Wow, those are some honest choices.

What did Obama say about the ruling?

Posted by: jesse | June 30, 2008 12:31 PM

Rachel,

We place our trust in God, but when someone breaks into my house, I'm blasting them away. Thank God I have common sense....

Posted by: Joe Caruso | June 30, 2008 1:04 PM

Too bad the Brady Campaign won't allow all of us to ask and answer these questions for ourselves, but insist on imposing their answer.

Posted by: Chris Carroll | June 30, 2008 1:27 PM

Gun issues are a pretty low priority on my list of things to get worked up about, but what is troubling about the court decision is that it takes out the states' and local areas' perogative to make their own gun laws. Idaho should be allowed to permit ownership of guns of all stripes, and DC should be allowed to ban handguns. The DC ban was a decision reached by voter referendum in the 1970's, and polls show that an overwhelming majority of DC residents support the ban.

What I wish Obama had said in response to this decision was that he sees gun policy as a state and local issue, and that he respects the wishes of the DC residents to keep the gun ban. And that if they were by referendum to overturn the ban, he would respect that as well.

Conservatives in the U.S. House and Senate, along with the gun lobby, have been trying to overturn DC's gun ban for years as a sop to their own pro-gun constituents, even though it would not benefit those constituents other than making them feel good. Finally, they decided to marshall the court to overturn precedent and overrun the established laws (just what conservatives have been accusing liberals of doing for all these years).

It has been a sad day for DC residents--not so much because of the gun ban, but because the city with the least amount of democratic representation just had more of their voting rights taken away by big brother and special interests.

Posted by: I and I | June 30, 2008 1:49 PM

Rachel, I too struggle with this issue. The arguments on both sides (the coherent ones) carry equal weight. I agree that as Christians we should always trust God, but I can't help but remember an old Muslim saying (real or otherwise) that says "Trust Allah, but tie up your own camel."

Posted by: Brian | June 30, 2008 2:02 PM

The gun lobby has and will block any and all reasonable measures to improve public safety vis a vis firearms --
ignoring the common sense wisdom of our peace officers and military veterans.

There shall be NO limits to the sacred 'right to bear arms',
no slippery slopes,
no background checks,
no waiting period,
no limits on automatic weapons,
anything goes in America,
the land of the free.

The gun lobby uses bogus 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' sound bite propaganda.
Their Libertarian cohorts use specious constitutional law arguments to justify their indifference to common sense and public safety.
They throw us 'red herrings' and feed on the fear in our reptilian brains.

The NRA once was a responsible organization but then, once upon a time, so was the Supreme Court.

We're on our own in Libertarian Land, folks.
Do you have a weapon and know how to use it?
All the bad guys do.

Posted by: justintime | June 30, 2008 2:15 PM

The Supreme Court's ruling applied to the Federal Government ban of hand guns on Federal lands (ie Washington D.C. and has no bearing on State or municipal laws. While I can see no purpose in gun ownership, I can understand why equal protection is appropriate in allowing hand gun ownership.

As long as criminals can have easy access to hand guns and illegal weapons from wherever, the need to protect outweighs the bans of gun ownership. If we lived in an ideal society, we would not need guns in our homes.

My complaint against guns in homes, is the high rate of deaths cause by family members and co-workers who are unstable (even for a short period of time) who take lives with legally owned guns. Also the hundreds of children who are killed by accident because of "family protection" guns were accessible to them.

The children at Columbine High school were killed by kids with guns. The Texas Massacure was by a legal rifle. As long as unreasonalbe peoplehas guns, guns will kill people. Hand guns serve only one purpose, they were designed to kill at short range.

The person who used MADD as an example forgets (as most of them do) that cars are designed to kill, that is not their purpose. And the last point I want to make is that a personwho kills with a legally owned gun is no less the criminal than the person who kills with an illegal gun.

I am an expert with a hand gun, shotgun and rifle, but I choise not to own any of these guns and have not owned any. when I wanted to shoot, I could go to a range and use their guns. I would never have a gun ib my home because children don't think as adauts and most adauts think like children when they see a gun. In my sixty-five years I have never found the need to defend myself with a gun. And most policemen and women I know have never had to use a gun in their careers.

Gun ownership is over rated.

Posted by: Paul Shrias | June 30, 2008 3:30 PM

"Since the introductory clause of the Second Amendment clearly seems indicate its concern with the defense of a free state, I find it hard to understand how it thereby applies to a supposed right of gun ownership for the purpose of personal self-defense."

Why? The purpose of the amendment, in keeping with longstanding tradition of an armed citizenry, is to preserve the autonomy of the citizen, collectively or otherwise. Can we have a free state in which the lawless rule the lawful by virtue of their willingness to flaut law? That is part of the question this amendment seeks to address.

Of course, the right to bear arms is still established. There is no precedent for simply deciding against a Constitutional right because of a contextual change, and there certainly is no precedent for removing rights because God wouldn't like them (based on scripture that does not exist).

"We're on our own in Libertarian Land, folks.
Do you have a weapon and know how to use it?
All the bad guys do."

And they still will in socialist land.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 30, 2008 3:49 PM

Last week’s headlines blared the news: The Supreme Court upheld the generally accepted view that there is a constitutional right to free speech. I’m not surprised. The photo accompanying the headline was of jubilant free speech supporters.

And that’s the real problem with speechamentalism (and I do see this ruling as an offshoot of speechamentalism). Its adherents believe that nothing is as important as the right to free speech. Or free stupid speech. Or hateful free speech. Or speech that leads to actions that have negative implications for society. Or speech that may result in the loss of life. The fact that there are so many stupid, ignorant, crude, rude, idiotic people out there that misinform, spread lies, pass along unsubstantiated internet rumors, and defend awful public policy proposals that lead directly to injustice for Americans is not nearly as important to them as the right to free speech. The day before the Court announced its decision, I got another ridiculous hateful email forward saying horribly unfair things about undocumented workers.

What are the responsibilities that go along with this right? The Court’s ruling makes room for sensible speech restriction. But as people of faith we must ask deeper and more difficult questions: Where do we place our trust -- in God or in speech? Who do we serve -- God or the first amendment? Where do we find our sense of worth and purpose -- from God or from speech? How do we bring about God's reign - with an open heart or with unlimited free speech, no matter how crude, hateful or unjust?

Posted by: Rev. Roberta Jones | June 30, 2008 4:37 PM

"If you think about it, most weapons are purchased by individuals lacking a sense of worth and purpose."

I'm not even going to bother asking for the stats to back up that ridiculous statement.

Posted by: lol @ u | June 30, 2008 5:02 PM

You people have forgotten the Indiana Republican congressman (!) who was so opposed to any kind of gun control that he even favored the right of people to have their own personal nuclear weapons. Perhaps I had better go get me one of those to protect myself from all these gun-toters who want to have their guns. Seriously, when I read the comments from people on this blog, I wonder why I even bother to get up and go to church any more. Can you imagine Jesus talking this way? I am proud to say I have never fired a gun since the time I was in the army (during the era when citizens, not hired mercenaries from the lower classes, were drafted to serve their country).

Posted by: Dick Pierard | June 30, 2008 5:58 PM

Dick asks, "Can you imagine Jesus talking this way?" Hmmm. Somewhere, He says something like, "If a man has no sword, let him buy one." True, there were no guns at that time. But the idea of buying a sword is very close to Jesus "talking this way."

Posted by: joekc | June 30, 2008 6:09 PM

"If a man has no sword, let him buy one."

joekc -

Not only did Jesus never say any such thing, but it is unimaginable to this Christian that he could even have thought, let alone said, anything of the sort.

What he did say was "Do not think I have come to bring peace to the world; I do not come to bring peace, but a sword." (I'm quoting from memory, as I assume you were, so don't hold me to the exact wording.) What he meant was that following the Gospel would be divisive, and might even lead to bloodshed. This is not at all the same thing as urging his followers to acquire weapons.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 30, 2008 6:24 PM

All right, I checked the reference. Luke 22:36 says "Let him who has none sell his mantle and but a machaira." This is, once again, the small sword that served as a symbol of authority. It was not a military weapon, and was probably used by Jesus to indicate self-sufficiency. How do I know this? Because the disciples went on to point out that they already had two swords, and Jesus said "It is enough." Translation: "You didn't get the point, did you?"

Yes, I know; I'm interpreting the text. Unlike Justice Scalia, I claim that as my right: indeed, my obligation.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 30, 2008 6:39 PM

Posted by: J.S. Brooks | June 30, 2008 6:44 PM

Amen!

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 30, 2008 6:49 PM

Another nonymous asked me to explain how a conservative could disagree with the court's decision in the Guantanamo Bay case, but agree with the Second Amendment case. The whole thing can be summed up in one word, repeated twice: location, location, location.

Boumediene, the Gitmo case, dealt with suspected enemy combatants captured on a foreign battlefield, while the DC gun case dealt with US citizens on US soil.

In Boumediene the plaintiffs were not seeking a basic right to a fair trial, they already had the right to have a military tribunal review their status as combatants, and appeal that decision to a civilian court. (The DC Circuit Court of Appeals if memory serves) What Boumediene wanted and got was habeus corpus rights, basically a second route to appeal to the federal courts.

This isn't about restricting the government; conservatives are skeptical about government but not everything government does is automatically bad. The critical distinctions are legal ones -- in this case the distinction between the civil government of US territory and military operations in a theater of war.

I'm not a veteran, but I'm pretty sure that combatants captured by US forces are disarmed rather promptly. To my knowledge no conservative group, not even the NRA, has objected to this limitation on the right to bear arms.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 30, 2008 7:44 PM

IN GUNS WE TRUST Posted by: canucklehead

Yeah, canucklehead, this whole gun thing does smack of a rather peculiar sort of idolatry, doesn't it?

So be it, I guess.

From a Canadian point of view, does it look a bit like a certain kind of madness as well? What about some of you offshore readers here?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 30, 2008 7:53 PM

Posted by: J.S. Brooks | June 30, 2008 6:44 PM

Thank you (and Wolverine and Don) for grappling with the "intent" of the founders questions I raised earlier. It seems to me that many retroactively read rights into the Constitution that are completely unfounded in historical accuracy. The framers had an abhorrence of standing armies and envisioned a system much like JS Brooks' post says. Shay's rebellion was fresh in their minds and may have resulted in the "well regulated militia" language. The Federalist Papers make clear the wariness with which a strong central government was viewed. Consequently the Bill of Rights enumerated rights that were not to be infringed by said government. (Heck, at that time, the Supreme Court didn't even have the authority to rule on any of the ammendments.) Now we have the "strict constructionists" dictating to a District (not a state) what they can and cannot do regarding a fabricated constitutional right. How ironic!

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 30, 2008 8:03 PM

"Just to be clear, when I was talking about "location", I wasn't just referring to Guantanamo Bay itself, but rather the point at which these people were captured."

I understand that. What I don't get is how a judicial conservative can suddenly create a "right" that no previous court, in over 200 years, has read into the constitution, and claim not to be a judicial activist.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 30, 2008 8:05 PM

Wolverine -

FYI, my source for the interpretation of "machaira" is John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus." Yoder was a phenomenal scholar, and I frankly trust him more than Wikipedia, although the latter has been steadily improving.

Wikipedia claims that by New Testament times, the word had simply become a generic term for "sword." This would make it sort of like "gun" in current English: a word which used to have a much more precise meaning but is now used to describe any weapon that fires a projectile.

In any case, the literal meaning of the word is irrelevant to the argument I made above about how Jesus was using it in Luke 22.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 30, 2008 8:25 PM

"Judicial activism? Seems so to me."
Posted by: Don |

Don, don't you get it? It isn't judicial activism when it is a decision that they like. You can rest assured that because Scalia said that it wasn't judicial activism, it was not judicial activism. That settles it.

Posted by: JamesM | June 30, 2008 9:23 PM

OK - why don't we make it so that if you commit a crime with a gun it is a hate crime and you automatically double the sentence. So if you commit a robbery of a convience store with a gun and get 10 years for the crime, it becomes 20 years because you used a gun.

Why are some so bent on enacting laws that will adversely effect law abiding citizens and will not effect the criminal because they are breaking the law now - another law will not make them unless it hits them hard - prison time.

But then again to use Wallis' logic - I know that killing someone with a gun is murder - but I don't want to criminalize it.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 30, 2008 10:48 PM

"From a Canadian point of view, does it look a bit like a certain kind of madness as well?"

Posted by: Don | June 30, 2008 7:53 PM

We've had gun control legislation in Canada for several years now. It was widely criticized out here in Alberta which the rest of Canada considers the most "redneck," American (oil industry) and conservative province in the Dominion. Indeed, many fine Christians of my acquaintance take great pride in the fact that they've never yet registered their guns, one guy going so far as to build a false wall into his barn behind which is more firepower than the Canadian army has seen in its history.

I think one would be hard pressed to prove conclusively that the gun registry has resulted in less crime/homicide in general up here. Indeed, I do recall that the number of murders in Toronto escalated the first couple of years after the registry was introduced. Most of the griping I hear out in this neck of the woods has to do w/ the purportedly billion dollars the fed gov spent in trying to require people to register their guns.

With tomorrow being Canada Day, I was listening to a CBC program today w/ different immigrants asked to phone in and comment and why they'd found Canada attractive. One American lady w/ a decidedly southern drawl called to say that their family had come here in the late '60s after the assassinations of MLK and RFK b/c a vacation here had them immediately convinced that Cda/Cdns are a much more peaceful society/people than their experience in the American south. She went on to speak of our never having a civil war, the comparatively low rate of gun-related crime in our large cities, etc.

We never had guns in our home growing up (rural small town) and I've never acquired one altho I've lived in the city (including 4 yrs in suburban Chicago) for 20+ years. Why not? B/c, thankfully to date, I've never yet felt that I've really needed one. I do however have a home alarm system. I sleep well at night b/c I'm confident the Canadian army will immediately dispatch its plane should I need intervention.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 30, 2008 11:00 PM

We can apparently consult the author if we want a mind read.

Posted by: Steve | June 30, 2008 11:21 PM

"If you think about it, most weapons are purchased by individuals lacking a sense of worth and purpose."

This is the sort of line Republicans are praying Obama will say in a debate.

"Yeah, canucklehead, this whole gun thing does smack of a rather peculiar sort of idolatry, doesn't it?"

What "whole gun thing"? Half the people defending the decision don't even own guns. How can I be accused of worshipping an idol I do not possess?

This is an absurd argument. What if the government wanted to ban soup. Would I be accused of idolizing soup if I point out that such a ban is absurd? There are arguments against gun rights, but playing the idolatry card is simply a way to circumvent a real argument.

That's a violation of ECRA rule number 6. Of course, it would also be in keeping with the tenor of the original post.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 30, 2008 11:27 PM

"We've had gun control legislation in Canada for several years now. It was widely criticized out here in Alberta which the rest of Canada considers the most "redneck," American (oil industry) and conservative province in the Dominion."

How is crime in Alberta as opposed to say, Saskatchewan?

"which is more firepower than the Canadian army has seen in its history."

Your neighbor owns a slingshot?

"Frankly, I think he occasionally forgets which side of the border he's waking up on in that the freedom of speech laws in Canada have never granted the type of "anything goes" which your First Amendment (is that right?) affirms."

Yeah, once one gets a taste for expressing his or her opinion, one begins to demand it at all times.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 30, 2008 11:54 PM

"How is crime in Alberta as opposed to say, Saskatchewan?"

Sask doesn't have crime, it has Mennonites. Congrats on spelling Sask correctly, btw. I don't think there's any appreciable difference once you've taken into account that our population is three times SK's. Highway robbery is a common problem here b/c of the oil companies, of course.

"Your neighbor owns a slingshot?"

He's savin' up road apples to blitzkrieg Montana sometime soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 12:45 AM

"Following Jesus, being passionate about living in his kingdom and rbinging that kingdom to this planet, how can we lay such a claim to these rights?"

Because some Americans have a unique form of Cowboy Christianity.

Posted by: JamesM | July 1, 2008 5:37 AM

Re Guns
Good on ya, Jonno, well said
Looking in from out side, if the loss of life from the miss use of guns was from faulty electrical switches, there would be an immediate response and a change of safety standards. Why the casual dismissal of the killing so many children, innocent bystanders, etc etc.

While murder and killing can and does occur with knives, fists, axes etc - just see our current axe murder – having ready access to guns increases the degree of damage from what otherwise would often be a minor (may be alcohol fuelled) altercation.

The whole thing seems a bit bizarre from across the Pacific with the incongruent combination the citizens of the militarily most powerful nation in the world seeming to be afraid to live in their own homeland with out having to invest in personal protection to the degree which makes the safety of their fellow citizens less secure...

The whole fear thing as Don has mentioned is such a corrosive activity which only separates us from our money.

After having seen my household goods heaped up by a font end loader to be sent to the tip after a cyclone, one gets a some what less materialist view on life.

Incidentally, for a history of gun violence out of control, just look at the recent history of the Solomon Islands.

Posted by: JohnH | July 1, 2008 8:28 AM

Yes Don... those wacky Christians who care about Constitutional rights. When will they shut up about those worldly things! Haha…

All,
I'm kind of in agreement with Jonno from Austrialia that Americans, in my opinion, are way too into proclaiming "I have a right to do something, so I'm going to do it" without asking is it the right thing to do. But only people who actually live in a free society with Constitutional rights are able to even have this choice. I notice that people in oppressive states aren't very vocal about protecting their rights...I wonder why. Maybe Americans realize, more so than people on some other western countries, that oppressive tyranny is closer at hand in the form of a powerful central government and are less willing to see their rights infringed upon for the sake of security or societal bliss. Maybe we're just wacky like that :)

That being said, there is absolutely nothing conflicting between the right to bear arms and following Jesus. Unless one actually starts worshipping guns or the Second Amendment (is there a single Christian who actually does), then there isn't a conflict. You can love Jesus and support the Second Amendment at the same time.

You all need to take a deep breather and separate your antipathy towards the personalities that support Second Amendment rights and the actual Second Amendment. There are lots of kooks who go to extremes to support First Amendment rights, but that doesn't reduce my belief in the need for First Amendment freedoms.

Posted by: Eric | July 1, 2008 9:26 AM

Another nonymous says:

"If a man has no sword, let him buy one."

joekc -

Not only did Jesus never say any such thing, but it is unimaginable to this Christian that he could even have thought, let alone said, anything of the sort.

Dear friend, i invite you to grab your Bible, turn it to Luke 22:36, and read it. Isn't it amazing how we see what we want to see, even in Holy Scripture. Jesus most certainly did say it, and He said it clearly.

Posted by: joekc | July 1, 2008 11:37 AM

Yes Don... those wacky Christians who care about Constitutional rights. When will they shut up about those worldly things! Haha…

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have rights or that they aren't important. I'm also not saying the Second Amendment should be scrapped (or ignored or repealed). I'm only saying that from my observations, many American Christians have a tendency to act more American than they do Christian. The gun thing is one example. So are the examples that Stuntz cites. And that tendency leads to misplaced priorities, in my view.

And going back to the original topic, I'm simply not sure that the Supreme Court got the Second Amendment right by finding an individual right to bear arms for self-defense.

D

Posted by: Don | July 1, 2008 11:53 AM

"We can simply assume that, as was usually the case, Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said."

All right, have you torn out your eyes yet?

Seriously, though, I stand by my interpretation of Luke 22. Jesus time and again showed impatience with those who took his words literally - a classic case is Nicodemus, who asked if he needed to climb back into his mother's womb. Jesus clearly thought he was missing the point.

Similarly, in the case in question, Jesus was telling his disciples (not any man, as you originally claimed) to sell their mantle to acquire the means of self-sufficiency. They pointed out that they already had two swords, and Jesus curtly replied "It is enough." Even if I concede your point that he was literally telling them to buy swords, he clearly didn't imagine them being armed to the teeth.

The fact that you remembered the quotation as "if a man has no sword, let him buy one" is very suggestive. You clearly read it as a call to all people to arm themselves. Please don't claim you're not reading your own interpretation into Jesus's words. Jesus said that two swords were enough. That cannot be read as an unqualified endorsement of arms without serious, willful distortion.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 12:37 PM

"Jesus said that two swords were enough. That cannot be read as an unqualified endorsement of arms without serious, willful distortion."

I expect joekc is heeding that scripture passage and limiting himself to two guns, no more. In fact, since we're suddenly basing policy on scripture, he's probably pushing for exactly that kind of gun control.

Or maybe we have all "missed the point."

Posted by: I and I | July 1, 2008 1:17 PM

I was trying to find the red letters in my Bible where Jesus talks about justified killing, the right to defend yourself with deadly force, the right to protect yourself against governent tyranny and that kind of stuff. I can't find those passages. Oh well... I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

I suppose we could go looking at the statistics that show dramatically less deadly criminal violence in developed nations that restrict guns and outlaw the death penalty.

Posted by: Paul | July 1, 2008 1:34 PM

Posted by: I and I | July 1, 2008 1:17 PM

Or maybe we have all "missed the point."

:-)

Let's think about this, though. Jesus said that two swords were enough for the twelve disciples. Naturally no Biblical literalist could suggest he was talking about guns; he didn't mention guns, any more than he mentioned zippers.

So, on the basis of Biblical accuracy, let me propose the following standards for Biblically-based "weapons control."

* Two swords shall be allowed for every group of twelve people.

* Indeed, since Jesus specifically spelled out that twelve people needed two swords (no more, no less) all people shall be divided into groups of twelve for the purposes of sword acquisition.

* This may not, of course, be done by the government - Jesus never suggested it. Therefore, the responsibility for "twelvification" shall be assumed by the churches.

* If no member of any designated group of twelve is willing to assume responsibility for the two swords, that person shall be moved to another group in exchange for a surplus "sword-willing" member of that group.

* If any member of a group of twelve other than the one designated as the "sword-bearer" wishes to bear one or more of that group's two swords, he or she must make a petition to the sword-bearer.

* If more than two people in any group of twelve wish to bear swords at the same time, one or more of them may request an exchange with members of another group.

I think that covers all the points. Is there anything in this for somebody who says that Jesus "said what He meant and meant what He said" to object to?

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 1, 2008 3:36 PM

* If more than two people in any group of twelve wish to bear swords at the same time, one or more of them may request an exchange with members of another group.

Is this the "cap and trade" provision of the sword policy?

:-)

Posted by: Don | July 1, 2008 4:12 PM

More seriously, I've always taken the "It is enough" comment to mean something like, "C'mon guys, pay attention to what I'm saying. You aren't getting it, are you?" In other words, Jesus was expressing a mild exasperation at the disciples for, once again, misunderstanding what he was really driving at.

But I'm certainly no NT scholar and don't know Greek.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 1, 2008 4:20 PM

Re: Luke 22:36, yes Jesus said that, but we really have no idea why and can only speculate. In that same place in Matthew and John, as well as in Luke a few verses later on, he definitely says to put away the swords. Was he trying to make a point to the soldiers? To his own followers? Bring the swords along but don't use them? I personally don't believe that he was advocating that they fight. It really is a confusing passage, as laid out in Luke, but people shouldn't take one single line out of context to prove their point. You could as easily use "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" to make the opposite point. I think the issue is a little more complex than that.

Peace,

Posted by: JEM | July 1, 2008 5:14 PM

nother Anonymous, I guess I was not aware that I was arguing with anyone. I originally responded to a question asked by a fellow named "Dick" who asked, in general relation to the idea of Jesus approving the ownership and/or use of guns, "Can you imagine Jesus talking this way?"

I responded that (in general) He had 'talked that way,' and I referenced the comment by Jesus to "sell (your) garment and buy (one)." (paraphrased) At that point, you told me that quote essentially did not exist, and then you apparently went and looked it up, and found that (in general, paraphrased) it did, indeed, exist.
And you expressed your interpretation about the "This is enough" response of Jesus to His disciples, when they produced two swords.

I disagreed with your interpretation (still do), because it simply makes no sense that Jesus would, on the one hand, state specifically that His disciples ought to purchase swords, and then say, (paraphrased), "Don't talk to me about buying swords. That will be enough!!" when they try to respond to Him. I expressed the idea that, when Jesus said, "It is enough. . ." that He meant exactly that - - that is, "the swords you have produced are enough for us, in our group, for our defense." Any other understanding of Jesus here does not jive with His earlier statement that "they ought to buy (swords)."

The conversation then was taken over by those who worked hard to demonstrate that literal interpretation does not work, in this instance. In my opinion, they failed.

And then I suggested that I philosophically am a non-resistant Anabaptist, and though my personal philosophy precludes me from violence, I understand that we cannot "pick and choose" from the scripture as we do from a cafeteria line. (No, i didnt use those exact words; but that is what I was saying, however I said it).

And then you asked, "what are we arguing about?"
I think the answer is 'nothing.' But the fact still remains, in the same way we cannot draw conclusions from scripture that are not there, neither can we fail to draw conclusions from clear statements, especially clear statements made by the Lord Himself. And in this case, even though it might stick in my non-violent craw, the fact is - - Jesus has made at least one statement that seems to allow for defensive weapons in our possession. And, it follows, ipso facto, that if there is reason in the Mind of Christ for us to own defensive weapons, then there could just be occasions when we are called to use them.

No argument; just trying to insist on consistency.

Posted by: joekc | July 1, 2008 5:30 PM

"No argument; just trying to insist on consistency."

Which is exactly what I'm doing too. Given Jesus's consistent advocacy elsewhere of non-violent resistance, it makes no sense for him to tell his disciples to arm themselves. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, I conclude that he was speaking metaphorically about self-sufficiency (which is what the sword represented), and that the disciples, to his considerable annoyance, misunderstood him.

My insistence on consistency explains why I originally said that I could not imagine Jesus telling all people who do not own a sword to buy one. I checked the passage, and indeed that is not what he said, even if the passage is read literally. Jesus, however, spoke metaphorically on many, many occasions, so there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about reading the passage that way.

But, in any case, that's not really important. What is important is that I have discovered, through this discussion, that we are both non-violent Christians. As far as I'm concerned, that's a cause to celebrate. Thank you for sharing; I now know and appreciate you much better than I did before.

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 1, 2008 5:53 PM

No, nother Anonymous, I was not referring to you when I spoke of "others" getting into the conversational fun.

And you and I could have another long discussion about whether Jesus ever taught "non-violent resistance." I can find plenty of places where He taught non-resistance, and lived it. Non-violent resistance is more a product of the mid-20th century than it is of Jesus, I think.

And believe me, we have this argument all the time within our broader denomination. Our national conference is two weeks from now, and I am sure it will come up, once again.

Please do not interpret my thoughts and suggestions as, in any way, attacks on your thoughtfulness or faithfulness, by the way. I just enjoy the stimulation of what few brain cells I have left!!

Posted by: joekc | July 1, 2008 6:13 PM

The Second Amendment clearly exists because of the very nature of the establishment of self-government by the colonists, in opposition to rule by England.

Since all governments, in the final analysis, preserve their authority to rule by force of arms, and since the colonials had experienced this directly, in opposition to their desire for a somewhat circumscribed popular self-government with its authority derived from public consent, they wanted to ensure that the authority of the common man would be backed up by the common man's equal access to arms as the government.

This means that under that principle, the right of every citizen to have access to a deadly force that in the aggregate - a militia formed by voluntary association of citizens with weapons, when required by circumstances to defend themselves against undemocratic encroachments - is a constitutional right to the means of government, constrained only by denial to persons misusung firearms in furtherance of wrongdoing and becoming themselves a danger to the safety of others or the body politic.

This is the historic genesis and reason for its existence - to guard against the usurpation of the final authority of the people by holding in reserve their right to act in the majority just as any other sort of government, by enforcing democratic government by force of arms by the people themselves if necessary.

But is it Christian? It is a step forward from the force of arms and violence of tyranny, because it is more democratic. And democracy is always preferable to tyranny, although democracy can still do evil.

As Churchill and others observed, democracy is terrible - until you consider the undemocratic alternatives.

However, in a democracy, because the people of a nation can decide by plurality to engage in predatory violence or to vote in favor of immorality, it is possible for throughly democratic governments to act absolutely against Christ and Christian principles.

Therefore, while the Constitution of the United States offers the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny, and because it is thoroughly democratic, the right to own weapons cannot be abrogated by saying that hunting or self-defence against simple crime are not included, because it is an overriding right to the matter of possession, this does not make it a Christian principle.

As commentators as early as de Tocqueville observed, democracy and tyranny can coexist - there can be such a thing as a democratically established tyranny. Far from being a positive good, one would choose to live then in other lands, under other laws.

Moreover, it is up to the people to decide if they wish to change the Constitution to reflect new realities.

Perhaps someday mankind will become sufficently enlightened according to experience and spirit to see Jesus' command to love our enemies and return good for evil as to create an even more practical perfect political union based on love instead of violence, which always has within itself the seeds of its own repeated failures.

I don't believe, now, as a Christian, that the violence of the Revolution or of the Civil War were justified. They clearly fail even Just War Theory precepts. Their only defense comes because they are a part of our history, which in the self-love given to democracies, we seek self-aggrandisement in mythologizing a glorious past for ourselves, when the reality is much more troubling.

After all, it was Samuel Johnson who observed, "Why do we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from slave-drivers?"

Instead, as Christians, we ought to pratice the highest form of patriotism by showing through example to all our fellow humans, citizens or no, the more excellent way of how to love one another, seeking not the good for self or safety selfishly, but in generosity towards others, even the unlovable.

For this we Christians do not need to keep our stock of center fire ammunition or powder dry. In the final anaysis, no one has been saved by the Second Amendment from the fires of hell, but many will have been led thereby to end up there.

I say this as one who has owned many types of firearms, but as time and experience has evolved my perspective, look askance at using them on other human beings. While upholding Second Amendment rights as long as they exist in the Constitution, I believe we should personally seek to discourage the use of firearms through every moral persuasion possible, so that the hearts that will be the deciders to pull triggers will choose not to do so, and that a prolife consensus will become our nonviolent way of life.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 1, 2008 7:04 PM

Lotsa big words n stuff in this one. kinda hard for rugular guy to follow. But if during the second coming they try take my gun from me they'l have to prie it from my cold dead hands

Posted by: bud duncan | July 2, 2008 12:56 AM

Eric,

Good point, as long as we keep within that perspective. But I get the feeling there are more than a few people posting here who believe Jesus endorses guns. Defending these rights is one thing. Tying them to Christ is another. Remember that Jesus had every right (and the power) to defend himself from being stripped, whipped and hung on a cross. But He didn't.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2008 10:00 AM

But I'm certainly no NT scholar and don't know Greek.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 1, 2008 4:20 PM

Don: Are you an advisor to Dr. Dobson?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 2, 2008 12:04 PM

Sojourner Truth: "The Second Amendment clearly exists because of the very nature of the establishment of self-government by the colonists, in opposition to rule by England.

Since all governments, in the final analysis, preserve their authority to rule by force of arms, and since the colonials had experienced this directly, in opposition to their desire for a somewhat circumscribed popular self-government with its authority derived from public consent, they wanted to ensure that the authority of the common man would be backed up by the common man's equal access to arms as the government."

Just a quick chime-in by a historian: I think, as usual, that Sojourner Truth is on the money. A couple of things I might add: even if the early U.S. government had wanted to regulate guns more stringently, it lacked the bureaucratic structure to do so. The federal govt. was minuscule up until the post-War of 1812 period, so for a rudimentary state to regulate gun ownership (among a people with more privately owned guns than any other society in the world) would have been an impossible task. In a way, the Second Amendment made a virtue of necessity.

Secondly, from the founding of Jamestown in 1607 and the coming of the Pilgrims in 1620, American society was extremely violent. The wars against Native Americans, the violence inherent in a slaveowning society, the relentless push westward, the competition with Spain, France, and Britain for control of North America: all worked not only to cultivate violence but to glamorize it. I know some on here have tired of talk of "redemptive violence" but Richard Slotkin, in his Gunfighter Nation trilogy, has documented its importance in the American national psyche.

The point being that, in tandem with what what I said above and Sojourner Truth's comments, it was just about unthinkable that gun ownership would not be "democratic."

I don't have a copy of Tocqueville in front of me. Did he say anything about guns in Democracy in America?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2008 12:33 PM

If you think about it, most weapons are purchased by individuals lacking a sense of worth and purpose.
The weapon substitutes for a sense of worth and purpose.

My first response was BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Then I realized you actually believe that. Suddenly it wasn't so funny. Sad really.

Posted by: aaron | July 2, 2008 12:56 PM

"So now, folks, have we yet concluded whether there will or will not be guns in heaven?"

I actually envision the situation as being kind of like Balder in Norse mythology. He was the one who couldn't be killed because he was so beautiful and well loved that all objects on earth had promised not to hurt him. The gods used to amuse themselves by hurling all kinds of deadly things at him, just to see them detour away.

So my view of heaven is that the gun nuts will be able to fire at me and other pacifists all day long, and then we'll all shake hands and go out to dinner together.

Just kidding, kind of...

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 2, 2008 2:02 PM

tell us why aaron.

Sad that you have to ascribe esteem issues to gun owners? I thought that'd be self-evident. Are they also compensating for small penises?

Posted by: aaron | July 2, 2008 5:15 PM

Then there's domestic violence with weapons.
What's that all about?
Does lack of a sense of worth and purpose have anything to do with domestic violence?

Posted by: justintime | July 2, 2008 11:36 PM

Sit in front of the teevee and have your reptilian brain stroked with fear and the excitement of destruction, cruelty and violence.

Watch the evening news report on murder and mayhem in your own community.

Buy a weapon, act out your fantasies.

No sense of worth and purpose.

Posted by: justintime | July 3, 2008 12:13 AM

Teehee, this is too funny.

Posted by: aaron | July 3, 2008 8:42 AM

The 2nd ammendment quite clearly preserves the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms. It cites the need for an effective militia - in 1787 a militia was composed of private citizens, just like a volunteer fire department. "The Militia" was every able bodied man, all of whom were required to own rifle, shot, and powder and to appear for training on a regular schedule. That is not what the National Guard is; The National Guard is an organization of part time Federal Employees assigned to the geographic region of a State - the same way a State Emergency Management Agency is ostensibly "of" the State but is in actuality funded and controlled like a branch office by the Federal,/i. Emergency Managment Agency.

Furthermore, the amendment refers to "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms. While the majority of the Constitution spells out the powers and authority of the Federal Government and the States, The Bill of Rights specifically outlines the rights of individual citizens that "shall not be infringed" by the government. Why should "the people" mean one thing in the other nine amendments but mean something else only in this one particular amendment? Why would "the people" mean one thing in the first amendment but have a different meaning in the fourth?

Why would the founding fathers amend the constitution at all, let alone the Bill of Rights designed to enshrine personal freedoms, to protect the right of soldiers to bear arms?

The amendment quite clearly says what it says. Any alternative interpretation gleaned from this short, concise sentence is a product of the intentionally obtuse.

Posted by: Long-Tailed_Cat | July 3, 2008 12:52 PM

Is a child who uses the gun of a law-abiding citizen a criminal before or after he shoots his classmates?

Posted by: brenna | July 3, 2008 3:44 PM

So it's an us vs. them, line-in-the-sand sort of argument, eh? Pure silliness.

I do not own a gun, but I have the right to do so if I feel threatened. I am also a Christian and I do not think that owning up to both categories is strange or sends mixed signals in any way.

What I abhor about this article is the fact that the author frames the debate as if the two are mutually inexclusive.

I'm not about to live in the author's societally-relegated Amish community Utopia so that I can think of myself as one more ounce pious.

I agree there are two many gun nuts out there, and Jesus said those who live by the sword will die by it. But I'm not one of them. We are to be meek, but we are to be shrewd as well.

And if I deem shrewdness to be owning a Luger, then so be it.

Posted by: Ryan | July 3, 2008 5:20 PM

Thank you Rev. Smith for your thought-provoking post. You raise a number of deep and difficult questions. These include both questions that believers and disciples of Jesus must face about the use of violence to protect the innocent from evil, as well as questions all American citizens must face about how best to exercise our individual and collective duty to bear the burden of guiding (or forcing) political power toward good in our democratic republic. For Christian disciples of Jesus, all these questions orbit around the binary system at the center of which lies two interrelated forces: the problem of evil and the process of incarnation through history.

As disciples we have the teachings of Jesus, such as "blessed are the meek . . . the peacemakers," "if someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to them your left cheek as well," "love your neighbor," and, perhaps most to the point, "put your sword back in its place . . . for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (See Matt. 26:52.) For many believers, this is the end of the discussion. I was deeply moved by the forgiveness displayed by the Amish community in the face of the senseless shooting of five Amish school girls in October 2006. As Desmond Tutu has said, "there is no future without forgiveness."

I am a believer. I also own a gun, though (and I believe I'm fortunate in this) I have never had to point it at or use it on a human being. As I've grown older, by the "lingering-out sweet skill" of Mercy, I've come to doubt that I could use a gun just to protect myself, if faced alone by an assailant, and no one else was threatened. I've also come to doubt that I would have the wisdom to judge, if faced with an assailant threatening myself and others with deadly force, whether the actual use of deadly force is really necessary to diffuse the situation. But I don't spend much time worrying about the moral propriety of using a gun to stop an assailant who was clearly threatening or attempting to kill other innocent persons, should I ever be presented with such a clear choice. Such situations in the real world are fraught with real, practical problems, but the morality of that clear, simple choice, should such a situation present itself, is not one of them. Unfortunately, we live in a world where good people are, every day, faced with such choices. In such a situation, the gun itself is not the problem. The problem is the nature of the world we live in. If I believed that stricter gun laws and gun bans would prevent such situations from ever happening, I would be in favor of them.

But the Second Amendment isn't primarily about self defense or the defense of others from armed criminals. Its primarily about the "responsibilities that go along with" the rights we enjoy as citizens and members of a republic seeking to practice and maintain, and perhaps even expand, meaningful self government and to ensure to all the blessings of liberty. It's about the exercise of those responsibilities in a world where the forces of evil (and hatred, sickness, failure, misunderstanding and blindness) often continue to exert as great an influence on the daily events of our civic lives as the forces of incarnation, love, forgiveness, empathy and hope. Our founding fathers, I believe wisely, reserved to the people the ultimate political power of the force of arms to stay the hand of tyranny. They did so perhaps based in part upon the assumption that citizens of virtue would exercise that power wisely and with due restraint, and perhaps because they realized that in this world there is no better, no other possible choice as a final repository of that ultimate political power of arms than the people. Wendy Brown asserted in 1989 that the "people" are no longer virtuous and that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant. I respectfully disagree. My disagreement has become more adamant as my sense of hope has increased observing our Nation respond to Barak Obama's presidential campaign. If "we the people" are to govern ourselves, we can't rely on some other power to do that governing for us - and that includes the ultimate political power of arms.

I fear that the world envisioned by the founders who enacted the Second Amendment is not neat, not always pretty, and not any kind of idealistic visionary world. It is a sometimes messy world where bad things regularly happen, even to good people. It is a world where even the best human beings are sometimes tempted to abuse their power. It is a world where the blessings of self government and liberty are not free - in fact they come at great expense. Referring to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you have asked "what are the responsibilities that go along with this newly bestowed right?" While I question whether the founding-era delegates who authored and debated the Second Amendment viewed it as in any way "newly bestowed," even then, I believe they would have taken the view that the first responsibility that goes along with the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the responsibility of the people to keep and bear arms. I am not just playing with words here. The right and the obligation go hand in hand. When viewed as a civic duty, to be exercised not primarily with a view to one's self interest, but in order to ensure preservation of the blessings of liberty, the responsibility of the people to keep and bear arms takes on a different meaning. I believe that meaning is closer to what was intended in 1789.

Surely, we should continue to do what can be done to avoid unnecessary injury and cost associated with the exercise by the people of their right, and their duty, to keep and bear arms. But if we are to continue to ensure the blessings of liberty and self government, we the people must preserve the right, and by our sacred honor, perform the duty.

Posted by: Steve | July 3, 2008 7:30 PM

Shoot a few, knock them down, cost you half a buck now
Guns guns guns
Babe give you kisses if you hit a rubber duck now
Guns guns guns
You be the red king, I`ll be the yellow pawn
Guns guns guns
Eagle all gone and no more caribou

God speed Mother Nature
Never really wanted to say goodbye

-"Guns, Guns, Guns"
lyrics by Burton Cummings/Randy Bachman
THE GUESS WHO c. 1975

Posted by: canucklehead | July 3, 2008 8:58 PM

There has been much talk here about using guns as protection against potential violence. Let’s take a look at another people in another time that felt the same way. During the last decade of the twentieth century, a study was made of violence among men in Lower Canada during the period 1800 to 1850. Violence between men in that time and place, when it occurred, happened fast and ended abruptly. Usually no more than two or three blows were required to end an argument. While knives, swords, and guns were available, they were rarely carried or used by civilian men. When a weapon was required, Canadian men of the first half of the nineteenth century reached for a good stout stick. They used walking sticks, whip handles, and ox-goads to make their points.
Canadian men of different social and economic classes were all either aggressors or victims in equal numbers. It seems a caning knew no class or social bounds but was a truly democratic form of attack. Men of high economic and social rank did avail themselves of an opportunity for ritual violence denied to men of lower rank, however. Wealthy men participated in duels while others did not.
While wealthy men were not subject to a greater proportion of violence, one man to another, than any other group (with the exception of dueling), these social elites were different in both their perception of violence and in the way they inflicted it on other Canadian men. Men of elite status feared that they were going to be attacked by those of lesser standing. Possibly as a response to this fear, wealthy Canadian men struck out against those of lower classes with their canes. However, the lower classes rarely ever validated this fear; they almost never attacked wealthy men. In fact, well-to-do Canadians had more to fear from each other than from those of lower socio-economic standing. To profit from this fear, savvy stick makers produced a wide variety of walking sticks with hidden weapons to easy the fear of the wealthy. However, when the rich Canadian struck, his weapon of choice was almost always the hard handle of his walking stick over all other possibilities, whether carried concealed or not. (Fyson, Donald. "Blows and Scratches, Swords and Guns: Violence Between Men as Material Reality and Lived Experience in Early Nineteenth-Century Lower Canada." A paper for the 78th annual meeting of the Canadian Historical Association, Sherbrooke, Canada, June 1999.) I’d suggest that the wealthy and middle class in America today face a similar situation and have their fears stoked by an industry equally interested in turning a buck.
Further, despite our individual rights, do we Christians not also and most clearly have the responsibility to take care of the community and to build community. Should we not spend more time raising our collective voice against the gun violence, and violence of all stripes, that run rampant across our nation and around our world. In the 19th century, evangelism was concerned with social welfare and the end of slavery, great causes undertaken by great and determined saints. What of us? What of John 21:17 Tend my sheep as one example?

Posted by: J.S. Brooks | July 4, 2008 8:28 AM

"If guns kill people, do pens misspell words?" Frustrating as it is, it's a fair question. I have always respected MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) for their stance that cars don't kill people, drunk drivers do, and therefore laws against, and penalties for, drunk driving must be much more severe.

As a moderate Democrat and Christian gun-owner, I view the strikedown of the Washington, DC, gun law with mixed emotions. While I think people should have the right to own a personal firearm, I don't think it's a good idea that so many people do. The problem is obvious: many simply don't treat them with the respect they demand. A firearm is not just some household tool. Granted, it's an inanimate object, and can do no harm until used, or misused, by someone. The problem is that many people who own them simply don't take the proper precautions necessary to keep their household safe from a gun contained within it.

I grew up in Western Pennsylvania, in a hunting culture and in a household that contained several guns that were kept loaded at all times. We never had a single firearm accident, in spite of the fact that five children grew up in that house, and the guns were accessible by anyone. By the time I had reached ten, my father had very forcefully taught us all the dangers of messing with a weapon. We were taught never, ever, to misuse it, play around with it, or point it an anything we weren't planning to shoot. Period. There were no exceptions, and violations were not tolerated. We learned quickly, and never had a mishap.

I know that most of my friends grew up in similar households, and by the age of 12, most boys (and some girls as well), we'd taken firearm safety courses at local community centers. Where I live, firearm deaths in the household are extremely rare, simply because most people in this area are raised to treat a potentially deadly tool with the respect it deserves.

While I support the right of any American to own a firearm, I also believe it should be mandatory that anyone wishing to purchase a gun show proof of completion in a stringent, demanding gun safety course. If Americans feel they have the right to own firearms, then they should also accept the responsibility to see that they're properly trained to safely handle and stored them. A tough, nationwide certification course is poorly needed. If American wants to retain its personal freedoms, then Americans need to return to a time when they accepted the responsibilities that go with those freedoms.

http://sheriger-codex.blogspot.com

Posted by: S. Heriger | July 4, 2008 12:19 PM

I trust God, and his word, in Romans chapter thirteen, tells me he has designed government(s) as a mechanism of structure and to prevent complete chaos. As such, the United States government guarantees its citizens the right to own fire arms. I have lived in Canada where only rifles can be owned for the specific purpose of hunting. It is true, the murder by fire arm rate in Canada is lower than in the States, but then in Canada, there is a pastor being threaten with jail time for preaching Romans chapter one. It amuzes me that the (yes, I'm going to say it and some will find it offensive) the liberal left want to politically extract the second amendment while at the same time decry the Patriot Act which supposedly removes so many of our freedoms. I recall the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure the government could not exercise power by force over U.S. citizens. When a U.S. politician dreams up the idea of sending the U.S. military to strike against its own citizens, we might just need these fire arms we so desperately wish to eradicate. The citizens of the revolution needed the fire arms to defend their liberty. I wonder if the news would be different about Burma if its citizens were able to own fire arms. I trust in and believe God. I trust that he has given me a brain to defend myself, my wife, my kids, my mom, and my congregation if the situation arises. He allowed Isarael to defend itself, why not me? It is sad that too many of us Christians prefer to succumb to being a victim rather than victor, but what do I know, I'm just a silly republican who wants windmills to power my house and would ride a bike to work if it were safe more so becasue I'm tired of contributing to the 90% profit margin of Exxon Mobile, KCP&L, and MGE.

Posted by: J | July 7, 2008 9:19 AM

I and I, is that you? or I and Hussein I?

you MUST understand, when the CRTC (FCC) mandates that our commercial radio stations must play Can-con (Canadian content) 33.33333% of the time, we HAVE TO still play mid-70s stuff to meet the reqs, why do you think Anne Murray is still touring even tho she's now 103, and Celine Dion is like 90??

"There are 30 guns per every 100 people in Canada, and a host of restrictions on licensing, carrying and transporting firearms. The U.S. - the world's most heavily armed society - has 90 guns per every 100 people. As a result, in Canada firearms only account for one-third of homicides, while more than two-thirds of American murders involve guns. Partly b/c of that, Americans have had a murder rate about three times higher than Canada for the last decade (an improvement from four times higher in the 1980s)."

-Maclean's (our nat'l news mag, July 7/08)

Posted by: canucklehead | July 7, 2008 9:04 PM

The writer said:
“What are the responsibilities that go along with this newly bestowed right? The Court's ruling does make room for sensible gun control. But as people of faith we must ask deeper and more difficult questions: Where do we place our trust -- in God or in guns? Who do we serve -- God or the second amendment? Where do we find our sense of worth and purpose -- from God or from guns? How do we bring about God's reign - with an open heart or with a gun in hand?”


First let me start by saying that the intent of the founding fathers was not only so Americans can defend themselves against crime, but also a tyranical government. Think about it. They had just fought the British their last form of government. Many of us today would not take that bold step but rather take as it is and keep going on with our lives, while taxes continue to rise and prices of this or that go up. We would just take it and blame and point fingers at the ones who try to fix the system by bucking the system.


The founding fathers of this country knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so to keep the government they where creating in check, they designed a system of checks and ballances. The last line of which is the citizen. Yes they did intend the government to be respectful of it's citizens so the government would not over step its bounds and start taking away the means for its citizens to live a prosperous life.


We, today, believe our government is right and if it is wrong then we vote them out. However, if you believe the absolute power corrupts absolutely, then one you take away the citizens weapons of any kind, it gets you closer to removing other constitutional rights, such as voting and freedom of speech.


We already see today how governments can do this, examples Hitler, Saddam Husein. Both where either elected into power or appointed power and then decided to convince the majority that what they want is the right path to take for their countries. So how do they do it? Disarm the opposition and then have their way with the defenseless. God helps those who help themselves. Like the joke goes...

A town was flooding everyone left the town except one man who said "God will protect me!" as the water rose above the first floor of his home, a boat came by, but the man refused stating "God will protect me." the water rose again above the second floor and as the man stood on the roof of his house a helicopter came by and lowered a ladder. Still the man said, "God will protect me." finally the water rose and the man was swept away by the current and drowned. After reaching heaven, he asked God why he did not protect him, he has had faith in God his entire live and trusts God for everything. God answers the man saying. I tried to save you three times but you ignored me!

The moral of this long post is, don't trust any government for your safety. God has given you the right and responsibility to protect yourself via a gun. Giving it away is the same as turning away rescuers trying to save you from the floods.

Posted by: Bruce Martin | July 10, 2008 10:17 AM