Dan Z wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:16 am
As a Christian, I view abortion and the right to weaponry first through faith, and only secondarily through politics.
Abortion snuffs out a life that God has brought into being. The state's blessing one way or another doesn't change that reality. The Creator God is the giver and taker of life. I don't believe that the systematized taking of life at any stage has the blessing of God.
The context of the second amendment is "the bearing of arms"... "necessary to the security of a free state." As one who follows the non-resistant teaching of Jesus, I have no interest in defending, much less embodying an amendment that runs counter to the way of Christ. The state's blessing of arms-bearing doesn't change that foundational reality.
The framers were mostly people of strong Christian faith. Much of the US Constitution was framed around Biblical principles. They viewed the individual right to choice as central and used this as a strong core of the document. I have no desire to bear arms in defense of the state. I see it as a part of a bigger principle. The state can not take my rights away to worship and exercise my faith because it can not take ANY of my God given rights away. The federal government can only limit my rights if I have misused them and they can only do it through due process. This means I can worship the way I see fit as long as it is not hurting others.
Historically, governments has done much worse to people than roving bands of raiders. The framers knew this and stated in the Federal papers their understanding that the citizens needed to be as well armed as the government to slow the chances of more tyranny. They also saw the need for free speech for the same reasons. The 10th Amendment was not some add on. It conveys the principle that the Federal government is to be restricted and limited.
If this needs to be changed to match today's life, they allowed an amendment process so it could be changed. It should not be changed without the agreement if the citizens. Yes, it is a long, often challenging process to add an amendment, but that is the point. It should not be amended on a whim. Most politicians are whimsical. They are the ones standing in the way of things lime term limits. If they would pass it to be amended, I am sure it would pass easily, but they will not because they are not wanting their power limited. We need the constitution to limit them. We need them to fear the citizens, or they WILL become tyrannical.
The Supreme Court has said gay Marriage must be recognized. This is limiting my freedom of choice and religion. It can easily be shown that historically, the Christian Faith as large has been against gay marriage. Marriage is a religious activity that the government as usurped. The government should only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to communities of faith. This creates the separation of church and state that is needed.
The government needs to be limited, not the citizenry. Our God given rights should only be limited through due process.
"The framers were mostly people of strong Christian faith. Much of the US Constitution was framed around Biblical principles."....like slavery. Or is that off limits here?
Actually there is virtually nothing of Biblical principles in the Constitution. It is mostly framed around Greek and Roman democratic traditions and not Hebrew monarchic/theocratic traditions. Democracy is not a Christian tradition or principle.
For example, not one of the 10 Commandments is contained within the Constitution and only two of them are enshrined in state criminal law. Likewise, there is nothing from Old Testament law in the Constitution, and nothing from New Testament teachings either on any important topic such as peace, poverty, marriage, sin, etc.
Even slavery as it was practiced in the American south on large commercial estates was probably more along the Roman tradition than the Hebrew tradition. One might argue that the Romans actually invented that particular style of slavery with hundreds of slaves working on large commercial estates.
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
The framers were mostly people of strong Christian faith. Much of the US Constitution was framed around Biblical principles. They viewed the individual right to choice as central and used this as a strong core of the document. I have no desire to bear arms in defense of the state. I see it as a part of a bigger principle. The state can not take my rights away to worship and exercise my faith because it can not take ANY of my God given rights away. The federal government can only limit my rights if I have misused them and they can only do it through due process. This means I can worship the way I see fit as long as it is not hurting others.
Historically, governments has done much worse to people than roving bands of raiders. The framers knew this and stated in the Federal papers their understanding that the citizens needed to be as well armed as the government to slow the chances of more tyranny. They also saw the need for free speech for the same reasons. The 10th Amendment was not some add on. It conveys the principle that the Federal government is to be restricted and limited.
If this needs to be changed to match today's life, they allowed an amendment process so it could be changed. It should not be changed without the agreement if the citizens. Yes, it is a long, often challenging process to add an amendment, but that is the point. It should not be amended on a whim. Most politicians are whimsical. They are the ones standing in the way of things lime term limits. If they would pass it to be amended, I am sure it would pass easily, but they will not because they are not wanting their power limited. We need the constitution to limit them. We need them to fear the citizens, or they WILL become tyrannical.
The Supreme Court has said gay Marriage must be recognized. This is limiting my freedom of choice and religion. It can easily be shown that historically, the Christian Faith as large has been against gay marriage. Marriage is a religious activity that the government as usurped. The government should only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to communities of faith. This creates the separation of church and state that is needed.
The government needs to be limited, not the citizenry. Our God given rights should only be limited through due process.
"The framers were mostly people of strong Christian faith. Much of the US Constitution was framed around Biblical principles."....like slavery. Or is that off limits here?
Actually there is virtually nothing of Biblical principles in the Constitution. It is mostly framed around Greek and Roman democratic traditions and not Hebrew monarchic/theocratic traditions. Democracy is not a Christian tradition or principle.
For example, not one of the 10 Commandments is contained within the Constitution and only two of them are enshrined in state criminal law. Likewise, there is nothing from Old Testament law in the Constitution, and nothing from New Testament teachings either on any important topic such as peace, poverty, marriage, sin, etc.
Even slavery as it was practiced in the American south on large commercial estates was probably more along the Roman tradition than the Hebrew tradition. One might argue that the Romans actually invented that particular style of slavery with hundreds of slaves working on large commercial estates.
Oh I get that...just trying make a point about the inconsistency.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:27 pm
So if the Supreme Court thinks something is a God given right, they can require it even if the Constitution does not? Is there a limiting principle here?
Yes. The Bill of Rights limits the Federal government, not the individual or state. Read the 10th Amendment. It clearly states this.
Yes, until the Civil War, the individual states had the right to rebel against the government, the 2nd Amendment said the Federal government could not regulate guys, but states could and did, and individual states should be able to resist the power of the federal government with military force. If you repealed the 13th and 14th Amendments, which change how we now read the 10th Amendment, then the Supreme Court has no business telling states that they must allow private citizens to carry guns for self-defense and the Bill of Rights does not apply to state or local government at all.
Regardless, the Constitution never mentions an individual right to bear arms for self-defense. It never required states to allow their citizens to do that. At the time, the 2nd Amendment did not apply to individual states at all. It's hard to imagine how this counts as an originalist reading of the Constitution.
I think Roe was wrong. I think this latest ruling on guns is wrong in precisely the way that Roe was wrong.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:30 pm
Yes, until the Civil War, the individual states had the right to rebel against the government, the 2nd Amendment said the Federal government could not regulate guys, but states could and did, and individual states should be able to resist the power of the federal government with military force.
On what ground did they have the right to rebel to begin with? and what actually changed after the civil war?
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:30 pm
Yes, until the Civil War, the individual states had the right to rebel against the government, the 2nd Amendment said the Federal government could not regulate guys, but states could and did, and individual states should be able to resist the power of the federal government with military force.
On what ground did they have the right to rebel to begin with? and what actually changed after the civil war?
Exactly. The Civil War was fought over this very question. Had that right actually existed there would have been no Civil War in the first place.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:30 pm
Yes, until the Civil War, the individual states had the right to rebel against the government, the 2nd Amendment said the Federal government could not regulate guys, but states could and did, and individual states should be able to resist the power of the federal government with military force.
On what ground did they have the right to rebel to begin with? and what actually changed after the civil war?
I guess "right to rebel" is the wrong phrase, but the founders clearly were worried about the dangers of an authoritarian leader who would establish a standing army and take authority from the individual states, and this was one of the reasons that each state had their own militia and the federal government did not have a standing army.
After the Civil War, the Bill of Rights applied, for the first time, to the individual states as well. That included black people. People who had engaged in active rebellion against the government of the United States were excluded, for the first time, from serving in office. Before the civil war, people identified as citizens of North Carolina or Virginia, not as citizens of the United States. People said "the United States are" - talking about a collection of states. Now they say "the United States is" - it's a single country, we see ourselves as citizens of that country.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:30 pm
I think Roe was wrong. I think this latest ruling on guns is wrong in precisely the way that Roe was wrong.
Both are basically the same ruling. The states still have the ability to set boundaries on gun ownership, they just can not ban it out right. A state is compelled to give the rights to a person.
Striking down Roe means the states have the right to set boundaries on abortion.
The right to own a gun is in the constitution. Having an abortion is not. Just as some protected classes are in the constitution and some are not. The ones that are not are not guaranteed protection. The ones that are, are.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:30 pm
I think Roe was wrong. I think this latest ruling on guns is wrong in precisely the way that Roe was wrong.
Both are basically the same ruling. The states still have the ability to set boundaries on gun ownership, they just can not ban it out right. A state is compelled to give the rights to a person.
Striking down Roe means the states have the right to set boundaries on abortion.
The right to own a gun is in the constitution. Having an abortion is not. Just as some protected classes are in the constitution and some are not. The ones that are not are not guaranteed protection. The ones that are, are.
I don’t see corporations mentioned in the Constitution. Are corporations a protected class? Do corporations have free speech rights that allow them to have the same rights as individuals like political speech?
Self-defence is a fundamental natural right and human right. That’s what Thomas’s decision said.
Part of a right of self-defence is allowing a means of that self-defence. Thomas’s decision said the 2nd amendment enshrines “arms” (which would mean anything from a baseball bat to a gun) to be reasonable means of self defence, and that the people shall have a right to acquire and maintain such means of self-defence.
The left wing seems to think there isn’t a right to self-defence.
