Has anyone noticed

[spartansstink]

Agreed. But we blame inanimate objects like meth and heroin for deaths everyday.

And religion has nothing to do with it. Historically, religion has been responsible for more sensless deaths than just about anything else. And Chrsitianity is just as dirty as the rest of them.

One need not be Christian to be moral. If going to a Christian church helps a person be moral, I'm all for it and that is certainly a good thing, but it is not a requirement.

You have to feel empathy for those people, especially the ones who became addicted through no fault of their own, i.e. prescription from doctors.

The kid who gets addicted because they like to party, well, that person is just reaping the consequences of his actions. The kid who got injured in a car accident, was prescribed oxy, and got addicted, that's a different story.

I agree that one doesn't have to be a Christian to be moral. Yet, one must have a moral code established in them from which they make their decisions. Fortunately, most people, even those who claim to be Christians, have a moral code they live by. Unfortunately, far too many people don't and end up causing the majority of the problems in the country.

Agree religion has nothing to do with it. Lots of lives have been lost through the years in the name of "religion". But, Christianity isn't one of them - true Christianity that is. What has been perverted, distorted, and selectively chosen as well as falsely proclaimed Christianity has though. When Jesus came, he brought with him a new set of beliefs. The thesis statement can be found in the Sermon on the Mount. THIS is true Christianity at work - not the work of man who condenses down the few verses that satisfy his decisions.

 

[SoCo]

Christians have not caused a single death . Religion on the other hand is deadly.
Heroine, fentanyl, meth , alcohol and guns has caused many deaths..but in all cases it was a humans choice to do so.
Guns is a constitutional RIGHT
All the others is not ....way big difference. A convention of states could change the constitution.

I agree. The constitutional right is where the firearm argument starts. And should end. But for some reason we get all these silly arguments like they are needed to fight the government and other dumb ****. As far as Christian’s not causing deaths, tell that to the native Americans, those murdered in the witch trials and muslims.

world history following the fall of the Roman Empire is littered with atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.

 

[SoCo]

You have to feel empathy for those people, especially the ones who became addicted through no fault of their own, i.e. prescription from doctors.

The kid who gets addicted because they like to party, well, that person is just reaping the consequences of his actions. The kid who got injured in a car accident, was prescribed oxy, and got addicted, that's a different story.

I agree that one doesn't have to be a Christian to be moral. Yet, one must have a moral code established in them from which they make their decisions. Fortunately, most people, even those who claim to be Christians, have a moral code they live by. Unfortunately, far too many people don't and end up causing the majority of the problems in the country.

Agree religion has nothing to do with it. Lots of lives have been lost through the years in the name of "religion". But, Christianity isn't one of them - true Christianity that is. What has been perverted, distorted, and selectively chosen as well as falsely proclaimed Christianity has thought. When Jesus came, he brought with him a new set of beliefs. The thesis statement can be found in the Sermon on the Mount. THIS is true Christianity at work - not the work of man who condenses down the few verses that satisfy his decisions.

agreed. And I acknowledge the united states was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that is a good thing. But not all Christians are good, moral people. Just like any other religion. Or race, or gender. Or sexual identity. There are a holes in every group of people.

 

[roadtrasheer]

I agree. The constitutional right is where the firearm argument starts. And should end. But for some reason we get all these silly arguments like they are needed to fight the government and other dumb ****. As far as Christian’s not causing deaths, tell that to the native Americans, those murdered in the witch trials and muslims.

world history following the fall of the Roman Empire is littered with atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.

Gun rights should never be brought up by a person sworn to protect the constitution.
Again Christians have never killed. People have killed in the name of a religion, Jesus hated religion.
In the name of Christianity.... but they was fighting for a religion...

 

[atlkvb]

The debate over the 2nd amendment sometimes gets lost in understanding the intent the founders had behind it. While it's clear they set it up as a last defense for a standing army in case of invasion against the new nation, they also had further long range intent when it came to placing a check on government power, which they most certainly were dubious of given their experiences with the Monarchies in Europe.

This is a long read, but it is informative for understanding their thinking both during that time and for the future.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment/Origins-and-historical-antecedents

summary:
The constitutional significance of a “well regulated Militia” is well documented in English and American history from the late 17th century through the American Revolution; it was included in the Articles of Confederation (1781), the country’s first constitution, and was even noted at the Constitutional Convention that drafted the new U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. The right to “keep and bear Arms” was thus included as a means to accomplish the objective of a “well regulated Militia”—to provide for the defense of the nation, to provide a well-trained and disciplined force to check federal tyranny, and to bring constitutional balance by distributing the power of the sword equally among the people, the states, and the federal government.

 

[spartansstink]

This is what so many people can't understand - this idea of consent of the governed. That phrase, written by Jefferson so many years ago. Sure, they understand the words. But, they can never seem to grasp its true meaning.

So many people go to college, get exposed to Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, and suddenly think they've been awakened to some big secret - that the government is there to suppress them. They believe this government is some alien entity, made up of rich, evil people, with one goal in mind - enslave the masses. Suddenly, socialist thinking and ideas, led by the enslaved poorer masses, will give people the TRUE liberty they so righteously desire. Never mind it has failed everywhere. In their eyes, they so completely miss the irony - this government they hate, they believe will suddenly begin to become something they can trust.

In the 1700's, countries had professional soldiers. Standing armies of men who dedicated their entire lives to warfare. They traveled and fought when commanded, only with the expectation they will be paid for their efforts.

This country said we can do it better. We will have an army of amateurs, of volunteers. An army of we the people, fighting for a government of we the people. As volunteer, we can always not volunteer. We have the right, no the duty, to stand up and say no to those in command. The second amendment was written so that a standing army cannot rise up and overthrow this government of the people - in order to do so, they would have to go through and against we the people to accomplish that.

Some on here just cannot understand this concept at all. They see a government of mindless drones commanding an army of mindless drones. In this country, as I have stated in other posts, we the people make change with the ballot rather than the bullet. But, to argue that one cannot go against that government? John Wilkes Booth, Lee Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and a whole host of others have proven that a bullet can institute something that changes the course of history and government. The concept of consent of the governed - that WE THE PEOPLE are the source of the government's power, and that this government made up of WE THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE still exists. May it never perish from this earth.

 

[atlkvb]

This is what so many people can't understand - this idea of consent of the governed. That phrase, written by Jefferson so many years ago. Sure, they understand the words. But, they can never seem to grasp its true meaning.

So many people go to college, get exposed to Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, and suddenly think they've been awakened to some big secret - that the government is there to suppress them. They believe this government is some alien entity, made up of rich, evil people, with one goal in mind - enslave the masses. Suddenly, socialist thinking and ideas, led by the enslaved poorer masses, will give people the TRUE liberty they so righteously desire. Never mind it has failed everywhere. In their eyes, they so completely miss the irony - this government they hate, they believe will suddenly begin to become something they can trust.

In the 1700's, countries had professional soldiers. Standing armies of men who dedicated their entire lives to warfare. They traveled and fought when commanded, only with the expectation they will be paid for their efforts.

This country said we can do it better. We will have an army of amateurs, of volunteers. An army of we the people, fighting for a government of we the people. As volunteer, we can always not volunteer. We have the right, no the duty, to stand up and say no to those in command. The second amendment was written so that a standing army cannot rise up and overthrow this government of the people - in order to do so, they would have to go through and against we the people to accomplish that.

Some on here just cannot understand this concept at all. They see a government of mindless drones commanding an army of mindless drones. In this country, as I have stated in other posts, we the people make change with the ballot rather than the bullet. But, to argue that one cannot go against that government? John Wilkes Booth, Lee Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and a whole host of others have proven that a bullet can institute something that changes the course of history and government. The concept of consent of the governed - that WE THE PEOPLE are the source of the government's power, and that this government made up of WE THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE still exists. May it never perish from this earth.

Very well stated! Particularly this:
"The second amendment was written so that a standing army cannot rise up and overthrow this government of the people - in order to do so, they would have to go through and against we the people to accomplish that."

So important to understand the significance of this!