Notice to KHOW's Michael Brown

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Notice to KHOW's Michael Brown

This is the show from Wednesday February 13th, 2013

SUMMARY:

* Guns Are NOT for Shooting Governing Officials: Bob Enyart of course defends the God-given right to keep and bear arms. However, he lambasts those "conservatives" (whatever that even means) who wrongly and dangerously claim, following Thomas Jefferson, that the reason that we have a right to bear arms is so that the public can use their weapons against a tyrannical government. People do not have the right to kill their mayors, senators, presidents, nor police officers, regardless of whether or not the government is tyrannical. Bob was especially angry at Brown, a competing talk show host over at Denver's KHOW radio, because Michael did not rebuke the caller, who said, about the Southern California murderer Christopher Dorner, and I'll paraphrase:

"Michael, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to criticize the former cop, because as you often say, guns are not for hunting, but for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. When is enough enough? Perhaps this Christopher Dorner just had enough of government injustice and couldn't take it anymore."


I was so angry at Michael Brown for not rebuking this dangerous caller. Thankfully, while not developing the whole "we have the right to kill tyrannical governing officials" immorality, still, Brown actually defended the caller's question. And that was utterly irresponsible and despicable. God is right. Jefferson was wrong. Yes, men have the God-given right to be armed for self defense. No, citizens do not have the right to use their guns to throw off their unjust government.

* Two Gun Truths that Only We Know:

1) The Supreme Court Admits Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals: For decades liberals, as at the Daily Beast after the Newton massacre, claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the right to bear arms is a right of individual citizens. Rather, they allege, it is a right of militias. Conservatives always fire back (as at The Blaze: Does the Second Amendment Only Apply to State Militias?) but they do so with an unloaded weapon. Here's a bit of important jurisprudence history that is known only to the staff here at Bob Enyart Live. The right of individual citizens to keep and carry their arms wherever they go, generally speaking, was admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in a majority decision which was written by the chief justice. For our first 20 years on air here at Bob Enyart Live, we shared that information, the case, the year, the citation, and the relevant excerpts, with many other conservative talk show hosts, leaders, and with national gun-rights organizations and their leaders. We've now given up. Our audience will have to be satisfied knowing, without the details, that the U.S. Supreme Court in a majority decision did write, unequivocally, that the right to bear arms is a right of individual citizens. However, if that information is ever to become publically known, don't look for it from the NRA, nor even the Gun Owners of America. And don't look for it from us either here at KGOV.com. We're done with that fight.

2) The Phrase "Second Amendment Right" Undermines the Right to Own Guns: The right to life doesn't come from the 5th Amendment. It comes from God. All human rights come, not from the government, but from the Creator. (See Where Do Rights Come From?) Saying that rights come from the Constitution, the government, the majority, etc., is an effective way to undermine the public's understanding that rights do not come from the government, but from God. The government has no authority to deprive anyone of their inalienable rights. However, if the government (or the Constitution) giveth, then the government can taketh away. [/b][/b]Incessantly referring to one's "second amendment rights" is a great way to help the Democrats rob you of your God-given right to self defense.

* Check Out the Vigilante Worksheet: To better understand the fundamental principles of justice, governance, self-defense, and the proper use of lethal force, see the Vigilante Worksheet at American Right To Life. About this worksheet, Dr. Ronda Chervin wrote, "Dear American RTL, I just read your Vigilante Worksheet. I am a pro-life professor of ethics. I plan to use this in class. It is the best thing on this subject I have ever read. I just want to thank you profusely for devising it."

* Today's Resource: Check out the Science Department at our KGOV Store, or call us at 1-800-8Enyart (303-463-7789) and we can discuss with you your theological and scientific interests and help you select a BEL resource or subscription that you will LOVE (or your money back)!
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
If one amendment can repeal another then we must certainly not look at those rights given by God as rights given by amendments.
 

Jukia

New member
The God-given right to keep and bear arms?

Yeah, I noticed Jesus packing a pistol. Or didn't he tell Peter to put his sword away and didn't he heal the soldier's ear when they were arresting Jesus?

Think he draws the line at swords? pistols? AK-47s? semi auto? auto? How about a mortar? a bazooka?
 

Jukia

New member
If one amendment can repeal another then we must certainly not look at those rights given by God as rights given by amendments.

We needed the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution to give certain rights you would consider (I hope) God-given to certain of our population.

We have a Constitution. Amendments to it are how it works. Want to live in a theocracy---try Iran.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The God-given right to keep and bear arms?

Yeah, I noticed Jesus packing a pistol. Or didn't he tell Peter to put his sword away and didn't he heal the soldier's ear when they were arresting Jesus?

Think he draws the line at swords? pistols? AK-47s? semi auto? auto? How about a mortar? a bazooka?
Then He said to them, [Jesus]“But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”[/Jesus]
-Luke 22:36

We needed the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution to give certain rights you would consider (I hope) God-given to certain of our population.

We have a Constitution. Amendments to it are how it works. Want to live in a theocracy---try Iran.
We didn't need the amendments; we needed to stop rejecting God. We got amendments instead.

And I'd prefer a theonomy.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
For those that aren't familiar with the term theonomy, would you describe it and how a country would go about becoming one?
The most likely way a country would become a theonomy today is to simply wait for it to collapse under it's own weight due to bankruptcy. The United States is fast approaching that day. Then we simply begin to reconstructing society under Biblical law.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
The most likely way a country would become a theonomy today is to simply wait for it to collapse under it's own weight due to bankruptcy. The United States is fast approaching that day. Then we simply begin to reconstructing society under Biblical law.

Moral bankruptcy included.

Let's talk about what the difference between a theonomy and theorcracy is. I've always understood it as one is formed from the buttom up (society's culture and hence laws), the other from the top down (laws by themselves).

Are you also under the belief that our Christian Founding Fathers weren't wise to include Amendments into the Constitution?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
For those that aren't familiar with the term theonomy, would you describe it and how a country would go about becoming one?
It's not a full theocracy; there is no edict to the people that they worship any specific God. A theonomy is where the government recognizes a deity and issues laws said deity has commanded regarding moral and civil conduct for one person toward another, while disregarding religious centric laws.

So, in a Christian, or Jewish, theonomy there would be a law against murder and the punishment would be execution, for any who commit murder, but there would be no laws regarding the Sabbath.

The most likely way a country would become a theonomy today is to simply wait for it to collapse under it's own weight due to bankruptcy. The United States is fast approaching that day. Then we simply begin to reconstructing society under Biblical law.
:thumb:
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

Baghdad%20Bob(1).jpg


That is all the response jokia deserves.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Bob Enyart of course defends the God-given right to keep and bear arms. However, he lambasts those "conservatives" (whatever that even means) who wrongly and dangerously claim, following Thomas Jefferson, that the reason that we have a right to bear arms is so that the public can use their weapons against a tyrannical government. People do not have the right to kill their mayors, senators, presidents, nor police officers, regardless of whether or not the government is tyrannical.

That isn't saying anything. Nobody has the right to shoot the clerk at 7-11 over $40 in the register either. All people have the right to defend themselves against anybody. If a police officer decided he was goint to rape a woman on the street, she can use any means to resist including violence against the officer. The recent standoff in California has no bearing on the topic of gun control nor liberties. He was a criminal.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
It's not a full theocracy; there is no edict to the people that they worship any specific God. A theonomy is where the government recognizes a deity and issues laws said deity has commanded regarding moral and civil conduct for one person toward another, while disregarding religious centric laws.

So, in a Christian, or Jewish, theonomy there would be a law against murder and the punishment would be execution, for any who commit murder, but there would be no laws regarding the Sabbath.

"...a true theocracy is only possible when a nation is truly theonomic. In other words, God’s law cannot govern a nation (theocracy) where God’s law does not rule in the hearts of the people (theonomy). A theonomic approach to all of life by all of the citizens of a nation will, by definition, be a theocracy. This can never be a top-down hand of oppression, but must always be a bottom-up, from the heart, obedience. The critics rely on this negative idea of an oppressive theocracy to make their case against theonomy,[1] yet can never cite a direct quote from theonomic writers who actually advocate a top-down method of civic oppression and submission."
http://americanvision.org/948/theonomy-vs-theocracy/

How would you go about "changing hearts" in this ever so morally corrupt nation of ours?

And once again, why do you not like the wisdom of our Christian Founding Fathers when it came to the amendment process in the Constititution?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How would you go about "changing hearts" in this ever so morally corrupt nation of ours?

I don't think you can. That is what I have learned on TOL. People are either sheep or goats. Some sheep are lost, and those are the ones you think you helped bring in. The goats are obvious, and are here to twist the truth to keep the lost sheep lost.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How would you go about "changing hearts" in this ever so morally corrupt nation of ours?

I don't think you can. That is what I have learned on TOL. People are either sheep or goats. Some sheep are lost, and those are the ones you think you helped bring in. The goats are obvious, and are here to twist the truth to keep the lost sheep lost.

I agree my friend. That being said, we must keep on trying to change hearts/culture and laws and eventually return to our country's Christian foundation until it comes to the point where option #2 is the only answer.

Option #2
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
"...a true theocracy is only possible when a nation is truly theonomic. In other words, God’s law cannot govern a nation (theocracy) where God’s law does not rule in the hearts of the people (theonomy). A theonomic approach to all of life by all of the citizens of a nation will, by definition, be a theocracy. This can never be a top-down hand of oppression, but must always be a bottom-up, from the heart, obedience. The critics rely on this negative idea of an oppressive theocracy to make their case against theonomy,[1] yet can never cite a direct quote from theonomic writers who actually advocate a top-down method of civic oppression and submission."
http://americanvision.org/948/theonomy-vs-theocracy/

How would you go about "changing hearts" in this ever so morally corrupt nation of ours?

And once again, why do you not like the wisdom of our Christian Founding Fathers when it came to the amendment process in the Constititution?
I can't change a heart, but I can advocate right laws and oppose evil ones.

As for the amendment process all one has to do to see its failure is look at prohibition. One amendment repeals another; and then there's the fact that prohibition went into effect int he first place with an amendment.

And then there are amendments that had to be added to give rights and freedoms to people who should have already had them.

The Founding Fathers were unwise; and I remain unconvinced they were all Christians.
 
Top