OR POFFER A YOUTUBE MEDIA CLIP...
only thing you are right about is you can't fix your own stupidity can we?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Firearms on Post Office Property
- Thread starter color of law
- Start date
OR POFFER A YOUTUBE MEDIA CLIP...
only thing you are right about is you can't fix your own stupidity can we?
Yes ALL of these so called gun laws and lawyer wangling are ALL unconstitutiona, the 2-A was simple to conferm a God given right AND Duty The first Amendment gives us our rights, not the 2-A Congress shall make no law respecting Religion OR the free exercise there of !
Alas, the founding fathers purposely left affirmation towards any religious "deity(s)" & "piety" out of the original language of their constitution [as well as the Declaration] as they did not move further into regaling nor instilling any orthodoxy nor employ the traditional language of religious dogma Into their document.
Since their document states, "...no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." very non-specifically towards religion.
therefore there is no confirming "Deity given right" bestowed by this document!
Well that might be one way of looking at it, yet the freedom to exercise ones relational Spiritual with Jesus, to Obey him
is even stronger then the 2-A , in the Bible Luke 22:36 Its a Christian Duty to be armed !
sorry gypsy...not debating your personal perceptions of belief of theology in the constitution but historically the founding specifically left the references to any specificity of "deities & piety" out of their document which is the foundation of a young nation!
as for your interpretation of the passage...
quote,
Bishop Pearce supposes that the word μαχαιραν, sword, has been inserted here from what is said in Luke 22:38, as it is evident our Lord never intended to make any resistance, or to suffer a sword to be used on the occasion...unquote
www.studylight.org
quote,
When Jesus said, “That’s enough” (Luke 22:38) it shows that he is not expecting them to go to literal war against the Romans or the Jews... unquote https://connectusfund.org/luke-22-36-meaning-of-if-you-dont-have-a-sword-sell-your-cloak-and-buy-one
quote,
These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient...unquote
www.biblestudytools.com
as you can see theologically historians have contextually interpreted the tome appropriately to the timeit was alledgedly written.
as for your interpretation of the passage...
quote,
Bishop Pearce supposes that the word μαχαιραν, sword, has been inserted here from what is said in Luke 22:38, as it is evident our Lord never intended to make any resistance, or to suffer a sword to be used on the occasion...unquote
Luke 22:36 - Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary - StudyLight.org
Luke 22:36 - And He said to them, 'But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his cloak and buy one. on StudyLight.org
www.studylight.org
quote,
When Jesus said, “That’s enough” (Luke 22:38) it shows that he is not expecting them to go to literal war against the Romans or the Jews... unquote https://connectusfund.org/luke-22-36-meaning-of-if-you-dont-have-a-sword-sell-your-cloak-and-buy-one
quote,
These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient...unquote
Luke 22:36 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary
What does Luke 22:36 mean? Read commentary on this popular Bible verse and understand the real meaning behind God's Word using John Gill's Exposition of the Bible.
www.biblestudytools.com
as you can see theologically historians have contextually interpreted the tome appropriately to the timeit was alledgedly written.
Well that's that "Bishops" opinion, does he even have the Spirit of the lord ?
WE get our understanding from The Bible and it's Interpreted by the Spirit of Jesus Christ that's in us,
that's why we must be born again in Spirit. Read Rom 7:6 and 2 Cor 3:6. That's why non=believers
can't understand the Bible.
However if they read it, and looked at history in the OT, where the Jewish people were armed,
and God being the same yesterday as in today, simple logic and easy to figure out.
Think all animals have a means of Self-defense, why wouldn't people ?
Besides Jesus WAS armed 24/7, The sword of the Lord Jesus IS his word.
He cursed a fig tree and it died right then and there Matt 21:18-20.
Then he was a little upset when they came to arrest him
for his trial, and when he said "Whom seek ye"? They ALL fell backwards to the ground.
Then there's Armageddon in the future . Gods word is his sword.
In Luke 22: 38 hes saying 1-2 swords are enough, Its all about self-defense, as Jesus knew he would be leveling them
soon and as we know its a dangerous world out there. Even the unsaved will defend there family.
Point being Jesus WAS armed all the time, people forget he "Gave his life" for our sins, they didn't take it.
If you were the only one in the world who would receive him, for Salvation,
he would and did go to the cross for you !
WE get our understanding from The Bible and it's Interpreted by the Spirit of Jesus Christ that's in us,
that's why we must be born again in Spirit. Read Rom 7:6 and 2 Cor 3:6. That's why non=believers
can't understand the Bible.
However if they read it, and looked at history in the OT, where the Jewish people were armed,
and God being the same yesterday as in today, simple logic and easy to figure out.
Think all animals have a means of Self-defense, why wouldn't people ?
Besides Jesus WAS armed 24/7, The sword of the Lord Jesus IS his word.
He cursed a fig tree and it died right then and there Matt 21:18-20.
Then he was a little upset when they came to arrest him
for his trial, and when he said "Whom seek ye"? They ALL fell backwards to the ground.
Then there's Armageddon in the future . Gods word is his sword.
In Luke 22: 38 hes saying 1-2 swords are enough, Its all about self-defense, as Jesus knew he would be leveling them
soon and as we know its a dangerous world out there. Even the unsaved will defend there family.
Point being Jesus WAS armed all the time, people forget he "Gave his life" for our sins, they didn't take it.
If you were the only one in the world who would receive him, for Salvation,
he would and did go to the cross for you !
Last edited:
Sir, as previously mentioned, not entertaining nor debating your mythical theology beliefs with you on this open carry forum or discussing your inability to discern your own misperceptions of the founding father's belief system as they got this country off the ground.
For future reference "I" am not part of your proselytizing perception of "WE" or "US"!
do yourself a favor and research the "natural law" concepts or read Payne's tomes on the subject instead of olde tired dogma rhetoric...
For future reference "I" am not part of your proselytizing perception of "WE" or "US"!
do yourself a favor and research the "natural law" concepts or read Payne's tomes on the subject instead of olde tired dogma rhetoric...
Last edited:
American Patriot
Regular Member
Why do you constantly insult other members on this forum whom choose to differ with your political agenda? You are insulting to people of faith in Jesus Christ. You would do well to study the history of the British Empire and the religious faith to which they adhered. The faith they propagated to the other nations they conquered. It was Christianity. Not Judaism, Not Islam, Not Buddhism, Not Hinduism, Not any other religion of the time. The founding fathers were Christians and many were ministers of Christ along with lawyers, farmers, et. al.. The founding fathers acknowledge their faith in Christ in the Constitution of The United States of America. They established the government to be open to all citizens. "WE THE PEOPLE." Vattel is the authority on Natural Law, which the founding fathers used in their formulating the government of this nation.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA
Article VII
The Ratification of the Convention of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names.
The founding fathers chose to use their "Christian calendar" to document their founding of this nation. They did not choose to use the Jewish calendar. They did not choose to use the Muslim calendar. They did not choose to use any other religious calendar. They did not choose to use any atheist dating system to document they actions. They choose to use the calendar of their faith to document the date of their work ( the 17th day of September, 1787 ). 1787 years nine months and 17 days from the birth of Jesus, The Son of God and 12 years from their declaring their independence from Great-Britain; 1776 years 7 months and 4 days from the birth of Jesus, The Son of God. The Christian calendar begins with the birth of Jesus, The Son of God. In The Declaration of Independence from Great-Britain they address their God as the God of Nature; i.e. The Creator.
Yes the Israelites did carry weapons and so did the Christians. Many concealed carried small arms such as daggers and many carried swords openly. They were not and are not pacifists. Christians are free to openly carry and conceal carry arms for protection. The vast number of people in the USA carrying weapons are Christians.
Emphasis added.
AP, et al.,
...rebutting incorrect political agenda...rebutting, w/cites i might add!
yet you make reference to the British Empire...if memory serves and history substantiates ~ the colonists came to the new world in early 1600 as separatists - an outlawed sect that favored breaking away from the Church of England entirely or puritans.
those who didn't play well with those sects were severely ostracized, sometimes violently beaten, so those folks followed the path of Quakers or Baptists!
That was the early 1600s...now approximately a 150 years later, the religious rhetoric calmed down helped in part by Payne's Common Sense which centered on a premise of natural law, not a specific deity(s) per se!
the founding fathers purposely left out of the documents any bloody bias of religion!
BTW your illogical & outlandish presumption that the use of Gregorian calendar as a religious based object Is actually quite humorous!!
finally, if you unquestioningly state it was Vattel who pushed natural law ~ what are you truly whining about!
bottom line, there is no deity mentioned in this nation's original national documents!
ps..."WE" is out of the DI, not the constitution, further, the has been unconditionally adjudicated as truly only meaning, when written by the founding fathers, as white male aristocrats, not Natives, Negros, nor women!
pps...sorry Theologians have also unequivocally established the christian deity wasn't born 25 December, based of the jewish calendar...
...rebutting incorrect political agenda...rebutting, w/cites i might add!
yet you make reference to the British Empire...if memory serves and history substantiates ~ the colonists came to the new world in early 1600 as separatists - an outlawed sect that favored breaking away from the Church of England entirely or puritans.
those who didn't play well with those sects were severely ostracized, sometimes violently beaten, so those folks followed the path of Quakers or Baptists!
That was the early 1600s...now approximately a 150 years later, the religious rhetoric calmed down helped in part by Payne's Common Sense which centered on a premise of natural law, not a specific deity(s) per se!
the founding fathers purposely left out of the documents any bloody bias of religion!
BTW your illogical & outlandish presumption that the use of Gregorian calendar as a religious based object Is actually quite humorous!!
finally, if you unquestioningly state it was Vattel who pushed natural law ~ what are you truly whining about!
bottom line, there is no deity mentioned in this nation's original national documents!
ps..."WE" is out of the DI, not the constitution, further, the has been unconditionally adjudicated as truly only meaning, when written by the founding fathers, as white male aristocrats, not Natives, Negros, nor women!
pps...sorry Theologians have also unequivocally established the christian deity wasn't born 25 December, based of the jewish calendar...
Last edited:
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Which bible are you relying on? What about Tyndale's Bible, early 1500, being the first English translation from Hebrew and Greek texts? Or King Henry VIII version compiled in 1535. The Geneva Bible, in the year 1560. How about King James version done about 1610? And let’s not leave out the Catholic doctrine, completely contrary to all the above. Tell me all about it.
American Patriot
Regular Member
Declaration of Independence: A Transcription | National Archives
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
............. " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world..........."
.............. " We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; thatthey are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown........."
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
............. " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world..........."
.............. " We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; thatthey are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown........."
AP, with utmost respect and sorry tho not sure where your misunderstanding arose...
but your kind attention is directed to gypsy's post 62 where he stated, "...the 2-A was simple to conferm a God given right..." and following commentary post was regarding there wasn't a deity mentioned in the constitution's development by the founding fathers!
as you have mentioned several times, "natural laws" from the French bloke was what guided the founding father's document!
but your kind attention is directed to gypsy's post 62 where he stated, "...the 2-A was simple to conferm a God given right..." and following commentary post was regarding there wasn't a deity mentioned in the constitution's development by the founding fathers!
as you have mentioned several times, "natural laws" from the French bloke was what guided the founding father's document!
Now in reference to your tirade regarding the DI...
really,
We...all men...that it...no other individuals...
where is the women & negros & Native Americans, & other citizens roaming the America continent ?
two...quote:
They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined for this nation to continue properly.
A Secular Document
There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.
Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.
One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods.
Cline, Austin. "Declaration of Independence and the Christianity Myth." Learn Religions, Aug. 27, 2020, learnreligions.com/declaration-of-independence-and-christianity-myth-249684.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/declaration_of_independence-588936525-589e5a585f9b58819c41c433.jpg)
www.learnreligions.com
really,
We...all men...that it...no other individuals...
where is the women & negros & Native Americans, & other citizens roaming the America continent ?
two...quote:
They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined for this nation to continue properly.
A Secular Document
There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.
Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.
One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods.
This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods.
unquote
Now go argue with...unquote
Cline, Austin. "Declaration of Independence and the Christianity Myth." Learn Religions, Aug. 27, 2020, learnreligions.com/declaration-of-independence-and-christianity-myth-249684.
Declaration of Independence and the Christianity Myth
Many argue the Declaration of Independence endorses the idea that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian principles. Let's review.
Last edited:
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
In other words, it is your understanding of your God, not my God. A man owes certainly the purest love and the deepest reverence to his Creator. To conform oneself to the Law of Nature and to carry out the designs of his Creator.
AP, you really need to read “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW” a little closer and stop relying on others’ interpretations.
cocked&locked
Member
Why does he constantly insult other members? Cause he is an A-hole with no honor, that's why!
Last edited:
i notice with constant wonderment cocked&locked, that for a self professed educated individual, you consistently fail to dispute the information presented per se., yet feel the need to immediately engage in disparaging, via hurling elementary childish rants or showing disgusting images, commentary to prop-up your personal ideation of superiority on this premier open carry forum.
Tho to be honest, tis quite humorous to watch you sink lower and lower in exhibited intellectual prowess as the disparaging rhetoric being hurled gets more childish in nature.
daddy's adage personified...your a great example C&L!
OC for ME
Regular Member
...cocked&locked...chat bot?...
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
kocked&locked, your practice and love of urolagnia and coprophagia does not conform with forum rules.
Good info, Color of Law, thanks, here's some more good to know law. This is a way to fight back
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.