Bible and Gun

[Jonesboy]

Is it moral to keep guns that could be stolen and used? or keep guns at all? Here’s the situation in the UK, where the Church does not cpondone public weaponry.

In the UK people who own, like or want guns are seen as shameful, unstable, power-hungry recidivists. This is why anyone simply caught with a gun is given a mandatory five year jail term, even if the gun is not being used. Members of families who only have knowledge that their relations have a gun are also jailed. In a recent case a mother and father and some other relations were jailed for up to seven years for knowing that their son had a gun. The son got thirty years. The length of sentences involving guns in crime are automatically doubled. The few who are allowed guns such as farmers, are regarded with suspicion.

It is inconceivable to the British how a parent could want to introduce guns to their children or to schools. Like ownership of knives, poisons, and other weapons, gun ownership is always associated with shame and cowardice, and so far from being fatherly and mature that children whose parents have them would be taken into care. The power to kill quickly is not seen as a right, but as an extremely serious, criminal threat to freedom.

The American Church’s promotion of weapons for children and parents is made against family and freedom, and gives the thumbs up for moral decay and violence. Guns in american films offer the strange, sadistic spectacle of the Roman Colliseum, where the real-time killings are made in the public arena. It looks alien to us here.

Thus, sadly, it seems, tradition and custom take precedence over spirituality and freedom to live as humble people. It is not appropriate for a Church to curry favour and to condone weapons, whether knives, guns, poisons, grenades, etc., because of the force of problematic tradition. To imagine that Jesus would like a weapon is blasphemous, but then blasphemy is politics as much as it is a matter for religion.

 

[karebear92]

Well no, it is not immoral in and of itself for one to carry/own a gun if it is for the right reason. One should also take the proper care to make sure that their guns are locked up or safe, especially from children. If it is illegal, however, one must follow the law.

And if someone stole/used your gun you are not culpable for what they did with it. Nobody has a right to steal anything. If someone stole a sick persons medication and used it to abuse drugs, is the sick person culpable?

Here is a link where this is kind of addressed

On a personal level, I don’t think people should own guns unless they feel they need them for self defense or hunting. I feel they typically take more lives than they save.

 

[Philotheatoo]

Over the past 10 years or so it has become well known that the U.S. is no longer the leader it thought it was. Kudos to the UK and their recognition of the importance of the public belief in the dignity of Life.

 

[vz71]

Why should ownership of a tool be considered immoral?

It is how the tool is used that determines the morality. And even there it is a morality of the action, not a morality of ownership.

 

[GEddie]

Why should ownership of a tool be considered immoral?

It is how the tool is used that determines the morality. And even there it is a morality of the action, not a morality of ownership.

When the purpose of the “tool” is to end life effortlessly, methinks at the very least, it doth behoove those who desire that ability to examine their motives carefully.

I’m conflicted on this issue. Like most other USAniks, I don’t like to see rights abridged. But as a human being, I think that the integrity of human life needs to be given higher priority than it historically has been in our nation.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[exnihilo]

In the UK people who own, like or want guns are seen as shameful, unstable, power-hungry recidivists.

That would cover the police, though I realize in the UK they do not all commonly carry guns as in the US, the military, the politicians and the state, and all its agents, in general. No one really wants to get rid of all guns they only want to concentrate them in the hands of a few people. This would be a good idea if the only people who had them were an especially trustworthy and responsible lot.

The entire history of humanity disputes the notion that governments are trustworthy and the hundreds of millions of death that the state caused in the last century with guns and more deadly weapons is pretty good evidence against the state being worthy. In fact the British state kills far more people than its private citizens ever would. The same is even more true of the American state.

The odd thing about this principle is that it could ever take hold in a democratic state. The theory of democracy is that everyone is worthy of exercising political power. But if the bulk of the citizenry cant be trusted to use a weapon wisely then how can they be trusted to exercise good judgment in decision making? By what magic is the average man’s judgment so impaired that he cant possess a weapon but he can make the right decision as to who should possess those weapons. Prohibition of gun ownership is a great argument for a monarchy.

 

[andrew67]

Well first of all our constitution says we as free citizens have the right to bear arms. The forefathers of our fight from English rule and domination insured that we as a citizenry would be able to fight tyrany even if its from our own government. If kids are raised properly with faith and guideance they will not break the law and follow Christs commandment to love oneanother as he loved us. Guns do not kill people unless the persons who have them use them in a destructive manner.
I have a concealed handgun permit and relish the ability to carry lawfully. Its governments that restrict inailiable rights that really have serious problems. God Bless the United States and the Republic of Texas!

 

[JRKH]

Is it moral to keep guns that could be stolen and used? or keep guns at all?

It is perfectly moral and acceptable to keep guns for moral and acceptable purposes.

Here’s the situation in the UK, where the Church does not condone public weaponry.

In the UK people who own, like or want guns are seen as shameful, unstable, power-hungry recidivists. This is why anyone simply caught with a gun is given a mandatory five year jail term, even if the gun is not being used. Members of families who only have knowledge that their relations have a gun are also jailed. In a recent case a mother and father and some other relations were jailed for up to seven years for knowing that their son had a gun. The son got thirty years. The length of sentences involving guns in crime are automatically doubled. The few who are allowed guns such as farmers, are regarded with suspicion.

It is inconceivable to the British how a parent could want to introduce guns to their children or to schools. Like ownership of knives, poisons, and other weapons, gun ownership is always associated with shame and cowardice, and so far from being fatherly and mature that children whose parents have them would be taken into care. The power to kill quickly is not seen as a right, but as an extremely serious, criminal threat to freedom.

I wonder if the Church in England “does not condone public weaponry” or if the Church merely condones and promotes obedience to the laws of the land…
Much of what you write here may well reflect the cultural outlook of those in the British Isles but such cultural differences do not necessarily make something objectively moral or immoral. For instance - ignoring the issue of civil and criminal law, which is the greater sin, owning a gun for legitimate purposes or judging your neighbor with "suspicion, and as someone who is a “shameful, unstable, power-hungry recidivist”, simply because he/she happens to, “like or want guns”?. “Judge not lest ye be judged” is a Gospel quote that comes to mind.

The American Church’s promotion of weapons for children and parents is made against family and freedom, and gives the thumbs up for moral decay and violence. Guns in american films offer the strange, sadistic spectacle of the Roman Colliseum, where the real-time killings are made in the public arena. It looks alien to us here.

Could you point to an official Church document that declares that the American Church “promotes” weapons for children and parents? I personally know of no such document or statement made by the American Church (USCCB)
It seems to me that you are taking what is basically a secular, cultural difference between our two peoples, and turning it into something that it is not.
I was raised in a family that kept guns. I received my first gun at age 14, A single shot 12ga shotgun for use in hunting rabbit and squirrel. This was “meat on the table”. I later had to use my Shotgun to protect my chickens and my garden from predators.
Each of my brothers also received shotguns at age 14. Many of my cousins were raised around guns. We all hunted, shot skeet and/or trap, and most importantly we were taught the proper respect for our weapons. - Never loaded in the house, always kept clean and properly stored, never point a weapon at another person (even unloaded) etc.
NO ONE in my Family ever shot another person, never was arrested for a crime,gun or otherwise, never had a gun stolen from them. Each of us, when we had children of our own, taught them the same peaceful, careful, and respectful principles we were taught.
So - does what I have written sound like we are, “shameful, unstable, power-hungry recidivists”, who should be regarded with “suspicion” merely for wishing to own and use guns in a safe and proper manner?

Thus, sadly, it seems, tradition and custom take precedence over spirituality and freedom to live as humble people. It is not appropriate for a Church to curry favour and to condone weapons, whether knives, guns, poisons, grenades, etc., because of the force of problematic tradition. To imagine that Jesus would like a weapon is blasphemous, but then blasphemy is politics as much as it is a matter for religion.

Well I don’t know about Jesus “liking a weapon” but He did say this:
He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. (Luke 22:36)

Guns, knives, poisons etc, have legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. Do not blame teh tool for it’s misuse by some owners.

Peace
James

 

[Saburo]

When the purpose of the “tool” is to end life effortlessly, methinks at the very least, it doth behoove those who desire that ability to examine their motives carefully.

I’m conflicted on this issue. Like most other USAniks, I don’t like to see rights abridged. But as a human being, I think that the integrity of human life needs to be given higher priority than it historically has been in our nation.

ICXC NIKA.

Ending life effortlessly is not the purpose of a gun. More often than not, the purpose of a gun is to defend a life. I doubt many purchase a weapon for home or personal defense with a secret desire to shoot someone.

We live in a free society. With freedom comes grave responsibility and grave consequences for our decisions. Some people people decide badly and end up on the wrong end of a gun or on death row. Probably far fewer of them end up dead than deserve it. On the other hand, many are innocent victims of criminals with guns. How many more would be innocent victims if unarmed? The UK has outlawed guns in most instances, but knife violence has increased at the same rate that gun violence has decreased. It seems that people are violent.

To imagine that Jesus would like a weapon is blasphemous

How did Jesus drive the money changers out of the temple? I’m betting he used something other than his indignation, but maybe he was just a big, scary guy. :hypno:

 

[GEddie]

Well I don’t know about Jesus “liking a weapon” but He did say this:
He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. (Luke 22:36)

Guns, knives, poisons etc, have legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. Do not blame teh tool for it’s misuse by some owners.

Peace
James

Again, I am totally conflicted about the American “armed society” rubric.

But if someone is going to use Lk 22:36 to promote the armed society, it doth behoove them at least to explain why HE never allowed those swords to be used!

For that matter, nowhere in the NT, despite increasing persecution, did members of the nascent Church ever offer violence in return.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

Ending life effortlessly is not the purpose of a gun. More often than not, the purpose of a gun is to defend a life. I doubt many purchase a weapon for home or personal defense with a secret desire to shoot someone.

No, most do not want to shoot somebody. Shooting somebody, after all, has negative consequences, such as years in prison.

However, many probably want to “feel more manly” as a result of being able to kill without physical effort. When they lose it psychologically, this becomes a danger to others.

We live in a free society. With freedom comes grave responsibility and grave consequences for our decisions. Some people people decide badly and end up on the wrong end of a gun or on death row. Probably far fewer of them end up dead than deserve it. On the other hand, many are innocent victims of criminals with guns. How many more would be innocent victims if unarmed?

And how many people in USA are dead now because their head occupied the sight-line of a madman with a gun? Everybody who goes psychopathic was a law-abiding citizen before. It works both ways.

How did Jesus drive the money changers out of the temple? I’m betting he used something other than his indignation, but maybe he was just a big, scary guy. :hypno:

Based on the Shroud of Turin, HE was probably a big man not to be messed with.

But in the absence of Scriptures saying HE actually hurt anybody, we should not assume HE did in order to make a point.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[JRKH]

Again, I am totally conflicted about the American “armed society” rubric.

Right here I think that you have a root problem in understanding. This may come partially from where you live in the US. Texas, along with some other states or regions, have a very strong gun mentality. Other states do not. It generally reflects a more overall mentality of “personal independence” vs a more “socialized” mentality. I’m not saying which is right or wrong - it just is.

The “armed society rubric” that you refer to is something of a misnomer…So far as I know, we are free to choose whether or not to own firearms. This right to choose is enshrined in our constitution. Also enshrined in the constitution is the right of the government to regulate this matter because, as the second amendment says, it is because we need a “well regulated militia” that the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.
But it is a right (choice) and not a requirement that we keep arms or that we given them up.

But if someone is going to use Lk 22:36 to promote the armed society, it doth behoove them at least to explain why HE never allowed those swords to be used!

For that matter, nowhere in the NT, despite increasing persecution, did members of the nascent Church ever offer violence in return.

ICXC NIKA.

I agree that this verse can be problematic and I am glad to see another point out the whip Jesus used to drive the money changer’s from the temple…
My point in mentioning it to the OP was to show that Jesus did indeed address favorably the ownership of a weapon.
Perhaps his meaning was not that it be used against other humans but that, since the Apostles would be going forth in many directions, that the sword be used against wild beasts etc.

Peace
James

 

[andrew67]

I would still like to point out again if it were not that the citizenry of the early days when we broke from England did not have weapons we would all still be singing God save the queen. Socialism doesnt work it restricts a persons ability to be free. The US fought many wars to insure that. Interpretation of the second ammenment is still strong and its a battle that will be fought for a long time to come.

 

[JRKH]

I would still like to point out again if it were not that the citizenry of the early days when we broke from England did not have weapons we would all still be singing God save the queen.

Point taken and understood, but one might legitimately ask if that would necessarily be a bad thing (a highly complex subject for another thread). After all, Canada and Australia, largely settled by the British and retained by the Crown for considerable time before becoming commonwealth nations, do not seem to have been particularly harmed by the experience.

Socialism doesnt work it restricts a persons ability to be free.

Agree. But then any form of society imposes restrictions on ones “freedoms”.

Interpretation of the second amendment is still strong and its a battle that will be fought for a long time to come.

Yes - this is very true. Personally I think that the wording of the second amendment is one of the best ever devised. In one succinct sentence, is stated that some regulation is possible and even desirable while at the same time declaring unequivocally that the individual be free to keep and bear arms.
So the battle may never be about whether we can keep and bear arms, but rather the debate can only be about how such might be legitimately regulated.

Peace
James

 

[DPMartin]

Is it moral to keep guns that could be stolen and used? or keep guns at all? Here’s the situation in the UK, where the Church does not cpondone public weaponry.

In the UK people who own, like or want guns are seen as shameful, unstable, power-hungry recidivists. This is why anyone simply caught with a gun is given a mandatory five year jail term, even if the gun is not being used. Members of families who only have knowledge that their relations have a gun are also jailed. In a recent case a mother and father and some other relations were jailed for up to seven years for knowing that their son had a gun. The son got thirty years. The length of sentences involving guns in crime are automatically doubled. The few who are allowed guns such as farmers, are regarded with suspicion.

It is inconceivable to the British how a parent could want to introduce guns to their children or to schools. Like ownership of knives, poisons, and other weapons, gun ownership is always associated with shame and cowardice, and so far from being fatherly and mature that children whose parents have them would be taken into care. The power to kill quickly is not seen as a right, but as an extremely serious, criminal threat to freedom.

The American Church’s promotion of weapons for children and parents is made against family and freedom, and gives the thumbs up for moral decay and violence. Guns in american films offer the strange, sadistic spectacle of the Roman Colliseum, where the real-time killings are made in the public arena. It looks alien to us here.

Thus, sadly, it seems, tradition and custom take precedence over spirituality and freedom to live as humble people. It is not appropriate for a Church to curry favour and to condone weapons, whether knives, guns, poisons, grenades, etc., because of the force of problematic tradition. To imagine that Jesus would like a weapon is blasphemous, but then blasphemy is politics as much as it is a matter for religion.

Jonesboy

Did King David blaspheme God? Didn’t King David have his own personal weaponds before any one knew of him?

What is irrational is that weapons cause harm. King David used a sling and a small stone by the brook. Shall there be law against stones by the brook? Shall there be a law against access to stones? Is it immoral that there are stones by the brook? Are stones immoral? (note an inanimate object) Or is it immoral because of what is relative to one’s own morals?

Those who seek to disarm the public, perceive the public as their enemy. When they should be more worried about what is the enemy to the public.

If the public is defenseless against violent crimes against them, then what is next, on the agenda?

As far as I know God doesn’t require you the right to be a victim. To be a victim, or to be available to be victimized, is not a requirement of life and living.

This sure does seem like political manipulation as usual, throw something against the wall and see if it sticks. Even if it is horse dump.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is it moral to keep guns…In the UK people who own, like or want guns are seen as shameful, unstable, power-hungry recidivists. This is why anyone simply caught with a gun is given a mandatory five year jail term… The few who are allowed guns such as farmers, are regarded with suspicion.

It is inconceivable to the British how a parent could want to introduce guns to their children or to schools…The power to kill quickly is not seen as a right, but as an extremely serious, criminal threat to freedom.

The American Church’s promotion of weapons…To imagine that Jesus would like a weapon is blasphemous, but then blasphemy is politics as much as it is a matter for religion.

As a gun owner, let me say that it is not only moral to own a gun, it is immoral not to. Not preparing to defend your family, your church, or your government, is the abrogation of the responsibility of every free man. We see gun ownership as a necessary tool, in the eternal fight against tyranny. An unarmed man is a slave in waiting. Growing up on a farm, guns are necessary for your everyday work. Coyote in the henhouse? Skunk in the irrigation pipe? Need to butcher a hog for dinner? There is nothing to be suspicious of. I raised several foster kids while I was working in law enforcement, and I taught them to shoot at the age of 5. With a cute little pink rifle for baby girl. We introduce them to guns early for several reasons. Gun safety, everyday uses, and the ability to defend themselves if it were ever necessary. The power of a firearm is not a threat to freedom, it is what guarantees our freedom. That’s why we have a second amendment. Were the government ever to try confiscating guns on a large scale, they would face an armed up rising. The government exists at our mercy here in the States. Over there, you exist at the mercy of the government. You can actually thank King George for the American gun culture by the way. He is the reason we even had to take up arms. Nor is it blasphemous to think that Jesus wouldn’t like a weapon. He hunted, he used slings, like all kids in His age and time. Had he a firearm he would have hunted with that. He certainly used a weapon to drive the money sellers from the temple. So the ideas you are espousing are just a function of your culture, not the Faith or morality.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

When the purpose of the “tool” is to end life effortlessly, methinks at the very least, it doth behoove those who desire that ability to examine their motives carefully.

Motives are at the root of the issue here.

By coincident I woke up this morning to find a deer injured by a vehicle in my yard. The deer died on it’s own. But when this happens and the animal is experiencing a slow painful death I can call a police officer to end the life of the suffering animal effortlessly. The motivation of involving a gun in this situation is to end suffering in a scenario for which there’s no positive outcomes available.

I don’t have a gun, but it seems that most of the females I know do (along with two males). Some of them have already experienced some one entering into their domain without authorization (usually to steal something) and they feel otherwise unable to defend themselves if they had to. Their motivation for having a gun is to be capable of defending their well being and lives.

 

[exnihilo]

Personally I think that the wording of the second amendment is one of the best ever devised. In one succinct sentence, is stated that some regulation is possible and even desirable while at the same time declaring unequivocally that the individual be free to keep and bear arms.

Shall not be infringed is pretty strong language. But the logic around regulations has never made good sense if the first clause is to be some sort of restriction on purpose. If the purpose of having weapons is to protect the free state then the citizens should have the right to keep and bear military weapons since the free state will be attacked by such weapons. The most heavy restrictions on ownership, at first through the loophole of taxation, is on military weapons. Also the wording uses security which is more than just external threat and includes internal. That being the case the people again need access to any weapon necessary for that which should include any weapon a police officer might have.

 

[JRKH]

As a gun owner, let me say that it is not only moral to own a gun, it is immoral not to. Not preparing to defend your family, your church, or your government, is the abrogation of the responsibility of every free man. We see gun ownership as a necessary tool, in the eternal fight against tyranny. An unarmed man is a slave in waiting.

While I don’t disagree with the thought behind this, I must say that you seem to be making gun ownership a requirement in order to be moral. I would object to this just as strongly as I object to the views expressed by the OP about those who do own guns.
Gun ownership as a right must be protected. However, my morality is not affected by whether I own a gun or not.

There is another right in our constitution, every bit as vital, and every bit as necessary - even more necessary than freedom to bear arms. That right is the freedom to speak.
Our first line of defense against tyranny is our free speech rights. It is this right, practiced daily that serves to expose us equally to good ideas and bad ones, which allows us to weigh each in the balance and make informed choices.

The right to keep and bear arms is a backstop - a necessary one - to the other freedoms we have. If other freedoms are sufficiently threatened, then - and only then - do we have the right to take up arms.

A person who chooses not to arm themselves with a rifle may be just as prepared to defend their family, their country and their Church as the one who does choose to arm themselves.

Peace
James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

While I don’t disagree with the thought behind this, I must say that you seem to be making gun ownership a requirement in order to be moral…

Preparing the means to defend the institutions that you are responsible for is the moral requirement. Prudence dictates firearms where available.I think we can all agree that protecting our families, countries, etc is the responsibility of a free man in a free society. It seems to me that the corollary of that is possessing the means to enact such a defense, just as we have a corporate responsibility to form and maintain a military for that purpose.