Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Rev. Rachel Smith: God Not Guns
I'd like to take the opportunity to feature a leader in our movement, Rev. Rachel Smith.
Rev. Smith first became involved in the gun violence issue through the 2000 Million Mom March. In Raleigh, North Carolina, she helped start a Million Mom March Chapter, and later became a Brady Campaign Board of Trustees member.
As an ordained minister, Rev. Smith also founded the Brady Center project called "God Not Guns," whose mission is to provide clergy and congregations with support, and to encourage them to see gun violence prevention as a ministry in their communities.
Rev. Smith writes a regular blog of her own, and she graciously allowed me to cross-post her most recent entry on my blog, which I include here:
Guns and Meat
A friend of mine who is a pastor recently visited the home of someone in his congregation. After dinner the host said, "I want to show you something," left the dinner table, and returned with a double barrel pistol. The gun's top barrel was a .410 shotgun and the bottom barrel was a .357 pistol. My pastor friend, who happens to be Vietnam vet, was astounded. What, he asked, does anybody need with a weapon like that?
Some people say that it's their Constitutional right to have a gun, any kind of gun, when and wherever they want it. Because they believe they have the right, they want the gun. Others say they need a gun for protection, that the police can't be trusted to arrive in time to prevent a crime. Still others say that the right to own a gun protects them from government run amok. Whatever the rationale to support a right to gun ownership, the result is over 200 million guns in circulation in the U.S. today. And the result of so many guns? Nearly 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.
What do we need with so many guns? What happens when the perceived right to gun ownership is complicit in the deaths of so many?
It reminds me of a similar (though much more benign) situation faced by the Apostle Paul when dealing with the church in Corinth. Some members of the congregation felt it was permissible to eat meat that had been offered to pagan gods while others believed this meat was defiled. The meat-eaters felt superior to those who refused it because they thought their higher knowledge freed them from such restrictions. This conflict was causing great confusion in the church and they asked Paul for advice.
Paul's response was this: "Food will not commend us to God...Take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak...If food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall."
I think we can apply Paul's advice to our contemporary conflict between the right of gun ownership vs. the right to live free from the threat of gun violence. I think Paul might say to us, "Guns will not commend us to God...Take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to another...If guns are the cause of my brother's falling, I will not carry a gun lest I cause my brother to fall."
What a different culture it would be if we followed Paul's advice.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have it on good authority( a dream I had friday night ) that the SCOTUS will release it's ruling on June 20th.
Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year.
According to my dream, this will be due to the fact that more daylight means more time at the range for celebration.
Most disturbingly, however, is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was smokin' hot! I'm blaming that on some wicked chile.
"Of course, I imagine DMeadows will also applaud the SCOTUS ruling that will permit greater gun control laws!"
--Jadegold
SCOTUS' ruling may very well affirm reasonable regulation of the individual right to keep and bear arms, and I would certainly applaud that just as I currently support any reasonable regulation right now (background checks, licensing process for liberal concealed carry, prohibitions against carrying while committing crime, etc.)
What SCOTUS won't rule in favor of are two things gun-control folks hang their hat on:
1)The Second Amendment is about a "collective", not individual right.
2)Gun-control as exemplified in DC is OK and constitutional.
So, get ready for your steaming hot plate of STFU.
I am sure the hissy fits will fly fast and furious when the DC bans get thrown out (and Jaded will pretend the rulling that bans are unconstitional violate all sorts of precedent).
And please accept our 'more gun control laws' biscotti with your SCOTUS decision.
No longer will you be able able to scream your 2A rights are being violated when SCOTUS allows local regulation.
This may put the NRA out of business. No wonder they didn't bring the case.
Jadegold writes..."This may put the NRA out of business. "
He still doesn't get it. In order to put the NRA out of business, you would have to stop 3 million people from supporting the efforts of the NRA. The NRA is a true grass roots organization that has been around since 1871, I think it can survive a SCOTUS ruling calling a total ban on functional firearms in ones home unconstitutional.
Your arguements get weaker everyday Jade, but please don't stop posting, you're doing great.
You don't want the NRA out of business Jade. Since by your claims that all firearm owners are members of it, noone would pay any attention to you anymore.
Stoner--if you think DC vs Heller is going to go your way--you were not listening to the same questions by the justices I was
Just make sure you show up here after the decision is handed down and don't go hide out, because the decision is going to go FAR better for the gun rights position than the gun-control position.
Jade, have you been paying any attention at all? If you think that SCOTUS is going to rule against Heller, you are dreaming big dreams.
I am expecting to see all sorts of hysterics and histrionics about the loss
All that support for assault weapons:
Illinois Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is pushing for stricter gun control measures. The Highland Park lawmaker has endorsed a new report released by the International Association of Chiefs of Police on reducing gun violence. Kirk says law enforcement should have access to gun sales information for different jurisdictions.
KIRK: We've got a couple of stores in Kentucky and Tennessee that seem to provide an inordinantly large amount of guns to Chicago gangs. Pointing that out and bringing some additional scrutiny to the people that own those shops, i think is critical.
The report recommends the ban of military-style assault weapons. It also requires that all gun sales take place through Federal Firearms License holders with mandatory background checks. The National Rifle Association declined to immediately comment on the report.
So Jade, care to define what an "assault weapon" is and why they should be restricted?
Is this the same IACP report that was funded and written by the Joyce Foundation/VPC?
Jade declined to immediately comment.
He won't do that. He's just happy to see some guns get grabbed.
Stoner's definition of "assault weapon"--any functional firearm not owned by a criminal or government functionary
"We've got a couple of stores in Kentucky and Tennessee that seem to provide an inordinantly large amount of guns to Chicago gangs."
If these gun dealers are selling weapons to gang members illegally, and at such an "inordinately large amount," then why doesn't the ATF just shut them down and prosecte them?
Because as usual, the illogical assumption (or ignorance) is that these dealers are proactively involved in illegal gun sales. The anti's just can't comprehend that "time-to-crime" statistic that was included in those 2006 ATF trace reports. Most weapons traced were recovered in excess of 3 1/2 years (a significant amount over 11 years) after the crime.
I wonder how many times that weapon changed hands after the original sale?
I wonder how many slaps on the wrists the criminals received from our judicial system during that same time period?
Jade, how much more strict can gun laws in IL get? They already have a ban.
According to the FBI, there were 487 murders in the state of Illinois in 2006. All rifles COMBINED, including those you call "assault weapons," accounted for only FOUR of them.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Why the continued focus on outlawing the most popular rifles in America? RIFLES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM; repeat criminal offenders with already-illegal handguns are the problem.
I suppose fearmongering about Scary Black Rifles with handgrips that stick out must make for better fundraising.
More stats on how small-caliber rifles with handgrips that stick out are the "weapons of choice of criminals":
Maryland, 546 murders; 5 with rifles.
Alabama, 349 murders; 0 with rifles.
Colorado, 156 murders; 0 with rifles.
Louisiana, 488 murders; 29 with rifles.
Michigan, 711 murders; 29 with rifles.
North Carolina (my state), 530 murders, 23 with rifles.
New York, 921 murders, 14 with rifles.
Hmmm, see a pattern here?
benEzra--I quess that means that Paul and JKM are more interested in "dealing" with a non problem than in actually solving crime
The pattern is: It's all about Ben.
This is a textbook case of cherry-picking. From BE's own cite one can easily see that he omits those states where rifles account for more murders. One also suspects that a number of the "type unknown" firearms are rifles.
But the big fallacy in BE's self-aggrandizement is the notion that relative numbers equal problem.
Of course Jade will not provide anything to counter these facts as he has none. He will just throw out the usual ad hominems and red herrings to distract from the fact that his quote came from a report funded and written by anti-gun organizations.
Of course this is the same report that tries to advocate ballistic fingerprinting as an effective crime-fighting tool. Apparently they ignored the fact that CA DOJ found it to be ineffective and MD wasted millions of dollars on it for zero results.
Happy June, everyone!
And, oh, what a happy June it will be. Later this month, the Supreme Court will issue a good dose of STFU to gun-control advocates' lies about the "collective" interpretation of the Second Amendment and the individual RKBA.
I can hardly wait!
Of course, I imagine DMeadows will also applaud the SCOTUS ruling that will permit greater gun control laws!
Maybe not..
And waht SCOTUS ruling would that be?
Well I guess we won't be seeing Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolee on the BC's list of Hollywood anti-rights types. THEY HAVE GUNS in their home to protect their family. Proof once again that the 2nd Amendment is not a liberal vs conservative issue.
http://tinyurl.com/43m46t
I see on the BC's website this morning that in Kalifornia, their 'smart gun law' has passed the state assembly. Now it goes to the state senate, where I hope it will fail miserably.
I wonder if our legal scholars think that a favorable (to us) Heller decision will have any efffect on smart gun laws (we already have it on the books in Joisey). Or, do you think that would be considered a "reasonable restriction"?
I'm also wondering (predicting?) if these idiotic laws stand, will the BC's next campaign be to ban revolvers, since this technology would be absolutely useless in one?
"I'm also wondering (predicting?) if these idiotic laws stand, will the BC's next campaign be to ban revolvers, since this technology would be absolutely useless in one?"
That's a good question. You know how much the BC loves this 'microstamping' nonsense. That too would be totally useless on a revolver (I'm not sure about 'smart tech.'). I think once criminals switch to revolvers, if it's even necessary, the BC will be screaming it's head off to ban them.
I don't know if Heller will automatically render these 'smart gun laws' moot, or if they will then need to be challenged in the Supreme Court. IMO they are a de-facto ban, hence not a reasonable restriction.
"Potential victims who harm or kill apparent intruders in their homes or vehicles would get the legal benefit of the doubt under a just-passed bill destined to get Gov. Ted Strickland's signature." Ohio set to expand limits of self-defense...
Odd, that with the "majority" of the populace being pro gun restrictions, according to our resident statisticians, doesn't really make sense that another state would get on-board. Count Ohio in!
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080601/NEWS24/806010346
Just a license to murder.
Who remembers Yoshihiro Hattori?
Of course, this Ohioan would be walking free under such a law:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/07/Davis07.ART_ART_07-07-07_A1_4V77LG4.html
Talk about just repeating talking points.
Castle doctrine is not a license to "murder", Cometboy. It provides victims protection from being sued by some miscreant or his family, when he gets shot during his crime.
Oh that's right. You don't have break-ins or home invasions on your planet. I forgot.
Jadegold, you silly goose!
Murder is illegal. Justifiable homicide is not.
Glad I could clear that up for ya.
License to Murder(tm). I like that. A lot catchier than Shoot First Law(tm).
jade leaves out some important concepts in his plea to emotionalism, like the fact that there's a very good chance even in this case, Davis may still have been prosecuted and convicted since the shooting in self defense still has to be justified, regardless of Castle Doctrine or the absense of it.
Just like anti's like to believe that we want to arm The Children(tm) and be able to have unfetterd access to Nukes and Bazookas(tm), they twist the Castle Doctrine concept into something that it's not.
The more you scare the sheeple, the more they will stay in the herd.
All that support for gun control:
HELENA - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton told Montana reporters Friday that she no longer favors national handgun registration and licensing, even as she supports such measures in her adopted state of New York.
Yep, she's desperate so she's playing to where the votes are. Notice the direction of the stance.
"Even gun owners who have contempt for other gun owners, like Solitude (remember him?) are good enough. He even posted pictures of his .45 ACP pistol, and ammo, and mentioned his big old shotgun. That doesn't matter, as long as you don't like anyone ELSE having guns."
Remember him? I haven't gone anywhere, I just haven't found anything worth discussing here, as of late. The tired mantras you lot parade around have become quite stale, and I have far more important things to do than wait...and wait...for your exhausted (and repetitive) replies.
Regarding your criticism, to a degree you were right - emphasis on "were." In an effort not to sound as hypocritical, and completely devoid of sound logic and reasoning as you pro-gunnies, I sold any firearms and ammunitions I had in my possession. Instead of that huge .45, I got a much smaller 9mm, and have no intention of replacing the shotgun. So there! Who looks the fool now, vespasian?
"So there! Who looks the fool now, vespasian?"
You do. You traded a .45 in for a 9mm. Does this make you less of an anti-gun owner gun owner, because you have a smaller gun than you used to? Is there supposed to be some logic in that, or am I missing something?
9mm is 45ACP set on stun.
edu--a hypocrite with a 9mm is just as bad as a hypocrite with 45--that fact that you are a gunowner that would deny that same right to everyone else is the problem
So when you sold that .45, did you have a background check done on the buyer?
Or did you just take it down to the local thugs and sell it out of the trunk of your car?
He originally bought the .45 from his cousin. I guess that makes 'cuz' an "unlicensed dealer". Quick, call the National Guard!!! Run away!!! Run away!!!
An excerpt from the latest email from the BC. (Couldn't fit the whole thing)
"Dear Brady Campaign Member,
George Bush has only nine months left in office; he and his allies are still trying to ram through a set of judicial nominees that could run the courts for the next 50 years.
The Heller case before the Supreme Court is a reminder of the importance of federal judicial nominations to preserving hard-fought legislative victories against the gun lobby. The battle against gun violence is fought in courts as well as in legislatures. We must be vigilant to prevent the appointment of judges who will enforce an extremist reading of the Second Amendment.
So I hope you'll take action today to ensure that "
So, not only were the DC Circuit Court judges extremists, but now the Supreme Court justices are too. And all for reading the 2nd Amendment as written rather than "interpreting", which means rather than agreeing with the BC.
Wow, that's a lot of extremists; All of us, 73% of the population, the majority of Congress, the DC Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court of the US.
Gee Paul, did it ever occur to you that maybe YOU are the exremists?
"We must be vigilant to prevent the appointment of judges who will enforce an extremist reading of the Second Amendment."
That is bothersome. They know that the current court is going to rule that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. Now, they're looking for justices who will not enforce that ruling.
I don't understand how future justices would have any choice, though. Is it possible that they could overrule this precedent? Are there any lawyers out there?
The BC is advocating for SCOTUS Justices who will not enforce the law. Isn't that marvelous. Imagine their outrage if SCOTUS ruled against Heller, and the NRA advocated for justices who would not enforce the law.
I guess we should not be surprised. Apparently BC "adherants" already don't like judges who enforce the law by throwing violent criminals in jail, because it's "draconian". These folks obviously care much more about criminal's rights than they do those of the law-abiding.
It's outrageous and shameful that the BC would advocate for judges who ignore the law. Why even have judges then?
Many Constitutional scholars expect that SCOTUS will rule that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, but allow for some "reasonable exceptions." For example, few expect the court to include full auto machine guns within the 2nd Amendment, despite hysterical claims to the contrary in fundraising mailers by gun control advocates.
However, there is an opposite extreme view, as taken by Barack Obama: The 2nd Amendment applies to individuals with some "reasonable exceptions," but NO anti-gunowner law short of total ban and confiscation is not "reasonable." The Brady Campaign, facing the likely repudiation of the "collective right" nonsense that they have maintained for years, are no doubt hoping for judges who will follow the extremist position espoused by Obama.
I forgot to include the Founding Fathers. You remember them, BC - the guys who actually wrote the Constitution. They were extremists too.
MM2--of course Paul and JKM do not think they are the extremists--they are the ones playing games with the constitution and fudging the stats.
Kelli--I have a question for you--why do you insist on keeping policies (like gun control, gun free zones, early release (or no prison time at all) for criminals) that only serve to empower criminals while making life more dangerous for law abiding citizens?
dikrlsn--I have a question for you--why you do consistently single-out an individual poster who posts her comments and thoughts here? Is this some poor attempt at intimidating opposition into not posting for fear of being "ganged up on" by the pro-gunners, or is there a deeper sense of admiration you'd care to share? ...just wonderin'...
Simple--she takes such pride in a position that she will not defend by answering reasonable questions. Also, it would be interesting to see her try to give a straight answer as to why she adheres to a position that is both restricts the rights of law abiding citizens and is unethical.
Fraulein Timealone it would also be interesting to see you and Kelli justify policies like gun control that empower criminals
Too much time alone--Swellkell used to love the attention
Perhaps this would be a good time to ask Mr. Pennington and Mr. Helmke if they would support stiffer penalties for violent criminals.
I don't believe it would even require new legislation. It would merely require that current laws be strictly enforced, and that maximum penalties be handed out.
What say you, gentleman?
For some reason--I doubt that the Brady Campaign would be all that thrilled about criminal control, for some reason if violent crime goes down because criminals are living in tents behind razor wire in pink panties in Death Valley (I like the idea of criminals living in conditions that make the barracks in Basic Training look good and have a major problem with them living in better conditions than the enlisted in our military)
Interesting how selective your adaptation of the BOR seems to be, dikcrlsn! If you so fervently believe in the 2nd, then you must at least acknowledge, if not support, the 8th. Or are you selectively enforcing those rights that most seek to serve your warped agenda? What say you!?
www.godnotguns.org is a project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Please visit our Web site, www.bradycenter.org for more information on how the Brady Center is working to reform the gun industry and educate the public about gun violence through litigation and grassroots mobilization.
Kelli--I was wondering when you would acknowledge that firearms are incapable of turning good people evil (wood, metal and plastic are incapable of putting the Imperius Curse on anyone (Kell--small words--guns can not commit magic). Kelli--you and your fellow anti civil rights activists refuse to admit one little fact--criminals commit crimes and not law abiding folk. Kelli--you also refuse to acknowledge that self defense is one of the most important rights out there (if a criminal can use his body or any implement to kill a person because the person lacks basic self defense tools (of which guns are among the most effective equalizers--basic firearms skill means that age, stature or disability make a lot less difference than if the person is unarmed (short words Kelli--that means a tiny old woman or man with arthritis that is skilled with a gun has a good chance against a 6'6" 250+lb thug that can pound the snot out of Mike Tyson in his prime as opposed to no chance at all without the firearm)
In Kelli's most recent ad-hominem, she said:
"As readers/lurkers can see, the loads of pro-gun entries will continue & nearly always written in such a way as to declare that guns/firearms (& weapons of this sort) aren't a real problem in contemporary society. Naturally, they will take the easiest (& lowest) path possible -- continuing to try in a variety of ways to attack &/or berate gun control efforts, and those who support limits, restrictions, etc. on firearms."
Guns are NOT the problem Kelli. Violent criminals are the problem. Letting them out of jail to commit more violent crimes is another problem, which you and people like you perpetuate.
The anti-self-defence crowd refuses to address this issue, except to say that jails are over-crowded. We can't have cramped criminals, now can we? It makes them cranky and disagreeable.
"and those who support limits, restrictions, etc. on firearms."
More smoke. You people support BANS, Kelli, not restrictions. There are already 2000 "restrictions" on the books in this country. They haven't done much to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
And if I recall correctly, you staunchly defended Pfleger after he made the statement about killing the owner of the gun shop out there. But this wouldn't be the first time you were guilty of hypocrisy, would it?
The pro-gun crowd seems to have a great deal of spare time on their hands ... don't they? LOL
As readers/lurkers can see, the loads of pro-gun entries will continue & nearly always written in such a way as to declare that guns/firearms (& weapons of this sort) aren't a real problem in contemporary society. Naturally, they will take the easiest (& lowest) path possible -- continuing to try in a variety of ways to attack &/or berate gun control efforts, and those who support limits, restrictions, etc. on firearms. They are wrong in their thoughts on Rev. Smith, Paul H., and on the Brady Campaign organization. And their understanding of Scripture certainly leaves something to be desired.
Still, it's worth noting that after readers have exhausted their patience scrolling through the various comments, they'll start to notice the tremendous absurd humor in such pro-gun 'talk.' I certainly do. LOL
As anyone who reads this blog can see, it is the anti-gun people who continually take the low road. They can't support their rantings with facts, so they rely totally on personal insults, like this gem-
"Naturally, they will take the easiest (& lowest) path possible"
They post garbage like this 'top o' the blog' business we see from drurylane all the time. They do this hoping no one reads any further.
Readers, ask yourselves this question. Why is it that only the Pro 2A side consistently gains more new supporters, while the anti-2A side has to rely on the same 2 or 3 people, and ad-hominem attacks?
So Kelli, you have no problem w/ the Brady Campaign deliberately lying to promote their agenda (ie the Heston speech)?
A non-answer will be taken as an acknowledgement.
THird--looks like she supports the Brady Campaigh fabrications and Michael Moore's mockumentry
drurylane: "The pro-gun crowd seems to have a great deal of spare time on their hands ... don't they?"
Or they must be VERY dedicated.
But perhaps it's "spare time" -- when anti-gunowner legislation is passed, gunowners often seem to find the "spare time" to vote against those responsible in the next election.
kelli--you keep making a mistake major in your phrasing--the problem is criminal behaving badly with guns--not law abiding people with guns. When I see you going after criminals as savagely as you go after law abiding citizens, I will oppose you far less,
Loading comments…
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new...
Long before $150,000-gate, Sarah Palin seemed to...
The Obamas dropped by the Vatican on Friday, with daughters...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
I never actually heard the words made famous by a certain man on a certain TV show. Instead I got a lot...
Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for...
"What's for dinner?" A lot of us ask that question right...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's...
Hermione herself, Emma Watson, charmed David Letterman and...
Think Progress flags David Brooks telling...
While we of course do not claim to know anyone's thoughts, we nominate these...
The Daily Show's John Oliver is unhappy with mainstream journalism, and even drearier...
For this week's installment of their "Lunch with the FT" feature the...
Al Franken's been anointed as Minnesota's junior senator, but how did the...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
What are your greatest strengths? I am...
Posted May 28, 2008 | 02:03 PM (EST)