Gun licence? How about a bible licence?

[Owen Sparks]

Should the government license and regulate the possession of Bibles? This book contains information that can and has led to serious violence and lawlessness as many people see it as being the ultimate authority, not the state.

How about people who publish political opinions? Should they be licensed and regulated so that they do not proffer opinions that are contrary to the purposes of the government? Ideas can be very dangerous, especially in the wrong hands. Shouldn’t there be some reasonable restrictions on who is allowed to spread potentially dangerous political ideas? The pen is after all, mighter than the sword.

Should there be strict laws regarding who may possess Bibles and newspapers?

No you say?

These are constitutionally protected items.

But this is exactly what has happened to another constitutionally protected item, firearms. There is no constitutional provision for federal gun laws of any kind. These items, just like Bibles and newspapers are supposed to be beyond the Federal governments reach. The only restrictions, safety regulation to keep guns out of the hands of children, convicted felons and the mentally ill should be administered at the state level.

 

[MIL-DOT]

I get your point, but you're not far off here. They're actively trying to mandate equal time on conservative AM radio, as if their domination of the print and video media aren't enough,and there are efforts to completely ban religious TV and radio shows. They've taken "freedom of speech" and morphed it into "freedom of expression" , while the right of "the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has shrunk down ,in the minds of many, to the right to own a disassembled and locked flintlock.
I am amazed daily at how many,here of all places, have their heads in the sand like the European Jews of the 1930's, refusing to acknowledge what's taking place. :banghead:

 

[Owen Sparks]

The founding fathers never intended the Federal government to have the power to control the press, religeon or privately owned weapons.

 

[PercyShelley]

Whenever someone is whining about how their rights are being trampled in the US, it's a good sign that they're on the smaller team. It is somewhat a sign of desperation to resort to something as intangible and, moreover, sporadically enforced as "rights" in the US, or really anywhere else for that matter.

Something something about the price of freedom and eternal vigilance.

 

[Eleven Mike]

This book contains information that can and has led to serious violence and lawlessness as many people see it as being the ultimate authority, not the state.

You mean, if I don't see the state as being the ultimate arbiter of truth, that encourages me to be lawless and violent?

Trick question, though, as the Bible urges compliance with legal authority in almost all cases.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Trick question, though, as the Bible urges compliance with legal authority in almost all cases.

Trick answer: Suppose the draft was reinstated for some reason and your number came up, would you go into the army? It is after all the law. And suppose you were a citizen of Germany 65 years ago, would you still go into the army? That was the law then. And further suppose you obeyed the law, went into the army and your first asignment was to load Jews onto a train bound for an extermination camp.

Now are you going to be a good Christian and do Hitlers lawfull bidding? Or Chairman Mao? Or Stallin? Or Pol Pot? Obediance is after all, THE LAW.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I am amazed daily at how many,here of all places, have their heads in the sand like the European Jews of the 1930's, refusing to acknowledge what's taking place.

Times change; human nature doesn't.

 

[Euclidean]

Trick question, though, as the Bible urges compliance with legal authority in almost all cases.

Trick answer: Suppose the draft was reinstated for some reason and your number came up, would you go into the army? It is after all the law. And suppose you were a citizen of Germany 65 years ago, would you still go into the army? That was the law then. And further suppose you obeyed the law, went into the army and your first asignment was to load Jews onto a train bound for an extermination camp.

Now are you going to be a good Christian and do Hitlers lawfull bidding? Or Chairman Mao? Or Stallin? Or Pol Pot? Obediance is after all, THE LAW.

Not starting a religion post here, just pointing out some facts that the original poster's comparison is absolutely valid. I am only quoting the Bible here as one might quote any other work of antiquity:

1 Peter 2:13 does in fact say "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man . . . to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors."

However in the context of history in the development of the religion, that was said to those who were going forth to spread the Gospel. It makes a good deal of sense that the new ambassadors of early Christianity were told to not be a bunch of crooks even if the laws were a bit unreasonable, lest they be imprisoned and no one could hear their message.

The idea of the Bible telling believers to cope with secular governments as a matter of practicality and necessity is established in Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."

Romans 13 is also often cited in this context but many scholars have interpreted this to be a warning against vigilantism, which is consistent with other passages in the Bible to let the authorities handle it if someone wrongs you.

Titus 3 is perhaps the best summary of the whole idea of obeying the authorities as a matter of necessity as it stresses that the purpose of obeying the authorities is so you will be free to do what is good.

Acts 5:29 however states the whole concept concisely: "We ought to obey God rather then men."

Inherent in that idea is that the believer should not obey men, but only when it means obeying God to do so, thereby validating the original poster's comparison. As I said, I'm merely presenting these quotes as facts to demonstrate that the original poster's point is relevant to 2A rights.

 

[BAT1]

What if the law is corrupt and made by people who do not have the MORAL RIGHT TO GOVERN? You Obey God's Law. Very Simple. God's law supersedes any Law.

 

[Soybomb]

While its fun to talk about the way we believe things should be, we also shouldn't let our idealism make us lose focus on the reality of today. We wouldn't be making the great progess toward the restoration of 2nd amendment rights if we demanded it all at once. We'd be pushed out as crack pots and get nothing.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Trick answer: Suppose the draft was reinstated for some reason and your number came up, would you go into the army? It is after all the law. And suppose you were a citizen of Germany 65 years ago, would you still go into the army? That was the law then. And further suppose you obeyed the law, went into the army and your first asignment was to load Jews onto a train bound for an extermination camp.

Now are you going to be a good Christian and do Hitlers lawfull bidding? Or Chairman Mao? Or Stallin? Or Pol Pot? Obediance is after all, THE LAW.

Firstly, please respond to my original question. You posited that appeal to a higher authority than the state was a recipe for, what was it, violence and lawlessness? Can you explain what you mean by that? You don't believe in the state as the ultimate authority on moral questions, do you?

If you're going to ask such questions as the above, you might wish to investigate further the Christian teachings with regard to law, obedience to civil authority, and of course the aforementioned episode in Acts chapter 5 (civil disobedience.) Or just Google a minister named Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed for his complicity in a plot to assassinate Hitler. As I said, obedience to the law in ALMOST ALL cases.

 

[kwelz]

I am one who tends to roll his eyes whenever religion is brought into an otherwise rational discussion. And I turn the channel as fast as humanly possible if I start hearing someone invoke god.

However I do find the argument made by the OP. The same arguments made against guns could be made against the Bible or it's originating texts. And in many ways there is already a bit of a trend going that way. It scares me to see it.

I would love to see an end to preaching on the airwaves, but I would take up arms if the government tried to be the cause of it.

 

[wally]

How about licenses for owners of laser printers, wouldn't infringe on freedom of the press now would it?

--wally.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Careful with this proposal. As MIL-DOT said, they are already trying to regulate the speech of conservatives on talk radio. It would not be at all out of the question for the leftists to try to regulate Bibles.

 

[Sistema1927]

"When Bibles are outlawed, then only outlaws will have Bibles." (Guilty, as charged.)

"They can only take my Bible when they pry it from my cold dead fingers." (If they want a Bible, then I will be glad to give them one.)

 

[cambeul41]

I am most assuredly for freedom of religion.

I am most assuredly for freedom from religion.

I respect your beliefs, but don't you dare tell me what I should believe.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Thanks for the melodrama. Was someone trying to tell you what to believe, or is that just a knee-jerk comment that comes boiling out of you anytime religion is discussed, even in a remote, abstract way?

 

[walking arsenal]

In the book of Acts the bible tells you to obey your government unless it's telling you to go against gods word.

It also tells you to pay your taxes.

I don't see why the gov should have a problem with that.

 

[cambeul41]

Eleven Mike

I suppose you are referring to me? I am glad that you enjoyed the melodrama. I suppose the answer to your question is ... "Yep!"

As to your location, "right behind me," thanks for the heads up . . . even if it was meant as reassurance rather than as a threat.

 

[John828]

Is this thread still open?

If so, IBTL.

 

[SapperMapper]

I am most assuredly for freedom of religion.

I am most assuredly for freedom from religion.

I respect your beliefs, but don't you dare tell me what I should believe.

EXACTLY.

Thanks for putting it so neatly.

 

[HuntAndFish]

Sorry Owen but that logic is 200 years old. I agree with you and the founding fathers did too, but it hasn't worked in a Court of Law in the US since 1934. And according to the recent supreme court decision on what the 2A protects, it's not gonna work in a courtroom anytime soon. Courts are treating the 2A different than the 1A. They shouldn't, but there it is.

 

[hso]

Ok, get off the religious discussion or this one's as closed as all the others where people, even on THR, can't even use a religion in an analogy without getting all confrontational.

Our OP is saying, "Well, gee, no one seems to have any problem with accepting that you can't whittle bits off of freedom of religion and freedom of speech so what makes these people think that you can whittle bits off another inalienable right guaranteed by the BOR!?", or I've missed my mark. Analogy.

 

[alaskanativeson]

I believe it is the nature of government to be corrupt. It became so for the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantine, the Mongol, the British, and it has started here. We're seeing it in the Patriot Act. Religion isn't a threat to the gov't right now because as has been previously stated, Christianity is largely based on obedience to authority. It helps that our foundation comes from Judeo-Christian traditions so there hasn't been a need to buck the system too much. That will change. When the gov't starts to see religion as a threat you can bet that it'll change.

As for freedom of speech, the aforementioned Patriot Act is one MAJOR step in curtailing that right. Make no mistake, there'll be more. If the gov't doesn't have to watch its back because they've disarmed us it'll make it easier for them to do away with other rights when they feel it's expedient for them to do so.

No, I'm not a "survivalist" nut, an anarchist, or an over-active conspiracy theorist. I am a student of History and know that people's nature doesn't change. If you doubt me, ask why the Colonists had to break away from a government that had the Magna Carta. Governments do what they will. I love my country but I fear my government. I support it but I also watch it closely. I participate. I am also enough of a Boy Scout to remember to Be Prepared.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Should there be strict laws regarding who may possess Bibles and newspapers?

To continue your analogy, we permit felon to possess Bibles - there are many ministries that encourage it. Therefore, since Bibles and guns are equally protected, we should permit permit/encourage felons to possess Bibles.

Heck, there are even ministries that give Bibles to felons while they are incarcerated. Since, by your reasoning, the same laws should apply to Bibles and guns, we should allow felons to possess guns even while they are still incarcerated.

There couldn't be a flaw in your analogy could there?

Mike