August 23rd, 2012 12:25 PM
War and religion. Peace and arms. The mantra, the beliefs, and those willing to change. This will always confound me. It's sort of like a conflict of interest isn't it? Want peace......profess strict religious beliefs of not taking life....yet adapt to the world and it's ways? No more martyrs these days? How far does a firm belief go now? Society always adapted to religion.....now everything is backwards? I don't think we can have everything both ways or any way you want it. Maybe I'm mistaken. Should I seek a physician for some prescription drugs now?
August 23rd, 2012 01:05 PM
Citizenship is not required for the right to bear arms... residency (Actually just "living in" the U.S.) is enough... (See below)*
Originally Posted by Arborigine
Under the Constitution of the United States... Yes I would arm "THEM" THEM? Really... THEM? What's THAT all about? And you would disarm Afghans in their own country? HUH? You would be okay with the UN disarming the US citizens if they were occupying the U.S., then... right? Or the British in 1775 disarming the "rebel insurgents" at Lexington, Mass.?
Originally Posted by xXxplosive
Sanity (just the lack of, as adjudicated), nor Citizenship required.*
Originally Posted by Richard58
* See question #51 in the study guide for naturalization (citizenship) for the U.S., as provided by the USCIS.
Here's the link:
It could be worse!
August 23rd, 2012 02:05 PM
Not required, but my personal preference would be for those not born here, to pledge their allegiance to the Flag, understand some of our laws, and become Americans before being armed. What religion they observe or ignore is none of my business.
Originally Posted by oakchas
I don't always have nothing to say, but when I do, I post it on Facebook.
August 23rd, 2012 02:27 PM
Carrying a dagger for self-defense and defense of others is part of their religion. I think it is great that some of them are realizing they need more than a ceremonial dagger to do that, and are taking the appropriate course of action. Good for them.
August 23rd, 2012 02:32 PM
In one of the atircles I read about this, some of th sihk's were having a hard time justitfying carry a gun. The religion mandates that they carry a sword. In a lot of areas, they have changed to carrying a small plastic sword to obey local laws. I don't see why they should have any problem (religiously) carrying a gun where legal.
Originally Posted by BigStick
August 23rd, 2012 02:42 PM
The whole concept of carrying a sword was written into the religion when a sword was the most advanced/widely used weapon of the time. Now that the world is more advanced, and a sword just doesn't quite cut it when someone has a gun to your loved ones' heads ("bringing a 'knife' to a gunfight"). The point of having a sword was to make you equal to most any other man in defending yourself and others- now a sword isn't as much of an equalizer.
Originally Posted by phreddy
Along those lines, wouldn't 'updating' to a gun be more in line with the religion? (I really don't mean to offend anyone, take this as it is- from an outsider's point of view.)
"Rock and load, lock and roll... what's it matter? FIRE!!"
"Gun control means hitting your target every time."
Please take everything I say with at least one
grain of salt- I am a very
sarcastic person with a very
dry sense of humor.
August 23rd, 2012 03:13 PM
That is exactly what I was thinking to. Kind of like how all of the anti's say the 2A only applies to muskets and muzzle loaders.
Originally Posted by RevolvingMag
Search tags for this page
defensive carry muslim
second amendment sikhs
should sikhs carry weapons in the usa
shouldn't sikhs carry guns
sikh claims to carry gun
sikh right to carry weapons
sikhs defending themselves
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors