Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

gunderwood wrote:I am hoping that in the next year or so I can finish off a couple of law books in my queue.

I have amassed a small library myself of late and have had absolutely no free time in which to indulge.

I haven't read much in years. My high school english teachers annihilated my love of the written word by making me dissect and define the classics. They took books I had no interest in and made them even more unbearable by forcing nationally-mandated opinions of the works on me.

I disagreed with many interpretations. Since only one answer could be right and the teacher picked which one, I frequently failed.

Though when I took college english composition courses I got straight "A"s.

One book that could bring this little diatribe of mine back on topic that I've been trying to get through is "Men In Black - How the Supreme Court is Destroying America".

Some of the content is a little self-servient (to the author) and yet more strikes of yankee socialist dogma, but overall it makes the point that the courts system has assumed powers it was never intended and legislates "from the bench", so to speak, by passing opinion as "law".

I'm curious to see what you come up with. I dont necessarily think the system itself is anti-Christian but alot of the people that run it definitely are.

why does the justice system have to based on christianity? ... I should ask, why do some think it should be?

GS78 wrote:why does the justice system have to based on christianity? ... I should ask, why do some think it should be?

I dont necessarily think that but I do think the people running it MUST be of good morals character and ethics as well as legilastors and politicians. This group must be held to a higher standard. Not meaning they must be above the law but they must be above reproach. Granted everyone is human and we all make mistakes, however, need I say more given the current circumstances. Knowing that I am a Christian you can read into that whatever you like.

Im just saying that looking at the history of especially the American church, thats a stretch.

GS78 wrote:Im just saying that looking at the history of especially the American church, thats a stretch.

Well, I would agree with you for two reasons -

1 - the American Church has some leaders with few morals and questionable character. I know that from first hand experience. Many are good but there are enough that arent.

2 - it would be very difficult for us to have a justice system of laws and punishment based on Christianity - almost impossible - at least IMO. If any Christians need that explained then you need to study the teachings of Jesus. If you think I'm wrong please do explain. Now, the current justice system could and in some case is quite similar to Old Testament law.

Been busy so I haven't gotten to this, but here goes...

Im just saying that looking at the history of especially the American church, thats a stretch.

zephyp wrote:

GS78 wrote:Im just saying that looking at the history of especially the American church, thats a stretch.

Well, I would agree with you for two reasons -

1 - the American Church has some leaders with few morals and questionable character. I know that from first hand experience. Many are good but there are enough that arent.

2 - it would be very difficult for us to have a justice system of laws and punishment based on Christianity - almost impossible - at least IMO. If any Christians need that explained then you need to study the teachings of Jesus. If you think I'm wrong please do explain. Now, the current justice system could and in some case is quite similar to Old Testament law.

I. Church as an institution vs. implementation
Yes, every institution decays over time and can become very corrupt. As long as sinful men run these organizations, such will be the case. Generally, this occurs because institutions have a certain degree of power and wicked men will always try to gain that power and use it for their gain vice the original purpose. The same could be said about government. I believe that our founding fathers had some very good ideas about government as an institution. However, over time we have corrupted it. I don't like the corruption at all; that doesn't make me an anarchist. On the contrary, government as an institution is valid and necessary. The founding fathers didn't argue against government as an institution, but rather against that current implementation because it was perverted and corrupt. I dislike some things my government does and I argue against them. The argument isn't Government or no Government, but rather what the proper responsibilities and limits (or lack there of) of a Government are. The Church is a valid institution too, but like any other can be corrupted.

Romans 13:1-7 exemplifies the ordination of the Government. The two best expositions I have found on this passage are Johnathan Mayhew's 1750 Sermon, When is Resistance Duty? (http://www.bluestockingpress.com/mayhews-sermon.htm) and James M. Willson's 1853 exposition, republished as The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government. (http://www.americanvision.com/search.aspx?find=willson)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. -- Romans 13:1

Government as an authority (institution) is established by God. However, read the two references and understand the limits of Christian submission to that authority. Arguing the ordination of the Church seems silly...

II. The role of the Church and Christianity in government
Christianity isn't something you just do on Sunday. I can't be a Christian on Sunday and then forget all about it and act differently the other six days. Arguably, despite the appearance on Sunday, such an individual isn't a Christian. The Church and the Government as institutions are ordained by God. They exist as vital societal institutions, but with different roles and responsibilities. The OT blurs this because God was dwelling among his people and ultimately fulfilling all three offices (prophet, priest, and king). It properly was a theocracy. However, after that period, the judges and the priests were separate. As is correctly pointed out here (http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/),

We learn more about God's view of bloodshed from David. David is a man who loved God and who was loved by God. God raised him up to defend Israel. God sent David to physically fight to defend Israel. When David killed Goliath and Philistines in battles, it was at God's command. They were righteous killings. Now, with that understanding, let's look at a few passages:

1 Chronicles 28:3 "But God said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name, because you have been a man of war and have shed blood.'

1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build a house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

But wasn't David obeying God in engaging in these wars? Yes. Did David sin in shedding this blood? No. But shedding blood is so significant to God that David was unfit to for certain "ministries".

The Church can not bear the sword and still fulfil it's ordained responsibilities. Government bears the sword as it was ordained to do; how it bears the sword determines its' validity as an ordained authority. Government can not bear the sword and fulfil the responsibilities of the Church. This could be summed up as:

Government bears the sword to enforce and restrict violations of ethics, while the Church does so for morality, but with out the sword. Philosophically, ethics and morality can't be separate (atheist try very hard), which leads me to my third point.

III. A moral government mirrors Christianity out of necessity
It is too small a thread to argue why ethics and morality can not be separated philosophically, please grant me this premise.

Both institutions being ordained by God, when fulfilling their roles and responsibilities correctly, by necessity mirror His character. Becoming more "Christ like" involves acting morally and ethically more like Christ (God). That is one of the chief principals of Christianity. The Church is self-explanatory. Our founders had is right, while not all of them were Christians, there was nearly a universal acceptance that a proper Government would mirror the principals of Christianity ethically. Not as a theocracy, but as a valid institutional authority using force to restrict ethical violations. The sword (force) was and is the proper tool to enforce ethics violations. It is the basis for our self defence. The ancient "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was actually a moratorium against excessive force, either by the Government or by individuals. E.g. locking someone away and ruining the rest of their life because they owned a piece of metal you say they shouldn't. Today it is perverted to mean retaliation and revenge.

The Church can not use force and still fulfil its' spiritual goals and "enforce" morality. Similarly, the government can't use the sword to force morality. In a created order which is actively upheld by its' Creator, actions which are contrary to the Creator's decreed organization, i.e. institutions not fulfilling their roles and/or over stepping them, will ultimately be judged and fail. When civilizations become corrupt and perverted they collapse; always have, always will.

Prohibition failed because we tried to use force to regulate morality. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, but rather the excessive use of it. Excessive use is immoral and the purview of the Church, but that isn't grounds for the Government to use force. When a drunk endangers someone, the use of force (proper level, not excessive) and punishment are valid responses from the Government. Morality only comes from a changed heart, using force to enforce ethics is designed to prevent others (innocents) from being harmed.

Drugs, guns, the crusades, etc., etc. all seem to follow this pattern. The use of force, either by the Government or the Church against immorality always seems to fail and I suggest, always will. Morality can only be brought about by a changed heart, nothing else. The sword has nothing to do with it, only God does. Ethics follows a similar pattern. There are more ethical problems the less moral the people are:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

The Constitution is a contract limiting the power of the government by these ethical standards. An immoral people, who by definition could care less about what God requires of them, will not be bound by a piece of paper. In fact the Bible repeatedly notes that God restrains the nations in their wickedness less the righteous perish. Theologically, this is called common grace. The less moral the people are, the more restraining force the Government will need to use to prevent ethical violations.

Conclusion
The Government is a valid authority ordained by God, but submission to it is limited. The Government uses the sword to enforce the laws. By necessity, a valid and proper Government will use this sword, "the justice system," in such a manor as to mirror the Creators institutional decrees, and consequently, the principals of Christianity. Until the justice system mirrors these attributes, it will fail. The Government can not overstep its' authority in its' quest of enforce ethics and expect a good result. In other words, you can't properly enforce ethics unethically...it's a contradiction and impossible.

@gunderwood - very interesting and enlightening...goes with something else I've been thinking about the last couple of days which I will preface here and maybe write an article to post later.

GOD'S WORD vs THE CONSTITUTION

I dont mean that in the sense that they are opposed but rather from the perspective that both have been supported and denied since their inception. The big difference (and I leave you with that) is this: The Word of God is a living thing sharper than any two edged sword. It has power and is alive able to change things. It stands on its own and it doesnt matter if its opposed. The Constitution on the other hand...and I leave it there...

zephyp wrote:@gunderwood - very interesting and enlightening...goes with something else I've been thinking about the last couple of days which I will preface here and maybe write an article to post later.

GOD'S WORD vs THE CONSTITUTION

I dont mean that in the sense that they are opposed but rather from the perspective that both have been supported and denied since their inception. The big difference (and I leave you with that) is this: The Word of God is a living thing sharper than any two edged sword. It has power and is alive able to change things. It stands on its own and it doesnt matter if its opposed. The Constitution on the other hand...and I leave it there...

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It is not equal to the Word of God in any way. The principles (doh, auto-correct on the previous post!) and Truths in the Bible are timeless.

Gunderwood/DK,

Great reading!! I have had this site bookmarked from a while back and had to dig around to find it....

Religion and the American Revolution
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html

It's an interesting read from the Library of Congress.... Just insightful into some of that history you never learned in school...

zephyp wrote:

gunderwood wrote:You can't rehabilitate someone if you completely destroy their future! Think about it. Yes, there are certain crimes that should wreak your future, but can find every last one of them in the Bible. The US code alone is an order of magnitude larger than the Bible and law is all it covers. These days a simple arrest, regardless if you committed a crime or not, can disqualify you for a good job. I am not arguing that circumstance made anyone do it. I believe that individuals have the choice regardless of their circumstances. All I'm saying is that the punishment should attempt to build character (service to others can work well, see below).

We are so caught up in "crimes against the state." We have forgotten that the reason God established government as an institution was to provide protection from the actions of others. (Read James M. Wilson, Civil Government: An Exposition of Romans XIII. 1-7, 1853; republished as The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government in 2009) A criminals debt isn't to "society," but rather to the individuals whom they harmed!

Consider this. A good parent does exactly what I described above as punishment for their children. Imperfectly yes, but with the grace of God, they do their best. I would suggest I have roughly outlined Biblical punishment (lots is missing for sure!). Zephyp, I like having discussions with you, but I want to challenge you here. How does your suggestions above, applied to everyone in a Federal, State, and local jail, fit within this Biblical framework?

Final food for thought Considering our discussions about the lack of justice in the justice system, does it surprise you that hard core, dangerous criminals get off easy, but trivial things get slapped hard? Every time the system lets a bad egg go and something happens we clamor to give them more power...

Well, first the intent would not be to totally destroy every criminal's future. As I said a tax could be incrementally lowered for good behavior. No repeat offenses or new ones and the tax eventually goes away. And there is really only one reason for punishment in a judicial system - as a deterrent. Sending someone to jail obviously doesnt repay society or rehabilitate a criminal. Holding them accountable for a period of time after they leave jail might. Many criminals are repeat offenders soon after they leave jail. Make it a little tougher on them and hold them accountable.

I realize this doesnt address the injustices in our current system like a murderer getting off on a technicality or the example you used with the stock. What I was trying to do is start a discussion about shifting focus from gun control to where it properly belongs. You cant control guns. You can exert some control over those who choose to use them for naught.

Regarding a Biblical framework most of our justice system is based (whether intentionally or otherwise) on Old Testament law with focus on some of the 10 Commandments. To shift it to a New Testament posture would not work at all IMHO as the criminals of course would run rampant. With that, perhaps our justice system cannot be Bible based but perhaps the people that develop and run it should be. Our Constitution does not of course say so, but many state Constitutions at one time explicitly stated that those looking to hold public office must believe in God or profess Christ as their Savior. In other words, be men and women of good moral character. Not a lot of that going around these days, hence the injustices described by Kaosdad, you , and others.

To say most of our justice system is based on Old Testament Law with a focus in part on the 10 Commandments is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. One: You presume that such laws did not exist prior to the old Testament, but they did. Two: Old Testament law was applicable and is applicable to the Jewish people, further there is little in Leviticus that has anything to do with us. Three: Commandments 6 and 10 are the only commandments really codified in our laws, however, you seem to forget that the penalty for violating them was death. Murder and stealing have been crimes in every civilization known to man. I would close by asking the following: The Supreme Court ruled in Heller V DC that 2nd Amendment rights are not unfettered, and that reasonable gun regulations are permitted. Obviously this is the same ruling they are going to make in MacDonald V Chicago in June. So what are reasonable gun regulations and do you agree or disagree with the Supremes?
Gat6!
P.S. The upcoming ruling on Chicago is a case of be careful what you ask for. Think about it, for the first time probably using the 14th Amendment's due process clause, SCOTUS will fully incorporate the 2nd Amendment. I hope everyone knows that means the Feds will then be fully in control of gun regulations nation wide. In defining reasonable gun regulations will essentially be controlled by the Federal Courts and Federal Judges. Bye bye States rights concerning Gun control. So if you are a lawyer you might call the MacDonald ruling the Gun rights lawyer's full employment act, because the definition of "reasonable" which SCOTUS left undefined will be litigated for years to come! That's my take what's yours.
If you want them with you at the landing you had better make sure they are with you at takeoff!

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:@gunderwood - very interesting and enlightening...goes with something else I've been thinking about the last couple of days which I will preface here and maybe write an article to post later.

GOD'S WORD vs THE CONSTITUTION

I dont mean that in the sense that they are opposed but rather from the perspective that both have been supported and denied since their inception. The big difference (and I leave you with that) is this: The Word of God is a living thing sharper than any two edged sword. It has power and is alive able to change things. It stands on its own and it doesnt matter if its opposed. The Constitution on the other hand...and I leave it there...

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It is not equal to the Word of God in any way. The principles (doh, auto-correct on the previous post!) and Truths in the Bible are timeless.

Precisely the point and the reason we should be turning more to God's word...

@gatling - welcome back Jim - good to see you. God's Law was first since He created man just over 5000 years ago...

gatlingun6 wrote:To say most of our justice system is based on Old Testament Law with a focus in part on the 10 Commandments is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. One: You presume that such laws did not exist prior to the old Testament, but they did. Two: Old Testament law was applicable and is applicable to the Jewish people, further there is little in Leviticus that has anything to do with us. Three: Commandments 6 and 10 are the only commandments really codified in our laws, however, you seem to forget that the penalty for violating them was death. Murder and stealing have been crimes in every civilization known to man. I would close by asking the following: The Supreme Court ruled in Heller V DC that 2nd Amendment rights are not unfettered, and that reasonable gun regulations are permitted. Obviously this is the same ruling they are going to make in MacDonald V Chicago in June. So what are reasonable gun regulations and do you agree or disagree with the Supremes?

The 10 commandments can be broken up into moral and ethical laws. Thus:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

These weren't new commandments, but rather an insightful summary of the ten. The ethical laws you are talking about would be considered mala in se. As Blackstone said, ignorance of mala in se is no excuse. Mala prohibita though is different; there is no ethical foundation for state prohibitions. E.g. gun control. This is where we get ourselves in lots of trouble, unintended consequences and all. Anything not mala in se, was supposed to be treated like a minor speeding ticket. E.g. not paying for the tax stamp on your machine gun would be a fine and at most a day or two in jail...with your property returned unharmed of course. A few of the founders went so far as to suggest every mala in se should be challenged. Juries had the power to even through these laws out. Of course, back then mala prohibita wouldn't ruin your life. Today, just owning a simple piece of metal that the state says you shouldn't is grounds to strip you of your rights and destroy any chance of a normal life.

I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is here....

GS78 wrote:I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is here....

?

Correction to my last post:

A few of the founders went so far as to suggest every mala prohibita should be challenged.

gunderwood wrote:

GS78 wrote:I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is here....

?

Correction to my last post:

A few of the founders went so far as to suggest every mala prohibita should be challenged.

That comment was not directed at you. The Southern Law and Poverty center is a liberal group that makes recomendations to the feds to which "groups" should be looked into for violating such long standing american traditions such as "tolerance", and those who violate "Hate Speech" rules etc.... They played a major role in the investigation of the "christian militia" that is in the news today. They work closely with all the major fringe groups of the leftwing undergrounds.... eco, homo, and whacko......