Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[Photon Guy]

True, but mass shooters have still killed just as many people when they do their attacks with one.

The only shootings I can think of where the shooter used handguns as their primary weapon was the Virginia Tech Shooting in 2007 and the Dunblane massacre in 1996 in Scotland. All the other mass shootings I can think of the shooter used a rifle or shotgun as their primary weapon. The shooter might've carried handguns but the weapons they used the most were always long guns except for those two shootings I just mentioned.

 

[RDKirk]

That depends on what you're hunting. If you're hunting deer a .30-06 would be more appropriate because of its greater power. If you're hunting large bears it would be foolish to use an AR-15, you would want a .375 H&H Magnum at least. Indeed lots of people use .458 Winchester Magnums and up when hunting game of that sort. If you're hunting ducks a shotgun works best because of the spread.

Again that depends what you're hunting. A carbine would be perfectly fine for hunting varmint.

You said that the features that make AR-style weapons more suitable for combat also make them more suitable for hunting. You didn't say "some" hunting.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Photon Guy]

You said that the features that make AR-style weapons more suitable for combat also make them more suitable for hunting. You didn't say "some" hunting.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Well those same features I suppose could be applied to all rifles and shotguns that are used in hunting to make them more effective for that purpose.

Of course this would not apply to hunting with handguns, or with bows and arrows.

 

[RDKirk]

Well those same features I suppose could be applied to all rifles and shotguns that are used in hunting to make them more effective for that purpose.

A 30-06 carbine with a 30-round magazine?

But then, they do make .308 in AR-15 styles. I don't think many people use them for serious hunting, although they'd be my choice for feral pig rather than any .223. I've hunted feral pig with a Ruger .44 carbine...I wouldn't want anything less powerful.

 

[Eschatologist]

I answered this question earlier in the thread when you asked me if the semi-automatic rifles banned under Washington state's new law appeared reasonable to me. See post #342

So would I support a ban on the majority of semiautomatic rifle models that exist? Yes, if they happen to meet the criteria found in the Washington state law, or other similar state laws where "assult style" rifles have been banned.

As for what else I would like to see at the federal level in addition to a ban on "assault style" weapons and high capacity magazines:

• Universal background checks on all gun purchases and transfers, including private transfers and sales at gun shows;
• Require a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases;
• Require registration and a license for each gun that a person owns;
• Have a minimum age limit of 21 to purchase a handgun and require a hunting license for purchases of rifles or shotguns by adults under 21 who are not in the military or law enforcement; and
• Require training and a proficiency test for the type of gun being purchased.

None of the above would take away a person's right to keep and bear arms and they will still have the ability to purchase guns for hunting, target shooting, and protection.

Several of those things could effectively take away a person's gun rights if the state chooses to drag their heels in the process. And that's exactly what often happens. If you require a license for each gun, a sheriff could decide to process the application for a gun slower than expected or stall it indefinitely. State officials could do the same, depending on who ultimately issues the license.

If you couple a license for each gun with registration, that's a backdoor for eventual seizure by the government, if they just decide with future legislation that something you own should be illegal.

But I'm sure that's of no concern to you. The state always knows best, right?

 

[Eschatologist]

(again re-reads the title of the thread)
You seem obsessed with secular power.
Romans 13 says, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation..
..Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
I don't have a problem with that, do you?


What you have posted in this thread is a spurrious mix of fact and fiction that has nothing to do with a Christian perspectve on anything.
It's all about your perception of secular power and the gun lobby's view of it.
Before you accuse others of idolatry, it would be wise to check for a speck in your own eye.

That's a common misconception of Romans 13. But hey, I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have loved your interpretation of it.

 

[Eschatologist]

If civilians should have the amount of ammo in their guns limited, then why not the police? After all, isn't the reasoning that "high capacity guns are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible"? Why do police need such a thing???

Joseph clearly trusts the state more than us plebs. I'm sure that mindset fits in well with life in the Philippines. That country is known well for its authoritarianism.

 

[Eschatologist]

Lutherans are kind of big on faith in Jesus. You may have heard of that whole Reformation thing that happened about five hundred years ago. So I don't know how you see that as "Unitarian" rather than "Lutheran".



Culture is not religion. An Islamic culture is not Islam. And it is also very likely the case that many practicing Muslims themselves have problems with the culture. Muslims, the world over, are some of the harshest critics of how things are done in a lot of historically Muslim nations.

So no, I don't believe "Christian culture" is Christian.

Christianity is not defined by culture, Christianity is not the predominant attitudes, feelings, and beliefs among a nominally Christian populace. Christianity is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Incarnate Logos, God made flesh, born of the Virgin, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, and who rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

I don't care about "Christian culture", I care about Christianity. I care about the spiritual health of the Church. I care about the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

So what exactly defines the "spiritual health of the Church" if not culture?

 

[Sabri]

So what exactly defines the "spiritual health of the Church" if not culture?

The Bible -continuing in the doctrine. Caring for the widow seeing about the motherless. Making sure the poor are helped. Serving is the culture

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what exactly defines the "spiritual health of the Church" if not culture?

The word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well I will say this much, the 2A is at least inspired by Christianity, after all Jesus did have His apostles carry swords which were the staple weapon of the roman soldiers back then.

"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, 'It is enough.'" - Luke 22:38

I'll let St. John Chrysostom speak on that matter,

"What is, this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn unto him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say unto you, that this that is written must be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors." - St. John Chrysostom, as quoted in the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas on Luke 22:38

Now if you'd like to find an alternative interpretation, that's fine. But it'll have to account for how two swords would be sufficient for all eleven of the apostles.

Also, it'll have to account for the fact that at no point in in the Acts of the Apostles do we find any of the apostles, or any of the Faithful, using swords. And they certainly had many opportunities to engage in self-defense. And yet they didn't.

St. Stephen didn't take up the sword when dragged out of the city by the mob, but instead turned his head heavenward and prayed for his persecutors.

St. Paul never took up the sword, though he reminds us that he died daily, contested with wild beasts, was beaten, thrown in jail, and bore the marks of his witness.

As for me, my Lord told me to take up a cross, not a sword.

"The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed." - Tertullian of Carthage, The Apology, ch. 50

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death
And to those in the tombs
Bestowing life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Eschatologist]

The Bible -continuing in the doctrine. Caring for the widow seeing about the motherless. Making sure the poor are helped. Serving is the culture

But as you just said, it is a culture. Culture manifests in actions and values.

 

[Eschatologist]

"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, 'It is enough.'" - Luke 22:38

I'll let St. John Chrysostom speak on that matter,

"What is, this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn unto him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say unto you, that this that is written must be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors." - St. John Chrysostom, as quoted in the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas on Luke 22:38

Now if you'd like to find an alternative interpretation, that's fine. But it'll have to account for how two swords would be sufficient for all eleven of the apostles.

Also, it'll have to account for the fact that at no point in in the Acts of the Apostles do we find any of the apostles, or any of the Faithful, using swords. And they certainly had many opportunities to engage in self-defense. And yet they didn't.

St. Stephen didn't take up the sword when dragged out of the city by the mob, but instead turned his head heavenward and prayed for his persecutors.

St. Paul never took up the sword, though he reminds us that he died daily, contested with wild beasts, was beaten, thrown in jail, and bore the marks of his witness.

As for me, my Lord told me to take up a cross, not a sword.

"The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed." - Tertullian of Carthage, The Apology, ch. 50

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death
And to those in the tombs
Bestowing life.

-CryptoLutheran

Yet Constantine's conversion to Christianity is a huge part of why Christianity survived into the modern age. He believed God was the reason behind his successes on the battlefield. In practical terms, it wasn't martyrdom that allowed Christianity to thrive. It was conquest.

Now, I'm not saying that everything done in the name of Christ was right or even consistent with the Bible, but frankly, if all Christian leaders had taken the martyr approach rather than the soldier one, Christianity probably wouldn't exist in any significant numbers of followers today.

There are parts of the Old Testament where God commands His faithful to fight. It stands to reason that He still does this today under certain circumstances.

Some may be destined to be martyrs, but others are called to be soldiers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yet Constantine's conversion to Christianity is a huge part of why Christianity survived into the modern age. He believed God was the reason behind his successes on the battlefield. In practical terms, it wasn't martyrdom that allowed Christianity to thrive. It was conquest.

Now, I'm not saying that everything done in the name of Christ was right or even consistent with the Bible, but frankly, if all Christian leaders had taken the martyr approach rather than the soldier one, Christianity probably wouldn't exist in any significant numbers of followers today.

There are parts of the Old Testament where God commands His faithful to fight. It stands to reason that He still does this today under certain circumstances.

Some may be destined to be martyrs, but others are called to be soldiers.

When I convert to Constantianity I'll let you know.

I don't view Constantine as a savior, I also don't view him as an evil villain. Constantine did some good, and he also did some bad.

But as for your assessment of things, we really couldn't be in more disagreement.

The marriage of Church and State was, and has always been, the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Photon Guy]

A 30-06 carbine with a 30-round magazine?

Sure, why not?

 

[RDKirk]

Sure, why not?

Weight, for one thing.

 

[Photon Guy]

"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, 'It is enough.'" - Luke 22:38

Jesus doesn't say "those are enough" he says "it is enough" as in "enough talk about swords." The apostles thought that they were going to fight the Romans so they mentioned two swords that they had with them at the time. They thought they were going to fight the Romans to prevent them from taking Jesus (just as Peter did before he was rebuked by Jesus) because they didn't understand that in order for Jesus to fulfill prophecy that would mean that He would be taken by the Romans and ultimately crucified and would rise three days later. They didn't understand all that until after it had happened. So when Jesus said "it is enough" it didn't mean that two swords were enough, it meant enough talk about swords.

Also, although the apostles mentioned two swords that doesn't mean there were only two swords, there could've been more swords and/or they could've gotten more swords later on, they just mentioned two swords that they had with them at the time but that doesn't mean there weren't more swords.

I'll let St. John Chrysostom speak on that matter,

"What is, this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn unto him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say unto you, that this that is written must be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors." - St. John Chrysostom, as quoted in the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas on Luke 22:38

Turning the cheek has to do with being slapped, if somebody slaps you turn the other cheek. The Bible doesn't say that if somebody tries to do something else to you, such as if they try to murder you that you should let them do it. Being slapped and being murdered are not the same thing.

As for the apostles not having shields and helmets, perhaps they couldn't afford them. Jesus said for those without swords to sell their garments and buy one so a sword could be bought for the price of a garment but not a helmet and shield in addition.

Now if you'd like to find an alternative interpretation, that's fine. But it'll have to account for how two swords would be sufficient for all eleven of the apostles.

As I thoroughly explained above, there is no indication that Jesus meant for only two of the apostles to have swords. Besides if He did mean for only two of the apostles to have swords He would be contradicting Himself from when He said that all of them should have swords so to say that He meant for only two of them to have swords when he said, "it is enough" would be inaccurate.

Also, it'll have to account for the fact that at no point in in the Acts of the Apostles do we find any of the apostles, or any of the Faithful, using swords. And they certainly had many opportunities to engage in self-defense. And yet they didn't.

They didn't have opportunities to engage in self-defense, at least not effectively. If just a handful of apostles with swords tried fighting back against an entire Roman army they wouldn't last long, for obvious reasons.

St. Stephen didn't take up the sword when dragged out of the city by the mob, but instead turned his head heavenward and prayed for his persecutors.

How could Stephen fight off an entire mob? That's why Stephen didn't take up the sword against the mob, because it would be ineffective.

St. Paul never took up the sword, though he reminds us that he died daily, contested with wild beasts, was beaten, thrown in jail, and bore the marks of his witness.

How could St. Paul fight off the Romans? Paul was just one man against a whole army of trained and fully equipped soldiers, just like with Stephen fighting a mob, it would be foolhardy.

I would also like to mention that Jesus did mention that He could use deadly force, when the Romans were taking Him right after Peter had attacked the high priest's slave. The reason Jesus didn't use deadly force as He explained is because if He did then He wouldn't fulfill prophecy, but He was certainly capable of using deadly force as He pointed out.

 

[Photon Guy]

Weight, for one thing.

You got a point there, although a stronger person would be able to carry such magazines around.

 

[Eschatologist]

When I convert to Constantianity I'll let you know.

I don't view Constantine as a savior, I also don't view him as an evil villain. Constantine did some good, and he also did some bad.

But as for your assessment of things, we really couldn't be in more disagreement.

The marriage of Church and State was, and has always been, the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

We're not in as much disagreement as you think. I also don't want the union of church and state, at least in the modern world.

I distrust the state almost completely, which is why I don't want them to have power over gun access and other means of defending yourself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus doesn't say "those are enough" he says "it is enough" as in "enough talk about swords." The apostles thought that they were going to fight the Romans so they mentioned two swords that they had with them at the time. They thought they were going to fight the Romans to prevent them from taking Jesus (just as Peter did before he was rebuked by Jesus) because they didn't understand that in order for Jesus to fulfill prophecy that would mean that He would be taken by the Romans and ultimately crucified and would rise three days later. They didn't understand all that until after it had happened. So when Jesus said "it is enough" it didn't mean that two swords were enough, it meant enough talk about swords.

I actually agree that this is what Jesus meant. But "it is enough" carries with it the point of, "enough of that", as in they were taking Him too literally. He wasn't telling them to literally carry swords around to use violence, but that they needed to be prepared for what was going to happen to them: The time was coming when they were going to face hardship. After His ascension, they were going to face violence, and they needed to be prepared for that.

But that doesn't mean that the Lord was saying, "Use violence too".

Also, although the apostles mentioned two swords that doesn't mean there were only two swords, there could've been more swords and/or they could've gotten more swords later on, they just mentioned two swords that they had with them at the time but that doesn't mean there weren't more swords.

I guess I just don't consider it likely that the Church was storehousing a bunch of weapons. All evidence points to that not being the case.

Turning the cheek has to do with being slapped, if somebody slaps you turn the other cheek. The Bible doesn't say that if somebody tries to do something else to you, such as if they try to murder you that you should let them do it. Being slapped and being murdered are not the same thing.

So Jesus saying not to retaliate against an evil person only applies to slapping?

This comes across as simply wanting to ignore Jesus because Jesus' way is difficult and means having to deny ourselves.

As for the apostles not having shields and helmets, perhaps they couldn't afford them. Jesus said for those without swords to sell their garments and buy one so a sword could be bought for the price of a garment but not a helmet and shield in addition.

Yes, that's probably it. The reason why the apostles weren't armed to the teeth was simply because they couldn't afford it. But boy howdy, if they had the money, they'd've been busting at the seams with weaponry.

As I thoroughly explained above, there is no indication that Jesus meant for only two of the apostles to have swords. Besides if He did mean for only two of the apostles to have swords He would be contradicting Himself from when He said that all of them should have swords so to say that He meant for only two of them to have swords when he said, "it is enough" would be inaccurate.

It's a lot simpler. Jesus wasn't telling them to actually carry swords. He was telling them times were going to get rough.

They didn't have opportunities to engage in self-defense, at least not effectively. If just a handful of apostles with swords tried fighting back against an entire Roman army they wouldn't last long, for obvious reasons.

So the martyrs are only martyrs because they didn't have the firepower to properly take on the Roman legions?

How could Stephen fight off an entire mob? That's why Stephen didn't take up the sword against the mob, because it would be ineffective.

So is your position that if a mob attacks a person they shouldn't use self-defense? So if a single person attacks, then self-defense is okay; but if a mob of people attacks then one shouldn't fight back?

Clearly I'm missing your point here because that can't be what you're trying to say.

How could St. Paul fight off the Romans? Paul was just one man against a whole army of trained and fully equipped soldiers, just like with Stephen fighting a mob, it would be foolhardy.

Why does Paul have to take on the entire Roman military in order to use violence for self defense. Surely he could have just taken his sword and fought off one or two people to get away safely. I mean if Paul was there with a few others, such Mark and Barnabas, the three of them could take on a couple people, or fight long enough to escape. They don't have to face off the entirety of the Roman legions just to fight back long enough to live another day.

But they don't fight back. At all. And they never tell anyone to fight back.

And the fact of the matter is, according to everyone in the early Church Christians simply weren't permitted to use violence.

In fact St. Hippolytus in his treatment about baptism says that a military officer who refuses to recant of his military oath and throw off his belt is to be denied receiving baptism--because it demonstrated a refusal to accept Christian discipline.

All the evidence points to Christianity being contrary to the sword. It is only the State that has permission to exercise the sword (Romans 13:4), not the Church.

I would also like to mention that Jesus did mention that He could use deadly force, when the Romans were taking Him right after Peter had attacked the high priest's slave. The reason Jesus didn't use deadly force as He explained is because if He did then He wouldn't fulfill prophecy, but He was certainly capable of using deadly force as He pointed out.

He's Almighty God, He could have summoned all the hosts of heaven, or simply willed all His enemies out of existence. Of course He was capable of defending Himself against a group of soldiers.

But He still disarmed Peter, and showed us how to live, by going to Calvary out of His own volition, because of the love with which He loves us sinners.

-CryptoLutheran