Personally, I haven’t blogged much on the debate over how to regulate guns and curb gun violence in the United States. If you want to know why, see Bruce Reyes-Chow’s fine post “My Last Post About Guns. I’m Out.” I do hope our country will come to a place where it can be acknowledged that more safety measures that may prevent easy access to dangerous weapons is not a bad thing, but I am aware that part of the United States Meta-Narrative is “individual rights” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (though, I find the Second Amendment somewhat confusing, since this statement seems to have been made in the context of maintain a standing army, not the individual’s freedom to protect themselves against a rouge government). I don’t expect my fellow citizens to change their position, so instead I focus my attention on talking to fellow Christians–those who claim to share an allegiance to Christ–about what it means to be a Christian in a violent world.
In part, I talk through this blog, so it is through this blog I want to share a few posts written by others on the subject of how Christians should think about guns and gun violence, especially Christians who live in the United States.
Michael Halcomb has been writing a series titled, “A Theology of Guns: A Christian’s Perspective”, that is six parts long as of Wednesday, January 30th:
- Pt. 1 (Lk 22:35-36)
- Pt. 2 (Mt 26:52; Lk 19:42, 22:35-36)
- Pt. 3 (Jn 2:15-16)
- Pt. 4 (Mt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:2-10)
- Pt. 5 (Mt 10:34; Lk 12:51; Rev 19:15)
- Pt. 6
Kendall Beachey wrote a post titled “A Christian Frame: Gun Control as a Christian Conversation” where he made the following points:
1. As long as Christians frame the discussion about gun control primarily within the context of Second Amendment rights we have traded our identity as Christians for our identity as Americans.
2: A rhetoric of fear can only function as a destabilizing force with society that ultimately undermines the health of the community as a whole.
3: Violence cannot be repaired by violence.
Other posts worth your time include the following:
- Katie Grimes: Guns for the Common Good?
- Christian Salafia: Is There a Biblical Right to Self-Defense?
- Kurt Willems: Following Jesus: The Best Gun Control Ever!
- Brian Zahnd: Why I Don’t Own a Gun
Blogs that address this topic consistently in one form or another:
- ReKnew
- The Sword and the Ploughshare
For some of my recent (2013) thoughts on active non-violence see these posts:
- Concerns with women in combat
- Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., and non-violence
- 42 and active non-violence: “No, I want a player who has the guts NOT to fight back!”
January 31, 2013 at 4:59 am
Peace brethren. The gospel and the gifts of the Spirit are not accompanied with implements of deadly force. Christians must determine their personal limit for violence, their own walk with Jesus. A weak witness is lukewarm, a token and hope to forestall decision. Are not the books, commentaries and blogs efforts to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ? The armament issue strikes at the root of Christianity. The armed individual prefers their position over the life of those in opposition.
January 31, 2013 at 4:14 pm
I disagree.
God, not the 2cd amendment, gave me the right and responsibility to protect mine from violent humans. Christ Himself commanded the 12 to arm themselves in Luke 22:35-38. How then is it “non Christian” that I go armed?
He did not suggest they do so via a wisdom saying, He told them to and told them why in that passage. Along with arming themselves, He explained why they now needed to return to other “normal daily routines”. He had supernaturally lifted normal responsibilities from them, that era was over.
As for the statement “the Gospel is not accompanied with the implements of deadly force”. True, it is not, but, when one is under attack from violent humanity, the Gospel is not the issue. We don’t typically start preaching when a knife is at our throats.
A whole of a lot of Divinely driven violence made it possible that Jesus Christ would be born as opposed to all the Jews being massacred instead. A whole lot of Divinely driven violence since the cross has occurred on earth for various reasons, including protecting the church from extinction and specifically including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Violence is amoral, it’s why it is being used which decides the question. God good, devil bad, allies good, nazis bad. Rapist bad, man with gun(or baseball bat or whatever) stopping it, good.
There is nothing Divine about placing God’s people more at the mercy of evil people. We have our part, God has His part.
January 31, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Bob
Your words remind me of the lyrics of a song titled “My Enemies are Men Like Me” by Derek Webb. If you haven’t heard the song you may appreciate it. I am sure it can be found on YouTube. The lyrics can be found here: http://www.lyricsmania.com/my_enemies_are_men_like_me_lyrics_derek_webb.html
Patrick
Jesus does tell his disciples to have swords, but we must ask why he isn’t remembered as advocating their use, but rather he protests their use. I have dealt with this matter a bit in this post: http://nearemmaus.com/2013/01/20/jesus-martin-luther-king-jr-and-non-violence/
As far as one’s “right” to defend one’s self, sure, but why does it need to be with violent force. Why aim to kill? Do we lack other methods of disarming enemies or finding ways to make peace? Why do we allow ourselves to live in fear of the hypothetical attacker, whom many of us do not face, and when we do we aren’t prepared anyways, no matter how many guns we own.
Finally, yes, Scripture does have “divinely mandated violence”. There is a lot to say to this, but we must begin with (1) do we have direct divine commands to violence as Christians (the answer is “no”)? (2) does Hebrews 1:1ff. tell us anything about God’s speaking in the past as juxtaposed with God’s speaking through Christ (I think so)? (3) are there elements of the biblical texts commanded/allowed by God where Jesus shows us a better way (e.g., John 7 and the woman caught in adultery)? We can justify many actions using Scripture, but Christ is the fulfillment of Scripture, not Christ is our paradigm for interpreting Scripture.
February 1, 2013 at 3:27 am
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/troops-bulldoze-homes-leave-thousands-homeless/
February 1, 2013 at 9:44 am
Immediately after Jesus says “buy a sword”, he says he wants to fulfill Isaiah’s “he was numbered with the transgressors.” It seems to me that, like with the brigands on the cross, he is putting himself alongside violent revolutionaries (or at least people who look like them) even as he is different from them in both word and deed.
The ear cutting incident comes soon after and suggests he did not actually plan for them to use the swords. The fact that he says “two swords is enough” supports this interpretation – two swords would not actually be enough for the disciples to stop even a small group of soldiers!
I’m actually hesitant to fully embrace pacifism (though I’m sympathetic), but I don’t think prooftexting this passage really works.
Also, guns are much more dangerous weapons than swords!
February 1, 2013 at 9:58 am
Joel
I agree that “proof-texting” isn’t the approach needed. We need to think about this subject with greater seriousness than merely citing our favorite text. That said, this text must make us stop and think. If Jesus’ message was that the Kingdom of God was coming, and if he came to embrace an approach that refused to engage Rome and other Jews violently, then we who are Christians are obligated to ask ourselves whether this speaks to our living as disciples.
Jesus was perceived as a threat, but this is the irony–no one remembers him as a violent threat. We have brief statements about purchasing a sword, and we have statements that indicate he was aware of the idea of holy war, yet all accounts of his person remember him as altering holy war to exclude the idea that he would act violently on behalf of Israel’s God.
Whether Jesus believed Israel’s God would do eschatological violence is neither here nor there for this discussion. What we do know is that he didn’t use violence, yet he preached the arrival of the Kingdom.
February 1, 2013 at 11:08 am
Law enforcement arm themselves as a deterrent . Even though most citizens arm themselves for protection it provides a deterrent for someone breaking in while someone is there. Switzerland arms their citizens and provides training for long distance shooting which was a deterrent from invasion from the germans. Our right as citizens to bear arms has always provided a deterrent from a foreign invasion and those carrying a sword with Jesus did also .
So is violence worse with the right or without?
The same evil people exist either way but without the deterrent would others not become braver to commit violence .
Guns should not be the issue,peoples hearts should be.
February 1, 2013 at 11:15 am
Robert
First, you make a categorical mistake by framing these hypothetical others as “evil people” while defending citizens who idolize their weapons as good people. This is a false dichotomy used to justify our tendency to participate in the cycle of violence. We are the John Wayne figure in our own narratives, but this doesn’t have a place in reality.
Let me say, sure, there should be people who are protectors. As much as I hate guns, I don’t protest police having guns, or even soldiers, but our culture doesn’t respect the idea of there being people sanctioned by society to protect. We think we are protectors ourselves. More and more people think it is their role to use violence to maintain social order, and many of these people are those who do the horrendous things that we hear in the news, convincing themselves that they are against evil government, or evil co-workers, or evil this person and evil that person. Most of us do not have the training, or the patience, or the wisdom to play Wild, Wild West Cowboy.
February 1, 2013 at 11:30 am
Most of us dont really have the proper training to drive which is a factor in majority of traffic accidents which kills more people by many factors. So should we regulate the requirements for licensing .
More people die from violence from guns and other weapons in countries where citizens can not bear arms.
February 1, 2013 at 11:35 am
Robert
Seriously? The car analogy? I know you are aware of the fact that we do regulate cars, and that we do have people renew their license, and that we do have them purchase insurance for liability, and that we do have them pay for car registration every year or two. I know Fox News likes to use that rhetoric, but let’s stop and think about it before echoing them, ok?
Can you find verifiable statistics about gun death in nations like Australia, England, and others that show that gun violence is worse there than in the United States? Something like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
And do you have any research that equates gun ownership with safety? Does it differentiate between correspondance and correlation?
February 1, 2013 at 11:45 am
Your arguing an inanimate object causes declines in morality where I see flaws in moralities that will exist whether or not people possess guns..
February 1, 2013 at 11:46 am
While I agree Jesus did say ‘those who live by the sword die by the sword’, I believe that was a prohibition of ‘living by the sword’ than an outright restriction on ‘using one a sword at all’ (meaning morally when necessary).
David used a sword, and we know that his use of one did not stop him from being a man of God’s own heart. Similarly, when asked by soldiers how to obtain access to the Kingdom of God, Jesus addressed their discontentment with authority, pay etc.
However, to deny a general prohibition on the use of force in Jesus’ words does not mean the use of force is a valid tool to spread the Gospel, solve problems etc. It simply is to say that in a world where man’s default state is to war, God does not deny his servants this tool in their toolbox even if we are to use this tool (like all others) in a moral way.
That said, I see American gun violence as I see all violence, a produce of man’s fallen state. It seems to be a touch point in American politics because like most things the issues surrounding it are represented in a 2-dimensional way; Constitutional rights vs. Government’s responsibility to safeguard society.
The problem with favouring the ‘Constitutional rights’ aspect is that with rights come responsibilities. Our track record (as sinful humans) with self-honouring responsibilities is that we fail abysmally. The problem with favouring the Government’s responsibility to safeguard society also has problems. It isn’t the government’s responsibility to do everything on behalf of it’s citizens’ all the time, in every regard (that’s socialism). This problem then is two-fold; Has it thought through fully the impact of denying citizens a right that is apparently both popular and has some historical connection to the creation of the US as a country? Is simply denying people this right the right approach given there could be other approaches.
I see room for positive (political) debate and consensus. Can one side agree that with rights comes responsibility? Can the other side agree that rather than denying people the right outright (pardon the pun), its efforts should be aimed at establishing the responsible application of this right, and at increasing punitive measures for those who don’t?
Only the most extreme NRA type would deny citizens have an absolute requirement to be responsible about a right such as this – and only the most extreme socialist would deny that given such a right and its associated responsibility, punitive measure are necessary to enforce this responsibility. Otherwise the extremes of both side are easily exposed. The ardent NRA extremists argues for the absolute right unconditionally, and the ardent opponent argues for a de-facto prohibition. Extremism is extremism either way, and should be exposed for what it is.
February 1, 2013 at 11:51 am
Let’s put it this way: if someone has a gun for hunting, the type of gun that is designed to pierce an animal without ruining the meat to be eaten, and if this person has been trained, and their gun is registered like cars are registered, and their gun is insured like cars are insured, and guns are tested like cars have smog checks, then own that gun. I grew up around these guns. My father had a safe full of them (no, it did not make me feel safer).
If a gun can mow down a crowd of people, if it is an automatic weapon designed for war, if it is like a sawed off shotgun designed to hit several targets with one shot, then this is an instrument that perpetuates violence and attitudes of violence. It is designed with the intent to destroy, usually humans. Ownership of these sort of weapons is concerning to me.
February 1, 2013 at 12:11 pm
I like the comparison between registering (and licensing) cars and registering (and licensing) guns. It’s an appropriate comparison.
Responsible gun ownership ultimately should cover all gun ownership, shouldn’t it? Use of a hunting rifle in a public place makes US news. What doesn’t make US news are the handguns being used daily, in the poor urban (often black) areas. To what degree are rifles the problem vs handguns?
The automatic weapons are symptomatic of the entire problem. Proportionally, they represent a fraction of gun violence in the US. Anecdotally (because I can’t find the link), US gun violence involving assault weapons is vastly higher than the European average, but equal to African rates and slightly more than Asian rates. (Interpol – Africa has the highest rates of assault weapon violence in the world, followed by machete/knife). Switzerland issues all citizens military grade weapons and has far lower than the European average. Since the 1997 handgun ban, the UK has seen its gun violence rates rise exponentially (and is higher than the European average).
However, in the US the highest violence rates are with hand-guns (street weapons). Even knife violence is significantly higher than assault weapons. (I’m only suggesting that to be smart about the US gun violence the wise thing to do is start with illegal hand-guns use and misuse, and go from there …)
February 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Andrew
Well put
Brian
No most are bought for the person’s own entertainment not for violence ..But even though you cant or wont see my point with cars they are still more dangerous than a gun with all the regulations there are.Everytime you get behind the wheel you are carrying a loaded gun that could accidentally fire.You could cause a busload of children to crash killing all the children but dealing with morality a car is a deadly weapon that can be used by evil people to kill.
February 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Robert
I see the point you are making, but I find the juxtaposition flawed. Guns are made to kill, something. Cars are not made to kill. Cars are made for transportations. Cars kill by accident, but that is not their design, anymore that airplanes, or trains, or elevators, or ladders, where an accident happens while one of these innovations is being used to get from place A to place B. The analogy between a gun potentially killing someone and car potentially killing someone has a few valid touching points, but as I noted above, those points serve to advance the idea that more restrictions are needed for gun purchasing, ownership, and public possession.
Andrew
Illegal gun use is the right place to start, agreed, but there are “legal” forms of gun ownership that are concerning, and that need more regulations and restrictions.
February 1, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Brian, agreed – but it looks to me there doesn’t even seem to be political will to start there ..
February 1, 2013 at 12:37 pm
(It’s disheartening when the majority find even the middle-ground not good enough).
February 1, 2013 at 12:41 pm
The problem is a moral issue and will exist as long as a stone lays upon the top of the ground.
February 1, 2013 at 12:42 pm
There seems to be a fear (NRA propaganda) that stricter gun laws are a slippery slope to Nazi Germany or the USSR. We have told ourselves that we won’t have a Hitler if our citizens are armed with dangerous weapons. Sadly, I guess many haven’t heard of drones (i.e., if our military wanted to strike terror into citizens, our guns won’t do much). Yet many of our politicians who are advocating strick gun laws aren’t challenging the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment. Our President doesn’t want guns to disappear, or at least he isn’t advocating such an extreme, but shooting at schools, colleges, and work places are common place in our news these days. Many of them are overlooked by the media, unless extreme like the Sandy Hook Massacre. I think many citizens are happy to comply with laws that check the mental health of those purchasing weapons, checks criminal records, advocates a waiting period between purchase and possession, and other ideas like the ones I have mentioned above about registering guns, insuring guns, etc.
February 1, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Robert
I like my chances better if a disgruntled co-worker comes into my office attempting to strike me in the head with a stone than if s/he enters with an automatic weapon.
February 1, 2013 at 12:48 pm
There’s the moral issue of addressing irresponsible ‘gun-ownership’; but addressing irresponsible ‘gun-ownership’ on the street, and in the inner-city has an ethnic component which often trumps the moral issue. How can hand-gun ownership advance without looking like a particular ethnic group is being targeted?
Even if it could, the ‘establishment’ would be blamed for having yet one more force off-setting ethnicity rations within the US prison system; even though there is some evidence suggesting the rate of weapon use by particular ethnic groups is indistinguishable from the global averages – making this a general problem, not an American one.
US racial politics taints many things.
February 1, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Brian
so fear is your motivation ,you still could be the first he strikes with it or have you been trained to defend against such an attack, if so what keeps you from using that ability to harm or kill someone.
February 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm
There are many complexities to this conversation. I don’t think racial profiling is the answer. This is the equivalent to purging a garden of weeds by cutting off the flowery tops. In the United States there are many, many factors that go into the impoverishment and inequality faced by some of our communities. The cycle of systematic violence against these groups often drives these groups toward retributive violence, and then we use the same abusive systems to imprison and attack the very communities that are being squished under the thumb of our systems. I don’t have time to address these matters here, but there are many, many high quality essays, articles, and books on these subjects that are worth reading for those interested.
February 1, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Brian – that’s a great argument – drones rather than guns!
I believe people focus on guns because having armed citizenry historically, did play a role in US history allowing the minority to overthrow that tyrannical British government (yes revolutionaries were the minority, though a significant one).
Ill fact, I suspect you’re right. If the US ever loses it’s democracy, it will be because of drones, rather than dis-armament. That said, China has called for the US to disarm.
Disarmament may have no effect on whether or not tyranny is established in the US internally, but an “Armed America” is absolutely a deterrent for any foreign power considering actual invasion. (Switzerland hasn’t ONLY been saved by its mountains – Germany considered invading Switzerland, and consider armed citizenry and asymmetric that posed as the largest deterrent ).
February 1, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Robert
If I were trained to disarm someone who is trying to strike me with a stone (e.g., jiu-jitsu, aimed at disarming and ground fighting) if I succeed then the attacker is thrown disarmed, restrained, and hopefully this allows others to join in securing this person’s arrest. I don’t have to fire a weapon at them that could kill, and I have a chance at survival, unlike if this person had a weapon. Even if I spend hours each week shooting a gun in a shooting range, becoming very skilled in using a gun, I have a worse chance at survival when facing a surprise attack from someone with a gun than a stone. This is common sense.
February 1, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Andrew
In our modern era, with modern warfare, it seems to me that arming citizens with weapons that can function in war are more prone to result in citizen-on-citizen violence, than China invading. I could be wrong. It may be that the United States isn’t as superior militarily to China as I suppose. Yet I fear that a hypothetical unlikely–China invading the United States anytime soon–crowds the minds of many Americans to the point where we are completely uncreative when it comes to thinking about public policy that may protect us from one another, or protect one of us from killing many others in a moment of vulnerability (as when NFL LB Jovian Belcher killed his girlfriend then himself in what seems to have been a temporary meltdown).
February 1, 2013 at 1:06 pm
You missed the point. You would have no advantage if you were the first unless you were trained to react quickly which still may not be enough. But just because you were trained in a skill that can be used in defense that same skill can make you a lethal weapon.So what keeps you from using it to harm or kill others?
MORALS
February 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Robert, I agree with Brian’s last point. Militaries, and police forces have a use of force continuum which stratifies force from nothing (verbal) up to and including ‘deadly‘ force. Things like warning shots are near the top, and rifles/guns are considered ‘deadly force’.
With respect to the use of force, I don’t believe being a Christian means we should have gaps in our ability to deal with this use of force continuum either in foreign policy, establishment of law and order, or when force is used against us.
I believe Christ’s emphasis means we should avoid using of force as much as possible (last resort) while recognizing because ‘war’ is the human condition, there will sometimes (unfortunately) be a moral place for it. The morality of using force is that it should be used minimally and proportionally.
February 1, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Robert
Morality is a helpful deterrent, yes, which is why I advocate Christians reconsidering their advocacy for possessing dangerous weapons. A posture toward peace goes a long ways toward living morally, more importantly Christian-ly, in our world. In your paradigm morals are insufficient though. You don’t seem to advocate more restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership (or, if you do, you have focused on the extreme proposal that no guns should be owned at all…so, let’s move past that). If we don’t have more restriction I’m sorry, but you will not moralize people who struggle with their mental health. You can’t moralize a temporal state of rage or insanity. We must be willing as a society to provide safeguards for one another, that prevent as far as possible to possession of dangerous weapons by those may use these weapons to kill, and I don’t know that a Wild West every-man-with-his-own-gun goes nearly as far as simple legal restrictions.
February 1, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Andrew
While you and I have disagreed on whether Christians should enroll in the military, I think this is common ground here. If there will be order, and if there must be weapons, then let us try as a society to leave this to trained law enforcement or soldiers. If we advocate citizens running around with weapons, unrestricted, in the name of rights, it is going to be impossible to follow Jesus’ teachings, at all.
February 1, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Brian
You seem to think that a christian can not be moral in a tempting world. I believe people should take moral responsibility not have it dictated . How does one learn morality if they look to the government to protect us from ourselves .I could own a wmd and never use it.
February 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Brian, I would add that those (either in the military or police forces) who have had to use force up to and including deadly force, even if done lawfully, forever after carry with them a moral burden others who haven’t done, this cannot imagine.
Even so, I believe it is still possible to stand before a Holy, righteous understanding God, with a clear conscience. First, it isn’t isn’t the act on the part of the believer that (necessarily) causes the burden, but the potentially eternal consequence – and faith ultimately looks towards God’s sovereignty in this regard. Second, and most importantly, even if that’s not the case the power of Christ’s redemption trumps all else.
February 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Robert
I’m not saying a Christian cannot be moral in a world of temptation. How could that be my point if I am advocating for Christians to do the moral thing through the avoidance of owning extremely dangerous weapons? I am aware that it is altogether possible that someone can own a gun without killing a human. Again, if you’ve read my comments, I was raised in a home where my father owned many guns. As far as I know, he has killed antelope, deer, and other game, but no humans. That said, we live in a system, in a world where people don’t share the same values or worldview (we are Christians, and we do not agree on right and wrong here, why should we think society in general can arrive at a consensus?), and this world contains people who society should protect from themselves, from owning dangerous weapons, and the best way to do this is to make sure that it is extremely difficult to obtain weapons that can slaughter many humans in a matter of seconds. This isn’t about the “government protecting us” (again, let’s avoid simplistic Fox News rhetoric). This is about people living in community together recognizing that our current laws regarding gun possession and ownership have failed us, our children, our college students, our neighbors.
February 1, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Andrew
That has become a serious concern of mine. A few weeks ago I was having lunch with a friend who holds similar views to my own regarding Christians, violence, and war. One thing that emerged from our conversation is that it is not enough for us to say, “violence = bad”, then ignore those who have been to war. Many churches in the United States exalt veterans in a way that ignores the angst suffered by these people. Other churches, who stand strong against war, make an equal and opposite mistake of demonizing veterans without realizing that war has been bad to them as well.
In the US we have way too many veterans committing suicide after returning home from war. We don’t know how to help soldiers transition back into civilian society. We don’t know how to help them with PTSD. We are failing our soliders in this way.
February 1, 2013 at 2:36 pm
“I am advocating for Christians to do the moral thing through the avoidance of owning extremely dangerous weapons?”
How is that moral?
Should they remove kitchen knives because someone might be tempted to kill their wife?,Should they not drive ?because it can be used as a lethal weapon which is a charge that we see often when a suspect flee the police. What next should we protect ourselves from?
. Maybe we should outlaw stairs because we could push someone down them or maybe outlaw baseball bats,golf clubs ,etc
Where do we draw the line?
Do we outlaw words cause they could cause someone to commit suicide ?.
Where do we draw the line in determining what inanimate object causes us to kill?
February 1, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Robert
You’re moving this conversation toward the realm of ridiculous! There is a difference between something created for violent purposes, and something misused for violence. Sure, a wrench, a steak knife, or a car can be used for violence, but these things are not created for the purpose of doing violent acts. The guns that concern me are created for this purpose and unlike someone attacking me with a wretch protecting myself against a gun is practically impossible.
If we are going to ignore level-headedness, camping out on extreme hypotheticals, then it is inevitable that your position allows for the private ownership of bombs, missile launchers, grenades, WMDs. If we can’t discuss degrees of danger without resorting to extreme examples then everything from butter knives to atomic weapons should be legally possessed by citizens. According to your logic (or, lack thereof) we shouldn’t ban something that can be used to destroy life because other things can destroy life.
Is there anything that you think should be illegal for citizens to own because of the danger it presents to the community?
February 1, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Brian
You know what Jesus was more concerned with during his ministry ?
That some thought morality was manmade !
He fought against those that created hedges around the law instead of accepting moral responsibility for breaking them.
so you by removing the temptation can establish your own morality instead of God’s.
I myself will trust the morality taught me by the Word of God in which it states do not murder not do not own weapons that might tempt me.
February 1, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Hmmm….ok.
February 1, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Michael Halcomb’s Pt. 9 is worth reading: http://www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2013/02/toward-theology-of-guns-christians_1.html
February 1, 2013 at 5:26 pm
“To think that owning a few guns to ward off the American government in the case of tyranny is, at this point, simply unrealistic. America has the world’ most powerful military and there is no chance that its citizens could defeat and overcome it with firearms.”
This above statement from the book is spoke in pure ignorance.
If the government was to come against the people which had arms then there would be a movement within our military so fast the people would squash the goverment but if the military was not met with the choice of having to kill their fellow citizen the government could be successful . This man just offers opinions some I may slightly agree with and some that have no factual basis
February 2, 2013 at 4:38 am
Thought is much stronger than weapons. Attorneys, judges, legislators navigate huge applications of power. Know that Spirit is deathless. Cruelty to animals does not necessarily involve implements of deadly force yet debasement and death still occur. Fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil awakened in humans a knowledge of self and the consequences of such. None will claim self-ish-ness is their preferred conduct but the human spectacle of Genesis, excepting few examples, is selfish driven tragedy. There are other words descriptive of this fruit. Betrayal, false, gainsay, heresy, murder, supplant or theft are all fruits of selfishness. The problem with defense is not armament it is sin. No matter how many in a military side with a popular rejection of a compulsive government armament is so deadly now that the smallest fraction of individuals can prevail. Fear a world government.
The influence of interaction among individuals is subsumed in a multitude. Governance accountable to individual influence conforms to the requirements and expectations of the governed. Governance insulated from judgment exercises compulsion and is the bane of the governed.