All Things Second Amendment

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
Saying it doesn't make it so, Idolater.



In other words, you are teaching as gospel the doctrines of men, something Christ warned about.

You need to place GOD first, not politics.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” - Matthew 7:24-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:24-27&version=NKJV

:think:

When you place politics before what God says, you commit idolatry.

Somewhat ironic, Idolater...

You should repent.
Do you have kids btw? I do. Just curious.
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
What does that have to do with anything?

I don't, but why does it matter?
'Changes you. How you see things. idk what it is. Broader context maybe or something. Longer view of things. Like, I'm going to die one day, hopefully before them, and I've got work to do for them, on their behalf, before that day comes, stuff like that maybe. I'm not really sure.

Thanks though, for answering.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
'Changes you. How you see things. idk what it is. Broader context maybe or something. Longer view of things. Like, I'm going to die one day, hopefully before them, and I've got work to do for them, on their behalf, before that day comes, stuff like that maybe. I'm not really sure.

Thanks though, for answering.

So, again, what in the world did that have to do with what we were talking about?

Are you trying to make the argument that having kids changes things, such that morality itself changes? If so, I've got news for you... There have been (if my sources are correct (just a quick google search, will provide link if requested)) around 300 billion children born since creation, and yet morality has not changed.

If that was NOT the argument you were trying to make, my point still stands:

God's law against idolatry has not gone away.

God comes first. The rest will naturally fall into place after. Even politics.
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
So, again, what in the world did that have to do with what we were talking about?

Are you trying to make the argument that having kids changes things, such that morality itself changes? If so, I've got news for you... There have been (if my sources are correct (just a quick google search, will provide link if requested)) around 300 billion children born since creation, and yet morality has not changed.

If that was NOT the argument you were trying to make, my point still stands:

God's law against idolatry has not gone away.

God comes first. The rest will naturally fall into place after. Even politics.
You shall not commit adultery.

That's a law.

Right now, government police don't get involved if you commit adultery.

Do you believe that government police should get involved if you commit adultery?

If you say yes, then that is theocratic, and you're a theocrat. I believe adultery is grave sin, and I don't believe in theocracy. My politics don't determine my morality, and my morality doesn't determine my politics. It's difficult though, and it interested me to see evidence suggesting that politics precedes morality and not the other way round, which is why I posted the article.
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
Just in case anybody's unclear on the issue, what Beto proposed in last night's debate is Town's position.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You shall not commit adultery.

That's a law.

Right now, government police don't get involved if you commit adultery.

Do you believe that government police should get involved if you commit adultery?

Only if charges are brought against someone.

If you say yes, then that is theocratic, and you're a theocrat.

Pretty sure I've corrected you on this before.

I am not a theocrat.

I am not advocating theocracy.

I am a theonomist.

I advocate theonomy

Theonomy:
Theos - God
Nomos - law

Literally God's laws.

I believe adultery is grave sin, and I don't believe in theocracy.

I don't need to advocate for theocracy because the world will, in fact, eventually have one.

But until God returns, having one would be unnecessary.

My politics don't determine my morality, and my morality doesn't determine my politics. It's difficult though, and it interested me to see evidence suggesting that politics precedes morality and not the other way round, which is why I posted the article.

Except that it shouldn't.

I think that's what you're missing here.

Politics SHOULD NOT affect your morality.

Morality should affect politics.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
...politicians want a lack of guns just in case they need to turn tyrannical. Even if they have a big army and lots of cops that can roll over a rebellion, for some reason they find the need to take guns first... odd that....
This is from some dark alley of the internet (can't locate the cite---it's not mine is all I can tell you), and I thought it was worth sharing itt.
You cannot control an entire country and its people with drones, tanks, jets, battleships. A drone, jet, tank, battleship or whatever, cannot stand on street corners and enforce “no assembly” edicts. A drone cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband materials or propaganda.

None of those things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Drones and those other weapons are for decimating, flattening, glassing large areas, killing many people at once, and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass, they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive [expletive redacted].

Drones are useless for maintaining a police state. Police are needed to maintain a police state. Boots on the ground. No matter how many police or soldiers you have on the ground, they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians. Which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their [expletive redacted].

But when every random pedestrian could have a Glock jammed in their waistband and every random homeowner has an AR-15, all of that gets thrown out the window because now the police and military are outnumbered and kicking down those doors becomes a lot riskier, lest you catch a bullet on your way in and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has ever tried to destroy. They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks, and improvised explosives. Because the big scary military monsters one would allude to are all but useless for dealing with them.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
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.
- Second Amendment


During the Dayton mass shooting, its estimated that 9 were killed and 23 wounded within a span of 30 seconds - reinforcing the stark reality that the ability of authorities to intervene before a determined shooter has inflicted major "carnage" is virtually impossible1

With 8.5 to 15 million assault weapons available to America's private sector (NRA estimates), combined with high capacity magazines, that provides each individual owner, irrespective of their mental state, with the "firepower" that equals or exceeds that of a "well regulated militia" - by the Founding Fathers' standards!"

Individual Americans with assault rifles can wield as much firepower as a "well regulated militia" - unfortunately the finger on the trigger is neither "well-regulated" nor following orders/accountable to a militia!
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
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.
- Second Amendment


During the Dayton mass shooting, its estimated that 9 were killed and 23 wounded within a span of 30 seconds - reinforcing the stark reality that the ability of authorities to intervene before s determined shooter has inflicted major "carnage" is virtually impossible1

With 10 to 15 million assault weapons available to America's private sector, combined with high capacity magazines, that provides each individual owner, irrespective of their mental state, with the "firepower" that equals or exceeds that of a "well regulated militia" - by the Founding Fathers' standards!"

Individual Americans with assault rifles can wield as much firepower as a "well regulated militia" - unfortunately the finger on the trigger is neither "well-regulated" nor following orders/accountable to a militia!
We are limited by the gun control laws that we constantly show are Unconstitutional. We can do a better job without being hog-tied.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
We are limited by the gun control laws that we constantly show are Unconstitutional. We can do a better job without being hog-tied.
A strict interpretation of the Constitution could also conclude that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" be limited to technology of the firearms that existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written!

Modern weapons would be reserved for those who had enlisted and were under the control of "a well regulated militia!"
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
A strict interpretation of the Constitution could also conclude that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" be limited to technology of the firearms that existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written!

Modern weapons would be reserved for those who had enlisted and were under the control of "a well regulated militia!"
What I'm saying is that the well regulated militia is hog-tied right now, by gun control. The right to bear arms is infringed like crazy, and the whole point of not infringing the right, is to have a well regulated militia, so it makes perfect sense that the militia is only as well regulated as gun control laws permit it to be, which is not very much right now.

https://forums.catholic.com/t/what-can-be-done-to-stop-gun-violence/566849/126?u=nihilo
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Just in case anybody's unclear on the issue, what Beto proposed in last night's debate is Town's position.
Poll: Most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'
- 08/07/201

Most Republicans would support legislation banning assault-style weapons, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found Wednesday — a finding that contradicts President Donald Trump's claim earlier the same day that there's "no political appetite" for such restrictions.

The poll found that nearly 70 percent of all voters would back such a ban. Support for an assault-weapons ban was higher, at 86 percent, among Democrats, who have been pushing for new restrictions on the firearms in the wake of two mass shootings over the weekend.

Republicans typically are more reticent to support new gun restrictions, and Trump campaigned in 2016 on his strong support for the Second Amendment. But the poll found that 55 percent of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons, and 54 percent said they would support stricter gun laws more generally. Ninety percent said they would back universal background checks for gun sales.

Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban, the poll found.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/poll-most-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban-1452586
********************************************
- nearly 70% of all voters would back an assault weapon ban

- only 23% of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban

- 55% of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons

- 86% of Democrats supported an assault-weapons ban

It would appear that "Beto" was expressing an opinion that is already held by 70% of Americans, including 55% of Republican voters!

The real question is how much longer the majority of Americans will be content to have the other 23% attempt to hold the nation hostage to the NRA agenda!

With 14 months before the 2020 Election, how much longer can this President and Republican politicians remain committed to their gun lobby friends, given that its public support is rapidly eroding before their very eyes - time for the "rats" to start deserting the NRA ship!
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
Poll: Most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'
- 08/07/201

Most Republicans would support legislation banning assault-style weapons, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found Wednesday — a finding that contradicts President Donald Trump's claim earlier the same day that there's "no political appetite" for such restrictions.

The poll found that nearly 70 percent of all voters would back such a ban. Support for an assault-weapons ban was higher, at 86 percent, among Democrats, who have been pushing for new restrictions on the firearms in the wake of two mass shootings over the weekend.

Republicans typically are more reticent to support new gun restrictions, and Trump campaigned in 2016 on his strong support for the Second Amendment. But the poll found that 55 percent of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons, and 54 percent said they would support stricter gun laws more generally. Ninety percent said they would back universal background checks for gun sales.

Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban, the poll found.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/poll-most-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban-1452586
********************************************
- nearly 70% of all voters would back an assault weapon ban

- only 23% of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban

- 55% of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons

- 86% of Democrats supported an assault-weapons ban

It would appear that "Beto" was expressing an opinion that is already held by 70% of Americans, including 55% of Republican voters!

The real question is how much longer the majority of Americans will be content to have the other 23% attempt to hold the nation hostage to the NRA agenda!

With 14 months before the 2020 Election, how much longer can this President and Republican politicians remain committed to their gun lobby friends, given that its public support is rapidly eroding before their very eyes - time for the "rats" to start deserting the NRA ship!
Republicans need the NRA, and it's not the other way around. If Democrats suddenly grew a brain, they'd realize that if they made a focused effort on acknowledging, recognizing, affirming, protecting, preserving, honoring, and defending the right to bear arms, they'd rule the world and win every election.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Republicans need the NRA, and it's not the other way around. If Democrats suddenly grew a brain, they'd realize that if they made a focused effort on acknowledging, recognizing, affirming, protecting, preserving, honoring, and defending the right to bear arms, they'd rule the world and win every election.
Brave words, but what's next - claims from the NRA that it's responsible for the sun coming up in the morning!

The 23% may chose to remain in denial, but when "Bato's" call for a ban on assault rifles during a Democratic Candidates Meeting has the support of 55% of Republican voters, the NRA should be desperate to make whatever deal it can before Trump and the Republicans are forced to jump ship!
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
Brave words
I don't think so. If Democrats pulled 'a 180' and flip-flopped on gun control, and instead treated the right to bear arms like the right to get an abortion, and the right to not have the climate change, and the right to healthcare, they would sweep through every state of the country and form a lasting political dynasty. They're that close. Republicans exist because of the NRA, who fights to defend the right to bear arms. Without Republicans, the NRA will still fight to defend the right to bear arms.
, but what's next - claims from the NRA that it's responsible for the sun coming up in the morning!
Democrats should just accept that the right to bear arms is just like the right to free speech and the right to free press and the right to religious liberty and to privacy.
The 23% may chose to remain in denial, but when "Bato's" call for a ban on assault rifles during a Democratic Candidates Meeting has the support of 55% of Republican voters, the NRA should be desperate to make whatever deal it can before Trump and the Republicans are forced to jump ship!
His "call" was for confiscation, let's be real clear on that.
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
I am a theonomist.

I advocate theonomy

Theonomy:
Theos - God
Nomos - law

Literally God's laws.
In your political theory, who decides what is God's law? I ask because for example there is one law that sentences to death children found guilty of disobeying their parents. Who in your political view authorizes which laws are God's laws? Who would either authorize or forbid disobedient children being sentenced to death, for example?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In your political theory, who decides what is God's law?

I'm not sure you're following what I said. Let me try to clarify.

There are laws that only applied to Israel. Those laws should not be applied to any other nation's laws.

The rest of the laws that God gave in the Mosaic Law are moral laws. They apply everywhere, in every circumstance at all times, and are not restricted by a nation's border.

Of the latter group, there are two sub-groups, laws that define some sins as crimes, and laws that define other sins as only sins, with no earthly punishment for breaking those laws.

The only laws that would be used would be the laws that define some sins as crimes.

Namely, do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness.

In other words, it's not that someone authorizes it or prohibits it, it's that the law either applies or it does not.

I ask because for example there is one law that sentences to death children found guilty of disobeying their parents.

There is good indication that that law was meant for Israel only.

Who in your political view authorizes which laws are God's laws?

They are defined by the Bible, and ultimately, God.

However, the government I advocate is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution defines the laws for the people, and the no one is authorized, not even the King, to change the criminal code (the four laws above and the laws that are built on them).

They're set in stone, if you will.

I have a draft written up by Kgov.com if you would like to go through it.

Who would either authorize or forbid disobedient children being sentenced to death, for example?

See above.
 
Top