START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

It May be Their Right, But....

Posted 33 months ago|99 comments|874 views
Written by
News Stories are starting to crop up in states with relaxed laws on carrying weapons in public, where protesters at President Obama events are carrying loaded weapons to brandish outside the venue.

Okay, brandish may have been to strong of a word. We'll just say that they are "Making it a point to show that they have a weapon." While these protesters are stating that they are just exercising their right to bear arms, and they do have legitimate fears to think that the Obama Administration may go after our Second Amendment rights, carrying a gun with you while you stand outside of an event that the President of the United States is attending is poor form, in my humble opinion.

It is especially bad form when the nation is in the middle of a heated and emotional debate about health care reform, not gun control.

While I fully the support a citizens right to bear arms, I would expect that the citizens who choose to exercise that right, do so in a responsible manner. Carrying an assault rifle to a health care protest does not fall into that category.

************************

twitter.com/harshaw1776
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
33 months ago: Harshaw, I agree with you completely on this. I have no desire to take guns away from any law-abiding citizen, but the implicit threat in taking a gun when you go to see the President is, at its best, a poor choice for expressing one's rights. At worst, it's using one right (gun ownership) to stifle another right (free speech).
Chris D
Chris D
Seattle, WA
33 months ago: "...carrying a gun with you while you stand outside of an event that the President of the United States is attending is poor form..."

Agree. This is a well-thought out Rant.
33 months ago: Content Removed by RantRave Admin
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
33 months ago: Yep, you guys are right, except Terryeo, who's comment I missed before it was removed.

The only reason I would ever consider bringing protection to a political rally is if I thought my safety was at risk.
Some of the local town halls got a little rowdy, but I would not expect that to happen at one in which the president participated, due to the added security forces present.
33 months ago: Over the top. Totally unecessary. A tactic that reminds me a little of the old Panthers but without the passion or the purpose.

Too many wackos out there. Can't trust it. Something needs to be fixed.

Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: So let me get this straight, we have the right to keep and bear arms, as per the second amendment, but not when the President is nearby, or talking in a building.

The President has an armed contingent surrounding him, and that is perfectly o.k. with you? How do we know his armed guards won't fire wrecklesly into the crowd??

Do you know the secret service contains a few of those veterans that DHS stated in a report might be domestic terrorists?

I only say this, not because I agree with those who are armed at these events, but that every response was to hinder a Constitutional Right, for convenience. Our laws are not supposed to be convenient for the government, they are to limit the government. I can't see anything more inconvenient than carrying a loaded firearm.

John Taylor of Caroline County, explains the Convenience of laws in his book Tyranny Unmasked (1820).
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
33 months ago: Yeah, Billyberoo, in purest sense of the Constitution. We are also not supposed to keep a standing Army. How inconvenient do you really think a handful of gun-toters would be? You might be able to hold out for a week or two, in an armed conflict, but they have all the best toys.
Everybody knows we have guns, and have the right to bear them. To flaunt them in public just to make a point is like the gays holding their debauchery parades, just to rub our noses in it.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
33 months ago: to Huey Newton,
Why "without the passion or purpose?" I feel that gun-rights advocates are very passionate about not allowing the Second Amendment to be perverted into something other than what it is: "the right to keep and bear arms".
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Well I did not see any You Tube videos of any union thugs causing any trouble there. Maybe that was another purpose of their gun-totin'.
33 months ago: Harshaw:
I disagree.
There is no difference whatsoever between the freedom to carry a gun and freedom from Obama taking over our health care system.
That is the difference between liberals and conservatives.
33 months ago: You have the right to keep and bear arms, but not around my President.

Unless you are on security detail you have no reason to be "packing." Passion and enthusiasm for the wrong thing leads to fanaticism. I don't want any gun toting fanatics around the President. Period.
33 months ago: How many of these patriots at these town hall meetings do you think are carrying concealed weapons?
33 months ago: Carrying an assault weapon is a statement for freedom.
Period.
33 months ago: I disagree RedStateGuy. While I don't claim to be able to read the minds of these people, it is certainly antagonistic and in my opinion puts them in the same category as the Black Panthers hanging out in front of polling stations.

Now, maybe these people really were just expressing their right to bear arms, but it could be the start of a dangerous trend of people doing it purely to intimidate.

I mean....common sense.

However having said that these are states where carrying a gun out in the open is probably common, and perhaps does not carry the same taboo as it would in a New York City Star Bucks. But still...these people are making national headlines.
33 months ago: The Black Panthers were also exercising their Contitutional rights.

Imperfect through they were, if it were not for them and other like them the establishment would never have listed to Dr. King and the progress we have made in eliminating police brutality would be no where near where it is today.

Yes, we have have and should have Consituional right to bear arms. Let's not abuse it or there may be a backlash that we are not expecting, don't want, and is in no American's best interest.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Huey
Why do you want security armed, who's to say one of them might not turn on the President?
And he is my President as well, but he is a citizen just like you and me (or maybe he isn't).
They didn't have the 2nd amendment in Germany or Russia in the early 20th century and look at the national leaders they gave us (Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Musolini).

I'll allow the exercise of the 2nd amendment around MY President, Thank you.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: So white people are abusing the right, but the Black Panters in the 60's and 70's did it for progress???
33 months ago: I'm with it. Security can freak out just like anyone else. I just think it's asking for trouble to carry a piece to a Presidential conference. There are too many irresponsible citizens that can screw things up for the rest of us.
33 months ago: If I recall, there was a black man carrying an assault rifle at the conference as well. I never mentioned race, I just mentioned the pioneering efforts of the Panthers.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Oh and the Black Panthers are well known for their diversity with in the group. I don't know how I could have confused what you stated.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: Having a Florida CCW permit myself, I can tell you the right to conceal & carry is not without restriction and open carry is not allowed here in Florida.

Places off-limits when carrying:

1. any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05
2. any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station
3. any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse
4. any courtroom*
5. any polling place
6. any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district
7. any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof
8. any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms
9. any school administration building
10. any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption*
11. any elementary or secondary school facility
12. any area technical center
13. any college or university facility*
14. inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport*
15. any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law


Of course that's just for Florida but I imagine it's somewhat representative, and one should check their particular state laws before running out armed to the next teabag party. Good aggregator site for state laws is:

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html
33 months ago: Heuy:
Do what?!?
Black Panther's "pioneering effort"?
Pioneering at a Philadelphia voting station with the proper pipes and bats and cussing people as the walk by trying to vote?
Am I missing something?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
33 months ago: I have to say, any time I am going into a situation where tempers are likely to flare, I definitely don't want guns there, mine or anyone else's. All I need is to get pushed or scuffed up a bit, and some red-eyed heat packer decides he's "got my back". That's why many frontier towns didn't ban guns, but you had to check them at the door.
33 months ago: Aside for making a display of freedom, you have to admit though, it would be a blast....er...I mean alot fun walking up with a handgun holstered and/or an assault rifle strapped over your shoulder and watching the D.C. elite, state run media, to get their panties in a wad.

And maybe double, dog dare them to do something about it.... or maybe not.
33 months ago: I think you nailed it Harshaw when you said "responsible manner". There are millions of gun owners who handle their guns in a responsible manner. If there are gun owners carrying guns to this event it is irresponsible and unfortunately giving the anti-gun factions ammo. Gun owners need to realize it is the goof-ups and mishandling of guns that people remember not the millions of responsible Americans who successfully handle firearms without mishap everyday. Nice post.
33 months ago: Some people just don't know who the enemy is and it shows in their rhetoric.

"You will respect my Constitutional rights or I will shoot you." Really?

The Panthers were definitely pioneers. If it were not for them the state of Black America would not have progressed nearly as far as it has. You can rail if you want, but that's a fact.

"Power comes from the barrel of a Gun." Seems many are espousing the same thing here. Don't be so duplistic. Pioneers. Yep. That's right. Just like Lewis and Clark.

I still don't want any fools with guns that are not on security detail haning out around my President.
33 months ago: Also, don't be confused. That Philly voting situation was caused by the NEW Black Panthers. I have zero respect for them and think they need to change their name.
Ghost
Ghost
Czech Republic
33 months ago: As long as Americans wish to shoot other Americans, I’m all for it. Just as long as you make sure that the person you are shooting at isn’t a tourist just there to do a bit of cheap shopping. Thanks.
theaton
theaton
Jemez Springs, NM
33 months ago: Where were all of you "you should only exercise rights at certain times" when the black panthers had guns at a protest in 2000 or when they were carrying clubs at a polling place in 2008? If guns are so dangerous, why do the Secret Service and police officers feel the need to carry them? Innocent bystanders are killed in police shootings far more often than they are killed by citizens in similar shootings.

http://americanrestoration-theaton.blogspot.com/2009/08/rights-are-always-rights.html
33 months ago: Funny. Why don't you all break on the KKK like you do the NEW Black Panthers? They are the same type of group. It's groups like the Klan and other terrorist para military groups that make it difficult for decent white folk to exercise their constitiuonal rights.
33 months ago: There was no assault rifle present; an assault rifle is a selective fire weapon--it may shoot in either semi-automatic mode--that is one round shot per pull of the trigger (as do all "sporting guns) or in "burst," or "full-auto" mode which has multiple rounds short per pull of the trigger (Continuous fire). the AR-15 is a darned good varmint rifle. As for threatening someones First Amendment? Hardly! Unless the are so Hoplophobic as to be paralyzed by the presence of something our founders-if their prolific writings on the subject are to be accounted--found essential for each person to be intimate with.

We truly have become a nation of sheep (wusses--and I can think of a better but ruder word that is more apt).

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." -James Burgh
33 months ago: Scotmanster - I love Dr. King and the work he did but, if it were not for the Panthers and other extremists, whether you want to believe it or not, the establishment would not have listed to him.

The powers that be at the time knew that if they didn't deal with King they would have to deal with others that were not willing to be brutalized, dog bit and water hosed. They didn't like that alternative so they chose to deal with the non-violent minster rather than with people who would shoot them if they crossed the line.

Not every black person in the 60's was non-violent, nor should they have been.

The exercising of the right to keep and bear arms by the Panthers at that time was instrumental to the freedom we enjoy today.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
33 months ago: Really, sam? The founders were prolific on the subject of assault weapons? They were brilliant and clairvoyant.
33 months ago: JAK:

Are you that stupid? Or is it an act?

Did I say the founders spoke of so-called "assault weapons?" I referred to an armed citizenry. The weapons carried by the citizenry equaled those of the military. The intent of an armed citizenry is as a prophylactic against tyranny; and in the event of failure as a prevention to tyranny, then to be actually used against such a tyranny operating under the color of law as mentioned by the founders in the Declaration of Independence, to whit:

"...That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."


As to the term "Assault Weapons," this term was created by Diane Feinstein and staff to scare the public about these ordinary semiautos which only cosmetically appear as military weapons, to improve the likelihood of support by an ignorant electorate for banning these semi-autos by confusing these with machine guns in the mind of the public.

In point of fact there is nothing wrong with owning machine guns and in most states it is possible, though Federal Law makes you jump through hoops and thanks to FOPA 1986 as well as the GCA 1968, it has made it practical only for the wealthy--it is still possible to own fully automatic weapons. And there are regularly machine gun shoots each year.

SamAdams1776 III (guess what the III is)

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
http://waronguns.blogspot.com
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com
33 months ago: Good job Scottmanster! I served an a USAF officer in the early 80s and now in the Army Guard after 9-1-1.

Many of us are oath-keepers. Our loyalty is to the US Constitution and the people it serves--not to politicians---not if they order us to do anything in violation of the US Constitution--particularly the 10 unconstitutional orders as listed on the site.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: Sam, you talk about the founding fathers but then you quote James Burgh, an English Whig politician who never stepped foot in America. Perhaps one can say his writings were inspirational to the founding fathers and assuming that, could you enlighten us as to where you found that Burgh quote; I'd hate to think people were putting words in a dead man's mouth.
33 months ago: Are you kidding? There was a major government effort to eliminate the Panthers. Ever hear of Cointelpro?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

We are now way off the subject.

The point is this...the Panthers were an excellent example of a group of people who exercised their constitutional right to bear arms. They did it legally and openly. Period.

You don't have to like them and I really don't care if you do or don't. To me and many others they are pioneers and heroes who helped the progress of oppressed people in the turbulent and explosive times of the 60's and 70's.

That being said I believe we do have the right to bear arms, but I still think it's a serious mistake and can be down right stupid to parade around with open guns in front of the President. That is my opinion and I don't care who likes it or not.

It's a free country remember?
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
33 months ago: Sam: Your foaming belligerence aside (usually expressive of the type that others need to arm themselves against), you said nothing in that paragraph about "an armed citizenry". I have no idea what the "III" is, but if it suggests that you are part of the Adams line, then what Dickens said is proven once again: "It is a melancholy truth that even great men have their poor relations."

Readings on the 2nd Amendment that would allow you and others access to everything from assault weapons to bazookas are way, way off base. What you're saying, if you have any knowledge of the actions that prompted the constitutional convention, is that the founders, fresh from the terror of Shays' Rebellion, planted within their new charter the seeds of it's undoing, at the hands of the same kind of armed mob that kept the Massachusetts countryside in terror for months? This doesn't sound in any way at odds with their purpose for meeting?

You and others are fond of citing the Declaration. This was the rationale for independence--not a plan, on the Constitutional order, for self-governance. It's important to keep to the specific language of the 2nd Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment mentions militias--not posses, gun clubs, security forces, or spontaneous armed mobs. Mustering the militia, in the colonial period, was a tightly-circumscribed affair, left to the same class of people who drafted our Constitution. Read: not the type, especially when poised to lose life or property, to rabble rouse. All of this backstory, of course, is completely lost on our current Supreme Court, whose conservative members completely scrapped their originalist convictions in everything gun-related.

The appearance of weapons at town hall meetings? The inevitable outcome when the NRA's agenda creeps more and more into the mainstream--weapons as jewelry, no reasonable boundaries.
33 months ago: I will also quote from Sir Edmund Burke and John Locke as well and others. Our founders were British (mostly). the sentiment expressed by Burgh is correct and expresses the idea of what makes a freeman. I am assuming you looked him up and did not previously know who he was and you're trying to puff yourself up here by the comment by way of intellectual pride. I will quote from whomever it pleases me to to make a point. A freeman is free only to the point he can enforce his freedom by force.

There will never be a peaceful utopia until Christ comes to reign and until then, there will be violence and war and those seeking to rule over others. And one again quoting when useful, as Daniel Webster wrote:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

And it is to this danger that we must ever be vigilant and thus armed, especially in an age when the Constitution is disregarded by all 3 branches
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: SamAdams1776, since you claim to be in the National Guard, I'll remind of the oath you took and it did not include the right wing inspired extra-constitutional manifesto addendum as fabricated by one Stewart Rhodes.

"I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God."

The UCMJ and international law already gives military members the right to disobey unlawful orders, but you sir are going to pick and choose what you obey based on partisan political ideology as dictated by Mr. Rhodes.

Having been in the USAF myself for 26 years, I can tell you that's a recipe that might lead to you getting a court martial for violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ - failure to obey a lawful order or regulation. I'd love to hear you defend yourself by quoting Mr Rhodes and pretending that you're the arbiter of the US Constitution as opposed to the Supreme Court.
33 months ago: Thomas Jefferson SUPPORTED Shays rebellion and his quote (I will spare you) on refreshing the tree of liberty--an in that same quote Jefferson wrote to the effect that God forbid we should span any more than 20 years without such a rebellion . I am well aware of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and the influence of Captain Shays and the well-justified rebellion.

Yes, you have assessed me correctly--ANY weapon you can afford--born anywhere at anytime. THAT is the true militia.

Another quote:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


These were smart men and already saw amazing technical developments in arms in their lifetime and even at that time they were knowledgeable of attempts at multishot weapons. Do you not think them incapable of imagining increased firepower?

You are a statist; I understand this. And you cannot abide essentially unlimited freedom. This entails responsibilities and danger. When one is free, one is not all that safe. Benjamin Franklin has a nice little ditty about liberty and safety too that I think is well known!

I am libertarian by nature and recognize as it is stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights (BOR) that the purpose of the BOR is to limit the power of government.

I am on a 2 hour drive home now so I will have to chat later.
33 months ago: "There will never be a peaceful utopia until Christ comes to reign and until then, there will be violence and war and those seeking to rule over others. "

Sam get's it.
33 months ago: If you think those ten unconstitutional orders SHOULD be obeyed you are sick! I will obey the orders that are lawful as proscribed in my oath and US LAW without regard to international law, which I do not recognized. And I am military and proud of it, but will NOT obey THOSE 10 orders PERIOD. If such orders are given, rebellion will be overdue. I pray such orders are never given.
Many of us in the military and police officers that are friends of mine are having serious conversations over these matters--conversations that should not be having to be had frankly!

But the country is splitting into two camps--one statist--one desiring liberty. I fear a serious internal conflict is on its way. Leaving now!

33 months ago: Out of curiosity, SamAdams1776, do you consider treaties we've signed to be unconstitutional? Most of international law is made up of treaties. I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I just want to know what your take on them is.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
33 months ago: Someone wrote:

"It's important to keep to the specific language of the 2nd Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment mentions militias--not posses, gun clubs, security forces, or spontaneous armed mobs."



How about "It's important to keep to the specific language of Constitution, Article 1, section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States",

and apply the 10th amendment, separating the three Entities: United States, States, and People.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


You can't have it both ways.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
33 months ago: Ahhh...Sam mentions Jefferson. Jefferson's big, often contradictory legacy is interesting (focus of a future rant, when I have more time to develop the argument).
I think it's clear, in Jefferson's letter to William Smith (the "Tree of Liberty" letter), that Jefferson is speaking hyperbolically--and at a safe distance from the events he describes, in Paris. He nods to this in his conclusion, "The want of facts...has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform."

Your Tenche Cox quote: "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier..."

An important excerpt. We we talk of the armed colonial, we're talking primarily about ex-military: the only people (relatives of ex-military included) who would have had practical access to firearms prior to 1803, when the broad concept of interchangeable parts allowed for mass production, lowered costs, made firearms more broadly available (still, not very: find a lot of 18th century firearms on the collectibles market?). When Cox mentions "their swords", he's further grounding this argument in the class-circumscribed idea of the militia: swords were often a mark of the officer class, and were in the 17th and 18th centuries a gentleman's accessory. George Washington; Horatio Gates; Henry Lee--these were not men of the "common" rank.

You can resort to the old "statist"/"socialist"/"fascist" formula if it makes you feel better. What I am or what I am not still doesn't justify out-of-context readings in American history. And I still don't know what the "III" that follows "SamAdams1776" means.

OOTB: Yes...stick to the specific language. And the specific language of Article 1, section 8 is deliberately vague. You can--and legislators have--use the "necessary and proper" clause to cover a variety of sins. The old Federalist/Anti-Federalist divide.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: SamAdams1776, spare me the self-righteous indignation and jingoistic bluster. Instead of pounding your chest with respect to these straw men counter-oaths, explain what you would have done in 1963 when the federal government intervened and and forced the racist governor of Alabama, George Wallace to accept desegregation?

Mr Wallace invoked states'-rights in his failed attempt to enforce apartheid. Do you agree with him, and if you had been a federal agent (military or civilian) at the time, would have walked away if told you to enforce a federal order against the Governor and State of Alabama?
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
33 months ago: But this is all philosophical argument. Practically speaking, it interests me that most of the people who hew to the broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment have also justified this nation's bloated defense spending--the kind of spending that has only widened the gap between what means the citizen has to defend life and property and what means "THE GOVERNMENT" has to take life and property, should it desire. You own an AR-15, maybe a few handguns. How do you think your arsenal compares to the government's? Ask Randy Weaver.
33 months ago: We'll start with the last first. To begin with, Randy Weaver was a separatist--while I disagree with that view, he was entitled. The Feds attempted to blackmail him into spying for him on other a more violent local racist group.

They purchased a shot gun from him and then sawed off the barrel themselves--then arrested him and told him the charges would go away if he spied on them--he declined their generous offer. We won't even go into the 10th Amendment issues in that there are no police powers found in the Constitution--so all Federal police agencies are extra constitutional. A court ruling decided that the commerce clause can be so interpreted as to give such powers. And now anyone can see how easy it is to destroy Federalism and usurp powers not found in the Constitution--powers that by default belong to the states or the people themselves. Oops, too late--I did discuss it. I will continue in next posr..limits being what they are.

33 months ago: continuing:

As to my weaponry, I have a bigger arsenal that you suppose but you seem to think that it would be a war of me against the government. The British had their **** handed to them---eventually. Only 3 percent (hint) of the colony actively fought the British. about 30% provided financial and other support. About a third were indifferent and another third active Tories.

It would be the same here. Three percent of gun owner is about 2.7 Million..if just that rose up, you could kiss the government goodbye. That is just under 53,000 per state and the District of Columbia? Its a big country and being an Electrical Engineer and also heavily in networks and Satcom, as many other technical specialties, a coordinated attack could easily and quickly disorient the few available forces--those you could get to go against their own people. Local police, ditto (mostly). Some of that 3% would be made up of police, National Guard and Reserves. And the last 2 have access to the advanced weapons in the armories, too! :)

It would not be a Weaver or Koresh against a bully--it would be a real militia--as the founders intended. And there would be skilled tacticians with excellent technological access and some well placed as well.

SamAdams1776 III


33 months ago:
markbyrn:

I won't argue the the morality of segregation; it's immoral--but it is not in the US Constitution to use the Federal Government as an instrument of social change any more than having the power to hold the union together. Since the power is not forbidden the states or for that matter even mentioned, it is and was within the powers of the states to secede. Social change must be driven from within. It is slower but less violent. Had the North waited at most 25 years, the institution would have died a quiet death. Instead we fought the bloodiest war in our history. It might have resulted in to nation states, but the founders did not expect a 1000 year Reich. Franklin thought we would fall into utter despotism in 100 years. He was off a bit, but we are nearing that final fall now. We are in a soft tyranny now. Less than 30 years before either a herd tyranny or revolution. Unless the electorate wakes up in time. I am not sure how it will play out.

Also there is the Posse Comitatus act which is more frequently being ignored or "re-interpreted."

Then there was the abomination of the military attack on the Bonus Army(led by then MAJ Eisenhower under the command of General Douglas MacArthur) during the depression. But the troops were less knowledgeable about their oaths then.
33 months ago: Hey noni:

"Out of curiosity, SamAdams1776, do you consider treaties we've signed to be unconstitutional? Most of international law is made up of treaties. I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I just want to know what your take on them is.

Treaties with the United Nation are worthless: The UN is an organization and not a nation and has no real power to conclude a treaty. Treaties with specific nations according to the USC are the Supreme Law of the Land and supersede statute laws of any state so we need to be careful...but in no way can such a treaty abrogate protected rights of the BOR.

I would like to repudiate all treaties with the UN and some others as well...especially the Geneva Convention. The argument that we need to follow it to protect out soldiers in future wars is false. No other nation besides us follows it. Let's stop pretending war is not brutal and fight to win.
33 months ago: JAK:

About Tenche Cox:

He made it clear that the implements are not to be with the Fed or the State, but the PEOPLE. That says it all. The militia are the people themselves-- individually and individually acting in concert.

Goodnight all, I am going to bed.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Hey Noni:

That is the second time you wrote about treaties being the law of the land but I'd like you (actually anybody)to read this and get your opinion. http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

We all are guilty of cherry picking through the Constitution, myself included. As I don't agree with many of your opinions, I do use them to further educate myself on the Constittution. This article came up first on a google search of "Constitution and treaties"
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: SamAdams1777, Since you support that the right of an individual state to usurp the US Constitution and violate citizen's constitutional rights without impunity, it's obvious that US Constitution is nothing but toilet paper for you to wipe your blustering behind with, and all the more appalling that you claim to be a military officer who has sworn to defed the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and "domestic".

As to your "powers of the states to secede" comment, that statement is foreign to the Constitution and in fact the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 (Texas v White) that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
33 months ago: markbyrn:

You can't have it both ways. The US Supreme Court also upheld segregation and in the Dredd Scott Decision declared black men property that had to be returned-a decision that led directly to the Civil War.

Just because the Supreme Court decides something doesn't make it actually constitutional. The Tenth Amendment explicitly states that if a power is not mentioned (an example would be the power to secede ) then that power resides with the states or with the people--and ultimately all power rests with the people--though under the US Constitution, a handful are reserved to the Federal government--such as declaring war, printing money and granting letters or granting marque and reprisal (something we should definitely get back in the habit of doing). That Decision flew in the face of the 10th Amndment. In fact the very power the US Supreme Court exercise to decide whether or not a law is constitutional is a usurped power that came out of Marbury V. Madison--th Supreme Court found (somewhere) in the Constitution such a power, much to the surprise of James Madison who wrote the thing, who himself said he sure never put that in there. He should have arrested them for treason against the Constitution. As to the charge of the states violating the citizen's constitutional rights, I have no idea what I said that indicates such a thing...first of all I have previously denied states have ANY rights at all--states only have powers--powers that reside also with the people (see 10th Amendment). But I certainly deny that the states have the power to deny anyone their rights except as provided for under the due process clause.

I am going to work...this conversation is useless as you like to twist words and your words indicate that you are a statist who only pretends to an interest in individual rights which I guard above ALL else.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Mark

If the states did not have the power to secede I ask you this:

Why was Jefferson Davis not tried as a traitor?

No lawyer not even the attorney general back then would touch that case with a 10 foot pole because they knew it was a loser. And if that case was lost it would have meant the Tyrant Dishonest Abe would have slaughtered 600,00 people for nothing.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: Sam,

Guess you slept during civics class or maybe the neo-con Christian school you attended massaged the facts. The 1869 (Texas v White) ruling that the Constitution did not permit states to secede was made when the tenth amendment was already on the books. Conversely, the Dred Scott decision was issued "before" the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Amendment effectively invalided the Dred Scott decision, eh Sam? This will likely infuriate you, but here's the main text from it:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Doesn't that "No State" and "The Congress shall have the power to enforce" bit just enrage your retro-Confederate rube brain?

If there's any twisting going on here, it's from a self-professed United States military officer who believes that individual states have the right to usurp the above Amendment with impunity, and will not support & defend the Constitution per his commissioning oath.
The only uniform you should be wearing is a Johnny Reb gray with the rank of Private.

Of course it's not what you bluster about on the Internet Sam, but what you actually do live and in person. Please let us the first time you disobey military orders under your confederate manifesto. As a fellow vet, I'd love to attend your court-martial, and laugh in your face as you get escorted to the brig.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: Billyberoo, Why wasn't Jefferson Davis prosecuted?

I don't know Johnny Reb; perhaps for the same reason that Richard Nixon wasn't prosecuted for his crimes - to end the bitter controversy and divisive national debate. Perhaps it was the same reason we didn't execute the Emperor of Japan for his admitted war crimes or to quote Winston Churchill, "In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity." I realize magnanimity is a big word for 'ya Billy, but it has to do with being generous in forgiving an insult or injury; free from petty resentfulness or vindictiveness: to be magnanimous toward one's enemies.

Coincidentally, the fourteenth amendment that I quoted earlier applied to Jefferson Davis - barred from office anyone who had violated their oath to protect the Constitution by serving in the Confederacy. That is until the Hee Haw boys (Trent Lott & Jimmy Carter) banded together in 1978 to remove the ban pursuant to the Amendment.
33 months ago: @Billyberoo

"That is the second time you wrote about treaties being the law of the land but I'd like you (actually anybody)to read this and get your opinion. http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html"

OK, I've read it. It's an interesting piece that argues from a states rights perspective that treaties that conflict with state law do not supersede that law, along with some religious overtones.

I think it's a better insight into the psyche of its author than it is into the Constitution. He states "There is a pecking order: God made People, People made States, States made the Union. Therefore, the Union is beholden to the States, the States are beholden to the People, and all three are beholden to God." This runs contrary to both case history and historical interpretation of Constitution. The earliest record I can find of a case test on this is 1816, only 27 years since the Constitution was adopted. The Supreme Court has yet to overturn Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (writeup at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hunter%27s_Lessee). If it was overturned, 193 years of law would be nullified.

"We all are guilty of cherry picking through the Constitution, myself included. As I don't agree with many of your opinions, I do use them to further educate myself on the Constittution. This article came up first on a google search of 'Constitution and treaties'"

An admirable use of opposing viewpoints. :)
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Mark
I hate to tell you but I was born and bread as Yankee as they come...I lived for 32 of my 37 years 20 minitues from Yankee stadium just north of the Bronx. And your reason is not correct. And I Doubt mr Lincoln, Mr. Seward and the rest of old Abes Cohorts ever hear Churchhils quote. Lincoln knew there was a right to secede but and could not legally strip that right, so he did using the sword and the bayonette.

Hey n n
I will look up that case.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Hey n n
Havent' got that case but I did find some others.

Congressional Repeal of Treaties.--It is in respect to his
contention that, when it is asked to carry a treaty into effect,
Congress has the constitutional right, and indeed the duty, to determine
the matter according to its own ideas of what is expedient, that Madison
has been most completely vindicated by developments. This is seen in the
answer which the Court has returned to the question: What happens when a
treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that
neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore
the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not
diminish Congress' constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal
of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an
international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such
case, as the Court has said: ``Its infraction becomes the subject of
international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party
chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war.
It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do
and can give no redress.''\303\

Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: \329\``The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority,
and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its
provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.''
Doe v. Braden, 16 How. (57 U.S.) 635, 656 (1853). ``It need hardly be
said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it
be in violation of that instrument.'' The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. (78
U.S.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267
(1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura
v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).
\330\1 W. Willoughby, op. cit., n.294, 561; L. Henkin, op. cit.,
n.315, 137. In Power Authority of New York v. FPC, 247 F. 2d 538 (2d
Cir. 1957), a reservation attached by the Senate to a 1950 treaty with
Canada was held invalid. The court observed that the reservation was
properly not a part of the treaty but that if it were it would still be
void as an attempt to circumvent constitutional procedures for enacting
amendments to existing federal laws. The Supreme Court vacated the
judgment on mootness grounds. 355 U.S. 64 (1957). In United States v.
Guy W. Capps, Inc., 204 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1953), an executive agreement
with Canada was held void as conflicting with existing legislation. The
Supreme Court affirmed on nonconstitutional grounds. 348 U.S. 296
(1955).
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art2.html
33 months ago: I am aware of the dates. I am also aware that the privilege and immunities clause not to mention the 13th Amendment invalidate the decision--the point was that SCOTUS makes errors, constitutional and moral--also, I am not so sure the 14th Amendment is needed. We were just TREATING people as property--they really can't be. Of course that requires a belief in a Supreme Being--0h wait--something the founders did, and as it was noted by one of the founders that the USC would only work for a people of faith. As for the 1869 ruling, I say again that the courts regularly make rulings not based in the USC. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that the states have ANY power not EXPRESSLY forbidden by the USC. I used the Dred Scott decision to show the folly of the courts, but "separate but equal rulings" supporting segregation would serve as well.

And if all three branches fail us, then Federalist 28 as well as the DOI provide the remedy-- a remedy our founders took.

33 months ago: And yes i know some founders took a different view--those in the south particularly
33 months ago: And we have gotten way off topic. Here it is in a nutshell: Any weapon (one can bear--the rest you'll have to keep in storage), any time, anywhere by anyone (who has not lost rights under due process, and not disqualified by mere statute--i.e. Lautenberg amendment, etc...).


markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: Billyberoo

...I lived for 32 of my 37 years 20 minitues from Yankee stadium...

I suppose if I lived that close to the evil empire's home field, I'd turn confederate too. You have my condolences, but you missed the point of my previous post; although he wasn't individually prosecuted, the fourteenth amendment punished the confederates collectively for the crime they committed.

Sorry to say, but the absence of one individual prosecution is an absurd proof-text for your neo-confederate theology and it's a rather moot point since the Supreme Court has ruled on the subject of secession as previously noted.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: He wasn't individually prosecuted because it was a losing case. Lincoln tried and tried again to get someone to prosecute. And could not. This is well document in a coulple of books by Charles Adams, namely one of them is In the course of Human events. Thomas DiLorenzo documents it as well you can see a bunch of his writings at lewrockwell.com.
The 14th Amendmendment and the clause you talk about was "an amazing solution," by Salmon P. Chase, "to avoid a trial with out vindicating the south." (Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events pg. 187)
That clause was added so that they could not bring the case before a jury, it would be double Jeopardy. Salmon P. Chase secretly told this to Davis' counsel who moved for a dismissal. It is also ironic that one of the loudest abolitionist, Horace Greeley of NY, posted Davis' bond.
33 months ago: The confederates had the power to secede--they committed no crimes (other than against God and man generally for slavery)any more so than the founders for their war for independence. We had no real civil war---which by definition is a war for control of the SAME government. The so-called Civil War was in fact a failed war for independence.
33 months ago: sorry for going off topic.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Well stated Sam. An illegal war by the US government I might add, with plenty of war Crimes committed by old dishonest abe.
33 months ago: This has gone in a fascinating direction, and might be a good topic for a future Rant or Rave. It seems, Sam and Billy, if I'm reading you right, that you're claiming a right of revolution, not secession, for the Confederate states. Is that correct? If so, I have to say, it's an interesting legal conundrum. Because revolution is largely regarded as a natural right (i.e., not written into, nor able to be restricted by, any law of man). By that definition, any attempt at revolution is by its very nature a legal attempt, regardless of who is doing it. So it's not a right derived from the Constitution, but one we all have merely for being alive.

Is that a statement you would in general agree with?
33 months ago: I guess you could look at it that way--I mean the colonists seceded from the British Empire via a revolution. It certainly was no Civil War since they were not trying to overthrow the Crown in its entirety, just it's authority in that region. But remember that our founders in Federalist # 28 as well as in the DOI state the right of the people to overthrow governments that evince a design of tyranny. The action to tyranny breaks the contract the government has with the people. My allegiance to the government is conditional upon it's proper service to the people and not the ruling over them.

The short answer I guess is yes. But I don't advocate it except as a last resort as described in the DOI by the founders. Even if you win, historically revolutions install worse governments than the ones they deposed. Our American Revolution is as far as I know the only one to install a more enlightened one that glorified the individual and subordinated the state to the individual; it usually goes the other way.

Even today, many in the US--I call "statists" seek to subordinate the individual to the state.
33 months ago: Here's a moral conundrum for you, then: How would you apply this ethic to the Israel-Palestine conflict? Do the people of Palestine have a natural right to revolution from Israel?

Here's another one: Did the black slaves living in the South have a natural right to revolution from their masters by siding with the North during the Civil War?

Finally, if this is a natural right, not a right conferred or withheld under the Constitution, then is the North's war to prevent secession legal under the Constitution but a violation of natural rights? I honestly don't know. It's a complex situation.
33 months ago: off topic but the Palestinians are a stateless people---the lands that really belong to them are in the hands of the Syrians who want nothing to do with with the Palestinians.

They are more like guests, not really citizens, if for no other reason than they want the Israelis dead and to have all their lands. What the Arab/Persian world wants is genocide not revolution. Even if the Israeli's regard them as citizens, the Palestinians do not regard themselves so and it isn't revolution then; it's an invasion and in this case with the intent of genocide. The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to have lad donated by the Israelis. That isn't the issue. In general I have a theory for the deep hatred the Arabs have toward the Jews.

Abraham sired Ishmael with his wife's handmaiden in violation of the law and out of faith that God would see that Sarah would provide a son by Abraham's true wife.

Ishmael is a bastard son and not a true heir of Abraham--born of sin --someone who should never have been.

The likely have an insecurity about this and want to kill their half-brother to inherit God's love....but they will never have it. Ishmael was cast aside. God did not endorse Ishmael--God simply prophesied that Ishmael would be the father of many nations and so he is--and to the misfortune of the world since most conflicts in this world center on Islam which except for Iran in the Middle East is primarily Arabic. Got a 2 hr drive home now--later.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago:

Sam, I didn't realize you were a theologian too. As a National Guardsman, have you deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan to preach this incendiary religion bile to the Islamic citizenry of these countries? It's no wonder they might think we're on some kind of modern day Christian crusade.
33 months ago: Ahhh--an anti-Christian, I rather sensed that----look I don't feel like getting into arguments about whether or not God exists and if He does whether than can be more than one way to reconciliation (there isn't) or the doctrines of election (which do not have anything to do with man's choices, but rather have to do with God's choices). I do not try to convert except in how I try to live my life. Only God can save and He chooses whom he will for his own purposes.

The purpose of my statement was simply to propose a somewhat Freudian explanation of the hatred for the Jewish people toward their half-brothers and once cannot even in Islam escape the notion of election. God clearly rejected Ishmael and by extension his descendants--God rejected Esau but loved Jacob. but here is a little theology.

From Romans 9: 10-16 we have:

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Pat 2 next.
33 months ago: And since you mention it, I have studied with Dr. Simon Kistemaker, Professor Emeritus of Reformed Theological Seminary, a man who even at his advanced age travels to Muslim countries and risks his life to reach out to Muslims.

I regard Islam as the enemy of a civilized society however. As of about 4 years ago, there were 67 conflicts and all but three centered on Islam. Islam is on the march and remains a threat. In those 4 years I doubt there are fewer conflicts-and there may be more. While it is true that not all Muslims are an immediate threat--as not all Muslims practice their faith in the same way that not all Catholics oppose abortion--some people are on teh Cafeteria plan in their religions which makes them something else really---but their offspring may one day re-embrace the "true" faith making Islam a danger. Christianity in it's truest form teaches peace, not war. And in that aspect I fail. I prefer to obliterate the enemy until it is incapable of threat. As a soldier; however, I implement policy, I do not create it. My philosophies on war come from Tsun Tzu and Karl Von Clausewitz, and I wish our policymakers were more familiar with the works of these brilliant men of war.
33 months ago: Oh dear... Why did you bring religion into a discussion about natural (i.e., universal, non-religious) human rights? You labeled over a billion people as inherently sinners and evil, and then accused markbyrn of being an "anti-Christian" for being shocked by that?

We were having what I thought was an intelligent discussion about human rights, the Constitution, and the places where the two overlap or seem to come into conflict. I was enjoying that discussion. But any desire I had to continue it ended when you said "Ishmael is a bastard son and not a true heir of Abraham--born of sin --someone who should never have been," thereby insulting every member of the second largest religion in the world. What a bigoted, awful thing to say.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: Sam, You're confusing anti-Christian with anti-SamAdams1776, and I merely highlighted your anti-Islamic invective. What brand of Christian theology you studied and how your mentor is proselytizing Muslims is only interesting in so far as its indicative of religious prejudice in your selective quoting of history.

For example, It wasn't the Islamic nations that butchered six millions Jews - it was Christian Europe and the modern state of Israel would most certainly not exist if it weren't for the holocaust and the rabidly anti-semetic pre-holocaust pogroms that forced massive numbers of European Jews to flee to Palestine.
33 months ago: I would hardly call the NAZIs Christians, would you? It's not a club you're born into--it is a path you choose deliberately. And calling yourself something doesn't make you one if you reject the doctrines that define it.

I address this to the last two commentators:

If you refer to denomination, then Presbyterian PCA; but there really can be only one doctrine. Christ himself said there is only one path, so don't blame me for the message. Islam worships a non-existent God, since the attributes of Allah DIFFER from that of the Judeo-Christian God. It is not bigoted to state that Ishmael was a bastard son: he was. God DID reject Haggar and Ishmael--they were cast out alone in the desert. The doctrine of election is present throughout the old and new testaments. All are sinners and inclined toward evil (disobedience to God) and under a death sentence, period.

God for whatever reason CHOOSES to save some. The rest God needs to do nothing--their own sins do it for them. God must DO something proactively to save those whom He chooses. He used the term: "incendiary religion bile" so maybe anti-Christian is too broad, but you get the point.

It is not bigoted to recognize that religions that have mutually exclusive conditions or attributes of a creator cannot all be correct. and while it is feasible that all concepts are incorrect as to the nature of the creator, only one ca be correct. It is to be assumed that at least for a personal god (which automatically rules out ISLAM-as they deny Allah as a personal God)then we can assume he has ensured that there is a source of correct information as to his attributes and character. Lets get back to gun control shall we?
33 months ago: That is a sick interpretation of the Bible, and it makes me literally ill to think of people like you serving in the armed forces in Iraq, filled with hate for the very people you were sent to liberate. You say God says this, God says that, you're just the messenger, blah blah blah... NO. *You* say this. *You* claim to speak for God. And conveniently, God somehow hates exactly the same people you hate? Disgusting.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
33 months ago: Wow, first liberals take him down for proselytizing, and then find he has no desire to preach Christianity. Now he's the scum of the earth. He didn't sound to me like he hated anyone, he was just accepting the fact that they are not called to his God.
33 months ago: OOTB, please re-read his comments:

"God DID reject Haggar and Ishmael--they were cast out alone in the desert. The doctrine of election is present throughout the old and new testaments. All are sinners and inclined toward evil (disobedience to God) and under a death sentence, period."

I think this one pretty well speaks for itself. A death sentence... There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world, and about 4.8 billion non-Christians. This interpretation of the Bible would render God as hateful towards all of them, even people who have never seen a bible.

That's not Christianity. That's not Christ who would turn the other cheek, who forgave all sin, who said "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

I am not a Christian myself, but the Christians I know do not call *anyone* a sinner, let alone virtually pronounce a death sentence upon them for the imagined sins of their ancestors. They leave all such judgment to God.
33 months ago: Out of the Box has it correct and oddly enough Noni I got that you're not a Christian--that said there are many, many who profess to be Christians and have no clue as to the orthodox doctrine. Like I said--you're not born into it. 2 Committed Christian parents may not end up with Christian children--even if they call themselves so. My next post will address the rest.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
33 months ago: The doctrine of election IS present throughout the Bible. Haggar and Ishmael are an example of being rejected by God, for what ever reasons God had.
Saul of Tarsus, who became Paul, is an example of the reverse. As you probably know, Saul was in the business of prosecuting Christians for fun and profit. God saw fit to stop Saul, spoke to him a bit convincingly, and changed his life.
Of the 2.1 billion people who profess to be Christians, I would be surprised if half that number truly are. Of the ones who don't even profess to be Christians, well, they don't even pretend.

Christ did not forgive all sin. Christ paid the ultimate price for all sin, but the forgiving is still left up to God.
Matthew 10:32-33

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

That is also why Jesus commanded his followers to "go ye therefore, and teach all nations" .

And by the way, everyone, even Christians, are sinners.
33 months ago: Noni--the one important doctrine of Christianity is that ALL are sinners (else we would not need a savior) and "fall short of the Glory of God. You do not even realize what you said, LOL. Jesus forgave sins committed against THIRD parties! Look, if you sin against me, I can forgive you. But if you sin against another, I do not have that authority; yet Jesus took that authority. How? Well, because the primary complainant in any sin is God and God CAN forgive all sins. Jesus' act of of forgiving is a clear statement of his divinity. Also he ORDERED them to sin no more and only forgave those who truly repented--this he knew because he knows the hearts of each person and would never forgive an unrepentant person. Jesus chose carefully and in his own words: "All those whom the father has given me are mine." Not ALL are given to Jesus. Christian doctrine is hard and to those who confuse mercy and justice, it is hard! I recommend you download The Holiness of God series from RC Sproul--it may help you understand. But the terms at creation were, "the soul the sins dies." God is long suffering in patience but from time to time he reminds us of his Justice. RC Sproul relates a true story of a 19-year-old he saw shake is fist into the sky and say: "if you really exist, prove it and strike me dead." RC Sproul said in relating the event that he didn't want to look, and couldn't believe anyone would challenge God so. Then he said:, "but I saw his dead body the next day, and I'll never forget it."

And God does indeed do all judging--I am just repeating the rules clearly established in scriptures. I am no messenger nor do I speak for God. Scripture does that!

Now, let us please return to Gun Control.
33 months ago: Well said, Out of the Box! I also agree on the estimate of actual Christians as opposed to those who profess faith. Profession of faith is one thing--possession of faith is another--especially since as Paul said, "faith is a gift so that no man may boast." And Christians know full well they are sinners and know therefore that they need a redeemer.

Again, Well Said:

Anyone want to get back to gun control?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
33 months ago: Sam,

I didn't say Nazi's were Christians - I said "Christian Europe" and to help define the difference:

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_religion.htm

"Prior to World War II, about two-thirds of the German population was Protestant and the remainder Roman Catholic. Bavaria was a Roman Catholic stronghold. Roman Catholics were also well represented in the populations of Baden-Württemberg, the Saarland, and in much of the Rhineland. Elsewhere in Germany, especially in the north and northeast, Protestants were in the majority. During the Hitler regime, except for individual acts of resistance, the established churches were unable or unwilling to mount a serious challenge to the supremacy of the state. A Nazi, Ludwig Müller, was installed as the Lutheran bishop in Berlin. In July 1933, shortly after coming to power, the Nazis scored their first diplomatic success by concluding a concordat with the Vatican, regulating church-state relations."

Now you can say these people weren't true Christians just as former President Bush noted the same in describing the militant terrorists who falsely claim Islam, but your personal religious theology that promotes Christian supremacy doesn't have any merit with respect to issues in this forum.

It would only be valid within your circle of fellow believers, and quoting Christian scripture in this forum has has no more or less weight than quoting the Qur'an or L. Rob Hubbard's Scientology Tech.

So yes, let's get back to gun control.
33 months ago: I am new to the site but I am against gun control. I would like to point out that I do like the current gun control policy in my state of Oklahoma, except I think it should be legal for regular citizens to own and carry fully automatic weapons. The government doesn't understand that a fully automatic weapon is less accurate than a semiautomatic weapons. I do think that we should keep guns away from convicted felons. The carrying of weapons at the before mentioned rally was a protest of gun control and nothing else. When you think about it that is the only time that the citizens of that city could protest it, the president probably will not be around any state with open carry when he starts lobbying for gun control. Mark my words he will.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave