to carry. That is just more hyperbole and rhetoric that makes these debates harder to navigate by effectively denigrating those who choose not to carry.

Now, now ~candice~ don't get in a up roar. I'm not saying every citizen should own a gun, that is an individual choice and a free citizen has the right to make that choice, not the government. It is the armed citizenry at large that makes all the people citizens, instead of subjects.

As an American citizen I assure you that my last post is not hyperbole nor rhetoric and the reasoning is in the rest of that post.

Why would any government fear an unarmed citizen?

Hitler's first order of business was to disarm the citizens of Germany and turn them into subjects (ask the Jews).

Japan would not invade the United States because of the armed citizens, it would of been a military disaster for Japan. I believe Japan said it something like this,"there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" and they were right.

Yes you are OZ, because that famous quote juxtaposes citizens against subjects, as if the unarmed person is no longer a citizen. It's silly. I don't have an issue with your country as a whole allowing citizens to bear arms, nor with the history that goes with it. But this rhetoric ridicules those who chose not to carry. If you wanted to speak in general about a large body of people, rather than an individual, you should say that. The quote was about an individual.

[The_Patriot21]

now, to play fair, the quote is worded more towards an individual, but the spirit of the quote is more of a generalization, which is why oldzimm came back with saying that. . .