Summations Only

You are by far the most interesting new poster here. I hope you stay.

Questions like this are disingenuous. There is a world of difference between the guy who has sold a few guns in the past decade and a guy who buys and sells guns on a regular basis to make a profit, and no indication that Obama's proposal addresses anything but the latter. What is clear is that the current enforcement of the law lets a lot of gun traffickers avoid the law.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are just encouraging LNA to post more of this Obama/NRA conspiracy stuff.

Never mind. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I suppose we can fix this with a small change to the 'stand and defend your block' laws in Texas.

Apparently some 'gun enthusiasts find such technology extremely objectionable. What is a 'smart gun' and why don't we have one? - nj.com

quote:

---

In 2014, gun shops in California and Maryland agreed to sell the Armatix iP1, a gun made by a German company that only fires if the user is wearing a special watch. The shops' owners said they thought the gun would attract buyers who were looking for a way to ensure their kids would not accidentally fire the weapon.

​

But the shops quickly backed out of offering the smart gun amid angry protests and death threats.

---

The NRA called these death threats a 'market response'. Apparently some gun nuts are afraid that the use of these weapons will become mandated if the technology works. Also there was a poster in these forums who was afraid that the government could disarm such guns remotely.

For those interested in such things CNN has a story devoted to these things. If you plan to use them, it might be a good idea to trace the stats to the source material when possible:U.S. gun violence: The story in graphics | CNN

This is an example where cherry picking a verse (i.e. quote mining) creates a problem. Jesus clearly discusses in prior verses people out without money or shoes and showing them that even in such circumstances that they lacked for nothing.It is pretty clear that he was addressing people who were complaining when they had far more than the nothing that sufficed before. Jesus told them to take the two swords because they were whining and not because he thought it was the best policy.Of course shortly thereafter Peter or some other disciple draws his sword in defense of Jesus and cuts of the ear of the high priest's slave. Jesus tells him to sheath his sword and heals the man's ear. Overall lesson? Bear arms? I don't think so. Rather it is clearly a concession to the weakness of the disciples who quite often just seemed not to get Jesus during the time of his life on earth.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That turns out not to be true. Verse 35 provides context for the statement you cite. I did not say that it was figurative. I recommend a literal, in context reading versus a quote mining.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay.

Exactly, and while there may not be enough trained policemen to go around, the idea that the particular policemen working at the a place of treatment for the mentally ill were so poorly prepared is horrifying [1]. I bet that the regular staff at the hospital could have handled this guy, but look what happens when you call the police first.[1] Or inexcusable, unforgivable, inexplicable, etc.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps certain things about what Jesus said do appear to contradict conventional wisdom and earthly logic. But do you really consider that to be a strong argument that Jesus did not actually mean those things? According to the text, Jesus sent people out in twos to strange towns without money, food, or arms and told them not to worry about it. As best as we know, John is the only one of the original disciples to escape a violent death.If your point is to say that those examples don't apply to you, maybe you are correct. But I think those examples are enough to show that this particular argument you are advancing is total nonsense. Yes, this is advanced as a major argument. I am sure it is one that Bundy and his crew would heartily endorse. But its not an argument that is recognized legally as a legitimate aim of the second amendment. Historically, I don't recognize any armed attempts to oppose the US government with arms as legitimate. Those instances have invariably been despicable.

Perhaps there are different sides.My point is that your chosen reference is not reasonably interpreted to back up the idea that Christians ought to be armed. In fact, I see Jesus saying the exact opposite of that. What you are citing as an interpretation that could be read that way is no more a recommendation that is Jesus 'recommendation' about divorce when he acknowledged that Moses had allowed it.

Really? How about that breast plate of truth? Is that real armor? How about those feet fittings made from the gospel, or that belt of truth? Helmet of salvation? Sword of the spirit? "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood", seems like literal, real, weapons to you being used in defense against earthly enemies?Just what words would have to go into the text before you recognized a metaphor or two? Is there any serious doubt that the text is talking about spiritual warfare? Nope.

quote:

---

against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms

---

How are you seeing all of the text and yet insisting on literal swords? What part of "how Luke was written" suggests any such thing.The alternative is that the verses means Jesus is sending Christians out on something like a crusade. Surely, not. If you are supposed to be armed with real swords it is not because of this text. Isn't the best example of a disciple being armed the incident when Peter or another disciple cut off the slave's ear? Are there any other examples at all? Did Jesus carry a sword?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is no ambiguity about Luke 22. I agree that it does not answer the question about whether you can carry real weapons, but the text certainly does not talk about carrying real weapons at all?Besides that, I never cited Luke 22 before the previous message. I instead cited other portions which are closer to being on point, but which arguably do not eliminate the possibility that carrying weapons is ok. My objection is to claims that such verses actually recommend carrying weapons. None of them do.I gave you a thumbs up for recognizing that you need to think of it more.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.