DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE TRUE CONTEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHOWN IN QUOTES BY EARLY AMERICAN LEADERS:

Chris Pinto is continuing the subject of gun control in today's (July 27) broadcast The Second Amendment Some topics covered: UN aim to disarm the world, means the average citizen. + Pinto believes it's basically Rome's attempt to reinstate a worldwide Inqusition. + He gives quotes from American leaders that make clear what the Second Amendment was really all about, which contradicts today's attempt to disarm the people.

Quotes Blackstone on the law. + quotes Jefferson on necessity of armed citizens for protection against criminal acts. + Mentions a video at You Tube How to stop a massacre which shows a recent real-life incident in which an armed citizen routs a couple of robbers who were threatening people in an internet cafe. +

Quotes Patrick Henry on need for force to protect liberty, advocating that every citizen have a gun. + Quotes Noah Webster on how the tyranny of state armies is thwarted by the arming of the citizens. + Quotes a journal in Boston in 1769 calling for citizens to be armed against British military abuses of power. English Bill of Rights invoked as authority. Mentions Blackstone's commentary on the law. Natural right of self defense. + Bible references +

Quotes George Mason 1775 militia plan, pledge to keep arms in readiness + Patrick Henry on protection of liberty by all citizens being armed + Sam Adams natural rights to life liberty and property and right to defend them. + John Adams arms for defense of country, ovethrow of tyranny or private self defense. +

As Pinto says "It's so clear what the second amendment was intended to mean" if you read the writings of these early Americans, "its purpose clearly extended to private citizens", and yet the second amendment has been "twisted and manipulated and lied about" by people trying to find a way to destroy it. + He ends with a quote from Richard Henry Lee in 1788 which ought to put to rest all the anti-second-amendment stuff about what a militia was supposed to be:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

The importance of knowing history is demonstrated in this quote. I've been in all kinds of discussions about what the second amendment means and nothing like this came up, which should have silenced all that nonsense about a militia being an organization or an army. The idea always seemed to contradict the very soul of the second amendment which is the right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves, but without proof of the original intent of the founding generation the gun control people were always winning the debates. We need more Chris Pintos.
============================
Later edit:
Typical "liberal" view of the second amendment:

... what you CAN construe is that the National Guards of the various states are the modern militias in question, organized and trained by state, armed, organized and disciplined by congress ... and the place where civilians can enroll to get proper training and then keep and bear arms. The second amendment is curiously silent on whether or not these arms can be taken home, presumably leaving that up to the states that are running the National Guards ( militias), and it is also silent on regulation of general gun ownership, again, presumably leaving that up to the states, a position that is upheld in the supreme court.

In light of the quote of Richard Henry Lee given above, such an opinion is completely out of tune with the original intent of the founding generation. Any official army, even the National Guard, is an entity that can become a force of tyranny on behalf of the state against the people, the very people the second amendment was intended to protect against that very kind of tyranny.

The second amendment is not "curiously silent on whether these arms can be taken home" since it accords to "the People" the right to keep and bear arms.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was what inspired the interpretation quoted above:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If this section is intended to define or qualify the "militia" as set forth in the second amendment, then it must refer to the totality of the People that Congress is called to organize, arm and discipline, as opposed to "such Part of them" as a separate unit to be employed in the service of the United States... The singling out of such a Part implies a much greater totality which is not so employed -- that is, of course, ALL THE PEOPLE.

Is it Judgment OR Revival, or could it be Judgment AND Revival?

I keep hearing some ideas that strike me as very odd that I can't yet organize into a coherent point of view, which was also the case in my previous post. It's not getting much clearer yet. Some questions out of the incoherence occur:

Why does it matter that America isn't in the Bible as far as hopes for a revival go? Revival is God's coming down and imparting fresh spiritual life to His people This could happen in Timbuktoo as well as America and I don't think Timbuktoo is in the Bible either.

What does it have to do with the origins of America whether we have revival or not? Why should it matter whether the Founders were Enlightenment Deists or Christians for us to desire to wake up the churches and strengthen believers in the Holy Spirit? For whatever reason America as a whole HAS been historically characterized by Christian culture and if the churches get revived the whole culture will get renewed with a Christian outlook. What any of this has to do with specifics about the Founding generation completely escapes me.

Why should there be a problem with desiring and seeking revival whether or not the very last days are upon us and the Antichrist is just around the corner? Why would we need to find such a revival in the Bible in order to justify seeking it? We seek it because we need it. If it should come before the Evil Empire descends on us at least we will have had a wonderful awakening, the strengthening of God's people and the ushering in of many converts who won't be prey for that regime.

They seem to talk at times as if revival or desire for revival could interfere with the end times plan, even as if that would be working against God. Strengthening His church would be working against God? What if it did put off the timing of the coming of the final Evil Empire? God's going to object to that?

They also seem to talk as if Well fine if God brings revival well and good but if not well and good, as if revival simply drops out of the sky at God's bidding and has nothing to do with human effort. I've read quite a bit about revivals and one thing that is true of all of them is that there was deep desire and seeking for the revival and much much prayer. If that isn't happening there will not be revival.

==========

LATER: The people who seem to be saying these things seem to have "moralizing" in mind as the problem, attempts to "reclaim" "Christian America" with politics and moral reformation, which tends to seek alignment with nonChristian groups that share the same moral perspective, meaning Christians aligning with Mormons and Catholics and the like in an ecumenical coalition. However, this does manage to get confused with long-established hopes for revival among true Christians such as Leonard Ravenhill never ceased calling for, and sites such as Sermon Index are dedicated to.

I get the feeling that these critics aren't really aware of these revival hopes and that may be why I'm having such a hard time grasping their position. I have certainly vacillated a great deal on whether or not such a revival is even possible at this time, or could even be risky considering all the false "Christian" groups that keep springing up like poisonous mushrooms these days that would do their best to interfere with it.

And now Glenn Beck the Mormon has been calling for "revival" which is another red flag. BUT: True revival is not possible within Mormonism, true Holy Spirit revival, because it's a false religion. The best they could do IS some attempt at moralistic reformation -- or some demonic manifestations perhaps, and we ARE getting near the time when "signs and wonders" are prophesied to start appearing. Same with Catholicism and all the growing bodies of apostate "Christianity" out there as well. Rick Warren's church, Joel Osteen's, the Emergent Church etc. etc.

But is it possible to have a true revival among true Christians without all the rest of that interfering? Again, I vacillate. I might not have worried about it except that I remember A W Tozer warning that there are times, and his own time was one, when revival would not be a good idea because of the backslidden or watered-down condition of the churches -- and he wasn't even talking about all the FALSE churches, just weak true churches. So the question about true revival really is: Is there enough of a true church now that God COULD revive us in true supernatural power and convert some of the apostates as well? Or not?

Revelations about the ANTI-Christian beliefs of the Founders and deceptions about Christian America that many are falling for these days

Revelations about the anti-Christian beliefs of the American founding fathers, that I first discovered through a film by Chris Pinto at You Tube, are very disturbing to a conservative patriotic American Christian. But I'm now convinced that these revelations are really as important as Jonathan Cahn's about God's message to America in events surrounding 9/11. The deceptions that contemporary Christians fall into come at us from every direction these days, and unfortunately they are so utterly unexpected and Christians so woefully unprepared to stand against them, that most of us fall into at least some of them.

I certainly fell for the patriotic Christian view of the founding fathers that has been promoted particularly by David Barton over the last couple of decades. You must be convinced, if you watch Chris Pinto's revelations, that Barton was not playing with a full deck in his claims that America's founders were true Christians. Whether he fooled himself as well isn't clear, but now he's supporting Glenn Beck the Mormon as a "Christian" and has become thoroughly untrustworthy whether his misguided views are intentional or he is deceived himself.

Barton's claims are trusted and propagated still by most Christians, and Glenn Beck himself is also a strong propagator of the "Christian" basis of America, which I too accepted as true, although knowing Beck is a Mormon ought to be a warning in itself that something may not be quite right about what he's promoting. Beck is a very talented and convincing spokesman for American conservatism and patriotism. It really kind of takes the wind out of you to begin to see through such apparently righteous opinions to hidden deceptions. The whole Christian-Founders position needs to be exposed as deception. Truly Satan presents himself as "an angel of light."

Need to add here that this doesn't mean that America is not Christian in a very basic sense nevertheless, as the original settlers were genuine Christians, the Pilgrims and Puritans. But their Christian beliefs were betrayed by the generation of the Revolution and the Founding of the nation. These revelations have got me wondering why it is that God has so clearly blessed America, as He truly has, up until fairly recently, and it must be because of the Christian beliefs and lives of the original settlers as well as the majority of the population.

There is also the fact that the founders DID insist on prayer for the nation, recognizing the sovereign power of God and the need to trust Him for the nation's success. Even Benjamin Franklin called for prayer in Congress to assure God's favor on the proceedings, and he was among the least Christian of the founders. That prayer was so prominent on their agenda is puzzling after you realize just how anti-Christian the main leaders were -- which is revealed in Pinto's films on the subject. But the Deists of those days apparently believed in a God who hears prayer, they just didn't believe in Christ as God Himself and salvation through His death and resurrection, which is made only too clear in Pinto's films. It does seem to be the case that God heard George Washington's inaugural prayers for the nation that were made from that little chapel at the corner of Ground Zero that is a big part of Jonathan Cahn's revelations about 9/11, and that the blessings that God had bestowed on this nation dedicated to God in so many ways were rescinded by God at the very same place on 9/11.

Puzzling. Uncanny. Disturbing. Breath-taking really.

As far as I know, the revelations originated with Chris Pinto, but they have recently been taken up by Brannon Howse of Worldview Weekend as well. He is doing a three-part radio series -- the second aired today and the third will air tomorrow -- on a film made by Kirk Cameron that is to come out at the end of March titled Monumental, which is about a little-known monument to the founding fathers of America that claims to reflect the beliefs of the Pilgrim settlers of America. As Howse, Pinto and Decker make clear, that monument is utterly pagan in all its imagery, and was established by Masons, reflecting Masonic beliefs about "God" and has nothing Christian about it at all. An open Bible is part of it but "God" is presented as the generic "higher power" rather than the God of the Bible, and the Masons could just as easily have put a Koran in its place. If the Pilgrims had been around when this monument was created they would have denounced it as a work of Satan.

They would also most likely have denounced the generation of the Revolution and the Founders as followers of Satan.

Sobering stuff. Important stuff.

Chris Pinto also discusses this on his radio show for 2/29/11, titled Council of Trent And More, which is an interesting subject in itself, but most of the broadcast he spends discussing Kirk Cameron's film he'd also been discussing on the Worldview Weekend broadcast I've linked above.

This is a perfect, a classic, example of how Christians can be deceived. It's important to know about this.

Brannon Howse's broadcasts are only available free to the public for 14 days after airing, and then they become part of his archives that you have to subscribe to. Pinto's broadcasts I believe are free at any time.

There are plenty of "watchmen" or "discernment" type ministries out there that have also aimed to "expose" such Masonic and pagan roots of the American founding, but in my experience some of them are themselves so untrustworthy I have trouble taking them seriously even though some of what they say may be true. Their "evidence" is often incomplete, sometimes little more than circumstantial, often accusing people of guilt by association. They jump to conclusions without really proving the conclusions justified by the facts, although they themselves are thoroughly convinced by what seem to them to be sufficient facts, even saying things like "it's a no-brainer to me." Seems to me there is plenty of reason to think they are just being carried away, and worse, accusing true Christians of intentional deception that is not warranted. They show little concern that by trusting in their own personal grasp of the facts they may be accusing a true brother in Christ of intentional deception who is himself merely led away by a deception -- which any of us can be these days. I've heard too many true Christians denounced by such incautious "ministries" even as "devils" to the point I can barely take any of it seriously any more and just have to pray for the teacher who is behaving like a bull in a china shop, and possibly dangerously worse than that, letting himself be overcome by emotion through lack of complete knowledge and in fact setting himself up against God without knowing it.

But Chris Pinto's revelations about the founding fathers just blew me away with his careful mustering of evidence and objective attitude. Brannon Howse also has the same attitude and is very careful to acknowledge that Kirk Cameron is a true brother in Christ although he is trying to show that he is deceived about the meaning of this monument he has been championing in the film about it.

Here's a page on the program at Worldview Weekend:

Evidence that the American Founding was NOT Christian

Received this link in my email today from a Christian ministry, for The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers, a three-hour movie showing that the American founding was pretty much exclusively the product of the Enlightenment, through Freemasonry and the Illuminati, not the product of Biblical thinking as some Christian ministries have claimed.

THIS IS VERY WELL DONE, ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD SEE THIS.

I've heard some of this before but never so convincingly presented. I DID already know that Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were not Christians, nor Adams, because he was a Unitarian, and I don't know how anyone ever said otherwise, but even the idea that some of the PRINCIPLES of the founding were Christian despite the beliefs of the founders takes a hit in this presentation. For me, the greatest revelation is about George Washington's beliefs.

But I have to admit that overall ANY claim for Christian inspiration of the United States government has been soundly debunked in this presentation. Perhaps the hardest part to digest is that the champion of the Christian argument, David Barton, is shown to have quoted out of context in such a way as to bring his motives into question.

I still need to hear answering arguments from the other side but at the very least I'm now convinced that whatever Christian thinking did influence the American founding is highly compromised by the evident anti-Christian influences.

The American Founding -- nothing but Masonic curses and pagan imagery?

Listening to an attack on the American Founders, a lot of it about the Masonic influence on the architecture of Washington D.C. which does raise questions about how such apparently precisely designed symbolic relationships got conceived and built, meaning who exactly had the vision and was able to bring it off like that? Wild accusations of the Founders themselves as complicit in this really need to be toned down. The fact of the buildings themselves isn't evidence, you need evidence in the form of quotes at the very least. So far I haven't heard it. In any case there seems to be evidence enough that Masonic influence WAS driving the design. Beyond that I'm not yet prepared to go.

Those who get into this kind of information unfortunately tend to keep themselves as ignorant as possible of the other side of the story. You can't tell them anything about the Christian beliefs of the Founders for instance, because they always answer with the Masonic "evidence" against them. They seem to think that externals prove conscious intention. Big leap there. There's a Proverb about the foolishness of hearing only one side of a story. They rely on just a few of the same sources, all with an axe to grind. I'm not doubting that there was all that Masonic influence in the founding of America -- or the pagan themes either. What I'm doubting is that the whole story is getting told and that these influences are being understood in the right context and within the mentality of the times. You can't assume that what you know about the inner workings of Masonry is what was in the minds of participants in another culture and time. You have to study what they themselves had to say.

Of course I'm in the other position, having heard and read quite a bit that demonstrates the Christian mentality in the founding generation, very recently having heard an excerpt of a book being read on local Christian radio that seemed to do a very thorough job of showing that George Washington was a true Christian despite his Masonic membership. Sounded like a book I'd like to read if I could fit it in somewhere.

It's interesting now to have to contemplate the meaning of all this Masonic occultic stuff which does appear to be amazingly present in government architecture. But those who know only about the Masonic occultic stuff could use a good dose of the other side and do some reading in the evidence for the Christian basis of the nation because it's very strong and if they ignore it they compromise their credibility. As it stands, it all comes off as a jumping to conclusions based only on external appearances and a completely one-sided version of history.

Not to mention that the Christian nature of America is not dependent on the beliefs of the Founders but on principles that had been imbibed by them from the previous centuries of Christianization of Law and Culture. Our institutions were originally shot through with a Christian worldview no matter what the Founders' personal beliefs might have been. And the population of America at that time was deeply Christian.

I still have more to listen to on this subject and I'm not prepared to get much further into it at this point.

WHY ALL THE PAGAN ARCHITECTURE?
It is somewhat unnerving to find out how many pagan images inspired American buildings, but I think that could mostly have been the result of the fact that architects and sculptors, same as most artists in those days, had a reverence for classical (Greek) forms as particularly beautiful and significant, and that was a legacy from the Renaissance, not from pagan religion itself. To know how it was inspired would take more reading than those on the Masonic-conspiracy side of the story seem willing to do.

I don't know what artistic sensibility came up with the Egyptian obelisk for Washington's monument, but if you read the account at Wikipedia of the building of the monument it's hard to see any concerted pagan or Masonic intentions in it. It wasn't one smooth project. Its original plan was changed and its construction was interrupted which shows that 666 feet of height wasn't the original objective. If some such intentional symbolism ended up in it then we have to look for its author for the later stages. There doesn't seem to be such an intention in the early stages at least.

Also, there is no goddess named Columbia and it's plain foolishness that goes on and on about this supposed pagan "goddess." It wouldn't have taken much research to straighten out this nonsense either, just a reading of the Wikipedia entry ought to clear it up. There you find out that "Columbia" is a made-up name that appeared first in 1738 in Britain as a way to refer to America without doing it directly. It is based on the name Christopher Columbus! You know, the discoverer of America. It's an INVENTION for the purpose of SYMBOLIZING the country of America. A PERSONIFIED invention. And again, since artists liked Greek art one of them dressed her in a Greek chiton. (I guess because it suggests antiquity and dignity. You want a Hollywood style side-slit strapless gown? A bikini?) She never existed as a Greek Goddess!! She's a SYMBOL for pete's sake.

For the same reason we also don't need to get worked up over the Statue of Liberty as if it were a demonic curse based on a real goddess. She is a personification of the abstract concept of Liberty. Yes, there were goddesses of liberty in Rome and Greece, but the statue is intended for a different purpose: to represent the freedom for which the United States is known, for which it fought against a despotic king and which its institutions enshrine. Again, she is a PERSONIFICATION of a concept. How would YOU try to depict the concept of freedom in a statue? A woman holding a torch is a very effective image. And again at Wikipedia read how her headdress was arrived at. There is no particular goddess she is based on, many ways of depicting her were considered. She is not worshipped as a goddess, she functions as a touching tribute to American history. It's absurd to try to make more out of it than that.

It is not a good idea to impute to demons what is really just the idealistic work of an artist.

Again, it seems clear enough that there was Masonic influence in much of the architecture, and there certainly are pagan images as well. The one that bothers me the most is the image of Mohammed as a lawgiver alongside Moses on I guess the Supreme Court building. And the Masonic symbolism is pretty thick in some of them.

But I feel a need for a better historical account of these things than the Masonic-conspiracy people give us. My main question is Who had that kind of mentality and the power to influence those buildings?

A GENERAL POSITION STATEMENT ON THESE SUPPOSED REVELATIONS:

I've listened to some more on this subject and although there's plenty more to go I have come to one clear conclusion in my own mind that I want to state here:

IT DOES NOT MATTER as far as Christians go, or as far as the business of the U.S. government goes either, that somehow Masonic and pagan imagery and symbolism apparently got established here and there in the architecture of government buildings. What matters is the intentions of the people, what's in the heart, not what's plastered on the wall of a building.

Of course it may matter for SOME purposes, and if even half of it's true it's certainly a startling fact that needs to be thought about, but it isn't something WE need to be spending a lot of time concerned about, and IT'S WRONG FOR THESE TEACHERS TO TRY TO ENGAGE A PERSON'S CONSCIENCE AGAINST THIS.

What did Paul teach about idols? That they are NOTHING! We do not need to concern ourselves about them. Even eating food sacrificed to them is not to be made a big deal conscience-wise for believers who are to "[ask] no question for conscience' sake." If it IS a big deal for some with a weak conscience, as I understand it they should not eat it because it will defile them in that state of mind, and others should refrain from eating it as well for that brother's sake, but otherwise Paul teaches NOT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT FOR CONSCIENCE' sake.

27 If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: 29 conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's;

The point is that there is no need to get stirred up about gods and goddesses in mere imagery. It is quite possible for Christian proceedings to go on within pagan walls without any effect from them if they are treated as the NOTHINGS that Paul says they are, just nice paintings and sculptures that remind us of the noble history of the nation. If you make a big deal out of any supposed pagan influence THEN you might expect an effect because you will have introduced anxiety and guilt where you should have left well enough alone.

ALSO, this idea that imagery that exalts George Washington to some kind of deified status IN THE MINDS OF OCCULTISTS proves that HE HIMSELF shared in their point of view is irresponsible. WHAT THE OCCULTISTS THINK ABOUT WASHINGTON PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT HE HIMSELF THOUGHT!!

And making his image on the one-dollar bill into proof of anything other than that he was the first President of the U.S., and one much revered by his own generation for many achievements and virtues, including his role as leader of the American Revolution, is, may I say, STUPID! HE WAS AN IMPORTANT MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Good grief!

Such overwrought thinking really needs the correction of a good solid trustworthy biography of his life. Good grief!

I'm in fact VERY interested to understand the pagan and Masonic imagery and how it got there and what purpose it might have besides possibly making pagans titter at the recognition of some of their favorite symbols and the naivete of the rest of us, but again, I do not trust this kind of presentation.