Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

I am sorry you are clueless then.

You could type your question into Google and receive a very detailed answer in about 5 seconds though.

Good luck!

 

I regard a lot of it as a negative thing because a lot of it is unconstitutional, for one thing.

 

Plenty of liberal concepts conflict with Christianity.

Let's start with the liberal concept of Freedom of Religion. You won't find that concept anywhere in Christianity.

How about the liberal concept of Freedom of Speech. You won't find that concept anywhere in Christianity either.

Then there is the liberal concept of freedom of movement while Christianity endorses slavery.

Freedom to marry the consenting adult of your choice is opposed by Christianity as a "sin".

Plenty more but that is enough to make the point.

 

How so? What parts?

 

Your supposed 'contradiction' is based on an error in analysis, because human rights and freedoms are the birth-right of all humans, not just those who excel in the competition of life, and who can claim access to vital resources based on their own self-interest without regard to the needs of others.

Can you now see the contradiction in your stance?

[Note: Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights identifies the Right to Universal above poverty level participation in the economy.]

The universal right to life is obviously best protected by rule of law, as opposed to the anarchy inherent in arming everyone with lethal weapons. Fact: the 2nd amendment failed to protect the right to life of the 50 people murdered at Los Vegas, or the 14 students murdered at a Florida high school. Such lethal weapons ought to be confined to the military, so that not even criminals, never lone psychopaths, can obtain them. But obviously any restrictions on access, in law, would be advisable in the interests of increasing community safety.

But bear in mind the benefits accruing to a generally more harmonious community that has eradicated poverty, as enshrined in Article 25 (noted above).

You mean - via the 2nd amendment? It's an anachronism of course; a "well-regulated militia, necessary for the defence of the state" has absolutely nothing to do with a universal right to bear arms, in a complex, high-density population, modern community.

See above. Obviously the right to bear arms protects no-one, unless all are armed.

By definition, in a well-functioning society, those who abide by the law will have their rights protected by the law.

But the argument becomes circular at this point, because as I stated at the beginning, you have to engage the principle of co-operation, as well as the principle of competition, in order to engender "well-functioning societies"; lack of a global oversight mechanism (eg a UNSC without veto) to enable co-operation as required, along-side constructive ("creative") competition, is why the world community is imploding at present.

 

There is no contradiction in my stance as your complaint, above, is unsupportable nonsense.

And to provide the mans to exercise that right you must trample on the rights of others.

Nice piece of straw you have there, mixed in with a healthy helping of unsupportable nonsense.
None of it does a thing to change the fact you want to trample on the right to keep and bear arms.

Your opinion here means nothing.
Facts:
1- We have the right to keep and bear arms
2- You seek to trample it.

And so, you really have no intention to protect peoples' rights, just trample the rights you do not like and those who hold them.

 

But you haven't said why 'my complaint' is nonsense, whereas I have noted that, if a universal right to life and liberty exists, it's contradictory to claim that protecting this right (via rule of law) means trampling on it.

Promoting well-ordered relations between self-interested individuals (via rule of law) does not mean trampling on rights of individuals who obey the law.

I raised a number of points you again failed to address, related to social issues, eg, identified by Trump in the campaign when he said: "you are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones....", a situation obviously very deleterious to the universal right to life and liberty. Obviously a cohesive, prosperous, peaceful and well functioning community has no need of a postulated 'right' to unrestricted or universal access to lethal arms, for self defence.

Where in the Constitution is the Right to bear arms stated as absolute and universal, ie, other than in the 2nd amendment which as I have shown is an anachronistic irrelevance?

To confirm: I'm for universal rights to life, liberty, security and prosperity (a work in progress), incompatible with a hypothetical universal unrestricted right of access to lethal weapons

 

Troll alert

 

I described them as "unsupportable nonsense".
That means you cannot support your claim.

Explain then why gun control laws function by restricting the rights - that is, by trampling on the rights - of the law abiding?

Not so - I acknowledged their straw man nature and/or how you could not support them.
Hint: The fact a gun might not be useful is every instance of self-defense does not in any way support, much less prove, guns are never useful in an instance of self-defense.
Thus, your conclusion to that effect is unsupportable nonsense, and does nothing to change the fact you want to trample on the right to keep and bear arms.

No. You stated your opinion that it is an anachronistic irrelevance. Your opinion is unsupportable, unsound, and meaningless.
Thus, these facts remain:
Facts:
1- We have the right to keep and bear arms
2- You seek to trample it.

That is, you pick and choose the rights you like, and are happy to trample on the rights you do not like as a means to provide others the means to exercise the rights you do like.
And so, your claim that "...I feel government has a benevolent role to play in regards to protecting and maintaining human rights & freedoms..." is false.

People like you are why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

We don't have ANY rights that have no limits or accommodations for the fact that there are multiple human beings in our society.

You're raising a ludicrously high bar - one that has never been accepted, regardless of the topic.

Guns just aren't so exceptional that they should be treated so monumentally differently than ALL OTHER RIGHTS we have.

 

Who says they should?
The right to keep and bear arms should be treated exactly like the right to free speech.

 

Speech rights have numerous limitations.

So, I agree with you in that gun rights should come with numerous limitations as well - probably more, as guns have been shown to be lethal.

 

And I am more than happy to discuss how those limitations - and just those limitations - as well the arguments behind them should be applied to the rights to keep and bear arms.
You? Not so much.

 

You're clearly clueless about me, so let's understand that to start with.

Limitations on speech don't necessarily translate directly to guns.

One has to go at least a level higher and understand why there are limitations. One could then apply those reasons for limitation more generally.

So for example, there are limitations on speech that have to do with the damage to an individual that certain speech can inflict.

I would argue that there is damage to an individual that a gun can inflict, too!

 

They do. In toto.
The constitution protects the right to kneel during the anthem, the right to not go to church, the right to have an abortion, the right to vote, the right to marry whomever you can get to agree and the right to keep and bear arms with the same veracity -- if a restriction on one of these violates the constitution, so too does that restriction when applied to all of the others.

Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st Amendment because they directly harm others; fighting words, the incitement of violence and falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater are not protected by the 1st amendment because they place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
How does this apply to the right to keep and bear arms?

 

There is no constitutional right to marriage. The "right" to abortion is derived and up to interpretation.

Much more importantly, you're totally dodging the issue of limitations.

And, the nature of limitations IS the issue.

As a result, your post is irrelevant.

 

US jurisprudence says otherwise. Thus, my statement stands.

You must have missed this part:
Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st Amendment because they directly harm others; fighting words, the incitement of violence and falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater are not protected by the 1st amendment because they place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
How does this apply to the right to keep and bear arms?

As I said:
I am more than happy to discuss how those limitations - and just those limitations - as well the arguments behind them should be applied to the rights to keep and bear arms.
You? Not so much.

 

No, there is no right to marriage. States don't have to offer marriage. And, the federal government doesn't offer it.

I didn't miss that - I pointed it out. To be specific about it:

One of the reasons we limit speech involves the safety of the public in general and individuals specifically.

Public and individual safety are grounds that do apply to firearms.

 

You refuse to recognize reality; this fact does not in any way diminish my statement.

We limit speech for the reasons I listed - because it causes harm and/or because it places people in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger. We also place time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech on public property in the interests of public safety as is relates to the use of said public property.

3rd time:
How does this apply to the right to keep and bear arms?

 

All this god stuff is man-made. So you can do as you like.

 

You said it. I'm not sure what you're hoping for me to add.

In the following I changed free speech to guns:
... because it causes harm and/or because it places people in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger. We also place time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of guns on public property in the interests of public safety as is relates to the use of said public property.

 

Ah. You agree with e premise. Good.
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

The issue is safety of individuals and the public in general.

And, that has to do with how they are constructed, who owns, whether they have FULL responsibility for ownership (which they don't today), where they take them, what is legal to do with them, etc., etc.

 

I'm sorry - you agreed with the premise I laid out - that we only restrict the right to free speech, and as you added, the right to keep and bear arms - when it harms others, or places pothers in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

I ask again:
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

You can go back and read what I said.

And, I'd propose you not add or subtract and then claim I said it.

Note that I said something about the reasons for limitations to rights.

I didn't say that the specific limitations would be the same.

Guns and speech have different characteristics, so one shouldn't expect that the solutions for mitigating their respective risks would be the same.