Roe and Guns

[Ernie]

The right to bear arms is a God given right

Huh??? Where do you get that?

[ohio jones]

Ecclesiastes 9:18
Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good.

[RZehr]

The right to bear arms is a God given right

Huh??? Where do you get that?

Unless we have a birth defect, God gives us each arms to bear?

[AnthonyMartin]

The right to bear arms is a God given right

Huh??? Where do you get that?

That is how the constitution defines it isn’t it?

[Dan Z]

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.

[Robert]

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.

[Robert]

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.

[Sudsy]

The right to bear arms is a God given right

Huh??? Where do you get that?

Unless we have a birth defect, God gives us each arms to bear?

Personally I wasn't given the right to bear arms as my birth defect left me with one and a half arms. Thankful that I am fully right and not half right although some may think I am.

Anyway, some might argue that Jesus gave His disciples the right to bear arms / carry weapons. Luke 22:36

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Jesus went on to say it was necessary for them to carry swords to fulfill the prophecy that He would be numbered with the transgressors.

John Gill and many others do suggest that Jesus implied that they would need swords for defensive purposes when preaching the Gospel. Others believe scriptures like 'turning the other cheek' tell us not to defend ourselves from bodily harm that other's can cause to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your ... 0buy%20one.

And here is an Anabaptist, Greg Boyd view - https://reknew.org/2019/11/jesus-said-b ... d-he-mean/

[Ken]

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.

To be correct, the Supreme Court only said that States must recognize gay marriage under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Religious groups are free to recognize or not recognize any marriage that they want, or perform or not perform any marriages that they want. You are still perfectly free to not get gay married, or attend a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage. There are many churches that do not recognize or perform gay marriages, and there are some that do. Churches are also free to perform or not perform marriages between divorced individuals and perform or not perform marriages between people of different faiths or no faith. It's religious "freedom of choice" as you put it.

I might similarly argue that my religion demands that we live in a society free of weapons of war and that the Supreme Court is violating my religious right to live in such a society by upholding the 2nd Amendment. And that letting my neighbors stockpile weapons violates my religious rights. How is that different from you claiming that your married gay neighbors are violating your religious rights?

And by the way, I agree that civil marriage and religious marriage should be separated just as is the case in many other countries. Let city clerks or other government officials conduct and register civil marriages and let clergy perform whatever separate religious marriage ceremonies they wish to perform under whatever religious standards and customs they wish to follow.

[Only an Anz]

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?