Shooting in California

[Stormswift]

]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.

 

YOOOHOOOOOO Richard??????? How many MORE are there?

[Stormswift]

Re: Guns I HATE them with a passion. However to balance it I do concede there are some good uses for them - my family hunt a lot, while I hate hunting myself, I can't see any scriptural reason not to do it - unless it was for sport of course.

 

You do have to admit though that guns are made to shoot things. It's like the scripture that says your spears will be turned into plowshares etc etc ... are all spears bad? Nup. They too are used for hunting at times - so what is going to disappear is the wanton killing and wars - the attitudes behind this. Does this mean that guns will become defunct? Possibly but maybe not.

 

I'm afraid the topic of guns is usually in the political arena centered around handguns and the like rather than hunting implements. So I absolutely abhor the possession of anything designed to take another human life. But to have a rifle here in NZ is common ... because hunting is something we do here besides fishing. My brother even sells hunting gear and sharpens knives etc.

 

EDIT: Not that I call, one quail between five big strapping brothers hunting!

Edited December 7, 2015 by Stormswift

[Trina]

I'm in agreement with any legislation that will hasten the end, if it means banning guns to get things going towards the end then I wish they would hurry up and just do it!

[Shawnster]

  (I don't know why he looks so mad)

 

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.

 

 

 

You're looking at the 2nd Amendment through the lens of the 20th and 21st centuries.  You're not really looking at it in the context of the times it was written.  You almost are there in your comment about the National Guard not existing in the 18th century.

 

No, the 2nd Amendment was NOT to ensure that it would be easy for random, untrained people to procure any sort of gun with impunity.  The framers of the Constitution had no way to imagine how gun technology would develop.  In their day guns were flintlock rifles and pistols and nearly every man in North America owned one.  The vast majority of food was procured through hunting, so, nearly every man was trained on the use of guns.

 

My uncle felt like you did (he probably still does).  I remember nearly over 30 years ago he said the same thing, that the 2nd Amendment was not intended for anything more than hunting.  That's not taking into account the times they lived in.  The 2nd Amendment is quite clear about a "well-trained militia" as you noted.  The 2nd Amendment was all about a militia or an army.

 

When the US was formed there was no United States Army.  The central government did not have ultimate power, nor was it intended to have the final say.  The framers of the Constitution intended for the central government to be weak and the state governments to be strong.  The US was intended to be more a loose confederation of states banding together for mutual support, trade and defense.  What was legal in one state might be illegal in another and that was fine.  

 

Each state, therefore, operated a state militia.  In times of crisis the state militias worked together.  Over the course of time the idea of a federal army grew.  The Civil War settled the notion of which side had the final authority.  The Federal Government became supreme and the State Governments were subservient.  Each state still maintains a National Guard but, in reality, all the National Gurads act on pretty much the same level as the Army, since there is no need to defend an individual state.

 

When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was written by "private gun owners" who had just defeated the British.  It was private gun owners, civilian farmers and businessmen that successfully rebelled against a tyrannical government.  4 score and 7 years later, it was private gun owners, civilian farmers and businessmen that again waged a 4 year civil war against what they perceived to be a tyrannical and oppressive government.

 

So, the idea that private gun owners being able to stop a government is based in history and continues today. Around the globe today private gun owners have begun civil wars and insurrections.  Typically though, it's tactically sound to get the army to be on their side, though.

 

It does seem like a moot amendment, but it's still in the Constitution.  It can be nullified, though, by another Amendment.  Out of all the complaining about gun control, why hasn't someone put forth the idea of a Constitutional Amendment on gun control?

 

You know, I do understand where you are coming from with regards the 2nd Amendment not being about acquiring any sort of weapon.  That is something I would like to ask a staunch NRA supporter.  Where does it stop?  If the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, at what point does that right stop?  Do I have the right to bear a tactical nuke?  Why not?  What about  a bazooka?  Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee my right to keep and bear a bazooka or a RPG or a howitzer or an anti-aircraft gun?  It's only handguns and rifles I see and hear the NRA supporters comment on, never on weapons of mass destruction.  Apparently they see a difference.

[Hope]

I agree that the 2nd amendment has practically no value in today's world.  And I understand the originators' intent and the socio-political climate of the 18th century... I did massive study on the Constitution throughout high school.  It's a fascinating topic and document; rather a masterpiece of an idea.  But enacting much of it is much more of a challenge that anyone could have conceived.  Let's don't get me started on State's Rights and what an often sad ideas that's turned out to be... 

 

Right now, that amendment is ALL tied up in very powerful groups' ideas of independence, "The American Way", little guy vs. everyone else and so on -- it's almost mythical rather than practical.  Certainly they could revoke that amendment - they did it with Prohibition, they added one to make enslaved people not be enslaved anymore, there's something protecting abortion...

 

But heaven forbid any stronger regulations surround the ability to get a grip on these nuts getting weapons at the K-Mart.  If the same statutes were required for gun ownership as is required for getting a drivers license and owning a car, even that would be something.  I know.... only God's Kingdom will solve it all.

 

My apologies in advance if I've offended anyone.  I just never grew up with the idea that guns for anything other than hunting had any value whatsoever.    

[AH173]

Loved the 'refresh' on USA early history. ☺

[Old]

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.

I had to refresh my memory on this. 

The brother did not lose any privileges as he was not being used at that time. Though baptized he was on the fringe of the congregation.

The circumstantial evidence supported his story.

 

Further note:

*** w83 7/15 p. 24 par. 12 “Seek Peace and Pursue It” ***

12 In line with Romans 13:1, 4, the worldly “superior authorities” may set up certain peace-keeping agencies, such as police, that are armed officially to protect citizens and property. Since such arrangements permitted by God are described as “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad,” it would be in order for the Christian to request and receive protection from such an agency. But even if he finds it necessary to defend himself or his loved ones by whatever is at hand, he should not use firearms. Nor would he take the law into his own hands. In many countries it is illegal even to possess firearms for self-defense.—Matthew 22:21; compare Exodus 22:2.

[tekmantwo]

That is something I would like to ask a staunch NRA supporter. Where does it stop? If the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, at what point does that right stop? Do I have the right to bear a tactical nuke? Why not? What about a bazooka? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee my right to keep and bear a bazooka or a RPG or a howitzer or an anti-aircraft gun?

I did a little bit of research for you, I called one of the rabid, foaming at the mouth pro constitution, pro gun rights people that I know.

My daughter. ... (actually,number 2of4)

Before she went into hysterics and started babbling I was able to determine that yes, the 2nd ammendment was intended to allow common citizens (she did not like that word) the ability to overthrow and defeat a tyrannical government and so yes, it would/should (moral issues disregarded) include any and all weapons that the government itself has, up to and including nukes.

I, personally, agree with our Sister Trina and would most happily give up any and all of my intricately machined and delicately carved items that the satanic government wants to consider a weapon.

Cars, trucks...yes, even the lifted '86 4runner with big wheels...

Firearms, even the black powder ones I've never loaded.

Fishing poles, complete with reels.

Cooking knives, forks, spoons.

Air rifles. .

Kayaks, complete with my favorite 'assault paddle'.

Bicycles, both of ours.

And, the list could go on, aud nauseum....

Anything can be used as a weapon, it is the user that is wielding it that determines if, in fact, it is..

Hope that helps....

[Tbs77]

Our circuit had correspondence with Branch in 2013 regarding employment with stun guns and tasers...

Let your conscience be your guide... brothers and sisters would not be exemplary therefore no privileges especially if BOE worked with them and they still decided to keep employment.

[tekmantwo]

I had to refresh my memory on this. 

 

Further note:

*** w83 7/15 p. 24 par. 12 “Seek Peace and Pursue It” ***

12 In line with Romans 13:1, 4, the worldly “superior authorities” may set up certain peace-keeping agencies, such as police, that are armed officially to protect citizens and property. Since such arrangements permitted by God are described as “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad,” it would be in order for the Christian to request and receive protection from such an agency. But even if he finds it necessary to defend himself or his loved ones by whatever is at hand, he should not use firearms. Nor would he take the law into his own hands. In many countries it is illegal even to possess firearms for self-defense.—Matthew 22:21; compare Exodus 22:2.

Brother Old Jerry, I believe there is more recent info on this. I am on a tablet right now and can't check but I think it was in '06, maybe, and it was on the back page of one of the magazines. It addressed hunting and self defense, if I recall correctly. ...

[Tbs77]

Brother Old Jerry, I believe there is more recent info on this. I am on a tablet right now and can't check but I think it was in '06, maybe, and it was on the back page of one of the magazines. It addressed hunting and self defense, if I recall correctly. ...

QR November 15, 2005

Addresses principles

Edited December 7, 2015 by Tbs77

[tekmantwo]

QR November 15, 2005

Addresses principles

Thank you. ..

Actually, after further review, that is not the article I am remembering. The article, and I think it was a back page so it was short, also addressed sport hunting, concluding that hunting was ok, for feeding or survival but that trophy hunting would not be. It also concluded that self defense should be likened to ancient times in that if you struggled with an intruder and he died as a result, you would not be found guilty, whereas if it happened in the day, and you were able to identify said intruder, you wouldn't want to shoot him dead...

Edited December 7, 2015 by tekmantwo

[Old]

Brother Old Jerry, I believe there is more recent info on this. I am on a tablet right now and can't check but I think it was in '06, maybe, and it was on the back page of one of the magazines. It addressed hunting and self defense, if I recall correctly. ...

I am trying to find the article that addressed the hiring of armed protective services in areas like South Africa. So far haven't been able to find it.

Long for a google like search engine fro WTL.

 

QR November 15, 2005

Addresses principles

I don't think this changed anything, so I just left the previous reference.

*** w05 11/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

In these “last days,” more and more people are “fierce, without love of goodness.” (2 Timothy 3:1, 3) Knowing this, could a person remain “free from accusation” were he to choose armed employment that might bring him into conflict with such individuals? (1 Timothy 3:10) Hardly. For this reason, the congregation would not regard such a person as “irreprehensible” if he continued to carry a weapon after being kindly given Bible counsel. (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:5, 6) Thus, such a man or woman would not qualify for any special privileges in the congregation.

 

Anyone have more up to date info on armed for self defense?

 

Another question, would a brother that had handguns, for the expressed purpose of self defense, qualify for privileges in the congregation?

[tekmantwo]

Jerry, I do know an Elder, who used to be a policeman, who does keep a handgun for that reason.

He told me that himself, when we were discussing this, years back....

[Tbs77]

Let your conscience be your guide:

From 2013 email from CO to COBEs to MSs:

Dear Brothers,

>

One of the congregations in our circuit has written the Branch regarding carrying a stun gun or taser. Of course we understand that carrying any gun for employment would deem a brother or sister as "NOT AN EXAMPLE" to the congregation and therefore would not be allowed to offer prayer, carry mics, aux pioneer etc. However in the reply to the congregation the Branch has also said that stun guns and tazers would be included in this. The Branch sights the QR November 1, 2005 WT page 31 as stating that one carrying a firearm or another weapon would be a personal decision. Another weapon would include a stun gun or even pepper spray carried specifically to inflict harm on another person either defensively or offensively. The Branch continues to write that Christians do not arm themselves with weapons to defend themselves against human attack. The Branch stated that a brother would not be regarded as exemplary if he was to continue with such employment after being given a reasonable period of time perhaps up to three months to make the needed changes. If he or she does not make this change they should not be allowed privileges in the congregation since they would not be an example. The Branch said to share this information with other congregations that may face this dilemma.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Tbs77

[AH173]

I had to refresh my memory on this. 

The brother did not lose any privileges as he was not being used at that time. Though baptized he was on the fringe of the congregation.

The circumstantial evidence supported his story.

 

Further note:

*** w83 7/15 p. 24 par. 12 “Seek Peace and Pursue It” ***

12 In line with Romans 13:1, 4, the worldly “superior authorities” may set up certain peace-keeping agencies, such as police, that are armed officially to protect citizens and property. Since such arrangements permitted by God are described as “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad,” it would be in order for the Christian to request and receive protection from such an agency. But even if he finds it necessary to defend himself or his loved ones by whatever is at hand, he should not use firearms. Nor would he take the law into his own hands. In many countries it is illegal even to possess firearms for self-defense.—Matthew 22:21; compare Exodus 22:2.

Thanks Brother Jerry. This was to be included on personal study project. ☺

[hatcheckgirl]

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

 

JWs live in a satanic world, we know that all too well.  So this latest shooting again shows us the system is shot. It is using it's own "security system" to inflict harm on others, whether or not it was originally set up with good intentions back in early American history.  Humans, with their imperfect bent and satanic control cannot be guided by their own ideas or principles, and any laws humans make for security are broken.  So we all know that only Jehovah's Kingdom, with its righteous laws and subjects who follow them out of love for their fellow man, is the only solution.

 

What I don't actually appreciate is that threads like this become quite American-centered, because of your own gun culture.  A lot of us watching on just do not understand this, and never will.  To us we read the simplistic statement "They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore" to mean no more violence with weapons, any weapons. No need for protection from bears, humans or anything.  A secure paradise.  We have no way of knowing the ins and outs of how this will be accomplished (ie questions about hunting for food), and I will not speculate here.

 

I accept the differing opinions here, and I have learned so much from your points of view living amidst the US gun culture.  But we in other areas of the world watch on and just don't understand. 

[Tortuga]

Thank you. ..

Actually, after further review, that is not the article I am remembering. The article, and I think it was a back page so it was short, also addressed sport hunting, concluding that hunting was ok, for feeding or survival but that trophy hunting would not be. It also concluded that self defense should be likened to ancient times in that if you struggled with an intruder and he died as a result, you would not be found guilty, whereas if it happened in the day, and you were able to identify said intruder, you wouldn't want to shoot him dead...

This one?

 

*** w07 12/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

Questions From Readers

How should a Christian view hunting and fishing?

The Bible does not condemn hunting or fishing. (Deuteronomy 14:4, 5, 9, 20; Matthew 17:27; John 21:6) Still, Christians who hunt or fish need to consider several Scriptural principles.

God permitted Noah and his descendants to kill and eat animals, provided they bled the animals before eating them. (Genesis 9:3, 4) This directive emphasized that animal life should be respected as having originated with God. Thus, Christians do not kill animals merely for sport or for fun and with wanton disregard for life.—Proverbs 12:10.

There is an additional aspect involving our attitude. The apostles who were fishermen were likely gratified by a good catch. Yet, there is no indication that they bragged about their prowess at fishing or hunting or that they went fishing or hunting to compete with others, to prove their manhood, or to have the thrill of the chase, the fight, or the kill.—Psalm 11:5; Galatians 5:26.

Thus, we might ask ourselves: ‘Am I an example in showing respect for Jehovah’s view of life? Does hunting or fishing dominate my thinking and conversation? Does my way of life reflect the hunting culture, or does it show that I am a minister of God? Does hunting or fishing put me in close association with unbelievers or cause me to neglect my family?’—Luke 6:45.

Some who hunt or fish for food may feel justified in putting aside spiritual matters during hunting and fishing seasons. However, we show faith and trust in God when we do not let anything take priority over his interests. (Matthew 6:33) Furthermore, Christians obey all of “Caesar’s” laws regarding hunting and fishing, whether the authorities enforce them or not.—Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1.

To conform to Jehovah’s view of hunting and fishing, some may need to adjust their thinking with regard to his standards. (Ephesians 4:22-24) On the other hand, we need to respect the conscientious decisions of others. Appropriate in this case is the apostle Paul’s counsel: “Let us not be judging one another any longer, but rather make this your decision, not to put before a brother a stumbling block.” (Romans 14:13) Showing such unselfish love and respect makes for peace in the congregation and pleases our Maker, the Source of all life.—1 Corinthians 8:13.

[Footnote]

See also “Questions From Readers” in the May 15, 1990, issue of The Watchtower.

[Tbs77]

Let your conscience be your guide:

From 2013 email from CO to COBEs to MSs:

Dear Brothers,

>

One of the congregations in our circuit has written the Branch regarding carrying a stun gun or taser. Of course we understand that carrying any gun for employment would deem a brother or sister as "NOT AN EXAMPLE" to the congregation and therefore would not be allowed to offer prayer, carry mics, aux pioneer etc. However in the reply to the congregation the Branch has also said that stun guns and tazers would be included in this. The Branch sights the QR November 1, 2005 WT page 31 as stating that one carrying a firearm or another weapon would be a personal decision. Another weapon would include a stun gun or even pepper spray carried specifically to inflict harm on another person either defensively or offensively. The Branch continues to write that Christians do not arm themselves with weapons to defend themselves against human attack. The Branch stated that a brother would not be regarded as exemplary if he was to continue with such employment after being given a reasonable period of time perhaps up to three months to make the needed changes. If he or she does not make this change they should not be allowed privileges in the congregation since they would not be an example. The Branch said to share this information with other congregations that may face this dilemma.

See above

[Tbs77]

Sorry about double post.

[Hope]

JWs live in a satanic world, we know that all too well.  So this latest shooting again shows us the system is shot. It is using it's own "security system" to inflict harm on others, whether or not it was originally set up with good intentions back in early American history.  Humans, with their imperfect bent and satanic control cannot be guided by their own ideas or principles, and any laws humans make for security are broken.  So we all know that only Jehovah's Kingdom, with its righteous laws and subjects who follow them out of love for their fellow man, is the only solution.

 

What I don't actually appreciate is that threads like this become quite American-centered, because of your own gun culture.  A lot of us watching on just do not understand this, and never will.  To us we read the simplistic statement "They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore" to mean no more violence with weapons, any weapons. No need for protection from bears, humans or anything.  A secure paradise.  We have no way of knowing the ins and outs of how this will be accomplished (ie questions about hunting for food), and I will not speculate here.

 

I accept the differing opinions here, and I have learned so much from your points of view living amidst the US gun culture.  But we in other areas of the world watch on and just don't understand. 

 

I don't understand it, either..   It's beyond sense... 

[cricket246]

Okay now I have several things to do research on! I have heard many brothers and sisters discussing this subject in my congregation - some feel guns are okay for hunting and protection from wild animals, others feel they are okay for self protection as long as you don't use them to kill, and others are completely against any guns whatsoever (I respect all views and try not to do anything to offend their consciences - as the scriptures advise, I try to become all things to all people )

But I have often wondered, if someone did have a gun and in trying to merely protect themself they accidentally kill someone wuld they lose their privileges? Also, if someone broke into your house and say they had a gun. You try to get the gun away from them but it goes off, accidentally killing them in the process. Are you still responsible for the death?

Also, if someone is say trying to physically attack a woman/young girl, and they try to protect theirself. If they push the person away, then that person accidentally falls down the steps, hits their head, etc., is that sister responsible of murder? Did she use her hands as a weapon or was it simply self defense?

[Tortuga]

Thank you. ..

Actually, after further review, that is not the article I am remembering. The article, and I think it was a back page so it was short, also addressed sport hunting, concluding that hunting was ok, for feeding or survival but that trophy hunting would not be. It also concluded that self defense should be likened to ancient times in that if you struggled with an intruder and he died as a result, you would not be found guilty, whereas if it happened in the day, and you were able to identify said intruder, you wouldn't want to shoot him dead...

 

or this?

 

The Bible’s Viewpoint

When Is Self-Defense Justified?

 

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102008204

Edited December 7, 2015 by Tortuga

[tekmantwo]

Rich, thanks but I am not so sure now that I recall correctly. That QFR sounds like what I was remembering but it doesn't mention the self defense aspects of it,mayhaps I am mixing 2 separate articles together?...dunno. I cant drive this tablet like I would like to but I can use a phone, and I just may know someone that might know. ..brb.

[Stormswift]

In answer to Tortuga's When is self defense ok?

 

 

When a tortoise can't run fast enough to get out from under a car? Then he becomes a NINJA turtle! (only in self defense of course!)

Edited December 7, 2015 by Stormswift