How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment-“A fraud on the American public"
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
“A fraud on the American public.”That’s how former** Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.** When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum...
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.
So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.
The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history,** this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored**.
The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.
“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.
On** June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments** on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.
**The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” **The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.
Show Comments
Page 2 of 4
140519_waldman_ar15_gty.jpg
Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.” After the organization’s leadership had decided to move its headquarters to Colorado, signaling a retreat from politics, more than a thousand angry rebels showed up at the annual convention. By four in the morning, the dissenters had voted out the organization’s leadership. Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power.
The NRA’s new leadership was dramatic, dogmatic and overtly ideological. For the first time, the organization formally embraced the idea that the sacred Second Amendment was at the heart of its concerns.
The gun lobby’s lurch rightward was part of a larger conservative backlash that took place across the Republican coalition in the 1970s. One after another, once-sleepy traditional organizations galvanized as conservative activists wrested control.
Conservatives tossed around the language of insurrection with the ardor of a Berkeley Weatherman. The “Revolt at Cincinnati” was followed by the “tax revolt,” which began in California in 1979, and the “sagebrush rebellion” against Interior Department land policies. All these groups shared a deep distrust of the federal government and spoke in the language of libertarianism. They formed a potent new partisan coalition.
Politicians adjusted in turn. The 1972 Republican platform had supported gun control, with a focus on restricting the sale of “cheap handguns.” Just three years later in 1975, preparing to challenge Gerald R. Ford for the Republican nomination, Reagan wrote in Guns & Ammo magazine, “The Second Amendment is clear, or ought to be. It appears to leave little if any leeway for the gun control advocate.” By 1980 the GOP platform proclaimed, “We believe the right of citizens to keep and bear arms must be preserved. Accordingly, we oppose federal registration of firearms.” That year the NRA gave Reagan its first-ever presidential endorsement.
Today at the** NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia,** oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. **Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:
“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out**.
As the revisionist perspective took hold, government agencies also began to shift. In 1981, Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate for the first time in 24 years. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch became chair of a key Judiciary Committee panel, where he commissioned a study on “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” In a breathless tone it announced, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The cryptologist discovering invisible writing on the back of the Declaration of Independence in the Disney movie National Treasure could not have said it better.
In the end, it was neither the NRA nor the Bush administration that pressed the Supreme Court to reverse its centuries-old approach, but a small group of libertarian lawyers who believed other gun advocates were too timid. They targeted a gun law passed by the local government in Washington, D.C., in 1976—perhaps the nation’s strictest—that barred individuals from keeping a loaded handgun at home without a trigger lock. They recruited an appealing plaintiff: Dick Heller, a security guard at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, who wanted to bring his work revolver home to his high-crime neighborhood. The NRA worried it lacked the five votes necessary to win. The organization tried to sideswipe the effort, filing what Heller’s lawyers called “sham litigation” to give courts an excuse to avoid a constitutional ruling. But the momentum that the NRA itself had set in motion proved unstoppable, and the big case made its way to the Supreme Court.
The argument presented in District of Columbia v. Heller showed just how far the gun rights crusade had come. Nearly all the questions focused on arcane matters of colonial history. Few dealt with preventing gun violence, social science findings or the effectiveness of today’s gun laws—the kinds of things judges might once have considered. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own a weapon “in common use” to protect “hearth and home.” Scalia wrote the opinion, which he later called the “vindication” of his judicial philosophy.
After the decision was announced, Heller stood on the steps of the court for a triumphant press conference. Held aloft behind him was a poster bearing that quote from Patrick Henry, unearthed by the scholars who had proven so important for the successful drive: “Let every man be armed.”
Today’s “Second Amendment supporters” recognize that claiming the constitutional high ground goes far toward winning an argument.
This article has been adapted from the book The Second Amendment: A Biography , published this week by Simon & Schuster. © 2014.
Comments
-
Warren Burger "2nd Amendment Fraud" - 1991 PBS News Hour ...
Video for earl warren on the second amendment▶ 0:58
Check this OUT....CM
-
Fail. Bad try. Any 4th grader can read and understand it. It takes a Democrat to misunderstand it.
-
@GaoLu said:
Fail. Bad try. Any 4th grader can read and understand it. It takes a Democrat to misunderstand it.Just shows how severely Democrats/Liberals have been brainwashed ... most have no real idea what they are doing
-
This article was great humor, but not reality.
-
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.
-
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
-
@C_M_ said:
Some say ‘Individuals are guaranteed the right to keep guns by the 2nd Amendment.’
A hand firing a weapon. Your ‘right’ doesn’t overpower everything else.It doesn’t get any more basic than this myth. There is nothing in the amendment that says gun owners can own and keep firearms in their homes. Legal scholars have studied the question for centuries, and the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise — until 2008.
In the Heller decision of ’08, the individual finally got that right in a 5-4 (i.e., party-line) decision. Still, the Supreme Court said it did not include the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-- Sir Walter Scott, from his 1808 poem Marmion. CM
-
I always assumed according to Romans 13, the Civil Magistrate to whom we submit is a person. And if the 2nd amendment allows for a well regulated militia, it assumes the magistrate regulates it. Since laws are for policing the masses, the masses cannot police themselves apart from anarchy. So in the end, I believe any who want a gun must belong to the National Guard or one of the military branches. It is only here where you have a well regulated militia.
-
@Dave_L said:
I always assumed according to Romans 13, the Civil Magistrate to whom we submit is a person. And if the 2nd amendment allows for a well-regulated militia, it assumes the magistrate regulates it. Since laws are for policing the masses, the masses cannot police themselves apart from anarchy. So in the end, I believe any who want a gun must belong to the National Guard or one of the military branches. It is only here where you have a well-regulated militia.Dave,
Since some don't agree with you on this point, it would be nice if the one who's proud of his "college degree" would mine (exegete) this chapter (Romans 13). All would benefit. Jesus always instructs before, a necessary, rebuke. It's obvious some have not learned this lesson of life. CM -
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
I always assumed according to Romans 13, the Civil Magistrate to whom we submit is a person. And if the 2nd amendment allows for a well-regulated militia, it assumes the magistrate regulates it. Since laws are for policing the masses, the masses cannot police themselves apart from anarchy. So in the end, I believe any who want a gun must belong to the National Guard or one of the military branches. It is only here where you have a well-regulated militia.Dave,
Since some don't agree with you on this point, it would be nice if the one who's proud of his "college degree" would mine (exegete) this chapter (Romans 13). All would benefit. Jesus always instructs before, a necessary, rebuke. It's obvious some have not learned this lesson of life. CMI have done this already as well.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
I always assumed according to Romans 13, the Civil Magistrate to whom we submit is a person. And if the 2nd amendment allows for a well-regulated militia, it assumes the magistrate regulates it. Since laws are for policing the masses, the masses cannot police themselves apart from anarchy. So in the end, I believe any who want a gun must belong to the National Guard or one of the military branches. It is only here where you have a well-regulated militia.Dave,
Since some don't agree with you on this point, it would be nice if the one who's proud of his "college degree" would mine (exegete) this chapter (Romans 13). All would benefit. Jesus always instructs before, a necessary, rebuke. It's obvious some have not learned this lesson of life. CMAnd what makes you think I am "so proud" of my college degree? I've mentioned it once I think in the last few months and it was to tell you that I've studied extensively these topics and I had never heard of something you were talking about. (I don't even remember what it was at this point).
The funny thing is, you are doing to me exactly what you accuse me of doing to you. Ironic.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
No, the militia are those the Magistrate sends for the punishment of evildoers.
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (1 Peter 2:13–14)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
No, the militia are those the Magistrate sends for the punishment of evildoers.
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (1 Peter 2:13–14)
You can say what you want, but apparently, you don't understand how the "Magistrate" set up the United States.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
I always assumed according to Romans 13, the Civil Magistrate to whom we submit is a person. And if the 2nd amendment allows for a well-regulated militia, it assumes the magistrate regulates it. Since laws are for policing the masses, the masses cannot police themselves apart from anarchy. So in the end, I believe any who want a gun must belong to the National Guard or one of the military branches. It is only here where you have a well-regulated militia.Dave,
Since some don't agree with you on this point, it would be nice if the one who's proud of his "college degree" would mine (exegete) this chapter (Romans 13). All would benefit. Jesus always instructs before, a necessary, rebuke. It's obvious some have not learned this lesson of life. CMI have done this already as well.
Please, direct me to the source. I would like to share in the conversation contextually and intelligently. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
I always assumed according to Romans 13, the Civil Magistrate to whom we submit is a person. And if the 2nd amendment allows for a well-regulated militia, it assumes the magistrate regulates it. Since laws are for policing the masses, the masses cannot police themselves apart from anarchy. So in the end, I believe any who want a gun must belong to the National Guard or one of the military branches. It is only here where you have a well-regulated militia.Dave,
Since some don't agree with you on this point, it would be nice if the one who's proud of his "college degree" would mine (exegete) this chapter (Romans 13). All would benefit. Jesus always instructs before, a necessary, rebuke. It's obvious some have not learned this lesson of life. CMI have done this already as well.
Please, direct me to the source. I would like to share in the conversation contextually and intelligently. CM
You can search for it.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun? CM
Did I say that? No I didn't.
However, interesting fact, in South Carolina there is an old law on the books from the early days that says all males over 16 must take a rifle to church on Sunday to ward off Indian attacks. Just saying....
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Here we go again.....
Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun? CM
Did I say that?
David, I didn't say you said. Did I ask a question? Yes, e.g. "Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun?" And your answer:
No I didn't.
Thank you, David.
However, interesting fact, in South Carolina there is an old law on the books from the early days that says all males over 16 must take a rifle to church on Sunday to ward off Indian attacks. Just saying....
I wonder why?
- Did they steal something?
- Illegally occupy somewhere?
- Mistreated someone?
- Did pay someone?
- Did respected someone?
- Didn/t keep their word (broken treaty)?
- Killed someone?
Surely the Indians would not have troubled them without cause. Oh, "Just saying...." CM
-
Indians? Where did these Indians come from? I thought they used bow and arrows and tomahawks. I guess settlers had muskets. I suppose the presence of the muskets dissuaded many a massacre. Probably the muskets seldom got used by the run-of-the-mill 16-year old (though he may have had high aspirations). Does anyone know of a single case? I am sure there would be some given the times, 200 years ago.
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Here we go again.....
Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun? CM
Did I say that?
David, I didn't say you said. Did I ask a question? Yes, e.g. "Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun?" And your answer:
No I didn't.
Thank you, David.
However, interesting fact, in South Carolina there is an old law on the books from the early days that says all males over 16 must take a rifle to church on Sunday to ward off Indian attacks. Just saying....
I wonder why?
- Did they steal something?
- Illegally occupy somewhere?
- Mistreated someone?
- Did pay someone?
- Did respected someone?
- Didn/t keep their word (broken treaty)?
- Killed someone?
Surely the Indians would not have troubled them without cause. Oh, "Just saying...." CM
Corrections:
4. Didn't pay someone?
6. Didn't keep their word (broken treaty)? CM -
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Here we go again.....
Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun? CM
Did I say that?
David, I didn't say you said. Did I ask a question? Yes, e.g. "Do I read this to understand that the "Magistrate" tells or forces everyone to own or buy a gun?" And your answer:
No I didn't.
Thank you, David.
However, interesting fact, in South Carolina there is an old law on the books from the early days that says all males over 16 must take a rifle to church on Sunday to ward off Indian attacks. Just saying....
I wonder why?
- Did they steal something?
- Illegally occupy somewhere?
- Mistreated someone?
- Did pay someone?
- Did respected someone?
- Didn/t keep their word (broken treaty)?
- Killed someone?
Surely the Indians would not have troubled them without cause. Oh, "Just saying...." CM
Are you seriously asking these questions right now? Sheesh...
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
No, the militia are those the Magistrate sends for the punishment of evildoers.
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (1 Peter 2:13–14)
You can say what you want, but apparently, you don't understand how the "Magistrate" set up the United States.
How is the Magistrate set up in scripture? Who do you follow? Christ or Satan?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
No, the militia are those the Magistrate sends for the punishment of evildoers.
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (1 Peter 2:13–14)
You can say what you want, but apparently, you don't understand how the "Magistrate" set up the United States.
How is the Magistrate set up in scripture? Who do you follow? Christ or Satan?
Scripture doesn't setup the Magistrate Dave. And your question as to who I follow is disgusting!
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
According to scripture, the second amendment is a law, but the Civil Magistrate is a person (Romans 13). And all must submit to the person, the civil magistrate.Here we go again.....
Not, really. I'm only pointing out that you cannot undermine the authority of the Magistrate.
We aren't. The Magistrate wants the people to have guns.
But God places all under the Magistrate. And only a Magistrate can well regulate a Militia. This is why there is a National Guard. If you want a gun, join the National Guard.
I'm glad that is what you think but that isn't what the Magistrate thinks. Sorry, try again.
You cannot follow Christ and disobey Romans 13.
I'm not. But what you don't understand is the Magistrate decides who does what according to Romans 13. Therefore the 2nd Amendment is in line with Romans 13.
No, the militia are those the Magistrate sends for the punishment of evildoers.
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (1 Peter 2:13–14)
You can say what you want, but apparently, you don't understand how the "Magistrate" set up the United States.
How is the Magistrate set up in scripture? Who do you follow? Christ or Satan?
Scripture doesn't setup the Magistrate Dave. And your question as to who I follow is disgusting!
God puts in power those he chooses. So he does define the role of the Magistrate for us. And God also placed all the kingdoms of the world under Satan's control. And Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world". So you are following Satan when you preach violence and destruction as your preferred course of action.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
