One Day, I Will Join the NRA (by Tim King)
This week, The New York Times ran an editorial about H.R. 6691, follow-up legislation to the June Supreme Court decision on D.C.'s gun ban. After reading the editorial, I made a resolution: One day I will join the National Rifle Association.
I first started learning about the sport of marksmanship when I was 10 years old at "Camp Good News." We practiced with our BB rifles every day after our morning worship services. I graduated to a .22 rifle soon after to rid our family's barn of pigeons and our garden of woodchucks. In the fall, our family would enjoy venison stew that came from deer shot in the woods behind our house.
What has stopped me from signing up for the NRA thus far has been their support of legislation such as H.R. 6691. This legislation has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with powerful business interests looking to make a profit by moving more product. This legislation would allow residents of D.C. to legally walk the streets with loaded AK-47s. It would make it legal to own .50 caliber sniper rifles with an accuracy of up to 1 mile in our nation's capital.
The NRA has lost its way. It has made an organization of sportsmen and women into a cover organization for business interests ready to sacrifice safety and national security for their bottom line.
I am ready to join the NRA the day I can be convinced that its goals are to protect my constitutional rights and not to protect business interests at the expense of public safety. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.'s non-voting member of Congress, has introduced alternative legislation that would responsibly ensure the District's adherence to the Supreme Court's ruling. If it was about the Constitution, H.R. 6691 would be unnecessary.
So one day, when the NRA puts American lives, safety, and rights first -- and not lobbying dollars -- I'll join.
Tim King is the special assistant to the CEO for Sojourners. For more information, visit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I don't have to join the NRA to support gun rights any more than I have to join PETA to respect animals.
Would any of you please admit that criminals will ALWAYS have guns, thus making them illegal only serves to disarm those who abide by the law? Why is this concept so hard to understand?
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 2:04 PM
"Tim King is the special assistant to the CEO for Sojourners."
Tim, where is Jim? Is he on vacation? How come his last two posts have been for the most part cut-and-paste? It seems there would be much to talk about as McCain-Palin are gaining in the polls as Christians are flocking to support the Republican ticket. We need to be reminded by Jim not to be in the pocket of any one party and that abortion is just one insignificant issue in comparison to global warming and world poverty. If we are not constantly reminded of this we may forget.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM
Peter S.
Because that isn't how gun control plays out in Europe. What is so hard to understand about that???
Posted by: U TOO | September 12, 2008 2:19 PM
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 2:04 PM
Nicely said -
I have been a member of the NRA but my membership has lapsed as I can not afford to renew just now. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books all over the nation but still the bad guys have guns - you figure.
If anyone is gov't would finally write a law that if you commit a crime using a gun - your sentence would be doubled or tripled, that one I believe I could support. It is not the 'object' it is the person.
If MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driver had used the same logic and those against gun violence - they would be MACK - Mother's Against Cars that Kill.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM
Because that isn't how gun control plays out in Europe. What is so hard to understand about that???
Posted by: U TOO | September 12, 2008 2:19 PM
------
1. I disagree.
"In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults." from www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105002026
2. I don't want to be anything like europe.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM
There is a provence in Austraila that has gone through something simular. When the criminals know that the avg. citizen is law abiding and disarmed - since they failed to turn in their guns, they have free reign. What about counties that require their citizens to know how to handle a weapon - I believe they have some of the lowest crime rates. No thug is going to rob a house if there is a chance that granny might be pack'in heat.
be blessed today -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 2:41 PM
Peter S. wrote: Would any of you please admit that criminals will ALWAYS have guns, thus making them illegal only serves to disarm those who abide by the law?
Duh: Sure, criminals will always have guns, and....
Research the number of times an armed civilian actually defends him/herself versus the number of times domestic disputes with guns involved end in death.
If I could ask this face to face it would be in a gentle tone of voice: Peter, I request that you let others be the first to comment on the God's Politics blog once in awhile.
Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | September 12, 2008 3:34 PM
Of course, fully auto AK-47's would still be illegal (unless you have a class 3 FFL). To me, this just puts DC on the same playing field as the rest of the country.
Posted by: bob | September 12, 2008 3:37 PM
Posted by: Duh-sciple | September 12, 2008 3:34 PM
Domestic violence that ends in death - I do not believe that the gun is the weapon of choice. I believe that it is a knife or heavy blunt object.
Cars kill many more students than guns - should be bann them until they are 22 or 23?
Again - it is the person and not the object that is the problem. I hate to think what 'tax' would be placed on gun collectors so that they could be 'stored' in a central location away from me. I would more than likely have to send my collection to a relative in another state or country or big a shelter in the backyard to hide them in or sell them.
Peter, (I'm have a smile on my face) Post whenever you want. I don't believe that we need a pecking order here - the moderator will just remove your post if they don't like it.
Be blessed -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM
Maybe I could understand the obsession that some people have with guns if I could reconcile such an obsession with the teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus taught us that freedom depends on him (John 8:36), it seems to me that we Christians are therefore obligated to think that our freedom doesn't depend on how many or what kinds of weapons we own, or on what kinds of guarantees our government gives us.
And since the Jesus I read about in the gospels teaches nonviolence, I have a difficult time squaring that with the above-mentioned obsession as well. It simply is incomprehensible to me that Christians would be so obsessed with the ownership and possession of deadly weapons.
I'm not opposed to ownership of firearms. They're useful for sport and for hunting (for those who enjoy those things). I just don't understand the obsession that results in support of the kind of illogic that Mr. King here and Ms. Denlinger in the previous blog talk about here.
Silly me, I guess. This is America, which was built on "God, guns and guts." This sounds rather like blasphemy to me...
Peace,
Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM
Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM
I can see what you are saying - but do not confuse gun ownership with gun violence.
I love to target shoot or trap shoot. There was a time that I could knock out 90 to 95 percent of the clay pigions in a round. I could also hit the bullseye on a target with a pistol an avg of 7 out of 10 times and the others were just off the mark. It is sport. I love to hunt deer - bird and one time I shot at a bear. (I really didn't try to hard for the bear and the last time I went deer hunting, they were so far away - I shot them with my 35MM)
Why should I have to register - background check myself when the criminal that they are trying to get does not do any of this.
Make it so that the criminal will think twice before they pick up that gun because they know that the time they will spend in prison is going to be a lot longer than the benefit of having a gun to give them the advantage.
An ounce of prevention is well worth a pound of cure!
Blessing to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 4:22 PM
Peter S., it is interesting that your views seem to fall straight down the ticket Republican, just in the way you generally accuse Jim of following the Democratic party line. Does that ever make you stop, pause, and consider what that may mean about your own views and perhaps give you a touch of empathy for Jim and how ALL of us become influenced by particular sets of ideology? And if you're so irritated by Jim's "reminders", why do you continue to read God's Politics?
It seems that you take issue with Tim's use of the symbolism of joining the NRA. I could be wrong, but what I take from Tim's blog is that he sees the NRA as a symbol of support for the right to gun ownership and is disappointed that the NRA supports completely unrestricted access to guns instead of a more limited approach that would allow possession of guns for hunting and personal defense, but reasonably restricts the possession of automatic weapons. I don't think Tim tries to make the argument that you have to join the NRA to support gun ownership, he's using it more as a rhetorical point for his argument.
You also condescendingly educate the rest of us who are apparently to dim-witted to understand that criminals will own guns and use them regardless of the laws. It does seem to be obvious that gun control taken to the extreme is detrimental to the safety of the community, but Tim is not arguing for extreme gun control. Instead, he is arguing against support for a bill that "would repeal a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and eliminate firearm registration requirements, even for such things as sniper rifles and small, easily concealed semiautomatic handguns." This concept may be over my head, but I do not see semi-automatic weapons and sniper rifles as the types of weapons that would be used for self-defense
Posted by: Brian | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM
My dad was a hunter in Oklahoma growing up. He loved the sport. He gave it up when he had 9 kids. He didn't think the joy of hunting was worth one accident in his home.
Some of the reason to run a background check is the check for mental illness. It's not just criminals we need to fear in the case of guns.
As for cars, we do put restrictions on who has those and many states are restricting how many passengers teens can have in the cars they drive, and some states are even upping the age of drivers to 17.
Posted by: frankie | September 12, 2008 4:46 PM
"In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults."
Another interesting statistic:
Number of US presidents assassinated by hand-guns - 4
Number of American presidents on whose life serious attempts (i.e. attempts resulting in woundings or the deaths of others) have been made - 7
Number of UK Prime Ministers assassinated by hand-guns - 1 (in 1812)
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | September 12, 2008 4:59 PM
"Peter S., it is interesting that your views seem to fall straight down the ticket Republican"
Posted by: Brian | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM
-------
Brian, That is merely a coincidence. I am actually much more conservative than most republicans. :)
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 5:01 PM
Posted by: Brian | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM
Let me take this point by point -
'...and is disappointed that the NRA supports completely unrestricted access to guns instead of a more limited approach that would allow possession of guns for hunting and personal defense...'
Any restirction law will only allow then to 'amend' the law and before we know it we have total restriction on guns. Communities are trying to stop the legal manufacture of weapons and put people out of work and on the welfare roll. I believe that the other side has shown itself as quite militant. Many of us are not against a national registry of criminals that should not own or carry a gun. We are against a list of law abiding citizens and the guns they own.
'...but reasonably restricts the possession of automatic weapons.'
If memory serves - I don't think you can purchase an automatic weapon unless you have a special permit for it. I as a citizen of my state can not purchase an automatic weapon. Besides - I believe it is less than 3% of the crimes use an automatic weapon - not the gun of choice for 97% of the criminals out there.
You also condescendingly educate the rest of us who are apparently to dim-witted to understand that criminals will own guns and use them regardless of the laws.
There is enough of this on both sides -
'...but I do not see semi-automatic weapons and sniper rifles as the types of weapons that would be used for self-defense...'
Like I said before that these are not the guns of choice for the criminal either - so why go after them? Except that if you can get a law on the books banning these - to can just amend it to include others guns that you don't like and soon you have taking all the guns away from the citizens. It is a slippery slope. Go after the criminal and make it so that they don't want to touch a gun during a crime - gun violence I believe will go down.
Blessing to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 5:02 PM
The U.S. Department of Education reports that during 1997, nearly 6,300 students were expelled from American schools for carrying firearms. Fifty-eight percent of the expulsions were for handguns and 17% for shotguns.
Posted by: U TOO | September 12, 2008 5:22 PM
"(I'm have a smile on my face) Post whenever you want. I don't believe that we need a pecking order here - the moderator will just remove your post if they don't like it.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM
----------
Thanks big guy. I don't remember seeing many (if any) posts from 'Duh-sciple' before anyway. It's not like I'm trying to constantly post before him/her.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 5:23 PM
ummm,
most Australian criminals don't have access to guns, tey're just not available (and the lack of land borders probably helps to keep them out),
and, Australia doesn't have provinces and doesn't have any regions that are experiencing significant firearms offences;
although we all a few years ago got to see an NRA ad (made for US) which showed Australia's elderly cowering in fear inside their homes; but it got airplay here purely because of how wrong it was - the misrepresentation was offensive.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM
I can see what you are saying - but do not confuse gun ownership with gun violence.
No, big guy, I was not confusing anything with anything. I was commenting on what I see as the obsessive, almost religious, commitment to gun ownership on the part of so many gun owners whenever the topic of restricting dangerous weapons on our city streets is broached.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 6:01 PM
So, let me get this straight, you're right to a fun hobby is more important then public safety?
That's like saying, "Since I drink and drive to work every day and have never slammed into anything yet, everyone should be allowed to do it. After all, it isn't the drink, it's the drinker."
Posted by: Connie | September 12, 2008 6:05 PM
• Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you
care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.
(The New England Journal of Medicine 329(15): 1084-1091, 1993)
• More than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or
intimate acquaintances than were killed by strangers’ guns, knives, or other weapon
combined.
(Brock, K. When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 1997 Homicide Data: Females Murdered
by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents.
• Black and White females are equally as likely to be a victim of family and intimate
partner firearm homicide.
Posted by: U TOO | September 12, 2008 6:15 PM
Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 6:01 PM
'...commitment to gun ownership on the part of so many gun owners whenever the topic of restricting dangerous weapons...'
Maybe because you can pass all the laws that you want on the 'object' and the problem will still be there. It is the 'person' that you need to deal with and their activities.
20,000+ gun laws on the books all over the nation and we still have the problem? Maybe it is time to tack another tac and see where that gets us? I can't tell you how many times in MN the criminal who should not have had a gun in the pocession got off with just a slap on the wrist. Do something to make it hurt if they break the law.
I believe that the NRA has done more to protect out citizens than they will ever get credit for. The 'Gun Training' that they offer most time free of charge has done a lot to keep people safe. Gun accidents in the home - tradgic. But a sportsman knows that you never store a loaded gun and you never keep your ammo and your guns together usless they are locked up.
The piece of metal is not the problem.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 6:37 PM
The piece of metal is not the problem.
But the piece of metal is the object of worship on the part of so many gun owners; at least that is how it so often seems.
Posted by: | September 12, 2008 6:41 PM
1. re read the bill. it in no way would allow a rifle to be carried loaded in washinton. You have misread, had it wrongly explained to you, or intentionally distorted the bill.
2. the .50 cal. "sniper rifle" as you call it, (i use mine for 800 meter+ woodchuck hunting...i hardly call that "sniping") has its uses. The fact that someone lives in DC shouldnt preclude their right to go out to the countryside (virginia has some rather open areas, and established long distance rifle ranges) and pursue their sport.
What is it with people and their concern about DC residents? My AK, my Barnett .50, and my Federally registered (no state law requirement in NH) Thompson and Reising sub machine guns (Form-4 ATF), etc., etc., never seem to hurt anyone here in NH. Why is that?
Could it be...Oh, I dunno... the assumption that DC residents are by nature criminally insane? Or is it their largely minority make up?
And I trust your not carrying one of those "assault steak knives"...you know... the ones with those serrated edges that can cut through frozen meat!! I mean, what exactly do you NEED one of those for anyway??? Hmmmmm?
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 12, 2008 7:25 PM
By the way... far be it from me to call the author of this article deceptive. But I note there was no link to the bill in question.
Here it is: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6691:
If Tim can identify any reference in this bill to permitting the carrying of a loaded AK-47 thru the streets of Washington DC I'd sure appreciate it.
Hyperbole, knee jerk hysteria, being an undisclosed supporter of an organization with an agenda, and disseminating false information will quickly lose one their credibility.
Tim, you've accomplished that.
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 12, 2008 7:51 PM
Killing machines are wrong. Fears keeps the violence going. Jesus knew how to break the cycle of violence. Have faith, get rid of your fear and your weapons. It's better to turn the other cheek, as hard as that may be, then keep the fear, hatred and violence going. I am appalled by how much Christians have forgotten the word of God when they love their guns and condone war and torture.
Posted by: M. Knackstedt | September 12, 2008 8:34 PM
M Knack... I know just how you feel. I feel the same way about people who's hobby includes weilding metal and wooden clubs to hit hard objects at peoples heads. Its just wrong.
Still trying to figure out the connection between owning guns for sport, self defense, informal target shooting and fun; and the violence, fear hatred and torture you decry.
Neither me nor my guns fear, hate committ violence toward, nor torture anyone. I for one am anti-war, having been there done that.
I think you need to take a step back, take a breath, and realize that when you equate my hobby, and the hobby of millions, with your fears and hatreds you are being irrational.
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 12, 2008 8:54 PM
I checked out the HR bill on line. There is NO mention of any allowance to carry an AK-47 loaded in the streets of washington. Thats a complete distortion, and intentional mischaracterization, or to be egenerous, maybe just a gross mistatement because Tim gets his info from "The Brady Bunch" anti-gun group.
Do a google for HR 6691. Find out for yourself.
And remember that what you read here, and most blogs, is not always the truth. Sometimes it's the perspective of people with a personal agenda. Isn't that right , Tim?
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 12, 2008 11:17 PM
Jesus and Others and Guns
What a wonderful way to spell JOG
Jesus and Others and Guns
In the life of each girl and each, um, dog (I guess)
J is for Jesus, for he has first place (um, I think)
O is for others, we meet face to face
G is for guns, to support on the blog
git yerself a gun and spell JOG**
**w/ apologies to the fundamentalist Sunday School ditty of yesteryear; put that in your oboe and play it, Squeaky!
Posted by: canucklehead | September 13, 2008 6:47 PM
U Too said: • Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you
care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner. (The New England Journal of Medicine 329(15): 1084-1091, 1993)
Since I have approx. 60 guns in my home, and have for the past 30-40 years, does that mean me or my family are 180 times more likely to murdered by one of them? Do the guns themselves know this? I guess its good most of them are locked in a safe incase they take it to mmind to murder one of us.
I wonder...how many FEWER times likely would it be to avoid being stabbed to death if one were to remove all knives/cutlery from their home? How many FEWER times likely wouldit be to avoid being killed in the bathtub if people eliminated their tubs/showers?
I'd proffer that if you have a crucifix in your house you're 1000 times more likely to be bludgeoned to death with one than someone who doesn't have one.
Statistics like this are meaningful ONLY if one has an agenda.
Personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to defend my self and my family, than to rely on the police to show up in time while we plead and beg for our lives. In fact, the police have no responsibility to defend you, only to pick up the pieces and find the perp once youve been victimized.
My guess is U Too that you're the type who wouldn't take responsibility for your own self defense, or your family's lives. You'd just grovel and pray and trust the gov't to rescue you. Good luck with that.
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 13, 2008 6:55 PM
"(I'm have a smile on my face) Post whenever you want. I don't believe that we need a pecking order here - the moderator will just remove your post if they don't like it.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM
----------
Thanks big guy. I don't remember seeing many (if any) posts from 'Duh-sciple' before anyway. It's not like I'm trying to constantly post before him/her.
I've seen lots of posts from Duh-csiple. They've been good food for reflection.
What I find interesting is that I don't see any responses to Don's concern about the life and teachings of Jesus and how they impact both the issue and the opinion. That's generally how it goes. Once the blog post is written, the posts begin and run with opinions and dueling statistics and emotions -- all secular. I've given up coming to the blogs for debate and reflections on our faith and its application to our lives.
Posted by: openeyes | September 13, 2008 8:13 PM
"Maybe I could understand the obsession that some people have with guns if I could reconcile such an obsession with the teachings of Jesus."
This is poisoning the well. Political activism on behalf of a cause does not constitute obsession with that cause.
"Since Jesus taught us that freedom depends on him (John 8:36), it seems to me that we Christians are therefore obligated to think that our freedom doesn't depend on how many or what kinds of weapons we own, or on what kinds of guarantees our government gives us."
This argument doesn't work. You are conflating different definitions of freedom. We are free, in Christ, from the bondage of slavery. Paul notes that this applies to slaves as well.
The paradox here exposes the folly of the argument. I support second amendment rights because they are an important component of the infrastructure of a free society. I do not support them because I have questions about my freedom from sin.
To illustrate this point, simply insert "the right to vote" for "the right to bear arms".
"And since the Jesus I read about in the gospels teaches nonviolence, I have a difficult time squaring that with the above-mentioned obsession as well."
The only form of government that could possibly comply with your interpretation of Jesus' words is one forged of anarchy. If Jesus teaches non-violence, and guns are violent, then police officers may not have guns. Or, at least, we have no right to request their protection.
Of course, most guns are used for hunting. Jesus doesn't speak against hunting anywhere at all.
"I'm not opposed to ownership of firearms."
Then you contradict yourself. If guns = violence, and Christ = non-violence, then Christians cannot support gun ownership.
"Silly me, I guess. This is America, which was built on "God, guns and guts." This sounds rather like blasphemy to me..."
Firstly, nobody here has said what you have put in quotes. Of course, the bogeyman is duly perturbed at your charge of blasphemy.
Secondly, I would argue that the pillars of our democracy center around our right to bear arms, own property, and speak freely. Even if elected officials can contrive a reason to deprive us of these rights, we should disregard the argument in favor of the constitution.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 14, 2008 1:00 AM
This is poisoning the well. Political activism on behalf of a cause does not constitute obsession with that cause.
It's not poisoning the well, and the concern isn't over obsession with a political cause. My concern is over the obsession with guns themselves. What I so frequently read from the gun enthusiasts who oppose any restrictions on the "right" to carry any any type of weapon anywhere desired is that they believe a form of idolatry. The weapons themselves are the idols.
You don't believe it? Some of the slogans point in that direction. The "God, guns, and guts" slogan is one of them. So is the "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers." (Maybe nobody here repeated the "God, guns, and guts" slogan per se, but the attitude that the slogan expresses has been exhibited here. Just read through some of the comments on this and the other gun thread.)
My point about freedom is not a conflation of political freedom with freedom from sin. It's to point out what I see as inconsistency in the witness of so many American Christians. All too many are willing to ascribe their freedoms to being Americans, to the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, etc. I have nothing against those things. But it's idolatry to believe that these are the sources of our freedoms, political or otherwise. God is the only source of true freedom of any kind, and it's only by an act of God's grace that Americans were given--and continue to enjoy--political freedoms. I cannot ascribe my political freedom to the right to bear arms, or to free speech, or even to freedom of religion. They are not the sources of my freedom; or at least they are only sources in a derivative sense. Only God deserves the credit for being the source. (Don't forget the Declaration of Independence: "...they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...)
How does that play into the debate over firearms? Well, if God chooses to take our freedoms away from us as Americans, the Second Amendment won't prevent that from happening. In other words, the future of our democracy does not depend on an absolute, unrestricted right to bear virtually any type of arms we want, as the NRA would have us believe.
Finally, I do not contradict myself to say that gun ownership itself isn't the problem. As I said, people can own firearms for sport and for hunting. (Although I don't eat a lot of meat, I'm not a vegetarian. It is not wrong to kill animals for food, in my opinion.) Many of the pacifist Amish own firearms because they are hunters, and they see no contradiction there. The problem isn't guns. As I said above, the problem is that when gun ownership is made an absolute right, guns have become an idol.
One more thought. A friend of my son's, who is in law school, has this take on the Second Amendment: The Second Amendment gives all Americans the right to own any kind of weapon that existed in 1787.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | September 14, 2008 1:44 PM
"Secondly, I would argue that the pillars of our democracy center around our right to bear arms, own property, and speak freely. Even if elected officials can contrive a reason to deprive us of these rights, we should disregard the argument in favor of the constitution."
I would argue that the spirit of democracy is the responsibility to care for one another. We can talk about rights until the cows come home, but somehow we have lost responsibility from our lexicon.
I would also add that the Founding Fathers would have definitely frowned upon the accumulation of land by a few and the amazing discrepancy in weath between the Rich and the Poor. Jeffersonian democracy was predicated on a nation of small farmers, not a nation of corporatized agriculture. We will not last long as a nation if we focus exclusively on our rights and not on our responsibilities.
Posted by: ando | September 14, 2008 5:07 PM
Posted by: ando | September 14, 2008 5:07 PM
Well said.
Posted by: Don | September 14, 2008 6:19 PM
Openeyes: "What I find interesting is that I don't see any responses to Don's concern about the life and teachings of Jesus and how they impact both the issue and the opinion. That's generally how it goes. Once the blog post is written, the posts begin and run with opinions and dueling statistics and emotions -- all secular."
All too true. I fear that I've become part of the problem, and plan to post much less on here. GP is getting to be a little too much like Hannity and Colmes or the McLaughlin Report, rather than Christians discussing issues as fellow Kingdom citizens.
Posted by: carl copas | September 14, 2008 9:11 PM
I have seen several references in this thread to the possibility of making guns into idols, and gun-ownership into idolatry. I agree that possibility exists.
I am a Pacifist in my Christian faith. And I want to point out that it is also possible to make Pacifism into an idol, and the attempts to live non-violently in a violent world can also become idolatry.
The discussion is about guns. Guns are not the problem. Sin is the problem. Always has been, always will be, until Christ steps in to change it. If this were 1308, we might be talking about how to control violent crimes committed by people bearing crossbows.
Posted by: joekc | September 15, 2008 8:15 AM
Posted by: | September 12, 2008 6:41 PM
But the piece of metal is the object of worship on the part of so many gun owners; at least that is how it so often seems.
Whomever you are - I don't know of too many people with guns that have a shrine set up in their homes with insence burning 24-7.
I have seen video of people holding snakes in church but never a gun in a church. (I have seen pictures of guns in Masques)
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 15, 2008 10:13 AM
dromedaryhump:
Since you asked, the beauty about people who stab other people as opposed to coming into a shopping mall and firing, is that much fewer people get hurt in the process.
As for my defending myself, you lose on this argument too. I grew up on the Southside of Chicago (in not nearly the same neighborhood as Obama) so I've had several run-ins with life and death. And yes, I've learned some self-defense. None of which involved slinging a gun.
When I worked in a small store that was being held up by half a dozen young men, I just yelled and pushed one of them out of my store. The rest of them followed. Another time I reminded the gentlemen "sticking me up," that I could kill him with my giftwrap scissors. I even had to walk through bad neighborhoods from time to time (when my car broke down or when public transportation failed me.) Never in any of those times did I feel the need to have a gun. God was with me, so there was a limit to anything that could happen to me.
I have even stared in the face of an AK47 when I was on a missions trip in the Southern Philippines. He didn't shoot, he was just trying to intimidate. My hosts assured me that they liked to scare Americans. My pulling out a weapon at that point would have probably killed everyone on the Jeepney.
You'll have to ask the New England Journal of Medicine about their agenda for their statistics, and if your chances increase exponetially because you have more guns than I have cds and videos. I would suggest that if your teenagers ever get suicidal, it is best practice to remove all guns from the home.
Posted by: U TOO | September 15, 2008 10:21 AM
I'm sorry, I failed to address if I would defend my family. I don't know. I've never had an armed individual invade my home while I and my family were home. I've never know it to happen to anyone I know.
What are the mathmatical possibilities of that? Is it something you actually fear happening to you?
Posted by: U TOO | September 15, 2008 10:56 AM
U TOO, you should read John Howard Yoder's What Would You Do?, which addresses the "what if your family were threatened" issue. Yoder takes the question apart by examining its underlying assumptions. The results might surprise you (and also anyone who would like to try and use the question to "prove" that a non-violent position is unrealistic. It's well worth reading.
D
Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 11:06 AM
Posted by: big guy | September 15, 2008 10:13 AM
That comment was mine, big guy. I forgot to "sign" it.
And you are being ridiculous with your comments about shrines and gun handling in church. One doesn't need to set up a shrine and burn incense to his/her firearms in order to idolize them. Take a look at the first and second paragraphs of my September 14, 2008 1:44 PM.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 11:13 AM
Posted by: | September 12, 2008 6:41 PM
But the piece of metal is the object of worship on the part of so many gun owners; at least that is how it so often seems.
Just a clairifacation -
No - I do not worship them but I do value them. Some of them came from my grandfather and were passed down to me for my use. He enjoyed walking the fields of KS birdhunting. So when I am out hunting or shooting clay pigeons using one of his guns - I am reminded of the hours he must have enjoyed walking this this gun and I have fond memories of him. I have another gun from my grandfather on my Dad's side of the family. He was a bird and deer hunter too. He taught me many things about nature and God's creation as he was a Pastor. A man that was so wise and that was the accessment of his peers. He had a very balanced look at God's Creation and the responsibility of man to care for it. A gun that I may see if I can donate to the Holocost Museam in DC is a Stats Pistol. My Father in Law removed it from a dead SS man diring WWII. These were very prized guns as they were very acurate and cutting edge for their time. I wonder how many people he saved by removing it so that it would not be taken and used by another SS person to continue to murder innocent people.
Valued - yes. Worshipped - no!
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 15, 2008 11:30 AM
Don,
Knowing how I responding when I was threatened I can only imagine how I would respond. It was vocal, but non-violent. I would probably carry pepper spray if I still worked downtown, although I worked downtown for the last 9 years and carried no weapon at all. But I was in a well-lit area and never felt threatened there.
Self-defense is always about finding an out; which may mean immobilizing your attacker, but it's usually waiting for them to make a mistake. Stomping on a foot isn't a terribly violent response in my book, but it may be for some.
The friend in the Philippines who assured me "they never shoot" was later shot on that same route, so it obviously happens. (It didn't happen on the jeepney, but on the motorcycle route. Someone just opened fire. Having a gun in that setting wouldn't have helped either.
Posted by: U TOO | September 15, 2008 2:13 PM
>>I have seen video of people holding snakes in church but never a gun in a church. (I have seen pictures of guns in Masques)
Posted by: big guy | September 15, 2008 10:13 AM
would that be the Masque of red death? Big guys don't kill people big hog guyds do!!!
Posted by: Bud Hog Duncan | September 15, 2008 6:34 PM
Bud, good to see you're back to your snarky self!! I saw something you posted elsewhere which so darn near bordered on common sense sans sarcasm that I was immediately concerned you weren't feeling well.
Posted by: canucklehead | September 15, 2008 11:49 PM
Posted by: Bud Hog Duncan | September 15, 2008 6:34 PM
would that be the Masque of red death? Big guys don't kill people big hog guyds do!!!
LOL - thanks!
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 9:55 AM
Don said: One more thought. A friend of my son's, who is in law school, has this take on the Second Amendment: The Second Amendment gives all Americans the right to own any kind of weapon that existed in 1787.
Thats brilliant Don. And maybe the 1st Amendment only pertains to protecting the right of free speech as long as you use words only in use during the 18th century; or only protecting freedom of religion for religions already in place during that period.
U Too... that you have never had to defend your family in your home doesn't mean its a non existenet scenario. You may want to visit the FBI stats on crime. That you think home invasions, burglery during a residents occupation, etc., is so rare liekly stems from a self induced sense of security. If that works for you, thats great. That you opt not to provide yourself and your family with a means of defense is your choice.
I have not had to actually defend my family, but knowing that I am able too, or that in my absence my wife doesn't have to depend on the intruders humanity, is comforting.
Perhaps in the same situation your wife could wave a bible and say the Lords prayer.
1 out of every 5 families will be a victim of some kind of crime, violent or simply property theft. I hope none of us are faced with the situation.
Thanks for the advise on suicidal teens. My sons are grown, married, out of the house, and own and respect guns as tools, they have been taught to respect them. Fortunately, they are well adjusted, inspite of being raised in a household with firearms. Go figure.
I suggest if YOUR teens are feeling suicidal you remove all rope from your house. They say that the presence of rope in the house makes it 100 times more likely that a suicidal teen will hang themselves.
Posted by: | September 16, 2008 7:48 PM
sorry..the above post is from me
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 16, 2008 7:50 PM
I find it somewhat scary that the same people who blog at this site and defend our unprovoked attack on Iraq are the same people who think it's ok for Americans to carry assault rifles. I sure wouldn't want to piss any of them off.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 17, 2008 7:52 AM
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 17, 2008 7:52 AM
OK - let's make sure that we are talking the same language.
Being able to own and enjoy shooting rifles at paper targets for sport - yes. Walking around with them under your trenchcoat so you can protect yourself - no. You can not do that now.
I love the broad bruch that some use here to color the issue so that others look like fools or despots.
We may talk the same language - but we communicate a totally different message.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM
I've got no problem with people who enjoy shooting rifles at paper targets or people who use guns to kill game that they eat. When I was young, there was a 20 guage shotgun that my daddy let me carry into the woods when I was old enough. The chamber held one round, there was no safety, and you simply pulled the hammer back when you were ready to shoot. That gun was never loaded until I reached the woods. I have not hunted for years because many people now don't know the difference between a deer and a cow and they will shoot at anything that moves.
Now, our cities are full of people who own guns and do not hunt wild game and many of them have not even taken the time to go to a shooting range to become acquainted with their gun and how to use it. They purchased their gun out of fear and are ready to use it against the first m***** f***** who crosses them. Take away your guns? Unthinkable. Compromise your freedom to hunt wild game? Absolutely not! But I strongly object to the philosophy of an organization that opposes any attempt to regulate the unlimited proliferation of firearms. Their "cold dead fingers" mantra makes absolutely no sense to me.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 17, 2008 9:53 AM
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 17, 2008 9:53 AM
'But I strongly object to the philosophy of an organization that opposes any attempt to regulate the unlimited proliferation of firearms. Their "cold dead fingers" mantra makes absolutely no sense to me.'
I understand and that is why I was a member of the NRA. I can renew my membership just now as I am unemployed at the time and need to make the house payment. Gore signed onto legislation that would have done what you say you would not agree to do. Fine - but Al doesn't agree with you and he has a bigger voice than you or I put together.
All you need is a comprehensive law on the books that would reguire all new gun purchases to be made to people that are registered. Then they can ammend the law so that it also includes that any repairs done to a gun can only be done if the person and the weapon are registered - so now they are getting all the info that they want on 'law abiding citizens' and nothing on the criminal. What have you gained - in my opinion - nothing. We are already abiding by the law but the criminal who in many cases is not to have a gun - has it. He purchased it from the back of someones car not a shop. The serial number has been removed. My guns still have their numbers and I have a list of them and type of weapon for my records. If they are stolen - I can give that info to the police at that time. They do not need that from me. They need a national database of those who should not be handling guns ever.
I'm not the brightest buld in the hall - but if I can put it together - so can the criminal. Go after the criminal and we will see a decrease in gun violence.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 10:20 AM
"Gore signed onto legislation that would have done what you say you would not agree to do. Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 10:20 AM"
Would you please cite the specific legislation that Gore signed on to?
Automobiles are complex devices that if not safely operated are capable of killing many people. The same is true for guns. All that I am suggesting is that these two items that are capable of both good and evil things are treated equally.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 17, 2008 1:04 PM
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 17, 2008 1:04 PM
It was when he was a Senator and I will have to see if I can find it on-line. But it would have taken my ability as a law abiding citizen to purchase a gun unless I had it registered and I would not be able to get a hunting lic. without showing my registration for the gun I was going to use.
So - he finds out who I am and I have a 30-30 with a scope on it. How does collecting that information make us a safer society? He does not have a database of criminals and their crimes that they had committed with a gun.
You have to deal with the offender or those that by reason of mental defect should not be allowed to buy or have a gun. Then and only then will we see a drop in gun violence.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 2:13 PM
I'll bet a lot of Republicans would be willing to require recent immigrants from Arab countries to register their assault rifles, but nobody else. All it will take is an act of Muslim terrorism with unregistered machine guns, and the flock will start to rethink the words of the NRA shepherd. But if it's an angry Tim McVay type, then don't bother.
Posted by: dr pop | September 17, 2008 3:02 PM
SISTER said: Now, our cities are full of people who own guns and do not hunt wild game and many of them have not even taken the time to go to a shooting range to become acquainted with their gun and how to use it. They purchased their gun out of fear and are ready to use it against the first m***** f***** who crosses them. Take away your guns? Unthinkable. Compromise your freedom to hunt wild game? Absolutely not!
Sister:
when you realize that our Founding Fathers didnt write the 2nd amendment as a hunting protection issue. When you understand that people in cities a) can leave cities to hunt, and more importantly b) have the right to defend themselves from those who ignore all laws.
When you understand that the police do not have legal accountability/ responsibilty to protect citizens from violence, that the responsibilty rests with the individual.
When you accept that while states and localities can introduce control measures, the supreme court rules that they do not have the right to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.
When you can drop your racial or class prejudice and accept that inner city folks arent all criminals, who want to "carry an assault rifle and blow away m*****F*****", but who have been victimuzed for years by the element who could never get a registered handgun and wouldnbt try to because..guess whY ... BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS.
When you accept that guns do not in and of themselves breed violence... that violence is a product of social, and/or racial, and/or economic unrest. (proof being that my state of NH has zero gun laws, and a $10.00 for 5 yr concealed carry permit for any lawful resident...and yet has the 2nd lowest crime rate in the country every year).
THEN, and only then will you stop repeating the knee jerk reactionary nonsense and myth the liberal left has been feeding you.
I still love you though :)
Hump
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 17, 2008 8:53 PM
PS: OH..BTW. While I own 60 some guns...including two full auto / machineguns (the only guns requiring registration, with the BATF not the state).... I don't hunt.
I dont believe in killing animals or any living thing.... unless they want to hurt me first.
Just wanted to clarify.
Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 17, 2008 8:55 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?