John, I appreciate your sentiments, but I think I've got an even better idea: repeal the Second Amendment! Don't misunderstand me, I am as adamant about the *responsibility* to bear arms in defense of myself and others as anyone is. However, as a Christian pastor, and as someone who literally believes that Yahweh's laws are perfect and His judgments altogether righteous (Psalm 19:7-9), I believe there's a better way.

For more, see "Amendment 2: Self-Defense: Constitutional or Biblical" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.php.

I understand, Ted, but so much depends on an interaction between the second and the sixth and the tenth that the repeal of 2A would begin an undermining of them all.

Even the Los Angeles Times agreed that too much removal of the second amendment would lead to undermining of the first amendment. I excerpted the Times editorial here: "But if the court would identify an important individual right -- in this case, the right to bear arms -- and then deny that it applied to the states, those who never accepted the incorporation doctrine might try to "de-incorporate" other rights. That's not a risk worth taking." You can find my analysis here: The Los Angeles Times Gets an 'A': http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-los-angeles/safer-streets-2010-the-l-a-times-gets-an-a

The best thing to do is to repeal all gun laws and leave only one for this nation, the second amendment being the only gun law we need.

Problem is, Pastor Ted, a preponderance of law breakers would support your proposition.

Pastor Ted,

I too am a Christian. I direct your attention to Jesus' words Luke 22:36 - "He said (Jesus) to them (the disciples), "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." Do you assume that they were to buy one but just carry it around? True, we are to love those who hate us, but I do not think that implies that we are to stand with our hands folded and watch while a criminal kills and maims and do nothing. If it comes down to my life or theirs....as far as I can...it will be theirs. I intend to use my gun if the situation warrants it.

John, once again, as a Christian and one who literally believes in Psalm 19:7-9, I'm for discarding the entire non-biblical, antinomian, polytheistic promoting Constitution and replacing it with Yahweh's perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments.

There isn't hardly anything in the Constitution that's Biblical and nothing that Yahweh doesn't haven't a better plan for.

Clarence and Tulsajudoka, thank you for your input, but you obviously didn't go to the link and read what I recommended. It would appear you think I'm against bearing arms in self defense or in defense of others. I do not believe it is a God-given right but, in fact, a God-required *responsibility* to do so.

Here's the link again, in case you would like to check it out: http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.php

John, I'm not sure why you repeated yourself; but, it is not an answer to what I wrote.

Ted,

I understand your point but I disagree with throwing out the Constitution in order to substitute it with the bible.

I would hate to live under Sharia, Fascism, Communism, or in the left's Progressive utopia...but on the other hand I wouldn't have wanted to live in 1600s Puritanical New England either which is basically what you are advocating whether you know it or not. I am a practicing Orthodox Christian but I refuse to allow some holier than thou busy body to try and throw me in stocks (or jail) for not attending the Sunday Liturgy.

It matters not whether the control freak is a Muslim, a liberal or a Christian, the end result is always the same...tyranny. I'll have none of it! If you want to go form your own commune and throw out the Constitution and live exclusively under the "Good Book" feel free but don't try and force that on the rest of us.

Redleg, thank you for your point of view.

I would also hate to live under Sharia, Fascism, Communism (it's called Democracy here in America today), or the left's Progressive utopia. I also have no inclination toward returning to Puritan New England *except* where it was in concert with Yahweh's perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments.

By the way, there is no escaping theocracy. Its never a matter of theocracy or no theocracy, but who's theocracy. A government's law reflects a government's morality, and the source of that morality (or more-often-than-not, immorality) is the god of that government. In the case of the Constitutional Republic that god is WE THE PEOPLE. (And I don't know if you noticed or not, but under that god we already have tyranny.) Except for those who freely choose to do so, everybody else is forced to live by someone else's god's "morality."

With this in mind, let my quote the 19th-century Libertarian attorney Lysander Spooner: "[the U.S. Constitution] has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

For anyone interested in the God of the Bible's superior morality as expressed in His law, see "Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/articles.php.

I am a fan of Spooner and I couldn't agree with him (or that quote) more. I am well aware of the tyranny we live under today. I am just not for exchanging one form for another. If there is to be change then let it be change to real liberty. I think Agorism and Voluntaryism is the only hope for the future but then I doubt that it will ever gain traction here with as many people that now have their hands out and who gladly lay claims on the fruits of other people's labor. Look no further than the numbers protesting in Wisconsin to see why Voluntaryism can not work in today's society. Hundreds of thousands turn out when threatened with having to be a bit more responsible for themselves without demanding others provide for them but when patriots were asked to go to the capitol to protest for liberty...only three showed up.

There are no vacuums when it comes to government: it's either Yahweh's perfect laws of liberty or man's laws of bondage.

One can live by God's law without forcing it on others. Others can choose to do likewise, or not. Kindness will be met with kindness, force with force. Problems ALWAYS arise when one attempts to impose their will on another be it Democracy or Theocracy.

I choose to live by God's law but I will not FORCE that law on another. If the example of my lifestyle and character persuades one to do likewise then the lord has worked through me. Orthodoxy teaches that we were given free will in order to freely choose to love the Lord. He did not want another class of blindly obedient beings (angels). He wanted us to love and obey him because we choose to do so. That is one of the things which makes mankind unique and special in his eyes.

A quote by H.L. Mencken comes to mind here:

"I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone."

This concept applies in many more ways than one.

It is obvious, absent the Bill of Rights, there would be no power to create gun law restrictions. TP'sTB, true to Hamiltons foresight, has used the 2nd to provide a "colorable pretext to claim more than were granted."

*******

Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

Now, note that Hamilton says: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Hamilton could have very well said: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

The same can be said for religion.

Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Hamilton was not really "anti-Bill of Rights." His argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it would: "... furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. That they ... "might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government."

If it is not restricted by the Constitution ... nor delegated by the same ... there is absolutely no power.

Now, I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Unfortunately, Hamilton's worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.

C. Cope

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44696

There are no vacuums when it comes to judgments either. Someone has to determine what is a crime and their respective judgments. I prefer Yahweh's altogether righteous judgments in the hands of Biblically-qualified men over man's usually unrighteous judgments.

I recommend "Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt17.php.

As for answering your view, Ted, I think that what you are really saying is values of self-control and integrity, values loose enough to be free, strict enough to agree. (That just came to me.)

We find our way in a nation of self-rule, and we have become the fairest, most tolerant, freest nation on earth. Not to be arrogant, but we found our way because we followed His law adequately.

We are not in danger because we asked for Judgement, we are in danger because others don't fear judgment.

John, thanks for the response, but I'm not at all sure what you're saying. However, I will respond to at least part of it: We are where we are today in America because we have rejected Yahweh and His morality as found in His commandments, statutes, and judgments - plain and simple. Nationally, this apostasy began with the adoption of the secular, non-biblical, polytheistic promoting United States Constitution. Consequently, until Americans (particularly Christians) recognize the Constitution for the idol and prime cause that it is, we will only continue our trek down the pernicious road we find ourselves on since its ratification.

In addition to the chapter on Amendment 2, please read "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.php.

I do appreciate your cordial communications.

There is only one way to make the streets safe, send the blacks and Mexican'ts back home.I hear no gun fire in my neighborhood, it's only in the black and Mexican hoods that you have your problems.

Sure you got a few white assholes that commit crazy crimes, but not like the day to day killing that goes on in Obamite hoods. Yesterday only two blocks from Obies house in Chicago.

Now you have the 70 commies in the congress lead by the idoit Bilden calling for gun control, and using the shoot of the senator in arizon as a major example. Well riddle me this in a state were it's legal to carry a gun, it is not wird, that not one of those Democrates had a gun, and were where the police for crowd control?????

Why is it know that these same commies,70 of which 38 are black are all calling to change the term limits for president and to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

We need the 2nd Amendment and term limits on them all more than ever,or we will all become there subjects,and that will be that. Why do you thing Obama keeps going to Brazill, not just for the wholes....an he did not give 100 million to the lebonese Army for Nothing. An then yu have the 9 million Muslims that Obama, will have in the streets.

Ted: Give it a rest. You made your point...such as it is. A cornerstone of the Christian faith - and yes, I'm part of it - is the option to follow Christ or not follow Him. A secular Constitution is the only one which guarantees rights even for the nonbeliever. Besides, there are many possible interpretations of nearly all verses in the Bible; when making law, who would decide which interpretation was the one to be imposed on society.

Like I said, give it a rest. You've veered far off-topic.

JJ: It's your fault all those nasty names have been thrown at the Tea Party, frankly. The Left loves your kind - loves to pretend we all think and talk like this, that is. Get lost, bigot.

John: Your points are solid, but any minute now someone will come along with the usual talking points:

"So, does this mean I can mount artillery on my pickup and pack an AK-47 to school? How's that philosophy working out over in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

"So, you think it's OK to give machine guns to little kids, felons, and the disturbed. How nice."

"Our Founders never would have OK'd the idea of allowing ordinary citizens access to military hardware. The gap between civilian weapons and military ones has widened considerably even since World War II. Even if the Founders had so intended, in the 18th century armies had muskets and cannons, not machine guns and tanks. You want sell that stuff to ordinary people?"

"Don't you read the 2nd Amendment? A well-regulated militia. That means government gets the regulate the hell out of it."

"Haven't you seen how well gun-control keeps down criminal activity in the UK, Japan, and other civilized countries? Your Wild West approach to justice is going to get us all killed."

"Bullets will be flying hither and yon. Remember to duck when you leave the house."

Have I forgotten any of the stock left-wing responses?

Ted, I'm sorry to say, you are entirely way out of line. You are forgetting what this nation was founded upon, that being religious freedom. Now, that does not mean "only as long as it's Christianity". There are many people in this country that do not adhere to God's Law, simply because he is not their God (and no, I'm not just speaking of those pesky, heathen Atheists, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and many others).

What you are proposing, and what others have commented on, and what you seem to still not understand is that you want to impose your beliefs on those that do not follow them. If you were actually succesful with your endeavor to substitute the Constitution with God's law, you will also be responsible for the ensuing bloodshed it will cause. Christians will be killing non believers in the name of Christ (like they did during the Crusades, and earlier times), non believers killing others in defense of their own existence. If that were to happen, would you be able to live with yourself? Would you be able to sleep comfortably at night, knowing you were the cause of the killings of many innocents? If the answer is yes, to either, please, I ask you to seek professional help from a qualified mental health expert.

Cylar, you may have missed many, however, you've covered the more "mainstream" responses pretty well.

I HAVE YET TO SEE A PALSM THAT COULD STOP A 9MM

A 45ACP COMMING AT YOU AT 1200 FEET PER SECOND

EVEN THE GOOD BOOK WONT STOP IT . I GUESS YOU COULD TALK THE OTHER GUY TO DEATH...

What I find interesting is the attack on Pastor Ted. I'm not even sure I'd call him confused. Yes, he's a Pastor. At least that's what it says here. I have not yet seen his response to the rights extended to the nonbelievers. For those of you who are calling yourselves Christian and calling him out of the line, his articles are quite provocative. They do present some questions. However, he is right in one defnitive regard. We are, by God himself, upheld to the level of responsibility to arm our selves and protect our families and those around us. I think Pastor Ted is trying to show there is a higher moral ground than the Constitution. And yes, the Bible holds a much higher moral ground. Just a thought for the day.

Shawn,

I called him out of line, but I never called myself a Christian (that would be lying). Also, something you need to understand as well as Ted; there are many many people in this country that don't believe in your God. I know Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, and that's without getting into the various "Pagan" beliefs. So, yeah, he was out of line with saying we need to go by God's law, when many of us don't, for very good reasons.

Also, Shawn, how would you feel if you were told that we'd be getting rid of all our laws, and the constitution, and replacing it with Sharia Law? I highly doubt you would like it at all.

"the Bible holds a much higher moral ground" is a highly debatable statement, as it allows for the ownership of slaves, owning your wife, and beating them, if needed. How is that in any way moral?

No, the Constitution is fine where it is, as is the Second Amendment. You want some laws changed, petition your Congressman (or woman), that's fine, heck, I might even support some of them. I can't, however, agree to supressing the current system of law for another equally falible one.

Cylar, great, great issues, and I have answered them all over the web in articles and my books. They are super points, and I'll thumbnail them here for you. Thank you for mentioning them.

Part of educating the electorate is in the reality of how our sovereignty is oft protected by tough men. This means tough households hwo support those patriots whether they be men, women or the kids on one thing: it's our call and not the call of government public servants. This is empowering to homes who welcome the concept of how we get out of this mess non-violently.

As for the rest: First, we are the militia and always have been 100 years before an organized police force and 130 years before national guard. The language of the second amendment is well-regulated militia, which means self-reuglated since they hated a standing army, and militia of the everyman because there was no one else.

New flash: in time of emergency, there still is no one else. Only you.

For battery-ready arms of all types from cannons to thermonuclear, we are the Sovereign and it is we who have the monopoly on all lethal force, form due process (death warrants or the law of them) to military to law enforcement to citizen arrest.

We do not do this as playing cop, we do this as the nation's ultimate legislators, quite suitable for being the Sovereign, while reserved for ourselves in time of emergency.

In short, we are the law on scene, and, as with making an arrest, we may use reasonable force up to lethal force when effecting that arrest. We don't evenhave to make an arrest, but only acts in self-defesne or defense of another.

My whole thesis is that when violent crime is met so by the target of crime, there is little need for ludicrous bureaucracies which might claim to replace that. Translation: smaller government.

The purpose of gun control is to plumb the depths of electorate tolerance for nonsense and to grow government based on that latitude; if bureacracies were not needed so, we get to keep the money AND the liberty!

Repeal gun laws as the first step to smaller government.

We do not need 20,000 gun control laws. Ten golden rules are more than enough. We need to get rid of all 20,000 dumb and stupid gun control laws. The real homeland security is the second amendent.