We as a country continue to suffer the tragic loss of life due to gun violence. Colorado and Wisconsin being the two most recent mass-murders allowed to be committed because we don't have tough enough controls on the acquisition of firearms. As a reminder, the Colorado gunman was allowed to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition, even after his psychologist twice warned authorities that he was a threat to himself and to society, according to ABC News. The Wisconsin gunman had a criminal record and a history of involvement in the white supremacist movement, says the LA Times.
Disheartened by the tragedies involving gun violence in Colorado and Wisconsin, I am disturbed by the frequent knee-jerk response by some Americans to defend all access to weapons as a simple matter of our Second Amendment rights. I'm am even more disturbed by the frequency in which fellow Christians seem to be the people most often saying this. The New Testament, a text that seems it ought to be at least on par with the Second Amendment in terms of a code of ethics for Christians, very clearly calls for the end of violence. Values of compassion, forbearance, forgiveness and sacrifice are seen as central to Jesus' teachings.
Why then do conservative American Christians, in favor of God and country, err on the side of unrestricted access to weapons that can cost the lives of our family, friends and neighbors? Why have we fallen into a regulatory absurdity where assault weapons, or large quantities of ammunition, or access for criminals, is blithely allowed to go unchecked? What religious base is there for continuing to defend this practice?
None. There is none.
In a religious context, we continue to defend the absurdity of assault rifles and thousands of bullets on hand because we've given up a sense of faith. It's become a sort of idolatry of power. No civilian feels safer with an assault rifle, or 6,000 bullets, in their position -- they feel dangerous. We're not talking hunting gear, or basic self-defense. We're talking about the ability to be a threat to those around us. That's not a healthy religious drive, that's a social crisis.
We like to bandy about words like "freedom" when we speak of the right to bear arms. To place any healthy restrictions on access to guns is seen to be taking away our freedoms. But what is freedom for? It's to be able to live in our diverse world as we see fit without being harmed by or harming anyone else through our actions. In the Christian tradition, the God-given gift of "freedom" -- whether it's the notion of free-will or the liberation we learn of in the Passover story -- has a goal of building a community based upon the Golden rule. Freedom is about compassion, forbearance, forgiveness and sacrifice. It's about having faith in God and in community. It's not about having faith in your own personal power. Freedom is not about doing whatever we want, however we want, to whomever we want. That's chaos.
What we're seeing being allowed to continue is chaos. It's tragedy.
Follow Rev. G. Jude Geiger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revjudegeiger
Margie Omero: Polls Show Continued Support for Stronger Gun Laws
Sanjay Sanghoee: Gun Control: It's Time to Challenge the Second Amendment
Reverend William E. Flippin, Jr.: They Disagree, Divide and Double
Jasmeet Sidhu: For Sikhs, a Certain Inevitably With Wisconsin Tragedy
NEITHER of these cases are individuals buying weapons or ammo through illicit means - completely up-front, trackable, and legal. They were just ignored, that's all. No back-room dealing here. No involvement with the criminal sale of weapons. We as a society were simply remiss, and frankly, criminally negligent in my opinion - since we knew there was a problem with both of them already.
And your disproportionate response is: 1) I want to take away all guns from all Americans. 2) I want to see babies killed.
the Development Minister of the Kern County U-U Fellowship:
http://uufkc.org/tag/sikh-sikh-vigil/
Some vigil photos:
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.377675055633008.86592.100001715499651&type=1#!/photo.php?fbid=377675068966340&set=a.377675055633008.86592.100001715499651&type=1&permPage=1
It is not just assault weapons. What we need is:
1) Repeal the right to keep and bear arms.
2) Impose a graduated tax on possession with penalties for misuse.
Draft Amendment and Legislation are at the lower half of my mjbarkl.com/run.htm page. Eventually, we must do this. How many must die before we get angry enough?
--Mike Barkley, Progressive Democrat, was 2012, now 2014 Candidate for Congress new CA-10 District, Platform: http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm
You wrote:
>Herr Bark--there is no way in Hades that 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states are going to ok modifying the BOR
Why not? They've done it before. Sometimes it takes awhile. --mike
You wrote,
> You can't repeal the RKBA. The 2A affirmed it. It did not grant/create it.
Yes you can. The Amendment text:
'1. Any right to keep and bear arms, whether under the Second Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.
2. The privilege to keep and bear arms throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.'
--mike
So, it would have been OK if he only bought 200 rounds of ammunition?
Wouldn't it make more sense if we *confined* people when their doctors warn us they're a threat? Then we don't have to worry about what they can do with guns, knives, or gasoline.
If you want to let dangerous people roam free but stop them from getting guns, you have two choices: treat every citizen like a dangerous person, or create a massive federal database that collects all details of every American's mental health and organizations they've joined. Your doctor tells the police that you're dangerous, and that goes in database. Same if you join the First Baptist Church, in case it turns out to be a "Christian Identity" front.
It will be just like the Federal "No Fly" List that ensures terrorists (and anyone who shares their name) can't fly on an airline. But bigger, more invasive, and with more errors.
But talk about useful! When police pull you over for speeding and check your car's plates, they'll know to approach you with guns drawn. Your neighbors can identify every fundamentalist or mental patient in the neighborhood. The next Joe McCarthy won't have to ask if you've ever been a member of the communist party -- it'll be in the database.
As the Chair of the Public Safety Committee of Manhattan Community Board 12. I will be holding a Public Hearing in September 2012 on NYS Senate Bill S1427 & S1863 with an emphasis on self-defense education & firearm training for women.
Bill S1427 PURPOSE: This proposed constitutional amendment would provide within the New York State Constitution for a right of the people to keep and bear arms for traditionally recognized purposes
Bill S1863 PURPOSE: This legislation would remove a gun licensing officer's ability to deny or restrict the issuance of licenses to law abiding citizens who have successfully undergone the state's strict application process and appropriate New York State and Federal Bureau of Investigations fingerprint background check required under law.
September 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM at Isabella, 515 Audubon Avenue New York, NY 10040. If you live in New York State feel free to take a look at the information that I will be presenting as well as sign my on-line petition included at the link below. I hope that you will come out and support me as I support you. Fraternally.
http://cavalierknight.com/documents.html
That, and he touches on the morality of guns, specifically from a Christian perspective. So many people who are vehemently pro-gun but also profess to be devout Christians must be either unaware of or have a creative interpretation of scriptures such as "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52), "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Rev.13:10) and other classics like "love thy enemies," "blessed are the peacemakers," and "beat swords into ploughshares," etc...
I'm not saying the Bible is all peace and love, only the naïve believe that, I'm aware it also allows for self-defense. I'm just not sure how so many people become so *passionate* and *enthusiastic* about weapons and the prospect of using them when the Bible, especially Jesus, treat them as an absolute last resort to be used sparingly.
I think this is also part of what the author was getting at but what some commenters might've missed, which made it seem worth noting.
Regarding yourselves and any other non-Christians who are strong supporters of minimal gun laws, although I disagree with you regarding guns, at least you're not being hypocritical about it. That's what gets me: those who claim to follow a religion which discourages use of weapons, yet they indulge so enthusiastically in "gun culture." The apparent contradiction is what I'm mainly getting at. If you don't claim to follow that religion, no contradiction. Fair enough.
As far as laws go, I don't think ANY laws should be based on any religion. I don't think that's what either myself or the author was getting at, but especially myself.
I also certainly don't think any laws should be passed solely for a religious purpose. I don't think that's what either myself or the author was saying. Laws that serve the common good and a secular purpose can still (for better or worse) receive religious support or opposition however; that's endlessly apparent all throughout American history up to the present day. I think that's more to the point.
Quite incorrect. It is violence alone that should be decried. "Gun violence" like another misleading term coined by the Anti-Second Amendment Lobby, "assault weapon", has no real meaning.
Criminal violence is wrong, simple as that. The tool they use in their violence is not at fault. And, whether the tool is the most modern version of a semi-automatic handgun with all the possible bells and whistles, an antique flintlock or a simple rock, the tool used is an "assault weapon" when they use it to commit assault.
Focus on the problem of violence and stop blaming the tool. All the laws on the books today--and there are a great many of them from state to state--that single out firearms for special treatment under the law do nothing to stop criminal violence, nor are they meant to prevent criminal violence. The purpose of such laws is simply to remove the average man or woman further and further from understanding the simple tool they are guaranteed access to by the restrictions that the Second Amendment places on the Federal government.
Let me tell you a story about a country called Australia.
In 1996 a gunman walked in to a tourist resort and killed 23 people with an assault rifle.
The conservative government was so outraged that it banned all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. With the support of the lefties of course. It also bought back all of those guns.
Since 1996, there has not been one single mass shooting in the country of Australia (population 25 million) despite the fact that in the ten years leading up to 1996 there had been 11 mass shootings and a death toll of 112.
Now Australia doesn't have the death penalty, which is good. Because the mass killer turned out to have an IQ of 70, and his video collection was amazing - he had every VHS that Disney had ever produced.
He is now in a psychiatric detention facility, happily watching re-runs of The Lion King.
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore".
There is a lot of bias and hate in this article. I don't know one person that owns a AR-15 and feels dangerous. You should spend some time and meet some of these people you have such disdain for. Maybe you may find out they is nothing to fear from the people. These tools you fear so much are used in 4% of crime, so why ban something that hurts less people than swimming pools.