Sikhs are looking to arming themselves with firearms = GOOD NEWS

This is a discussion on Sikhs are looking to arming themselves with firearms = GOOD NEWS within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Sikhs are looking to arming themselves with firearms = GOOD NEWS

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    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?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Arborigine View Post
    .... As long as a person is or becomes a Citizen and obeys the law, let them be armed.
    Citizenship is not required for the right to bear arms... residency (Actually just "living in" the U.S.) is enough... (See below)*

    Quote Originally Posted by xXxplosive View Post
    I disagree.............you would arm them ?
    I have a Sikh Temple less that 2 miles from my home here in NJ.
    I'm in a super market checking out and this fella is in front of me....the sun shining through the front glass of the store lights up his linnen shirt and through it I see a curved sword tucked down his pant leg. Yup, we have a law in NJ for everything......so he can but I can't because they claim some religious status....?
    Speaking of carrying concealed.......Not for it......IMO, this si the same as arming the Afgahnastan's...Crazy.
    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.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard58 View Post
    If they are a sane US citizen they are allowed just as much as us.
    Sanity (just the lack of, as adjudicated), nor Citizenship required.*

    * See question #51 in the study guide for naturalization (citizenship) for the U.S., as provided by the USCIS.

    Here's the link:
    http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office%20...tions/100q.pdf
    Sig35seven and ANGLICO like this.
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  4. #18
    Distinguished Member Array Arborigine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calaveras County, California
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Citizenship is not required for the right to bear arms... residency (Actually just "living in" the U.S.) is enough
    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.
    I don't always have nothing to say, but when I do, I post it on Facebook.

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    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.
    phreddy and ANGLICO like this.
    Walk softly ...

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #21
    Distinguished Member Array RevolvingMag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC- Across Town From Where All the Homicides Happen
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by phreddy View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.)
    BigStick likes this.
    "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.

  8. #22
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolvingMag View Post
    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.

    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.)
    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.
    Walk softly ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

defensive carry muslim

,

ober seiks

,

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.