Skip to main content

Right to Bear Arms (St. Louis Alderman calls on residents to get armed)

Police did not immediately return requests for comment. Chief Dan Isom told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he understands Troupe's frustration but doesn't support citizens arming themselves.

Carrying guns, he said, is not a "recipe for a less violent community."


This is the response of a police chief whose department supposedly cannot provide protection for the community. See St. Louis alderman calls on residents to get armed

1. Protection is a biblical responsibility for the head of the home (and for individuals).

2. If what was reported is true, that "there was nothing he [/the police department] could do to protect" the citizens and community; if the chief does not support citizens arming themselves, then HOW are they supposed to protect themselves? Are they supposed to just become defenseless targets?

3. While it's true that vigilantism is to be cautioned against and headed off, that does not deny the right and responsibility to legally provide protection for oneself and one's family. If the statement is to ward off this type of environment and mindset, the government then also has responsibility and need to provide citizens with information regarding how they plan to provide protection, ...which even when given, does not negate the responsibility of citizens to ensure their ability to provide protection, and to purchase instruments toward that end if deemed desirable or necessary toward that end.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...
73 comments
Read more

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God Tags: #christianity #apologetics #faith #logic #theology There’s a term some atheists like to throw around—“sky daddy.” You’ve probably seen it in comment sections or memes, tossed like a grenade meant to shut down the conversation. It's not meant to spark discussion; it’s meant to ridicule. But here’s the thing: It’s not an argument. It’s a caricature. And like most caricatures, it reveals more about the one mocking than the one being mocked. 1. It’s Based on a Straw Man No serious Christian believes God is some bearded man living in the clouds. That’s a cartoon version. The actual Christian claim is far richer, deeper, and more philosophically grounded. Scripture describes God as: Eternal (Psalm 90:2) Spirit, not material (John 4:24) The sustainer of all things (Colossians...
Post a Comment
Read more

Global Blasphemy Laws

One of the interesting things about discussions surrounding blasphemy laws (whether by the UN or others)is they cannot be conducted without coming back to the central question: What is Truth? Seems this was the question in Jesus' day, it's the question which comes us today, and it's a question which cannot be avoided. ... suppose God intended it to be this way?
18 comments
Read more

Search This Blog