Is being a Christian and liking Guns mutually exclusive?

[pescador]

If you dig into the true nature of why it's a right enumerated by the founding fathers, you'll see that regardless of where you live (in your case, the UK) you have that same right as any American to self-defense and the tools necessary to do so expeditiously. This is where our minds forget: We believe that our rights are not granted to us by men, nor governments, but by God. IOW, our rights are supposed to be protected by men, not granted by them.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..."

 

[Sunshinee777]

I once said that I like guns and think of them as a beautiful technical art. I was nearly kicked off of FB and the hate mail was on one reason I left FB. It seems that some people have the impression that if you say that you are a Christian and like guns then you are a hypocrite. Not so. I am also a former machinist and fabricator, a marketing management professional, a 3D CAD artist, and I have built thousands of fixtures for manufacturing engineering of products almost everybody has seen in some form. I do not mean that all guns are beautiful, technical, nor an art. However, I do appreciate those which are made in high or moderate volume manufacturing and have the look and feel of fine craftsmanship. I really appreciate it when I see an older a gun with more tight fitting the parts and which as been around for many years and still shoots accurately and reliably. What about you? Do you think that being a Christian and like guns makes you (me) a hypocrite?

No it doesn’t. I think those who say so are the ones you might consider hypocrites/ judgmental. Where this even comes from? Very strange, I have never even heard anything like this before.

 

[pescador]

I once said that I like guns and think of them as a beautiful technical art. I was nearly kicked off of FB and the hate mail was on one reason I left FB. It seems that some people have the impression that if you say that you are a Christian and like guns then you are a hypocrite. Not so. I am also a former machinist and fabricator, a marketing management professional, a 3D CAD artist, and I have built thousands of fixtures for manufacturing engineering of products almost everybody has seen in some form. I do not mean that all guns are beautiful, technical, nor an art. However, I do appreciate those which are made in high or moderate volume manufacturing and have the look and feel of fine craftsmanship. I really appreciate it when I see an older a gun with more tight fitting the parts and which as been around for many years and still shoots accurately and reliably. What about you? Do you think that being a Christian and like guns makes you (me) a hypocrite?

No I don't think that it makes you or me or anyone a hypocrite.

 

[East of Eden]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..."

Nonsense, why would the Constitution need an amendment to let it's own army or police have a gun?

Here are many statements from the Founders refuting your statement:

Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[pescador]

Nonsense, why would the Constitution need an amendment to let it's own army or police have a gun?

Here are many statements from the Founders refuting your statement:

Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

1) This is off-topic.
2) If you're going to choose a source how about one that is at least reasonably objective? (Not the Buckeye Firearms Association).
3) The Constitution enumerates many rights of the people, but many of them have conditions. The Second Amendment is one of those.

 

[East of Eden]

1) This is off-topic.

No it isn't.

2) If you're going to choose a source how about one that is at least reasonably objective? (Not the Buckeye Firearms Association).

So which of those quotes aren't genuine? You want to quote the 2A, you're going to hear the intent of those who wrote it. You expect CNN to publish those quotes or something?

3) The Constitution enumerates many rights of the people, but many of them have conditions. The Second Amendment is one of those.

Thank goodness we have the NRA (my favorite civil rights organization) and courts to strike down unreasonable conditions on that freedom.

 

[98cwitr]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..."

Is the prefatory clause, yes; please see DC v. Heller (2008). 2nd amendment has nothing to do with being in a militia to have such a right: "the right of the people..."

It has been well established that our inalienable right to self-defense via the use and bearing of arms has been since the founding of this country and the ratification of the Constitution, affirmed in state Constitutions, and upheld by state and federal courts for centuries.

 

[98cwitr]

No it isn't.



So which of those quotes aren't genuine? You want to quote the 2A, you're going to hear the intent of those who wrote it. You expect CNN to publish those quotes or something?



Thank goodness we have the NRA (my favorite civil rights organization) and courts to strike down unreasonable conditions on that freedom.

No offense, brother...but the NRA stands for Negotiating Rights Away. They supported or did not push against the GCA in the 1960s, the FOP Act of 1986, the Brady Act in 1994, and have used donations to enrich their executives. GOA and SAF are far better, hold to conviction, and have done more for our rights than the NRA. Unless there is real and serious reform in the NRA, I will never give them a dime.

The NRA deserves nothing, for they have done nothing but hurt us. They have so much money to fight, but don't. They sure do take nice, expensive vacations though.

 

[pescador]

No it isn't.



So which of those quotes aren't genuine? You want to quote the 2A, you're going to hear the intent of those who wrote it. You expect CNN to publish those quotes or something?



Thank goodness we have the NRA (my favorite civil rights organization) and courts to strike down unreasonable conditions on that freedom.

The Russians like the NRA also! They invited the big shots to Moscow and "wined and dined them", then funneled a ton of money through the NRA to Trump's campaign.

 

[RDKirk]

The big taboo on this site is questioning someone's salvation. You just don't do that. However, if you reveal that you believe in self-defense and actually carry a firearm or knife for such purpose, you will be accused of not being a Christian, of being filled with murder in your heart, and being an agent of satan. Pretty extreme stuff...

On this site? I've done exactly that numerous times without repercussion.

 

[RDKirk]

Sometimes, it is necessary to do the first in order to do the second.

And that could be the truth (or the opposite, depending on the situation).

As a Christian, I cannot dismiss the point of view of Nathan Saint: "I am ready to meet my Maker, but they aren't." He was speaking of using a gun for self-defense against a hyper-violent South American Indian tribe he was going to missionize. Preaching about Jesus while being prepared to shoot them seemed to him to be incompatible actions. In his case, refusing to shoot a man in self defense eventually resulted in that man being saved...a win-win from God's point of view.

The situation is different when it comes to defending others, but the sentiment is actually the same. I know I'm ready meet my Maker, but I don't really know if those I can defend from death are so ready.

Now that I think of it, it's rather like the trolley car discussion that's petering out in another thread. I simply don't regard taking a life as being "righteous" in any case. I don't think that Jesus will be smiling and going "Attaboy" up in heaven in any case that a life is taken. It is always a tragic result of sin in the world, something to be regretted rather than celebrated, just as Jesus wept in the necessity of allowing Lazarus to die.

But it may have to be done.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

...What about you? Do you think that being a Christian and like guns makes you (me) a hypocrite?...

No idea man. Tough discussion.

Lot's of people seem to see guns as a hobby item.
They like collecting them, talking about them, talking about new kit that has just been released, buying new kit (eternally - whether they need it or not haha), admiring the engineering, tweaking the engineering (I assume??), learning about the engineering? I assume if you're trying to make stuff like that that has lots of moving bits, there will be a certain amount of balance and knowledge about how to get particular effects??
Shooting targets, working on being a good shot - like a sport, something to get into and get good at.

Ought we distinguish between someone who has a hobby and someone who actually intends on using a weapon on a person.

Ought a hobbyist accept responsibility for the shootings that will occur? How much responsibility? Ought the hobbyist sacrifice their hobby for a chance at the greater good? (Specifically, fewer mass shootings?). Will gun rules lead to fewer mass shootings? Will people be safer?

To answer your question - Can you be a Christian and like guns - I think so.

The hard bit is figuring out what we ought oughtnot do with them as christians.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, in the last few years, firearms have been used in self defense, and the court has ruled in favor of the person defending themselves; but only after those persons were charged, and after long and expensive court cases. We are not allowed to use undue force; so one's life has to be in immediate and pending danger. If a guy comes into your store, shoots at you, an employee, or actually shoots someone, you can not chase the criminal out on the street and shoot him as he is running away. A Canadian Jewelry store owner did just that, and has been in jail some years now.

Actually, it can be dicey doing that in the US as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I once said that I like guns and think of them as a beautiful technical art. I was nearly kicked off of FB and the hate mail was on one reason I left FB. It seems that some people have the impression that if you say that you are a Christian and like guns then you are a hypocrite. Not so. I am also a former machinist and fabricator, a marketing management professional, a 3D CAD artist, and I have built thousands of fixtures for manufacturing engineering of products almost everybody has seen in some form. I do not mean that all guns are beautiful, technical, nor an art. However, I do appreciate those which are made in high or moderate volume manufacturing and have the look and feel of fine craftsmanship. I really appreciate it when I see an older a gun with more tight fitting the parts and which as been around for many years and still shoots accurately and reliably. What about you? Do you think that being a Christian and like guns makes you (me) a hypocrite?

No, not at all. I think those who would call a Christian a hypocrite for saying they like guns might be a hypocrite. Guns are a tool and just like any other tool they can be used for good or they can be used for harm. There are a lot of Christians who are opposed to using a gun for self defense and to those people I would say that if that’s the case then they shouldn’t ever call the police if their life is in danger by another person because that right there is being a hypocrite. If you don’t think a person should be able to defend himself and his family with a gun then you shouldn’t call someone else to do it for you.

 

[RDKirk]

The theological debate of whether or not we have a God-given right to self-defense is the crux of the issue. If we do have such a right (to protect life) then guns are fine, if we do not have such a right (and I see a biblical case for either argument), then no weapon wielded with the intent of taking life is okay. We might have a Constitutional right, but the Founders explicitly asserted that these rights are given to us by God and not man, so thus inalienable.

I don't see anyone having that debate from a theological perspective; but it needs to happen.

I don't see scripture giving us any "rights" at all for anything, not even a right to life.

What we have are privileges and permissions. We can't will ourselves to live; God gives us a privilege to live. We can't give a life, so we don't have a right to take a life, but we might have permission to do so.

The problem with thinking about such things as "rights" is that then we begin to demand them and resent not being able to exercise them. When we think we have a right, we don't stop to consider if we have permission. When we think we have a right, we don't stop to be grateful. Why be grateful for a right? Why ask permission to exercise a right? It's a right, after all, so don't ask about it, just do it.

"Rights" creates stiff necks.

 

[East of Eden]

No offense, brother...but the NRA stands for Negotiating Rights Away. They supported or did not push against the GCA in the 1960s, the FOP Act of 1986, the Brady Act in 1994, and have used donations to enrich their executives. GOA and SAF are far better, hold to conviction, and have done more for our rights than the NRA. Unless there is real and serious reform in the NRA, I will never give them a dime.

The NRA deserves nothing, for they have done nothing but hurt us. They have so much money to fight, but don't. They sure do take nice, expensive vacations though.

That isn't true they don't fight or have done nothing, maybe not exactly as we want, and yes there is abuse in the higher ups. The GCA of '68 was different than today, it was the days before the internet mobilization and passed very quickly by a Democratic POTUS and Congress.

 

[RDKirk]

That isn't true they don't fight or have done nothing, maybe not exactly as we want, and yes there is abuse in the higher ups. The GCA of '68 was different than today, it was the days before the internet mobilization and passed very quickly by a Democratic POTUS and Congress.

The NRA heartily supported the 68 GCA because, horrors, there were black people walking around with rifles talking about self defense.

 

[East of Eden]

The Russians like the NRA also! They invited the big shots to Moscow and "wined and dined them", then funneled a ton of money through the NRA to Trump's campaign.

NRA got more money from Russia-linked sources than earlier reported

Wow, $2,512.85, meanwhile let's ignore billions spent by the corrupt MSM on behalf of Dem candidates and anti-Trump stories, they're basically the propaganda arm of the Dem party.

 

[East of Eden]

The NRA heartily supported the 68 GCA because, horrors, there were black people walking around with rifles talking about self defense.

Nonsense, Democrats were the party of disarming blacks, not to mention the Confederacy, Jim Crow, and the KKK, which was basically the military arm of that party, much as Antifa and BLM thugs are today. It wasn't just blacks they picked on, they threw an entire race in internment camps in WWII. When one of FDR's underlings was asked how that jived with the Constitution, he said 'that's just a scrap of paper.'

See The Untold History of Black NRA Gun Clubs + Civil Rights

"First, the narrative of the NRA as some sort of crypto-racist organization is simply false. In the first place, the NRA is a single-issue organization, which is how Harry Reid is able to obtain a “B” rating and get campaign cash from them, despite voting as a party-line Democrat on virtually every non-gun-related issue. More to the point, the NRA has historically opposed laws that were virtually tailor made to deny African-Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Many gun control laws to this day stem from the KKK's fear of armed and independent minorities. The Rosewood Massacre in 1923 – a bloodbath led by a white mob that resulted in the destruction of an entire black community in Florida – was a clear example of how an armed black people could prevent future KKK raids.

Second, the uptick in black NRA members as well as gun ownership and firearms acceptability in the black community isn’t an anomaly, but a reconnection with a deeper past stretching back to Reconstruction. The right to keep and carry arms was even mentioned in the infamous Supreme Court case of Scott v. Sandford, where the enslaved Dred Scott sued for his freedom. He lost that fight, but the words from that courtroom live on to this day.

"[If black people] were entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

 

[RDKirk]

Nonsense, Democrats were the party of disarming blacks, not to mention the Confederacy, Jim Crow, and the KKK, which was basically the military arm of that party, much as Antifa and BLM thugs are today. It wasn't just blacks they picked on, they threw an entire race in internment camps in WWII. When one of FDR's underlings was asked how that jived with the Constitution, he said 'that's just a scrap of paper.'

See The Untold History of Black NRA Gun Clubs + Civil Rights

"First, the narrative of the NRA as some sort of crypto-racist organization is simply false. In the first place, the NRA is a single-issue organization, which is how Harry Reid is able to obtain a “B” rating and get campaign cash from them, despite voting as a party-line Democrat on virtually every non-gun-related issue. More to the point, the NRA has historically opposed laws that were virtually tailor made to deny African-Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Many gun control laws to this day stem from the KKK's fear of armed and independent minorities. The Rosewood Massacre in 1923 – a bloodbath led by a white mob that resulted in the destruction of an entire black community in Florida – was a clear example of how an armed black people could prevent future KKK raids.

Second, the uptick in black NRA members as well as gun ownership and firearms acceptability in the black community isn’t an anomaly, but a reconnection with a deeper past stretching back to Reconstruction. The right to keep and carry arms was even mentioned in the infamous Supreme Court case of Scott v. Sandford, where the enslaved Dred Scott sued for his freedom. He lost that fight, but the words from that courtroom live on to this day.

"[If black people] were entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

I'm not so sure you read your own link very carefully. You certainly didn't make note of actual dates.

The NRA is on record as supporting the Mulford Act.