Firearms Refresher Course

[Esther]

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

~ Thomas Jefferson

(This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want gun control so badly! )

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two real enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more; we already have too many.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

[OP_Carl]

It's a nice thought, but today's 2nd amendment movement is itself watered down and of no effect to the true goals of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is not about self-defense against robbers, rapists, and "disgruntled former employees." (How can I be disgruntled? I never felt gruntled to begin with! ) It's about the citizenry's ability to overthrow the military arm of a government system turned tyrannical. In the 1700s, the state of the art of war was long muskets, bayonets, and cannons. Private citizens could own the same armament that governments possessed. It is not so today.

The hunting, sport shooting, and self defense weapons available to the American public would be no match for the armament of our military and police. Innovations in armor, munitions, and targeting systems in use by the military and police makes our duck guns and anti-mugger revolvers as obsolete as longbows and broadswords.

It is pure fantasy that a town's worth of civic-minded armed men would last more than a few weeks against the federales. The citizens don't have access to machine guns, grenades, and chemical weapons, nor are they (generally) well-organized or well-trained.

It is usually forgotten by most, even before they don their rose-colored glasses to look nostalgically at America's founding struggle, that the American revolution would have been thoroughly a rout if it were not for aid from foreign governments.

Rip those glasses off your face, stare the globalism movement right in the eye, and discern the unlikelihood that a small armed American resistance could form relations with, and receive aid from, another nation.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

It's a nice thought, but today's 2nd amendment movement is itself watered down and of no effect to the true goals of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is not about self-defense against robbers, rapists, and "disgruntled former employees." (How can I be disgruntled? I never felt gruntled to begin with! ) It's about the citizenry's ability to overthrow the military arm of a government system turned tyrannical. In the 1700s, the state of the art of war was long muskets, bayonets, and cannons. Private citizens could own the same armament that governments possessed. It is not so today.

The hunting, sport shooting, and self defense weapons available to the American public would be no match for the armament of our military and police. Innovations in armor, munitions, and targeting systems in use by the military and police makes our duck guns and anti-mugger revolvers as obsolete as longbows and broadswords.

It is pure fantasy that a town's worth of civic-minded armed men would last more than a few weeks against the federales. The citizens don't have access to machine guns, grenades, and chemical weapons, nor are they (generally) well-organized or well-trained.

It is usually forgotten by most, even before they don their rose-colored glasses to look nostalgically at America's founding struggle, that the American revolution would have been thoroughly a rout if it were not for aid from foreign governments.

Rip those glasses off your face, stare the globalism movement right in the eye, and discern the unlikelihood that a small armed American resistance could form relations with, and receive aid from, another nation.

Using this logic, we should allow citizens to purchase military grade weapons. As for police, there are a lot of cops being killed by hand guns and rifles in America. Seems those kinds of guns still have a certain amount of effectiveness. Additionally it's not always the gun, but the ammo.

In any case, I believe in gun control but I don't believe in the elimination of guns. We need some sort of control or regulation to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unstable. But it's a pipe dream to make it illegal to own a firearm and think that is going to fix Americas problems when the vast majority of those crimes are doing by people who don't care if it's legal or not, probably stole the gun and or would just pick up another gun in a new growing black market. It's for that reason I support citizens, without records and who are mentally stable to be able to own firearms for protection against criminals. The Police can't do it, they only show up AFTER someone is blown away

[Esther]

I think some of you folks completely missed the concept of what Jesus was saying.

Turn the other cheek. About what. Things that offend you.

Now IF Jesus was against you protecting your family by force, then answer me why He is coming back with an army to defend His chosen people, by force? KILLING His peoples enemys. Why doesn't He just turn the other cheek?

Tell me why when David's family and his men were captured and he went after them why God gave him victory IF he was against him protecting his family by force. Killing his enemy.

You have got to learn to understand the Principal of what He is teaching us.

Hope this helps.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esther

I think some of you folks completely missed the concept of what Jesus was saying.

Turn the other cheek. About what. Things that offend you.

Now IF Jesus was against you protecting your family by force, then answer me why He is coming back with an army to defend His chosen people, by force? KILLING His peoples enemys. Why doesn't He just turn the other cheek?

Tell me why when David's family and his men were captured and he went after them why God gave him victory IF he was against him protecting his family by force. Killing his enemy.

You have got to learn to understand the Principal of what He is teaching us.

Hope this helps.

NT SCRIPTURE??

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

NT SCRIPTURE??

What's the matter you don't use the whole Bible?

NT try Revelation.

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

NT SCRIPTURE??

When did God change?

He told David to "PURSUE." David did not pursue with spit balls. Trust me. He pursued under the direction of a N.T. God, with SWORDS, after which death and destruction followed in the wake of that order from God to PURSUE.

The God of David who slew the giant, and the God of the Angel that killed 183,000 in one night, and the God of Samuel who hacked down Agag the king with with Saul's own sword as he watched, IS THE NEW TESTAMENT GOD. Trust me on this! It is the truth.

Now if we want to get real silly, we might even demand to see where standing in defese of your family is found in the book of JUDE! Ha! Or where is it commanded in Revelation 22 to be a pacificst? Ha! The fact of the matter is, the God of the OLD TESTAMENT is the same God of the NEW TESTAMENT. Dont' let anyone kid you. Same God! He does not change.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esther

I think some of you folks completely missed the concept of what Jesus was saying.

Turn the other cheek. About what. Things that offend you.

Now IF Jesus was against you protecting your family by force, then answer me why He is coming back with an army to defend His chosen people, by force? KILLING His peoples enemys. Why doesn't He just turn the other cheek?

Tell me why when David's family and his men were captured and he went after them why God gave him victory IF he was against him protecting his family by force. Killing his enemy.

You have got to learn to understand the Principal of what He is teaching us.

Hope this helps.

Hope this helps


Rom 12:19-21

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hope this helps


Rom 12:19-21

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

You know brother, shouting louder than others does not make you more right. Now, this verse says vengeance. Nobody here is promoting vengeance.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hope this helps


Rom 12:19-21

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

So why do you think he say give place unto wrath? Could it be he is talking about being angry? About being offended?

God's principals don't change. If He allowed men to protect their families in the OT, I believe He still allows men to protect their family today.

He is the same today, yesterday, and forever!