Weapons..

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

*Blinks*

....therefore, they are things that should be used by NON Christians, then? Is that what you are stating? Perhaps I have misread you, and what you are really saying is that weapons, be that knives or nukes, should not be used by man at all, regardless of what they beleive in or not.

Besides, as we all know, many of the more horrible forms of torture, some of which we still see around today, had their origins in Christianity, so early Christianity and the church were inventors of cruel weapons, and chilling ways to kill/convert people.

If I were passionate about a political party, and found out that it had such tainted history, I think I would have second thoughts about wanting to be a further part of that party. Many who subscibe to the mawkish view of Jesus, as penned in the NT, would do well to really read up on the 'god' that they beleive to be so kind and forgiving. They might find out that he is egotistical, controlling, and a murderer. It's all there, in the Bible.

Actually it was the Jesuits who invented the forms of torture, not Christianity proper. And it was the Crusaders who brought back the ideas from the middle east.

A few bad apples are just that. They don't spoil the whole barrel. But heh, if one can afford to throw away the whole barrel, more power to the one.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Can you imagine it happening though Wil? I agree that the sheer volume of weapons in private ownership in the US gives the potential for effective insurgency but is the average American really willing to pay the price? A civil war in the US would be swiftly dealt with by those soldiers loyal to the president in my opinion. And Mr and Mrs average American will only see what's on Fox news. I do not think most Americans have the stomache to rock the boat, and those with the mentality to try are the most dangerous types and those we would least like to see have any position of power. The US will fall, it seems to have begun its descent already, just how far it will go remains to be seen. But It would have to fall a lot further for the people to call time on the corruption in the American system.

tao

Originally Posted by enlightenment

Uh-huh.

Don't think that would happen, irrespective of what has been 'sworn'.

A few might switch sides, right enough. Most of the police and military would merely be swallowed up and used as tools of this fictional Government that we are speaking of.

Those that did switch would be easy replaced by sadistic thugs who would get off on wearing a uniform, and ordering people around.

I am sure there would be lots of candidates.

We've got the net, and unless it is taken out, folks will act. Not all will be ready to motivate but it would occur. The radicals in our country have short wave radios, and generators and more firepower than any conspiracy movie can actually portray. If the crap hit the fan they would mobilize all over fairly quickly. It would take quite the change to cause this to errupt though.

Currently the powers that be are utilizing the 'how to boil a frog technique' and quite well.

[kiwimac]

The early Christians were quite clear about weapons of war. You could not be a Christian and still use them. They even extended that as far as the police forces of the day.

Hippolytus (approx. A.D. 200)

"The soldier of the government must be taught not to kill men. If ordered to, he shall not carry out the order, nor shall he take the military oath. If he does not accept this, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. The believers who wish to become soldiers shall be cast out, because they have despised God."

Tertullian (195-212)

"Inquiry is made whether a believer is able to turn himself into military service... But how will a Christian wage war, indeed how will he serve even in peace without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? ...The Lord in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier."

[wil]

Namaste Kiwimac,

How do you interpret, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and get one"?

[arthra]

Baha'is can allow for weapons to be used to say hunt if food cannot otherwise be obtained..otherwise we don't carry weapons. In the event of civil chaos and social breakdown self-defence is allowed. But generally Baha'u'llah said it is better to be killed than to kill. Baha'is are supposed to request a non-combatant classification when registering for Selective Service.

In 1912 Abdul-Baha said:

If two nations were at war in olden times, ten or twenty thousand would be sacrificed but in this century the destruction of one hundred thousand lives in a day is quite possible. So perfected has the science of killing become and so efficient the means and instruments of its accomplishment that a whole nation can be obliterated in a short time.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 232)

God has created us all human and all countries of the world are parts of the same globe. We are all his servants. He is kind and just to all. Why should we be unkind and unjust to each other? He provides for all. Why should we deprive one another? He protects and preserves all. Why should we kill our fellow-creatures?

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 244)

(that) the law of retaliation would be done away with, and the foundation-principle of the Law of God would be this, that "It is better for you to be killed than to kill"; that discord and contention would cease, and the rule of war and butchery would fall away.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Memorials of the Faithful, p. 199)

[kiwimac]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Kiwimac,

How do you interpret, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and get one"?

I interpret it as Jesus saying, "Be careful, what I am asking you to do is dangerous." It is, IMO, Jesus at his paradoxical best.

[kiwimac]

Origen (250 AD)

“How was it possible for the Gospel doctrine of peace, which doesn’t permit men to take vengeance even on their enemies, to prevail throughout the earth, unless at the coming of Jesus a milder spirit had been introduced into the order of things?”

[DrumR]

One post fits all... now with foot notes"<>"!

Weapons or the Wielder?: or more ramblings from the reasonably insane.

The perspective "Enlightenment" spoke of, in the opening message of this thread, is not so much a matter of a legal anomaly as it is an anomaly of basic reason; for the true matter, as I see it, is one of self-preservation in a hostile world.

This lack of reason applied to the definition of "firearms," or weapons in general, is displayed in the USA as well. Within "The People's Re-pubic of California"<1> there has been an on-going movement to ban the 3+ cell flashlight, for over 20 years, as it "may" be used as a weapon.

Nick_A presents a nice piece of sarcasm. I only wish he had included a link to the full text of the "Esteemed<2>" Chancellor Hitler's act on Gun Control. as this would make for very interesting reading, comparison and review.

I really doubt that there are those who would reasonably dispute that one has an innate right to protect oneself from the hostilities of others. The disagreement primarily lies in the types, level, and circumstance of both threat assessment and the desired versus implemented response. Unfortunately the vernacular of the subject has been transferred to the weapon rather than the wielder.

In the Ideal world, of some peoples imagining, weapons would not be needed between peace-loving ideologues no matter the size of the interaction group under study. Yet the reality of the world, nation, province, city, village, neighborhood, family, etc that Ideal does not exit. Genetically hard-wired predators will revert, in one or more aspects, to their "natural" ways. Remember that the lion will lie down with the lamb while having the lamb for dinner; this is the lion's true nature.

Yet it is deliberately overlooked that in the most strictly weapons controlled environment of any nation, i.e. prisons, weapons are manufactured, distributed, and used amongst the captive "citizenry" therein.

As I see it all too many people look to the best of what an individual can achieve and then point to this shining example believing that all members of the human race should be held to this exceptional accomplishment. While such exceptional human achievements may be desirous of being used as an ideal to strive for, to presume that all may achieve this, and in a short period of time, is but an illusion.

In response to "Enlightenment."
The USA has inherited part of its philosophy of citizens bearing arms from the British from whom whose Government we found it necessary "to dissolve the political bands...<3>" English Law, and Royal Decree, at one time required Yeoman to be proficient in the use of arms and as this tradition floundered into nothingness so did the weapons-based philosophical underpinnings of British Society as a whole. In the USA the "gun-culture" has not totally perished and is one area that the Government of the USA may not tamper with<4>, unless there is a successful amendment made to the Constitution of the USA to that effect.

In response to "wil and Tao_Equus." All members of the Armed Forces of the USA are required to swear or affirm an oath, part of which contains the language "to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies both foreign and domestic." This is not quite the same as defending the country. Semantics? Perhaps...

Reguarding an un-Constutional takover bid. The People may wage a civil war of guerrilla proportions and I do not doubt that some members of the Military and Police may join in, but these citizens would not call that an insurgency; although one may be assured that the illicit "Regime" may well do so.

There have been many works of fiction, and some have found their way into film, that touch upon the subject. These will hopefully serve as a reminder to those would be Politicians, Generals, and others that many of the people would take up arms to preserve their freedoms.

Most civil servants in the USA are required to minimally swear to support/abide by the Constitution of the USA amongst other things; the fact that this is not done on a daily basis in practice is to the people's detriment.

In reply to "Enlightenment," please excuse the extended and overlong ramblings but then...

Ignorance is its own excuse.

Legal Ignorance.
Many people are ignorant of the wording of the laws. The People are held to the task of knowing the law yet the mandated public schooling does not include the law as part of its syllabus; a paradox if you will. The body of the older laws had this provision: "that he did knowingly and willfully violate." This language precludes using ignorance of the law, operating under duress, and/or both, from the consideration of obtaining a conviction or guilty verdict.
Documented Ignorance.
The level of ignorance in the USA has been on a steady increase (eat your heat out the rest of you world citizens) documented by a Government report, released in the mid-to late 1990's, which indicated that the overall level of scholastic accomplishment in the USA had declined by 3 or more years since the 1940's; nor has the situation improved markedly as the decline rolls on.
Media Share.
One reader has indicated, rightly, that Fox News (the most conservative, major, television network in the USA) does not have the majority share of "the media." Yet to clarify that please add the "visual" broadcast media. In the media of the spoken word, Radio, the Conservative viewpoint holds the largest audience share and is considerably more "Right Wing" than that content found within the Fox News Network in general. Whereas in the media of the printed word, newspapers, it is the "Liberal" viewpoint that maintains the larger "audience share." It would be remiss of me not to also point out that the readership, i.e. subscriptions, of the newspapers in the USA is on the decline.
Ignorance of the media.
So to review ignorance of the above:
1) The scholastic achievement of the USA is on the decline.
2) The major media share in US television and newsprint is held by the Liberals.
3) Readership of US newspapers is on the decline.
4) The major media share of US radio broadcasting is held by the Conservatives.
5) The largest share of media attention is held by the television networks.
Ignorance in the Media?
The accuracy, depth, breath, and level of reporting within the USA television media has been called into question multiple times in the past score of years and remains particularly rampant during the current USA Presidential political race. There have also been a few "stinks" relating to the accuracies of major US "newspaper reporting" during the last decade or so. One had to resort to the "tabloids" for a short period of time to obtain the "real deal."
My Ignorant Summation???
With the level of ignorance on the rise and the major audience share being "held in thrall" by the "idiot-box" it is not a wonder at all that many of the ignorant are mis-informed, kept that way, and would not "think" to seek alternatives. This is just the right atmosphere for "soft and subtle" propagandize-ment - if true.

Reply to "heated debate." no such respondent, but...
What ever one's individual religious and/or philosophical persuasion may be it is "all well and good" as long as it pertains to one's self. Yet a word of caution may be in order: export those beliefs to another, especially with a threat- implied or otherwise, at one's own peril; many flames on a forum, tussles in a pub, and wars in the real world, have been started for much less.

In reply to "Francis King."
One of the "daffy-nitions" of conservative, in circles of the same, is "a Liberal that has been mugged." I thank you for sharing your trying personal experience with us and find I am in agreement with a goodly portion of your comments, and yet, it is with these words:

the issue is with the young men and women who use knives and guns for sport...

I find a most strong disagreement with.

For it is not the young and only the young, and to construe it so is a slander not only unto them but to the parents of the young world-wide.

Nor is it to be said, and remain truthfully so, that one's fellow citizens and neighbors who may engage in the use of arms for sport(ing) purposes are to be considered as the most probable disturbers of the peace with those arms. Such thoughts speak volumes concerning the level of trust one extends toward another and to that level of trust one may expect to be reflected in return.

There exist all too many who are of the belief that they should be able to engage in whatever activity suits their whim while having their safety being somewhat assured. The Savanna would roar in its defiance, the Desert will quietly dry those assertions into oblivion. It is at this juncture that the words of a World Renowned Man of Science, ring most strongly true:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.<6>" - Benj. Franklin

The difficulty, as I see it, lies both with the illegitimate use of arms and with those who choose to be terrorized by the very IDEA of the existence of arms. I re-iterate: "Unfortunately the vernacular of the subject has been transferred to the weapon rather than the wielder."



NOTES:
<1> "The People's Re-pubic of California." the word Re-pubic is not misspelled. I use it to refer to the mental state of those transitioning through puberty, on a continuous basis. Alas, their mind and body are not One and Harmonious.
<2> "Esteemed." Sarcasm on my part. There may be those who may still hold many of this man's actions in esteem but I am not one of them.
<3> "to dissolve the political bands." A partial quote from the US Declaration of Independence.
<4> "one area that the Government of the USA may not tamper with" Well... at least in theory.
<5> As an aside. I believe that media preferences could be the basis of a thesis. "What are the contributing causes to the difference in audience popularity between the television media and the radio media?"
<6> There are two quotes listed on wikipedia, I use the former.
<6a)"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
<b>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

editing consists of an inserted a word or letter here or there.

[DrumR]

As an update/aside concerning weapons and the current political atmosphere:

It has been reported on the local news of the region that while the general economy is down, the sales of firearms are up. It was further remarked that the greatest of these sales is of handguns and of these purchases the majority, at this time, are being made by women.

[enlightenment]

Mosquito device?

Anyone heard of that?

Does something to the ears of teens?

*Shrugs*

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrumR

As an update/aside concerning weapons and the current political atmosphere:

It has been reported on the local news of the region that while the general economy is down, the sales of firearms are up. It was further remarked that the greatest of these sales is of handguns and of these purchases the majority, at this time, are being made by women.

number of justifiable homicides are up as well...

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

number of justifiable homicides are up as well...

Define please?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

Define please?

...killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime.

Wherein under normal circumstances, one would do nothing to harm another, until the other attempts to harm or cause death to the one.

[dmsingh]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Can you imagine it happening though Wil? I agree that the sheer volume of weapons in private ownership in the US gives the potential for effective insurgency but is the average American really willing to pay the price? A civil war in the US would be swiftly dealt with by those soldiers loyal to the president in my opinion. And Mr and Mrs average American will only see what's on Fox news. I do not think most Americans have the stomache to rock the boat, and those with the mentality to try are the most dangerous types and those we would least like to see have any position of power. The US will fall, it seems to have begun its descent already, just how far it will go remains to be seen. But It would have to fall a lot further for the people to call time on the corruption in the American system.

tao

The US has laws in place to deal with possible insurrection.
The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. As you may be aware, we have antigovernment groups plotting the overthrow of the government ala the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. One of these groups is named Posse Comitatus.
As to whether the US will fall, how far, how fast, I'll need to
get back to you later, as my dog wants to go out and it is very late
(or early) Friday am. dm

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

...killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime.

Wherein under normal circumstances, one would do nothing to harm another, until the other attempts to harm or cause death to the one.

Surely that part here in bold in itself is highly subjective though?

In Nazi Germany it was the legal to kill Jews and other untermunchen (sic).

That was the law.

That which is law, and that which is right are often two v different things.