The gun culture was big at a number of reformed Baptist churches that I used to attend, including a pastor who once jokingly mentioned members of the church having extensive collections of guns. I often wondered, not personally owning a gun, what sort of image that sent to a visiting non-believer, if it sent them away thinking, "behold, these were Christians by their love for one another... oh, and their firearms"

Hi, Karl. I think it's a rare individual who would think that the 2nd Amendment should allow for the stockpiling of such destructive weapons as you mentioned. So I'm not saying there should not be any restrictions on guns, I'm saying that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that we could shoot shoot when threatened, no matter where the threat is coming from. It's a deterrent to government force, foreign invasion, and crime.

The question then becomes "shoot when threatened - with what?"

With weapons meant to take life, liberty or property. I think guns are a natural deterrent, really, to government, to foreign powers, and to criminals. I remember talking to a friend who had formerly lived a life of crime (e.g. car theft, etc.). I asked him if he ever broke into people's homes. He said, "No way, that's when you end up with a shotgun blast in your chest." Obviously people still break into homes, but I thought it illustrated the point that simply the threat of being shot was enough to deter at least one criminal.

The disagreement is only about the details of the regulation. So my NRA type friends' outrage at the very notion of regulation seems a bit misplaced and every bit as illogical as some democratic sentators' apparent belief that limiting clip size and certain types of scary-looking gun stocks will impact violent crime.

Well said.

Right around the same time as the Sandy Hook shooting, a guy in San Antonio tried the same thing at a movie theater. He was stopped. Shot by an armed security guard at a neighboring business.

We didn't hear that story in the media did we?

LaPierre is right. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

And by the way, if we can't keep illegal drugs out of the hands of anyone who wants one, what in the world makes us think we can keep guns out of the hands of anyone that wants one.

Karl, I think you have a good point about us having arms = to the gov't. I think Bird is right about the intent of the constitution.

The typical american does not have = footing, like the founding fathers probably had in mind originally.

In the day when the constitution, a gun was a gun. And the gun you had in your home to hunt and defend your property and family, was the same gun the soldier had. Not anymore.

However the original version of this comment, said that fully automatic weapons are illegal. I was wrong. You can have a fully automatic weapon. But you have to go through a federal background check, and I think some other hoops... I don't know all the details yet, but I intend to find out...

Update:

Federal Firearms Regulations

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

(Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, "FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons", and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,and Explosives (ATF) National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, "The Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective" [Hardy, 1986]) )

Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely. For further details see NRA state firearm law summaries.

With those two Federal acts (1934&1986) they effectively wiped out at least part of the intent of the"right to keep and bear arms" provision of the constitution.

I have several friends who are avid gun collectors, target shooting enthusiasts etc. According to them fully automatic weapons aren't available or in their everyday parlance such weapons "are illegal." These guys would know because if there was any way to legally own a fully automatic weapon, I'm pretty sure they would. My guess is that it's highly unlikely a private citizen could meet the criteria necessary to show the "need to have" an automatic weapon, thus making fully automatic weapons "illegal" for all or nearly all private citizens.

Shrode and/or Bird, do you interpret the right to bear "arms" to mean only firearms i.e. guns? Or do you interpret it to mean weapons more broadly? I think (but have no proof) that the original intent of the second amendment was more broad than just saying everyone can have a musket and that any of the then-current weapons of warfare were included in its protection. But we are SO FAR from that now . . . and most of us are GLAD that our neighbor (or Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Phil Knight or whoever) can't purchase a tactical nuke, a bunker buster bomb or even a fully armed and operational tank, an RPG, shoulder-launched antiaircraft missile or the like.

So we are back to the question of what limitations on second amendment rights make sense and strike the right balance, rather than discussing whether second amendment rights should be limited at all. What do you think the limitations should be?

What is it that statistics show about guns in the home - that a gun in the home is 40 or 50 times more likely to shoot someone in that home than it is to shoot an intruder? Something like that, anyway. I don't think it's realistic to get legally-purchased and owned guns out of American homes. I'm not even sure it's desirable. But the rate of gun deaths in America compared to most of the rest of the civilized world ought to give us at least some measure of pause, shouldn't it? Do you really feel safer if you think "probably 90 per cent of the people in this mall are packing heat"? I know lots of people who wouldn't be disqualified by a background check but who cause me to get the cold sweats when I think about them carrying around a concealed weapon.

Why personal weapons only Bird, and what's the difference? What's included in personal weapons?

With the right to keep and bear arms being linked in the text of the amendment to the idea that a "well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't that imply pretty much any weapon that a militia might need or use in order to keep a free state secure - not just personal weapons?

1. As Schrode noted (9), fully automatic weapons (which is what most picture when hearing 'assault weapon') for over half a century have been against the law for any but carefully, expensively screened folks.

Turning, then, to one trigger squeeze, one shot weapons:

2. Beyond debate, 2nd Amend not about hunting bears, nor even about defending oneself against robbers or rapists. It's about restraining gov't. Too much evidence from guys who wrote the 2nd Amend, the historical context, even its very wording to think otherwise.

3. Ponder: a) history, where gov't successfully disarmed. populace. What happened every single time? b) words of guys like A Solzhenitzen (spelling?), whose words from Gulag Archipelego (spelling?) one may google and read, where he ponders what would have happened had population resisted rather than acquiesced and died.

OK, then, so what? I mean, after all,
4. How can a pistol or rifle stop a tank or fighter jet? Seems like argument over, eh? Nope. While neither can stop the tank or the jet, either can stop the driver or pilot. Who must at some time be outside their machine. And, more importantly, either can stop (read "keep honest") politcos. If you think this a joke, recall how the Allies dropped single shot pistols to the European resistance, knowing they could significantly hinder the German Army. (Read one of the most powerful brief novels ever written, Steinbeck's "The Moon is Down".)

5. Obama's concern has absolutely nothing to do with, say, safety. He favors, recall, the murder of just born children, where the abortion, uh, failed. (The man is wicked. Evil.) He does not even care if his Executive Orders don't get anywhere. His whole concern focuses on polarizing his opponents, putting them in a position where he can mock them. And he may get away with that if they wont call his bluff and point out his evil.

Time to impeach this treasonous president.

I just read up on Obama's executive orders that he announced yesterday. Thinklings: you have all sorts of posting opportunities on this story. The politics are 'dripping' with Obama's executive orders yesterday. Obama surrounding himself with children - does anyone with over an 80 IQ buy into this? Or rather do you see that if the House or the Senate doesn't pass his executives orders, then he can say that they don't like children - or some variant.

Taking political advantage of an emotional incident with the Sandy Hook shooting - is very distasteful in my opinion.

Does anyone remember 'fast and furious' where our government essentially handed out weapons to criminals? I'm just checking ;)

Didn't the Branch Davidian seige/fire in Waco show what would happen if a bunch of gun toting civilians really wants to call the bluff of the federal government?

That was a rebellion by a cult. Don't see the similarity.

Where is Jesus Christ in all this debate (by and among Christians, at least)? We will follow the example of Jesus, who encouraged Peter to swing a sword at the people who came to arrest him . . .

Not sure what this question means. If Jesus is with us, as I believe He is with me, then He's right there as I make plans to defend my family, with a "sword" if necessary.

I'm not a pacifist either, and since your'e not, Karl, I don't see any need to offer a point by point rebuttal of many of the pacifist type arguments you used.

Vermont has some of the laxest gun laws in the nation. You can wear a sidearm, openly, on your person in most public places. Saw a guy shopping for meat the local Price Chopper once with a pistol in a holster. He was not a uniformed officer.

Vermont also has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

Of course, we also have a sparse population, not too much overcrowding, etc, and only a burgeoning drug problem, not an epidemic one quite yet.

Karl, you left the thinklings speechless ;)

You bring up some good points. I suspect that when it comes down to it, many Christians wouldn't be able to pull the trigger and kill someone. I suppose it depends on the situation.

Your example of shooting a cop or FBI agent or standing up against a seal six team; they all imply that there is civil order still. Couldn't there be a situation where our government becomes so oppressive that many of those institutions would rebel against their masters? Do you think a cop is going to arrest his family, neighbors because his superiors say so. Or a person in the Army is going to obey some Generals orders to drop a bomb on an American town. I just think about those situations more in relation to the 2nd amendment than a branch Davidian situation. I think because of the 2nd Amendment, there is no way for our government to 'overly' cause harm to it's citizens.

Of course this probably comes down to worldview: Christians who believe in God - we are all sinners and it is not beyond those who rule even in our country to have the potential of being oppressive vs. those who think we are evolving to the "next level" and the advancement of our society has the inability to take 2 steps backwards.

All firing back with a vengeance will do in this day and age of modern warfare and tactical weaponry, is pretty much guarantee the death of the civilians.

I think it's about checks and balances. Having a citizenry with untold number of weapons puts a check on the federal government. The idea isn't that any group of crackpots should be able to shoot federal agents if they feel their rights are being violated, the idea is that citizens en masse are armed and willing to fight if necessary.

But I think those arguments - or maybe we should call them those passages of scripture - do bear at least somewhat on how and when Christians should be ready to whip out a gun and kill a policeman or agent of their country's government.

Agreed. Again, I don't think it's about one citizen, or group of citizens, blowing away federal agents for the sake of standing up against a bad law.