Summations Only

Conservatives regard liberalism as a threat to American security in general, and I don't think they're wrong although I think most liberals are totally nave about the reality of threats to America. Then, cutting to the chase, what is needed is a way to check backgrounds without putting the identity of all gun owners in the hands of the government. Can background checks be done in a way that does identify potential abusers of guns without threatening the good guys? Liberals trust the government, and especially liberal government; conservative don't, to say the least.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All of it is hypothetical and citizen guns could be a deterrent. Not willing to give them up to find out.

I'm not a gun owner but I am a gun defender. I would like to see the identity of the good guys protected somehow if that's possible. So I'm not really for a huge database with everybody in it, even though I considered that earlier. Background checks good but with the same proviso if possible -- maybe along the lines I suggested earlier: not available to government but to police and gun sellers, but only for the buyer of the moment, by using his driver's license number or something like that. You get either an OK or a notOK and the OK disappears into the ether. This is because what bothers gun owners the most is being identified by potential enemies. And certainly research into safety ought to be done. Not sure about the ATF.

Heard people are buying guns in Europe Islamic Invasion Pulls Trigger: Europe Now Scrambling for GunsAnd it's mostly women getting the guns because Islamic men have carte blanche from Allah to rape and otherwise mistreat nonMuslim women.Reports on rapes in Germany by the "migrants."
Just a moment...More stories: Germany in a state of SIEGE after Angela Merkel opened floodgates to migrants | Daily Mail OnlineEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

So some are worried and others are in denial and it's not the UK yet anyway. If you google Islamic invasion you find out how there's a media blackout on the problems, especially in Germany, where there are some reports getting through of some Germans preparing for civil war. Political correctness in the media and even in the governments -- well, there's no point in my getting in to this, I know the mentality at EvC pretty well by now. I wonder how long they can go before the problems can't be ignored any more though.Here's another story. http://www.infowars.com/...ants-gang-rape-women-in-sweden-ukBut this is no longer about guns so that's the end of it for me here.

Didn't I say I've heard that SOME Germans are considering it or something like that? Doesn't seem too far-fetched to me in a situation where their leader is forcing a million culturally alien and hostile immigrants on them, even displacing some from their homes to make room for them and so on. Sounds like a powder keg to me. What keeps surprising me really, though, is how docile everybody is, going along with it instead of objecting. PC is a powerful force for oppression. The very idea of civil war seems remote despite the obvious provocations.These aren't "refugees," the threat in their own country is a small band of violent men. Why don't they stay and fight them, they way outnumber them? I'll tell you why, it's because this fulfills Islam's stated objectives to take the world for Allah. They don't even need to bother taking Europe with arms, just move in and PC welcomes them.Oops off topic again. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

delete. Thought you were talking to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think you are mischaracterizing the "Christian" opinion, GDR, at least mine. I've never argued for MORE guns for instance, just for the right to carry them into some zones now denied to them. I'm also in favor of safety measures, only I don't know enough about guns to know which would be the best choice. I'm definitely in favor of mandatory training in how to use guns safely.And I certainly don't get your equation between Bible inerrancy and the justification of gun proliferation. If anything your view of the Bible that chooses what you like best is the sort of thinking that could justify anything you want to justify.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

GDR, Jesus "being numbered with the transgressors" means and always has meant that being crucified is the punishment of transgressors which He was to suffer for His people. He died as a criminal. He's certainly not saying that His disciples are the transgressors because they want a sword; in fact clearly what is written says that HE is telling them to buy a sword, the idea came from Him and not them. His allowing them a couple of swords seems to be related to the upcoming change in circumstances after He is crucified and they hide out from the Jews who crucified Him.He talks first about how they needed nothing when they served Him, but He goes on to say "BUT NOW..." meaning things are now changing, I am now going to be crucified as a criminal... Because NOW things are going to change.Nevertheless two swords for the twelve isn't much so it's not as if He's recommending a lot of brutal self-defense, and overall I think you are right that He's talking more about the effect of creating division. However, that can lead to brutal consequences, can't it?I think it works as a defense of owning guns today even if we need a lot more restraint than we have right now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you "explained" in that post was the following: You have rewritten the scripture here to suit yourself: He did not say "NOW YOU FIGURE YOU NEED..." these things, YOU added that and it completely changes the meaning. What he said was "NOEW IF YOU HAVE A PURSE TAKE IT..." HE said that, it was His instruction to them, and it had nothing whatever to do with anything they had said about such things. You haven't the slightest justification for reading it that way. They have said nothing of the sort. The conversation prior to this point was about how Peter would betray Him although he was sure he was willing to die for Him. He'd given them the wine and bread explaining how they represent His death for them, and generally He was trying to break it to them that He was going to die. THAT's what they are obtuse about, THAT's what they don't get. Where's the slightest hint Peter or any of the others said anything at all about needing purse or sword? Nowhere, GDR. You are playing fast and loose with the scripture here.Again, He is telling them things are going to change: I am going to leave you, I am going to die, I'm going to be counted a criminal and die a shameful criminal's death. There is also an implication that where they had earlier been received in a friendly way now after He is gone there would be hostility against them. THAT is the context in which He instructs them that they need now to have practical means of doing things, money and even a sword whereas before they had not needed it. "What he is going to do?" Whatever that is He has already done it because this conversation is taking place in the upper room where He and His disciples are celebrating the Passover, right before He goes to the Mount of Olives and is taken by the authorities, having been betrayed by Judas who left the Last Supper early for the purpose.Yes, He rejected Peter's using the sword to defend HIM. That says absolutely nothing about using it for self-defense if such an occasion should arise. And yes, such an occasion never did arise. Nevertheless it was HE HIMSELF who told them to get a sword if they didn't have one, and it had nothing to do with anything they had asked or desired. BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT HOW HE WAS GOING TO LEAVE THEM, although He kept telling them. This instruction was one of the many ways He kept trying to tell them He would no longer be with them and things were going to radically change for them, but they didn't get it. The fact that they didn't get it is why it wouldn't have occurred to THEM to say they needed a sword.Yes, they all ran away. They were completely flummoxed by His arrest and crucifixion, it didn't fit with anything they'd believed despite the fact that He kept trying to tell them it was going to happen. Yes, it took the resurrection to give them boldness to proclaim the gospel. There is no indication that any of them ever needed or used a sword. That doesn't change the fact that HE TOLD THEM TO GET A SWORD IF THEY DIDN"T HAVE ONE.You've rewritten the scripture to suit yourself, which is expressly forbidden, GDR. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, we disagree on what it actually SAYS. It does NOT SAY the disciples wanted a sword, or money or any of the rest of it, and as I showed, they had no reason to want those things since they didn't even understand that now there would be a reason to have them.NO. Clearly you are changing the scripture to fit your interpretation of it. Perhaps you should point me to the relevant message. Argued WHAT out? YOU DID NOT! I quoted it as written, you stuck some extra words into it to make it appear that Jesus was addressing something the disciples had asked, although there isn't the slightest hint that they asked it or had any reason to want to know the answer. No, that is not the case. You put words in His ,mouth to make Him mean what YOU want Him to mean. There is no hint that having a sword for self-defense means LIVING BY THE SWORD. That applies to soldiers who do live by the sword. Besides, many chose to live by the sword even knowing that saying, not the disciples but soldiers. Dying by the sword is simply a fact, it's not a condemnation of living by the sword. Jesus did not condemn anyone who DID live by the sword, such as the Centurions for whom He performed miracles.You are deceiving yourself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The commentaries at Bible Hub are divided on the interpretation, some reading it literally.Luke 22:36 Commentaries: And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.In any case there is no excuse for GDR to have added the phrase in the passage that implies that Jesus was addressing a question they had asked.The context is as I kept saying: He is telling them things are going to change, they will now be in a hostile world where self-defense may be necessary. If he means the sword nonliterally why not the purse and the scrip too?And, to my mind, none of the claims that Jesus didn't mean the sword literally fit the text. It is certainly true that the gospel is to be furthered by the sword of the Spirit and physical force is certainly no part of it at all, but this passage seems to have a completely different context in mind.ABE: By the way, where's the "cherry picking" when the entire chapter, all the thirty five verses before this subject comes up, have nothing to do with this subject and say nothing that would give the context for it you are insisting on.ABE; Since so many commentaries treat it as figurative instead of literal, and since I agree that Jesus' teaching is always nonviolent, I would happily concede the point. My problem is that it doesn't read figuratively. Another point on that side I'd mention is that if He didn't mean it literally, why rather than saying "it is enough" didn't He just say "You misunderstand Me, put the swords away, they have no part in this."ABE: Also, this doesn't sound figurative: "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I don't see it at all. It reads to me like He changed the subject from the prophecy of Peter's betrayal to the changed circumstances they would soon be facing with His death. When He then goes on to talk about how "now" things would be different He's clearly saying things were no longer going to be the way they were when He sent them out without purse or scrip. Otherwise, if He's responding to a bunch of complainers, the "now" would be sarcastic and it doesn't read that way to me at all, not to mention that there's no hint that they had been complaining, except the argument about who would be greatest in the kingdom. I see no cherry picking, I see no quote mining.However, I want to end this by saying that I'd be very happy if He was clearly saying Christians are not to have weapons. I wish it were clear. Trusting the Providence of God is a real test of faith and we should be up to it. On the other hand that degree of faith gets close to things like assuming He will heal all diseases when clearly He doesn't and people die of diseases. If we were willing to die at the hands of enemies and that our families die when we have no physical means of protecting them, then it would be a fair expression of faith, and could be a powerful witness. (abe: A reasonable context for this might be the early days of the settling of America when settlers faced the possibility of attacks by hostile Indians. A real threat in other words. If they were willing to be unarmed in those circumstances, even though many would have died they might have won more Indian tribes to Christ).But the passage is NOT clear that He was teaching that. The commentators who insist He wasn't advocating real swords infer it from His teachings about the sword of the Spirit and so on because there is nothing in the passage itself that makes it read that way. Sell your cloak and buy a sword can only refer to a real sword, or at least nobody has shown clearly how it could refer to anything else.But again, I'd be very happy if it was clear that He was denying us earthly means of self-defense. For this passage I'm just going to conclude that it's too ambiguous to decide the question.abe' For reference, Luke 22: Luke 22 (KJV) - Now the feast of unleavened
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but all that flies in the face of how Luke 22 is actually written. You do violence to the text by making it mean something other than it actually says. As I read it, as I keep saying. It read to me like He's talking about real swords here, despite all the spiritual swords and armor elsewhere. I can't get around that myself.ABE: Are you prepared to say that settlers facing hostile Indian attacks should not respond with arms? Are you prepared to say you'd be willing to die and leave your family unprotected in that case? Do you think that is what Jesus is advocating?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, you don't like the example of the Indians. Instead of arguing it, which I believe could be done, I just want to emphasize the point of it, which is that it's all well and good to argue against guns -- or swords or any kind of weapon -- if there is no real threat, -- and that is often the argument here -- we don't NEED them, do we REALLY think the government is going to threaten us etc. etc. etc. So the question is whether you think Jesus advocated facing real threats completely unarmed, including facing threats against your family? Clearly Christians face such real threats, starting with the lions in the arena. Right now Christians in other parts of the world are suffering persecution and martyrdom. Are we always to be martyrs then? Is that our calling in your opinion?