OT An interesting take on the Second Amendment and the Bible

[pharmseller]

We've all said it before, how knee-jerk laws restricting firearms in the wake of shootings is absurd. "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" comes to mind.
The Apostle Paul, in his first epistle to Timothy, put it another way. I'll paraphrase, but the citiation is 1st Timothy 1:8-11:

We know that the law is good, if we use it lawfully, knowing that the law is not made for the law-abiding man. The law is made for the lawless.

Creating laws that restrict the freedoms of honest, law-abiding people is, to me, the height of stupidity. These laws make weak people feel better (briefly), and that's all!
Doesn't it make more sense to create laws that address the actions of the unlawful?
This logic would make an interesting argument with an anti-gunner.

Pharmseller

[AJMD429]

You can't reason with Liberals, Socialists, Anti-gunners, or Drug Warriors.

[JerryB]

It's kinda like the Doc sez, Don't confuse them with the facts, they already got their minds made up.

[Bear 45/70]

I was under the impression that we had seperation of church and state in this country. Why is it the state CAN"T meddle in the church's business but the church CAN meddle in the states business?

[mikld]

I was under the impression that we had seperation of church and state in this country. Why is it the state CAN"T meddle in the church's business but the church CAN meddle in the states business?

Ya think ya could elaborate on that statement?

[Bear 45/70]

I was under the impression that we had seperation of church and state in this country. Why is it the state CAN"T meddle in the church's business but the church CAN meddle in the states business?

Ya think ya could elaborate on that statement?

What have the church and Constitution have to do with anything? The church interferes with the state continually regardless of the law of the land. I don't think religion and the Constitution should be discussed in the same paragraph. Religious fanatics no matter of what religion, give me a pain. I'm sure you will tell me my opinion is not allowed and use religious fervor to condemn me.

[mikld]

"I'm sure you will tell me my opinion is not allowed and use religious fervor to condemn me."

Too bad you can't make a simple statment or answer a question without attacking me! If this were any other forum I'd call you a closed mind bigot @#*%*, but I won't!

[edwardyoung]

I was under the impression that we had seperation of church and state in this country. Why is it the state CAN"T meddle in the church's business but the church CAN meddle in the states business?

You just defined what Jefferson intended by separation of church and state. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

[JReed]

How did this become a church and state issue?
All that was posted was an edited quote that mirrors what many people have said or feel concerning laws.

[kimwcook]

It's the same as saying don't make any new laws regarding firearms violations, there's enough of them, just enforce (judicially) the laws that are there and don't let the offender get off with a slap of the hand. Hit them hard and they'll think twice about doing it a second time.

[Charles]

Two throughts:

1. When Paul was writing to Timothy he was talking about the vast body of Jewish law and tradition. The Jews took the ten commandments and granulated it down to over 300 more. Then there was a vast body of oral tradition that interpreted this stuff. It is written today and takes up about ten feet of shelf space.

There was a constant tension for Paul and Timothy, both Jews between grace and the law. Jews thought the way to God was through obedience to the law and having the right DNA. Paul and other Jewish Christians said no, the way to God was by grace through faith in Jesus. This caused no end of conflicts (internal and external) between the early Christians who were overwhelmingly Jews. Resolving this was the major conflict and task of the early church and it is to this issue that Paul is writing to Timothy.

Paul was not making reference to secular law, which in his case would have been Roman law. To try and draw conclusions about our current secular legal situation from that passage is a gross misunderstanding and misuse of scripture. They are not even apples and oranges..more like apples and pick up trucks.

2. The Constituion says nothing about seperation of church and state. It says Congress shall not pass any laws establishing religion, nor pass any laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is called "The Establishment Clause". There has never been , nor should their every be seperation of religion and politics. The founding fathers, held profound religious and moral beliefs which the wove into the very fabric of this republic. If there was no influence of religious belief on politics and govenment this would be a very different country from the founding and not one most of us would like.

[GoatGuy]

+1, Charles!

[Bullard4075]

+10 Charles

[pharmseller]

Hoo doggies! I opened a can of worms!
My intent was not to suggest that Paul and Timothy were discussing Roman law and the conflicts between secular and religious law. My apologies if I created that impression.
Nor did I intend to suggest that the State (whatever the "State" is) be involved in religious matters, or vice versa.

Guys, I just thought it interesting that a passage in the Bible reflected my views regarding knee-jerk reactionary gun laws.

Sheesh.


P

[Ysabel Kid]

I think the problem we all have is we see how ridiculous it is to pass another law concerning a firearm when the unlawful use of them is already a crime. Murder is a crime, so using a gun to commit murder need not have an extra criminal charge for the gun use. We also see how silly it is to expect that criminals, who are, by definition, those who won't obey the law, would obey an additional gun-related law. You can almost imagine the thug about to rob a bank deciding he can not commit that crime because some locality passed a law forbidding the carrying of a weapon without a permit. Not ever going to happen.

The point is, the anti-gunners understand this just as much as we do, but their goal has never been about reducing crime or violence, but instead, about eliminating the ability of the common citizen to resist their grab for control. It is all about power...

[JerryB]

My old feeble mind has come to the conclusion that all the great intellects here better read YK's last post, he said it straight with no great discourse on the matter at hand.

[kimwcook]

I think the problem we all have is we see how ridiculous it is to pass another law concerning a firearm when the unlawful use of them is already a crime. Murder is a crime, so using a gun to commit murder need not have an extra criminal charge for the gun use. We also see how silly it is to expect that criminals, who are, by definition, those who won't obey the law, would obey an additional gun-related law. You can almost imagine the thug about to rob a bank deciding he can not commit that crime because some locality passed a law forbidding the carrying of a weapon without a permit. Not ever going to happen.

The point is, the anti-gunners understand this just as much as we do, but their goal has never been about reducing crime or violence, but instead, about eliminating the ability of the common citizen to resist their grab for control. It is all about power...

I whole heartedly agree, but what I don't understand is putting your own and your loved ones, includiing everyone elses, safety and security at risk for the sake of power. I've never understood that line of thinking. It's like not defending the tribe when the cave bear comes calling for supper because if you let him have one you don't risk anyone else getting killed or injured. It seems like they don't understand that he'll be back when he gets hungry.

[Old Savage]

We do not have separation of church and state - that is a fantasy except as the tool of the secular. It is not in the constitution - never mentioned. But there is protection of the church from the govt.

[Old Savage]

An interesting point is that law is not made for the law abiding man but for the lawless. The liberals/left want to pass laws for the law abiding and at the same time excuse the lawless from punishment and accountability. Turning the thing on it's head is their effect.

[rjohns94]

+1 to YK, OS, KIMWCOOK

Pharmseller, I see your point and I agree 100%

and for those who choose to be so offended by any religous discussion, you have my prayers.

[Charles]

Ysabel--- I don't think you understand liberals. To be certain the Congress Critters of whatever stripe and looking to increase and consolidate power. But for the vast majority of "lefties" out there it has nothing to do with power. I have spent my working life in the midst of liberals and believe I have a fair grasp on their thinking. I don't agree with 95% of it, as it seems hoplessly naive, childish and down right foolish. It is hard to understand how adults can live in this world and miss the realities of life, but they can and do.

The true liberal is a bleeding heart, touchy feeley, lets all love one another kind of person. The are looking for ways to keep us from brutalizing each other. They are trying to advance human civilization to the next high level where we grow beyond the base, animal desires to control, conquor and debase one another. Guns are an example of man's inhumanity to man and man's inhumanity to animals. Guns are primitive tools for primitive people. Getting rid of them will make us a better, higher, and more authenticaly human society. Liberals live in a la-la land of fantasy, and good wishes and try to pull all of us into that world with them. They are doing it for our benefit and can't see why we don't understand that and join them. They are a pityful bunch of folks.

They are not bad people just foolish and deluded beyond belief. They think, they have found the way to true enlightment and a better and more just world.

This Ysabel is the mind set and thinking of the liberal, left wing movement in America.

[AmBraCol]

I opened this can of worms on a different forum some time back. And got about the same mixed bag of replies.

First, I understand what you're saying. And it is NOT a misuse of the scripture in the context of the question you asked. The principle of "Laws should apply to the lawless, not affect the law abiding" is solid. Why restrict the freedom of those who respect law - both God's and man's? Laws (including the old testament laws to which the passage refers) are to give order to life. Actions are what should be punished, not the potential for action but action. For example, the vast majority of men are equipped to be rapists. The fact of the matter is - the vast majority of men are NOT rapists. To restrict the rights of those who are not in order to attempt to reign in the few is futile and abusive - at best.

As for separation of church and state - morality affects our society no matter what. The question is - who's morality will prevail? An attempt to build a society without the positive influence of religious training is doomed to failure as shown by our our own results gained by shutting our schools off from Christian influence. When kids were taught that there IS an absolute right and an absolute wrong we did not have them shooting up schools and causing mayhem. Once we taught them that they are merely accidents of nature and that the only absolute right or wrong was subjective and personal we opened ourselves up for a grand time of observing the "Law of the jungle" at work as they sank to the level of animals.

Besides which, the idea that "separation of church and state" is in the constitution comes from an ignorance of the document and an inability to analyze what it really says and the cultural background from which it sprang. The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." That phrase "an establishment of religion" refers to the setting up of a state recognized church such as the Anglican church or the Lutheran church or the Roman church - all of which were official religions in certain countries. Even the Deists didn't want to ban God from public or private life. And it's funny that one can say about whatever one so desires - as long as one does not mention Jehovah or Jesus the Christ. That, my dear friends, is an abridgment of the freedom of speech.

It's amusing to see someone post with obvious rancor - while projecting their own closed mindedness on others. At least it would be amusing if it weren't sad. The most closed minds I've ever seen have been those who claim to be "open minded". One should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Charles, that's an excellent look at the liberal mindset. Wishing that everyone were as nice as we'd like to be isn't going to make it happen. It's kind of like closing one's eyes and covering one's ears and pretending that horrid thunderstorm just isn't happening.

Y'all have a blessed "Holy Week". I know that mine has been so thus far.

[jkbrea]

I think the problem we all have is we see how ridiculous it is to pass another law concerning a firearm when the unlawful use of them is already a crime. Murder is a crime, so using a gun to commit murder need not have an extra criminal charge for the gun use. We also see how silly it is to expect that criminals, who are, by definition, those who won't obey the law, would obey an additional gun-related law. You can almost imagine the thug about to rob a bank deciding he can not commit that crime because some locality passed a law forbidding the carrying of a weapon without a permit. Not ever going to happen.

The point is, the anti-gunners understand this just as much as we do, but their goal has never been about reducing crime or violence, but instead, about eliminating the ability of the common citizen to resist their grab for control. It is all about power...

YK
Your answer sounds logical but you're talking about criminal minded people. As a LEO, I've interviewed plenty of crooks who committed robberies or other crimes using fake guns or simulated a gun because of the "10,20, life law in CA. which is additional 10 years for using a gun during a felony, 20 extra for firing it, and life w/parole if anyone is hit. I don't like restrictive gun laws but if it's used to commit crimes or illegally harm others, I think that person shold be deprived of that right. On the other hand, I don't think all convicted felons should lose the right to own a firearm. It should be based on the crime they were convicted of. I'm not sure about extra laws, but I know if someone only gets 2-3 years for robbing multiple banks with a gun, I like the fact he gets an additional 10 on top of it for using the gun.

[FWiedner]

I don't want some nutty religion dictating my public conduct any more than I want some ignorant version of civic laws telling me what I can and can't believe.

[Charles]

"I don't want some nutty religion dictating my public conduct any more than I want some ignorant version of civic laws telling me what I can and can't believe."


Don't look now...but religion does dictate much of your public conduct. Much of the English common and criminal law, which became the foundation of our common and criminal law came straight from both the old and new testaments. The influences of Judeo/Christian scripture and teachings have heavly influence out legal heritage.

Of course some things have morphed and stuff has been added as society moved on, but the foundation is still there. One small example is Texas has different punishments for breaking into a persons home in the daytime a more sever punishment for doing the same at night. Straight from the Old Testament and much much more. I am not trying to pick a fight, but few folk realize how much religious teaching and beliefs have to do with our legal structure. Being a sometime student of both religion and law, these things are pretty easy to spot.

WE have just grown up with the notion that the law is the law and religion is religion neither the twain shall meet. Well the twain done met, many many years ago!

[C. Cash]

Spot on Charles with your posts. No worries about the can of worms Pharmseller. Anywhere you mention the Bible or the Gospel in modern society, bring a can opener! Good posts fellas...even the ones I disagree with.

PS...Bear 45/70 we can disagree and still be the best of friends. Anybody mistreats you here for what you believe, and I suspect you'll find out that you have a few more friends than you originally thought. Free Will is highly prized in this Country because of the Judeo/Christian outlook and foundation, and why so few(almost none) face persecution for their beliefs here. (Fred..........stop laughing! )

[Old Savage]

I think Charles and Ysabel have pretty correctly stated things. No respect here for the view of the liberal mind agenda. It ignores reality in favor of their desired fairy tale which they insist that you pay for.

[Ysabel Kid]

Ysabel--- I don't think you understand liberals. To be certain the Congress Critters of whatever stripe and looking to increase and consolidate power. But for the vast majority of "lefties" out there it has nothing to do with power. I have spent my working life in the midst of liberals and believe I have a fair grasp on their thinking. I don't agree with 95% of it, as it seems hoplessly naive, childish and down right foolish. It is hard to understand how adults can live in this world and miss the realities of life, but they can and do.

The true liberal is a bleeding heart, touchy feeley, lets all love one another kind of person. The are looking for ways to keep us from brutalizing each other. They are trying to advance human civilization to the next high level where we grow beyond the base, animal desires to control, conquor and debase one another. Guns are an example of man's inhumanity to man and man's inhumanity to animals. Guns are primitive tools for primitive people. Getting rid of them will make us a better, higher, and more authenticaly human society. Liberals live in a la-la land of fantasy, and good wishes and try to pull all of us into that world with them. They are doing it for our benefit and can't see why we don't understand that and join them. They are a pityful bunch of folks.

They are not bad people just foolish and deluded beyond belief. They think, they have found the way to true enlightment and a better and more just world.

This Ysabel is the mind set and thinking of the liberal, left wing movement in America.

Charles - I do understand liberals well, but should have been more specific and your point is well made. I'd say 90 to 95% of the true liberals in this country fall into the category you mention - bleeding hearts just trying to make the world a better place, but having no understanding of humand nature, history, or reality. 5-10% are the ones who understand it all too well, but are in it for the power. Unfortunately, they are the ones in public office for the most part - and certainly now make up the leadership of the Democrat party.

I think our posts complimented each other well.

[Ysabel Kid]

I think the problem we all have is we see how ridiculous it is to pass another law concerning a firearm when the unlawful use of them is already a crime. Murder is a crime, so using a gun to commit murder need not have an extra criminal charge for the gun use. We also see how silly it is to expect that criminals, who are, by definition, those who won't obey the law, would obey an additional gun-related law. You can almost imagine the thug about to rob a bank deciding he can not commit that crime because some locality passed a law forbidding the carrying of a weapon without a permit. Not ever going to happen.

The point is, the anti-gunners understand this just as much as we do, but their goal has never been about reducing crime or violence, but instead, about eliminating the ability of the common citizen to resist their grab for control. It is all about power...

jkbrea - I must apologize again - in an effort to be brief (or get to bed at a reasonable time! ), I was not thorough. Charles pointed this out in his response which was correct in splitting the left into two camps - kind of the followers/believers (95%), and the cunning/deceitful/power-hungry rulers (5%).

Concerning your reply, I have no problems adding additional time and/or punishment to the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, I just don't want to see additional laws aimed at the law-abiding justified as trying to prevent crime - because they don't. Sure, in states where additional time is mandated and applied, this may cause some criminals to reconsider their choice of weaponry in commiting crimes. As you know being in law enforcement - and as all parents know - punishment, to be effective, must have three characteristics: it must be swift, it must be certain, and it must be unpleasant to the recipient. Unfortunately, as a whole, our criminal justice system has managed to mess up all three aspects!

Put another way, driving is not illegal. Drinking is not illegal. Both can be done without harm to others, or as the law is concerned, without impinging on others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Drunk-driving though is illegal, as it should be, as it represents an unacceptable risk to others. Firearms laws should be exactly the same; no firearms should be restricted from law-abiding citizens (unlike alcohol or driving, there is actually an Amendment to the Constitution specifically recognizing this inherent right), but laws punishing illegal use of firearms shouldn't bother anyone.

Problem is, as we all know, is that those who would strip us of this liberty would use such laws to effectively ban firearms but making any kind of discharge illegal. In the end, we get what we deserve - and we have elected and re-elected those who want to be our masters, and are willing to destroy our freedoms to do so...


YK
Your answer sounds logical but you're talking about criminal minded people. As a LEO, I've interviewed plenty of crooks who committed robberies or other crimes using fake guns or simulated a gun because of the "10,20, life law in CA. which is additional 10 years for using a gun during a felony, 20 extra for firing it, and life w/parole if anyone is hit. I don't like restrictive gun laws but if it's used to commit crimes or illegally harm others, I think that person shold be deprived of that right. On the other hand, I don't think all convicted felons should lose the right to own a firearm. It should be based on the crime they were convicted of. I'm not sure about extra laws, but I know if someone only gets 2-3 years for robbing multiple banks with a gun, I like the fact he gets an additional 10 on top of it for using the gun.

[kirkwood]

"I don't want some nutty religion dictating my public conduct any more than I want some ignorant version of civic laws telling me what I can and can't believe."


Don't look now...but religion does dictate much of your public conduct. Much of the English common and criminal law, which became the foundation of our common and criminal law came straight from both the old and new testaments. The influences of Judeo/Christian scripture and teachings have heavly influence out legal heritage.

Of course some things have morphed and stuff has been added as society moved on, but the foundation is still there. One small example is Texas has different punishments for breaking into a persons home in the daytime a more sever punishment for doing the same at night. Straight from the Old Testament and much much more. I am not trying to pick a fight, but few folk realize how much religious teaching and beliefs have to do with our legal structure. Being a sometime student of both religion and law, these things are pretty easy to spot.

WE have just grown up with the notion that the law is the law and religion is religion neither the twain shall meet. Well the twain done met, many many years ago!

I noticed that you left out the qualifier "nutty" which was in the original post. That word changes everything. There are serious religions that recognize a supreme being or the concept of good and evil, and then there are the nutty religions that worship rocks, monkeys, or space aliens,

[DBW]

In these United Socialist States of Amerika the laws are in place to control the law abiding who, if upset off enough, could pose a danger to the Elitist Ruling Class which necessitates the enaction of even more enslaving laws against the law abiding. The Matrix must be maintained... it's for our own collective good.

[Charles]

Kirkwood... I didn't miss the qualifier "nutty". Nutty means one thing to you and to another it may mean religion in general. You will need to check with the original poster for a list of religions he considers nutty. It might be more inclusive than yours, but I will let him speak for himself.

[BAGTIC]

The Secpnd Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms, neither does the Bible. GOD does.