Also says to trade your cloak for a sword. An ideology I can wholeheartedly support. Being armed and naked is better than being clothed and a victim.Actually, the Bible tells those without swords to beat their plowshares into one. That was the ancient equivalent of a firearm.
Your turn.
Thank you @General Zod for saving me the time to type this all out. Generally not worth the effort to try to educate communists, but thank you for trying.Oh, we see that phrase quoted - and misinterpreted as you did - quite often. Always from the gun control side of things. If you actually apply reading comprehension skills, you can understand that the statement about a "well regulated militia" is actually a statement of intent - because the Second Amendment was written by men who had just finished overthrowing their government by forming a militia. A militia that struggled a LOT because of scarcity of arms and proficiency with said arms.
So...now pay attention...in order to form a well-regulated militia, the people need to own and be proficient and skilled with arms on par with what they may face while defending the free state. A militia, which by definition is NOT government-controlled or government-supplied.
As for your weak "not God-given" argument...the Constitutions does not grant one single solitary right to anyone. It is written in order to prohibit the government from restricting the rights of the people - rights the document recognizes as pre-existing. Our pre-existing rights don't depend on any belief system or document, whether from God or Lewis Carroll. Arguments like yours have been used for generations to water down and pervert the intent of the Constitution, and to eliminate the free expression of our rights. You need to study up, and start with actually reading the Bill of Rights without any preconceptions about what is an "acceptable" regulation of our rights, and while paying attention to the wording of each amendment. Then read the Federalist Papers, where the men who actually wrote the Constitution debated and discussed their aims and goals. Then stop relying on politicians and the media to interpret for you.
We know how that endsThere's a game, one person tells another a story, that person tells it to someone else, and on, and on....
Okay @ldhunter1959 , I'll bite.Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not
No, you don't get it.I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
Actually, the Bible tells those without swords to beat their plowshares into one. That was the ancient equivalent of a firearm.
Your turn.
NOTE TO EVERYBODY: This is about as close to discussing religion as can be tolerated on TGT. We've seen what can happen. Citing Biblical references to provide historical context, as has been done by everybody in this thread, is fine. Going further would be terribly ill-advised. Fair warning.
You need to go the hell back where you came fromBeen following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not
You are correct.So the fact that much of it was written well after the events happened means nothing?
Okay.
The impression that TGT is an echo chamber comes from the standard, rather plainspoken reactions received by people who ... make contrary arguments poorly, rudely, or both...
Case in point.You need to go the hell back where you came from
ehh I like to think of it as I just say what everyone else is thinkingCase in point.
So...now pay attention...in order to form a well-regulated militia, the people need to own and be proficient and skilled with arms on par with what they may face while defending the free state. A militia, which by definition is NOT government-controlled or government-supplied.
ehh I like to think of it as I just say what everyone else is thinking