One Day, I Will Join the NRA

I can see what you are saying - but do not confuse gun ownership with gun violence.

No, big guy, I was not confusing anything with anything. I was commenting on what I see as the obsessive, almost religious, commitment to gun ownership on the part of so many gun owners whenever the topic of restricting dangerous weapons on our city streets is broached.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 6:01 PM

'...commitment to gun ownership on the part of so many gun owners whenever the topic of restricting dangerous weapons...'

Maybe because you can pass all the laws that you want on the 'object' and the problem will still be there. It is the 'person' that you need to deal with and their activities.

20,000+ gun laws on the books all over the nation and we still have the problem? Maybe it is time to tack another tac and see where that gets us? I can't tell you how many times in MN the criminal who should not have had a gun in the pocession got off with just a slap on the wrist. Do something to make it hurt if they break the law.

I believe that the NRA has done more to protect out citizens than they will ever get credit for. The 'Gun Training' that they offer most time free of charge has done a lot to keep people safe. Gun accidents in the home - tradgic. But a sportsman knows that you never store a loaded gun and you never keep your ammo and your guns together usless they are locked up.

The piece of metal is not the problem.

Blessings to all -
.

1. re read the bill. it in no way would allow a rifle to be carried loaded in washinton. You have misread, had it wrongly explained to you, or intentionally distorted the bill.

2. the .50 cal. "sniper rifle" as you call it, (i use mine for 800 meter+ woodchuck hunting...i hardly call that "sniping") has its uses. The fact that someone lives in DC shouldnt preclude their right to go out to the countryside (virginia has some rather open areas, and established long distance rifle ranges) and pursue their sport.

What is it with people and their concern about DC residents? My AK, my Barnett .50, and my Federally registered (no state law requirement in NH) Thompson and Reising sub machine guns (Form-4 ATF), etc., etc., never seem to hurt anyone here in NH. Why is that?
Could it be...Oh, I dunno... the assumption that DC residents are by nature criminally insane? Or is it their largely minority make up?

And I trust your not carrying one of those "assault steak knives"...you know... the ones with those serrated edges that can cut through frozen meat!! I mean, what exactly do you NEED one of those for anyway??? Hmmmmm?

Killing machines are wrong. Fears keeps the violence going. Jesus knew how to break the cycle of violence. Have faith, get rid of your fear and your weapons. It's better to turn the other cheek, as hard as that may be, then keep the fear, hatred and violence going. I am appalled by how much Christians have forgotten the word of God when they love their guns and condone war and torture.

I checked out the HR bill on line. There is NO mention of any allowance to carry an AK-47 loaded in the streets of washington. Thats a complete distortion, and intentional mischaracterization, or to be egenerous, maybe just a gross mistatement because Tim gets his info from "The Brady Bunch" anti-gun group.

Do a google for HR 6691. Find out for yourself.

And remember that what you read here, and most blogs, is not always the truth. Sometimes it's the perspective of people with a personal agenda. Isn't that right , Tim?

"(I'm have a smile on my face) Post whenever you want. I don't believe that we need a pecking order here - the moderator will just remove your post if they don't like it.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM
----------

Thanks big guy. I don't remember seeing many (if any) posts from 'Duh-sciple' before anyway. It's not like I'm trying to constantly post before him/her.

I've seen lots of posts from Duh-csiple. They've been good food for reflection.

What I find interesting is that I don't see any responses to Don's concern about the life and teachings of Jesus and how they impact both the issue and the opinion. That's generally how it goes. Once the blog post is written, the posts begin and run with opinions and dueling statistics and emotions -- all secular. I've given up coming to the blogs for debate and reflections on our faith and its application to our lives.

This is poisoning the well. Political activism on behalf of a cause does not constitute obsession with that cause.

It's not poisoning the well, and the concern isn't over obsession with a political cause. My concern is over the obsession with guns themselves. What I so frequently read from the gun enthusiasts who oppose any restrictions on the "right" to carry any any type of weapon anywhere desired is that they believe a form of idolatry. The weapons themselves are the idols.

You don't believe it? Some of the slogans point in that direction. The "God, guns, and guts" slogan is one of them. So is the "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers." (Maybe nobody here repeated the "God, guns, and guts" slogan per se, but the attitude that the slogan expresses has been exhibited here. Just read through some of the comments on this and the other gun thread.)

My point about freedom is not a conflation of political freedom with freedom from sin. It's to point out what I see as inconsistency in the witness of so many American Christians. All too many are willing to ascribe their freedoms to being Americans, to the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, etc. I have nothing against those things. But it's idolatry to believe that these are the sources of our freedoms, political or otherwise. God is the only source of true freedom of any kind, and it's only by an act of God's grace that Americans were given--and continue to enjoy--political freedoms. I cannot ascribe my political freedom to the right to bear arms, or to free speech, or even to freedom of religion. They are not the sources of my freedom; or at least they are only sources in a derivative sense. Only God deserves the credit for being the source. (Don't forget the Declaration of Independence: "...they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...)

How does that play into the debate over firearms? Well, if God chooses to take our freedoms away from us as Americans, the Second Amendment won't prevent that from happening. In other words, the future of our democracy does not depend on an absolute, unrestricted right to bear virtually any type of arms we want, as the NRA would have us believe.

Finally, I do not contradict myself to say that gun ownership itself isn't the problem. As I said, people can own firearms for sport and for hunting. (Although I don't eat a lot of meat, I'm not a vegetarian. It is not wrong to kill animals for food, in my opinion.) Many of the pacifist Amish own firearms because they are hunters, and they see no contradiction there. The problem isn't guns. As I said above, the problem is that when gun ownership is made an absolute right, guns have become an idol.

One more thought. A friend of my son's, who is in law school, has this take on the Second Amendment: The Second Amendment gives all Americans the right to own any kind of weapon that existed in 1787.

Peace,

Posted by: ando | September 14, 2008 5:07 PM

Well said.

I have seen several references in this thread to the possibility of making guns into idols, and gun-ownership into idolatry. I agree that possibility exists.

I am a Pacifist in my Christian faith. And I want to point out that it is also possible to make Pacifism into an idol, and the attempts to live non-violently in a violent world can also become idolatry.

The discussion is about guns. Guns are not the problem. Sin is the problem. Always has been, always will be, until Christ steps in to change it. If this were 1308, we might be talking about how to control violent crimes committed by people bearing crossbows.

dromedaryhump:
Since you asked, the beauty about people who stab other people as opposed to coming into a shopping mall and firing, is that much fewer people get hurt in the process.

As for my defending myself, you lose on this argument too. I grew up on the Southside of Chicago (in not nearly the same neighborhood as Obama) so I've had several run-ins with life and death. And yes, I've learned some self-defense. None of which involved slinging a gun.

When I worked in a small store that was being held up by half a dozen young men, I just yelled and pushed one of them out of my store. The rest of them followed. Another time I reminded the gentlemen "sticking me up," that I could kill him with my giftwrap scissors. I even had to walk through bad neighborhoods from time to time (when my car broke down or when public transportation failed me.) Never in any of those times did I feel the need to have a gun. God was with me, so there was a limit to anything that could happen to me.

I have even stared in the face of an AK47 when I was on a missions trip in the Southern Philippines. He didn't shoot, he was just trying to intimidate. My hosts assured me that they liked to scare Americans. My pulling out a weapon at that point would have probably killed everyone on the Jeepney.

You'll have to ask the New England Journal of Medicine about their agenda for their statistics, and if your chances increase exponetially because you have more guns than I have cds and videos. I would suggest that if your teenagers ever get suicidal, it is best practice to remove all guns from the home.

U TOO, you should read John Howard Yoder's What Would You Do?, which addresses the "what if your family were threatened" issue. Yoder takes the question apart by examining its underlying assumptions. The results might surprise you (and also anyone who would like to try and use the question to "prove" that a non-violent position is unrealistic. It's well worth reading.

D

Posted by: | September 12, 2008 6:41 PM

But the piece of metal is the object of worship on the part of so many gun owners; at least that is how it so often seems.

Just a clairifacation -

No - I do not worship them but I do value them. Some of them came from my grandfather and were passed down to me for my use. He enjoyed walking the fields of KS birdhunting. So when I am out hunting or shooting clay pigeons using one of his guns - I am reminded of the hours he must have enjoyed walking this this gun and I have fond memories of him. I have another gun from my grandfather on my Dad's side of the family. He was a bird and deer hunter too. He taught me many things about nature and God's creation as he was a Pastor. A man that was so wise and that was the accessment of his peers. He had a very balanced look at God's Creation and the responsibility of man to care for it. A gun that I may see if I can donate to the Holocost Museam in DC is a Stats Pistol. My Father in Law removed it from a dead SS man diring WWII. These were very prized guns as they were very acurate and cutting edge for their time. I wonder how many people he saved by removing it so that it would not be taken and used by another SS person to continue to murder innocent people.

Valued - yes. Worshipped - no!

Blessings to all -
.

"Tim King is the special assistant to the CEO for Sojourners."

Tim, where is Jim? Is he on vacation? How come his last two posts have been for the most part cut-and-paste? It seems there would be much to talk about as McCain-Palin are gaining in the polls as Christians are flocking to support the Republican ticket. We need to be reminded by Jim not to be in the pocket of any one party and that abortion is just one insignificant issue in comparison to global warming and world poverty. If we are not constantly reminded of this we may forget.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 2:04 PM

Nicely said -

I have been a member of the NRA but my membership has lapsed as I can not afford to renew just now. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books all over the nation but still the bad guys have guns - you figure.

If anyone is gov't would finally write a law that if you commit a crime using a gun - your sentence would be doubled or tripled, that one I believe I could support. It is not the 'object' it is the person.

If MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driver had used the same logic and those against gun violence - they would be MACK - Mother's Against Cars that Kill.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM

There is a provence in Austraila that has gone through something simular. When the criminals know that the avg. citizen is law abiding and disarmed - since they failed to turn in their guns, they have free reign. What about counties that require their citizens to know how to handle a weapon - I believe they have some of the lowest crime rates. No thug is going to rob a house if there is a chance that granny might be pack'in heat.

be blessed today -
.

Of course, fully auto AK-47's would still be illegal (unless you have a class 3 FFL). To me, this just puts DC on the same playing field as the rest of the country.

Maybe I could understand the obsession that some people have with guns if I could reconcile such an obsession with the teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus taught us that freedom depends on him (John 8:36), it seems to me that we Christians are therefore obligated to think that our freedom doesn't depend on how many or what kinds of weapons we own, or on what kinds of guarantees our government gives us.

And since the Jesus I read about in the gospels teaches nonviolence, I have a difficult time squaring that with the above-mentioned obsession as well. It simply is incomprehensible to me that Christians would be so obsessed with the ownership and possession of deadly weapons.

I'm not opposed to ownership of firearms. They're useful for sport and for hunting (for those who enjoy those things). I just don't understand the obsession that results in support of the kind of illogic that Mr. King here and Ms. Denlinger in the previous blog talk about here.

Silly me, I guess. This is America, which was built on "God, guns and guts." This sounds rather like blasphemy to me...

Peace,

Peter S., it is interesting that your views seem to fall straight down the ticket Republican, just in the way you generally accuse Jim of following the Democratic party line. Does that ever make you stop, pause, and consider what that may mean about your own views and perhaps give you a touch of empathy for Jim and how ALL of us become influenced by particular sets of ideology? And if you're so irritated by Jim's "reminders", why do you continue to read God's Politics?

It seems that you take issue with Tim's use of the symbolism of joining the NRA. I could be wrong, but what I take from Tim's blog is that he sees the NRA as a symbol of support for the right to gun ownership and is disappointed that the NRA supports completely unrestricted access to guns instead of a more limited approach that would allow possession of guns for hunting and personal defense, but reasonably restricts the possession of automatic weapons. I don't think Tim tries to make the argument that you have to join the NRA to support gun ownership, he's using it more as a rhetorical point for his argument.

You also condescendingly educate the rest of us who are apparently to dim-witted to understand that criminals will own guns and use them regardless of the laws. It does seem to be obvious that gun control taken to the extreme is detrimental to the safety of the community, but Tim is not arguing for extreme gun control. Instead, he is arguing against support for a bill that "would repeal a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and eliminate firearm registration requirements, even for such things as sniper rifles and small, easily concealed semiautomatic handguns." This concept may be over my head, but I do not see semi-automatic weapons and sniper rifles as the types of weapons that would be used for self-defense

"In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults."

Another interesting statistic:

Number of US presidents assassinated by hand-guns - 4

Number of American presidents on whose life serious attempts (i.e. attempts resulting in woundings or the deaths of others) have been made - 7

Number of UK Prime Ministers assassinated by hand-guns - 1 (in 1812)

Posted by: Brian | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM

Let me take this point by point -

'...and is disappointed that the NRA supports completely unrestricted access to guns instead of a more limited approach that would allow possession of guns for hunting and personal defense...'

Any restirction law will only allow then to 'amend' the law and before we know it we have total restriction on guns. Communities are trying to stop the legal manufacture of weapons and put people out of work and on the welfare roll. I believe that the other side has shown itself as quite militant. Many of us are not against a national registry of criminals that should not own or carry a gun. We are against a list of law abiding citizens and the guns they own.

'...but reasonably restricts the possession of automatic weapons.'

If memory serves - I don't think you can purchase an automatic weapon unless you have a special permit for it. I as a citizen of my state can not purchase an automatic weapon. Besides - I believe it is less than 3% of the crimes use an automatic weapon - not the gun of choice for 97% of the criminals out there.

You also condescendingly educate the rest of us who are apparently to dim-witted to understand that criminals will own guns and use them regardless of the laws.

There is enough of this on both sides -

'...but I do not see semi-automatic weapons and sniper rifles as the types of weapons that would be used for self-defense...'

Like I said before that these are not the guns of choice for the criminal either - so why go after them? Except that if you can get a law on the books banning these - to can just amend it to include others guns that you don't like and soon you have taking all the guns away from the citizens. It is a slippery slope. Go after the criminal and make it so that they don't want to touch a gun during a crime - gun violence I believe will go down.

Blessing to all -
.

"(I'm have a smile on my face) Post whenever you want. I don't believe that we need a pecking order here - the moderator will just remove your post if they don't like it.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM
----------

Thanks big guy. I don't remember seeing many (if any) posts from 'Duh-sciple' before anyway. It's not like I'm trying to constantly post before him/her.

I can see what you are saying - but do not confuse gun ownership with gun violence.

No, big guy, I was not confusing anything with anything. I was commenting on what I see as the obsessive, almost religious, commitment to gun ownership on the part of so many gun owners whenever the topic of restricting dangerous weapons on our city streets is broached.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 6:01 PM

'...commitment to gun ownership on the part of so many gun owners whenever the topic of restricting dangerous weapons...'

Maybe because you can pass all the laws that you want on the 'object' and the problem will still be there. It is the 'person' that you need to deal with and their activities.

20,000+ gun laws on the books all over the nation and we still have the problem? Maybe it is time to tack another tac and see where that gets us? I can't tell you how many times in MN the criminal who should not have had a gun in the pocession got off with just a slap on the wrist. Do something to make it hurt if they break the law.

I believe that the NRA has done more to protect out citizens than they will ever get credit for. The 'Gun Training' that they offer most time free of charge has done a lot to keep people safe. Gun accidents in the home - tradgic. But a sportsman knows that you never store a loaded gun and you never keep your ammo and your guns together usless they are locked up.

The piece of metal is not the problem.

Blessings to all -
.

1. re read the bill. it in no way would allow a rifle to be carried loaded in washinton. You have misread, had it wrongly explained to you, or intentionally distorted the bill.

2. the .50 cal. "sniper rifle" as you call it, (i use mine for 800 meter+ woodchuck hunting...i hardly call that "sniping") has its uses. The fact that someone lives in DC shouldnt preclude their right to go out to the countryside (virginia has some rather open areas, and established long distance rifle ranges) and pursue their sport.

What is it with people and their concern about DC residents? My AK, my Barnett .50, and my Federally registered (no state law requirement in NH) Thompson and Reising sub machine guns (Form-4 ATF), etc., etc., never seem to hurt anyone here in NH. Why is that?
Could it be...Oh, I dunno... the assumption that DC residents are by nature criminally insane? Or is it their largely minority make up?

And I trust your not carrying one of those "assault steak knives"...you know... the ones with those serrated edges that can cut through frozen meat!! I mean, what exactly do you NEED one of those for anyway??? Hmmmmm?