you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The second amendment is the most important amendment, for it is the one which allows for the rest to exist. If we where not armed, if we could not defend ourselves against tyrants: we would be living under a socialist dictatorship.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If a person were to lash out and strike you, would you just let it happen, or would you defend yourself from the assault? This natural instinct to defend oneself is why the second amendment exists, no other. That it's placed after the first is only to acknowledge that oftentimes those who seek to do others harm, will justify and validate doing so by claiming they were responding to a verbal insult said by another.

The constitution and bill of rights do not define our "rights" as citizens and freemen, but define the prescribed limits of the powers Americans should ever permit the state or government to have, if they wish to preserve their faith in the lord Jesus Christ. To refer to them as "rights", presumes they are granted by the state, which is a fundamental pagan delusion. This is the go to re-frame argument employed by subversive agents in America and other western nations who wish to enslave the populace by exploiting their general ignorance of this truth. Justification and validation are the hallmarks of those who seek to do evil.

34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.

40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man.

42 And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

To refer to them as "rights", presumes they are granted by the state

That's a weird thing to say. I usually hear people define "rights" as granted by God, not the state.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What makes it weird?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's unusual, quite literally.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Only if you're not Christian.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's usually Christians who say "rights" are granted by God.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yea... I can't argue with you on that, but the Christians at the time the constitution, bill of rights, and federalist papers were drafted understood that they were endowed. A gift by some understanding of the meaning and gifts from god tend to come hand in hand with responsibility and obligation.