AS a Christian can you ever vote DEMOCRATIC

Newbirth

Well-known member
Oh, okay. So it's not that you were making that claim, it's just that you lack the reading comprehension to navigate Ferengi's post. OK. Thanks for the clarification.
This only clarifies that you lack understanding because I didn't make the claim. Since I didn't make the claim, why are you accusing me of lacking reading comprehension when I didn't make the claim you accuse me of?
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Science does not make anything so.
So you are anti science.
that is called lying by omission
Who is lying?
this is what it says...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which is not what you said.
You cherry pick and ignore the individual right to bear arms.
nope, you refuse to read your own post.
Prove it
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
This only clarifies that you lack understanding because I didn't make the claim. Since I didn't make the claim, why are you accusing me of lacking reading comprehension when I didn't make the claim you accuse me of?
Sorry. My mistake. Must have been some other poster named "Newbirth" who said, "Take up your issue with Ferengi he says in the declaration of independence God gives the rights to bear arms." in post #198.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
So there should be no issue with gun regulation and registration? Lorries need to be regulated and registered.
The two are not analogous. Driving a truck is not a right.
He said there were easier ways to kill people.
And you asked what is easier than using a gun, and I gave you an example. Follow the argument.
I am not doubting that, but not everyone can, plus by the time you reload your bow a gun can send out ten rounds.
What gun, available to the public, can get off ten rounds in three seconds?
It is one sentence sir... “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Yes, one sentence with a comma in the middle, seperating the prefatory clause and the operative clause. It remains the right of the people that is not to be infringed.
It is evident that the people and the well-regulated militia are the same.
Then neither the right of the people nor, by your admission, the right of the militia, shall be infringed.
Else outlaws and criminals would retain that right to keep and bear arms also.
All men have the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does not make an exception.
In your view, no one is excluded from keeping and bearing arms.
Well, that's what the Constitution says.
In the view of the 2nd Amendment, only well-regulated people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, it's the militia that is well regulated, not the people.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member

Newbirth

Well-known member
Sorry. My mistake. Must have been some other poster named "Newbirth" who said, "Take up your issue with Ferengi he says in the declaration of independence God gives the rights to bear arms." in post #198.
So why don't you take up the issue with him? That is what he said.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
The two are not analogous. Driving a truck is not a right.
According to wiki...Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
Are you saying that people are not allowed to drive a truck?
And you asked what is easier than using a gun, and I gave you an example. Follow the argument.
Your example is not easier for the general public.
What gun, available to the public, can get off ten rounds in three seconds?
At least 1,500. Modern semiautomatic weapons can discharge a round and load the next bullet into the chamber faster than even the nimblest of fingers can pull the trigger. FBI studies have shown that a novice can fire three shots in less than a second, and a trained shooter can double that. (Two of the officers in the 1999 Amadou Diallo shooting emptied their 16-bullet magazines in about four seconds.) That means an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan’s gun—in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two. You just press the magazine release button with your shooting hand and insert the new magazine into the grip with your offhand. * Experts holster extra ammunition on the side of their nonshooting hand to speed the exchange and can have the new magazine loaded before the empty one hits the ground. So each 20-round magazine would take no more than 5.3 seconds, including time to reload. That means you could fire off 1,575 shots in seven minutes—provided you were carrying 79 magazines on your person.
link

Yes, one sentence with a comma in the middle, seperating the prefatory clause and the operative clause. It remains the right of the people that is not to be infringed.
It is one sentence therefore no separation of anything. A comma denotes a pause.
Then neither the right of the people nor, by your admission, the right of the militia, shall be infringed.
In the 2nd amendment, the people are the well regulated militia allowed to keep and bear arms. In your scenario, the people are any untrained unregulated Tom Dick or Harry that are untrained and unregulated are allowed to keep and bear arms.
All men have the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does not make an exception.
That is your understanding...but the 2nd amendment of the constitution does not say that...here is what it says... “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Well, that's what the Constitution says.
nope it does not say "all men" read it slowly... “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
No, it's the militia that is well regulated, not the people.
The militia is the people who keep and bear arms. You are saying that the founding fathers who were about law and order were saying that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have guns without regulation or restriction.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
So why don't you take up the issue with him? That is what he said.
Because the post I quoted was yours.

According to wiki...Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
Wiki is wrong. That's describing ethics, not rights. Rights are natural and inherent in man.
Are you saying that people are not allowed to drive a truck?
You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that by saying driving a truck is not a right, I meant that people are not allowed to drive trucks. Yep, pretty stupid.
At least 1,500. Modern semiautomatic weapons can discharge a round and load the next bullet into the chamber faster than even the nimblest of fingers can pull the trigger.
Wow. That's pretty impressive.

Seems like it would have been easier for you to just answer the question instead of ignoring it, but, clearly, you can't.
FBI studies have shown that a novice can fire three shots in less than a second, and a trained shooter can double that.
Still doesn't answer the question.
(Two of the officers in the 1999 Amadou Diallo shooting emptied their 16-bullet magazines in about four seconds.)
So, were you not smart enough to understand the question? Is that why you're ignoring it?
That means an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan’s gun—in 3.3 seconds.
Why can't you answer the question?
It is one sentence therefore no separation of anything. A comma denotes a pause.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) and its operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”). To perhaps oversimplify the opposing arguments, the “states’ rights” thesis emphasized the importance of the prefatory clause, arguing that the purpose of the clause was to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. The “individual rights” thesis emphasized the operative clause, so that individuals would be protected in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms.

Amendment II. BEARING ARMS | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

In the 2nd amendment, the people are the well regulated militia allowed to keep and bear arms. In the scenario I'm going to dishonetly attribute to you, the people are any untrained unregulated Tom Dick or Harry that are untrained and unregulated are allowed to keep and bear arms.

Where does the Constitution say somebody has to be trained before they can exercise a right?
That is your understanding..
Actually, I just cited Cornell University Law School affirming exactly what I stated.
.but the 2nd amendment of the constitution does not say that...here is what it says... “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Exactly. The prefatory clause says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and the operative clause says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Please find a grown up to help you read this, since you do not appear to be able to do so on your own. It is the people who's right shall not be infringed, not the militia.
The militia is the people who keep and bear arms. You are saying that the founding fathers who were about law and order were saying that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have guns without regulation or restriction.
Yes. That's exactly what they said. And, not only that, but they stated in the Federalist Papers that they wanted the citizenry to have the same arms as the government. They said "the people", not "some people" or "people we approve of". Just "the people". And then they said, "shall not be infringed", not "well, maybe infringed a little bit" or "shall not be infringed unless snowflakes are triggered because the weapon looks scary".
 
Last edited:

UncleAbee

Active member
Much truth to this although not sure one should take a position of taking no heed to it just not sure to what measure Christians should be involved. I think believers can have right intentions BUT we need to be careful NOT to think our goal is to create a morality revolution established by worldly laws and think we've really advanced the Kingdom of God. There's a difference between a morality revolution and spiritual transformation. The Kingdom of God is truly advanced when the spirits of mean are born again and their hearts are changed to be a new creature created in Christ Jesus with the life of God within.

On the other hand Christians, their families and children live in this world too. They do have a right like any other citizen to want to direct the way moral standards are considered and applied by law. To just let go and allow some citizens more equal then others, meaning that others have the right to shape, form and establish how society goes when all the time they had just as much right to have a say as the others I don't think is right either.
I agree with the majority of what you said. Christians do have the right to influence the way moral standards are applied by law. What we don't have the right is apply secular law strictly based on what God says in the bible. We can't force our beliefs on society as a whole because everyone is not Christian (Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, non-believers, etc). One of our rights is freedom of religion. If Muslims were attempting the same thing we'd be all up in arms. US law has to be neutral. The intent of the law is to reduce injury and promote well being among humans.
 

UncleAbee

Active member
Yes it did - Read the Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Rights come from god.
You are dangerous to our freedom if you deny that fact.
The "Right to Bear Arms" did not come from God. Can you find it in the bible? Would Jesus carry any kind of weapon? "We" gave ourselves the right to bear arms. It is man made. We can give it and we can take it away. The US Constitution is not a God derived document. Many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians. You should read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the bible. The constitution was written during a different era. If we strictly applied it we would have no standing army and no Interstate highways. It is a man made document that needs to be revised as the US evolves over time. That's why there have been so many amendments to it. We have to eliminate this false thinking that the constitution is a God derived document. The 10 C's is God derived. The laws from the Sermon on the Mount is God derived. The US Constitution is not.

Gun related deaths is a real problem in the US. More guns is not the answer. If it was then the rate of deaths would be falling as the rate of gun purchases increase. The opposite is happening. More guns = more deaths by gun.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
The "Right to Bear Arms" did not come from God. Can you find it in the bible? Would Jesus carry any kind of weapon?
Jesus always had a way of slipping away from a crowd and escaping danger.

But to his disciples he did say....Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
No, I am not. Maybe your idea of science is different from my understanding of science.
Then why wont you look at the science?
anyone who willfully omits part of a statement to change the meaning.
Ok who did that?
Nope, I posted the 2nd amendment not part of it.
But since you left out the personal right to bear arms yes you did
The fact that you keep asking is proof sir.
IOW you have no proof.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
this proves your lack of understanding\

You don't know what natural or inherent means.

Your response is stupid

you keep spewing garbage before you find out anything.

Only to a dunce

You are too dumb to understand your own question

dumb people cannot understand the answer.
If all you have are ad homs and childish insults, then I think we've reached the Proverbs 26:4 portion of our conversation. You're dismissed.
 
Last edited:

Mike McK

Well-known member
Nope they give up that right when they break the law.
Which law? What if they've paid their debt?

They still have the right, they just face consequences for committing crimes.

Should the guy who faces felony charges for mistakenly catching a federally protected fish really be treated the same as the guy who's actually a danger to others?

Do we treat mala prohibita crimes the same as mala in se crimes?
 

ferengi

Well-known member
The "Right to Bear Arms" did not come from God.
Your evidence is?
The US Constitution is not a God derived document.
See above.
Many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians.
how many were atheists?
More guns is not the answer.
Yes it is - where there is more 2nd Amendment freedom - gun deaths and crime in general drop - thats a fact - read More Guns Less Crime- Lott
 
Top