Is Gun Control Ever Legitimate?

[myfaforumname]

"That would probably include what we call the "far left" today as well."

Jesus was far left once upon a time. Do you laud what happened to him as well? Are advocating the killing of innocent women and children who happen to have differing political opinions from you? That's American.

In terms of your overall content, people were not hanged for all crimes. You might want to visit a library and read up on that.

In terms of the original topic, yes, there are cases when gun control is legitimate. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to bear all arms and it doesn't mean that anyone under any circumstances has the right to bear arms.

Few people in the pro-gun movement want to talk about this as then they could be called pro-gun control.

[SaddleSarge]

Originally Posted by myfaforumname

"That would probably include what we call the "far left" today as well."

Jesus was far left once upon a time. Do you laud what happened to him as well? Are advocating the killing of innocent women and children who happen to have differing political opinions from you? That's American.

In terms of your overall content, people were not hanged for all crimes. You might want to visit a library and read up on that.

In terms of the original topic, yes, there are cases when gun control is legitimate. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to bear all arms and it doesn't mean that anyone under any circumstances has the right to bear arms.

Few people in the pro-gun movement want to talk about this as then they could be called pro-gun control.

I don't recall firearms being at issue during Jesus' time. I do recall that since, in my belief, he may have been considered left of the day, his authority was higher than anyone's. I also recall him whipping the money changers and merchants, thus driving them out of the temple as well.

Do you laud what happened to him as well?

Yes I do. For without that sacrifice (off the topic and pre-ordained as it was), we would not have salvation. But... back on track....

Also, I did not state that folks were hanged for all crimes. But today, there are far less than should be.

What about innocent men? When those differing political opinions interfere with and severely limit my freedoms, they are no longer innocent nor are the ones who hold the position(s) of those ideologies. It reminds me of a cattle brand. The brand states, "this is mine, leave it alone." If they then ignore that warning, then whatever the consequences suffered by them are fair. In layman's terms, if you're stealing my stock and you are harmed in your endeavors, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it on.

Currently and thank God, as John Wayne said, "the ballot box is our sword," let us hope that ideal never changes or has to change again. But our founders recognized that there must be stop-gaps in place in the event that it became like the tyrannies suffered in their day.

I have to say, I love the Jesus, women and children thought though. It is interesting how religion, women and children are delved into when it suits the singular thought but not the overall subject and thought presented.

[myfaforumname]

Yes, firearms weren't an issue in Jesus' time. Of course, they weren't invented at that point. Jesus was a liberal radical and he was killed for it. Yes, he did whip the money changers and the merchants, but do you see anyone in the gun movement or religious right taking issue with people who exploit the old, poor or destitute with television ministries. I find it funny that the religious right feels that they are so superior to anyone else when I see a preacher on television noting that he needs additional donations so that he doesn't need to fly public.

Do you honestly think that mega-churches that worship specific preachers were what He had in mind? Think about it.

Quote:
Do you laud what happened to him as well?
"Yes I do. For without that sacrifice (off the topic and pre-ordained as it was), we would not have salvation. But... back on track...."

Based on what you typed earlier, you would have been one of the people nailing him to the cross. Perhaps you should study His teachings before you advocate the killing of innocent women and children.

[RDak]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Duh? What about this question makes it seem like a no-brainer? I want to know why it is "obvious" to everyone that there is some legitimate control?

What where the main US naval ships of the Revolution? Anyone know? Privately owned ships. So why should I not be allowed to own a battleship today? Why should I not be allowed to own a nuclear submarine? Why should I not be allowed to own whatever weapon I want?
Someone please give me an argument with a scrap of merit to it!!

I was pulling your chain.

Felons shouldn't own guns IMHO until they are released and, let's say, stay clean for another 10 years?

As far as heavy ordnance, I think the founding fathers leaned towards being against individuals owning those sorts of weapons because too much unnecessary damage could be inflicted without some sort of military control.

[Xaiver56]

Originally Posted by myfaforumname

Based on what you typed earlier, you would have been one of the people nailing him to the cross. Perhaps you should study His teachings before you advocate the killing of innocent women and children.

There is a line and you crossed it. How about Judge Not lest ye be judged. Honest debates are fine, but calling into question another person's faith just makes me want to never read another one of your posts again... Which is what I will do.

[graehaven]

The answer is a definitive NO. But with caveats. You're asking the wrong question, Alva.

The right question is, "Is gun control legislation necessary in a society that properly punishes criminals?" The answer to that question is a resounding "NO."

Until we are willing to eradicate our society of these scum, there are those that will continually fight to take away the rights of the law abiding - the rest of us. You must fully ELIMINATE the scum from society, and the criminal activity will NEARLY be non-existent. The criminal element doesn't take the law seriously because there are no true consequences to their actions. Consequences are a deterrent. Ask my children. It works.

I should be able to own any automatic weapon that I can personally afford, no questions asked. Period. THAT is an inalienable right. Period.

[JohnK3]

In some ways, Jesus was more conservative than many of the so-called "liberals" of today.

* He advocated being armed. http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Marshall/god_and_M-60.htm

* He advocated personal responsibility. Matthew 25:1-12

* He advocated profit. Matthew 25:14-30

Never once do I recall Jesus saying "Gather yourselves together and select those who will rule you, to them give the power to take money from all to give to the poor. If there be someone who desires not to give, seize him and bind him, taking his land, his ass, his slaves and give them to the poor." Or anything like that.

[SaddleSarge]

Originally Posted by graehaven

The answer is a definitive NO. But with caveats. You're asking the wrong question, Alva....

Oh well, these dialogues by whatever the user name (Alva/Myfa....same poster?) is in the various forums, the writings are similar. As difficult as it is, I'll not banter with these folks(?). Arguing for the sake of argument does nothing when niether party is interested in the dialogue exchange.

Kinda like:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by JohnK3

In some ways, Jesus was more conservative than many of the so-called "liberals" of today.

* He advocated being armed. http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Marshall/god_and_M-60.htm

* He advocated personal responsibility. Matthew 25:1-12

* He advocated profit. Matthew 25:14-30

Never once do I recall Jesus saying "Gather yourselves together and select those who will rule you, to them give the power to take money from all to give to the poor. If there be someone who desires not to give, seize him and bind him, taking his land, his ass, his slaves and give them to the poor." Or anything like that.

Great link! thanks for posting it. very good points all.

[SaddleSarge]

Wrong button.

[ponycar17]

I believe myfaforumname may need to send an email to Obama's camp to know how to respond to some of this criticism...

I'm getting sick of this crap honestly. We've had myfaforumname, Big Bore, alavagoldbook, and others who are too insignificant to remember, responding constantly to political issues while knowing little to NOTHING about gun issues because they received an inciteful email from the Obama campaign encouraging them to change minds of those who hate Obama... Well, I don't hate the man. I just think he's an economically challenged idiot, void of economic education and far too accepting of poorly formulated social theories.. Sorry myfa, I deem you a troll...

[Shellback]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

I believe myfaforumname may need to send an email to Obama's camp to know how to respond to some of this criticism...

I'm getting sick of this crap honestly. We've had myfaforumname, Big Bore, alavagoldbook, and others who are too insignificant to remember, responding constantly to political issues while knowing little to NOTHING about gun issues because they received an inciteful email from the Obama campaign encouraging them to change minds of those who hate Obama... Well, I don't hate the man. I just think he's an economically challenged idiot, void of economic education and far too accepting of poorly formulated social theories.. Sorry myfa, I deem you a troll...

I'll second that!!!
Tim

[user]

Originally Posted by graehaven

Great link! thanks for posting it. very good points all.

Agree. I thought it was all pretty good, too. Good points by JohnK3 and the citation to http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Marshall/god_and_M-60.htm
was excellent.

I'd add a couple of things to that article, though; one is more of a "pet peeve" about terminology of the "gun buy-back" campaigns that suggest that the guns were originally owned by the state. That's the use of the word, "recovered" - whenever the police do some kind of raid on a citizen (whether justified or not doesn't matter for this point) and they seize weapons, they always say they "recovered firearms". It always makes me wonder about those cops that go around losing their weapons.

And as to the "turn the other cheek" thing; that's not about being a pacifist, that's about not getting emotionally wrapped around the axle in reaction to the evil that comes out of another person. That story Jesus told is designed to help us understand that we're in control of our own thoughts and we don't have to get worked up just because some jerk does something we don't like. He might just as easily have said, "When someone cuts you off on the Interstate, just back off and give him more room.", except that I don't think the Romans had finished building the Interstate at that time.

[GMFWoodchuck]

Every single evil murderous government on earth started out with gun control. Be they communists (Lenin), Nazis (Hitler), Taliban (Afganistan (Don't ask me their leader's name)), Khmer rouge (Pol Pot). They all started out with gun-control regulation. Too bad the retard feel-good liberals don't understand that.

[LoneWolf]

Gun control is never legitimate. I do believe keeping them out of the known criminals hands the best we can by our background check at gun stores is legit, and so long as you haven't commited a crime, what have you got to worry about? Control=NO legitimacy, Regulation=Partial legitimacy.
Guns aren't the problem, politicians and criminals that ruin the name of firearm owning citizens are. If they want my guns, they can have one hell of a time trying to get them because the only way they will is from my cold, dead, hands.