Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[Postvieww]

By comparison a weekend in one of the toughest gun control City's in America, goes on week after week after week:

Chicago shootings: At least 26 shot, 5 killed in weekend gun violence across city, police say

At least 26 people have been shot, five fatally, in weekend gun violence across Chicago, police said.

abc7chicago.com

You post facts! Most liberals do not care about facts.

 

[Postvieww]

Not in Australia. Well at least America is not going to suffer with an overpopulation problem.

Are you not familiar with our border fiasco? We will not have a problem with a shrinking population.

 

[Arcangl86]

Many people die in cars , maybe we should take them away and all ride bikes.

Yes, many people die in cars, but we realized that they provided too much utility to get rid of. Instead they are heavily regulated.

Oh ,then there are those killed on bikes so we can take those too. and all just walk.

Your reasoning os flawed, guns do not kill people bad people kill people. Guns are only weapons used for good or evil.

Yes, they are weapons. Weapons are designed for only one thing, to kill. When somebody dies from a car it's because of an accident or somebody using it a way they aren't supposed to. Guns on the other hand are not only designed for but optimized for taking lives. There is no ultility otherwise, yet the regulations on them are fairly light.

Take all of them then we will have more ax murders,

It's a lot harder to kill dozens of people in seconds with an ax. Not to mention that axes have other uses.

and then there will still be bad people with guns who don't care about gun laws.

With this logic nothing should be criminalized because no law is going to 100% stop everything. But we also know this isn't necessarily true from the fact that many countries that heavily regulate guns have vanishingly rare gun crime.

A person intent on murder will find a way to do it gun or not.

Yes, but guns make it far easier.

Americans are not numb to murder but many are numb to the constitution and the right to defend ones self and family.

Honestly, I think that's a misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. It was meant to be a community right, not an individual one. The Constitution was designed to limit the size of the military and defense of the nation was primarily meant to be handled by the militias of the several states.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I come down firmly on the side of thou shall not kill. That's about it. Someone should be able to own a gun for whatever reason they want to but they shouldn't use it to kill anyone. But more on point:

Luk 22:35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

Luk 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

The meaning of that is that at first they weren't sent out very far, only within Israel. But now they were being sent farther away so they would need to take provisions with them for the longer journey, including a sword. Flavius Josephus wrote of the Essenes:

For this reason they make trips without carrying any baggage at all—though armed on account of the bandits.

When they traveled they carried swords for self defense.

I disagree with that interpretation because the next verse says exactly why He told them to go and buy a sword.

“And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭36‬-‭37‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The purpose for buying a sword was so that they would be considered transgressors by His captors.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The purpose of the sword found in Luke 22:36 was to fullfill prophesy.

And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was counted with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38)

The events that took place at the Garden of Gethsemane were necessary so all prophecies concerning Him be fulfilled.

“For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” (Luke 22:37)

This is why Jesus replied with "That's enough," when his disciples said, “Lord, look here are two swords." (Luke 22:38) Two swords were more than enough needed for that moment in the garden when Peter would draw his sword on one of the men who came to arrest Jesus. Jesus allowed Peter to do this in order to fulfill the prophecy that He would be "numbered with transgressors."

So when Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” (John 18:11) It was at this point the prophecy found in Isaiah, "He was numbered with transgressors", had been fulfilled.

The purpose of Peter carrying and using a sword was so he would be in violation the a law in order that Jesus would be seen as a transgressor (Criminal).

Since this prophesy was fulfilled and the purpose of the swords has long passed, those verses can't be used to support the idea that followers of Christ should carry guns for self defense today.

I agree with that translation but I am a gun owner. I own one to protect my family. I hope I never need it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Honestly, I think that's a misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. It was meant to be a community right, not an individual one. The Constitution was designed to limit the size of the military and defense of the nation was primarily meant to be handled by the militias of the several states.

Every other right in the Bill of Rights is an individual right. Why make believe that the Second one is any different? Most of the time when people do that, it's because they know the second amendment is the one that supports all the others. Take it away, and then it's easy for a tyrannical government to violate all the others.

 

[Arcangl86]

Every other right in the Bill of Rights is an individual right.

Arguably part of the 1st and 4th were about the community rights. The right to assemble is about a group of people, not an individual right to be anywhere.

Why make believe that the Second one is any different?

Because it starts by speaking of the need of a Militia, a group of people, being needed for the security of a free State and the right of the people to bear arms. Those are all collective terms. The other rights for the most part use Indvidual terms such as "person", "owner" or "accused."

Most of the time when people do that, it's because they know the second amendment is the one that supports all the others. Take it away, and then it's easy for a tyrannical government to violate all the others.

The government violates our other rights all the time and the second amendment doesn't do a thing to prevent it.

 

[FenderTL5]

Because it starts by speaking of the need of a Militia, a group of people, being needed for the security of a free State and the right of the people to bear arms. Those are all collective terms. The other rights for the most part use Indvidual terms such as "person", "owner" or "accused."

The government violates our other rights all the time and the second amendment doesn't do a thing to prevent it.

agree
The second amendment is for the purpose of protecting the 'free state/government', it is not a license to rise against it in opposition.

 

[Aussie Pete]

565 mass shootings year to date is not a problem?

I'm in the US. Our founding fathers, when penning the constitution and bill of rights, had just won a war against their own government. They, as it said in the declaration of independence threw off their government, as is discussed within the declaration here: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That is why the second amendment exists. It protects the most important amendment, the first. The right to carry arms is for self defense, from all would be attackers. And as Yamamoto allegedly* said, "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

*This is disputed, but the point stands.

So Americans kill each other instead of invaders. Sounds reasonable. Much more efficient.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So Americans kill each other instead of invaders. Sounds reasonable. Much more efficient.

And enough mental health problems to accommodate.

 

[Aldebaran]

Arguably part of the 1st and 4th were about the community rights. The right to assemble is about a group of people, not an individual right to be anywhere.

It takes individuals to form a group or community. But if you think it's constitutional to infringe upon the rights of individuals because they aren't a "group" or "community" by themselves, then all an authority figure has to do is infringe upon every individual's right to assemble, and then it could be reasoned that it was individuals who were targeted, and not the community, so no problem. Same goes for the Second Amendment. Take away each individual's right to be armed, and eventually the entire community is disarmed.

Because it starts by speaking of the need of a Militia, a group of people, being needed for the security of a free State and the right of the people to bear arms. Those are all collective terms. The other rights for the most part use Indvidual terms such as "person", "owner" or "accused."

The government violates our other rights all the time and the second amendment doesn't do a thing to prevent it.

It's up to the people, not the amendment.

 

[Aldebaran]

And enough mental health problems to accommodate.

Maybe if children were taught about firearms rather than to wonder which sex they are, they'd be better educated on the subject of firearms rather than dealing with a mental illness.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My statement stands, no matter if you all give up your rights errr ....... sorry privilege's or not.

The right to be shot at while in school? Or the shops? The right to bankrupting health care costs? Wow. Americans sure are jealous of their rights. We are happy to give up those "rights". We seem to manage OK somehow.

 

[Aldebaran]

The right to be shot at while in school? Or the shops? The right to bankrupting health care costs? Wow. Americans sure are jealous of their rights. We are happy to give up those "rights". We seem to manage OK somehow.

Yep! Criminals there manage to use different weapons: https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tbp045.pdf

 

[Reasonably Sane]

So Americans kill each other instead of invaders. Sounds reasonable. Much more efficient.

To quote Jordan Peterson, "That's not what I said."

 

[ViaCrucis]

America is built upon a foundation of violence and hyper-individualism. Which usually means, for a lot of us, if something doesn't directly negatively affect us in some tangible way we really don't care what happens to someone else. It's why we, as a nation, were perfectly comfortable with laws that only negatively affected "those people".

And since the way our national legislative body works, due to the corrupting influence of money and wealth through lobbyists, backroom deals, and insider trading, it is perfectly acceptable for our Congress to only pass legislation that benefits the the richest, the most powerful, and to ignore--or outright oppose--legislation that would benefit the ordinary citizenry.

It's why, even though there is strong bi-partisan support, we'll almost certainly never see congressional reform bills pass wherein members of Congress will have term limits, or see financial transparency. It's why our Supreme Court ruled over a decade ago that corporations are legally persons and that money is free speech. The case, ironically called Citizens United, means that a corporations can throw millions, or even billions of dollars at politicians to get what they want.

The American gun lobby is a powerful institution, with very successful propaganda. Turning the issue of firearm regulation into a divisive, partisan wedge issue. Its success is in that even though tighter regulations would benefit the American people without curbing on freedom, it has is weaponized as fear mongering about people wanting to "come take your guns" with the implication that we will be less safe and less free. Which is how we also get really stupid analogies between guns and automobiles, along with a total obliviousness to the irony that yes, automobiles are dangerous and we also have really tight regulations surrounding the ownership and use of automobiles. I can't take my car onto the road without a valid driver's license, which I have to renew every several years; and without insurance. If I am pulled over I have to show my license and vehicle registration. But since no Amendment in the Constitution grants me the right to a vehicle, the analogy no matter how bad and ironic ultimately doesn't matter because "the right to bear arms" trumps reason. Even though, as stated, regulations wouldn't interfere with such a right.

An endless cycle of argument that really just boils down to a Jim Jeffries joke which I can't repeat here.

America is, in the end, a corrupt institution that is designed with violence, the exploitation of the poor, the accumulation of wealth for the mega-wealthy, and systemic oppression of minority and dissident voices. And because of the cult-like devotion Americans are supposed to exhibit toward their country and its national idols, criticism of that corruption is not only unpatriotic, unAmerican, and perceived as vaguely treasonous ("If you don't like it, leave it"); but is also regarded as being a kind of religious heresy or act of apostasy--it can even be viewed as un-Christian and anti-God. Because of the way America-ness and religion are intertwined. To be a Christian in America often has nothing to do with the Bible (except in a vague sense), with Jesus, or with any of the historic doctrines and practices of the Christian Church--but rather with devotion to the national cult and a set of moralistic principles determined not by God but by politicians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Reasonably Sane]

America is built upon a foundation of violence and hyper-individualism. Which usually means, for a lot of us, if something doesn't directly negatively affect us in some tangible way we really don't care what happens to someone else.

FWIW, I would not call it "hyper-" individualism. I would call it individual rights. In God's kingdom and the world of the US constitution, there are not groups. There are individuals. In the US the government protects your rights as an individual, not as part of any group. You are sort of right in your second sentence. That is, we don't care legally. We don't have to. But we should care morally. This matters because otherwise we'd be prisoners of the sensibilities of the "weaker brother". That is, if the loud noise my lawn mower makes scares my neighbor, that's his problem, not mine.

The US constitution is built on the foundation of the rights of the individual. That is why our government can not do to us what Canada and Australia did to their citizens for the last few years. To the US constitution, I am not white. I am not male. I'm not old. I am simply an adult citizen made in the image of our creator and enjoy the same rights as all other individuals. That's the beauty of our system. And as so many say, it's not perfect, but it's the best one on the planet until the Lord returns.

 

[ViaCrucis]

FWIW, I would not call it "hyper-" individualism. I would call it individual rights. In God's kingdom and the world of the US constitution, there are not groups. There are individuals. In the US the government protects your rights as an individual, not as part of any group. You are sort of right in your second sentence. That is, we don't care legally. We don't have to. But we should care morally. This matters because otherwise we'd be prisoners of the sensibilities of the "weaker brother". That is, if the loud noise my lawn mower makes scares my neighbor, that's his problem, not mine.

The US constitution is built on the foundation of the rights of the individual. That is why our government can not do to us what Canada and Australia did to their citizens for the last few years. To the US constitution, I am not white. I am not male. I'm not old. I am simply an adult citizen made in the image of our creator and enjoy the same rights as all other individuals. That's the beauty of our system. And as so many say, it's not perfect, but it's the best one on the planet until the Lord returns.

I wasn't talking about individual liberty, but hyper-individualism. Which I still maintain.

Hyper-individualism isn't that each individual has legally protected rights; hyper-individualism is the idea that I, as an individual, should be afforded rights and privileges even at the expense of others. And that is precisely how America has historically operated, and continues to operate.

I also consider it problematic that you are freely blurring lines between the kingdom of God and America.

For one, God's kingdom does concern itself with groups, not just individuals: "Blessed are the poor [in spirit]" and "Blessed are the meek" are expressions of group-association. The way the Bible treats God's people is always corporately, i.e. the Church. Christianity is not a religion of individualistic practitioners doing their own thing; but is instead group-practice and group-identity--we are members of the Body of Christ, our identity is together. The New Testament words like koinonia emphasize this. Christian--biblical--ethics, based upon God's commandments, are about placing others before ourselves. The ways in which Christianity is practiced in a highly individualistic way in America is not a reflection of historic, biblical Christianity but merely an expression of the American ethos, even when that ethos is in stark contrast to God's own Self-Revelation in Jesus Christ, the inspired witness of Sacred Scripture, and the historic witness and experience of the Church catholic.

Insofar as Christian ethical engagement is concerned, the Apostle St. Paul could not have been any clearer when he wrote,

"So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mine. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also the interests of others. Have this mind in you that was was in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be exploited, but emptied Himself, by taking on the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross." - Philippians 2:1-8

That is what being a Christian means. Rather than asserting ourselves over, and at the expense of others; we conform ourselves--as Christ our God did--by being humble servants. We do not exploit, we do not assert our dominance--we humble ourselves, we give ourselves away, placing others ahead of ourselves.

That is nearly the antithesis of the spirit of America as it has defined itself, not just historically but especially in the modern day.

Christ our God also taught us that no one can serve two masters. When we place America first, we are traitors to the kingdom of God. For in God's kingdom the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and the least is called greatest.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I wasn't talking about individual liberty, but hyper-individualism. Which I still maintain.

Hyper-individualism isn't that each individual has legally protected rights; hyper-individualism is the idea that I, as an individual, should be afforded rights and privileges even at the expense of others. And that is precisely how America has historically operated, and continues to operate.

I also consider it problematic that you are freely blurring lines between the kingdom of God and America.

Regarding the last sentence above, I'm just saying it's based on Judeo Christian values. i.e. personal freedom to choose your path. Regarding the part about "even at the expense of others", I don't understand what you mean. I adhere to the ol' addage, "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." That is, we are free unless it negatively impacts others. That's why we have zoning laws. That's why you can't put a toxic manufacturing plant next to a neighborhood. At least, you're not supposed to be able to. I think that usually when people have "rights and privileges even at the expense of others", it means some laws are not being enforced.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

For one, God's kingdom does concern itself with groups, not just individuals: "Blessed are the poor [in spirit]" and "Blessed are the meek" are expressions of group-association.

That is talking about condition, not freedom. Individual freedom is based on being a citizen and being an adult. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others. Group association does have its place, as in things like your inability to use the ladies room if you are male. But that is a different subject.