1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment

[Bootstrap]

Once the 2nd amendment goes, the 1st is next.
I’m surprise the people crowing about religious freedom can’t see this.

I really can't see this connection. Can you spell it out for me? Are you saying there is no religious freedom in countries that do not have the 2nd Amendment?

How exactly do you see the 2nd Amendment working as a protection for religious freedom in the United States?

I care deeply about religious freedom. For much of my life, one of the hardest things to explain is why I will not pledge allegiance to my country or learn how to kill with a weapon.

Because the right to practice religion, or even the right to free press could be curtailed using these precedents. How does a group of people shooting targets harm others? If it is not, why should their rights be taken? Does a group of Anabaptists practicing their faith harm anyone? If not, then why should their rights be taken away? IF you think it can not happen, then study WW1 history on COs. Some were imprisoned and beaten for not serving. Once drafted some were locked up and treated pretty bad.

I really don't get this connection.

I do think that the rights spelled out in the Constitution need to be observed unless the Constitution is changed. But the things we are discussing are mostly things that no Supreme Court has ever seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment, and things that Americans were not allowed to do 40 years ago. Most of these restrictions have long precedent in American history.

You know what changed our rights to not serve in war? Martyrdom during World War I. Joseph and Michael Hofer died because they refused to wear a uniform or carry a rifle. I am having a hard time imagining them pleading for Americans to keep amassing ever more powerful weapons and to remove as many regulations as possible to control what kind of weapons are carried where.

What exactly are you pleading for, and how would you explain your concerns to Joseph and Michael Hofer?

[Bootstrap]

That's the point I keep trying to make - the audience Boot is trying to reach is unreceptive, because they're already used to every inch they give being ridden for a mile.

The audience I am trying to reach is mostly Mennonites who say they are not part of American gun culture. That's why I post here. I am not otherwise involved in this issue, I am not promoting this in my church or joining in political protests.

But by almost any measure, the gun crowd has gained a lot more miles than it has lost inches over the last 40 years. Consider the number of guns in America, the average number per citizen, the kinds of guns available, concealed carry laws, open carry laws, Stand Your Ground laws, laws that make research difficult, laws that make tracing guns difficult ... and I am hearing non-resistant Mennonites claiming that if we call this into question, it will affect our own religious freedom.

Suppose things went back to where they were 40 years ago. How would that hurt non-resistant Mennonites? How would that be a fundamental violation of human rights that non-resistant Mennonites should speak out against?

Explain this in a way that Joseph and Michael Hofer would understand.

[Josh]

My political views on the Bill of Rights have nothing to do with being Anabaptist or Mennonite. Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and also lacks freedom of speech to the degree we have in America, and I can just as well be an Anabaptist there - albeit with fewer freedoms than I have in America.

Like it or not, the right of the people to bear arms is part of American history and America's founding. It's a pretty big part of the bill of rights. And I don't think the 1st amendment makes sense without the 2nd, or the 4th, or the 10th. They all go together.

[Bootstrap]

My political views on the Bill of Rights have nothing to do with being Anabaptist or Mennonite. Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and also lacks freedom of speech to the degree we have in America, and I can just as well be an Anabaptist there - albeit with fewer freedoms than I have in America.

I can only compare to Germany. I think I could be a Mennonite in Germany without difficulty, even though I would have much less access to guns.

What kinds of freedoms are you thinking of when you say "fewer freedoms"? To what extent do these differences affect us as Christians?

Like it or not, the right of the people to bear arms is part of American history and America's founding. It's a pretty big part of the bill of rights. And I don't think the 1st amendment makes sense without the 2nd, or the 4th, or the 10th. They all go together.

As long as the 2nd Amendment is part of our Constitution, I think it needs to be observed, and I really doubt that it will be repealed in my lifetime at least. I don't really know exactly what you think it means.

Suppose it means what Scalia said it means. Would that affect the rest of our rights, particularly our freedom to practice our faith? How? What do you foresee changing? Actually, isn't that the current interpretation according to legal precedent? So why would anything change if we continue to interpret it the way Scalia said we should?

For that matter, suppose the 2nd Amendment were actually repealed. Would that affect our ability to practice our faith? How? Can you play the movie for me?

[Josh]

I think we can practice our faith without any freedoms at all, and Anabaptism indeed was completely illegal when it came into being. "Rebaptise" was literally a crime.

You and I might have differing perspectives here, so I'm not sure how much farther we can get talking about that. I can talk about politics in the abstract. I don't focus on politics or political changes to advance my own religion, since I believe God ultimately is in charge and he will take care of making political changes as needed to advance the cause of the church and to take care of believers.

[Judas Maccabeus]

That's the point I keep trying to make - the audience Boot is trying to reach is unreceptive, because they're already used to every inch they give being ridden for a mile.

The audience I am trying to reach is mostly Mennonites who say they are not part of American gun culture. That's why I post here. I am not otherwise involved in this issue, I am not promoting this in my church or joining in political protests.

But by almost any measure, the gun crowd has gained a lot more miles than it has lost inches over the last 40 years. Consider the number of guns in America, the average number per citizen, the kinds of guns available, concealed carry laws, open carry laws, Stand Your Ground laws, laws that make research difficult, laws that make tracing guns difficult ... and I am hearing non-resistant Mennonites claiming that if we call this into question, it will affect our own religious freedom.

Suppose things went back to where they were 40 years ago. How would that hurt non-resistant Mennonites? How would that be a fundamental violation of human rights that non-resistant Mennonites should speak out against?

Explain this in a way that Joseph and Michael Hofer would understand.

I WISH we could go back, to "Saturday Night Specials" were being removed from sale. In my younger days, a fight in a bar would likely be settled with fists, where we could patch em' up in the ER and send them home. Now it is likely to involve guns.

If all pistols were banned today, very few, if any nonresistant mennonites, would be impacted. Most use long guns to shoot at food. I wish them well, those deer look far better on their dinner table than across the bumper of my car.

J.M.

[RZehr]

For that matter, suppose the 2nd Amendment were actually repealed. Would that affect our ability to practice our faith? How? Can you play the movie for me?

I can’t see how it would at all affect my faith or the practice thereof.
But nor does it make a difference if we keep the current gun laws.