Bible and Gun

[Redratfish]

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.

Hasn’t gun crimes increased exponetially since the gun bans introduction? I don’t believe I can link the studies, but a simple google search shows how much disregard for this law there is, and how it has increased crime.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
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…

Your response doesn’t really seem to address the small portion of my post that you chose to quote…
I do not own a gun…does that make me immoral? That was the gist of my statement…

As to the matters you mention above…

I think you will agree with me that firearms against firearms have been just as successful at the introduction of tyranny as the freeing of one from it. Firearms to resist tyranny do not ensure that tyranny will not come.

As Christians, our freedom does not lie in our institutions, or the rights granted or denied by secular government(s). Our Freedom lies in Jesus Christ. If we remain true to him then we need not fear, as it is written, “those who can kill the body but can do no more”. Instead we are to fear him who can destroy both body AND soul in the fires of Gehenna.

Am I grateful to live in America? Am I grateful for the freedoms we enjoy as Americans, including the right to "keep and bear arms? You bet I do.
However, I think our dear Lord would much prefer we try to talk things out instead of shoot them out.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I do not own a gun…does that make me immoral?..

Given the rules of charity, you will need to accept the answer I gave you.

…firearms against firearms have been just as successful at the introduction of tyranny as the freeing of one from it…

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Apparently an armed citizenry can deter tyrants.

As Christians, our freedom does not lie in our institutions, or the rights granted or denied by secular government(s)…

Our freedom comes from our ability to enforce it at the point of a gun if necessary. G-d is the G-d of slaves and freemen alike.

 

[JRKH]

Given the rules of charity, you will need to accept the answer I gave you.

Does this mean that you cannot give a charitable answer to my question? How sad/

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Apparently an armed citizenry can deter tyrants.

This statement did not deter the Japanese from invading the mainland US, economics and logistics did, well that and the fact that the Japanese never had any intention of attempting to invade the US mainland.
So Admiral Yamamoto’s statement was moot.

Our freedom comes from our ability to enforce it at the point of a gun if necessary. G-d is the G-d of slaves and freemen alike.

Lets hope it never again becomes necessary.

Peace
James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…This statement did not deter the Japanese from invading the mainland US…
So Admiral Yamamoto’s statement was moot.

According to his own words it did. He was the Commander in chief until 1943 after all.

 

[JRKH]

According to his own words it did. He was the Commander in chief until 1943 after all.

Having never heard this quote of his before, I would like to know the source on this if you have one.

The Japanese were already heavily involved on the Asian mainland in China. This was the main focus of the Japanese Army, not the the N.A. Mainland thousands of miles away.
The reason they attacked south was to obtain the Raw materials, mainly Oil, after the U.S. had cut them off because of the Japanese actions in China.
As they reached the end of their initial conquests in the opening moths of the war, there were a number of high level conferences on what to do next. Any proposal that called for the use of significant numbers of Army troops were opposed by the army because they would not or could not release them from China. For this reason, Australia was never actually in danger of being invaded. Instead the plan was to try to occupy the islands to the east of Australia and Isolate her from the US.
If the Imperial Japanese Army was not willing to commit to the invasion of Australia, which it was significantly closer to at the time and, compared to the US, was considerably smaller and weaker, what gives you the Idea that the Imperial Japanese Army could or would even consider invading the mainland US.

Yamamoto did not wish to fight the US. He spent much time here and respected the capacity of the US to make war on a scale that Japan could never hope to match. He tried repeatedly to impress upon the Army leaders that it was foolhardy to go to war against the US period for the simple reason that the US could outproduce and outlast the Japanese.

He famously told a leading government leader of the day that if forced to fight the US, he would run wild for the first 6 months to a year, after that he could promise nothing.
He was eerily correct in this. He ran wild for 6 months almost to the day, then lost the battle of Midway…A state of stalemate/attrition ensued from then until the end of 1942 when the Japanese finally determined to abandon Guadalcanal, their first strategic land retreat.

Peace
James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Having never heard this quote of his before, I would like to know the source on this if you have one…

Why are you repeating high school history stuff? I just quoted Yamamoto, I didn’t mention any of that stuff. If you haven’t heard this quote, then why don’t you Google it? Then you can waste another post telling me Goldsteins opinion, then I can waste one pointing out that Goldstein’s rejection is irrational because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Yamamoto knew our culture, and the statement fits with others he had made. Some you quote yourself. Then we can get back to the point. **An armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyrants. **

 

[Jonesboy]

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!

Should my school allow potassium cyanide in the classroom, and show its pupils its responsible use?

Should parents introduce their children to the responsible use of knives, knuckle-dusters, pikes, dangerous animals, poisons, letter bombs, guns, grenades and other death dealing devices in Jesus’ name?

There is no nameable right, today, to bear arms. Living in the past is living for old, dead reasons. The rationale for guns has long gone, as has the age of violence. The only use today for personal weaponry is for the shameful and wicked.

Living under the threat of sudden, extreme violence is a serious restriction of freedom. How strange that in America this should be lauded as freedom.

 

[Philotheatoo]

Equally as blasphemous, if not more so, would be to imply Jesus used a weapon against another human being. Let’s not give in to the temptation to slay others with our words just so they will agree with us ~ that would be ego getting in the way.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[GEddie]

Should my school allow potassium cyanide in the classroom, and show its pupils its responsible use?

If the course being taught is chemistry, and the stuff is kept secure when not in use, sure.

The main problem with guns is that there is no way to “secure” them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JRKH]

Why are you repeating high school history stuff? I just quoted Yamamoto, I didn’t mention any of that stuff. If you haven’t heard this quote, then why don’t you Google it? Then you can waste another post telling me Goldsteins opinion, then I can waste one pointing out that Goldstein’s rejection is irrational because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Yamamoto knew our culture, and the statement fits with others he had made. Some you quote yourself.

thank you for the suggestion to google the quote. Obviously you have already seen the same thing that I have which is contained HERE. Just as obviously you seem to reject the statement of a professional historian and author, preferring instead to accept the unsubstantiated quote as fact…
I must say that it is a very poor method for supporting the pro-gun position. I am pro-second amendment and I feel shame that pro-gun people would knowingly use such a blatantly unsupported statement. Those who use such tactics are misusing free speech and sinning against the 8th commandment, “Thou shall not bear false witness…”

As to my, “repeating high school history stuff”, If you wish to dismiss it, that is fine, however there might be others here who will be edified by my efforts to set the historical record straight - That the Japanese NEVER considered invading the Mainland of the United States, not because of an armed citizenry but simply because it was not logistically possible.

Then we can get back to the point. **An armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyrants. **

Actually this was NOT the point - The point was whether it is immoral to not own a gun. this stemmed from YOUR original statement:
As a gun owner, let me say that it is not only moral to own a gun, it is immoral not to.
To which I responded:
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.
(Bolding added)

You then quoted back only the first sentence of my statement but did not actually address it, instead you responded with a general statement on the importance of being prepared to defend out liberties…Something I have no argument with.

My point was that you did, in your statement that, “it is not only moral to own a gun, it is immoral not to”, declare that, because a person does NOT own a gun they are immoral.
My objection to your comment is not about whether one should be legally and morally permitted to own guns, but whether one is morally obligated to do so.

Before you respond, consider this. Many martyrs chose to peaceably, and with singing hymns of praise to God, go to their deaths in the arena instead of taking up arms against their oppressors…Were they immoral?

Peace
James

 

[vz71]

The main problem with guns is that there is no way to “secure” them.

ICXC NIKA

Yes, there is. Guns can be secured readily.

There is no way to prevent accidents.
As long as there are poeple, there will be accidents.

The same could be said for any tool, that there is no way to prevent an accident with it.
And that includes heavy machinery, cars, planes, and ships.

Even something as innocuous as a ball of yarn has a body count associated with it for accidents.

 

[JRKH]

Should my school allow potassium cyanide in the classroom, and show its pupils its responsible use?

Certainly - Why not? you see the key here is “responsible use” which, as another has already pointed out, includes care in handling and secure storage.

Should parents introduce their children to the responsible use of knives,

I’d say that most parents already do this since most knives are used in the Kitchen.

knuckle-dusters, pikes, dangerous animals, poisons, letter bombs, guns, grenades and other death dealing devices in Jesus’ name?

Not sure what “Jesus” name has to do with all of this.
As for the other specifics, obviously anything can be carried to an extreme. But if a parent sees the need, in given situation to teach a child about such things and how to deal with them RESPONSIBLY then they should do so. It is when children are NOT taught responsibility that the problem comes in.
Remember - It’s not about the “things” - It’s about Responsibility

There is no nameable right, today, to bear arms. Living in the past is living for old, dead reasons. The rationale for guns has long gone, as has the age of violence. The only use today for personal weaponry is for the shameful and wicked.

Living under the threat of sudden, extreme violence is a serious restriction of freedom. How strange that in America this should be lauded as freedom.

This is what you, living in the UK believe. I am happy to uphold your right to believe thus. We in the US have a somewhat different outlook on the matter.
I do not live, “under the threat of sudden, extreme violence”, and so I do not see my freedom curtailed in any way.
Of course we BOTH live under the threat of sudden, extreme violence in the form of speeding cars, trucks and buses that whiz by us and around us constantly. And like Arms, there is no “nameable right today” to travel at speeds faster than a man can comfortably trot. Yet I see no one desiring to outlaw the vehicles that kill and maim thousands each years.

Peace
James

 

[StarFireKK]

Guns have more purpose than just ending life. Most of the gun owners in the US own a gun for hunting purposes. Some collect guns for their engineering and historical value. It gives you a lot more respect for our armed forces when you hold a Grande in your hand and realize exactly how heavy it was for them to carry. Some own guns because of self-defense.

My husband walked into a store and stopped the clerk from getting raped because he was armed. Is he power hungry? Would it have been better to let her get raped and/or murdered and then have the police catch the guy later?

You also need to be aware of the Church’s history. There were plenty of orders that had and used their weapons.

I think it is immoral for parents to not educate their children about guns. Don’t you tell your kids not to play with matches? Don’t you make sure they understand not to grab knives and to stay away from dad’s power tools? A child should know when they find a gun to not pick it up, to not point it at anyone and to get an adult. They should know if their friends have a gun and is waving it around or trying to show how cool they are they should GET OUT OF THERE and tell an adult. A child (and adults) should be taught to never ever assume a gun is unloaded. If children were taught these things we would have a lot less accidental shootings. As it is, it is more dangerous to be in a car than to be around a gun in the US.

If you would allow a solider to shoot and kill someone intending to harm your land and home and if you would allow a policeman to shoot and kill someone that was intending to harm your or your family but you would not pick up a gun in defense of yourself or others…that is a coward.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Just as obviously you seem to reject the statement of a professional historian and author…

Of course I did! The question is why you aren’t? Do you normally accept fallacious arguments from people simply because you think they are an authority? That is fallacious itself. Don’t you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Just because Goldstein asserts that it is does not make it so.

I must say that it is a very poor method for supporting the pro-gun position.

Not accepting fallacious statements is a poor method of supporting a pro gun position? Ludicrous.

…That the Japanese NEVER considered invading the Mainland of the United States, not because of an armed citizenry but simply because it was not logistically possible…

Japanese never considered invading because Yamaoto had been here and knew what was waiting for him. His statement was entirely in line with Yamamotos character, experience and knowledge. Their decision not to invade the mainland was a product of Yamamoto among others. There is nothing logistically impossible with crossing the Pacific. We did it to them after all. You are not setting the historical record straight your asserting a version that denies one specific statement detrimental to your position on guns.

…Actually this was NOT the point…

Yes it was the point of me qouting Yamamoto. I didn’t do it for kicks.

… my morality is not affected by whether I own a gun or not…

And I disagree. Men have a responsibility to prepare for the defense of their family and country. Abrogating ones duties is always an immoral act.

 

[davidv]

Of course I did! The question is why you aren’t? Do you normally accept fallacious arguments from people simply because you think they are an authority? That is fallacious itself. Don’t you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?Not accepting fallacious statements is a poor method of supporting a pro gun position? Ludicrous. Japanese never considered invading because Yamaoto had been here and knew what was waiting for him. His statement was entirely in line with Yamamotos character, experience and knowledge. Their decision not to invade the mainland was a product of Yamamoto among others. There is nothing logistically impossible with crossing the Pacific. We did it to them after all. You are not setting the historical record straight your asserting a version that denies one specific statement detrimental to your position on guns.
Yes it was the point of me qouting Yamamoto. I didn’t do it for kicks.
And I disagree. Men have a responsibility to prepare for the defense of their family and country. Abrogating ones duties is always an immoral act.

I have reviewed the ten commandments and the beatitudes several times. Why can’t I find statements such as; thou shalt not be weaponless, or blessed are the armed?

 

[Neildown]

I believe that every law-abiding citizen [in the United States at least] should own at least one firearm [not mandatory, just for the sake of humanity]. How is it cowardice to own a weapon that could save your life or the lives of others? You can’t call me a coward if I’ve got a smoking handgun and you’re a dead mugger on the street [excuse the expression]. It’s not shameful to have the skill and responsibility of using a gun or any other weapon safely and effectively for the purpose of self/home defense.

Kids need to be familiarized with weapons for many purposes - to show them how to handle a gun or other weapon correctly, to be wise in its use, to know what it sounds like, and to recognize when someone is carrying it.

I myself can name off at least 20 types of weaponry on the spot and know near everything I need to about them - if I’m in a building with a gunman inside I know exactly what to tell the police via phone. Having the ability to recognize and to use a weapon in an emergency situation can be the difference between life and death. If more people owned guns legally there would be less people using them illegally.

 

[Neildown]

THIS is why you educate people in the use of guns… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8133322#post8133322

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have reviewed the ten commandments and the beatitudes several times. Why can’t I find statements such as; thou shalt not be weaponless, or blessed are the armed?

You also did not find the command that all things are good to eat. I don’t suppose that you refuse to eat pork then?

 

[GEddie]

You also did not find the command that all things are good to eat. I don’t suppose that you refuse to eat pork then?

Nonsequitur, as the law regarding pork is not in the Decalogue.

I, too, disagree that carrying a firearm is somehow morally required. If that were the case, then not doing so would be a sin, and that in turn would make our LORD a sinner, because except for the whip in the Temple (which HE improvised, rather than carried with HIM) there is zero Scriptural record of HIS ever brandishing, much less using, a weapon on anybody.