Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms

July 20, 2012 at 8:43 AM 7 comments

In our last article, we briefly discussed the growing police state of America and the growing number of rogue cops that become judge, jury, and in some cases, executioner.  With the amount of unreasonable demands made by way too many law enforcement officials, it is very clear that a person’s 4th Amendment rights – the one that protects civilians from unreasonable search and seizure – is going the way of the dinosaur.

Here’s the thing.  Law enforcement agencies will generally stand by their officers, unless the crime they commit against civilians is so egregious that firing them (and in some cases, arresting them) cannot be avoided.  Go to YouTube and take the time to peruse numerous videos showing where law enforcement already had a suspect under control, but decided that they needed to pummel the crap out of him/her anyway simply because they are so filled with adrenaline and feelings of power that they actually believe what they are doing is fine.

In watching these videos, what you’ll actually see are cops that have gone bad.  They believe they have a right to be sarcastic, unreasonable, demanding, brutal, and even physical when it comes down to it.  It’s not because of any perceived violation of the law that they believe this.  It is due solely to the fact that in too many cases, they believe themselves to BE the law.  It’s kind of like a “Judge Dredd” mentality in which those representing the law are actually the arresting officer, the prosecuting attorney, the judge, the jury, and the executioner all rolled up into one person.

But another one of the freedoms guaranteed by this country’s founding documents is under attack.  The right to bear arms has long been in the sights of those who are desperate to eradicate this freedom.  They do not want the average citizen to being able to possess guns at all.  While they say that the reason for this has to do with their concern for anyone and everyone who is killed by guns, the reality is that this reasoning is merely a smoke screen designed to mask their real motivations.

Normally, people who are opposed to guns – anti-gunners – refer to statistics to bolster their arguments that guns kill way too many people therefore they should be outlawed.  What they routinely do not tell you is that the statistics they represent normally include people who do use guns, but not in the commission of a crime.  The number of people who use a gun and wind up killing someone also includes the people who are using a gun to defend themselves against criminals who are attempting to do them harm.

For instance, this past month, there were any numbers of incidents in which civilians used guns to protect themselves and/or their families from intruders, carjackers, and the like.  These incidents are never reported in the mainstream media because the media is controlled by people who present lies on a routine basis.  It doesn’t matter which news bureau is doing the reporting – CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. – because all of them essentially have the same agenda.  They want people to believe that only if guns were outlawed, crime would go way down.  This has been shown to be false repeatedly, but the lies keep coming.

These incidents are from USConcealed Carry and can easily be verified.  Have you heard of any of these situations in the any of the mainstream media?

1)  In Birmingham, AL, a 13-year-old boy came up to a couple as they drove into their driveway at night.  He was wearing a bandana and carried a loaded and cocked pistol.  His demand was that they get out of the car and give it up.  The male driver took out his own gun and fired at the 13-year-old, who eventually died.  It is being investigated as a justifiable homicide.

2)  In Modesto, CA, a 62-year-old former marine heard noise as two men broke into his home during a home invasion.  The man saw the invaders as they attacked the man’s stepson.  The former marine grabbed his .357 Magnum and fired at the intruders.  He struck one in the leg and both ran.  The wounded invader was arrested and charged but the accomplice is still at large.  The homeowner is not being charged in the incident.

3) In Kansas City, MO, a 20-year-old woman opened her door to two teens who said they were looking for someone in that neighborhood.  When the woman said the person they were looking for was not there, the teens put a gun to her head.  They then forced her into a closet and ransacked the house.  The woman kept a gun in the closet and confronted the two teens.  She shot one and the other fled.  The burglar who was shot stumbled out of the front door and died.  The female victim is not expected to face charges.

4) In New Bend, WA, a man and his girlfriend were awakened by the sound of a break-in occurring.  The intruder shouted that he was going to kill whoever was in the house.  The male homeowner took his gun and yelled out that he had a gun and the intruder should leave immediately.  The intruder continued ransacking the home while repeating his threat to kill the people in the home.  When the intruder kicked in the bedroom door where the couple were hiding, the homeowner shot and killed the intruder.  Police in this case praised the homeowner’s restraint saying he only fired on the intruder when he was left with no other choice.

The above examples represent a small percentage of incidents that occur every day throughout the U.S. where normal civilians are the intended victims, but wind up turning the tables on the criminals.  The unfortunate part of course is that anyone is killed, yet it is clearly seen that had the victims not had guns, they would have likely been the ones to have died.

The disingenuous attitude of liberals comes to the fore here though because they will include these incidents in their statistics because it pumps up the number of individuals who are killed by guns.  They know that they are doing this, but they don’t care, because they simply want to find some way to outlaw guns.

Now we have leaders within the U.S. getting ready to vote on whether or not the 2nd Amendment will be abrogated by entering into a “treaty” with the UN.  The vote for this takes place on July 27th, just a few days from now.  It’s referred to as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and if ratified, will give the UN the power to remove guns from citizens of the United States in complete and absolute defiance to the 2nd Amendment.  It is specifically designed to repeal the 2nd Amendment by overriding Congress and the will of the people.

But maybe you’re one who believes that if guns were outlawed, crime would go down?  Again, that has been proven to be completely false repeatedly, but maybe you haven’t heard, or don’t want to know.  You are afraid of guns because they make loud noise and projectiles (bullets) exit the barrel at a speed of at least 400fps (feet per second) and speeds far greater.  You don’t like guns.  You did not grow up around guns, so you have never seen the need for them.  They annoy and scare you and you don’t believe that guns should be part of a “civilized” society.  I don’t either, but I don’t see our society as civilized.

Chicago tried to abrogate the law by making it a crime for civilians and residents of Chicago to own guns even for use as defensive weapons in the case of a home invasion.  In other words, in Chicago, it was against the law for someone to even own and have a gun in their own home.  Maybe you’re saying “good!” but consider the fact that this law was not adhered to by criminals.  In fact, it is a fact that during the time this illegal law was on the books in Chicago, violent crime more than doubled.  Why?  Because the criminals knew that people could not use a gun to defend themselves so the criminal automatically won.

When has any law against anything wiped out the thing it was directed at?  For instance, there are laws against cold-blooded murder, yet people are murdered every day.  There are many laws against drugs, drug used and the selling of drugs, yet people continue to use, abuse, and sell drugs.  The war on drugs is a a war that will not be won.

But all that aside, the truth is that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms, whether anyone likes that or not.  This is merely one of the rights guaranteed under the founding documents for this country.  It doesn’t matter whether individual politicians like those rights or not.  They are guaranteed for the individual.

But let’s say it’s okay with you if the 2nd Amendment was completely eradicated.  The question then becomes what about your pet freedom?  Is it okay if I don’t like it and want to see it removed as well?

The reality is that our rights – all of them – as citizens of this country are under severe attack by people who are more concerned about controlling the masses than caring about us.  They want a docile populace that can be easily controlled so that we will do whatever they say without question.  People with guns have a way to defend themselves against people who are ultimately traitors to this country and its founding documents.

During the Katrina event, one of the first things that the New Orleans Police Department did was to go door to door confiscating all guns.  This was done under the guise of helping people, but the truth of the matter is that the reason they did what they did was to simply take guns, leaving people with no ability to defend themselves against looters.  It was a completely illegal grab for guns, but since it was an “emergency” situation, that became the “hook” to unlawfully take what the government has no right to take.  View the video at the bottom of this article.

I learned this morning that a lone gunman entered a movie theater in Colorado and after lobbing in a tear gas canister, opened fire on the audience, killing 12 and injuring 50.  The gunman – a 24-year-old white man, James Holmes, a PhD student pursuing a degree in neuroscience – is believed to have been part of the Occupy Movement and could have been disgruntled because of the scenes in “The Dark Knight Rises” that show the Occupiers in a bad light.

There will be renewed calls to outlaw all guns because of this by politicians with alligator tears who prey on people’s emotions.  Mr. Obama has already used this situation in a campaign speech where he wondered what would have happened if his girls had been in that movie theater?  Well, obviously, the Secret Service agents guarding Mr. Obama’s daughters would have taken out the perpetrator with their own guns, likely saving numerous lives.

Had James Holmes thought that there might be people inside that theater who had guns of their own with the capability of shooting back at him, he may have thought twice or even three times about doing what he did.  Of course, if we listen to morons like Bill Maher, we are to believe that it takes years of training before anyone would be able to have the wherewithal to open fire on an individual who was trying to kill them.  Absurd, Mr. Maher.

During the situation in which Representative Giffords was shot in a parking lot in Arizona, we know for a fact that someone near the gunman slapped a magazine out his hands as he was attempting to reload.  That person had enough sense to do that.  It didn’t take years of training.  Had that same person had a gun, do you really think that would have been standing there going, “Duh, Gee Tennessee…what do I do NOW?”  Not likely.

An armed society is a polite society.  Only criminals – most of whom carry weapons of all types because they know that the weapon talks for them – will continue to carry guns if/when law-abiding citizens are no longer allowed to do so.  The 2nd Amendment is going down the tubes and even if guns are outlawed, the criminals will continue to have guns and then our society will look very much like England where guns have been outlawed because of a very similar treaty with the UN.  Citizens there are sick and tired of being run over roughshod by criminals who have guns and other weapons and routinely take advantage of average civilians because they know that the citizens do not have guns.

We’ll talk next about the desire of some to limit our freedom of speech.

 

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , .

Hear Us on Your Smart Phone, iPad, or Other Audio Device Colorado Tragedy and the Occupy Shooter

7 Comments

  • 1. Simon  |  July 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM

    Perhaps a stupid question, but don’t Canadians have a lot less of these types of mass killings? And don’t they also have a pretty free access to guns, given they are a hunting nation? Doesn’t that seem to indicate it isn’t just about gun control? Why then the difference?

    • 2. modres  |  July 23, 2012 at 8:02 AM

      Hi Simon,

      How are things on your end of the world? Good, I hope.

      Actually, Canada does not have “pretty free access to guns.” It’s difficult for citizens to obtain a license for a handgun (though easier to obtain a hunting rifle) and the rules for foreigners who go into Canada for hunting are myriad. Citizens of Canada are required to purchase a license in each province they wish to hunt. Moreover, foreigners and visitors to Canada are not allowed to possess guns except in specific casings (such as hunting).

      Like America, there are essentially two opposing groups in Canada; one pro-gun/hunting and the other opposed to it. Registration of handguns became mandatory in the 1930s and since then, hundreds of people each year are rejected when they apply for a permit to simply own a handgun.

      I know that at times, Canadian officials have attempted to blame the United States for their own gun woes, even attempting to sue gun manufacturers in the United States, claiming (without substantiation) that at least 50% of all gun-related crime is due to guns being smuggled in from the United States. This has not been proven and can be shown to be incorrect, but like many politicians in the United States, politicians in Canada at times seem unconditionally opposed to the actual facts.

      Interestingly enough, gun-related violent crimes in Canada have remained somewhat stable with most homicides being committed with knives (including hatchets, axes, etc.). Gun-related violent crime represents about 36% of the total and murder by knife represents roughly 30%.

      I’m really not sure about gun-related massacres in Canada. I’ve have to do the research on it.

      The problem – if you can call it that is that Canada does not have – as does the US – an amendment to the Constitution which guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms.

      Here are some interesting statistics for Canada:

      – There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the
      U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
      – For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
      – For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
      – For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were
      involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
      – For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

      Of course, what also needs to be taken into account is the fact that in the entire Country of Canada, the population is approximately 31 million. In California alone, there are roughly 32 million people living. The population of America is approximately 275 million total. Even our living conditions are completely different with 3.4 people living in one square kilometer (Canada), while there are nearly 30 people living in one square kilometer in the US.

      I am losing faith in our government, frankly. I don’t like to believe in conspiracies, but unfortunately, at this stage of the game, it simply would not surprise me if we ever found out that this most recent massacre by James Holmes was strategically created just prior to the Congressional vote on the Arms Trade Treaty that is to take place this week, July 27th. If it is ratified, the UN will be able to control gun usage and ownership here in America. This is exactly what happened in the UK and now there are people there putting out all types of videos on the ‘Net warning Americans that under no circumstances should we allow our guns to be taken.

      The government does not care if its citizenry is defenseless and that certainly appears to be the growing concern here in the US.

      I watched a debate between Congresspersons Feinstein and Johnson yesterday. Feinstein kept repeating a number of fallacies in her argument. She incorrectly referred to the weapon James Holmes used as an “assault” weapon. It is not an assault weapon at all because it is not a full automatic. It is a semi-automatic, meaning it will shoot only so fast as a person can pull the trigger. Many hunters use that type of weapon for hunting and for target practice. It is not a “tommy gun” or a true “assault” weapon. It simply looks like one.

      I have shot an AR-15 before and to me, it is no different from shooting a rifle, except that I can shoot it faster. There are FAR more devastating rifles available than the AR-15 as well. The AR-15 “looks cool,” and has that army look to it. It appears to be a tactical weapon, but police and SWAT do not use it as they use actual assault rifles and machine pistols.

      Interestingly enough, in 1989 there was a gun-related massacre that occurred, perpetrated by twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, who, while armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself. [1]

      Beyond this, here is a PDF chart that outlines gun-related massacres involving 5 victims or more from 1996 to 2009: http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Works/Cdn_Massacres.pdf and at least five of these incidents were perpetrated with rifles/high-powered rifles. Some were done with handguns, while others are simply listed as the weapon used as being “unknown.”

      I haven’t heard of these, which means I haven’t been paying attention or the news here in America simply hasn’t reported them. As you can see from the chart, there are 14 highlighted events during that time period.

      To me, here is the real problem: guns are simply AVAILABLE. We can no sooner turn the clock back by trying to outlaw all guns, than we can turn the clock back and outlaw all drugs. The Pandora’s box has already been opened. It cannot be shut.

      The US government would like to outlaw all guns for all citizens – that’s my belief. They cannot easily do this because of the 2nd Amendment. Even if they COULD do this, criminals would STILL have guns simply because guns themselves would still be available. It’s that simple.

      Finally, look at Switzerland. There, the law MANDATES that all citizens own guns. Crime rates there are also very low. Many citizens own fully automatic weapons and it seems as though there is a direct correlation between that and the extremely rare circumstances surrounding gun-related crimes and especially what we would call massacres.

      It’s not an easy question, but as far as the United States is concerned, we have the 2nd Amendment which politicians have been attempting to undo or go around for decades, and that 2nd Amendment MUST be considered when dealing with the subject of guns and gun restriction.

      Sorry for the length of my response, Simon but thanks for asking the question. :)

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

  • 3. Debbie  |  July 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    First off, I didn’t realize you had dealt with this subject in a previous blog as this was only the second one I have read from you and both were unrelated topics. This particular article that I posted a comment on, started out talking about rogue cops and directing people to watch utube video clips of them. I think balance is needed when discussing these types of situations, because there still are many in the police that are doing a good job. But instead of pointing this out to people, they were directed to utube videos which are only showing the worst incidences. These worst case scenarios surely exist and need to be pointed out at the same time it should be duly noted how many good officers we have. My point was to simply articulate that we need to support the good police and realize the squeeze that they and their families face. I don’t think the blog was balanced in this way.

    Paul being Jewish, Roman and Christian used those platforms to further the gospel and not his rights. In saying that I do not mean to convey that we cannot peaceably assemble or ask for a redress of grievances… but to point out that Paul was about Christ and the gospel. Not merely his rights or standing up for them because he knew he was also a citizen from another kingdom. He was in chains because of the gospel, not for standing up to the “man”.

    I apologize that you have taken this as a personal attack because it surely is not. I disagree with the start of this blog post for lack of balance, and still do, and because of the way you responded surely don’t want to read anymore. A little humility and less defensiveness could go a long way in having a discussion.

    • 4. modres  |  July 21, 2012 at 3:19 PM

      Here is the start of the article you chose to comment on, Debbie:

      In our last article, we briefly discussed the growing police state of America and the growing number of rogue cops that become judge, jury, and in some cases, executioner. With the amount of unreasonable demands made by way too many law enforcement officials, it is very clear that a person’s 4th Amendment rights – the one that protects civilians from unreasonable search and seizure – is going the way of the dinosaur.

      What do you think “in our last article” meant? Doesn’t it refer BACK to the previous article? Yes. Wouldn’t that mean that the first paragraph was a very quick summation of that last article? Again, yes.

      I have taken the time to place in bold the text that is important to consider. I used the phrase “growing number of rogue cops…” At no time in the article you are referring to did I state or imply that ALL cops are rogue. That’s YOUR misconception. YOU are wrong and YOU should apologize for that mistake on your part, period. Even now though, you are attempting to continue to assault me by implying that my article was not “balanced.” I think my article is very balanced and again, at NO TIME did I state or imply that ALL law enforcement officials are rogue.

      I understand exactly why Paul did what he did. My point was that as a Roman citizen, he chose to use that privileged status for whatever reason. I also understand why Paul was in chains. He was in chains because he preached the gospel of Christ, which at that time, was becoming questionable at best and illegal at worst. I would STILL preach the gospel even if/when it becomes illegal in this country to do so.

      My comments were related to the fact that as an American citizen AND a Christian, I have rights guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects me as a citizen AND as a Christian. Rogue cops are not allowed to set aside my Constitutional rights simply because they feel like it. I have recourse.

      Your apology is disingenuous. You are actually not apologizing for being wrong, but simply apologizing that I somehow misunderstood YOUR words, which I did not.

      YOU assumed something I did not do or say and your apology – such as it is – simply paints me as someone who decided to see your words as a personal attack when YOU say they are not. Yet, it is SOLELY because you misunderstood my words in the first place (and are still resolutely hanging onto that preference) that you DISAGREED with them and chose to respond. Your response was based on your MISCONCEPTIONS, plain and simple.

      I never gained from your original comments (or your most recent ones) that you were interested in a discussion at all. It seemed more like a dressing down on your part to me. Even the questions asked at the end of your first set of comments seemed to be done for the purpose of belittling me as if I have NEVER done any of those things.

      I cannot admit to something that I did not say or imply to make you feel better or to provide with some sense that you have taken me to task and therefore, humbled me. It has nothing to do with humility and everything to do with truth. You misunderstood me, yet you continue to find ways to shine the light on my perceived faults instead of simply admitting that you are at fault here.

      Look in the mirror regarding humility, all right? You are 100% WRONG about what I said and what I meant. The fact that you cannot admit that clearly and cleanly along with the fact that you are walking away in a “huff” proves YOUR lack of humility.

  • 5. Debbie  |  July 21, 2012 at 1:33 AM

    I disagree with your blanket statement that our cops have gone rogue. This is simply not true. Yes, there have always been those men/women who tarnish the badge by their conduct and abuse of power. And yes, I can see as our society continues to degenerate that this may be on the rise especially in large cities. But to just throw this out there to cast blame on our law enforcement who are being squeezed by an ever increasing crime and depraved society and a debauched government is simply untrue and unfair. I know many law enforcement officers who serve the public faithfully and don’t get any respect from people such as yourself and who lump all the police together. They are men and the majority of them I would say desire to do the right thing in protecting and serving. They are in a thankless job, always there when someone doesn’t want them to be there and never there fast enough when people want them around. They don’t get paid much and their families suffer with the stress of midnight phone calls and not knowing if their loved one is going to return home. If we didn’t have them, our society would be in a much worse condition as lawlessness would have free reign. Even now it is increasing. Have you prayed for our law enforcement, ministered to them, talked with them? I would suggest further study in Romans 13. Not saying there isn’t bad police, but to lump them all together like you did is shameful.

    • 6. modres  |  July 21, 2012 at 8:06 AM

      Actually, your improper judgment of my words is what is truly shameful.

      I’m trying hard not to be sarcastic in my response to you. Not ONCE did I make the blanket statement that you are accusing me of making. I have friends AND relatives in law enforcement and they agree with me. They know all too well that there are too many rogue cops and the system does little because everything is done through Internal Affairs and because of that, too often the officers who break the law and abrogate citizens’ rights wind up being cleared of any wrongdoing.

      I’ve seen videos of police chases where the perpetrator flipped his car, was thrown clear, and landed unconscious on the side of the road. Soon after that, a group of six to eight officers ran up to the person and began kicking and punching him WHILE HE WAS UNCONSCIOUS! All they had to do was handcuff him and be done with it.

      I have seen videos of police officers AFTER they have the suspect in handcuffs, TAZER the individual, kick and beat him simply because they CAN.

      Why do you think groups like PoliceAbuse.com exist? Because there are too many rogue cops and even ONE rogue cop is too many. In fact, it was through the efforts of PoliceAbuse.com that police cruisers had dashcams installed. It serves to protect both the citizens AND the police because cameras make it quite clear what occurred.

      As I stated in my FIRST article (numerous times), MOST officers are hard-working, honest, and do their job wonderfully. They are there to protect and serve and they understand that. But there are too many rogue cops who should not be cops at all.

      Here are some comments from a friend of mine who spent his entire career working for LAPD and is now retired from the force. His father before him worked for LAPD as well:

      “The quality of law enforcement personnel varies from one municipality to another. There are rogue cops in every agency. Some agencies more than others. Recruitment standards have been modified to accommodate a lot of folks who do not belong in the various police agencies. They should not be cops! Period!

      “Law enforcement officers reflect the community. All law enforcement officers take an oath to defend and protect the United States Constitution. So do politicians and judges and others. I don’t see the United States Constitution being protected anywhere.

      “There is no excuse for the abuse of the citizens of this great nation. As we know and see, there is wholesale abuse of the American citizen at all levels of government. It is so sad to witness.”

      If you will take the time to re-read this article AND the previous one, you will under no circumstances come away with the impression that I was making a “blanket statement that our cops have gone rogue.” That is simply asinine on your part.

      This particular article begins with a summary of the previous article in which I specifically noted on several occasions throughout the article that by NO means was I intending to say that ALL law enforcement officers are rogue. I can only assume that you simply read through my comments without really focusing on what I was actually saying.

      I have done work as a Chaplain in a county jail. I know how hard the job of law enforcement is to do and I have a great deal of respect for them. For most of them, their patience and sense of fair play knows no bounds. However, I do NOT have respect for those unique and individual officers who decide that they are judge, jury, and executioner.

      Regarding Romans 13, I’m well aware of what it teaches. The problem though is that there are some law enforcement officers who believe (wrongly) that if they tell you to JUMP, you’re supposed to ask “how high?” I do not need to obey them when it comes to their pushing me around because of their insecurities.

      ALL law enforcement officials are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. There are unfortunately, too many who believe that THEIR directive overrides that founding document.

      If I am sitting on a bench at a park, minding my own business, and a police officer comes over and tells me to “move along” because he feels like it, I am not required to obey. My natural response to him would be, “Why do I need to do that, officer?” to which he – if he were a rogue cop – would take that as a threat to his manhood and his authority.

      If I am walking down the street and a police officer decides he wants to harass me by asking for my ID when I have done absolutely nothing wrong and he has no real reason for asking me to show it, I am not required to show proof of my identity.

      In this country, we have a right to gather for peaceful demonstration. We have a right of freedom of speech (which some in Congress would like to abrogate). We have a right to keep and bear arms. There are many rights that are given to us in this nation as citizens of the United States of America. As Christians, we CAN and should avail ourselves of those rights, provided we remain within the parameters of the law in so doing.

      Paul did the same thing. Yes, he was Jewish. Yes, he was a Christian, and yes, he was also a Roman citizen and used that to his advantage at times.

      Before you judge me again, at least READ (for understanding) my comments in their entirety. Feel free to apologize anytime for misquoting me…

  • 7. Aleen Realmuto  |  July 20, 2012 at 9:20 AM

    An armed society is a polite society!! Love it


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,173 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Blog Stats

  • 274,517 hits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,173 other followers

%d bloggers like this: