Shooting in California

[Tortuga]

How about a plate of bacon instead? Just as salty and crunchy, with soft chewy parts.

Perfect!

[tekmantwo]

Tekmantwo is my older brother and I have a pretty good idea what his viewpoint is about guns so I think I know where this conversation is going. It may be worth grabbing a bag of popcorn and monitor the conversation..

And, as has happened before, he may surprise you. ..

Shawn, my Brother, I love you. ..have a most wonderful day and may our loving God bless you in your efforts for Him...

[Hope]

I wish people would be so up in arms (pun intended) about insisting everyone has the right to free healthcare and higher education like they are about the right to obtain and own guns.

 

Healthcare?  You're on your own; US doesn't consider that a right.  If you must die early because you can't afford doctors/medicines,, well that's too bad.

 

Guns?  Getchu one whenever you feel like it... and a million people will be on your side about it.  Such mentality is  wicked and I'll be glad when it's all finished.  

[Trina]

They can be used to obtain food and protection from animals as has been mentioned before. That was what I believe the purpose of making them in the first place. And don't worry the bad guys will have guns even if every law states they are illegal. None of these people that have caused any of us to feel bad about guns obtained them for a good use and the situation in Cali which is what this thread is about clearly stated they had an arsenal of homemade pipe bombs in their garage...we know in Boston Marathon attack they used pressure cookers, and we know at Tube Station in London they used knives....

But I'm sure if they take away the guns there will be problems, there will be an uprising against the government by the people, and then there would be massive amounts of people hoarding knives, and bow and arrows, and hatchets, pressure cookers, materials for bombs, and eventually chemical warfare will be used when all the weapons are banned and much, much more. Gun legislation will not stop the violence in any way, we know this because the bible says conditions will continue to worsen with violence until Jehovah ends this chaos.

Jehovah is the only answer, no man can stop the process of this systems end.

[Hanah45]

Tekmantwo is my older brother and I have a pretty good idea what his viewpoint is about guns so I think I know where this conversation is going. It may be worth grabbing a bag of popcorn and monitor the conversation..

Ooh, family dynamics, interesting.

And, as has happened before, he may surprise you. ..

Ah, your big brother is showing.

I need more bacon.

Edited December 7, 2015 by carlos

[Tortuga]

So, let me ask, without trying to sound argumentative, besides target practice and killing, what other use are guns designed for? 

 

 

MacGyver once used a gun as a valve handle to close a valve. It wasn't designed to do that but it worked...   

[minister159]

So, if a brother owns a personal firearm for the protection of himself and his family, and uses it in a lethal shooting against an intruder, which is ruled to be  justifiable homicide by the police, would he still be subject to disciplinary action by the congregation for:

 

1. Owning a firearm for protection?

2. Taking another person's life?

[Tortuga]

Ooh, family dynamics, interesting.

And, as has happened before, he may surprise you. ..

Ah, your big brother is showing.

I need more bacon.

 

He has surprised me many times in the past but he has made a tremendous effort to put on the Christ like personality and has done a great job. In the past I have made the error of thinking he will respond in a certain way and I have been pleasantly surprised to see his response, now I'm not surprised at his responses because I know he is a mature Christian. I know he will add a mature viewpoint to this discussion and I have my popcorn ready...

[Tortuga]

So, if a brother owns a personal firearm for the protection of himself and his family, and uses it in a lethal shooting against an intruder, which is ruled to be  justifiable homicide by the police, would he still be subject to disciplinary action by the congregation for:

 

1. Owning a firearm for protection?

2. Taking another person's life?

 

Your question is based on the assumption that the intent of the firearm is for protection.

 

If you replace the word firearm with knife, vase, rock, club, does it change the answer?

[Old]

So, if a brother owns a personal firearm for the protection of himself and his family, and uses it in a lethal shooting against an intruder, which is ruled to be  justifiable homicide by the police, would he still be subject to disciplinary action by the congregation for:

 

1. Owning a firearm for protection?

2. Taking another person's life?

He would lose any privileges he had in the congregation.

If it was found to be self defense by the Body of Elders I would expect they would be in close contact with the Branch on how to handle the situation beyond that.

I do know of one similar case, the brother lost any privileges and that was it. He had actually killed two people. This was in the late 70s. 

There were no surviving witnesses and the brothers and police only had his word to go on.

[Jodievt]

I hate when where I live is used for pro-gun argument. I will be the first to say straight up I don't understand the interest in guns. It's not a thing here in Australia and I also think it's a culture thing. Yes guns can be bought black market but a gun attack is not common occurance. The cal shooter managed to stockpile and causr many fatalities. But notice this "California has tighter gun laws" argument is pushed by the media takes the attention away from thw tragedy of the situation. I notice that so much now days.

Bring on the new system

[Trina]

So, if a brother owns a personal firearm for the protection of himself and his family, and uses it in a lethal shooting against an intruder, which is ruled to be  justifiable homicide by the police, would he still be subject to disciplinary action by the congregation for:

 

1. Owning a firearm for protection?

2. Taking another person's life?

Sorry brother I didn't make myself clear, I was not talking about humans. I would hope that if attacked by someone you would defend yourself in a no lethal manner though and not just give up and let them kill you.

[Shawnster]

I wish people would be so up in arms (pun intended) about insisting everyone has the right to free healthcare and higher education like they are about the right to obtain and own guns.

 

Healthcare?  You're on your own; US doesn't consider that a right.  If you must die early because you can't afford doctors/medicines,, well that's too bad.

 

Guns?  Getchu one whenever you feel like it... and a million people will be on your side about it.  Such mentality is  wicked and I'll be glad when it's all finished.  

 

I've seen plenty of people mention this.  I think the emotions surrounding gun violence make it difficult for some to understand what is being discussed by pro-gun enthusiasts when they mention "rights."

 

The right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution.  It was placed there as a "guarantee" that the government would never become oppressive or totalitarian.  The US had just fought a revolution against a tyrant.  By guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, the Constitution was making a provision designed to keep the government in check.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to free healthcare, education, shelter, etc...  

 

So, when talking about rights, these individuals are discussing legal rights and are not discussing morality.  

 

If the people want the US government to become concerned about the right for free healthcare, education, shelter, etc... then they can being the process by creating a Constitutional Amendment for such things.  That is the structure set up.  

 

Of course, they aren't going to do that.  This is a prime example of how man cannot direct his own steps.  

[Shawnster]

MacGyver once used a gun as a valve handle to close a valve. It wasn't designed to do that but it worked...   

 

And my question did specify "design."

 

And my question also specified "kill," not murder.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Shawnster

[Trina]

It is scriptural to defend yourself too. But the brothers probably don't know what to do because of strong opinions on both sides so for those who thinks it's bad to use a gun the brother would be reprimanded by taking privileges???

Because in bible times if they accidentally killed someone in defending themselves they were forgiven by Jehovah.

And what about a sister who is weaker that would use a weapon to defend herself from being killed? Would the same punishment happen?

[Hope]

I've seen plenty of people mention this.  I think the emotions surrounding gun violence make it difficult for some to understand what is being discussed by pro-gun enthusiasts when they mention "rights."

 

The right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution.  It was placed there as a "guarantee" that the government would never become oppressive or totalitarian.  The US had just fought a revolution against a tyrant.  By guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, the Constitution was making a provision designed to keep the government in check.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to free healthcare, education, shelter, etc...  

 

So, when talking about rights, these individuals are discussing legal rights and are not discussing morality.  

 

If the people want the US government to become concerned about the right for free healthcare, education, shelter, etc... then they can being the process by creating a Constitutional Amendment for such things.  That is the structure set up.  

 

Of course, they aren't going to do that.  This is a prime example of how man cannot direct his own steps.  

 

Oh, I know just what they mean regarding gun rights.  It's just a shame that ensuring THOSE rights is a higher ideal than ensuring rights of healthcare, education, shelter.  It's appalling that any country's government cares so little for its citizens.

 

I do not believe the intent of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that it would be easy for random, untrained people to procure pretty much any sort of gun they want with impunity.  That "well-regulated militia" clause never seems to be addressed (we do have a National Guard now, that didn't exist in the 18th century).  And since there is no way private gun owners will be able to stop a government that actually wants to oppress them, that amendment seems to be rather moot.

 

It's an American thing, it's the culture and it makes me sad. And a bit worse -- the fact that there are different regulations in every state, as opposed to having a unified system throughout the country -- like other countries -- makes it even more unmanageable.  The United States is a microcosm of the Daniel idol's clay and iron feet... a bunch of groups of governments within the same country that can't stick together or agree on anything.  It's pathetic...  and I'm always a bit nervous to hear Witnesses seem so happy with such a "right" as owning a gun.  

 

But to each, their own.

[AH173]

I've resisted up until now. All this talk about guns have stirred up my interest on this subject.

It's time for this to be a personal study project. I'm going to have to refresh what I studied in the past.

New World Translation

Pr 18:13When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating.

Reference Bible

Pr 18:13When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears [it], that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.

American Standard Version

Pr 18:13He that giveth answer before he heareth, It is folly and shame unto him.

Kingdom Interlinear

The selected verse is not present in this Bible.

Byington

Pr 18:13For one who answers before he hears the upshot is irrelevance and humiliation.

King James Version

Pr 18:13He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Customize

[Hanah45]

I've resisted up until now. All this talk about guns have stirred up my interest on this subject.

It's time for this to be a personal study project. I'm going to have to refresh what I studied in the past.

New World Translation

Pr 18:13When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating.

Reference Bible

Pr 18:13When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears [it], that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.

American Standard Version

Pr 18:13He that giveth answer before he heareth, It is folly and shame unto him.

Kingdom Interlinear

The selected verse is not present in this Bible.

Byington

Pr 18:13For one who answers before he hears the upshot is irrelevance and humiliation.

King James Version

Pr 18:13He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Customize

I felt like I knew my own opinion regarding this sensitive issue, but as the discussion progressed, I was thinking the same. I must research and pray. Even so, there are allowances for different opinions different than my own.

What I most appreciate about this forum, is the opportunity to hear other views, I may not change my mind, but I value the exchange of ideas and the broadening of my own horizons.

Also when engaging in discussions in person, there are so many factors that affect and inhibit the free exchange of ideas. Gender, age, congregation positions, personal dynamics, etc..

Thank you so much for this valuable resource.

[AH173]

I'm in agreement in your statement. I looked this up in the past, it's just time to refresh my personal viewing on this. ☺

[Trina]

I think the issue is that the people in the U.S. believe that if the government takes away their rights for guns for protection against...whatever it is for each person I guess, then all of the other constitutional rights can be taken and probably would be, such as the freedom of religion, the right to free speech and so on and so on.

This "US gun mentality" is part of what makes the U.S. the final world power so Jehovah knew all of this would happen. No matter what weapon it is a person with mall intent will find something. But guns are legal in other countries too, the difference is that the U.S. Is the leading world power so they get all the attention. Here is a huge list of other countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

But the gun laws will not remove the option to legally obtain a gun in the U.S. All the president wants to do is stop the machine gun sales and stop allowing one with mental disorders and those who have violent criminal backgrounds and recently they are adding in immigrants from other countries or those traveling through on visas.

So when they speak of changing gun laws they are not even considering outlawing them completely.

[Tortuga]

Can someone organize this topic for me?

We seem to be discussing guns for target practice, guns for self defense, the availability of guns, the right to own a gun, the right to good medical care. It seems to be all mixed up in one conversation and I've lost track...

 

 

Edit: Where is the 'rhetorical question/sarcasm' emoticon?

Edited December 7, 2015 by Tortuga

[Tbs77]

Originally a news report:

California shooting: Victims reported - http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-34987697

[Tbs77]

Can someone organize this topic for me?

We seem to be discussing guns for target practice, guns for self defense, the availability of guns, the right to own a gun, the right to good medical care. It seems to be all mixed up in one conversation and I've lost track...

You forgot bacon.

[Trina]

And popcorn!!! Lol

[Shawnster]

And beards