Massachusetts Senate election

Fr Tod Umptious

Tomorrow there is a special election in Massachusetts Senate election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy

Now this seat should be a lock for the Dems, and it looked that way until about a week ago but Martha Coakley (D) is getting a real run for her money from Scott Brown (R)

If Brown did win it would be a major blow for Obama and his healthcare plans as it would mean that the Republicans would have 41 seats and their fillabuster righst back.

kev9100

Ah ****. How in the name of God can a Republican win Teddy Kennedys seat? The dems have screwed up big time here.

Manic Moran

Interestingly, it's the Democrats that started the negative campaigning this time around. Up until a week ago, it was polite enough from both sides.

Of course, arguably if you seen as being unable to spell the name of your State correctly, there might be some negative PR effects...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/12/coakley-ad-misspells-massachusetts/

A new ad from Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley - the Democratic candidate to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy - misspells her home state of Massachusetts

I don't think that Brown'll win, though.

How in the name of God can a Republican win Teddy Kennedys seat? The dems have screwed up big time here.

He's more of an independent. May also be an issue that the D is the current Attorney General, the person responsible for law and order. If crime in the area has gone up, or if there's a perception that she's not doing a proper job or recommending unpopular laws or punishments, it could be a problem.

NTM

Fr Tod Umptious

kev9100 wrote: »

Ah ****. How in the name of God can a Republican win Teddy Kennedys seat? The dems have screwed up big time here.

Well as Scott Brown put it himself , 'It's not Ted Kennedy's seat, it's the people of Massachusetts seat'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrV4m0PnSUs

And that sort of arrogance and laziness has seen Coakley's lead drop drop from double digits to a dead heat

Manic Moran

A very good little article in the Washington Examiner.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Two-factors-will-decide-Massachusetts-Senate-race-81956292.html

After all the speeches, politicking, and attack ads, there are just two issues that will determine the winner of the Massachusetts Senate seat in Tuesday's special election. The first is health care and the second is one-party government. And in Massachusetts, neither issue works exactly as outsiders might think –– and right now both are working in favor of Republican Scott Brown.

On health care, Massachusetts is in a unique position. It already has near-universal coverage, enacted in 2006 by Republican governor Mitt Romney and the Democratic legislature, so a national measure designed to extend coverage to millions of currently-uncovered Americans means little to Bay State residents. But the Democrats' national health care plan would force Massachusetts residents to pay higher taxes to expand coverage elsewhere in the country –– with relatively few new benefits at home.

"In this state, we basically have universal health care," says Joey Buceta, a Boston independent who attended a Scott Brown rally in the North End Friday. "Why should we pay more money for it? We already have it."

<snip>

On the second issue, one-party government, Massachusetts is also in an unusual position. Often called the bluest of blue states, it is certainly dominated by Democrats. But over the years Massachusetts voters have shown an inclination to elect a Republican to the occasional state office.

That balance has usually meant a GOP governor; four of the last five Massachusetts governors have been Republicans. At the same time, the rest of the state government, as well as the state's delegations in the House and Senate, have been dominated by Democrats. But even with that lopsided situation, the presence of a GOP governor gave voters a certain sense of balance.

Now, even that is gone. Not only are all other significant state offices occupied by Democrats, the governorship is in the hands of the very Democratic, very liberal, and very unpopular Deval Patrick. There is not even a token of Republican leadership to be found. And for the independent voters who will play a critical role in Tuesday's election, Massachusetts' one-party rule mirrors the one-party rule in today's Washington, where national Democrats are deciding important issues among themselves without even the pretense of including Republicans.

<snip>

Finally, there is a growing sense that the Democratic party's domination has led to widespread corruption. Three –– yes, three –– consecutives speakers of the Massachusetts state legislature, all Democrats, have been indicted. Other Democratic lawmakers are in trouble, as well. There has perhaps never been a better time for a Republican to argue that one-party rule has led to too much conformity and corruption.

Given the uniqueness of Massachusetts politics, voters' feelings about the top two issues in this election –– health care and one-party rule –– seem unlikely to be affected much by outside appeals, whether they be from President Obama, former President Clinton, or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who campaigned for Brown on Friday. What do those outsiders have to add to the public's understanding of how the issues play out in Massachusetts? State voters have their own distinctive perspective, and that is what will guide their decision on Tuesday.

NTM

Overheal

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well as Scott Brown put it himself , 'It's not Ted Kennedy's seat, it's the people of Massachusetts seat'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrV4m0PnSUs

And that sort of arrogance and laziness has seen Coakley's lead drop drop from double digits to a dead heat

I have to agree, he's put a Hole in this Kennedy Royal Family thing thats been going on for way too long. I'd say more people knew Ted for his brother's assassination than his good works in the Senate, sad as that fact is.

Lockstep

It'll be an interesting race alright.

Brown is doing extremely well despite Joseph Kennedy running on a libertarian platform, would be an absolute body blow to the Obama administration if the Republicans gained a seat in Massachusetts of all places

The healthcare is an issue alright, Republicans will oppose it on principle and many swing voters will see little benefit to it at all.

Fr Tod Umptious

kickoutthejams wrote: »

It'll be an interesting race alright.

Brown is doing extremely well despite Joseph Kennedy running on a libertarian platform, would be an absolute body blow to the Obama administration if the Republicans gained a seat in Massachusetts of all places

The healthcare is an issue alright, Republicans will oppose it on principle and many swing voters will see little benefit to it at all.

And Massachusetts is a place were an awful lot of voters are working and paying good money for good health care plans

They do not want to see their quality of service watered down just so that some toothless wonder in a trailer park in Arkansas can get a health care plan too.

Lockstep

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And Massachusetts is a place were an awful lot of voters are working and paying good money for good health care plans

They do not want to see their quality of service watered down just so that some toothless wonder in a trailer park in Arkansas can get a health care plan too.

Exactly, that's what I was trying to say about possible swing voters. They already have a statewide plan with community ratings etc.

kev9100

kickoutthejams wrote: »

this would be an absolute body blow to the Obama administration if the Republicans gained a seat in Massachusetts of all places

If Brown wins this seat it will be much more than a body blow. This election could knock the Obama Administrations head off.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

They do not want to see their quality of service watered down just so that some toothless wonder in a trailer park in Arkansas can get a health care plan too.

No more crass stereotypes please.

Lockstep

kev9100 wrote: »

If Brown wins this seat it will be much more than a body blow. This election could knock the Obama Administrations head off.

I wouldn't go that far. It would remove the Democrat's filibuster proof majority (presumably leading to a more moderate healthcare plan, decided with moderate Republicans), but it'd hardly decapitate the Obama administration.

kev9100

But this bill is already moderate. No Public Option, no Medicare expansion and because of the Mandate even more people will be forced to go to the Private Insurance companies for coverage. The Dems have compromised on almost everything and not one Republican Senator voted for Health Care Reform. So if Brown is elected, Health Care reform dies.

Lockstep

It's certainly been watered down but no, it will not die, even if Brown gets in. The fact that it mandates insurance along with community ratings will have a huge increase, given the biggest problem in the US is the screening for healthcare bureacracy/denial of coverage.

They havn't compromised on everything, the lack of a public option was a problem but is hardly a sign of compromise on everything.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal listed out the Republican they;d be dealing with, forget her name but she'd sign in the bill if it had more protection for SME and working families.

SLUSK

kev9100 wrote: »

Ah ****. How in the name of God can a Republican win Teddy Kennedys seat? The dems have screwed up big time here.

I thought the seat belonged to the loyal subjects of Massachusetts

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

I thought the seat belonged to the loyal subjects of Massachusetts

:rolleyes:

joehanley55

go brown go, last thing we need to do is give the administration more power. it goes against reason to give something (the state) more power over another aspect of life when its in the process of using the power it already has irresponsibly.

its a pity the only way to get rid of the bill is to elect brown, whos got some pretty ridiculus views(like guatanamo).

Agent Smith

I'm following this here in Orlando, There is no exit polls being done (unusal!)

According to local news here, this is too close to call. I can see the GOP taking the seat. People seem to be getting sick with the economy, and altho Obama inherited the problem, he's the public face of it. No Hope No Change, Just Vagueness...

Overheal

Brown is going to win in 20 mins.

Kudlow Report had live feed's of both Election Centers: By 7 o'clock, Coakley's camp was Dead bar for a few technicians. Meanwhile Brown's looked like a New Years Bash. CNN Correspondent's meanwhile vouched having spoken with Democrat Strategists who confirmed the outlook is very bleak for Coakley.

Looks like Healthcare could Die. The Market has responded to this with Growth: the future is more certain without it, and that's encouraging investors.

speedboatchase

Coakley calls Brown to concede

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/live_coverage_o.html

Manic Moran

I must say, I am surprised.

I'm also somewhat pleased. I have a bit of a dislike for supermajorities on principle.

NTM

Lockstep

Meh, I saw it coming tbh.

The male vote really seemed to be gearing towards Brown and something like a quarter of Democrats said they'd be voting for the man.

ynotdu

Sh*T if Obama had got his health care reforms through He would have achieved something even FDR could not.
The Irony is Teddy K was a lifelong supporter of health care for ALL:(
The kennedys losing that seat leaves Ireland almost friendless on Capitol hill as well as the Irony that the US is playing a big part in Haiti but still leaving its own poorest vunerable.:(

amacachi

Wow. Did not see that coming.

Reading around on it though It does seem that the Democrats only have themselves in this one.

ynotdu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XWYefe9EzI

Overheal

ynotdu wrote: »

Sh*T if Obama had got his health care reforms through He would have achieved something even FDR could not.
The Irony is Teddy K was a lifelong supporter of health care for ALL:(
The kennedys losing that seat leaves Ireland almost friendless on Capitol hill as well as the Irony that the US is playing a big part in Haiti but still leaving its own poorest vunerable.:(

Its the People of Massachusetts' Seat, not The Kennedy Seat.

ynotdu

Overheal wrote: »

Its the People of Massachusetts' Seat, not The Kennedy Seat.

Oh really Overheal and there was Me thinking diffrient.
Guess i,ll never be in a polling booth with You so i will never know how You vote,bet i could hazzard a good guess though?

The elephant in the room is MANY people WANT this president to fail.

Manic Moran

The elephant in the room is MANY people WANT this president to fail.

Although this is true, it is probably hard to attribute that sentiment to the plurality of Massachussets voters. MA's still a very, very 'Blue' State. So either Obama is really screwing up if he's getting a safely Democrat-leaning State to vote against him or the Democratic Party screwed up by nominating a poor candidate and taking 'their' seat for granted.

I'll go for the latter.

NTM

SLUSK

The loss of this seat in Massachusetts was a great thing. Perhaps this can delay this monstrosity known as "Universal healthcare". It is madness and will only put America deeper into debt.

Manic Moran

Cool. I just copped that he holds the commission of a Lt Col in the Army. I like him already.

He even enlisted as an infantryman. Mustang.

NTM

Fr Tod Umptious

ynotdu wrote: »

The kennedys losing that seat leaves Ireland almost friendless on Capitol hill

It would have made a blind bit of difference who won from an Ireland perspective.

And it still may not be the end of Obama's plans, I believe that they can delay the rubber stamping of the result and thus not allow Brown to take his seat, I'll find links later

southsiderosie

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although this is true, it is probably hard to attribute that sentiment to the plurality of Massachussets voters. MA's still a very, very 'Blue' State. So either Obama is really screwing up if he's getting a safely Democrat-leaning State to vote against him or the Democratic Party screwed up by nominating a poor candidate and taking 'their' seat for granted.

I'll go for the latter.

NTM

+1000

The Dems in Massachusetts still seem to think that anointing patient party "good soldiers" for major state-wide positions should be enough for voters. They made the same mistake with Shannon O'Brien in 2002 against Mitt Romney - she was an uninteresting party insider who seemed to have no ideas of her own. Martha Coakley was even worse; the woman barely campaigned, and even had the nerve to complain about shaking hands in the cold. :eek:!!! Tip O'Neill is rolling over in his grave.

imme

Was real surprised that Coakley failed to hold the seat for the Democrats. The Tonight Show with Jon Stewart gave a real funny summary of her campaign failings.
Mitt Romney (candidate for Republican nomination in 2008 presidential election) was on the podium to introduce Brown to the crowd after his victory. Romney has no official position in the Republicans, but said he'd help out to get Rep candidates elected in the 2010 elections.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

The loss of this seat in Massachusetts was a great thing. Perhaps this can delay this monstrosity known as "Universal healthcare". It is madness and will only put America deeper into debt.

................

kev9100

I have to admit, Brown ran a good campaign and has pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in a long time. This really has left Dems in an awkward position. Although, I think if the House passes the exact same bill as the senate then health care reform is finished and it does'nt need to go back to the senate. Does anyone know for sure about this?

Fr Tod Umptious

The big looser here is Ted Kennedy

Back in 2004 is was instrumental in changing the law in Massachusetts so that an election would be held when a senate seat became vacant rather than the Governor selecting the person to fill the seat. This was in order to stop Mitt Romney (R) selecting the person to fill the seat that may be vacated by John Kerry (D) if he won the election.

before he died Ted tried to get the law changed back so that the now Governed Duval Patrick (D) could pick the replecement for Kennedy's seat.
Well it backfired, not only was the law not changed but the election ended up in a Republican senator

Plus Kennedy was a life long supporter of universal healthcare, now it looks like his successor will be the one to sink it.

Ayankabroad

Significant turning point in Obama's administration for a Republican to be successful in Massachusetts shows that there is no faith in the current healthcare plan. The concessions that were made to the unions and the tax on the cadillac plans did alot to benefit Mr. Brown

Manic Moran

Although, I think if the House passes the exact same bill as the senate then health care reform is finished and it does'nt need to go back to the senate. Does anyone know for sure about this?

I believe you to be correct, but the House and Senate bills have very fundamental differences between them. I'm not sure the Democrats can muster enough votes in the House to do it.

It's not necessarily the end of healthcare reform, but it very much could be the end of the (I think overachieving) attempt to completely redo multiple aspects of the American healthcare system. I think everyone's agreed that the system needs fixing, but maybe instead they can focus on a narrower area that achieves a little more support instead of trying to do everything in one glorious, historic, omnibus bill.

NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although this is true, it is probably hard to attribute that sentiment to the plurality of Massachussets voters. MA's still a very, very 'Blue' State. So either Obama is really screwing up if he's getting a safely Democrat-leaning State to vote against him or the Democratic Party screwed up by nominating a poor candidate and taking 'their' seat for granted.

I'll go for the latter.

NTM

Was reading the Wall Street Journal which had something interesting to say; Massachusetts isn't a strongly Blue state as is often claimed (half of it's voters are independants, only 25% are Democrats, fair few Republican governors) and they lost out heavily at the notion of paying taxes for something the Massachusetts people would see no benefit from (healthcare, given they already have a state system)

Something interesting in there I think, given the Kennedy personal cult.

Pocono Joe

Looks like the republican party isn't dead after all. (that's be best rubbing it in I can muster??? Really must be out of it after the surgery )

ynotdu

kev9100 wrote: »

Ah ****. How in the name of God can a Republican win Teddy Kennedys seat? The dems have screwed up big time here.

That is true,and by all accounts i heard today even Coakly has admitted that.
I guess my first reaction should have been one of Congratulations to Brown,but if i lived in America i know i would be a Democrat party supporter.none of the partie's are perfect but the Republicans are just not My cup of tea,So to Brown supporters can i say a belated Congratulations.It was a free and fair election and he won.

excuse My shock at the result and forgive My attachment to the Kennedys{You can guess the reasons:)}

My problem with the whole system is a Candidate needs to start running at least 18 months before the Election.The newly elected President has if he is lucky enough to carry both house's about 18 months to push through his agenda before he lose's one or both house's,this cripples him.
apparently the founding fathers put in the mid-terms to let a new administration know it had to behave.

It is SO diffrient to the Irish system in that the 'party whip' does not apply and Obama may after even more bartering get the votes he needs for health care reform from enough Republicans.

What i cannot comprehend from a Country so full of Christianity is WHY the death penalty still exists in so many states?

WHY is there such anomosity towards Universal health care?{once there are safeguards to prevent abuse}

and the right to bear arms is still enshrined?{many murders would not happen if guns were not so easy to get in the states,IMO}
I think there is more to it than just dollars?

even though i have said i would be a natural Democrat voter,i have recently read up on Ronald Reagan and admire him very much as a result of knowing the FACTS about him rather than the fiction!
To Me it seems He was the right man at the right time and could overcome almost any cross party political divide.

one more thing if someone is kind enough to answer:Is it true that the two term limit only came into being because of Nixon's carry-on?

Cheers

GuanYin

ynotdu wrote: »

What i cannot comprehend from a Country so full of Christianity is WHY the death penalty still exists in so many states?

WHY is there such anomosity towards Universal health care?{once there are safeguards to prevent abuse}

and the right to bear arms is still enshrined?{many murders would not happen if guns were not so easy to get in the states,IMO}
I think there is more to it than just dollars?

What dimension are you from where Christianity doesn't involve, murder, suffering and violence?

ynotdu

GuanYin wrote: »

What dimension are you from where Christianity doesn't involve, murder, suffering and violence?

Well I am not from the dimension that shoots dead doctors who carry out abortions because they believe human life is Sacred

Nagilum

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The big looser here is Ted Kennedy

Back in 2004 is was instrumental in changing the law in Massachusetts so that an election would be held when a senate seat became vacant rather than the Governor selecting the person to fill the seat. This was in order to stop Mitt Romney (R) selecting the person to fill the seat that may be vacated by John Kerry (D) if he won the election.

before he died Ted tried to get the law changed back so that the now Governed Duval Patrick (D) could pick the replecement for Kennedy's seat.
Well it backfired, not only was the law not changed but the election ended up in a Republican senator

Plus Kennedy was a life long supporter of universal healthcare, now it looks like his successor will be the one to sink it.

It won't bring her back, but somewhere Mary Jo Kopechne is smiling at Ted's fail on this.

GuanYin

ynotdu wrote: »

Well I am not from the dimension that shoots dead doctors who carry out abortions because they believe human life is Sacred

A whole dimension does that? or a whole universe within a dimension? or a whole galaxy within a universe? or a whole planet within a galaxy? Or a whole country on a planet? Or just a group of nutcases in a country?

That said, I'm more interested why you equate Christianity with non-violence when you have two thousand years of evidence to the contrary?

sceptre

ynotdu wrote: »

one more thing if someone is kind enough to answer:Is it true that the two term limit only came into being because of Nixon's carry-on?

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with anything going on in Mass. but the answer is no. It was done via the 22nd amendment, which got passed around 1950.

ynotdu

GuanYin wrote: »

A whole dimension does that? or a whole universe within a dimension? or a whole galaxy within a universe? or a whole planet within a galaxy? Or a whole country on a planet? Or just a group of nutcases in a country?

That said, I'm more interested why you equate Christianity with non-violence when you have two thousand years of evidence to the contrary?

Two thousand years at least of ALL religions being contrary to Peace!
BTW what dimension are You from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbw2GD0t3T4

ynotdu

sceptre wrote: »

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with anything going on in Mass. but the answer is no. It was done via the 22nd amendment, which got passed around 1950.

I did'nt say it had anything to do with the result in Mass,Sceptre it was just something i was curious about that was not worthy of a new thread.
Thank you though.

phantom_lord

how's peter schiff getting on in connecticut? how likely is he to win the nomination there?

Stella777

As a slightly silly aside, can you believe that the newly elected senator posed nude in a Cosmopolitian Magazine centerfold? I'm not kidding. Not sure if I should post the photo here or in The Ladies' Longue "Men Who Make You Drool" thread.

Granted it was when he was a young law student, but still...

Manic Moran

ynotdu wrote: »

What i cannot comprehend from a Country so full of Christianity is WHY the death penalty still exists in so many states?

Off-topic, but an interesting theological question.

On the one hand, you have phrases like Exodus 21: "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Levictus 24: "“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God"

Deutronomy 19: "But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you"

Now, on the other hand, you have
Matthew 38: "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles"

This is taken by some as a repudiation of the others. On the other hand, it is also taken by others and admonition against individual vigilanteeism.

WHY is there such anomosity towards Universal health care?{once there are safeguards to prevent abuse}

To a large extent, it's in the details. For example, most opponents to universal healthcare would probably not object to covering some poor unfortunate who had no money to buy insurance, was walking across the street, and got hit by a meteorite. However, when universal healthcare also covers complete idiocy such as "I decided to tape a firework to my buttocks and light it," (and yes. people have done that. Even posted on Youtube) they start to have a few more issues with their hard-earned money being paid out to cover it.

and the right to bear arms is still enshrined?{many murders would not happen if guns were not so easy to get in the states,IMO}

God helps those who helps themselves. And self defence is quite acceptable in the bible.

Luke 22: "Then he said to them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one."

However. the right to arms is more founded on practical matters than religious ones.

NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the one hand, you have phrases like Exodus 21: "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Levictus 24: "“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God"

Deutronomy 19: "But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you"

In fairness, you're relying heavily on the Old Testament which is a completely different kettle of fish (it relies on a nomadic people attempting to forge a state in the desert against all kinds of tribes) so it's filled with all kinds of archaic rules (not eating pork, cutting your beard, wearing a coat of two different materials etc)

Christians are meant to rely more heavily on the New Testament, I'm not sure about smaller denomincations but Catholics (largest Church in the US) hold the difference between moral/ceremonial and judicial. The Old Testament was the best logic of it's time but it needs to be read in a modern context (the idea of selling our daughters into slavery as in Exodus 21;7 would be reprehensible to us today)

Manic Moran wrote: »

Now, on the other hand, you have
Matthew 38: "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles"

This is taken by some as a repudiation of the others. On the other hand, it is also taken by others and admonition against individual vigilanteeism.

It also has Jesus standing up for a condemned woman; let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord etc.

Manic Moran wrote: »

God helps those who helps themselves. And self defence is quite acceptable in the bible.

Luke 22: "Then he said to them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one."

However. the right to arms is more founded on practical matters than religious ones.

NTM

You're quoting it out of context, here's the passage in full;

Luke 22;
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

Jesus is facing arrest/crucifixion and yet views 2 swords as sufficient for the 12 of them.
Reason for this being that he is to be numbered among the criminals (lawless) and put to death to fulfill the prophecy. Criminals carry weapons which his apostles needed to carry to mark him as a criminal.
Or so is my interpretation of it.


New Testament also says things like "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matthew 26;52)



Sorry to have dragged this off topic but I just wanted to set the record straight there.