RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

mapachito13 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/3/2008 8:03:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

People have the legal right to own guns but what if we put more of our efforts in sharing Christ especially with those who are in prison? "While I was in prison you visited me." (Matthew 25:36) Maybe Jesus said this because He knew this was the true path to reduce crime. Maybe if the church made a more concerted effort to reach out to the lost sheep in prison there could be a fundamental paradigm shift in our society's crime rate.


Is there a prison that doesn't have some form of ministry??? As for Jesus and the true path to reduce crime... The last thing that Jesus ever took issue with was justice...

John


Do you know how many people are involved? THAT was my point! As a percentage of the CHURCH, the amount of people that perform this ministry is miniscule.

The last thing justice?! Jesus, in His own words, telling us how He will separate the sheep from the goats (ie how he will judge our earthly life as a response to His call) in Matthew 25:31-46 tells us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, VISIT THE IMPRISONED, welcome the stranger and comfort the ill to the "least of my brothers".

Looks like social justice was a MAJOR thing He was about!



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/3/2008 9:55:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
A group of civilians who took up arms to fight against tyranny…

Wrong. There are scores of armed, self-styled psuedo-militia hobgoblins with all sorts of lunatic agendas, but none of them are well regulated for the purposes of the security of a free state.

quote:

I believe the term "well regulated" in the above contex is regarding control... In other words there was a chain of command, structure to some degree...

Not just to "some degree." The U.S. Constitution describes the militia as something federally mandated by Congress:
quote:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,

Now did you catch that?
The militia is not old McDonald and his neighbors with muskets under their beds.
quote:

and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Self-armed, self-appointed citizens are not the militia.

quote:

The above makes it pretty clear... This is found in the Bill of Rights and makes reference to “the RIGHT of the people"

It does. But first it gives the context for that right:
"A well regulated Militia, being necesarry for the security of a free State"



Usingmyrights -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/13/2008 12:15:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

I hope this ruling leads to a decrease in crime in our nation's capital - I personally believe it will.


IMO, all this ruling will accomplish is to increase DC's annual body count and make no one more secure.

I don't buy the thought that everyone packing heat makes the world a safer place. If I wanted to live in that type of society, I'd move to Baghdad.


This can do nothing but decrease the amount of murders and violent crime. Criminals aren't totally stupid. They know if they prey in a soceity of unarmed people, such as DC, that they are safe. If now you've got people legally carrying firearms, that greatly increases the risk to the criminal. They'll hesitate to commit crimes more often, due to the fear of trying to commit a crime agaisnt the wrong person. This will lower, rapes, robberies, carjackings, murders, etc.



Usingmyrights -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/13/2008 12:52:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

Mind you, I'm not against the Second Amendment or lawful gun ownership - I just don't like the suggestion by some that guns added on top of existing guns will lead to America being a crime-free utopia.

Call me crazy, but I'm uncomfortable the notion of using fear as a motivator for civil obedience (in a domestic scenario).


It won't be completely crime free, but it will reduce crime. The fact is that fear will be a motivator for obedience. Criminals fear an armed "victim" thats willing to fight back.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI