quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Welcome to modern day Christian churches....

Yeah really. You'd think they'd know better than to hold their shooting contests inside the Church. It only takes one person to get the schedule mixed up, and look what can happen.

Many churches have individuals whom are carrying firearms now. For a variety of reasons, and not all of them good or legal. I dont see why this issue is up on the forum. The person carrying the firearm had an accident. I hope they heal from the wound in a speedy manner. And maybe reconsider carrying such arms in the future when in a church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So you are fine with folks bringing their firearms to church ?

Every time some asshole walks into a church or a cafeteria or whatever and starts shooting, the first thing people do is scramble for safety and call for some guys with guns to come stop the son of a bitch. From this we can conclude that a reasonable person might detect an advantage in having a guy with a gun already there.

K.

So therein lies the rub,the only answer to some asshole with a gun is more guns....which leads to more assholes with guns.

You don't see the issue there ?

Yep, it is better to hope they shoot someone else than to fight back.
Just because they have a gun doesn't make them a asshole.
In the example you gave earlier I would have simply put my gun in the car and left it there any time I came to your house.
Though from your discritin of the incident it sounds like you were being an asshole.

There you go...I ask someone not to wear a gun into my house.....and you read it as I was being an asshole.
Please explain to me why I should care about the opinion of an obvious idiot ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
So you are fine with folks bringing their firearms to church ?

Every time some asshole walks into a church or a cafeteria or whatever and starts shooting, the first thing people do is scramble for safety and call for some guys with guns to come stop the son of a bitch. From this we can conclude that a reasonable person might detect an advantage in having a guy with a gun already there.

The guys that get called with guns, have something people like you don't have: ARRESTING POWERS. Something else they have that most do not have: COOLNESS UNDER FIRE. That second one is a trained skill in that it has to be constantly conditioned. Its not likely riding a bike and relying on muscle memory twenty years later. Its a combination of reflexes, perception, reaction, and stability.

There is a particular moment in US History I do not wish to.....*EVER*.....come to past. Some little league game were the umpire/referee makes a call some parent takes alarm to, as they believe it was a bad call. Or two parents get into a heated argument over whether one kid did something to the other in a mean spirited manner. I think most of us can understand two things here: That parents can be drawn down raw from work that day, and when this happens, its ugly. There are plenty of fist fights were one or more people are injured during the melee.

Now imagine that with firearms? Becomes more ugly, doesn't it? This could happen at a little league match, or, even a church. I've seen some pretty heated 'discussions' to which the boy's in blue were called to settle things....

A church is a sanctuary, free from violence and destruction. If there are to be armed protectors in such a place, it should be law enforcement....NOT....some gun nut whom takes matters into their own hands. What happens when two people rise with guns to deal with an armed intruder? They both are more likely to get killed, or injure/kill a bystander by accident; then to actually do damage/kill the intruder.

I think there was a gun thread just recently in which I pointed this out in two separate live-action tests. And in both tests, the 'guy with the gun' lost in every instanced they engaged. An so I stated maybe we should test this further, to see what truth and fact exists. I seem to recall you were starkly against such an idea, because you didn't want your belief/myth challenged by science. The only people whom are on that level of opposition, are the ones that know, but can not admit, their belief/myth would not hold up even fairly to a proper test.

Regardless, it doesn't help determine why violence would be brought into a sanctuary in the first place!

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

There is no need to "misinterpret"the militia clause.....just acknowledge they are there



Here's a short piece on the militia clause....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe the Ninth Amendment shows us that the Constitution is meant to be a living document, and not simply historical law.

Text
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

There is no need to "misinterpret"the militia clause.....just acknowledge they are there

But but but, it must have some kind of meaning

It does have meaning muffin,but that meaning has evolved over the years.
Perhaps its evolution is not complete ?
I added a link to my last post,you missed it here it is again.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Oh yes, the living constitution, it's meaning can change er....I mean evolve to embrace your utopian world view. Got it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Wtf kinda church does this guy go to where he's gotta be packin?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe the Ninth Amendment shows us that the Constitution is meant to be a living document, and not simply historical law.

Text
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It merely points out that they couldn't enumerate every right a man had but that the most important ones had been listed. It in no way allowed for the alteration of other parts of the Constitution by other than amendment. While you are at it read the 10th which you will see prohibits the government granting itself new powers (that would be by evolving the Constitution)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe the Ninth Amendment shows us that the Constitution is meant to be a living document, and not simply historical law.

Text
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It merely points out that they couldn't enumerate every right a man had but that the most important ones had been listed. It in no way allowed for the alteration of other parts of the Constitution by other than amendment. While you are at it read the 10th which you will see prohibits the government granting itself new powers (that would be by evolving the Constitution)

I don't see how anything you said really had anything to do with what I said.

But the federal government has certainly given itself more powers, through the creation of federal agencies. Usually, these fall under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Occasionally, Congress gets a bit overzealous, with even the most well-intended laws (the Brady Bill, ObamaCare, the RPRA), and our Judicial Branch has to rectify that, though it's rare that the courts use the 10th Amendment to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladin54

With the growing war on Christianity, I'm surprised that all Christians are packing now days!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe the Ninth Amendment shows us that the Constitution is meant to be a living document, and not simply historical law.

Text
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe the Ninth Amendment shows us that the Constitution is meant to be a living document, and not simply historical law.

Text
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It merely points out that they couldn't enumerate every right a man had but that the most important ones had been listed. It in no way allowed for the alteration of other parts of the Constitution by other than amendment. While you are at it read the 10th which you will see prohibits the government granting itself new powers (that would be by evolving the Constitution)

I don't see how anything you said really had anything to do with what I said.

But the federal government has certainly given itself more powers, through the creation of federal agencies. Usually, these fall under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Occasionally, Congress gets a bit overzealous, with even the most well-intended laws (the Brady Bill, ObamaCare, the RPRA), and our Judicial Branch has to rectify that, though it's rare that the courts use the 10th Amendment to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

That is because they completely ignore the 10th with the living document argument which it clearly opposes. Yes I know how they work around it. The fact that they do doesn't make it right. In fact you have just documented the accuracy of the slippery slope argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

That is because they completely ignore the 10th with the living document argument which it clearly opposes. Yes I know how they work around it. The fact that they do doesn't make it right. In fact you have just documented the accuracy of the slippery slope argument.

The Supreme Court has generally been in favor of Congress's use of the Commerce Clause. Without it, we wouldn't have the fun of the FCC, FTC, DEA, ATF, or FDA.

I don't know what sort of slippery slope you think I've documented?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

All interstate commerce matters are a matter of Congressional authority. The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause