Summations Only

1) No, it's the people who want to take away our gun rights who are the problem and not the solution.2) I have no problem living by Christ's standard for myself, but He was talking to individuals, NOT TO NATIONS. In a nation the whole population is never Christian, and Christians do have the obligation to protect our families and others, and to ask whole populations to give up the right to self defense is to subject them to many forms of violence up to mass murder.This has been proved over and over again. I should probably have included the film Innocents Betrayed in the post to you which I did post earlier and I think ICANT also posted, about how genocide follows disarming the intended victims, from the Armenian slaughter to the Jews of WWII to China and others. You can find it on You Tube if you are interested. I just found out that in Rwanda they DID first disarm the people. The massacre was planned for years in advance. At least 800 thousand totally defenseless unarmed people were murdered over a few months. A propaganda campaign calling them "cockroaches" and telling the people that God wanted them exterminated contributed to their eventual mass murders by their own friends and neighbors. And this was really a modern-day version of the Catholic Inquisition, which in its 600-year official reign killed some 67 million, 50 million of them true Christians, and continues in predominantly Catholic countries where Protestants and others who won't bow to Rome continue to be persecuted and tortured. Christ will avenge their deaths. And there are other enemies out there as well who want us disarmed so we can't get in the way of whatever their agenda is. If we have no means of self defense, then fine, we'll die knowing it's God's will for whatever reason and that we will awake in His blessed company. But if He allows us means of self defense we should make use of them.3) To my mind the reasons for citizens to be armed far oustrip even the real dangers you worry about, and certainly all the emotion-driven propaganda-driven arguments against guns.4) Jesus is going to His death. The situation is changing. Now they may need weapons. There is no other reason for His saying what He said. They made no move in favor of weapons, it was His idea. Peter's cutting off the ear of the soldier was wrong because Jesus was intended to die. You twist the scriptures. Go read Matthew Henry's commentary on that passage at Blue Letter Bible. Or JF& B's. Or David Guzik's. Jesus is telling them things are going to change and now they will need their purses and a sword which they didn't need up until that point. You are right, according to Guzik, however, that "it is enough" was a way of ending the conversation, not a statement about how many swords were needed. According to him it's obvious that two would NOT be enough so that Jesus could not have been saying that.Here's JF&B: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please quote!

No, I'm just trying to make myself heard.And your blather about fear-laden this and that is again just your own fantasy and I'm tired of talking about it since you continue to get it all confused.

I guess things have gotten so bad nobody knows what basic Christianity is any more. MY belief? No, it's standard historical Biblical Christianity that was the basis of western civilization.This discussion was brought up by GDR, not by me, as an accusation that defending gun rights is contrary to Christ's teachings.And this is being misconstrued AGAIN:The restricting of gun rights is not something WE'd do that He'd react to with punishment, but would itself be God's judgment on the nation, which I would take as a sign that we're so far down the road to total judgment He's abandoned the nation altogether. That is, I attribute the loss of our gun rights to HIS will as judgment against us. It IS punishment, not something He'd punish us FOR.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This discussion about how many lives are saved or lost is not the important thing to me. The important thing is retaining our second amendment right. Whatever can be done to improve safety without imperiling that right is fine with me.NOT consulting commentaries when there is a dispute about the meaning of a Biblical text is stupid, as if you and you alone know the meaning that recognized teachers don't.I reject all your theology anyway, GDR, there's no point in discussing it. You're one of those here who makes it up to suit yourself. It's not worth it to me even to read through it. I listen to and read the best of the best preachers and teachers, there's no point in getting all caught up in a self-invented system like yours.

This is a very complicated subject and not something to discuss on this thread. As briefly as possible, the full expression of Christianity in the west was not possible until the Protestant Reformation. Before that the Roman Church had control of the nations and their dictators and killed people in the name of Christ and so on. Early on however there was genuine Christian influence, before the Roman behemoth took control and ushered in the dark ages. But the real inspiration for the West began with the Protestant Reformation. But let's not discuss this here. That can all be attributed to God's blessings on the nation for our former allegiance to His gospel and His laws. That is all being eroded. 9/11 was God's judgment that just about everybody ignored. When a nation comes under judgment the only thing you can do to save it is turn back to Him. This nation continued going down all the wrong roads. We are now at the very door of total economic collapse. I hope it won't happen but many think it's going to and it won't be pretty. Again, if we lose our gun rights I'll take that as a sign that total ruin is at hand.But please let's not continue this topic here.

As the Protestant Reformers, who were all Catholics, most of them priests, discovered much to their chagrin, the Roman Church is not Christian at all but in fact Antichrist. The Reformation started with the recognition of the vile sins of the Roman Church and then overthrew their false doctrine as well. The average Catholic may be Christian and doesn't have much knowledge of the power elite of their Church so I'm not talking about them. But the design of the power elite has always been POWER, and there is nothing Christian about them but they sure do a great PR job. God is in charge of everything that happens. He could have stopped that from happening and He didn't. When He allows such destructive things they have to be regarded as His judgment against a nation. That was God's judgment too. So was the Civil War. Some say the coming collapse will far eclipse the Great Depression. I simply hope not, I just hope we're not that far gone. But I do know we've gone a LOT farther down the road of violations of His law since then.I did ask that we not continue this discussion here. I won't answer you next time if you continue it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Stop blaming this on guns. If the Principal or a teacher or two had had a gun this probably wouldn't have happened. The problem is the law that forbids guns on the school premises and announces that to all would-be murderers. Why is "life" the criterion for everything here? Why is CRIMINAL "life" favored here? So many here are happy enough to kill INNOCENT life in the womb but get all hand-wringingly concerned about someone killed in the commission of a crime, so upside down is the moral sense in this nation these days. The intruder was a criminal threatening the home owner. I might prefer that the man had shot him in the leg or something rather than shooting to kill but you don't know in the first seconds whether the intruder was armed or not and such decisions may not be reasonably possible. LET CRIMINALS KNOW THEY MIGHT BE KILLED IN THE ACT AND CRIME COULD GO DOWN DRAMATICALLY. All this perverted "concern" about criminals just perpetuates the crime problem.Then the case of the 14 year old shooting the 19 year old intruder. Again your sympathies are with the intruder. Why? I imagine the fear of the 14 year old myself in being confronted with an intruder, and the fear of the victims of all these situations. Why do you care so much about the perpetrator rather than the victim? It would be nice I suppose if the victim had his wits about him enough to make the refined decisions you'd like him to have made, but it's possible to THINK the intruder was armed and be wrong about it, and in that moment of fear shoot. The intruder broke the glass out of the door but you think maybe this wasn't a criminal home invasion just a case of shooting without thinking? WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THE CRIMINAL? LET CRIMINALS KNOW THEY MIGHT GET SHOT AND YOU'D DRASTICALLY REDUCE THIS SORT OF CRIME.And so on and so forth.Your assessment of everything in terms of your nicey nice version of the "Christian faith" overlooks that God is a God of LAW. Jesus died to save us from our violations of the LAW. God takes His laws THAT SERIOUSLY that He had to send His Son to die for us so that we wouldn't have to suffer the just consequences ourselves. God did not soften His law, He offered us the death of His Son in our place instead. There is NOTHING in scripture that is soft on crime and sin, GDR, there is only the call that all us sinners repent and be saved. To favor criminals in a nation is NOT what God wants. Take the gospel to them so that they may give up their life of crime, THAT's what we're to do. But God has given us governors and police and laws against crime to protect us, AND the right to bear arms. There is nothing in the Bible either OT or NT that treats criminals as victims as so many these days seem to do and often based on perverted ideas of Christianity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've taken pains to learn the HISTORICAL BIBLICAL understanding and I submit to it, I've many times submitted my own personal opinion to the clear teaching of the defenders of the historical faith. You obviously pick only what suits your own opinion instead. The hubris is yours.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let me just answer this piece of sophistic trash. OUR second amendment rights PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT you Bible twister. You all emphasize possible dangers in the possession of firearms that you can't even prove and you ignore all the claims of many here that their defensive uses are underreported and far more telling than your supposed stats. And you ignore the facts many have reported on how Americans have always had guns and taken them for granted until these vicious homicides started happening AND NOW YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM AWAY FROM US, and you don't even recognize how CRAZY that is and how it would put the entire nation in danger.How many lives are saved or lost by the NORMAL possession of guns is a trumped-up issue in the service of depriving us of the means of self defense as NORMALLY possessed by NORMAL citizens since the beginning of this country, and yes is FAR less important TO THE SAFETY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS than preserving our right to possess them.This is evil twisted logic that you've all swallowed that can only lead to the destruction of this nation. You may not think that's what you want but it's what your thinking would bring about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

IT IS KNOWN THAT THESE MURDERERS WILL NOT RISK BEING KILLED UNTIL THEY"VE SUCCEEDED IN DOING THE JOB OF MURDER WHICH IS THEIR PLAN. THIS HAS BEEN POSTED ON HERE BEFORE BUT YOU ALL INSIST ON YOUR SOPHISTIC LOGIC ANYWAY. THEY ARE WILLING TO DIE BUT ONLY IF THEY'VE KILLED AND KILLED AND KILLED FIRST TO TAKE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE WITH THEM. IF THEY DIE FIRST THEY DON'T GET THAT SATISFACTION. YES, THEY WILL NOT RISK GOING TO A PLACE WHERE THEY KNOW THERE MIGHT BE GUNS FACING THEM.I need a break from you crazy people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh for crying out loud. Deal with the matter on the table instead of changing the subject.As for choosing a place where people ARE armed, the Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim serving Allah's jihad against a military target, and the shooter of Gabby Giffords was aiming for her and her colleagues. These shooters were limited by their choice of target. The fact that they got away with it is too bad but it is NOT an argument AGAINST guns.These are not the homocidal maniacs who shoot up schools and theaters, whose objective is just to kill as many random victims as possible and who WILL choose a gun-free zone if they can. If they merely wanted to die they'd have shot themselves at home. Their objective is MURDER and armed defense definitely could have made a difference.Why do you point out FAILURES to take down a killer where guns are present? What kind of logic is that? There is NO chance of taking him down if guns AREN'T present.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have not said anything about how dangerous the country is in general, except in response to the topic of this thread, the increase in random murders.The "fear" you impute to me is CREATED by the sort of attack in this thread against our gun rights. Take away our guns THEN there will most definitely be reason for fear. CAUSED BY THE GUN-O-PHOBES, not the gun owners.And otherwise all I've done is suggest that armed people in schools would be the best defense against these homicidal maniacs. "Culture of fear" suggests something irrational, but this is a REAL threat, as I assume you agree or you wouldn't have started this thread in the first place. If it isn't all that much of a real threat then why are we discussing guns anyway?Again, Americans have always had guns. Why now when these murders are increasing does it suddenly seem necessary to take them away from us? This is all just emotion-driven propaganda-driven demagoguery aimed against the second amendment. The millions of gun owning citizens are NOT the cause of these murders.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have most certainly NOT argued that such events DO NOT HAPPEN where guns are present, I have argued that GUNS ARE THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST SUCH EVENTS but you are adding the nonsense about some claim to perfection. Do you guys stay up nights thinking of nonsensical ways to distort what your opponents say?And all I meant about "get away with it" was that they succeeded in killing people. Again, you must work hard at finding ways to make it seem I said something I couldn't possibly have meant. And are you REALLY suggesting that unarmed people can do BETTER at taking down an assailant as they did at the Gabby Giffords shooting? What's the point? Guns weren't where they were needed when they were needed so when the opportunity occurred some courageous people brought the guy down without them. Good for them. What ARE you trying to prove anyway? CONCEDE THIS POINT FOR A CHANGE. ADMIT YOU DISTORTED WHAT I SAID. Or do you just like winning lunfairly?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.

And do you get out of what Jefferson wrote that if half the nation (my half) passionately opposes what the other half (yours) deems to be "current realities" that your half can force that on the other, either by the Supreme Court's making the Constitution mean whatever seems to favor those supposed "current realities" or by the Executive Branch's declaring it by executive order?I'd call that despotism myself, which Jefferson SEEMS to desire to prevent. Or do you simply define the "backward" or "restrictionist" half as incompetents or something so that they don't have a voice in the matter? Despots have always been very clever at defining their opponents into silence, death or concentration camps, just wondering how you plan to go about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.