Bible and Gun

[warpspeedpetey]

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

Non sequitir would mean that I have deduced a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. My implied premise here is that the decaloogue and beatitudes are not the whole of our moral cloth as David seems to be implying. I am not sure I am making a nonsequitur here.

I, too, disagree that carrying a firearm is somehow morally required…

I am not claiming that people have to carry firearms. I am claiming that it is an abrogation of ones moral duty to defend ones family and state if one does not posses the means to do so. Firearms are indicated by prudence, but I suppose if you are Jackie Chan and can reasonably rely on your own two fists to meet nearly any threat, you wouldn’t need a firearm. Unfortunately, there is only one Jackie Chan. The rest of us can only meet our moral duty by owning a firearm where legal.

 

[JRKH]

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 do not abrogate my duty.
I do prepare for the defense of my family.
I teach and try to live the Gospel which says to Love, to turn the other cheek, to pray for those who persecute you, to not kill…I could go on if you like…
I do this because I am less interested in what occurs in this life and more interested in what occurs after this life…Will I be found worthy of everlasting life?

Likewise I defend my country through my vote, my support of the military and through other actions and beliefs.

It is just plain silliness to equate a single item, gun ownership, with morality.

It reminds me of the “We are saved by Faith alone” argument except you substitute “guns” for faith…
It’s actually pretty sad.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

Let’s see - You make an assertion that a certain person made a statement which you wish to use to support your position.
Because I am a student of the era and am somewhat familiar with the man in question and I have never heard this quote, I as for a source so that I may see the statement in context.
You are unable to supply a source. In other words, you have NO source evidence that the statement was ever made. and instead invite me to “Google” it.
I do so and find that at least two knowledgeable historians who have studied the papers of the era and of the man in question, have know knowledge of the quote.

You then say that, these historians can’t prove he didn’t say it. but then you are left with the same problem. You cannot prove that he DID say it.

So - Which position is more tenable?
The one from warpspeedpetey who says believe me because I say so?
OR
The one from a professional historian and writer who has made study and never seen such a comment in any of the historical record?

Excuse me Petey, but you lose…

Peace
James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not abrogate my duty…

Dialing 911 is just calling the men with guns to come commit violence if necessary, on your behalf. What makes you think not owning a firearm alleviates you from the moral responsibility for their use?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Let’s see - You make an assertion that a certain person made a statement which you wish to use to support your position.

I could have made any similar statement, there are countless examples through out history.

You are unable to supply a source.

Did I not say Yamamoto said it? I do not have proof. Nor do I particularly feel the need to have any. It fits exactly with Yamamotos character, experience and knowledge, I see zero reason to reject the traditional claim that Yamamoto said it. In fact given what Yamamoto knew about our culture he would have been foolish not to have said it. Further, even in the absence of that it is still a true statement, there very nearly is a rifle behind every blade of grass. So “sources” have no bearing on it. I am not offering or even interested in historical criticism.

have know knowledge of the quote.

I see your still going with the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence routine” and fallacious arguments from authority.

So - Which position is more tenable?
The one from warpspeedpetey who says believe me because I say so?
OR
The one from a professional historian and writer who has made study and never seen such a comment in any of the historical record?

The one from Warpseedpetey, where I reason without fallacious appeals to authority or the “evidence of absence” error.

Excuse me Petey, but you lose…

Says the guy fallaciously appealing to authorities who themselves claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence . I am feelin’ pretty Sheen right about now.

 

[Jonesboy]

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

Then let each school-child, by right, be given his or her own botttle of cyanide as a mark of adulthood.

 

[Jonesboy]

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.

In these free isles we don’t need to educate children about the responsible use of guns.
There aren’t any.

The tension of the weapon takes us away from God.

 

[GEddie]

In these free isles we don’t need to educate children about the responsible use of guns.
There aren’t any.

The tension of the weapon takes us away from God.

I think many of my fellow ex-colonials would say that you are not “free” unless you are armed.

Just curious: Did your government think the same way about privately-owned weapons in 1940?

 

[JRKH]

In these free isles we don’t need to educate children about the responsible use of guns.
There aren’t any.

Well this is one opinion bit is obviously NOT shared by all in your, so called, “free isles”.

Let us go back to your opening post and examine a couple of things.
You say that,

“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.”

Let me ask you this. In the above cases, and I am sure others like it, what harm was done to others? Other than for the obvious breaking of the Gun Laws (something we here would consider unjust), what other laws were broken? Who was harmed? How was society threatened? Answer? based on the information given above, No one was threatened, or harmed by the person possessing the firearm or by his parents.
The owner merely wished to be “Free” to possess something that others ARE free to possess in your society.
Over here we have a “grass roots” principle that basically says that “my freedom stops at your nose”. It is a basic principle that says, so long as what I do does not negatively effect another, then I should be free to do it.
If I own a gun, store it and use it properly and safely, I have not negatively impacted you and you have no right to regard me with suspicion or to try to take my gun away from me based on some groundless fear.
If I point that gun at you and threaten you with it, then I have violated your freedom and should rightly be punished.

The length of sentences involving guns in crime are automatically doubled.

This I have absolutely no problem with.

The few who are allowed guns such as farmers, are regarded with suspicion.

Why? What grounds do you, as a fellow British citizen, have for regarding your fellow law abiding citizen with suspicion just because he happens to won a gun (legally)? This just plain fear mongering and has no place in a free society.
Have the British isles, and people, - the founders of modern democracy and the rule of law and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, (principles that the British people have defended in both civil and foreign wars over many centuries) have these same people departed so far from their own roots and principles that they now fear, and regard with suspicion, their fellow citizens who have given them no cause for such suspicion?
If your opinion is indeed prevalent, then it is a very sad thing.

The tension of the weapon takes us away from God.

This is an interesting statement.
Would you care to elaborate?

Peace
James

 

[Neildown]

In these free isles we don’t need to educate children about the responsible use of guns.
There aren’t any.

The tension of the weapon takes us away from God.

So, that basically means everyone is living in a false paradise where no one has the ability to shoot you within the borderlines. It also means foot soldiers that have less life experience with weapons - so essentially a less effective military in comparison to countries that DO allow firearms because many people have shot guns and become extraordinarily good at it before they even entered the military. That being said, it’s also savings for the military because they don’t have to provide extra ammunition themselves for people who don’t know how to shoot guns.

I was shooting clays with my dad & brother a few weeks back and I felt no tension between myself and God for it. Nor, when I practice my self-defense techniques [designed to incapacitate or kill] using an airsoft pistol do I feel like I’m tearing myself away from God. The “tension” one feels when holding a gun is through the overwhelmed thoughts of a person who doesn’t know how to safely use a firearm or have the responsibility to do so. When I picked up the shotgun to shoot clays I didn’t tremble, falter, or even have second thoughts; I KNEW how to use it well, and how to use it safely, and that was all that mattered. It’s no different from when one first learns how to drive a car.

 

[GEddie]

So, that basically means everyone is living in a false paradise where no one has the ability to shoot you within the borderlines.

And a society where you may be shot in the head by anybody at any moment is better?

It also means foot soldiers that have less life experience with weapons - so essentially a less effective military.

Since England has historically had the world’s finest military, I think they can deal with that. Remember, they threw our armed rural colonial guys out of Canada. Twice.

savings for the military because they don’t have to provide extra ammunition themselves for people who don’t know how to shoot guns.

There are arguments for the armed society; but saving anybody money is not a very good one.

ICXC NIKA

 

[vz71]

And a society where you may be shot in the head by anybody at any moment is better?

Those that would yield freedom for security deserve neither.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Those that would yield freedom for security deserve neither.

Hear, Hear!

 

[vz71]

And a society where you may be shot in the head by anybody at any moment is better?
vz71;8139906:

Those that would yield freedom for security deserve neither.

Actually, I need to go deeper into this.

In either the draconian gun law society or the completely free to own guns society the criminal element is the one that would be shooting people in the head.

A criminal, by definition, is acting outside the law. And draconian gun laws will not stop someone that is content to violate the law.

So the chances of being shot in the head are about the same no matter what the laws say.

Now it could be argued that you are asking about people shooting themselves in the head while cleaning their weapons.
You do have a point if that is the intent, but you may be killed in any number of accidents anytime. One may as well outlaw cars or bikes for fear someone could be in an accident.

 

[Neildown]

And a society where you may be shot in the head by anybody at any moment is better?

Hey, it keeps you on your toes. Ok, well here is another thought - the fact that they are a tiny, unarmed nation in the midst of a world that quite freely uses firearms. You aren’t going to have an armed civilian resistance if the nation is attacked, nor are citizens able to do anything if a criminal buys an illegal firearm and starts shooting at them. Sure, the police will come and take the criminal down, but only after the fact. Self defense firearms are the quickest line of action in those situations.

Another thing about gun control is the fact that someone in a higher place is controlling those guns. If you get some radicals into office [you know, like the ones we have now in the U.S] you have someone with an agenda that is controlling a citizen’s right to adequate personal protection. We have a right to own a means of sufficient protection from crime and injustice, even if it does include accidental deaths.

There are people who die accidentally from nearly every object you can find in a household.

Since England has historically had the world’s finest military, I think they can deal with that. Remember, they threw our armed rural colonial guys out of Canada. Twice.

Historically is the key word though. America vs England in THIS day and age would be a fairly different story. You also have to look at the fact that American citizens are capable of forming an armed resistance while English citizens are not. That is quite obviously because we are not as restricted in the use of firearms as the English are.

There are arguments for the armed society; but saving anybody money is not a very good one.

I’m being productive - whether its petty or not it’s +1 for my score.

 

[exnihilo]

In these free isles we don’t need to educate children about the responsible use of guns.
There aren’t any.

The tension of the weapon takes us away from God.

There is an obvious lack of logical consistency with that. If the government claims there is no responsible use of guns then there would be no responsible use of guns, even when held and wielded by them. No government has ever taken away guns from citizens and from themselves. Oddly enough most citizens even in free states tend to agree that the government tends to be more responsible than citizens in the use of guns and should be always trusted in using them. The evidence against this idea is overwhelming. And there is not a shred of proof that those who constitute the government are more responsible people.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Is it not equally “blasphemous” to say that the bible does not say something when in reality it does …So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. – John 2:15

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

“Dignity of life”? By restricting the public’s ability to defend themselves and leaving them MORE likely to be helpless victims?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=812&pictureid=9882
“England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.” – SOURCE: Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of Justice, 2001.

 

[andrew67]

ok so where do we stand. I personally like the ability to own a weapon so that if need be can defend self and or loved ones. Government infringes to much into rights of people. Sad thing is our elected officials or like the police we say this is the way it is and then do the opposite cause they feel they are above the law!

 

[Sir_Knight]

And a society where you may be shot in the head by anybody at any moment is better?

Being on equal, or superior, footing with an attacker is better than having them in an over-powering position over you.

Since England has historically had the world’s finest military, I think they can deal with that. Remember, they threw our armed rural colonial guys out of Canada. Twice.

This is the same England who was arming it’s soldiers with brooms during WWII and had to rely on the rifles sent by private American citizens.

Those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat those mistakes.