My guess is....that since most Christians do not own guns....they think the issue doesn't involve them.

How wrong they are!!!

Let me show you why Christians should be very concerned about this issue.

First, lets look at the First and Second Amendments to our Constitution:

The First Amendment says in essence (not word for word here)...."Congress shall pass NO LAW that restricts freedom of speech or freedom of religion."

The Second Amendment says in essence......"Congress shall pass NO LAW that infringes upon the right of citizens to bear arms."

Therefore, ANY gun law that Congress passes is.....unconstitutional.

You say...."Big deal. Doesn't affect me."

Alright....let's suppose that Congress, under liberal influences, passes sweeping gun control laws such as licensing or outright banning handguns for instance. This would be a direct violation of the Second Amendment. (What part of "no" do we not understand here?)

If they do that, then what is there to then to stop them from infringing on the rights guranteed by the First Amendment??

Now I know the rhetoric that goes out is..."We're doing this for the safety of the children."

What if the govt. decides that for the saftey of the children, that homeschooling be banned?? (This has actually been suggested.) What if they decide for the saftey of the children that churches that preach intolerance towards homosexuals should lose their tax exempt status and even be taxed at a higher rate?? What if for the safety of the children, they decide churches must be licensed by the govt. and in order to receive that license, they must meet stringent hiring requirements (so many homsexuals, females, etc.)??

Seem far fetched?? Really?? Then give me the logical reason that would keep them from doing to the First Amendment what they are trying to do to the Second.

BTW....this is why I never supported what the govt. has done and is doing to the tobacco companies and to smokers. I don't smoke and wish people didn't. But this is America!!!! I will stand up for people's individual rights over the govt. any day.

As Drew Carey said, "How dare the govt. restrict the ways I can hurt myself!"

If you don't own a gun fine. But you should be willing to stand up for the Constitution and protect the rights of those who do.

Join groups like the NRA or Gun Owners of America who stand up for this precious Constituional Amendment.

If we don't, then don't be surprised when the govt. not only shows up at your back door, but the back door of your church.

BTW....you may have heard this line...."You have to get a license to operate a car or a boat......why not a gun??" Sounds good, huh??

Here's the problem. We do not have a Constituional amendment guranteeing us the right to have a car or a gun (or healthcare) for that matter. These are priviledges.

But....we do have a Constituional Amendment guranteeing our right to bear arms. This was given to us by the founding fathers to protect ourselves from the very people who are trying to take these rights away.....namely.....our govt.

We also, for now.....have a Constituional amendment guranteeing we can worship God freely.

I hope you will give serious consideration to this.....especially this election year. Once we start giving our rights away.....where will it stop??

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Answers

You didn't answer the question John. You simply did the exact thing the liberals do and put up a "straw man."

So I will try to ask it again....what if they govt. then feels in the interest of "the pursuit of happiness and the welfare of society"....that the First Amendment "freedom of religion" needs to be modified in order that there will not be any intolerance towards homosexuals??

Upon what logic are they to be stopped, when the Second Amendment has been stripped of its original intent??

As per you comment about flintlocks....the scientific data actually shows that "the more guns....the less violence." Those states which have the easiest "right to carry" laws actually have less crime.

Let me ask you, how many people would have been prevented from being killed at Columbine if the types of weapons used were outlawed?? Answer: the same number. Before those boys stepped on campus they had already broken over 17 existing gun laws.

Now, let me ask you. How many people would have been killed if teachers would have been armed and taught how to handle weapons responsbly?? Answer: possibly one......maybe two. But certainly....less than the 12 or 14 that were killed (depending on whether or not the boys would have surrended when confronted).

But again, I digress. How much are you willing to give up John? Where are you going to draw the line?? Only when it concerns you personally??

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

John....

It has always been a felon for any felon to even attempt to purchase any gun.....let alone....a prohibited one. In other words....all guns are prohibited to felons.

But here is the big question, that gets back to the one you have not answered yet.....why should I as a law abiding citizen, be prohibited from owning any gun??

This doesn't just apply to guns.....the govt. has it out for SUV vehicles. What gives the govt. the right to decide what I can and cannot drive??

For instance, I can go out right now and buy an AR-15 which is Colt's version of the M-16. I shot the M-16 when I was in the military. What a fun gun!!! The only thing that prohibits me right now is money!!! But I'd love to have one. They are fun to shoot.

Why....as somone who barely has any traffic violations.....be prohibited by the govt. from owning one??

Again.....it gets back to the First Amendment.....do we want the govt. telling us how to conduct our churches because...."they know best?"

I do appreciate the dialog John. But...I am passionate about this subject.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

An amendment to my first post.....

I meant to say....we do not have a constitutional amendment that guarantees that we can have a car and a boat.

I said "car and gun".....but I meant "car and boat."

We in fact do have a Constitutional amendment that guarantees that we can have guns.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Mark....

I'm am EXTREMELY interested in your logic which says...."It will not bleed over into freedom of religion but it may into freedom of the ability to speak the truth." (Words are not exact.)

I find this curious as both.....freedom of religion and freedom to speak the truth (i.e., free speech) is guarded by the same amendment.....namely the first. Why would govt. touch the one.....but not the other??

Also....states do have have jurisdiction....that's true. But their jurisdiction must not infringe on Constitutionally protected rights.

But again....please explain your logic for the above mentioned statement??

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Alright Mark.....I understand you. So let me see if I can reword the question.....

"How can you be more concerned about freedom of speech then you are about freedom of religion......when both are guaranteed by the same amendment.....namely the first??"

Then....."How can one be any less concerned, then, about the deterioration of the Second Amendment??"

Does that help??

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Sam...

Like John....you avoid answering the question by 1) putting up a straw man; 2) "Reductio ad absurdum"....really....do you know any individual citizen that desires or even wants a SAM??

The question comes back again....if we allow the Second Amendment to be infringed upon.....then upon what basis will be have for stopping them from infringing upon the First.....and specifically, the freedom of religion??

You say "Are there limits to nothing??"

Sammy Boy.....will you be that liberal when the govt. takes away the right to homeschool (which as I have said has already been suggested)......or, will you be that liberal when churches lose their tax exempt status when they fail to preach tolerance??

In other words Sam.....where do you draw the line?? Are you only going to wait until it affects something that concerns you?? Have you considered.....it may be too late then??

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Steve.....

Where I preach.....carrying is also the norm. I simply meant that statement in general. Shoot.....I loose about 40% of my men opening day of deer season. I'm not mad.....except for the fact I can't go. LOL!!

Steve, I've even carried a few times into the pulpit. I don't like hugging anyway. ha!!!

But most everyday....I'm carrying at some time.

BTW....it was good to hear that Glock decided not to sell out to the govt. in the same way S & W did.

I'm also jealous.....you have a Glock.

John.....come on!!!!! Answer the question.....how many rights are you willing to let deteriorate before you decide it concerns you and it's gone far enough??

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Sammy Boy.....

Looking back at my original post....the question is obvious. If we allow our govt. to continue to deteriorate our Second Amendment rights....because "I don't have a gun and it don't concern me".....then upon what basis logically, will the govt. stop from infringing on our First Amendment rights....namely....freedom of religion???

In other words.....should this gun control debate concern Christians in light of the fact the same ideal of "limitation" as you put it.....could also be put on our First Amendment rights??

2) Reducing the gun control debate to a discussion of terrorism is "reductio ad absurdum"....reducing to the absurd. We are talking about the rights of law abiding American citizens. Terrorists have no rights....unless they have Johnny Cochran for a lawyer....ha!!

3) Every responsible gun owner is concerned about keeping guns out of kids hands. The question is.....do gun laws make a difference?? The answer is a resounding....No!!!

Under the Clinton administration....the prosecution of EXISTING federal gun laws has gone down 80%. It is already a crime for a minor to have a gun and has been for years.

To think that this new round of gun legislation is about children's saftey is to be deluded. It's about "rights" grabbing. Do you honestly believe a criminal is going to put a trigger lock on their gun??

This is the same agenda that drives the govt. to take away property rights in the name of "the environment."

This is the same govt., with Al Gore at part of the helm, that says he wants the price of gasoline to go up so we will quit driving our gas guzzling vehicles. (That is a quote out of his book "Earth in the Balance.")

Sammy...one thing that separates us from the people of the world....and even the people of the Bible who underwent persecution is.....it doesn't have to be this way. We can vote. We can make a difference. This is a nation that was founded upon a belief in God and that because of that God gave us certain rights....including....the right to protect ourselves.

I will say this......your conclusion is logical and consistent. It appears that you don't care because it doesn't concern you. However, you are willing to accept whatever happens if the worst comes.

I'm simply not so passive.....and I'm thankful that our American forefathers were not either.

I will say this Sammy Boy....I do enjoy "discussing" with you. You are a gentleman.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Sam....

Hitler would have been proud of your stance.

What purpose does registration do Sam??

First....another fee for the govt. Then to make guns almost out of the reach of the average citizen....they will raise the taxes and raise the taxes until it becomes prohibitive to own a gun.

Second....the purpose of registration is to know who has them so that when they are taken away....they will know who to start with. (And don't use the analogy....."we register cars." Remember.....we don't have a Second Amendment to guarantee the right to drive.)

As Hitler said the day the guns were outlawed...."Now....we have a safe society."

Sam...I'm not going to discuss it with you anymore. But I do hope you are young enough and that you will keep my e-mail address so that you will be able to one day write me and say..."Danny...you were right."

Sammy Boy.....history is most certainly on my side.

Personally....I will never register my guns and I will never turn them over....in the same spirit of the founders of this country.

If you buy all the liberal propaganda.....so be it.

For me....I know what the word "no" means.

Thanks for the discussion Sammy Boy.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Mark Winstead....

I understand and agree with your "free speech" concerns as regards freedom of religion.

However, I think you are fatally wrong, if you think that what is happening to the Second Amendment has no bearing on what happends to the First.....or the Fifth for that matter.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Mark Winstead....

If you ain't one....you'd make a wonderful liberal democrat!!

How in the world do you define the NRA as an extreme group??

You want to know the truth Mark?? I don't think the NRA goes far enough. I think they compromise too much. I'm glad to finally see them get a spine. It's about time!!!

That's why I am also a member of "Gun Owners of America." You think NRA is extreme.....you would probably freak out at them.

So I guess I'm an extremists now!!!

So be it. It was extremists that fought for the freedoms we enjoy in America today.

Any other "extremists" out there??

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Yeah...as if murder never was a hate crime!!!

"Charton Hesston is my president!!"

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I have 3 children.....2 still at home.

The two at home are 14 & 8.

At any given time in my house....there are a minimun of 3 loaded guns in the house...sometimes 4 depending on what hunting season is open.

All of them are without trigger locks and within easy access of my children. My guns or ammo have NEVER been locked.

I have NEVER had a problem with my children. From very early ages they were taught to shoot and hunt responsibly. Using a gun in anger would never cross their mind.

So....maybe we ought to be talking about the deterioration of family values....and the out of control kids today raised by parents who haven't got a clue about discipline.

Nah....we'll just let the govt. and the legislatures feel good about themselves when they go to bed at night because they took more rights away from law abiding citizens.

I'm going to again recommend the book "More Guns...Less Crimes" which shows what the scientific data shows. States with the most liberal right to carry laws.....have the least amount of crime.

Gotta run to town. What should I carry?? The .357 or the .380??

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

By the way Mark Winstead.....

You used the term "Redneck" deragatorily.

Gotta say man....that would be the wrong thing to say on my side of the tracks.

Not ony is I one.....that's a compliment around here and where I came from.

So I guess I should say...."Thanks!"

BTW....speaking of "Rednecks".....Mark Wiz.....I got your deposit for the Christian Church Hog Hunt today.

Gonna be great hangin' with a bunch of Christian Rednecks in the swamps of Florida!!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Connie....

Other people's children ARE NEVER allowed in our house without adult supervision.

John.....

Your logic, in my opinion, means that the USA would have never come into existence. For what "thus saith the Lord"....did the American revolution operate upon??

Now, if you say, "freedom to worship God"....then I will agree with you. But they also knew, that in order to protect that freedom, a Constitution must be enacted that protected people from their govt....which includes the right to bear arms.

I think one problem may be in your view of the Constitution. Do you view the Constitution as a "living document"....that changes and grows as society expands? I do not. I believe we should simply interpret the Constitution in light of what the writers meant when they wrote it.

Have you ever read the article written by Rush Limbaugh's dad on what the founding fathers sacrificed as a result of signing the Declaration of Independence? If not....I am sure you can contact them for a free copy.....or my wife would be glad to send you one. It will bring you to tears.

(I mean this next statement for me personally)....I think it would be a slap in the face to these great men and the sacrifice they made to allow these rights they gave us to slowly be eroded away.

I do not accept your exegesis of Romans 13. It is simply an uncomparable situation to compare a Neronian emperialistic govt. with a democracy that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." At least now, as a US citizen, I have the ability to shape my govt. People of that day....did not.

The Constitution guarantees us certain rights. One of these is the right to bear arms (i.e., protect ourselves). This country was founded on the premise that God gave us these rights.

Now as to some of your specific questions or arguments.....

Sam as to all your arguments about registration, more laws, etc....let me give you the facts....

1) New York City has the strictest gun laws in the nation. They still have one of the highest crime rates if not the highest.

2) The scientific data overwhelming shows that there is NO correlation between more gun laws and less crime. I recommended a book for you to read that shows just the opposite. The better armed the citizenry is....the lower the crime.

3) Under the Clinton administration prosecution of existing federal gun laws has gone down 80%.

Let me elaborate on this one.

This is the administration that wants to pass campaign finance reform.....BUT WILL NOT ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!

Sam....the NRA pushes harder then anyone for prosecution of gun crimes.....but they have beat their heads against the wall with Clinton.

This is the same man that is "concerned for the children"....but pardoned inprisoned Puerto Rican Terrorists!!!! (Just in time for Hillary's New York campaign.)

I agree with W. Lapierre...."Clinton tolerates a certain amount of killing for his own political agenda."

There are documented cases where felons who attempted to buy guns were not prosecuted....were turned loose....got a gun from somewhere and killed someone. What if Clinton would have done his job and prosecuted the felon when he tried to purchase a gun??

The Columbine shooters broke 17 different gun laws before ever stepping foot on campus. How would more laws help??

4) The NRA has always been for background checks. They were the first to suggest the instant check. But the Clinton Administration was not satisfied with that....thus the Brady Bill.

Now listen to this Sam. Under the Brady Bill......Clinton loves to tout that 10,000 felons have been stopped from purchasing guns. Sam....call the Whitehouse and ask them how many of those 10,000 were prosecuted. The answer.....at last count....around 14!!!!

It is a federal crime for a felon to attempt to purchase a handgun. According to the Brady Bill....they are supposed to be prosecuted.

Do you remember the guy who when on a shooting rampage last year all over Illinois?? He started out in Chicago and moved over the state. I think he targeted minorities.

Did you hear the whole story? Probably not. Let me tell you.

He tried to purchase a handgun through a gun shop. They had a 3 day waiting period. He came in on Friday and was to come back Monday to pick up the gun. The background check showed that he had a criminal record and therefore could not purchase a gun, and in fact, was in violation of the law. When he showed up on Monday....he was supposed to be arrested. He wasn't. He left....got the gun "off the streets".....and went on his rampage.

Do you understand the NRA's statements now??

If the Clinton Administration would have prosecuted that individual.....5 people would be alive today.

But it's easier to take rights from law abiding citizens because we are generally good natured.

5) As to the "it will never happen" (i.e., gun confiscation)....let me simply cite two things.....

First, the words of Sarah Brady herself on the day the Brady Bill was signed into legislation. I do not have the exact words before me....but it was something to the effect of...."This is the beginning of the total ban on handguns."

Second, keep in mind Sam.....this is the same govt. that wanted abortion only for the "extreme cirumstances." And I have read of people in the churches who said..."Oh it will never be more than that." I think those people are now in a state of shock of the fact that we have come to point of "late term abortions."

As I don't have the ability to cut and past.....this is all I will write for now. If there is something I am leaving out....it not on purpose. I just get tired of flipping back and forth.

As far as your comment about you're glad I'm not your preacher....yeah....like that's the first time I've heard that one!! ROFL!!!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Sam.....

What questions did I not answer?????

You asked why I didn't support registration....I told you.

You asked why I don't support more laws....I told you.

So ask them one at a time.....and if I have not already answered them.....then I'll give it try.

Sorry Sammy Boy......I believe you got your mind made up, though.

BTW....the freedom to home school is based upon the First Amendment....Freedom of Religion.

Same....you keep refusing to acknowledge what Hitler and the communist have done. Let's go over it again. Registration....then confiscation. History is on our side on this one.

Your "It would never happen here mentality".....would not go over well with the millions of children that have been aborted in this country.

When a nation turns their back on God the way this one has.....anything is possible.

Sammy.....THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between you and me is.....you trust the govt. FAR more than I do.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sammy Boy.....

I've had about 30 minutes to mull this thing over and have to come to the conclusion that I'm going to stick by my original intent...i.e., not to discuss it with you anymore. For the following reason.....

It is an issue that I'm not willing to be divided with a brother over (baptism...yes...this.....no). You have to live your conscience. I have to live mine. I really don't think you are interested in changing your mind. I will admit....I'm not. I've studied this issue way too long. Therefore, I'll have to agree to disagree with you.

I do want to remind you of one thing. Keep my e-mail address. I think within the next 25 years (unless the political climate changes drastically)......you will be writing me to say...."You were right."

As they say on my favorite news debate show....Hannity and Combs....you have the last word on the subject.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Mark Winstead.....

I did not see that piece by John. I'm sad that I didn't. John is one of the finest reporters ABC has IMHO. He has done some other very fine pieces. I'll keep my eye open in hopes that it will come back as a repeat.

As per your Persian Gulf military suppression issue......I concur.

If the military wishes to keep information from the press....that's their business. But once it's public.....the press has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to report it.

BTW....you mentioned something that made my mouth water last night. North Carolina BBQ!!! Man there is nothing like it. It's been 3 years of withdrawal for me.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Paranoia???

In an FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin dated December 1999, in an article entitled, "Vehicle Stops Involving Extremist Group Members"....law enforcement officers are cautioned when making traffic stops that the display of "pro-gun bumper stickers" is a sign of possible extremist group involvement.

Now get this.....

Officers are also warned about "displays of the Bible and the U.S. Constitution."

Things that make you go.....hmmmmmmmmmm.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Robin,

One of your biggest prolems is seeing the govt. as something other than what the framers of the Constitution meant it to be.

What does...."Of the people, by the people, and for the people" mean to you??

The framers of our govt. framed the Constitution with the genius of placing in place a document that, if followed, would prevent us from serving under a dictatorship as was present during the writing of Romans 13.

But it only works when people hold their govt. accountable. Did you catch that?? It's not the govt's job to keep me accountable....it's my job to keep them acccountable.

You want to stick to Romans 13?? What does it say?? The purpose of govt. IS TO PUNISH THE WRONGDOER!! (Which is why I have no problem with INSTANT background checks.....not waiting periods.....because the purpose is to catch felons trying to purchase guns. I'm all for that!!)

Question Robin.....what have law abiding citizens done to deserve the govt. instrustion into their lives, while the Clinton administration turns terrorist loose and allows the federal gun crime prosecution rate to go down 80%??

One more thing.....your "PC" shows by mentioning that you keep no loaded guns in your house and you never carry to church. You sounded like Bill Clinton....."I love to duck hunt....now give me your guns."

SO WHAT??

If this is show and tell.....well....today....for Mother's Day I bought my wife a new pisol, I bought myself a new turkey gun.....and....sometimes I carry to church. Ohhhhh....what a bad mon!!!

Seriously.....as I've said before.....if our forefathers had been like you.....we would have been having tea and crumpets today at 2 PM.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Connie...."sanity and wisdom"....from the woman who sees locusts in the Bibles as helicopters. Connie.....listen to how stupid you make God....You said God said "Thou shalt not kill".....and then immediately God has the Israelites in battle including killing all men, women, and children. What a contradictory "god" you serve!! (A Scott Sheridan paraphrase.)

I'm not going to carry on a discussion of this with you, but scholars have known for years that the meaning of the text is "Thou shalt not murder." Make up you mind Connie. You can't have "Obey your govt. on one hand".....and then "be a pacifist" on the other hand.

Keep going Connie.....this was all Nelta's exact words which gives further creedence to my theory.....Nelta!

BTW.....if you could sit there and watch while someone raped and brutalized your granddaughter, I dare say....you need to read the N.T. again. In fact, stand there in light of the Greek word...."AGAPE."

Robin.....

All I meant was......telling me what you did was unnecessary. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of what you do or don't own. That's what makes America great!!

Robin.....as per not answering questions, I hope you were not referring to me.....you asked at least two that I answered...i.e, background checks, and my view of Romans 13.

You haven't seen the need for guns in church?? Have you noticed the increase in church shootings?? My motto is.....they may get one.....but that's it! Carrying a gun to church is no different than carrying a pocket knife or mace....which I've seen many times. To say "It's different"...is inconsistent....they are both weapons....one just happens to not be "PC."

Again, I simply reject anyone's exegesis that uses Romans 13 to support the taking away of our rights in the USA.

But.....to follow it all the way through. We should obey the law, right?? (according to Romans 13)??? Then what do we do when we see lawmakers breaking the law?? (which is what they are doing with many of their "gun laws.) What do we do when we see lawmakers breaking the law of the land (i.e., the Constitution)?? Do we just go along and participate with them?? Do we participate in abortions because the govt. says it's OK?? Do we do homo-sexual marriages because the govt. says it's OK??

Neither will I go along with their breaking of this law either.

Your a good man with a good heart Robin. I can tell.

I just wish you, and many others, could see the end of this long road ahead.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Robin.....IT JUST HIT ME!!!!

I KNOW YOU!!!!

A little over a year ago you guys were looking for a preacher and I was looking at the time.....and you and I talked via e-mail a couple times about the position in Wisc. (Remember I asked all the questions about how good the deer hunting was?? Ha!!)

Now.....I know why I said what I said above. You are a good man. Your church had some great philosophies about the role of the evangelist that I was was quite impressed with. It came down to money (unfortunately, I'm not independently wealthy, ha). But....for a congreation your size at the time, you were very gracious.

I guess now in light of this discussion, it's a good thing I didn't come. ha!!!

Anyway, things worked out wonderfully for me....have a great ministry here in Indiana in a good sized country church. Deer hunting?? Well, hard to believe, but I was ready for the season to be over last year. I was tired of it. Between me and my son last year we took 5.

Anyway.....had to have you know I remembered you because I remember our conversations with fondness.

As I said before.....you ARE a good man!

We can agree to disagree.

My only purpose in this thread is to get people to think about the long term affects of things we do today.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

D. Lee....

To take that verse the way you do would mean you husband was in the wrong by serving in the military.

I think it is wrong to take a verse that speaks to one issue, i.e., our spiritual battle, and apply it to all of life's existence.

Carry it to the extreme...."our battle is not with flesh and blood"....therefore, medicine is wrong because it involves the physical body.

Paul is simply pointing out the nature or "Modus operandi" of spiritual warefare as it contrasts with physical warfare. That's all. Nothing more....nothing less.

Yours in Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Robin.....

I'm a preacher.....I have plenty of time. ha!!! I work Sunday....and that's it.

Robin and D. Lee.....

I think Robin's last post was the one that finally cleared the muddy waters a little bit for me.

Let me state some conclusions I have come to:

1) Test of fellowship?? Absolutely not!!!

2) As you know, the Christian Church has always taken the stance, "Where the Bible Speaks, We Speak! Where the Bible is Silent, We Are Silent! In All Things We Have Love!" This issue fits very much in that realm. I believe Robin said it was a "matter of conscience for him." I feel the same.....only my conscience is opposite of his. You see Robin, I believe that registration or any other form of restrictive gun legislation is wrong: a) Because it is a violation of Romans 13. The purpose of Govt. is to punish the wrongdoer....not me. b) Therefore, I believe the Govt.'s purpose is evil. I oppose evil in whatever form I find it....even in the "sheep's clothing" that govt. tries to portray.

3) History is on my side on this. Registration is the brutal beginning of not only taking away our gun rights.....but every other right we are granted in the Constitution. Now Robin, you said the document was uninspired. True....but have you read it and seen WHY the founding fathers said we had these rights? Answer: Because we are creations of God. Notice, when our society kicked out God, they obviously told Him to take his "inalienable rights" with Him. Now I know some will say, "Our Constitution would not allow this to happen just by registering guns." Again I say, "Read history." Germany had a Constitution very similar to ours. Hitler and his appointed legislators, determined to simply ignore it. Possibly another reason that my wife and I are sensitive to to this is the attempts at govt. intrusion into our right to homeschool. Someone asked, "Where does the Constituion guarantee you the right to homeschool??" THEY ARE MY KIDS!!!!!!! not the govt's. If we can't understand that....we have a serious problem.

4) The Christian Churches have historically been known for.....DOING NOTHING!! Which.....is why we have abortion on demand....rampant homosexluality, etc. Preach against abortion today and you will be told not to bring politics to the pulpit.

This is my continued concern. I am concerned about my children and possible grandchildren living in a country devoid of many of the freedoms we have enjoyed these last 200 years.

Robin, the one question you really did not answer my wife on was this...."Was the Revolutionary War.....when we broke from England....wrong??" That is....should they have simply been happy with tea and cumpets??

If it was wrong....I think we as a nation should repent.....tear up our Constitution and surrender back to the British.

Silly you say?? Maybe. But the things I have said in this thread were the very things that drove the Revolutionary War. The exact same things. Therefore, to disagree with what I said, which is your right and which your conscience entitles you to do, you must of necessity disagree with them. Think about that the next July 4th.

5) As I told Sam......he could have the last word and I would honor that. I do not plan on challenging a thing he writes back on his well thought out presentation. The same applies to you D. Lee and Robin. I have accomplished what I want to. I'm not going to try to change your conscience. If I understand Scripture correctly, that would be wrong.

However, I hope you have some "seeds of doubt" planted in your mind. Give your addresses and I'll seen you each .50 cents. When these things come to be that I have foretold here.....I want you to call me. I won't gloat.....I promise.

Respectfully in Christ,

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

I have a question for those of you who question "civil disobedience."

Here it is......

Should Rosa Parks have set at the back of the bus??

Let's see how good your history is.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

WHAT ATROCIOUS SPELLING!!!!

Let's try that again.....

Should Rosa Parks have sat at the back of the bus??

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie....

I GOT YA!!!

Federal law or local law......SHE BROKE THE LAW AND YOU SAID YOU ADMIRED HER FOR IT!!!!

Therefore, you do condone civil disobedience for a higher cause.

So do I!! And one day.....you may very well have to admire the bravery of people such as myself and Mark Whiz.....and MILLIONS OF OTHERS WHO FEEL THE SAME WAY. (And know this....I'm not exaggerating when I say....MILLIONS OF OTHERS.)

You're not consistent Connie....never have been!

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie....

Note your inconsistency again.....you said...."The Constitution gave her freedoms and local govt. denied it!!!!"

EXACTLY!!!!! The same Constituion that gives me "THE RIGHT" to carry a firearm!!!.....and when they try to deny me that right....I will disobey!!!....BECAUSE....they are the ones breaking the law and I have a God ordained duty to uphold the law and see justice prevail.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Every right should have limitations. Certainly assault rifles should be banned. And we can't have people advocating the right to bear howitzers, mortars, bazookas, hand-held SAMs and small cannons. Although those are all technically "arms." The government has to balance the people's right to bear arms with the people's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the "general welfare."

How about this: In the spirit of the Founding Father's original intent for the 2nd amendment, all US citizens shall be issued one (1) muzzle-loading flintlock. :-)

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Before I hear it from anybody: I am not in favor of banning or legislating most firearms. I just feel that there has to be a limit as to what we determine is an "arm" we have a right to bear, and what isn't. Obviously some things should not be in the hands of the ordinary citizen, period.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Danny,

Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to infringe on the right to bear arms, but the way I have read the Constitution, there is nothing to stop the states from doing so. Yet Congress has the constitutionally granted power to regulate interstate commerce, and assumedly this would include regulating the state to state importing/exporting of guns (so a gun manufactured and sold within the state of Florida is outside the jurisdiction of Federal law, but not if it is manufactured in Florida and sold in Georgia).

Yet Congress has no right to infringe on the right to bear arms.

Do you know how this has been sorted out in the courts, or has no one tried to challenge some of the existing gun laws in this sort of way, e.g. I have the right to this AK47 because it was built and bought in my home state?

As for the central question, I think the threat is not the attitude of Congress on the Second Amendment bleeding over onto the freedom of religion. No, the real threat is the infringement in this country on the freedom of speech. Hate speech is banned from colleges and universities, and in certain other forums. I don't like hate speech, but its banning in various forums is frightening -- is our freedom to proclaim the gospel next? To many not of the Christian faith, the gospel is considered almost to be hate speech.

Is freedom to speak the Truth next?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Danny:

I'm not sure how I think about all of this yet, but I would tentatively raise one objection to your arguments.

Yes, the constitution guarantees the right to "bear arms". And, yes, the constituion guarantees the right to "free speech". But constitutional application has always been seen as allowing certain speech to be controlled and/or prosecuted -- libelous speech (publicly making false statements about you that harm you in some way); misrepresentation (lying in order to make a sale, for instance); certain kinds of threatening speech (promising to shoot the President is an example); inciting to riot; speech that in itself leads to public and/or personal harm (the classic "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater); etc.

Should these types of speech no longer be prosecuted, because we have a constitutional right to "free speech"?

And does the constitutional right to "bear arms" guarantee us the right to own and carry ANY kind of weapon we want? Why can't I own my own personal SAM, as John suggests? Shall we allow would-be terrorists to possess their own personal nuclear devices, as long as they can afford them?

Shall we simply say that every person has the privilege of living out in any way they want to every right that we have constitutionally guaranteed to us? Are there to be no limits to anything?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Danny,

Ok, since your question makes no sense to me, there must be a communication gap here.

Let me analyze in an extreme amount of detail what I did say about the relation of guns, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

As for the central question, I think the threat is not the attitude of Congress on the Second Amendment bleeding over onto the freedom of religion.

as to your central question, "should Christians be concerned about the current gun control debate?", your argument that we should turns on infringement of our rights, as defined in the Bill of Rights. The point of this statement is that the (I should have said) larger and more imposing threat to freedom of religion isn't the infringement on the second amendment. Next sentence:

No, the real threat is the infringement in this country on the freedom of speech.

I now introduce what I believe to be the larger threat, the infringement on a right we have contained within the same amendment as the amendment containing the freedom of religion. That of free speech. To worry about the freedom of religion over an issue dealing with guns when speech is increasingly restricted in this country is like worrying about a fire on the next block when your neighbor's house is ablaze.

Hate speech is banned from colleges and universities, and in certain other forums.

Example number one of what I am talking about. More and more state-sponsored colleges and universities are restricting speech in the name of being politically correct and in the name of tolerance.

I don't like hate speech, but its banning in various forums is frightening -- is our freedom to proclaim the gospel next?

I clarify that I don't support hate speech, but I recognize the necessity of tolerating it. If we support restricting someone else's speech, it is only a matter of time before our allies turn the table and try to restrict our speech. The Gospel has enemies.

To many not of the Christian faith, the gospel is considered almost to be hate speech.

For example, to homosexuals, the truth on the issue as proclaimed in scripture is hate speach. To declare the Jews' role in the death of Jesus (Acts 2:22-23) and the prophets before Him is considered hate speach. How long before we become restricted? How long before the Bibles we use become banned because of statements like Acts 2:22-23 and many other statements of exclusitivity (sp?).

Is freedom to speak the Truth next?

Well, will it be next? Or isn't it already being restricted in some places?

Danny, since you badly butchered whatever you were trying to paraphrase me saying, I am not sure what you meant when you tried to get me to explain I'm am EXTREMELY interested in your logic which says...."It will not bleed over into freedom of religion but it may into freedom of the ability to speak the truth." (Words are not exact.) I made no claim that there is something that won't bleed into the freedom of religion. I said there is a higher concern with freedom of speech than with gun control. And the nature of freedom of speech restrictions make them a legitimate threat to restrict our proclamations of our own beliefs.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

(I suppose my opinion would be viewed as biased if I happened to mention that as I am sitting here reading this thread, upon returning from the office, I have yet to remove from my waistband the Glock 27 which I carry everywhere legally permissable - except into the pulpit on Sundays. Preachers get a lot of hugs.)

Surprise! I agree with Danny (though I might question: "most Christians do not own guns" - We don't have the same group of friends!). Forget for a moment the effectiveness of concealed carry, history has shown a "slippery slope" when it comes to governments eroding the freedom of their citizens. That is why our founding fathers said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." It is not being very "vigilant" if we allow the second ammendment to be undermined and foolishly believe it will not affect the freedoms guaranteed by the first.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

do you know any individual citizen that desires or even wants a SAM??

Actually ... YES! (Scary, isn't it?)

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Danny...your words in italics:

Like John....you avoid answering the question by 1) putting up a straw man;

First, Danny, I'm still not certain what "the question" is. You've said a lot, but you've not clearly lined out what question you want answered.

Second, there is no straw man being erected here. I have asked legitimate questions, and you have not answered them. You have simply shouted, "Straw man! Straw man!" They are not, and you have not dealt with them.

2) "Reductio ad absurdum"....really....do you know any individual citizen that desires or even wants a SAM??

I do not personally, no. But there has been more and more terrorist activity within the boundries of the US, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd LOVE to have them. In fact, there was some speculation that a SAM was what brought down the airliner of the New York City coast a couple of years ago. They showed that it probably wasn't, but the idea is there, and I think we can be pretty sure that someone will either try to do it, or threaten to do it, before too long.

The question comes back again....if we allow the Second Amendment to be infringed upon

And here is the matter of some of the questions I asked you . . . if I work to keep an automatic weapon out of the hands of a 10 year old, am I "infringing his 2nd amendment rights"? The question stands: Are there no limits? I'm saying those words to you, Danny, not as a statement, but as a question, for you to expound upon. And while you're at it, please answer these other questions, individually:

Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if trigger locks are required? You've still got the gun.

Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if all guns are required to be registered with the government? You've still got the gun.

Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if certain types of weapons are restricted? In other words, does the right to keep and bear arms mean that EVERYbody gets to keep and bear EVERYthing?

Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if waiting periods and background checks are required? You still (if your record is clean) get the gun.

.....then upon what basis will be have for stopping them from infringing upon the First.....and specifically, the freedom of religion??

Frankly, Danny, I can't get too terribly worried about it. I won't want it, I'll fear the pain of persecution, I'll pray that I and others that I love will be strong in the face of hardship, torture or death. But let's face it, Danny, it's already here, all around the world. It just hasn't come to our shores yet. Thousands of men, women and children are tortured, deprived, oppressed, and/or killed each day, because they will not give up their faith in God. If God allows it to come here, we will find out who truly believes. As I said, I don't want it to happen, but I expect it one day.

You say "Are there limits to nothing??"

Sammy Boy.....will you be that liberal when the govt. takes away the right to homeschool (which as I have said has already been suggested)......or, will you be that liberal when churches lose their tax exempt status when they fail to preach tolerance??

In other words Sam.....where do you draw the line?? Are you only going to wait until it affects something that concerns you?? Have you considered.....it may be too late then??

Once again, you mistake my questions for position statements. And you fail to answer the questions. Talk about throwing up straw men! Answer the question, Danny. ARE THERE LIMITS TO RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, OR ARE WE FREE TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT, WHENEVER WE WANT?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

'Fools rush in where angels fear to tread'. So, call me a fool!

I have actually changed my mind on this matter in the last couple of years, and while I will not own a gun, I have two sons who are members of the NRA. In Illinois, we didn't know anyone who hunted, but in Michigan everyone and his uncle hunts.

I have come to agree that if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

And I remember Melanie in 'Gone With the Wind' who killed the Yankee intruder to save her family. A less likely person to shoot a gun can not be imagined.

And while I say I would never shoot anyone, even to save my own life, I do not know for sure what I would do to save the life of my child or grandchild.

But what bothers me as a Christian is: What do you do with the commandment that says: "Thou shalt not kill?" I KNOW that means 'Thou shalt not murder', but what about the New Testament? I won't give the Scriptural passages, but we all know them.

The ones about turning the other cheek and if one wants your jacket, give him your coat, too. (paraphrase) The ones about loving our enemies and doing good to those who hate us.

I remember when our school had an upset because our Superintendent had become a pacifist after resigning his naval commission in the V- 12 program. A few parents were rabid 'hawks'; I was sort of one, in that I supported Barry Goldwater, but there was a big uproar between the Christian hawks and doves.

(Really important matters when all around us the world is dying). Some of the most belligerant people were Christian pastors who were upset because their children were becoming pacifists.

Well, that controversy put me firmly in the camp of the ones who would never kill anyone.

The thing that really sticks in my mind was the statement of the Director of our City Mission, who was a parent in our school. He had been in WW II and had lost a leg in battle. He stood crying, and said, even though he had been a soldier who killed people, he agreed with Jim (our Sup't., Principal, and teacher) that we should not kill people, even in self-defense.

He said he woke up many nights having nightmares because he had killed people. And then he added that "Jim doesn't have to go through that."

Now, I know that there was a lot of killing in the Old Testament, sometimes at the behest of God. And I felt that if an unbeliever happened to assininate Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't mind. But I don't think Christians should do so.

I often say, and I see I'm not the only one (John W.) that we should be allowed the weapons which were in existence at the time of the writing of the Constitution ~ what were they? ~ pistols, dueling swords and cannons.

You can BET that if the writers had known of the weapons we have developed, they'd have put some restrictions on gun ownership. I dare say there would be no Uzis or Glocks in the hands of children!

I know we have to change peoples' hearts for things to change, but I also think we need to do something about too many guns and belligerant attitudes.

I am so thankful for my loving, supportive church which teaches Christian principles.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Few believe that the right to bear arms has anything to do with the individual owning a crew served weapon such as a howitzer, heavy machine gun, missles etc. The founders were talking about an ordinary military type firearm. Not a deer hunting rifle.

Perhaps a look into the Word of God.

Ancient Gun/Sword Control. Read the entire passage.

(1 Sam 13:20 KJV) "But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his ax, and his mattock."

(1 Sam 13:21 KJV) "Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."

(1 Sam 13:22 KJV) "So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found."

A warning to the Pastors/Prophets of Today.

(Ezek 13:4 KJV) "O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts."

(Ezek 13:5 KJV) "Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD."

(Ezek 13:6 KJV) "They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word."

God said it! I believe it! Do you?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny,

You are absolutely correct in this matter. Guns are just the tip of the iceberg. The Big issue is rights. The Federal Gov't has been chipping away at our rights for the past century and this is just the latest step in the process. The only trouble now is that the Gov't is trying to put itself in a position of invincibility.

How did all of the large nations & Empires of the past maintain their authority over their people no matter how corrupt they became - military power. How did Communism grasp and control it's peoples - military power. How do Third World dictators maintain their positions - military power.

How has the US managed to avoid problems such as these for the last 224 years - an armed populace. A Gov't cannot innact absolute control if the people have the ability to fight back. Now, Bubba Bill Clinton wants to take that right away from you.

Like Chuck Heston said, it seems to me like another Gov't tried to do the same type of thing on these shores 224 years - and we kicked them out. Seems to me that we had better take a look around at what is happening and do something now - or get ready for another American Revolution. And a Revolt is exactly what will happen when it gets to the point that the Gov't thinks they can walk up to citizens' doors and take their weapons. Were that to happen, they would get some ammo from me (spent, of course) but no weapons.

Hey John W. - aren't you glad the minutemen had the ability to get ahold of some cannon and other weapons beside small arms? If not, we would have had Krumpetts & tea for breakfast today and this afternoon we would have to mail a check equal to 70% of our pay back to the Queen in order to support Charles philandering lifestyle.

They say these latest measures are to protect the children - hogwash! If you want to protect kids - Educate Them! The Liberals won't tell you that in the vast majority of child shooting incidents, the child who shot had never fired a weapon before. If you teach kids to shoot in a proper place and with the proper rules of gun safety - they Will Not Kill people, unless threatened into doing so by the criminal. One cannot fire a .357 or .44 or 12 gauge shotgun without the thought coming to mind, "this would be a horrible way to die". Any sane person (or child) would never then use that weapon except in hunting or as a defense against a mortal threat.

But again - Rights is the issue. By what Right does the Gov't even try doing this to us? According to God's Word, they don't have the Right!

Of course, the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt possess and bare guns in thy household". But what does it say about the role of Gov't - any Gov't?

Paul spells it out in Romans 13:1-7. Read it for yourselves, but basically it says Gov't is established of God and it's purpose is to prevent anarchy. To establish moral laws to protect it's citizens from evil-doers from within and without. That's It ! Gov't doesn't have the right to say what you can or can't have or do as long as it is in the bounds of God's wishes.

Yet we, as a nation, have allowed Gov't to remove God from our schools, from our worksites, and from our own Gov't! There is only 1 more small step to be taken by them that will remove God from the public eye (church buildings) and from our homes. And that step is a step right over our weapons (By the way, to those of you who haven't been in the Secular workforce in a while, speaking of religion while at work {telling people about Christ} is now considered to be equal to sexual harassment and punishible as such).

I may be coming across as one of those wild-eyed, Militant, Y2Kers - but these are undeniable facts. If America don't wake up, speak up, and vote up soon; they will be forced to either give up or take their guns and "shoot up" to make things right again. Oh, but wait, they will have all of our guns by that point - so I guess we will be stuck with whatever Nero, Domition, or Clinton they see fit to put over us.

It's past 1984, and Big Brother is Still Watching!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny,

ok, now your question is clear. Since there has been a lot of repsonses since I could last post, I will repeat your question so others don't have to go searching up.

"How can you be more concerned about freedom of speech then you are about freedom of religion......when both are guaranteed by the same amendment.....namely the first??"

I am concerned about freedom of speech as a consequence of my concern for freedom of religion. The fact that both are guaranteed by the same amendment heightens my concern.

Now, I agree about certain limits libelous speech (when if is known to be false), direct threats to the President, purposefully speaking in a way to incite a riot, etc. that Sam mentioned earlier. But in the early 90's, these restrictions started creeping into other sorts of speech. From 1989-1993 I was in graduate school at the University of Virginia, the very school founded by the same man who [co-?]authored the Bill of Rights. Each year, you could clearly see a creeping encroachment on speech freedom on campus (excuse me, they call them the "grounds"). UVa used to have a great tradition of lots of student government sponsored publications, but in the early 90s encroachments on speech in the name of political correctness and tolerance removed more and more of the freedoms. In 1994, I was a visiting lecturer at University of California-San Diego. That place was practically draconian. Basically any speaker that might speak anything resembling non-inclusion (be it race or religion or sexual preference, etc) was not allowed to speak on campus.

These sorts of restrictions are encroaching on society. The last few years have seen the strengthening of hate crime laws. Many of these laws either restrict speech or have been enforced in such a way as to make you a legitmate target for harassment (in some areas of this country, try speaking out in opposition to homosexuality and see if you don't automatically become a prime suspect if hate crimes are committed).

Danny, isn't it clear that once speech on certain issues gets restricted, it isn't that big a leap to restricting public religious speech? I believe the leap is much larger from gun control to religion control.

Then....."How can one be any less concerned, then, about the deterioration of the Second Amendment??"

Well, is the government unduly restricting religious practice when we have to meet building codes? We have to put a certain number of exits in our building, why can't gun manufactures be required to put safety locks on guns? Much of what is proposed is of this nature.

the key is interpretting "Congress shall pass no law infringing on the right to bear arms". Does a safety lock infringe on my right to own the gun? No, I dont' think so. Are laws assuring that my gun won't blow off my hand when I pull the trigger infringing on my right to buy a gun? No.

Now, do tell, is a law making it illegal for the mentally imbalanced and convicted felons to possess guns an infringement on their rights?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

First of all, I DO believe in weapons; the ones in Ephesians 6: 10-18: (NAS)

10: Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the stength of His might.

11: Put on the full armor of God, that you mat be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

12: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

13: Therefore, take up the full ormor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

14: Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,

15: And having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of peace;

16: In addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one.

17: And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which, which is the Word of God.

18: With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverence and petition for all the saints,

19: And pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the Gospel.

Hebrews 4:12:

For the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two- edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Matthew 5: 21-26:

21: You have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not commit murder", and whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court".

22: But I say to you that everyone who is angry (Ampl. says 'continues to be angry') shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say, "You fool!", shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

23: If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,

24: Leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

25: Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him in the way; in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

26: Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid the last cent.

Revelation 13:10:

10: If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance of the faith of the saints.

(My interpretation: the killing of the murderer is to be carried out by the constituted authorities, ~ therefore, I accept capital punishment.)

And speaking of the Constitution: It is not on a par with Holy Writ.

We are strangers and sojourners on earth. We are ambassadors from heaven, and representatives of Christ. In killing an intruder, we perhaps condemn him to Hell. If we die, we go into God's presence.

How would we do that? Say: "I kill you in the Name of Christ!)?

Also, as for standing up for people's rights, I believe that we as Christians really have no rights. We are called to be servants. Stand up against the government? We are to be subject to the authorities!

Face it, all, we ARE GOING TO lose all of our individual rights, we will even lose our rights of free speech, assembly (given by our government, not by our savior), religion, etc. NOTHIMG WE DO will change it, because God has said it will happen.

Just as the creation of the one-world government IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Mystery Babylon will be built, the one which will not let Christians buy or sell unless we have the mark of the beast on our hands and foreheads.

The purpose of the one-world governemnt will be to persecute Christians. It's happening. We are to be wise as serpents, and HARMLESS AS DOVES.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Mark Winstead

You said, "Danny, isn't it clear that once speech on certain issues gets restricted, it isn't that big a leap to restricting public religious speech? I believe the leap is much larger from gun control to religion control."

No, it is not such a big leap. Once a toe-hold is taken, it's "Katey-bar-the-door" to stop the onslaught that will follow. Mark, you saw this for yourself at UV.

You asked," Does a safety lock infringe on my right to own the gun?"

Yes it does! It does so because of the current thinking of the day that is bringing up the issue and because of the precedent it sets.

Again you asked, "Now, do tell, is a law making it illegal for the mentally imbalanced and convicted felons to possess guns an infringement on their rights?"

No! By law - felons Have No Rights. Their rights are taken away because of their actions - there are no polling booths in prison. And don't use the mentally unbalanced straw-man. Somebody that far gone has a legal custodian assigned to them and it is their responsibility to prevent him from harm & prevent him from causing harm to others - no different from the parental rights I exercise over my children. And by the way, by their own admission, the writers of the Constitution DID NOT include children in the Bill of Rights - they have no rights other than what the parents give them.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Mark Winstead, About 40 years ago Francis Schaffer, made a prediction that if Abortion were accepted that the next logical step would also be acceptance of Euthanasia of the elderly. He was scoffed at and they said he was making way too big of a "leap" and it would never happen. Well, here we are with legalized abortion and many people applauding Dr Kovorkian. Francis Schaffer's predictions are coming true and this leap is a reality. Among the homeschooling circles of which I roam I am also told that today it is the "gun control issues" the next to go will be homeschooling rights, in fact it has already started. I for one am not taking any chances. There is also a very dangerous bill in congress called The Religious Liberty Protection Act, a clause, tacked on to an international commerce trade bill. It is even being backed by some Republicans and seems like a very good, religious freedom law...and is being presented as such until you read the fine print. In actuality it will restrict religious freedom, giving government very strict control over our freedoms...very much like these newly proposed, seemingly good, gun control ideas like safety locks, and gun registration.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

2) Reducing the gun control debate to a discussion of terrorism is "reductio ad absurdum"....reducing to the absurd. We are talking about the rights of law abiding American citizens. Terrorists have no rights....unless they have Johnny Cochran for a lawyer....ha!!

3) Every responsible gun owner is concerned about keeping guns out of kids hands. The question is.....do gun laws make a difference?? The answer is a resounding....No!!!

Two things, Danny.

1) the "reductio ad absurdum" flaw can be assigned to some of your arguments as well. For instance, you take the stand that gun laws don't stop criminals, trigger locks won't affect criminals, etc. Ok, fine, then let's apply that thinking to other laws as well. Laws against breaking and entering aren't stopping all the burglary around here -- it only affects those who obey anyway, so let's get rid of those laws, too!

Laws aren't written only to prevent bad behavior. They are also written to make it possible to punish the offender, and to help the borderline, would-be offender to not fall over that edge. If the evil doer is not punished, that doesn;t mean the law is bad; it means the law must be enforced more rigorously, and appropriate punishment meted out to offenders.

Oh, and terrorists certainly DO have the same rights under the law that you and I do, until they are convicted of crimes and declared to be felons.

2) Gun laws don't make a difference? Don't be silly. Of course they do. Do they make as big a difference as they need to? No, but that's the fault of lax enforcement and underfunded police departments. But the effectiveness of a law is not the gauge by which to measure its value.

Do we have laws against murder? Yes. But there are dozens of murders every day across America. So the laws don't make a difference? Of course they do. Not to EVERYbody, but to most, they do. I'm for keeping them.

Do we have laws against the sexual abuse of children? Of course we do. And yet it occurs in heartbreaking numbers every day. but we sha'n't throw out the laws, just because they don't always (or even often) work.

In every area of jurisprudence, there are many, many people who will ignore the law. But it does not follow that those laws should therefore be avoided or struck down.

(Have I said that enough?)

You say that every responsible gun owner is all for keeping guns out of the hands of children. Well, of course they are. But the laws aren't written because of them. the laws are written because bad people do bad things in spite of the laws. the laws are written to provide an appropriate response to and consequence to doing wrong, as well as to prevent those that it can prevent.

I have no problem with trigger lock laws. Sure, criminals won't obey. but, as stated again and again here, that doesn't make the law bad. And no one has shown how requiring trigger locks infringes on your right to own and use the gun.

I have no problem with registration laws. Sure, criminals won't obey. but that doesn't make the law bad. And no one has shown how requiring registration of guns infringes on your right to own and use the gun. On the contrary, my homicide detective sister can testify how the tracing of guns and their owners and the places they have been can help to capture violent criminals.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Some of the opinions here just reinforce a t.v. commercial I saw the other day. I only perked up at the tail end, so I may have the details of it wrong.

Essentially, in the commercial there is some sort of parade or march going on. The march consists of a bunch of skinheads or rednecks (I wasn't paying much attention) marching with a confederate flag or some other flag. It's unclear (I was only half paying attention at this point) if these marchers are racists, Texas Independence advocates, NRA members, or some other extreme group (yes, the NRA, its leadership anyway, has become extreme -- luckily for Danny alternative groups are popping up). At the end of the commercial, a caption appears. It reads VOTE, THEY DO . If I see the ad again, I will try to clarify the details.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Mark,

That commercial sounds like a "Hate Crime" to me. I hope I see it here. Betcha a dollar-to-a-donut that the people behind the commercial are Liberal, Democratic, ACLU (Anti Christian Lawyer Union) types whose only purpose in life is to be able to tell you what to do.

Speaking of which - don't you just hate the term "hate crime" That is the stupidest oxymoron I've ever heard. How many people do you know rape, loot, plunder, and assault someone out of love? Just another political ploy to move us toward THEIR idea of political correctness!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny,

I'm Extreme......I'm extremely ANGRY that the citizens in the country have stood-by, and are standing-by, while the Constitution and its ideals which I have personally sworn to protect with my life as a citizen; is being raped, stepped-on, and perverted by the Liberal element.

And guess what Brother? I ain't going down without a fight. Its time to order a few of those 500 round ammo buckets from Cabela's Catalogue.

It's interesting to note, that Paul said to obey the Gov't - Folks, in a Democracy: WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! It's high time we took it back from the politicians whom we have allowed to usurp it from us.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Sam, One quick response to something you have said. You said you have no problem with gun registration. When we first moved to Indiana I recieved a notice from the state of Indiana that I must register my child with the state if I plan on home educating here. I was confused because I knew that it was not Indiana law to do so. I contacted my home education lawyer and he said to absolutely not register with the state. It is not the law and is a violation of my constitutional rights. The same is true for gun ownership, it is a violation of one's constituional rights. What are you going to do when they require all christians to register with the gov't? It is the beginning of the end just like when Hitler and communists countries required the same such registration in matters of gun ownership, religion and other basic freedoms those countries once had.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Don't you know it, Brother Redneck !!!!!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny,

Oooo, if you don't think the NRA doesn't go far enough, then watch out for the Dubya -- his Daddy burned his NRA membership card because he thought they were going too far. Seems like I heard Jerry Ford did the same.

[For the unaware, "the Dubya" is an increasingly popular nickname for George W. Bush, aka George Jr.]

As for being a liberal Democrat, you must be a Texan. They confuse moderate independents and liberals all the time down there. Shoot, to them Kay Bailey Hutchinson is liberal and Phil Gramm is a moderate. Actually, the closest I ever came to joining a party (other than living in areas dominated by one party and having closed primaries) is when I almost joined the Libertarians. Voted for them more often than Democrats in the last three elections. And I can say I will be voting Republican in the N.C. governor race, unless the Democrats running change their position on a couple of issues.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Opps, sorry, did I say something that might of insulted rednecks?

Gotta watch that, half my kinfolk might come after me, as well as 3/4 of my high school graduating class.

You true rednecks might find my friend Denny hilarous. Denny is a native Californian (I think he has some surfer dude in him) who is ashamed of his roots. He is trying to convert to North Carolina redneck -- he has the love and taste for NC BBQ and the rest of the cuisane (Brunswick stew, hushpuppies, etc) down, claims he has at least a pound of BBQ in the fridge at all times. Denny does work often in the field, being some sort of regional manager with AT&T, overseeing the laying of the wires in the ground and such, he often pitches in and goes into the field to stay in touch. So he's already got the "tan". It's just hilarous to seem him try to talk the talk though. He is so lost with the dialect, he admits he still needs to take a translator along with him when he is out in the rural areas of NC.

Keep telling him though that he has just got to replace the wardrobe. He needs to buy some flannel shirts to replace those Hawaiian prints of his. At least he has given away the golf clubs.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny:

I'm sorry you won't discuss this with me anymore. You haven't bothered to answer any of the questions I've asked you.

I'm going to answer what you've said, and ask a couple of the questions again, and a couple or three more besides. If you choose to not discuss or answer, then I guess they'll just kind of hang there in the air, and others can take them up if they care to.

Your words in italics, as usual.

Hitler would have been proud of your stance.

please, Danny, be honest with what I have said. I made it very clear that I am not yet taking a "stance". I'm truly not sure yet what all of my final position will be on this issue. And I specifically told you that at least twice before. I'm asking questions to help sort out some different aspects of the issue. This comment is out of line, and does nothing to help either of us.

What purpose does registration do Sam??

I gave a specific benefit of registration in my last posting -- that it makes it easier for law enforcement officials to trace gun ownership when dealing with violent crimes. Even when (as is most often the case) a lawful and law-abiding gun owner has a weapon stolen from him or her, and that weapon is used in a violent crime, the perpetrator is often found and convicted with the help of the trail the gun took from beginning to end.

Another reason . . . if one or more of your guns is stolen, and then recovered, your claim to them would be much stronger if you could show that ownership is clearly yours, as registration would allow.

First....another fee for the govt.

Fine. Valid complaint, if the fee is unreasonable (granting you the assumption that there is a fee involved anyway).

Then to make guns almost out of the reach of the average citizen....they will raise the taxes and raise the taxes until it becomes prohibitive to own a gun.

Pure speculation on your part. There is NOTHING that the government has placed fees and registrations on that those fees have caused the thing to be placed financially out of reach of the average American. If it happens with guns, it will be the first time. You are speculating that removing all guns is the government's goal. I will admit that some very loud people would like to get rid of them, but that it will happen is by no means assured or even probable. You may, of course, continue to think that it is, but you do so without sufficient evidence.

Second....the purpose of registration is to know who has them so that when they are taken away....they will know who to start with.

Once again, speculation. Apparently, speculation that lies at the base of many of your objections to any further lawmaking about guns. You seem to assume that the whole idea is to take them all away. See the last paragraph above.

This whole outlook that sees the government as the Evil Empire that wants to destroy your life is a bit worrisome, and a little baffling. (on a lighter note, if you had a patron saint, would it be Ted Nugent? ;) )

(And don't use the analogy....."we register cars." Remember.....we don't have a Second Amendment to guarantee the right to drive.)

Hadn't planned to use that analogy. But I would refer you again to a question asked in an earlier posting . . . Does the granting of a certain right by the constitution guarantee that I can use that right in any way I care to, with no limit? This is a vitally important question, Danny. If the answer is yes, then anyone in Florida is free to libel and slander you and your good name, and ruin your reputation as a faithful Christian and father, and you can't do anything about it because that person has a right to free speech.

This is neither a straw man nor an ad absurdum argument, Danny. This is vital to the understanding of the exercise of constitutional rights. Please, answer the question . . . does the granting of a "right" in the constitution give us free reign to use that right in any way we wish, are can reasonable limits be rightfully placed on those rights?

As Hitler said the day the guns were outlawed...."Now....we have a safe society."

Sorry. I can't see a Hitler taking over here, as long as we have the political system we have. Flawed as it is, it's the best thing going for keeping us free to have these kinds of discussions and freedoms.

Sammy Boy.....history is most certainly on my side.

Is it now? The history of THIS country? the history of ANY country with the constitutional systemic safeguards we enjoy? (which, of course, would be properly answered by saying, "There ain't none.")

Personally....I will never register my guns and I will never turn them over....in the same spirit of the founders of this country.

Then, Danny, I say this with humility and deep sadness, but with firmness just the same . . . I'm glad you're not my preacher.

If called on by the government to disobey the clear teaching of God, we must disobey the government, and willingly accept whatever punishment it metes out, praising God that we are found worthy to suffer for His sake. Such is the unmistakable teaching of the New Testament.

But when called on by the government to do a certain thing that has no "Thus saith the Lord", and no Biblical principle to build on differently, then it is also the unmistakable teaching of the New Testament to submit to the God-established rule of the government. To do less, and to teach folks in your congregation to do less, is to violate the clear teachings of the New Testament.

If you buy all the liberal propaganda.....so be it.

First, few people buy less liberal propaganda than I do. Second, I haven't bought anything, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, I guess. I'm trying to work through issues, so that I can decide what I need to think. Your assitance is appreciated. But make arguments, not bumper sticker speeches.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny, my dear friend:

I hope a neighbor child or a future grandchild who have not had the training your children have had are ever allowed in your house. That is why some of these things are called 'accidents'.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Just out of curiosity, who was it that started the somewhat hysterical (in my opinion) thread a few months back about all the terrible things that Y2K would bring, the economic collapse, global chaos, et. al.? I can't find the thread listed anymore, but I thought knowing who posted there and what they said might enlighten me as to what was going on here. Because I think the same conspiracy- think is going on. IMHO.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

<John quickly dodges the hail of bullets in his direction...>

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

John,

As to your conspiracy theory...

Duane, I believe is the one who started the y2k threads. See older messages (by catagory) - culture & society

Danny did not concur.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny, do you even read what I write? Or do you just let your eyes skim over some of the words? You spent your whole last post arguing against something I never said. In fact, I said exactly the same thing YOU did ... that we need better enforcement of existing gun laws. I said that three or four or maybe five times in my last post, in different words.

And you didn't answer any of the questions or points that I DID make. Go back and try again.

Oh, I forgot. You're not discussing this with me anymore. Sorry.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

And why can't you cut and paste?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Be careful Sam!

At least 175 pages of the long thread on the RM were Lee's copied and pasted pages. (I'm not positive of the exact number, but I'm sure Lee will let me know.) I'm sorry in advance, Lee, 'cause I'm tired of being called a liar.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I'm sorry, Jenny. I meant to reply, but it got lost in all the hubbub.

Sam, One quick response to something you have said. You said you have no problem with gun registration. When we first moved to Indiana I recieved a notice from the state of Indiana that I must register my child with the state if I plan on home educating here. I was confused because I knew that it was not Indiana law to do so. I contacted my home education lawyer and he said to absolutely not register with the state. It is not the law and is a violation of my constitutional rights. The same is true for gun ownership, it is a violation of one's constituional rights. What are you going to do when they require all christians to register with the gov't? It is the beginning of the end just like when Hitler and communists countries required the same such registration in matters of gun ownership, religion and other basic freedoms those countries once had.

If it is not the law, then, by all means, do not do it if you do not wish to. As far as it being a violation of constitutional rights, I'd be curious to know which constitutional right it violates.

And I still don't understand how registering one's firearms infringes upon the right to have them. You still have the weapons, don't you? Perhaps you can explain it to me, since I'm not getting an answer elsewhere.

The comparison to Hitler and communist countries is, I believe, a red herring dragged across the tracks which does nothing to advance the argument. The simple fact is that we are NOT governed in the same way as either of those examples. And we never will be, as long as the constitution stands.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sam... Danny pretty much answered the questions you asked of me and I have just a couple to add and then I'll shut up.

When the state of Indiana lied to me about having to register with the state, for what reason did they lie???? Registration of anything, for guns, homeschooling etc. serves only one purpose "to keep track of." Now I ask you why should LAW ABIDING citizens have to be kept track of, for any reason???? Yes, we still have the guns, I still have my kids but whose business is it? It is mine...not the gov't, not Big Brother. These kids are mine not the state's. God gave me these kids and material possessions not the state. Invasion of privacy also comes to mind. Sam...if you think our rights can't be snatched away real quick you are sadly mistaken. You can still own property and a business but you can't do what you want with that. You can't build on that property if it contains an endangered species, In Ca. property owners are loosing their hunting rights very quickly, on their own property (Ask Danny about this one.), rights we had for many yrs are being chipped away at slowly...you hear of it every day...i.e. the tobacco issue. (I hate smoking but if they take their rights away, are mine next?) You can't even mention God in the schools...need I go on?

Sam, if we don't nip this in the bud...NOW we can and will lose our rights as American citizens, the fact that we have a Bill of RIghts as opposed to the communists countries and Germany makes no difference...I see it everyday...being chipped away. Registration has always been "to keep track of, not criminals but law abiding citizens." Sam...please don't take anything for granted...keep your eyes and ears open...like Danny said talk to us in twenty yrs..

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Anyone see John Stossel's "You Can't Say That" on ABC last night? It is a good piece of documentary t.v. on how the freedom of speech has been slowly chipped away at in this country.

One piece of it reminded me of an experience I had while teaching Intro to Statistics at the University of Virginia. I was trying to use a poll released that same week to make a point. As an exercise to that end, I asked the same question in an in-class poll. The question was something to the effect of "does the American military have the right to arbitrarily supress the press in the Persian Gulf Crisis?" (this was in early 1991). The class overwhelming voted yes. Hmm, they agreed that the media has no right to freedom of speech in a war situation. Needless to say, I forgot for the moment my initial point and gave a short lecture on the 1st amendment and its purpose.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

You guys are all crazy!

The best BBQ in the world comes from Jack's Creek, Tennesee!

Whan I was going to school at Freed-Hardeman, they used to slaughter 36 pigs and start BBQing them in an open pit... This was on Thursday. By Sunday afternoon, it was all gone.

I remember going to "Nobles BBQ" for the first time with my .75 cents in hand. I walked in to this small dining room (musta held about 6 or 8 people) and went to the window (you couldin't see in the window for all the smoke). Someone opened the window to take my order and sent me into a momentary coughing fit from the hickory smoke pouring out. They asked what I wanted and then grabbed a paper plate and stepped behind them to the pit.

The pit was made out of Concrete blocks with sheets of Plywood over the top of them. The moved one of the sheets of plywood back and there was the pig, laid out for serving.... they took a fork and literally "pulled" the meat right off the hide and stuck it on the bun. (THe bun was one of those double sized buns you don't see many of) They came back to the counter and asked me if I wanted hot or mild sauce "Hot!" Then they grabbed what looked like a miniature mob out of a miniature bucket filled with what looked like hot oil/grease and dabbed it on my meat. then they plopped on some cole slaw and put the top of the bun on it and served it.

I'll tell you, that was in 1978 when big macs were $1.75 and about half the size of this monstrosity! It was the best thing I've ever put in my mouth!!!

During the '79-80 school year, we had Paul Harvey at out as our keynote speaker at our annual "Homecoming" and we sent him home with a couple of pounds of this BBQ... He raved about it on his news show the next week from Chicago.

I'm going to have to visit Lee and carry him up there and treat him to some real BBQ!

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sam, you wrote:

"The comparison to Hitler and communist countries is, I believe, a red herring dragged across the tracks which does nothing to advance the argument. The simple fact is that we are NOT governed in the same way as either of those examples. And we never will be, as long as the constitution stands."

"As Long as the Constitution stands" is the key issue. The Constitution, as originally written & conceived, is a great document. The Bill of Rights was added to it to guarantee that certain things would not be allowed to happen to the America people as it had to other peoples throughout history.

The problem occurs when this document is handled and interpreted by men - specifically by men with an agenda and an "axe" to grind. Laws that exist on the books today as "Constitutional Law" bare absolutely no resemblance to what the authors of the Constitution had in mind. If you think about, the Bible and the Constitution suffer from the same problem - people use them to get what they want out of it and then disregard it. As Solomon put it, "there is nothing new under the sun".

Case in point - AbortionHow, on "God's Green Earth" can one read the Constitution and actually believe that is says that a mother has the right to kill her unborn child? That is just ludicrous, especially when you compare that to the fact that if I accidentally hit a bald eagle with my car (and those suckers do like to "dive bomb" cars) I will pay thousands of dollars in fines and could well end up in jail. But trigger locks could NEVER escalate to gun bans and seizures - GIVE ME A BREAK !

Fortunately, since this is still a Democracy (at least for the time being) we still have the opportunity to use our vote to displace those who would pervert the Constitution and our Rights. The only problem is - for the last 200 years, we as a nation, have chosen not to do so. We bury our heads in our own problems and figure the rest will "come out in the wash".

Well, we are quickly approaching "Wash Day". Please people, study the history of mankind - how those in power have ALWAYS corrupted the "laws of the land" to the detriment of their people and the destruction of their nation.

It's one thing to be an Ostrich, to just bury your head in the sand and let the rest of the world go by. But please, don't bury the rest of the nation along with your head.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Danny:

Continued discussion would not build a wall between us; at least not from this side. i already know there are things which you and I will never see eye-to-eye on. Thats fine.

What questions did I not answer????? You asked why I didn't support registration....I told you. You asked why I don't support more laws....I told you. So ask them one at a time.....and if I have not already answered them.....then I'll give it try.

Well, Danny, I dont know what to say except this . . . I never asked these questions of you. Perhaps these were the questions you wanted to answer no matter what was asked, or perhaps you read my questions and got this out of them. But these are not the questions Ive asked.

Ive gone back through this thread from the beginning, and compiled the questions I actually asked, that you havent addressed. If you care to give them a go, that would be nice. If you dont, thats fine, too. I understand not going farther in what you see as a useless discussion. I dropped out of one with you a couple of months ago for the same reason. No hard feelings, or feelings of he left, so I won coming from here.

Here are the questions Im still looking for answers to. Anyone reading along is welcome to address them.

But constitutional application has always been seen as allowing certain speech to be controlled and/or prosecuted -- libelous speech (publicly making false statements about you that harm you in some way); misrepresentation (lying in order to make a sale, for instance); certain kinds of threatening speech (promising to shoot the President is an example); inciting to riot; speech that in itself leads to public and/or personal harm (the classic "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater); etc. Should these types of speech no longer be prosecuted, because we have a constitutional right to "free speech"? -March 22

Shall we simply say that every person has the privilege of living out in any way they want to every right that we have constitutionally guaranteed to us? Are there to be no limits to anything?  -March 22

(Here was your answer to the last . . . Sammy Boy.....will you be that liberal when the govt. takes away the right to homeschool (which as I have said has already been suggested)......or, will you be that liberal when churches lose their tax exempt status when they fail to preach tolerance?? This isnt an answer, but a reductio argument, going to the extreme rather than the absurd. But it fails to address the question, Do we put any limits on rights, and if so, how? If not, why not?)

Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if trigger locks are required?... Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if all guns are required to be registered with the government?... Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if certain types of weapons are restricted? In other words, does the right to keep and bear arms mean that EVERYbody gets to keep and bear EVERYthing?... Is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if waiting periods and background checks are required?... --March 22, second round.

I should add to each of these questions, If it is an infringement, how does it infringe the right?

ARE THERE LIMITS TO RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, OR ARE WE FREE TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT, WHENEVER WE WANT? --March 22, second round. A repeat of an earlier question not addressed.

Does the granting of a certain right by the constitution guarantee that I can use that right in any way I care to, with no limit? -- March 23, asked yet again and still unanswered

does the granting of a "right" in the constitution give us free reign to use that right in any way we wish, are can reasonable limits be rightfully placed on those rights? --March 23, again same question.

Each of the above questions was addressed to you at least twice in this thread. All youve given back is examples of when the laws didnt work. You and I both agree that the reason they didnt work was that existing laws are not being properly enforced. But affirming that, as we both do, does not answer the questions asked. And talk of sliding down the slippery slope to socialism also doesnt answer the questions.

Sorry Sammy Boy......I believe you got your mind made up, though.

Believe what you like. I maintain that I am open to final convincing on this issue. Who knows? If I see arguments that are stronger than Well see whos right over the next 20 years, I might bend your way. As it is, Im not bending ANY way until I get answers to the questions raised.

(Gosh, Im kinda feeling like LEE here!)

Sam....you keep refusing to acknowledge what Hitler and the communist have done. Let's go over it again. Registration....then confiscation. History is on our side on this one.

On the contrary, I have two or three times acknowledged the history of the Nazis and the Socialists. Where we have disagreed on them is that you think America is fast moving their way, and I disagree.

Sammy.....THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between you and me is.....you trust the govt. FAR more than I do. 

Oh, I dunno. I have far more trust in God than in the government. If He sees fit to allow it to move in a certain direction, I will trust that He will keep us strong and true to Him, no matter what comes our way.

And that brings up another issue I raised, which I hoped you would address. You declared that you would willfully violate the law if registration was mandated. I think that you stand in direct defiance of the writings of the apostle Paul on this matter. I would welcome hearing why you dont think this is true.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

BTW, this last bit was the sole reason for the "not my preacher" statement. If you can give me good strong scriptural support for intentionally violating law on a non-faith matter, then I'll be ahppy to listen to the preaching!

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Jenny:

Now I ask you why should LAW ABIDING citizens have to be kept track of, for any reason????

I guess this means you won't be filling out your census form?

Sam...if you think our rights can't be snatched away real quick you are sadly mistaken.

I know they can, Jenny. And I know that some have been, and some more will continue to be.

Maybe I don't care enough. Maybe I take too much of a "God will treat me how I most need" mentality. I know Danny doesn't believe it, but these really are issues I struggle with.

I have mentioned that my baby sister is a cop. It was so odd to call home while she was going through academy, and be told, "Margaret's not here right now. She's over at a classmate's house, doing homework. They're practicing pulling each other out of their car by their hair." Makes it hard to be the protective "older brother" type when you know that your sister, who is fully half your size, has helped to take down a bar full of drunks with pool cues in their hands and hatred in their hearts.

I worry that I'll get a call in the middle of the night, telling me that some punk with armor-piercing bullets has killed my sister. I worry that she'll have to kill someone in the line of duty and be vilified in the press and public. I have a personal stake in this argument, far beyond "I want to hunt what I want to hunt when I want to hunt it."

I know, and have acknowledged, that gun laws are useless unless enforced, and that more laws alone won't help.

It seems to me that some of the biggest problems our society faces are caused by people shouting, "I've got rights! I demand my rights!" I don't see that being the Christian way.

(The rest of this is for the Wizzer, too.) Maybe I don't fear enough what might happen. I don't think I'm like the ostrich. I see what happens, I hear what is said, I see the erosion of certain freedoms. I vote in every election I can, I support organization working to make changes in abortion laws, I encourage other Christians to speak out on issues as I do my radio show. My head is not buried.

My head, rather, is trying to trust that God is in control, and that He is still sovereign in the USA, even if the USA doesn't know it. I would rather be true to Him than to the founding fathers.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sam....

As per the census....fortunately we received the short form and Danny and I had no problem with it. However, we had already decided that if we received the long form we would not fill it out and pay the fine. That long form census is an invasion of privacy and unConstitutional. All the Constitution requires is that a "count of the number of people in households" be taken every 10 years. That's it!! Period!!!! If you would like a copy of the law, I would be glad to send it to you.

Two more things......1) What does bringing your sister into the conversation have to do with law abiding citizens such as Danny and myself and the millions of other gun owners in this country? They are no threat to your sister. In fact, they are your sister's best friend. If your sister is killed, it will more than likely not be by someone who legally purchased a gun. Danny's very best friend is a Captain of a police department and Danny has the same concerns about getting a phone call one day. But that has nothing to do with this discusson. But....we are arguing full circle here. This has all been said.

2) Your view reminds me of the "Separationist" model of society espoused by Protestanism in the late 16th century, i.e., "the world is the world...let them do their thing....and we as the church will do our thing." In fact, this was the attitude of the church in the 60's and today we have....abortion on demand.

Sam, it would be interesting to hear you speak as to "what would be too far?" It seems to both Danny and I, you would have been perfectly happy as Mark Wisniewski said, "Drinking tea and eating crumpets" at 2:00 PM.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sam

You asked:

Here are the questions I'm still looking for answers to. Anyone reading along is welcome to address them.

"But constitutional application has always been seen as allowing certain speech to be controlled and/or prosecuted -- libelous speech (publicly making false statements about you that harm you in some way); misrepresentation (lying in order to make a sale, for instance); certain kinds of threatening speech (promising to shoot the President is an example); inciting to riot; speech that in itself leads to public and/or personal harm (the classic "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater); etc. Should these types of speech no longer be persecuted, because we have a constitutional right to "free speech"? -March 22

"Shall we simply say that every person has the privilege of living out in any way they want to every right that we have constitutionally guaranteed to us? Are there to be no limits to anything? " -March 22

Well.....here is your answer:

Constitutional law has always been taught, exercised, and prosecuted thusly - When your rights have been impeded by the rights of another, then your Constitutional Rights have been violated.

So, when Mongo the Axe-murderer walks into my bedroom in the middle of the night and I have to ask him to "give me a minute so I can take the trigger guard of off my revolver" - guess what, my rights have been violated. My rights to life (because I am now dead), to liberty (because my body is trapped in a coffin), and to the pursuit of justice (Johnny Cochran will get him "off") have all been removed from me.

Here's a good one for you to comtemplate - I support John Rocker of the Atlanta Braves because he was well with-in his Constitutional rights when he spoke the way he did.

Let me qualify this. I DO NOT support prejudice in no way, shape, or form. But it is not illegal to be prejudice. He had a Constitutional right to speak his mind without fear of reprisal. He mentioned no specific person and did no harm, physical or otherwise, to anyone (except himself). If I was him, I would have hired myself an ACLU Lawyer and fought his "disciplinary action" on a Constitutional basis. I was encouraged when he got a standing ovation when he pitched his first game after coming back to training camp.

I guess there still are people who are concerned about their Constitutional rights. Thank God!

Oh, by the way, one does not have to Threaten the President in order to be considered a criminal. All you have to do is write a letter to him (or any Gov't authority) and state that you disagree with him. Once you do this, you WILL have an FBI file (if you don't have one already) and you will probably have a Secret Service (SS - ring any bells?) agent asigned to you if the President happens to come near your area of the country. This is a fact I have intimate knowledge of. Does THAT sound like the Gov't is interested in maintaining your Constitutional right to Free Speech?

I Don't Think So!

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sam...One more thing I thought of...Your arguement about, because we have rights, should we have then have free reign, is your misunderstanding of the constitution and individual rights.

1. I have certain rights as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others...i.e. your example of slander.

2. The government's job as outlined in the constitution is to provide protection for me...a law abiding citizen from someone who is infringing on my rights... for instance a murderer.

3. The constitution in turn provides me with rights with protection FROM the government as well...i.e. the Bill of Rights/amendments.

When the gov't requires me, a law abiding citizen, to register guns, my homeschool, put trigger locks on my guns, etc. The gov't is saying to me...We don't trust you, you are too stupid to be safe with guns, we want to invade you privacy and we just plain want to look like we are doing something to eradicate this criminal problem so we'll punish the citizen rather than the criminal. Nothing Sam, nothing that has been suggested like trigger locks, gun/homeschooling registration is going to take care of the criminal, you even said this yourself, so why the necessity to punish me?

Ok Sam...I have yet to see one good reason why the law abiding citizen has to register his gun, his homeschool and trigger lock, etc. You already admitted it won't help the criminal. So why, if I'm doing what I should and being responsible? BTW...You mentioned in your last post that we were being extreme in suggesting that they were trying to take away our homeschooling rights. You are way off there because I've made too many phone calls to congressman, been involved in too many LEGAL protests to realize that Homeschooling can be banned in this country very soon. Every year someone tries to pass a law to do so. Thus Indiana trying to get me to think I have to register so that when that law is passed they know where to find me. Why else Sam???? Incidentally, I wasn't the only Indiana family to receive such a notice. I understand it is a ploy they try every yr to sucker someone into registering. Why Sam??? So you see Sam, it was guns first, now its homeschoolers, its already in the works. Guess who's next...the church. I think, Sam, that I have given you ample examples to see where our Rights as Americans are being done away with and that our government has stepped WAY out of line according to the Constitution. Let me mention just a few of the 7 truths of the Constitution. #2 That all men are born with rights that no one can take away from them. #4 The purpose of the Gov't is to preserve these rights #5 The gov't is the servant of the people and gets its powers with permission from THE People. #6 If the gov't fails in this, men have the right and DUTY to change gov't #7 Men have the right to form new governments that will protect their rights. So my "thus saith the Lord" Sam? God puts government into place (Romans), the gov't gave me the constitution which says I have the right and DUTY to do everything I am proposing in these posts.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

I swear you people don't read what I write. I'm gonna take a day and try to figure out how to get you to hear what I'm saying. You keep answer arguments I haven't made, and arguing things that I have agreed with you on, and arguing points that I have conceded already.

You have apparently decided what is I believe, and no matter what I say or ask, you keep addressing yourselves to what you think that I think, even when I have already agreed with you or conceded your point. Let me back up and take another run at it.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sam, then it appears to me that the problem here is your inability to communicate what you do believe. You asked a question concerning how we reconcile our beliefs with Romans 13. I made that abundantly clear. You asked about "free reign"....and I answered that.

I think I have to agree with Danny here Sam. Your overall problem is you have your mind made up and the questions are not being answered to your "cookie cutter" expecations.

I also have to agree with Danny in that neither of us can be any clearer on our position. We interpret the Constitution literally.

Sam, if you would attempt to answer some of my questions possibly we can begin to see where in the world you are coming from.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Jenny:

I'll answer this one quickly, since it's the most easily dealt with. I'm still writing and rewriting on the other stuff.

Let me mention just a few of the 7 truths of the Constitution. #2 That all men are born with rights that no one can take away from them. #4 The purpose of the Gov't is to preserve these rights #5 The gov't is the servant of the people and gets its powers with permission from THE People. #6 If the gov't fails in this, men have the right and DUTY to change gov't #7 Men have the right to form new governments that will protect their rights. So my "thus saith the Lord" Sam? God puts government into place (Romans), the gov't gave me the constitution which says I have the right and DUTY to do everything I am proposing in these posts.

Wrong document there. These are from the second paragraph of teh Declaration of Independence, which is NOT the document which lays doen the rules for the government or our relationship to it. the constitution says NOTHING about the people doing what you are proposing in these posts.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NOTICE WHAT I AM NOT NOT NOT SAYING!!!!! (Is that enough to get someone's attention?)

I am NOT saying the DoI is a useless piece of parchment. There is nothing in the DoI with which I disagree, and had I been on the spot, I would most likely have signed it. I would have felt bad about it, but I would have signed it, and then made myself ready to face the consequences of my choice.

But the DoI is NOT the Constitution, and has NO power in laying down the law of the land. To refer to it in this discussion is not appropriate.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

I think I have to agree with Danny here Sam. Your overall problem is you have your mind made up and the questions are not being answered to your "cookie cutter" expecations.

Fine. You're wrong. My mind is not made up. You and Danny saying it is again and again won't make it made up. In fact, I think that's part of the problem with this discussion. You think you know what I think, and you don't. If there is any "cookie cutting" going on here, it is what you are doing with what I say and ask. you seem to be so locked into your viewpoint that you won't even listen closely enough to hear what someone else is saying, and you assume to know my motivations and inner thoughts.

Well, you're wrong.

Still writing the rest. I'm trying to get it just right, and abundantly clear, so please bear with me.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Sam...That was my mistake for the putting the seven truths in the Constitution rather than giving the Declaration of Independence credit, ...BUT the 7 Truths are still contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They did so to protect future generations from the same tryanny and government intrusions...The constition still provides a government for the people, by the people based on Truth #5 for just one example. I can show you where the other six are in the constitution but I won't waste your time and you can look them up yourself besides I think it is a side issue and I am more anxious to hear your answer to my other questions.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Sam, May I quote you?

I swear you people don't read what I write. I'm gonna take a day and try to figure out how to get you to hear what I'm saying. You keep answer arguments I haven't made, and arguing things that I have agreed with you on, and arguing points that I have conceded already. You have apparently decided what is I believe, and no matter what I say or ask, you keep addressing yourselves to what you think that I think, even when I have already agreed with you or conceded your point. Let me back up and take another run at it.

-- Sam Loveall (samloveall@prodigy.net), March 24, 2000.

Have you ever heard of 'hermetically sealed minds'? I make a play on words, and call them 'hermeneutically sealed minds'.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

I support the right to arm homeschooled homosexuals.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Sam,

You wrote, "And that brings up another issue I raised, which I hoped you would address. You declared that you would willfully violate the law if registration was mandated. I think that you stand in direct defiance of the writings of the apostle Paul on this matter. I would welcome hearing why you dont think this is true. "

Has anybody answered that for you yet? If so, I couldn't find it in the long thread. I think you make a Very Important point....

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Robin, Yes, this question was answered. At the risk of arguing full circle, I quess you also believe that the founding fathers were wrong for revolting against England? When they take away your first amendment rights do we then have permission to revolt? Or do we sit back and take it? Sorry, my ancestors fought too hard so I could even have the Constitution/Bill of Rights and I also do not believe the bible is prohibitive, when we have a constitution and bill of rights which provides for a gov't of the people, by the people and for the people and protection from gov't intrusion. Do we sit back and let all that be taken away? Sorry, Robin this has all been hashed out before. It comes down to interpretation of the constitution. I, in no way believe in civil disobedience...at least not yet....when my first, second...tenth amendment rights are done away with...I may have to rethink on that. BTW...did you notice that some of my questions weren't answered either...you didn't seem real concerned about that on my part.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

I'm gettin there, Jenny. I've rewritten the piece about 5 times now, trying to be sure that it says just what I want it to say. It should be done in a couple of days, but probly won't get posted until Monday. I'm leading worship at an area men's retreat this weekend, and that's been getting a lot of my time.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Jenny,

Thanks for your reply. I belive I was able to find your summarization of the original answer in your reply when you wrote, "I also do not believe the bible is prohibitive, when we have a constitution and bill of rights which provides for a gov't of the people, by the people and for the people and protection from gov't intrusion.", right?

After reading that, I looked at length through the thread and did find where I believe it was answered originally. That would be where Danny wrote (in reply to Sam, I believe), "I do not accept your exegesis of Romans 13. It is simply an uncomparable situation to compare a Neronian emperialistic govt. with a democracy that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." At least now, as a US citizen, I have the ability to shape my govt. People of that day....did not.

The Constitution guarantees us certain rights. One of these is the right to bear arms (i.e., protect ourselves). This country was founded on the premise that God gave us these rights.", right?

I'm just trying to understand this portion of the debate... to me it is a crucial issue. It appears that Danny beleives that 'pistol packing' is a God-given right, and hence he has the right to disobey the government if they attempt to interfere with that right, correct?

Danny also wrote, "Personally....I will never register my guns and I will never turn them over....in the same spirit of the founders of this country."... so, he must also believe that he has a God-given right to not register his guns (since he says he will not obey the government in that regard), right? Do we also have a God-given right to not have a background check done when we are buying a gun?

Do we have a God-given right to not fill out the long-form census? If not, then not filling it out is disobeying the government for a wrong reason and is then not following Romans 13, right?

I think rather than coming "...down to interpretation of the constitution", that it comes down to the interpretation of (or at least the 'spirit' of) Romans 13.

By the way (in case anyone is guessing),.... Live in Wisconsin, own many guns, love to hunt, etc., but don't pack to church (or board meetings) or leave loaded weapons around the house.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Robin, You never did answer my question about whether or not the Founding Fathers were in error for revolting against King George in the first place, nor did you answer how far according to scripture are we to allow the gov't to do away with our Bill of Rights and the Constitution? Or do we sit back and take it, according to Romans? I guess you would do what the Russians did before the Communist party took total control of Russia. They had a constitution, with Freedom of speech, religion, etc much like ours and when the communists took over (at the time they were a party in the gov't but took full control.)they chose to ignore their constitution and commenced to reliquish all citizens of their constitutional rights. (1973 World Book Ency. under Communism.) The pattern is beginning to look the same for America. I do not believe that God expects us to sit back and take it. You can if you want. Another analogy, God hates divorce but I do not believe he expects a woman to stay married to an abusive husband, where her or her children's life is in danger, that is how I view the taking away of my rights as a law abiding citizen. Yes, Robin, I will do what it takes to preserve and protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

'Fools rush in where angels fear to tread'. So, call me a fool! I have actually changed my mind on this matter in the last couple of years, and while I will not own a gun, I have two sons who are members of the NRA. In Illinois, we didn't know anyone who hunted, but in Michigan everyone and his uncle hunts.

I have come to agree that if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

And I remember Melanie in 'Gone With the Wind' who killed the Yankee intruder to save her family. A less likely person to shoot a gun can not be imagined.

And while I say I would never shoot anyone, even to save my own life, I do not know for sure what I would do to save the life of my child or grandchild.

But what bothers me as a Christian is: What do you do with the commandment that says: "Thou shalt not kill?" I KNOW that means 'Thou shalt not murder', but what about the New Testament? I won't give the Scriptural passages, but we all know them.

The ones about turning the other cheek and if one wants your jacket, give him your coat, too. (paraphrase) The ones about loving our enemies and doing good to those who hate us.

I remember when our school had an upset because our Superintendent had become a pacifist after resigning his naval commission in the V- 12 program. A few parents were rabid 'hawks'; I was sort of one, in that I supported Barry Goldwater, but there was a big uproar between the Christian hawks and doves.

(Really important matters when all around us the world is dying). Some of the most belligerant people were Christian pastors who were upset because their children were becoming pacifists.

Well, that controversy put me firmly in the camp of the ones who would never kill anyone.

The thing that really sticks in my mind was the statement of the Director of our City Mission, who was a parent in our school. He had been in WW II and had lost a leg in battle. He stood crying, and said, even though he had been a soldier who killed people, he agreed with Jim (our Sup't., Principal, and teacher) that we should not kill people, even in self-defense.

He said he woke up many nights having nightmares because he had killed people. And then he added that "Jim doesn't have to go through that."

Now, I know that there was a lot of killing in the Old Testament, sometimes at the behest of God. And I felt that if an unbeliever happened to assininate Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't mind. But I don't think Christians should do so.

I often say, and I see I'm not the only one (John W.) that we should be allowed the weapons which were in existence at the time of the writing of the Constitution ~ what were they? ~ pistols, dueling swords and cannons.

You can BET that if the writers had known of the weapons we have developed, they'd have put some restrictions on gun ownership. I dare say there would be no Uzis or Glocks in the hands of children!

I know we have to change peoples' hearts for things to change, but I also think we need to do something about too many guns and belligerant attitudes.

I am so thankful for my loving, supportive church which teaches Christian principles.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 23, 2000.

Our Sunday School moderator is a policemen, as is another class member. After Danny mentioned taking a gun to church, (and I believe he also said several of his congregants do) I thought I would ask these two if they carry guns to church.

(It never entered my mind that people would bring guns to church. ~ That's how naive I am). Both, however, said they thought it would be unwise to be armed, if the reason were to avoid being overtaken by a government agency (such as the FBI). Our moderator, in fact, just got back from some training for the FBI in Washington, D.C. a month ago.

The moderator said that he sometimes has to bring his gun, if he has a work responsibility after church. The other policeman (State Police) said he does not, and would perhaps find another church if the pastor had a belligerant attitude toward the government, because if there were a standoff with the FBI, it would be similar to Waco or Ruby Ridge.

Women, children, the elderly, and all, including the armed pastor, would be in extreme danger. If the ATF wanted to disarm you, believe me, they could.

And we are to obey our laws, no matter what they are.

If we don't obey our laws, then we disobey God.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Danny,

Your very first line of this thread says, "My guess is....that since most Christians do not own guns....they think the issue doesn't involve them." You seemed to be basing opinions of what other people think on whether or not they owned guns... by telling you I did, I was just giving you a bit of background about myself as we discuss.

Nice 'shot'... comparing me to Clinton... :-) I must admit I didn't realize not keeping loaded guns in the house was being 'politically correct' (presuming that is what you meant by 'PC')... I thought it was a well-known, common sense safety practice (I'll have to check with somebody that just went through a Hunter's Safety course...).

I also didn't realize that not packing in church made me 'PC'... I just never saw the need for a gun in church. I can, however, understand how some might see the need.... great attention getter (no one sleeps when you punctuate your sermon points with a gun shot), church discipline not questioned, fewer doctrinal disputes, giving increases, etc., etc.

Bottom line: if you don't have a God-given right to something, then disobeying the current established government's laws over it is wrong.... IMHO. I'm still a little shaky on the "I have a God-given right to pack."... let alone, "I have a God-given right to not register my guns."

You asked, "What does...."Of the people, by the people, and for the people" mean to you??" Well, I'll give it a shot (no pun intendend). "Of the people"... the government should be made up of citizens of the country being governed. "by the people"... the government should be set up by the people... the voting process, I presume. "for the people"... Hmmm.... I would say that the government should act in the best interest of the people (all of them as a whole). Ok, so if our government is made up of our fellow citizens, is made up of representatives that we the people voted into place, and if those representatives are acting in what they see is in the best interest of ALL the people, then we must abide by that UNLESS something they put forth goes directly against the commands of God. We can complain, we can try to influence our representatives, we can try to get other representatives elected, we can run for office ourselves (all of these are what is involved in holding them accountable as you say), but we must obey... that is the essence of our government, I think.

BTW, great thread... thanks for starting it!

Jenny... just saw your post... I didn't see any of my questions answered either... that complaint seems to be a theme in this thread. (That's how come I didn't ask any this time....)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

A-a-h, Mr. Cornell,

Sanity and wisdom will probably get you nothing.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Robin, I can't see one question of yours that I did not answer. I answered them all. The issue here is civil disobedience. You must also feel that not only was our Founding Fathers wrong in revolting against an ungodly gov't but the Apostles/early Christians as well, Romans 13 does not specifically allow for it. When told to quit following Christ, they refused and were jailed and killed. So the question becomes for what does scripture allow for civil disobedience, does it inferr it? My answer, When the government disobeys God's laws. Inclusive in those laws, is the law of the land(the Constitution/Bill of Rights, something the early christians didn't have the benefit of and therefore scripture can't address it.) When the Gov't ignores the Law of the Land they have broken said law. When I ignore a stop sign, have I not broken the law??? The Bible is not specific on a lot of things...I gave you one...the case of the abusive wife. My study of scripture says that divorce is only accepted for one reason, adultery. Would you then counsel this women that she must remain with this man since he has not committed adultery? I wouldn't. There are lots of Liberty issues. The use of musical instruments in worship, is another. Therefore, civil disobedience then becomes a matter of conscience like the other issues.

Robin, Danny and I have addressed everything you have mentioned as well as the other posts but because its not what people want to hear or fits their preconcieved ideas they feel it has gone unanswered. Everyone reading these posts don't allow yourself to be swayed by public emotionalism fueled by the liberal media. Become informed and involved. I am a member of several watch dog groups, christian lawyers groups, etc. I have also been involved in peaceful protests (as allowed by the constitution) for issues such as abortion and homeschooling, maybe gun issues in the future. Watch the Fox news channel if you have cable. They really do present both sides as opposed to the mainstream networks that present only the liberal side.

Robin, Connie went to the extreme as so many do when mentioning Waco and Ruby Ridge. There were other issues involved and I can't agree with their choice for civil disobedience,again a matter of conscience. Thats not to say though that some of their rights weren't infringed upon. You also painted an extreme, inaccurate picture of Danny...the gunweilding preacher. Most do not know he is armed. I also remember my father telling me of armed preachers of old. One would put his revolvers on each side of the pulpit when stepping up to preach. Danny is not that demonstrative or open. I understand too that you might have been joking a bit. Connie's law inforcement friends were wrong. Danny carries a permit, a right to carry license.

Robin, I'll ask you again....were the Founding Fathers, wrong in their decision for civil disobedience? No where in Romans 13 does it specifically allow for it. So therefore you must believe they were. I've already explained, twice, my reasoning. Answer me this as well...when will you be civil disobedient, if ever?

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Jesus was led like a sheep to the slaughter. He could have turned it down: (dying on the cross in a particularly savage and painful way).

He is to be, not only our savior, but our example.

Jenny:

Have you ever read Matthew 5, the whole chapter? If we even continue to be angry with our brother/sister (vs. 20-26) we shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment of the court (then the Sanhedrin).

That is a paraphrase (no quotes).

Unresolved anger allows satan to grow the root of bitterness in our hearts; from a human standpoint, that lowers our seratonin levels in our brains, depressing us. Unresolved anger does not hurt others much; but it kills us, by causing ulcers, heart problems, high blood pressure, etc.

Get rid of it every day.

My prayers are with you.

And before it's all over, you too will see what God wants you to for these end times.

In Him,

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Jenny, you said:

"So the question becomes for what does scripture allow for civil disobedience, does it inferr it? My answer, When the government disobeys God's laws. Inclusive in those laws, is the law of the land (the Constitution/Bill of Rights, something the early christians didn't have the benefit of and therefore scripture can't address it.) When the Gov't ignores the Law of the Land they have broken said law."

I hadn't thought of it quite that way before, referring to Romans 13...that inclusive in God's laws are the laws of the Land...but it seems that you are correct.

Rom 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

I am trying to think of a time in the N. T. where Paul, any of the Apostles or disciples fought back concerning matters of their faith. I can see that they refused to quit speaking of The Faith, ran, went peaceably when taken to prison etc., but I don't see physical revolt.

I have leaned more towards Robin's view of Romans 13. Just want you to know Jenny, that does not mean that I am closed to further teaching or you view.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Jenny,

Please excuse me for stepping in...

Connie,

As to your:

"Jesus was led like a sheep to the slaughter. He could have turned it down: (dying on the cross in a particularly savage and painful way). He is to be, not only our savior, but our example.

Jenny:

Have you ever read Matthew 5, the whole chapter? If we even continue to be angry with our brother/sister (vs. 20-26) we shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment of the court (then the Sanhedrin).

That is a paraphrase (no quotes).

Unresolved anger allows satan to grow the root of bitterness in our hearts; from a human standpoint, that lowers our seratonin levels in our brains, depressing us. Unresolved anger does not hurt others much; but it kills us, by causing ulcers, heart problems, high blood pressure, etc."

The next time I see someone selling something in the temple, I'll follow Jesus' example...

John 2:14-15 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

I wish you would realize that there are times when having a loving attitude sometimes means harsh/abrupt language.

Now after saying that, I did not mean that Jenny HAD done this. How do you know she is angry or bitter? Did you ask her? Speaking ones mind does not necessitate anger or bitterness. Passion on a given subject does not necessitate anger or bitterness.

Also, have you heard that ulcers are caused by bacteria and curable with penicillin?

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

DLee,

I have to ask you the same that I have asked Sam and Robin. Were the Founding Fathers wrong in their revolt? If so we sure have been reaping the benefits of their sin. Would God have blessed this nation had they been wrong? As far as the early Christians leading a revolt, no I see none, but the gov't was a lot different than the one we have. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, a vehicle for justice that the Early Christians didn't have. (They couldn't go to Nero and say "our country's constitution says this.") A constitution that our Forefathers gave their lives, fortunes and families to obtain. We are also getting way ahead here talking about revolution. I plan on exhausting all other routes first but I'm full aware of the possibility of another Revolutionary war, I may be dead by then, but it is still a possibility. D.Lee do you plan on the letting this country loose everything that our Founding Fathers worked for??? I see no where, fighting, as our forefathers did, or, fighting to preserve America as it once was, as being prohibited by scripture, unless you must admit the Founding Fathers sinned in doing so. Many Americans have lost their lives in keeping America safe from foreign powers and in stopping tyranny, injustice, communism, and other forms of totalitarionism from getting to our shores. Why is that any different than protecting ourselves from our own government, from the same tyranny and totalitarianism (sp?) Where these veterans wrong? Or should we have just peacefully let the spread of communism go unchecked and then upon reaching our shores gone quietly??? Who is to protect us when our government goes bad and does away with the constitution and resorts to the same tyranny as those of foreign powers? You see DLee, in order to be consistant you would have to not believe in war at all, government santioned or not. Had the early Christians had a similar form of government I wonder how things would have been?

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Just a couple of quick insights:

Connie, you wrote: Jesus was led like a sheep to the slaughter. He could have turned it down: (dying on the cross in a particularly savage and painful way). He is to be, not only our savior, but our example.

Answer: Jesus came into the world for 1 purpose - to die at the hand of the Roman and Jewish gov't for our Salvation. As far as I know - I wasn't born for that purpose. I prefer to live the "Life more abundant" that was offered in Christ, but the US Gov't is working on (slowly but surely) taking that away.

D. Lee, you wrote: I am trying to think of a time in the N. T. where Paul, any of the Apostles or disciples fought back concerning matters of their faith. I can see that they refused to quit speaking of The Faith, ran, went peaceably when taken to prison etc., but I don't see physical revolt.

Answer: For all it's worth, I can think of several times the Apostles "revolted" physically. Peter chopping off an ear in the Garden of Gethsemane. The time they tried to physically keep children from coming near to Jesus. And don't forget the houses where they "wiped the dirt from off their sandals" because those there would not entertain the Apostles or the Gospel they were bringing.

Oh, by the way, as I recall - Jesus tended to make a habit of disobeying the regulations of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. because those regulations where not the actual Law but only the interpretations and hedges they had made for themselves.

And the Liberal law makers of today have done the exact same thing as the Pharisees had done. These gun laws (and many other things like seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc) are nothing more than hedges they have built up to try to prevent people from exercising their own free will in matters.

So, let's all just turn our backs to the matter and then we can change the name of the Congress to "the Sanhedrin" - and we know what happened to them (and it wasn't moving to England either.. :~} )

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Connie/Nelta,

As usual your disingenuious, patronizing manner shines through. I have no anger, except maybe at your lack of consistancy in the art of debate. You are way off base...stick to the issues if you can. this is yet another one of your attempts at personal attacks when you have no answer. BTW, this was said with a smile on my face and love in my heart!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Also I remember the apostle Paul using every one of his rights as a Roman citizen, including appealing to Ceasar, the top dog. Wonder what he would have had done had he had the Constitution and Bill of Rights? What would Paul had done if the government had all of a sudden said "Paul, we know what the Law says but, regardless, we are revoking your rights as a Roman citizen."

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Jenny,

Were the Founding Fathers wrong in their revolt? Now I tell you, that has made me think. I had not thought of it that way before. I must of necessity say, No.

As to God blessing this nation had they been wrong, I believe we can not always equate "success" with the blessing of God. Whether He blessed this country in the beginning, I do not know. Is He blessing this so-called "Christian Nation" today? I for one do not believe we are a mostly Christian nation any more. Yes, I know that many claim to be Christian but according to the Word, that is not the case. Maybe that is why our constitutional rights are being eroded. We no longer follow God, but who or whatever itches our ears.

I didn't exactly mean a Revolutionary War when speaking of physical revolt, I meant physical action.

"D.Lee do you plan on the letting this country loose everything that our Founding Fathers worked for??? "

"You see DLee, in order to be consistant you would have to not believe in war at all, government santioned or not."

As to the two questions above, I am kind of in a bind. As you might know, my husband was in the military for 20 years. I can see your point about being consistent. And of course, NO, I would never intentionally plan on letting this country loose everything that our Founding Fathers worked for! That is why my husband spent so much time in the military.

I guess my question is this: Is there a difference between taking physical action for your government verses taking physical action for your faith?

Very interesting discussion!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Thank you Mark for the insightful comments. Much to think about!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

D. Lee, you asked:

I guess my question is this: Is there a difference between taking physical action for your government verses taking physical action for your faith?

Personally I can see no difference. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Truth is truth, and falsity is falsity. Either we need to be consistant in all things or in nothing.

Democracy puts us in a very different situation than mankind had ever been in before. What we do with our Gov't, or what we let it do to us, can & will set a prescedant that will last for the rest of this earth's history. Scary, huh?

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Mark,

I can see your point.

The reason I asked, is because of what I find in Eph 6:12.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

I have understood this to mean that this is our fight in "The Faith". This being different from fighting for the government for our democracy.??

What do you think?

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

By the way, does this forum have seminars in: 'Twisting the Words and Comments of the Posters'?

I'll bet you give Baccalaureate Degrees, at least! Some are really getting good at it. ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Danny:

Earlier today you wrote:

But.....to follow it all the way through. We should obey the law, right?? (according to Romans 13)??? Then what do we do when we see lawmakers breaking the law?? (which is what they are doing with many of their "gun laws.) What do we do when we see lawmakers breaking the law of the land (i.e., the Constitution)?? Do we just go along and participate with them?? Do we participate in abortions because the govt. says it's OK?? Do we do homo-sexual marriages because the govt. says it's OK??

It's always been my belief that we should obey the laws, even if NO ONE ELSE DOES, if we call ourselves Christians. (I must confess here that I DO have a little bit of a lead foot, so I often 'come to my senses' and realize that I'm going a little over the posted figure. 'Cruise Control' helps with that.)

If there is a conflict with God's Law and civil law, we must obey God's Law. Our government seems to still make allowances for conscience ~ such as not having to rent to people with whom you disagree for any reason, if it is your own home, for example. We don't have to hire homosexuals as teachers YET. But what if we eventually do? Each person or entity must commit it to God and make the best decision he/she can.

We need to think of the family of Corrie TenBoom, who harbored Jews against the Law, thereby endangering themselves with the possibility of going to concentration camps themselves ~ (which they ultimately did).

It is not good to teach children to disobey their laws unless it is for a reason of conscience. It might eventually cause them to be in real trouble.

But I'm old-fashioned, I guess. (A pistol for MOTHERS'DAY!?! ~ Golly! ~ I want flowers! ~ and not for my grave!)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

D Lee, Before I can comment on your question could you explain what you mean by physical action? Maybe give examples.

As per your comment regarding equating success with God's blessing, I understand what you mean...you can look at the Morman church and by today's standards it looks like they are being blessed by God, you and I both know that is not the case. However, this country for a very long time has been based on Judeo-Christian values, basic Biblical standards that all agreed upon and I still believed that we were blessed as a nation for it. Which brings me to your next statement about the erosion of our rights. Yes, I agree. Look at this country's history and the more with took God out of it, the more the problems increased. So yes, we have reaped what we have sown as a nation in general.

Get back with me a I'll see if I can answer your question.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Wow! Where do you all find the time to write so much? :-) No in- depth response from me right now....

Danny... that is cool (that we have spoken before)... small, small world? I'm glad you remember our contact positively... I do too. And now, I know why you needed more money... to buy guns! Ha!! As far as it being a good thing you didn't come here... I'm not sure... it would have been refreshing! (And I'm pretty sure neither of us make this issue a matter of fellowship!)

Deer hunting here is getting better (in terms of nice antlers) each year as more and more land gets 'NO TRESPASSING' signs.... seems like all those people from 'Down South' (Illinois, Indiana, etc.) with the big money are buying up the land! :-)

I wanted to address one particular part of your reply. You said, "Do we participate in abortions because the govt. says it's OK?? Do we do homo-sexual marriages because the govt. says it's OK??" Of course not, but there is a difference... you know that. If the government says something is OK TO DO (abortion, etc.) and if the Bible says it is not, we don't. If the government says something is a MUST TO DO (firearms registration would be an example) and if the Bible says not to do it, we don't. If the government says NOT TO DO something (quit following Christ) and the Bible says to do it... we do it. In other words, we must do what we believe the Bible teaches in each case.

Jenny, I personally would be civil disobedient when the government tried to force me to do something unscriptural. In your example of the Apostles, being told to quit following Christ would fall under my opinion of something unscriptural. Being told to register my firearm would be something I wouldn't like... but wouldn't fall under my opinion of something unscriptural.

You said, "So the question becomes for what does scripture allow for civil disobedience, does it inferr it? My answer, When the government disobeys God's laws." Scripture?? Was the government disobeying God's laws when Romans 13 was written... I think so. Was civil disobedience 'allowed for' (or encouraged) then? No.... it seems it was discouraged.

Where do you get that "Inclusive in those laws [God's Laws], is the law of the land(the Constitution/Bill of Rights)..."? Here is a question that I don't think you answered above... Is it a God-given right to bear arms??? Scripture? I think you think it is... because a non-inspired document says it is... Don't you have that backwards? We have to go to the Bible FIRST. Let's make sure we don't elevate man-written documents (no matter how important and great they are) to the level of scripture (no, I don't think you are purposely adding to God's Word... just saying, let's make sure the Bible is our main source for everything). (Other questions I didn't think were answered were: Is it a God-given right to not register guns? Scripture? Is it a God-given right to not fill out the long-form census? Scripture?) I think your answer will be... Yes, because a man-written document says so.... does that really make it a God-given right?

As you say, "civil disobedience then becomes a matter of conscience". My conscience would NOT allow me to NOT register my guns if told to do so by the government (I wouldn't LIKE it, but I would do it because I don't believe it is an unscriptural requirement).

Wow! Sorry I wrote so much!!! No, not sorry for you all... sorry for me!!! I have things to do!!!!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

I wrote...I guess my question is this: Is there a difference between taking physical action for your government verses taking physical action for your faith?

What I mean Jenny is taking up arms against someone who is persecuting one because of their faith. Physically defending self even without a weapon. We know that now in other countries, people are being persecuted because of their faith. Should one go peaceably?

Danny,

Let me try again. We know it can't be wrong to be in a Military and be a Christian, Cornelius for one.

We also know this about our SPIRITUAL battle..."our battle is not with flesh and blood".

What I meant to ask was...Does God look at these two differently...on the one hand, it is ok to be in the military to defend your country against all enemies foreign and domestic. On the other, in matters of faith the battle is spiritual period??

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Robin....Danny answered your question on why we feel an uninspired document (constitution) would be inclusive in God's Law so I won't rehash that aspect. However, getting back to the matter of conscience I have a few to add. Since 1934 we have been comprising with our American gov't over this issue of gun ownership/control. We have given in and given in when the second amendment says "No Law shall be made." At some point we must "draw a line in the sand" because now it is obvious to me they won't stop till its done away with. Then when they do that, the second to go is the First amendment. So I guess my conscience allows me to get in the battle earlier than yours does and thats ok but by the time you get involved it may be too late.

As far as God-given rights....There are NONE specifically mentioned in the Bible, including Freedom of worship, to own a home, education, to even have children ( What if the gov't says no one can have children, say for the next 20 yrs, because of over population?) But, it has been an accepted belief and no scripture that I know of that prohibits it, the belief in Natural Law...that belief in inalienable rights. I don't know of anyone that believes in a democracy who would argue that there are no such natural laws, unless that is what you are suggesting, that there are no inalienable rights. Is that the case Robin? In which case you would have to say the Founding Fathers were wrong and have sinned.

D Lee/Robin...I do not separate the earthly rights/beliefs from the spiritual. This has been an old problem. My earthly rights/beliefs are based on the spiritual and where there are no "Thus saith the Lords" I must get what I can from inferred scripture, common principles set(i.e. spirit of the law), etc. Thus we get the matter of conscience beyond the "thus saith the Lords." So in answer to your question DLee I see no reason, after all avenues have been exhausted, why Revolution would be prohibited scripturally for protection of the constituion or for Spiritual matters, like the early Christians sharing the Gospel message...but again that is included in our Constitution. The early Christians may have been too small in number and realized revolting would be useless. They also believed that the Lord was coming for them any time now (Thess.) so why take the time and trouble to revolt. Who knows....but it just go against my nature and to sit back and do nothing. It must have been the same for the Founding Fathers.

Robin...I'll ask you again.... were the Founding Fathers wrong for revolting and do you believe in inalienable rights?

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Sorry Robin, one more thing I meant to add earlier. I do believe the right to own a gun, is an inalienable right. I have been given the responsibility by God to protect my children and a gun is the best mode to accomplish that. When they start making me register said guns that means they want to confiscate it and I can't let that happen.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

And if there's a standoff and they decide they want to take your guns?

Lions: -- 10; Christians -- 0

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

My dear Connie, you greatly overestimate the gov't's odds:

And if there's a standoff and they decide they want to take your guns?

Lions: -- 10; Christians -- 0

That's what "Top Gun School" (training & range practice) is for. I'm like the Navy, I figure a 5 to 1 kill ratio when involved in mortal combat, maybe more once my wife gets her hands on a pistol. That would make the score at least:

Lions (Gov't) -- 4; Christians (family) -- 20 !

And if my oldest brother got involved (which he would), I would elevate the number to about 40.

It may not help us much to be dead, but hey, does "Remember the Alamo" mean anything? When evil marches, a gauntlet must be put in its path.

(And yes, as a native born Texan, the Alamo is somewhat of a shrine to freedom & independence to my family)

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Hi, Mark!

Beautiful city you come from ~ I liked the Alamo, and also the San Antonio River Walk. We rode on the little launches and ate at the hotel overlooking the river, in 1975 when we took a month-long trip out west in a motor home to see relatives and friends in Colorado, Washington State, Oregon, California, Arizona, and Texas.

My brother-in-law was teaching forensics (debate) at the U. of Texas at Austin. Another beautiful spot was Galveston ~ and we even had all of John Denver's 8-tracks to listen to.

To get back to the main point: I'm from more of the 'wise as serpents ~ harmless as doves' school. I believe that God can use unbelievers to carry out His will, and believers can still obey Him.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

By the bye:

If the Christians are all dead from defending their turf, who's going to get out the Gospel?

It's God's job to determine what type of government we have.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Connie, I disagree:

"If the Christians are all dead from defending their turf, who's going to get out the Gospel".

Well - God has always found a people for His purpose, and there is no reason to assume that He would not do so in the future. My family is FAR from being the only Christians, so God still has plenty to work with. ( Just like Sam Houston had at the Battle of San Jacinto, when he finally caught up to Santa Anna and "learned" him a thing or two about what Texans thought about the Alamo!)

Also, you wrote: "It's God's job to determine what type of Gov't we have."

Actually, it is not. God establishes the "rule of authority". Obviously, God did not put Nero on the throne, Hitler to Furer, nor Stalin to People & Party Chief. God established that a gov't should exist in order to protect the peoples from threat - period! He does not necessarily establish the "who" & "what" of that Gov't body.

Evil men have Always usurped the head of power in Gov't since the first gov't began and that isn't likely to change. But, God gave us a chance to change this scenario by allowing us to establish a type of gov't that, if upheld & defended by the people, could prevent the Hitlers and Stalins and yes, even Clintons and Gores.

I think God will hold us accountable if we sit & allow this gov't to go the way of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Nazi Germany, & Communist Russia. To be honest, we ain't but a few steps away from such at this point.

God may well bring this country down, just like He did all those mentioned above (and that's not to mention Israel, as He brought it down twice) and to be honest, the USA deserves to fall as it stands today. But there is one thing God will not be able to ask me on the day of Judgment - "Why didn't you do something?"

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Connie,

I will gladly agree with you on one point - San Antonio is the most beautiful city I've ever been to in my life. The River, the sights, the Alamo, the zoo, the Air Force Bases, and especially the home- grown "Mesican Food" are something I have really missed since coming to Florida 10+ years ago. Oh well, at least the Florida wild hog and gator make some fine eating.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Hi, Mark,

I thought we were strangers and sojouners here on earth ~ and that we are to be ambassadors for Christ. What we are to 'be about' is getting out the Gospel, not protecting our things.

Don't get me wrong ~ I believe all of those things we've been taught ~ about how we are the greatest country in the history of the world, and all that ~ but we aren't to become too protective of our picket fences. I also get teary when I see 'Old Glory' flowing in the breeze while I'm singing 'The Star Spangled Banner', but that doesn't negate the fact that we are to be about our father's business ~ which can sometimes include wild boar (bore? ~ which one is that? ;-)) and wild alligator.

I think satan has blinded the Christian communities (this forum is a good example) with such senseless inanities and unedifying controversies. Time's a'wastin'!

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

Connie,

Again I don't see this as a waste of time, nor have I neglected the "weightier" matters either. During the time of this particular thread, I've written 2 sermons (delivered one of them), completed College studies on the first 16 chapters of Isaiah, taken my youngest to Daytona USA for his birthday, hosted a dear older Christian couple from Tampa in my home, visited in a couple of homes, worked 52 hours at the Cape this week alone, changed the oil in my car, begun painting my oldest son's bedroom, and taken my wife out on a date or two.

If God thinks that I have been wasting my time on this thread, I hope He just goes ahead and strikes me dead (Lord knows, I could sure use the rest...... :~)

And as far as others on this Forum goes, I'm sure most (if not all) have been at least as busy as I have been.

And besides, this is a hobby - a way to blow off some steam & relax. Other than holding my pet bunny rabbit (named "Bullet" by the way), it is about the only way I get to relax. God gave a Sabbath for rest in the past because He knew we needed a break from time to time - the Forum is my Sabbath.

You got to admit - it beats hanging around in a bar, and it still promotes God's Word. It's the best of both worlds.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

You're probably right. I think that this forum is good for clearing one's thinking on various issues; it's just that there are a very few things which are unedifying.

God wants us to have an abundant life! Another one of His gifts.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

By the way, we used to have a big white bunny rabbit named 'Alfalfa' and we named him 'Alfie'; he loved fruit an vegetables of all kinds.

We also had a 7' long boa constrictor, a horned toad, a hermit crab; one summer the boys collected several varieties of orb-weaving spiders.

I had said earlier in their lives that they could have anything except snakes and spiders; one weekend when I got home from a retreat, and found them with the boa, with a new cage, and everything. Their father was even more of a pushover than I was.

The boa's name was 'Julius Squeezer', but the owner of a local pet shop wanted to see him, so the boys carted him over there; they discovered that it was 'JULIETTE Squeezer'.

Believe it or not, Mark: As busy as these days are for you, you will miss them when they are no more.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

excerpts...interesting--I did not know this...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment032700a.html

3/26/00 9:00 p.m. The Dangers of Mandatory Gun Locks It is unrealistic to expect that locks will prevent gun misuse.

By Dave Kopel Mr. Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute.

Mandatory gun locks are near the top of the gun control agenda these days. Although all handgun companies now give away locks with their guns, pressure is on to make this program mandatory. The next step is to require all guns to be locked up all the time, except when actually in use, as is currently the law in Washington, D.C, and Canada.

...

First of all, all the locking programs are aimed at the rarest form of gun misuse: accidents involving small children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1997 there were 20 fatal gun accidents involving children 0 to 4, and 122 such accidents for children aged 5 to 14. Given the ubiquity of screwdrivers, hammers, and patient teenagers who can just dial every combination on a particular three-digit lock, it is unrealistic to expect that locks will prevent gun misuse by the age groups which account for the large majority of misuse. Nor can locks keep criminals from being able to use stolen guns.

To a good extent, todays allegedly childproof products are still not truly childproof. A girl in Nova Scotia shot a friend while they were playing with a gun which had a trigger lock in it. (Mounties demonstrated that with less than one pound of pressure, the trigger lock failed to prevent the gun from going off. AP , Jan. 21 1998.)

Even worse, if a gun with a trigger lock is dropped accidentally, the gun may discharge; every gun sold in the United States today is built not to fire if dropped, but a trigger lock may defeat this important safety innovation. Trigger locks should never be put on loaded guns, but mandating trigger locks will lead to exactly such dangerous storage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- To have a message of yours considered for posting, send it to: timeless_eye-owner@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: timeless_eye-unsubscribe@eGroups.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/timeless_eye www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

You see Connie,

You even found info on your own that shows how off-base the gov't is on this issue - so it can't be just us Militants like Danny & myself that have gone overboard.

Since the facts betray the purpose of the laws they want to pass, why on earth would the politicians continue to push them? POWER !!!! Power over you, Power over your family, Power over how you conduct your family. And that is scripturally, morally, and legally wrong. As such, I whole-heartedly believe that I not only have a Right as a Christian to speak & act as necessary - I have the God-ordained DUTY to do so. And I never neglect my duty to God, and as Paul might say, "God Forbid" that I ever start doing so.

Many have had well thoughtout and legitimate questions and comments on this thread as to the rights & duties of Christians concerning such political matters and how to deal with them. Well, I have to apologize for my ignorance up until now, because the answers have been right under our noses all the time............

Take a couple of hours in the next day or two and read the Book of Esther - I believe it pretty much answers the subject of a Godly person's role in changing & challenging the Gov't.

To summarize the Book: you have a Godly man and his Niece/adopted daughter who put their own lives on the line with the King of Persia in order to stop a power-hungry General (Haman) from exterminating the Jewish race. Haman, in essence, was an Old Testament Hitler who tries to usurp power that was not his to take and eradicate the Jews in order to help satisfy his own ego. These two, Mordecai and Esther, single(double?)-handedly save the Jewish people, and more importantly, the Lineage of David that led to the birth of Christ.

Connect the dots here: No Mordecai & Esther = Hitler(Haman - corruption) reigns. Haman Reigns = Jews are exterminated. Jews are exterminated = the lineage of David is destroyed. No lineage of David = no Jesus, the seed of David & root of Jesse. No Jesus = No hope of Salvation - i.e. guaranteed eternal damnation.

That provides all the answer I need. Should we speak up & act up to oppose gov't corruption & error - YES. Should we even put our lives at risk to do so if the circumstances call for it - YES !! And why is that? Because if we don't do it soon, the Hamans (Hitlers, Gores, etc.) WILL be coming for God's People. Just ask the folks in Waco about that! Yes, they were a cult. Yes, they were wrong on way too many issues. It is one thing to be wrong - but it is a whole other story for the Gov't to decide that you need to be DEAD Wrong!

If we turn our back, we can be sure that God WON'T turn His back.

Reminds me of the last few lines of the old '70s song, American Pie:

"And the 3 men I admire most... the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost..... They caught the last train for the Coast..... The day the Music Died".

The train whistle is blowing on America - do we wave "Good-bye" or do we wave "Come-back" ???????

And as Forest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that".

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Mark:

I repeat what you just said, for emphasis:

If we turn our back, we can be sure that God WON'T turn His back.

Reminds me of the last few lines of the old '70s song, American Pie:

"And the 3 men I admire most... the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost..... They caught the last train for the Coast..... The day the Music Died".

The train whistle is blowing on America - do we wave "Good-bye" or do we wave "Come-back" ???????

And as Forest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that".

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), April 03, 2000.

My opinion:

I believe that we should do everything in our power ~ that is legal to do ~ to retain our freedoms.

But we ARE going to lose these freedoms ~ the Scriptures say there is going to be an evil end-time one-world government whose purpose will be to persecute Christians. Can we prevent it by taking the law into our own hands? NO. Should we disobey God to do so (kill others)? NO, in my opinion.

All of the technology needed to initiate this persecution is in place.

As to our present society, I agree that an armed entity (a militia?) is a necessity for an orderly society, and of course the first notable example of this is Cornelius, the Gentile convert and centurion; and every government is in place to achieve this; and God initiated 'capital punishment', a killing to carry out justice in society.

With our present system of such long trials, jail and prison confinement, appeals, etc., justice is rarely carried out. Being able to hire the best criminal lawyer is of prime importance (witness O.J. Simpson and the Clintons.)

Dr. Karl Menninger, who was a Christian psychiatrist, wrote a book titled "Whatever Became of Sin?" and stated in that, that the closer to the behavior that a discipline (not necessarily physical ~ in fact, to 'make disciples' we need to take time and care a lot) is administered, the more likely it will prohibit furure similar behavior.

He deplored our present penal system, not because he was against it, per se, but because it doesn't work. I will repeat here the definition of 'insanity' ~ doing the same thing over and over; its not working, and our expecting a different result.

Our jails and prisons are training grounds for future, worse crimes.

With our present situation where mothers return to work by the 6-week check-up after birth, and just a complete abdication of parental responsibility by fathers AND mothers, this situation will not improve; it will 'wax worse and worse'.

Thousands of hours of television have produced a void in our childrens' souls, which satan is using to create the godless society which he needs to carry out his plan.

Of course, it is really God's ultimate plan which will prevail, but he is allowing these other sub-plans to continue 'til He puts them in the place He has for them.

Because I am so child-oriented, I know that if they rebel and WANT to get at in-house guns, they will overcome every restriction and achieve it.

Early in our Christian lives, there was rioting in Chicago, and other cities (our whole culture was in turmoil); we lived in a suburb of Chicago, and there was a lot of fear in various communities about the possibilty of its spilling over to the suburbs.

I considered getting a gun. We talked to a lawyer friend about this, and he pointed out the statistics (he was a Chistian) that a member of the household is MUCH MORE likely to be hurt or killed than any intruder is. I don't think that even with increased information and training that those figures have changed that much in 40 years (but I could be wrong).

It's just that, in the case of present-day Christians who are arming, (until I came to this forum, I thought that was an 'urban legend' ~ that there are 'Christian' survival groups armed to the teeth ~ but now I think they really exist) it seems to me we are arming with the wrong weapons to get out the Gospel. Protecting our rights and belongings seems to be antithetical to what our purpose is: to get out the 'Good News' of the Gospel.

Shooting abortion clinic doctors is not going to prevent abortions, (except the ones HE/SHE was performing), which another will step in and perform. This is from one who has stood with others and peacefully protested the killing of babies.

My position is not to be disarmed; it is just to be armed with effective weapons. (God's)

No matter how many physical weapons you have, the government has more, and can disarm you, if it wants to.

I don't know how much you access other Internet sites, but have you heard of the 'chemtrail' controversy? Different individuals are 'up in arms' (no pun intended) claiming that the government is carrying out spraying large population areas with the possible objective of disarming the people without violence.

They cite the sky patterns (and have a lot of photographs) which are very different than the normal sky trails of planes.

They feel that the bouts of viral infections which so many suffered this past winter can be attributed to this spraying. I hate to introduce that concept here, in such fertile ground, but it is something to consider.

This is becoming a book.

Ciao.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Connie,

As strange as this may sound - we are not THAT far off in our thinking on this subject, except in maybe a few areas.

You wrote: "I believe that we should do everything in our power ~ that is legal to do ~ to retain our freedoms.

But we ARE going to lose these freedoms ~ the Scriptures say there is going to be an evil end-time one-world government whose purpose will be to persecute Christians. Can we prevent it by taking the law into our own hands? NO. Should we disobey God to do so (kill others)? NO, in my opinion."

Yes, absolutely we should do everything within our legal rights to defend our freedoms. I'm not contemplating for myself or commanding others to go out and start shooting people - I just want others to understand the risk we are taking by not standing up now while we still have a legal opportunity to do so. I still have a legal right to free speech, so I use it to speak against their injustice. I still have the right to buy & possess firearms and I'm gonna use it. I still have a right to vote the worthless scoundrels out of office and I'm gonna use that too. But if the Gov't decides I'm not to have those rights anymore - that is illegal and I will then be forced to stand up to them - I believe that to be correct morally & Scripturally.

Maybe part of our differences here are based on your Eschatology (ie one-world gov't). You see this as being inevitable. My current interpretation of Revelation is not so negative. I think man will continue in his God-given ability to choose to make a difference up until the Trumpet sounds and the new Heaven & Earth is manifested.

To be honest, if I didn't believe this (that we can make a difference as long as there is breath in the body) I couldn't in good conscience continue to be a preacher. What would be the point in continuing ??

Again, you wrote: "Shooting abortion clinic doctors is not going to prevent abortions, (except the ones HE/SHE was performing),which another will step in and perform. This is from one who has stood with others and peacefully protested the killing of babies.

My position is not to be disarmed; it is just to be armed with effective weapons. (God's)"

Again - I got not fault with the above. Christians who shoot abortion doctors are murderers - and should be punished as such. Personally, I don't even agree with protesting at the clinics. It tends to create a negative public image of the church (mainly due to the liberal agenda of the media & gov't) and we don't need anymore of that.

As far as weapons go, notice that the "full armor of God" in Ephesians contain only weapons of defense and offense - there are no weapons of retreat, i.e. none of the armor mentioned was designed to cover one's backside. I'm a military type by heart, and I fully intend to press forward with this spirtual armor as long as I can but, as Danny & I have pointed out, the right to do so is now on the chopping block. Guns are only a first Big step in silencing the Christian voice in America. Janet Reno confirmed this several years ago when she stood in front of a Homosexual gathering and proclaimed that Christians were their enemies and that they needed to be taken out of the picture (paraphrase). Come to think of it - that kind of explains Waco, doesn't it ?

Speaking of Waco, you also wrote: "It's just that, in the case of present-day Christians who are arming, (until I came to this forum, I thought that was an 'urban legend' ~ that there are 'Christian' survival groups armed to the teeth ~ but now I think they really exist)it seems to me we are arming with the wrong weapons to get out the Gospel. Protecting our rights and belongings seems to be antithetical to what our purpose is: to get out the 'Good News' of the Gospel." And also you mentioned; "Different individuals are 'up in arms' (no pun intended) claiming that the government is carrying out spraying large population areas with the possible objective of disarming the people without violence.

They cite the sky patterns (and have a lot of photographs) which are very different than the normal sky trails of planes.

They feel that the bouts of viral infections which so many suffered this past winter can be attributed to this spraying. I hate to introduce that concept here, in such fertile ground, but it is something to consider."

Well, mankind has always had its "Lunatic Fringe" groups so you really shouldn't be too surprised. I kinda find it funny though that a lot of these groups sprang up just in time for the Y2K Festivities - and they based what they did upon many of the End Times Predictions similiar to those that you have been posting on the Ammillenial thread. If such ideas tend to conjure up these demented ideas and actions, maybe it would be best to leave such things alone as it is obviously Not getting God's work done and seems to be leading many such people into temptation.

Just feeding the thought processes.

p.s. Did you go back and read Esther? It's worth the trip.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Connie,

As strange as this may sound - we are not THAT far off in our thinking on this subject, except in maybe a few areas.

You wrote: "I believe that we should do everything in our power ~ that is legal to do ~ to retain our freedoms.

But we ARE going to lose these freedoms ~ the Scriptures say there is going to be an evil end-time one-world government whose purpose will be to persecute Christians. Can we prevent it by taking the law into our own hands? NO. Should we disobey God to do so (kill others)? NO, in my opinion."

Yes, absolutely we should do everything within our legal rights to defend our freedoms. I'm not contemplating for myself or commanding others to go out and start shooting people - I just want others to understand the risk we are taking by not standing up now while we still have a legal opportunity to do so. I still have a legal right to free speech, so I use it to speak against their injustice. I still have the right to buy & possess firearms and I'm gonna use it. I still have a right to vote the worthless scoundrels out of office and I'm gonna use that too. But if the Gov't decides I'm not to have those rights anymore - that is illegal and I will then be forced to stand up to them - I believe that to be correct morally & Scripturally.

Maybe part of our differences here are based on your Eschatology (ie one-world gov't). You see this as being inevitable. My current interpretation of Revelation is not so negative. I think man will continue in his God-given ability to choose to make a difference up until the Trumpet sounds and the new Heaven & Earth is manifested.

To be honest, if I didn't believe this (that we can make a difference as long as there is breath in the body) I couldn't in good conscience continue to be a preacher. What would be the point in continuing ??

Again, you wrote: "Shooting abortion clinic doctors is not going to prevent abortions, (except the ones HE/SHE was performing),which another will step in and perform. This is from one who has stood with others and peacefully protested the killing of babies.

My position is not to be disarmed; it is just to be armed with effective weapons. (God's)"

Again - I got not fault with the above. Christians who shoot abortion doctors are murderers - and should be punished as such. Personally, I don't even agree with protesting at the clinics. It tends to create a negative public image of the church (mainly due to the liberal agenda of the media & gov't) and we don't need anymore of that.

As far as weapons go, notice that the "full armor of God" in Ephesians contain only weapons of defense and offense - there are no weapons of retreat, i.e. none of the armor mentioned was designed to cover one's backside. I'm a military type by heart, and I fully intend to press forward with this spirtual armor as long as I can but, as Danny & I have pointed out, the right to do so is now on the chopping block. Guns are only a first Big step in silencing the Christian voice in America. Janet Reno confirmed this several years ago when she stood in front of a Homosexual gathering and proclaimed that Christians were their enemies and that they needed to be taken out of the picture (paraphrase). Come to think of it - that kind of explains Waco, doesn't it ?

Speaking of Waco, you also wrote: "It's just that, in the case of present-day Christians who are arming, (until I came to this forum, I thought that was an 'urban legend' ~ that there are 'Christian' survival groups armed to the teeth ~ but now I think they really exist)it seems to me we are arming with the wrong weapons to get out the Gospel. Protecting our rights and belongings seems to be antithetical to what our purpose is: to get out the 'Good News' of the Gospel." And also you mentioned; "Different individuals are 'up in arms' (no pun intended) claiming that the government is carrying out spraying large population areas with the possible objective of disarming the people without violence.

They cite the sky patterns (and have a lot of photographs) which are very different than the normal sky trails of planes.

They feel that the bouts of viral infections which so many suffered this past winter can be attributed to this spraying. I hate to introduce that concept here, in such fertile ground, but it is something to consider."

Well, mankind has always had its "Lunatic Fringe" groups so you really shouldn't be too surprised. I kinda find it funny though that a lot of these groups sprang up just in time for the Y2K Festivities - and they based what they did upon many of the End Times Predictions similiar to those that you have been posting on the Ammillenial thread. If such ideas tend to conjure up these demented ideas and actions, maybe it would be best to leave such things alone as it is obviously Not getting God's work done and seems to be leading many such people into temptation.

Just feeding the thought processes.

p.s. Did you go back and read Esther? It's worth the trip.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Mark:

I have been trying to get to Lee's verses, and various barriers have gotten in the way. I HAVE read 'Esther' in the past, but I will go back and read it as soon as I can.

I am just checking these other threads before getting to the 'meat' of baptism.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

The essential question (IMO) each of us owning guns would have to answer is: Would I be sinning in killing a government representative that comes to take my guns because I didn't register them? (I believe that all I am doing with that question is taking your argument to its natural conclusion.... and killing has been directly alluded to by Mark/Connie.) For me... Yes. Why? I don't have a God- given right to not register my arms and so I MUST obey the established government on that issue.

I cannot find in scripture (directly or implied) where GOD has given me the RIGHT to bear arms! (Some of you seem to believe that since the Founding Fathers gave the right, and they said it was because we are 'creations of God', that that implies it is a God-given right... I don't follow that line.) And, I won't take a stand based on a non- essential, not-for-fellowship (Amen! Danny) opinion (in which we are to have liberty with each other) which would get me in a position to kill someone (some liberty).

Mark (Whiz),

Way above you said, "Paul spells it out in Romans 13:1-7. Read it for yourselves, but basically it says Gov't is established of God and it's purpose is to prevent anarchy. To establish moral laws to protect it's citizens from evil-doers from within and without. That's It ! Gov't doesn't have the right to say what you can or can't have or do as long as it is in the bounds of God's wishes. " I personally can't quite get that and only that out of those verses.

BTW, If you think the government is 'criminal'... do you have to abide by Romans 13:6-7? :-)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Mr.Cornell:

I will paste your above comment, and then comment on it:

I cannot find in scripture (directly or implied) where GOD has given me the RIGHT to bear arms! (Some of you seem to believe that since the Founding Fathers gave the right, and they said it was because we are 'creations of God', that that implies it is a God-given right... I don't follow that line.) And, I won't take a stand based on a non- essential, not-for-fellowship (Amen! Danny) opinion (in which we are to have liberty with each other) which would get me in a position to kill someone (some liberty).

I think what these great fellows are doing is equating the Constitution and Bill of Rights with Holy Writ. Now, don't get me wrong; I am VERY thankful for those documents and the people who have written them and given their lives to protect them.

It's just that I think Christians have a different role to play. We are to be salt and light.

(My daughter teaches History and the Civil War ~ Oops! ~ the 'War Between the States' ~ is her specialty; my mother was a Southerner, and she taught us a lot of history.)

'Come, Let us reason together'.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Also, MarkWhiz:

Something you said:

Well, mankind has always had its "Lunatic Fringe" groups so you really shouldn't be too surprised. I kinda find it funny though that a lot of these groups sprang up just in time for the Y2K Festivities - and they based what they did upon many of the End Times Predictions similiar to those that you have been posting on the Ammillenial thread.

I agree that there were all kinds of crazies who didn't know what the Bible says about when Christ will return. I was POSITIVE that the millennium spoken of in the Bible was NOT the millennium which was coming upon us (2000). That was partly because of the exactness of the date (no man will know) and that so much prophecy has not been fulfilled; and, yes, these date-setters give us all a bad name.

Every government agency, banking system, utility, and many computer professionals thought Y2K was going to be bad, but admitted they didn't know. I don't think they would have spent billions of dollars if there had been no problem. It's just that our prayers were answered and they got the work done under the wire.

As for the 'chemtrails' ~ they are a reality; there has been testing of the make-up of whatever is being sprayed. There are always the 'nuts' associated with any phenomena, but there are intelligent, scientific types who are questioning what the purpose of spraying whatever it is, is. There are many photographs verifying criss-cross patterns and these people talking about this subject say it is definitely NOT vapor trails; some are pilots.

But it probably won't get on the 6:00 o'clock news.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Robin,

I think maybe you think me a little more radical than I really am. There was some of my tongue in my cheeks on some of the above posts. But I would like to answer some of your comments:

I agree that killing someone (over the registration issue) coming to my door for my guns would be wrong - unless they came in firing first; then self-defense would become the issue and God does give that right even as far back as the Old Testament. I would not cherish the thought of having to do so, but to protect my family from unnecessary deadly force, my hand would be forced.

Apparently this thread has gotten off its original context, because Danny's original intent was just to point out the direction gov't was going. Today it may be registering guns, but it will digress to what we all would consider more important areas - such as our right to preach & teach the Gospel. Human Gov't throughout the ages has always shown that the "Slippery Slope" reigns supreme. Once things start going downhill, such as on guaranteed rights in this case, they don't get better - only worse.

Up until the institution of the American democratic system, the people of the world never really had a voice in trying to stop such a fall. Now we do. And the purpose of this thread was not to promote militarism, but just to get people to wake up and be more observant of what is going on around them amongst the Gov't.

It seems, at least on the surface, that the idea of "Separation of Church & State" has been beat into the heads of the populace to such an extent that even the church-goer is willing to let the Gov't do as it pleases. God had given us a great blessing by allowing us to have a form of Gov't that can be changed (peacefully & legally) and I think we would be "thumbing our noses at God" if we allow that Gov't to corrupt itself and become like the Rome of old - where Christianity becomes illegal or at the very least "persona non gratis".

I do still stand by what I said about Romans 13. Why does the gov't "bear the sword"? To punish the evil-doer and protect the citizenry from their harm, whether that evil-doer is another aggressor nation or criminals from within. Other than that, Scripture gives gov't no specific mandates to do anything else - not taxation, not weapons control, not welfare, not education, and definitely Not "separation of Church & State".

Along those lines, you asked: "If you think the government is 'criminal'... do you have to abide by Romans 13:6-7?"

Yes, I do abide by Romans 13:6-7 (to the tune of $14000 for 1999!). But I do not abide BECAUSE of Romans 13:6-7(except for the fact that gov't workers deserve to be paid), as that passage does not establish the gov't's RIGHT to tax the people. I pay my taxes because of Paul's statements in I Cor. 10:23-33. If I refuse to pay taxes because of religious objections, I would be made a public pariah by the liberal media, which would be an embarrassment to Christ and His church, and my actions would become a stumblingblock to the brethren.

Robin, I hope this clarifies things a little bit for you. As you say, this whole issue is not something to test Fellowship by. But I do hope that some eyes have been opened and some thought processes stimulated by this thread, because I fear that if we, as Christians, do not start making our voices heard outside of the church building - it won't be too long before we will be prohibited from lifting our voices inside the church building.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Connie,

I really hate to do this, but I have to point out a couple of things:

You wrote: "I agree that there were all kinds of crazies who didn't know what the Bible says about when Christ will return. I was POSITIVE that the millennium spoken of in the Bible was NOT the millennium which was coming upon us (2000). That was partly because of the exactness of the date (no man will know) and that so much prophecy has not been fulfilled; and, yes, these date-setters give us all a bad name".

Well, A great number of those "crazies" said and actually believed that their actions were "Spirit-driven" and "Spirit-Revealed" to them. You have said that the Spirit has lead you to different conclusions concerning End Times, Baptism, etc. Now, we know (via Scripture) that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of unity and truth. THEN HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH SPIRIT TO BELIEVE - yours or theirs?

The problem here is that one can't accurately rely on continuing revelation or "enlightenment" - it makes things too subjective and leaves everyone wondering WHAT to believe. God is Not a God of confusion, so I guess the only revelation we can stick with, that which prevents confusion, is the words of the Bible ONLY.

Also, I fail to understand how you can believe that the Gov't is spraying us with diseases (which I would not be overly surprised by - since they have conducted medical experiments unawares in the past), yet you cannot see that the revoking of one Constitutional right will not be followed by the removal of another and another and another ..............until Christians are hunted down like dogs. It happened before and it can happen again.

And no, neither I, nor Danny, nor Jenny are foolish enough to equate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, or any other human document with the Holy Oracles of God. But, like what has been stated many times here, we have been blessed by God with a gov't that allows us the chance to make things right according to God's Word. And like all of God's blessings in the past, they ARE NOT unconditional. If we turn our backs and neglect this blessing - He will take it away. And then we will really be in a "Pickle"

Is God powerless to stop this slide - Of Course Not!! But He isn't going to do it miraculously, that's not His style in this Dispensation. He will use His people - IF they will wake up and heed the call. And if we don't wake up - "May God Have Mercy On Our Souls".

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

And yes Connie,

We are to be the Light and Salt of the earth.

But is it right to just let the Gov't shut off the power to that light and siphon the salt out of that shaker when we have a legal and peaceful recourse to prevent it?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Whoa,Mark!

Also, I fail to understand how you can believe that the Gov't is spraying us with diseases (which I would not be overly surprised by - since they have conducted medical experiments unawares in the past), yet you cannot see that the revoking of one Constitutional right will not be followed by the removal of another and another and another ..............until Christians are hunted down like dogs. It happened before and it can happen again.

I never said that I believed it! I said there are some who DO believe it. But neither you nor I (nor they, apparently) know.

I agree that we can not assume anything of these various controversial issues apart from God's word. But 25% of God's Word consists of prophecy. Who did He write that for? He's written NOTHING to US? Why did He indicate that various information is for the 'End Times'? Are you sure that YOU are not the one passing over what He has in store for us?

I don't want to assume ANYTHING; by the same token, I do not want to ignore what he has in store for us. I'm watching and waiting. I'm not ASKING for a sign, I'm OBSERVING the signs, as we were told to do.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Mark,

Thanks for your reply. My message wasn't addressed specifically, but part of it was meant to apply to Danny/Jenny... one of them has said, "Personally....I will never register my guns and I will never turn them over....in the same spirit of the founders of this country."

That is the comment that I was taking to the 'killling' conclusion.... My comment about killing having been discussed by Mark/Connie was just to reinforce that it was not a foriegn conclusion to make. You must admit that the above stance could easily get one into the 'killing' position that I talked about... and I think that is WRONG.

Relying on the Constitution/Bill of Rights as equivalent to scripture is not being done, I am sure... BUT, there is a leap being made somehow that makes 'bearing arms a GOD-GIVEN right' (and thus one that we can disobey our government about), that I cannot make.

Yours seems to be a voice that I can relate with. I agree TOTALLY that we should do everything we can LEGALLY (meaning under the laws of our government) to avert gun registration and/or banning. However, I don't believe that we should disobey over the issue.

One thing I have seen you and others put forth is, we are the government. Yes, that is true the people make up the government. How do they do it? By the majority, right? Isn't that mainly what voting is about? Now, if the majority has elected representatives who pass laws don't we have to abide by those UNTIL WE CAN USE THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS to get them changed (unless, of course, they are in direct opposition to God)? In other words, if the minority always 'rebels' against the majority,... I think you lose the whole democratic process??

I do understand the importance of this issue... I do understand how the erosion of our God-given rights has started. I think we need to (and are obligated to) do everything (except disobey) we can to keep those intact.... We need to PRAY, we need to TEACH, and we need to INVOLVE ourselves in the democratic process (and PRAY some more).

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

What I was referring to above, so that you can determine for yourself what they might be: ********************************************************************** Latest spectacular Chemtrail photos greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Could one of our resident chemtrail scoffers please tell me why commercial or military jets would fly in a pattern that creates checkerboard contrails? Or what natural phenomena would create the rainbow "chemcloud" photos?

I'm anxiously awaiting your reply.

Link to photos

-- Chemtrails Are Real (its@chemtrail.USA), February 22, 2000

Answers Is there a lab report on what residue was found after all this? If so, please post! Are there mulitudes of dead wildlife in the area? (ya know, the analogy of the "canaries in the mine"?)

What do you think is the goal of those authorizing these chem-sprays? Who do you think *IS* authorizing these chem sprayings, and for what reason?

The military jets could be on a mapping mission......commercial jets as well, if they were part of a mapping program........mapping is much more than just land mass and water mass.......could be for ag, mining, pop density, etc...all of these would entail a cross hatch pattern.

I am *NOT* denying there may be a more sinister reason...but until I see a lab report or much dead wildlife, I am skeptical that we, (population) are being "guinea pigs" for whatever reason.

-- Bird (Bird@nest.home), February 22, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Enough already! How are "Chemtrails" supposed to be connected to Y2K? If you guys have to keep posting this gar-bage could you at least put an "OT" in front of it? (laughing) actually, I kind of like reading them, I just think it's cr*p.

Frank

P.S. My gripe about this is mainly due to having the continuation of the "OT on Hemp" thread deleted. If a *labelled* OT thread gets the axe, why not these unlabelled ones?

P.P.S. It's late here.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Thanks for the pics. Been spraying here in central Ohio again. What they are or why i don`t know. But i KNOW they are! :}

-- mutter (murmur@ya.com), February 22, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

That multi-colored chem cloud is really freaky. I wonder if anyone got sick after being exposed to it?

-- ,-, (comma@dash.comma), February 22, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Yup, the photos showing the trails are the same types of patterns that we have been seeing here in north Florida. However, I have not seen any of the rainbow patterned ones yet; doesn't mean that we have not been having them too, but I just haven't noticed 'em.

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 22, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I have sisters that have seen these sightings of trails in the Gila area. I am a true believer of this wonderful phenomenom. If you look closely the planes are not there and they never were and that's whats so wonderful about them. You see these are the messages that over time people have strived to find and have looked for years to discover. Anybody that says they are a fake or imagined needs to rethink their position. The airplanes are what's a fake! The source of the trails is our dicease parents,relatives, and friends trying to communicate with us. It is the best way and only way that they can talk to us and finally get our attention. It's a beautiful thing for them to do and the general popuation will finally have a way of making the long wanted connection withthe deceased. It is their shorthand and sign language. Look at the lines, curves. stops and strts and the messages become very visible in just a short time. Look up and see what they are telling us and that is to remember them and love one another. Some times their notes last a long time. And that's the difference between them and regular contrails

-- I Believe (ibelieve@it.chemtrails), February 22, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- hmmm... (@ .), February 22, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Please don't make fun of me when I tell you what these are. That is hurtful and I'm just trying to help. Go in the yard or on the hood of your car and lay back and close your eyes just barely so you can sea their messages and read them out loud. It will become obvious very fast try it. They talk every day and you need to let them know that you are aware. They won't disapear this summer.

-- I Believe (ibelieve@it.chemtrails), February 22, 2000. ********************************************************************** Everything above, except for the first sentence, are not my words; they are from the TB2000 forum.

I don't see the link to the photographs, but you can go to the site to see them, if you want to.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

The account right above my final sentence is from one of those far- out ones!

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Mark:

You said above, also:

Well, A great number of those "crazies" said and actually believed that their actions were "Spirit-driven" and "Spirit-Revealed" to them. You have said that the Spirit has lead you to different conclusions concerning End Times, Baptism, etc. Now, we know (via Scripture) that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of unity and truth. THEN HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH SPIRIT TO BELIEVE - yours or theirs?

That's why we are told to 'test the spirits, whether they be of God'.

We know that ANYONE who sets a date or arranges for hundreds to commit suicide is not from God. Every statement has to agree with what Scripture says.

You know that if a charismatic leader tries to get his followers to follow Him instead of Christ, you know He is not from God. You know that if a leader tries to separate children, even adult ones, from their families or parents, he is also false. You know that if a charismatic leader has illicit relations with his followers, he is false.

What is amazing to me is that some believers are afraid of legitimate practices which are spoken of in the Bible, like speaking in tongues.

Now, I AM NOT ONE WHO DOES SO, but it is right there in the Scriptures. The people you are describing above did not know what the Bible says, or they could not have been fooled.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

To clarify my clarification RE: Chemtrails:

I believe there are trails (not vapor trails) made by planes; Heaven knows they have enough photographs to prove that. What I DON'T know is what they are, or if there is some nefarious activity sponsored by our government, associated with them (as many think there are).

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Here's a little something I came across that might prove interesting....

When Patrick Henry (the Revolutionary Patriot who penned the words, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death") lay dying, he called his children around him and said, "I am about to leave you all my earthly possessions. There is one more thing which I would like to leave you, namely, the Christian faith. If I could leave you that and nothing else, you would be rich indeed. If I could leave you everything else and not that, you would be poor indeed."

Do you reckon he would be turning over in his grave if he saw how the Gov't he fought for was trying to take away that faith?

Memorial Day has always been a special day to me - but these days I mourn more for the Veterans that are still living, because they are forced to see the rights they fought so hard for, being removed from the public.

I know most really can't (or won't) see the issue here, but I know that my father and my uncles didn't volunteer to be bombed and torpedoed just so I could say, "well it's someone else's problem".

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

MarkWhiz:

My father was a Veteran of Foreign Wars, ~ a true hero, having gotten a Silver Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters ~ meaning that he had been injured in battle three times.

He told us many things about his experiences in Germany and France during WW I.

One of the things which has come to my mind during this discussion on rights and fighting for those rights is a story he used to tell. Now, as I have stated, he was an agnostic-cum-believer that God existed but in what form he didn't have the assurance that I do.

In relating the following story, it is with the remembrance that it was what made him believe there must be a God.

He was in battle, somewhere in the Muese-Argonne, I believe, and came upon a German body. He noticed a beautiful ruby ring on the soldier's finger and was going to hurriedly cut off the finger to retrieve the ring. There were bombs and whatever other weapons were in use at the time going off all around him. (He was nothing if not 'macho').

He said a voice told him to "Move". He looked around and saw no one, so went back to the task at hand. (Cutting off the dead German soldier's finger.) Again, louder this time, he heard: "MOVE!" He looked around again and seeing no one, (he must have REALLY wanted that ring!) thought he must be imagining the voice.

A THIRD TIME he tried to get the ring. He said the voice yelled "M-O-V-E!!!" this time and he ran a few yards away, at which time a grenade or something (I can't remember what he said hit the body) landed square on the dead German's body and blew it to smithereens.

He got shrapnel in his knee which bothered him for the rest of his life.

He said, true to the old axiom that there are no atheists in foxholes, that he then believed there was a God, but until the last year of his life (many years later) I don't think he was a believer, but something changed then. I was not a believer myself, so didn't know the questions to ask.

We used to sell poppies for the VoFW, went to the monthly meetings with my dad and I even have a picture of my brother with a miniature uniform that matched Daddy's, which my mom made for him, selling poppies on a street in Peoria, Illinois, my home town.

At the end of his life, (1952) though, he almost became a pacifist and said that if the people who send young men to war had to go themselves, or send their own sons or grandsons, to be in the front lines, there would be no war.

And of course, the Scriptures say that it is because of greed that we go to war.

I was in the 90+% of people who supported George Bush in his handling of the Gulf War, even though it was for oil. Saddam Hussein's goal was to own the world, using oil to control it. I am thankful for the ones willing to defend us, because the price is great, but my role would be one of reducing the harm and pain, not causing it.

I remember when Ronald Reagan bombed the compound of Moammar Ghadafy, and was sad that his baby died. But we've never heard from him again, I've noticed. I think governments have different roles than individuals do.

If you feel you can kill someone, so be it. I can't.

And if it is the government who is in oppostion to the people? This will be a real problem, and it IS going to happen. As they said during preps for Y2K ~ 'Got oil'? (The oil of the Holy Spirit, in my case). Keep in mind Noah, Joseph, the ant of 'Go to the ant, you sluggard" fame, and the five wise virgins. We who are Christians need to become aware and prepared for the end-times, not fighting over some infinitessimal detail of baptism, or gun control.

Got oil?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

OOOOooooooooooo, Danny

Good Question !!

Like Shakespeare put it, "to be, or not to be - That is the question".

Any replies out there?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Danny:

I heard Rosa Parks give her testimony to being a Christian. I was brought up by a Southern mother who was really a sort of libertarian, and who taught us that there was good and bad in all races and nationalities and that we should respect each individual.

Rosa Parks did what she felt she had to do, but I don't think she broke any federal laws. Our Constitution gave her the priviledge of freedom, but a local government denied it. Rosa Parks did not kill anyone in the defense of her rights.

Our own break from England was achieved by people whom we really can't consider Christians (some were; most were Deists.)

Robert E. Lee was a Christian, however, and one of the finest generals who ever lived. (We have a cat named Robert E. Lee ~ my daughter teaches about the Civil War, and had a dog named "General Beauregard' ~ 'Beau' for short.)

I am sympathetic to the causes, (freedom and personal rights) but I will not kill anyone to achieve it. If others feel that they can ~ so be it. I've lived long enough to see real agressive hawk-like personalities become 'harmess as doves'.

Rosa Parks did a very brave thing, and I am thankful for the changes brought about by her actions and the actions of others. There was a saying during the 2nd World War: "They also serve who sit and wait". I would add, "And pray".

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000