Gun confiscation

depserv

Well-Known Member
I'm missing the connection between this and gun confiscation, unless the point being made is that a man has a moral duty to provide for the protection of his family, and for that reason government is doing something it shouldn't do when it disarms us. If that's the point I am in agreement.

To me though the verse shows the evil in what we call welfare, which works together with feminism to replace the father, who is the natural provider, with a caring big brother in government. Culture is born of the common religious belief of a people. As America was led to turn its back on God, the culture naturally followed. So the man went from being the provider and protector of the family to the man being nothing but a source of money, with that money taken from him by government so government makes itself look like the provider, and government schools providing the guidance that had been provided by the father (along with television, movies, and peers).

I always provided for my family, and there were times I was so poor I could barely feed them. Even long before I was saved, when I was young and stupid and not even especially moral, I did hard, miserable work, because it was the best way I found to feed my family. I was even addicted to nicotine at the time (and it's a really strong addiction), but when it was a choice between feeding my habit and feeding my family, my family came first (that might be partly why I was able to quit years later). At the time, that was just what men did. It took a lot of government interference to change that, remove the father from the family, and get masses of people addicted to welfare.
 
Last edited:

DanLMP

Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see what the fallout is for all of the recent shootings.
Trump has said he will make a gun control proposal and McConnell has said he is not bringing any bills to the Senate floor until he knows Trump will buy into what is proposed.

I read an article in PJ Media that was a little tongue-in-cheek suggesting that instead of trying to disarm everyone we should do what is suggested in the Second Amendment and arm everyone. Article here: To Reduce Gun Violence, Arm All Americans.

For me, it's not so tongue-in-cheek and actually makes sense.

I am tin foil hat suspicious about all of the shootings. They seem to be coming at a time when the Democrats need a new casus belli (there's a looker upper) to beat on Trump some more.
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
One thing that makes these look really suspicious is that virtually all of them are committed with the same kind of weapon, even though it is proven fact that the biggest mass murders have all been committed with things other than guns, some of which are easier to get than guns. If all of these mass murders had been committed with things like arson, explosives, big trucks, or real mass weapons like those, it is very likely that the death toll would be a great deal higher. This should be obvious to anyone thinking about and planning mass murder.

I think the reason for this is probably that these killers are doing what the smiling liberals on TV tell them to do when they advertise these murders and turn the killers into celebrities, so the fame-seeking killer naturally uses the same kind of weapon the smiling liberals tell him to use. Advertising inspires them to do it, so they do it in the way the advertising tells them to do it.

One of the fundamental concepts advertising is based in is that people often don't know why they do what they do. They think they have their own reason for choosing one product over another, but it is the attitudes programmed into them by the advertising that leads their hand to one product instead of the other. The same concept likely applies to those inspired by advertising to commit mass murder.

But there could be another reason for it, since the weapon they most commonly use is also the type of weapon traitors are on a crusade to get outlawed. It's just too convenient that when traitors in government want to disarm the militia, people start committing mass murder with the kind of weapon that best fits the militia, even though other weapons have proven to produce a higher death toll, which seems to be a major goal of the killers.

The short term solutions are these:
1, end the insanity of so-called gun free zones so victims can defend themselves, and
2, the liberal press should stop advertising these; reporting them is fine but stop advertising them. There is a difference, and the advertising can't help but create copycats.

The long term solutions are well known to those on this forum.

In any case, guns are not the problem, and to the extent Congress uses these crimes as an excuse to disarm the American people, that congress ceases to be a legitimate legislative body, and becomes instead a criminal gang. The law is clear, and the gun control being proposed is not allowed by it. Those who serve in government are not above that law.

All patriots need to be contacting our representatives and letting them know this, reminding them that they swore a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution, bearing full faith and allegiance to it, and we do see through the lies being used to support the lawlessness called gun control.
 
Last edited:

DanLMP

Well-Known Member
Tucker Carlson was on last night wondering what was the underlying cause of the shootings. He was suggesting that it might be psychological problems of the shooters.

I yelled at the TV that the cause of all the shootings was that we kicked God out of the country.

Even the DNC made a proclamation supporting the atheists and dissing Christians. They tried to get God out of their platform a few conventions ago but it didn't work. I guess they just decided to go whole hog this time.
 

aldanielle

Well-Known Member
My car was broken into last night and my gun was stolen. The cop said, “it just goes to show you, criminals will always find a way to get guns.” It’s a scary world that we live in for sure.

Mass shootings always seem to occur more frequently around elections. Or media chooses to cover stories more closer to elections. The same thing happened before the last election. It’s not a gun issue, but a heart issue. They Dayton shooter was found to be “pro-satan” from what I read. It’s just terrifying.
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
We're living in the last days before the period known as Tribulation. An unarmed society is much easier to subdue. The fallen angel world is very busy here in our world and assuredly have some influence over and get some credit for the state of derangement that leads individuals to kill as many people as they can with firearms. That said, it doesn't surprise me that in these times we live in we have so many deranged and possibly demonic possessed individuals committing such horrendous acts.
 

Everlasting Life

Through Faith in Jesus
Well, you know, history is a good place to learn some lesson in regards to this subject. While there are aspects that are different today, it's insightful to look at past intentions of leaders, as shown by their actions, just after disarming their populace:



“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make,” he said, “would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.”

~Hitler



https://thefederalist.com/2015/10/12/ben-carson-is-right-about-nazi-gun-control/

From October 12, 2015

Ben Carson Is Right About Nazi Gun Control

If the Nazi regime didn't think Jews with guns were a threat, then why did the Nazis ban Jews from owning guns?


There has been a great deal of ridiculous outrage over some perfectly defensible comments Ben Carson made last week. During an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Carson was asked to clarify something he’d written in his book, “A More Perfect Union”:


German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior … Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.
With Blitzer, Carson added: “[T]he likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”

For even the most amateur of historians, Carson’s statements are obviously, objectively true: Germany in the late 1930s did indeed have a strict gun-control regime, and by the mid-1940s the German death camp machine had vaporized millions upon millions of defenseless victims, all with very little resistance from the civilian population.

History Is Even Stronger Than Ben Carson’s Telling

But Carson is only telling half of the anti-Semitic Nazi gun-control story. In addition to the disarmament that took place in the late 1930s, for about five years in the early-to-mid-1930s the Nazi Party had engaged in a massive nationwide seizure of weapons from political opponents. The Jews were predictably among the targeted groups.


‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make,’ Hitler said, ‘would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.’

In Breslau in 1933, Jews were ordered to “surrender [their] weapons forthwith to the police authorities” on the basis that “Jewish citizens have allegedly used their weapons for unlawful attacks on members of the Nazi organization and the police.” This was a regular occurrence all over Germany until the Waffengesetz of 1938, which effectively banned Jewish firearm ownership in all of Germany (though this had been something of a reality for a while, as in 1935 the Gestapo had ordered no weapons permits to be issued to Jews without the approval of the Gestapo itself).


The Nazis were also happy to exploit actual instances of Jewish quasi-insurrection. In early November of 1938, after a young Jewish man attempted to assassinate the German ambassador in Paris, a general campaign was launched to disarm the Jewry of Berlin. As the Berliner BörsenZeitung reported, Jews in Berlin found still in possession of a weapon without a “valid weapon permit” would be treated with “the greatest severity.”

So it went. The disarmament of the Jews was a political and social fact in Nazi Germany. It is uncontestable and inarguable. It was one of the many harsh realities of German Jewish life in the 1930s: if you were a Jew and you had a gun, the Nazis wanted to take it. Adolph Hitler himself knew it: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make,” he said, “would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.” The Nazi Party was ruthlessly methodical. It knew that disarmament was a pretext to annihilation. You could not easily kill a Jew if he could easily kill you back.

.......By the time of the Wannsee Conference, it was probably too late for anyone outside of an invading army to do anything to stop the sure march of extermination. But prior to the full implementation of the Final Solution, an armed Jewish population would almost certainly have had a positive effect on the Jewish casualty rate.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29308509

Venezuela's Maduro launches civilian disarmament plan



https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/383968-in-the-wake-of-a-gun-ban-venezuela-sees-rising-homicide-rate

In the wake of a gun ban, Venezuela sees rising homicide rate


https://www.theblaze.com/news/venezuela-took-citizens-guns-by-force-now-the-people-are-regretful-and-helpless-against-oppression

Venezuela took citizens' guns by force—now the people are regretful and helpless against oppression

......Nearly 200 pro-democracy protesters have been shot and killed by government forces under the country's socialist dictatorship since April 2017—relegated to facing armed troops with stones. David Kopel, a policy analyst for the Independence Institute, said the crumbling nation is a good example of the dangers a disarmed citizenry faces.

"Venezuela shows the deadly peril when citizens are deprived of the means of resisting the depredations of a criminal government," Kopel told Fox News. "The Venezuelan rulers—like their Cuban masters—apparently viewed citizen possession of arms as a potential danger to a permanent communist monopoly of power."

In addition to government oppression, the crime rate increased dramatically once the 2013 law took effect. In 2012, fewer than 10,000 people were murdered in Venezuela. In 2015, nearly 28,000 people were murdered, giving Venezuela the world's highest murder rate.

Some of that increased violence came from government-backed gangs known as "collectivos" who were put in place to control communities and suppress protests.

"The gun reform policy of the government was about social control," said Vanessa Neumann, president and founder of a political risk research firm called Asymmetrica. "As the citizenry got more desperate and hungry and angry with the political situation, they did not want them to be able to defend themselves.

"It was not about security; it was about a monopoly on violence and social control," she said.....












 

GotGrace

Well-Known Member
Tucker Carlson tonight talking about this very thing with Walmart halting the sale of ammo, and had a Harvard something or other title person talking about this. In a nutshell he said Walmart wants to appear “woke” to the big and important lefties in the big cities. Then they will continue selling their cheap Chinese goods to the middle class but look so bought-in to the lefties ideology. All the big and important lefties will talk about how wonderful Walmart is now.
 

Ohioan

Well-Known Member
I'm missing the connection between this and gun confiscation, unless the point being made is that a man has a moral duty to provide for the protection of his family, and for that reason government is doing something it shouldn't do when it disarms us. If that's the point I am in agreement.

To me though the verse shows the evil in what we call welfare, which works together with feminism to replace the father, who is the natural provider, with a caring big brother in government. Culture is born of the common religious belief of a people. As America was led to turn its back on God, the culture naturally followed. So the man went from being the provider and protector of the family to the man being nothing but a source of money, with that money taken from him by government, and government schools providing the guidance that had been provided by the father.

I always provided for my family, and there were times I was so poor I could barely feed them. Even long before I was saved, when I was young and stupid and not even especially moral, I did hard, miserable work, because it was the best way I found to feed my family. I was even addicted to nicotine at the time (and it's a really strong addiction), but when it was a choice between feeding my habit and feeding my family, my family came first (that might be partly why I was able to quit years later). At the time, that was just what men did. It took a lot of government interference to change that, remove the father from the family, and get masses of people addicted to welfare.
Yes, you got it,

the point being made is that a man has a moral duty to provide for the protection of his family, and for that reason government is doing something it shouldn't do when it disarms us. If that's the point I am in agreement.
 

Ohioan

Well-Known Member
I read this and thought you might like to read it also,

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/gun-ownership-a-natural-right-not-a-political-one/#ixzz5yng2lTnV
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Gun Ownership A Natural Right, Not a Political One

Ammoland Inc. Posted on November 7, 2014 by AWR Hawkins


By AWR Hawkins
Wonen Target Shooting Range
Gun Ownership A Natural Right, Not a Political One
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News
Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)- As the newly-elected Republicans get closer to assuming office in the House, Senate, and in gubernatorial offices around the country, it is important to remember that gun ownership is a natural right, not a political one.
In other words, although Second Amendment supporters should be thrilled that gun control candidates were trounced on November 4 2014, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. Rather, it is time to make sure incoming officeholders remember that our right to keep and bear arms comes to us via our Creator and not from government, so says Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson expressed these things in the Declaration of Independence when he pointed to “certain unalienable rights” with which we have been endowed by our “Creator.” These rights include those guarded by the Second Amendment, as well as the others protected in the Bill of Rights. And previously reported, Jefferson described them as “unalienable” to show that they are inseparable from us—they are part of our humanity.
Oxford law professor William Blackstone greatly impacted Jefferson's understanding of these things by describing unalienable rights as “absolute” rights. Blackstone explained that they were absolute because they came from him who is absolute, and that they were, are, and always will be, because the giver of those rights was, is, and always will be.
John Locke wrote on these rights too, calling them natural rights instead of unalienable or absolute rights but recognizing their origins in the Creator nonetheless.
Locke studied natural rights extensively and showed that lessons on property and justice are inherent to them. He explained that natural rights are not orchestrated by government but by natural law, and that law presents a framework for freedom within those rights and also communicates the virtue of self-defense (see Locke's Second Treatise of Government).
Therefore, natural rights are not political inasmuch as they exist with or without the consent of those in political office—such rights even exist without the citizens' consent—and the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect them.
So the lesson for incoming officeholders is simple—gun rights are not like speed limits, school funding, defense spending, or treaties with foreign countries. The government's role is not to regulate such rights but to protect them in accordance with the Constitution. This is what our Founders meant by the words, “Shall not be Infringed.”
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.
His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America's Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA's Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.
If you have questions or comments, email him at awr@awrhawkins.com. You can find him on facebook at www.************/awr.hawkins.
 

Vertigo

Well-Known Member
I still really don't understand why Christians specifically are among the most vocal of the anti-gun control crowd. I don't think there is anything inherently biblical about owning weaponry. I get wanting to protect yourself and that, but I think Christians have the wrong idea if they think stricter gun laws is somehow against Christ's teachings. Just my opinion though.
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
The laws will only restrict law-abiding citizens. People who abuse guns are going to do so no matter what the law says. We are dealing here with criminals not law abiding gun owners. The laws will make no difference in the crimes. Criminals do not follow law.
 

Ohioan

Well-Known Member
I still really don't understand why Christians specifically are among the most vocal of the anti-gun control crowd. I don't think there is anything inherently biblical about owning weaponry. I get wanting to protect yourself and that, but I think Christians have the wrong idea if they think stricter gun laws is somehow against Christ's teachings. Just my opinion though.
One day Christians will lay down their arms,

Isaiah 2:4



“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

King James Version (KJV)

But for right now it is as Christ told the disciples go and sell your clothes and buy some swords, in other words go and buy some weapons to defend yourselves.



http://www.christianpatriot.com/03_19_2003.htm

Pastor Robert M. Celeste MCAC

Beat their swords into plowshares? Wednesday March 19th, 2003


As we approach the time when either Saddam, his family, his military and his government leave or die. We more and more we hear liberal preachers, politicians and just plain folk with no Biblical knowledge tell us that instead of war, we should be "beating our swords into plowshares".


They tell us that they are quoting the Word of God, when they will say things like: "The Good book says; 'they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.'" While the Word of God, the Holy Bible does say "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." It first says: "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears:"
 

Rocky Rivera

Well-Known Member
The Satanic liberals and progressives' endgame is total control over the people. They feminize the men in order to remove the will to fight back, they want to impose gun control so they can remove the means to fight back, and they want to eradicate Christianity and replace it with pervertsexuality so they can remove the reason to fight back.
 
Top