They Love their Guns More than God

Atrocities committed by governments around the world (note people still decide to support the state and its violence – drug war, taxes, etc. – rather than support peace). People must love the state more than God. There’s nothing I can write that will convince statists that the state is inherently evil.

Atrocities committed by government this year:
War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq
Sanctions against Iran, Cuba, N Korea
Why is Egypt in turmoil?
Police brutality in the US
Drug war (and all its causes of violence, like fatherless homes – since the fathers are in prison – over 50 dead in Mexico every day, etc.) – in the US and abroad.

Those are just a few. Read anti-war dot com for war related atrocities, read copblock dot org for atrocities committed by police in the US, read hrw dot org for crimes committed by governments around the world.

More cars kill people than guns, should we ban cars?

Jon

Nobody makes the argument that cars which are potentially dangerous should not have restrictions about who can drive them and how–we require people to demonstrate competency before licensing them to drive–and we have rules about where and how fast cars can go.

Why can’t you extend the car analogy to testing and licensing those who purchase and handle guns?

The banning cars argument is just one of many obfuscated smokescreens put up by the gun-love lobby. I wish I would have included it in my post. But there are so many fallacious arguments, I couldn’t possibly include them all.

Jeff,

Thanks for this, although your tone is too inflammatory for a topic that needs to be handled with great care.

I grew up with guns and have shot guns many, many times, But as I’ve gotten older, and in becoming a person of faith, the only conclusion I can draw from the ethics found in scripture is that gun use, even for self protection is completely against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, no ifs ands or buts. The bar is just set too high when it comes to our need to be responsible for the well being of the Other. I do realize that many will not be able to understand how this could be the case.

One of the problems we have in the US is that we don’t really understand the relationship of violence to the law and to freedom. Many of us believe, in essence, we are a free nation because good people did the right kind of violence to other people who were evil or posed a threat. This conflation of violence with freedom and a generalized goodness help reinforce the idea that guns are a good and important tool for people who desire to remain free. Of course in this ideology we are already crossing ethical lines because its primary understanding of the Other is as a threat to the self; and if our interactions with, or our thinking about the Other is to assess the degree to which the Other poses a threat or a risk to the self, then we have already become less Christlike.

I’ll repeat my post on why it is important that we have guns:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .

[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . .

The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . the power of creating offices. – James Madison

“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” ~James Madison

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” ~James Madison

“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” ~James Madison

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” ~James Madison

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (See They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45
by Milton Sanford Mayer)

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” ~Plato

“A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.” ~Benjamin Franklin

“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” ~George Orwell

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” ~George Washington

“We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely. In fact, we’re not ever leaving at all.” – Robert Gates

“You have to recognize that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.” – David Petraeus

(See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/bob-woodward-robert-gates_n_743409.html)

Obama has the power to assassinate Americans without due process:

Instead, in Barack Obama’s America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens — and a death penalty imposed — is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone’s guilt as a Terrorist….And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?…Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider — as the NYT reported — that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing… Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as “enemy combatants”; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished….Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind….And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration’s tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla? Bush merely imprisoned Padilla for years without a trial. If that’s a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution — and it was — what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s assassination of American citizens without any due process? – Glenn Greenwald

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants. – Barack Obama

@Douglas Hunter,

I agree that in a perfect world guns wouldn’t be needed. But do to the wickedness of man we still find ourselves needing to protect ourselves and our families. Divorce is a lower law that is allowed for the carnal state of man and so is self defense. I would say self defense is even more allowable than divorce.

Christ on self defense:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Regarding the Second Amendment, I think it’s worth noting that there are divergent reasonable interpretations — and (some) conservatives tend to ignore the “other” part, about a “well regulated militia,” which in my view actually modifies “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Yes, people who believe in Second Amendment rights must only love our guns more than God. What judgemental hooey!

RE:But as I’ve gotten older, and in becoming a person of faith, the only conclusion I can draw from the ethics found in scripture is that gun use, even for self protection is completely against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, no ifs ands or buts.

Then Joseph Smith was completely against the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Come on, people! Think before you type.

@Mike S,

As I noted before about the car thing, I agreed that it didn’t work as an argument and that we should drop it (in not so many words). So please do.

The point (about government atrocities) that I was making was that a ban or restriction on guns is the same for government. So why don’t we get rid of governments? As long as governments exist (in the form they exist today) we need to have guns enough to protect ourselves from them (as seen in the quotes from Madison, Obama, etc). This means that a rifle isn’t enough, the people need guns as big as the governments (I’ll concede I don’t want people running around with A-bombs though, but I’m fine with grenade launchers).

Part of the problem I see is that people point to all this gun violence but refuse to address the violence caused by the drug war. How many people would have to give up illicit trade and drug cartels and be peaceful and productive in society if the government didn’t cause so much of the violence? Remember what happened during the alcohol prohibition? All those people became gangsters but once it ended most of them become peaceful and productive.

Jeff, I agree completely with you. Well said.

Thought question for my gun rights friends. Mexico complains that the cartels are getting their weapons easily from U.S. suppliers, and that the U.S. (particularly my home state of AZ) is doing little to stop it. That the sales of the weapons are apparently legal to U.S. individuals, who then turn around and sell and smuggle them to the cartels. I think that gun rights people think that cracking down on this would endanger U.S. citizen rights to own and use powerful weapons.

Suppose Mexico reversed itself, and made its arms laws more lenient than the U.S.–say it even allowed fully automatic machine guns to be sold legally (or maybe grenades–are they not a form of “arms”), and that gangs and others in the U.S. began using those weapons against the police and others.

I can see two responses–1. the U.S. would allow all citizens to own machine guns and grenades, or 2. the Tea Party would insist on invading Mexico (again) this time to stop the sale of such weapons.

RE:Recognizing this is a first step in understanding the ethical dimension of scripture, and the paradoxical consequences of an ideology of violence.

An ideology of violence is far different from protecting oneself from someone who is trying to harm you. Most people who legally own guns don’t go willy-nilly in random attacks in order to assuage their ideology. Most don’t even have to use them for self-defense, either, but I wouldn’t equate having a gun with having an ideology of violence.

Jacob M,

“Yes, people who believe in Second Amendment rights must only love our guns more than God. What judgemental hooey!

First of all, Made ya look! second of all, then why not put in place some level of retriction that balances the needs of gun owners and safety for others.

Also, and this goes for all of us, the bloggernacle requires extreme headlines and topics to get a reasonable discussion going. So that is precisely why I used that title. Is it entirely true, hopefully not. but seems like it to a casual observer.

I can see this conversation going nowhere. The gun rights people won’t listen to the anti-gun people and vice versa.

I’ll make a compromise. Anything that the US police force (or any other armed governmental organization operating within the US borders) can use for weapons can be used by the US citizenry. If it is used over seas then a US citizen must apply for a permit. That seems fair to me.

@Douglas Hunter,

I would use numbers but they don’t show up in the opera browser.

Any ways. I understand where you are coming from. Just like divorce it is a thing between the couple and God. Although I disagree with it we live in a carnal state and God has allowed people to live the lower law. If people wish to rise above the carnal state in their individual lives that’s fine but God allows what He allows because of the wickedness of man.

I do not own a gun, neither, at this time, am I planning on purchasing one. In the meantime I’ll try and learn more peaceful ways of dealing with the carnal man and I will learn how to defend myself using my body. There are times when it is better to let ourselves be martyrs to be a testament against those that wish to do evil and their our times that we need to protect our neighbors from violence. But it’s an individual choice.

I don’t know if you advocate for the government to intervene but if you do then you advocate violence, if you don’t then you truly are pacifistic and a libertarian.

I know the scriptures say (D&C) that those who refuse to raise the arms against their neighbor and flee to New Jerusalem are the truly blessed of God. But that day hasn’t happened yet, but it will, I don’t know when.

I would check the premises of the initial post. Especially regarding “military-grade weapons” (such as?) and the canard that America is a significant source of the weaponry used by Mexican drug gangs (corruption within the Mexican military, which really does have “military grade” weapons, is a greater source).

Do you have a definition of an “assault weapon”? Because I find that many non-gun owners (including me, at the moment, but I know a bit about them) have no idea what the term actually refers to.

There are more people killed accidently from guns, especially children, than are ever stopped in the commission of a crime except by law enforcement.

The restrictionist Brady Campaign gives the number of people (of all ages) killed in accidental shootings as 613 in 2007.

The statistics are evidently hard to gather, but there have been studies that count the number of defensive use of firearms at between 64,615 and 2 million incidents annually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

The higher number, which has been criticized, evidently includes defensive firearm use when the gun is simply displayed without shots being fired. It’s probably on the high side. Either way, it is simply not true that there are more accidental firearm deaths than defensive firearm uses.

Regarding the Second Amendment, I think it’s worth noting that there are divergent reasonable interpretations — and (some) conservatives tend to ignore the “other” part, about a “well regulated militia,” which in my view actually modifies “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Not “ignore.” Understand. And the Supreme Court agrees with us.

If the typesetters who printed the Bill of Rights hadn’t been so promiscuous with punctuation, there wouldn’t be any confusion:

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The first clause is an explanatory clause: It states the purpose for the recognized right. In other words, because a militia (as opposed to a standing army) is necessary for a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment, even as it was curiously (and ungrammatically) punctuated, that indicates that the explanatory clause is meant to substantially modify the “right to keep and bear arms.” If the drafters wanted to say that the right to bear arms could be exercised only as a member of the militia, they could have said so:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, but only in the discharge of militia service, shall not be infringed.

We talk of “wresting scriptures.” I don’t much like “wresting” anything.

Incidentally, the whole question is academic: The “militia” of the United States consists of all men of military age, as well as female members of the National Guard. So even restricting access to firearms to the “militia” wouldn’t do much, since men of military age do most of the improper shooting.

First of all, Made ya look! second of all, then why not put in place some level of retriction that balances the needs of gun owners and safety for others.

Sadly, most gun owners just don’t trust the restrictionists to engage in a fair “balancing” — not least because so much of what they believe about guns just isn’t so. (See above.)

What would count as a good balance?

To clarify the above, I wanted to address this point:

When a human being is killed by a gun it’s not because the gun was misused and it’s not a byproduct of its use; it’s because a gun was successfully used for the purpose for which it was intended.

It depends. A gun is not manufactured with the intent that it be used unlawfully. It is manufactured with the intent that it be used to put holes only in things it’s legal to put holes in — targets, Bambi, and people intent on grave bodily harm.

A gun can also be used to put holes in things that it shouldn’t be used for. Fair enough — but so can a car be used for things it’s not officially marketed to do. Cars, you’ll note, generally don’t have their top speeds limited by governors. They are intentionally engineered to have the capacity to go far faster than is legally allowed. When some idiot street-races his Mustang at 100 mph on a city street and annihilates a woman and her baby, the car is being used for exactly the “purpose for which it was intended,” if you apply the same standards you apply to guns, to cars: Even though the car (like the gun) is intended for legal use, its capabilities encompass illegal uses as well.

“You equate people who have strong beliefs in the ineffectiveness (and totalitarian nature) of government control over arms with idolatry and mean-spiritedness. That’s what I take issue with.

Well, fair enough, but I would equally take issue with your overall premise that gun control represents a totalitarian takeover by the government. Just a total paranoid expression of the overall problem, IMO.

Jeff,

And how many people have been killed because they did not have the weapons to protect themselves from leftists, lunatic leaders, let’s see:

Germany – Hitler killed an estimated 6 million Jews and millions of others worldwide, including Americans, who had to stop this leftist kook.

Cambodia – This leftist kook killed 2 million of his own people.

Russia – The communist duo of Stalin and Lenin killed millions of their own citizens.

Cuba – This leftist, terrorist killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

China – Mao Zedung, the Communist king, killed an estimated 75 Chinese citizens.

The list goes on…

All told, we have an estimated 100 million people killed by these collectivists. Had their citizens been armed, this would not have happened. So, we either need to be armed; or, we need to stop leftists from being in charge. I’m ok with either one.

Corrections

Sorry Pol Pot on Cambodia
75 million under Mao

@Jeff, Will,

From my understanding many of those governments confiscated the weapons before they started slaughtering the people.

Will,

Excellent Hyperbole!

“All told, we have an estimated 100 million people killed by these collectivists. Had their citizens been armed, this would not have happened. So, we either need to be armed; or, we need to stop leftists from being in charge. I’m OK with either one.

We are talking about the US – here and now, not history. And as far as the government confiscating guns, prove that citizens even had them or would have been any match for the military.

Joseph Smith had a gun at Carthage jail, didn’t seem to do him much good. Of course, if he’d had an Uzi, well….

@Jeff,

You must have missed my post #10 on how our government is killing US citizens.

You must have missed the post on the drug war (over 100 drug raids per day).

Admit it. You love the state more than God. It’s not the state that solves problems, it’s the people, the state just makes things worse than they would otherwise be (like black poor kids killing black poor kids from the drug war).

SLK in SF,

“and (some) conservatives tend to ignore the “other” part, about a “well regulated militia,” which in my view actually modifies “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Actually, the courts have tended to ignore that part as well. the NRA is very good at what they do.

Jeff,

Call it what you want, the truth is mass killing by those governing (like those mentioned) will never take place in an armed society.

When those Governing fear those that elected them it is called freedom. When the people fear those governing it is called tyranny.

Henry,

I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

I’ve got a samurai sword. 🙂

and who could forget Afghanistan….only the Americans have guns there…

And Jeff, another point here: I don’t think that phrase “gun lovers” is particularly civil.

These are people who believe they have a natural and constitutional right to own arms — to take responsibility for their own defense, if it should become necessary. They aren’t “gun lovers” any more than supporters of civil rights were “n-word lovers.”

You’re mocking, not debating.

However, besides those made for hunting, guns are made for the purpose of shooting human beings.

Why do I keep having to say this? THERE’S NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH SHOOTING HUMAN BEINGS.

It can be perfectly legal to do so; sometimes it may be morally superior to the alternative. (I would consider a man immoral, who sat by and witnessed a rape when he could have double-tapped the rapist.)

Consequently, the fact that a gun may designed to kill human beings, has no bearing whatsoever on whether it can be compared to a car.

“The argument “But a gun is designed to kill people!” relies on the premise that killing people is always wrong.”

This is simply not true. I argued against the car analogy for the sole reason that it’s a bad analogy; I have no problem with the killing of people in many circumstances. The simple fact is that cars are made with a primary purpose and guns are made with a primary purpose, and the two purposes have nothing whatever to do with each other. Furthermore, the number of incidents in which people use cars compared to those in which harm occurs, either purposefully or accidentally, is miniscule in comparison to the number of incidents in which a person uses a gun and someone is harmed, since, again, the purpose of guns is to harm people. A fact which is ok with me. It’s just a bad argument, plain and simple.

#61 – Dan, just because shooting another human being deeply affects the shooter, often in permanent and negative ways, does not prove that there’s something wrong with it. My uncle is a doctor who volunteered in Haiti after the earthquake there, and attending to the people there affected him in permanent, negative ways. He was traumatized by it. Does that mean there was something wrong with the action of treating the people there?

I’m not saying shooting someone is wrong or right, but anecdotal arguments like that don’t prove anything one way or another. Some people believe it’s wrong to ever kill anyone for any reason. Others believe there are people on earth who deserve to be dead and making that happen is a public service. Who’s right? It’s unknowable. The closest thing there is to authority on the subject is secular governments or religious texts or traditions, and neither one of those is a conclusive moral authority. You obviously believe killing another person is wrong, but that doesn’t make it so.

Jeff, the Joseph Smith example was related to the gentleman who said that the Gospel of Christ is against violence, always. Joseph Smith was God’s prophet, so I think it ended up ok on his part even if he took a gun and used it. I wasn’t using it in the context you are.

Also, I would make an arguement that what I said was not a paranoid rant, but a more libertarian viewpoint on government in general. It would take way too much time to do it right in this context.

brjones,

Dan, just because shooting another human being deeply affects the shooter, often in permanent and negative ways, does not prove that there’s something wrong with it.

That’s just one thing. There are multitude of reasons it is wrong. The fact that there’s no coming back from death. The fact that the shooter is in some way affected. The fact that the dead person has family who are now viscerally adversely affected (and in some parts of the world, vow vengeance for the death of their loved one, thus leading to ever more violence). While I have said that there are justifications for taking the life of another, when someone says some absolute as “nothing at all wrong”, you’ve gotta have red flags going up in your head, brjones. On a topic as this one, surely you realize the folly of making such an absolute statement.

“And Jeff, another point here: I don’t think that phrase “gun lovers” is particularly civil.

TRULY? What is more appropriate appropriate term? Gun owner? Gun affectionato, Gun possessor?

Thomas,

What is “wrong” about a justified killing, is not so much the act itself, but the circumstance that forced you into making that moral but painful choice. The moral wrong, then, is the responsibility of the person who created the situation.

What you fail to understand in saying an absolute as “nothing” wrong is that even if you feel justified, there will always be someone out there who will be greatly affected in an adverse way by your taking the life of another, and that leads, generally, to more violence. Or at least to great suffering to someone. There is something wrong with the taking of a life, whether justified or not. I don’t claim to the notion that people shouldn’t die. I’m not going to weep if Osama Bin Laden is found with 1000 bullet holes in his body. I have no problem with those two guys in Connecticut getting the death penalty for their heinous crime (invading a family’s home, beating up the husband, leaving him in the basement to die, stealing their money, raping the wife and the two daughters, spraying them with gasoline and lighting the house on fire). Die you bastards. I had no problem with Tookie Williams being executed for creating the Bloods gang (or was it the Crips). Bye bye dude. But those actions inevitably affect someone else. This world is imperfect in almost every way, Thomas. And when we take a life, it adds to the imperfection.

“Why don’t you guys ever touch on war?”

I can do war next week.

Thomas,

Fair enough. You’ve got one somewhat known writer throwing the idea out there to abolish the second amendment. Good on him. I’m of course tempted to counter with a red herring about how many people on the other side wish to abolish the 14th and 17th amendments, but there’s no point. I don’t agree with Shapiro and it seems few have listened to him.

@Jeff,

Awesome. War week would be fun.

@Thomas,

Remember that the bill of rights was originally meant for the federal government (it wasn’t until the 14th that it applied to the states). So really there shouldn’t be any laws on speech or guns, etc. The states were supposed to regulate guns, speech, etc. The 14th made everything muddled.

Of course, the speech amendment was violated pretty quickly with the “Something” & seditions act by what’s his name president, I believe before Jefferson.

Jon,

Of course, the speech amendment was violated pretty quickly with the “Something” & seditions act by what’s his name president, I believe before Jefferson.

That would be John Adams….sheesh, really, you need to study up your US history… 😉

brjones,

Thomas said there is nothing inherently wrong with shooting another person, which to me means it all depends on the context.

huh? You do realize the word “nothing” is an absolute. Nothing closes off loopholes, just as “everything” also closes off loopholes. So there’s nothing inherently wrong with being a racist, right, brjones?

This world is imperfect in almost every way, Thomas. And when we take a life, it adds to the imperfection.

Again, a fundamental moral disagreement. I believe taking the life of a murderer, restores at least some small part of the rightness of the universe.

I believe taking a life to prevent a murder, does not add a single particle to the “imperfection” of the world. To the extent the sum of imperfection is increased — for instance, by causing you to have nightmares for the rest of your life — it’s not your act that did it. It was the would-be murderer’s.

It is not the morally sound conclusion to the chain of events started by a wrongdoer that adds to the imperfection of the universe. It is the original cause — the decision to aggress — that is responsible, and thus the only act in the sequence that can be called “wrong.”

there will always be someone out there who will be greatly affected in an adverse way by your taking the life of another, and that leads, generally, to more violence.

That’s the old “an eye for the eye leaves the whole world blind” saw, which has the misfortune of not being remotely connected with reality. If each act of violence inevitably led to more violence, then the violence curve should have sloped up exponentially, exterminating the human race long ago. Instead, the world has been getting progressively less violent ever since we stopped being hunter-gatherers. (It’s hard to believe, after a century like last one, but by medieval or even early modern standards, on a percentage basis, the 20th century was an unprecedented age of peace.)

Alien & Sedition Act, by John Adams, to be precise.

Ah, the battle over human rights is eternal.

And Jeff, there already are regulations about the sale and possession of weapons. They are just ineffective, and to make them effective would probably not be human rights friendly or cost efficient.

Thomas,

I believe taking the life of a murderer, restores at least some small part of the rightness of the universe.

well, yeah, if you’ve got the right guy. Gotta make sure we’re not, for instance, executing more blacks…

I believe taking a life to prevent a murder, does not add a single particle to the “imperfection” of the world.

you can see into the future? How would you know a murder is to occur unless you’ve got psychic powers?

it’s not your act that did it. It was the would-be murderer’s.

What if you are the murderer because you took the life of someone who hadn’t committed the crime yet, since we’re talking here of futuristic hypotheticals?

(It’s hard to believe, after a century like last one, but by medieval or even early modern standards, on a percentage basis, the 20th century was an unprecedented age of peace.)

hmm, I would be interested to see statistics on this, but I recall that we don’t really have good statistics from centuries past so this is not a very good statement. Clearly in the 20th century we didn’t see as much proportional death as for example the 14th century, but then again, they had to deal with some massive plague and a cooling planet. Those deaths weren’t because people killed each other. But then again, in the 20th century, we sure had a lot of people die at the hands of other people, usually at the point of a gun. Honestly, I cannot see how anyone would claim the 20th century was us at our most peaceful. maybe in Bizzarro world.

#87 – I didn’t type fast enough, Thomas.

“What if you are the murderer because you took the life of someone who hadn’t committed the crime yet, since we’re talking here of futuristic hypotheticals?”

Come on, Dan. If that’s the standard we’re using then even self-defense wouldn’t be ok unless and until someone had actually started physically assaulting you. By your rationale, it’s not justified because they could hypothetically decide not to pull the trigger of the gun they’re pointing at your head. This doesn’t seem to me to be a very workable standard.

Dan,

Re: relative rates of violence, here’s a good reference, originally published in The New Republic:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

“If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.”

World War II killed staggering numbers of people — but did so in the context of an unprecedentedly large global population. Percentage-wise, earlier wars were much worse. The Thirty Years War, for instance, reduced the population of the German states by a full third.

Thomas,

I actually did skim over that part. I don’t doubt the violence of the 14th century was exceptionally high. Crop failures, the Little Ice Age, and the black death, tend to bring out the worst in everybody. But I’m sorry, when it comes to overall violence, there was no century more violent than the 20th.

I’d like people to stay in the here and now. The past, except recent, is of no regard to the problem I am concerned about. I am not sure why we try to make excuses for today’s behavior and problem by going back hundreds of years. Other than a rational discussion of the intent of the 2nd amendment, the rest is superfluous.

Firetag,

But your last comment seems to suggest only that there is now more violence because there are now many more people than in the 14th Century. The per capita numbers would appear more relevant.

Not at all. There is more violence now because we have far easier ways to kill one another than at any other time in world history. The difference is that we’ve vastly outgrown our ability to kill ourselves. I think a true comparison between the violence of the 20th century and that of the 14th century would have to take into account birth rates as well. The world exploded in population over the 20th century. On the other hand, in the 14th century, population declined dramatically thanks to the Black Death.

Douglas:

What is the point that you are saying FireTag is missing?

Thanks,
TH

#113 Man… you need to get out of your gated, bars on the windows community more… ever been to Salinas, California? That’s definitely a blue area… Violent crime is what.. 4 times the national average? compare that to Ogden, UT. I mean really, what the…?

@Jeff,

We can’t understand the present if we don’t understand the past. What’s the point of reading the scriptures if this were not so? Historical context is desperately needed in a world that doesn’t know the past (including myself).

Jon, it was a movie with Nicole Kidman. It was pretty good.

#119 Jeff, I can think of a lot of legitimate scenarios where killing another human being could be necessary. Also when the – hits the fan it’ll probably be good to have something that uses the same type of round as what our military or foreign militaries use.

Please note if you believe that your hand gun is protecting you from the government, your crazy..

1989 Tiananmen Square, that iconic image of the lone protester in front of the tank.

In modern times much more is achieved through peaceful protest than exchanging gun fire.

It’s a good question about God & Gun Control, I’d put it this way statistically Liberals are more intelligent, they are better educated, they live longer, they have lower BMI’s and are on the whole less likely to shoot someone in the head.

You can’t argue with facts.

Henry,

There are numberless situations where you might have to defend yourself with deadly force. Humanity is just not that good as you envision.

Numberless? I have yet, in my 35+ years of existence have had the need to defend myself with deadly force. My parents have yet (in their 60+ years of existence) had the need to defend themselves with deadly force. I know of no one in my sphere of influence that has actually needed to defend themselves with deadly force. And I’ve moved around quite a lot in the states. I know people in Alaska, California, Texas, Utah, and the Northeast. In none of those places do I personally know anyone who has had a need to defend with deadly force. And that’s just in the violent United States. No need to mention my friends over in Europe who have also, never needed to defend themselves with deadly force. I don’t discount the need to be prepared, but we also need to be realistic. Training ourselves like some samurai is utterly pointless because of the nature of the society in which we live today. What is the chance that any one of us will encounter a situation where our lives might be in danger from someone who wishes to do us harm? Very very low, if at all. Here in New York City, for instance, last year there were 600 some odd murders. That is so extremely low for an American city of 8 million people. (not low when you compare with, say, London or Paris…it is then that you realize just how violent we are as a society). What’s more important about that 600 murders is that by far the vast majority of that number comes from people who know each other. In other words, in New York City, you are more likely to die at the hands of someone you know than some stranger. Most likely an angry boyfriend, or over drugs, or who knows what else. The rate of violence toward strangers is very very low. The actual need to prepare to use deadly force is a myth used to keep people fearing for their lives so they can cling to their guns.

Dan:
It’s the reality of today’s society that you may have to use deadly force to defend yourself and/or your loved ones. A man came home and found his wife about to be raped by her assailant. Do you think that diplomacy is going to work here?

@Jeff Spector (#50) – Well said (particularly as regards the NRA). Thanks for your reply — and thanks for the interesting post.

@alice,

So you’re saying that, because they owned guns they were a danger to everyone around them? But then the feds had guns and they weren’t? Yet the feds were the ones that killed innocent men, women, and children.

Save lives, disarm the police and the state in general:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/01/about-that-war-on-cops.html

@Jeff,
You worry so much about the children but the state kills more people than a society that has guns. Why focus on something that would make so little change when we can abolish the state (not to be confused with the government) and save so many more lives than this almost non existent gun problem (compared to how many people are killed by the state, or indirectly killed by the state, like the drug war).

@Mr Q&A,
“are on the whole less likely to shoot someone in the head.”

Yet they are willing to back the state and it’s murderous programs, like taxation. Look at the gun in the room, you use the state to use violence (or the threat thereof) to take from one group of people in order to provide services for another group of people. You talk of yourself as so pious yet you threaten more violence than the conservative that owns a gun.

BTW, conservatives are more like to give, of there own free will, money to the poor, liberals are more likely to advocate that the government steal from others to provide services for some. Watch John Stossel.

Henry,

It’s the reality of today’s society that you may have to use deadly force to defend yourself and/or your loved ones.

It’s not reality.

A man came home and found his wife about to be raped by her assailant. Do you think that diplomacy is going to work here?

Actually yes. If you are coming home and you see some dude about to rape your wife, you can actually stop him without shooting him. You don’t actually need a gun to stop him from doing the dirty deed. You can phrase this scenario in any which way you want and there are ways you can stop someone from doing bad things without actually using a gun.

I go into the world hoping I don’t have to use my gun but knowing circumstances may dictate the necessity.

I go into the world hoping I don’t have to use my gun, breathing a sigh of relief knowing circumstances dictate I won’t need to.

Jon,

BTW, conservatives are more like to give, of there own free will, money to the poor, liberals are more likely to advocate that the government steal from others to provide services for some. Watch John Stossel.

Take your bullcrap someplace else, Jon.

Dan:
Trust in God but lock your car.

Henry,

Don’t you mean, Trust in God but use your gun anyways? Locking a car doesn’t kill someone.

@alice,

And once again we see who was more dangerous than the armory. The government that is supposed to protect us, but instead slaughter’s its own people.

Save lives, disarm the state.

Jon,

When you show me a scripture where Jesus himself says that we should cling to our guns, then I will endorse that Jesus wanted us to abolish the state. Otherwise I’m going to trust the Lord wanted us to create organized states with the monopoly on violence.

@Jeff,

Help me understand your non understanding.

@brjones,

Before we go any further I think we should be on the same terms. The state is different from government. The state is that which kills and maims and steals, government is that which maintains order. See the short book “War is a Racket” where Major General Butler goes over what the state is vs government:
http://www.archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

Why do I have the goal? If we don’t understand the principles and we don’t understand where we are headed how can we take steps to head there?

If people think I’m radical so be it. I just want people to acknowledge the principles and to say, well the principle is this but I advocate the other.

Take for example, how much taxes are to much? What’s the principle? Well, the principle is “Thou shalt not steal.” What is theft? Is it not the involuntary transaction between two parties? So, according the principle the only righteous taxation is voluntary taxation. Will we get there overnight? No. How is it possible to get there? Well, we would need a society that would be found when Christ reigns. How will he reign? I don’t think it will be much different than he reigns now, he’s already my King. Teach correct principles and they’ll rule themselves, albeit with a righteous society. This is why I advocate that which I advocate. I’ve noticed that when government tries to step in society only becomes more corrupt. People are compelled to be righteous (i.e., they learn to do good) when the natural laws that reign over all of us are allowed to take effect. Unfortunately, government (or the state) obfuscates this and creates an undulant people.

I was driving around with a friend one night when a car began following us. My friend had apparently upset some guy who was now after him with a few of his friends. They kept tailgating us, and would occasionally pull along side of our car and yell obscenities.

I decided the best course of action would be to drive to a public place and hopefully find safety in numbers. I quickly drove to a 24 hour restaurant, pulled into the parking lot and parked. The other car followed us into the parking lot.

We got out to go into the restaurant, but as we did so, I noticed that the occupants of the other car also exited, and did so holding various types of blunt force weapons (baseball bats, tire iron, etc.). I realized that we were in serious trouble, and that we weren’t going to make it inside.

Fortunately, I had a Ruger P85 9mm in the trunk of my car. I quickly opened the trunk, inserted a clip, racked the slide, and watched the four guys that had been following us get back in their car and drive off. Problem solved.

As was true in my case, most firearms used for self-defense are never fired. The presence of the gun is enough to disarm the situation. That’s why you never hear about these cases in the media.

When I lived in Arizona and Kentucky, I always open carried everywhere I went, which is my preference. That’s not an option where I live now, but I’m still armed, and still very dangerous to bad guys.

Here’s a link to a story that did not make it to the mainstream media, which shows the benefits of open carry:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

#129 Jeff, obviously you don’t disagree with my statement “I can think of a lot of legitimate scenarios where killing another human being could be necessary.”

The difference between you and me is that you’re alright with that as long as their is some sort of terrestrial “authority” at play when one human kills another. I would imagine you might have as much “faith” in the government at any give time as any pious religious type person does in “God”. That’s the difference between me and you. I’m a skeptic.

@brjones,

I agree that we are apathetic or ignorant, that’s why education is so important. So people will know what is the ideal.

I think what many people miss is the fact that we are only “free” because we don’t try to exercise our freedoms. There’s plentiful examples of this all over the US. Luckily for the internet and cameras/video we can push back but the violence of the state still increases.

Look up Pastor Anderson from Tucson, AZ and his story about trying to exercise his 4th amendment rights while driving in the US. There are over 100 drug raids every day in the US, we have the highest per capita incarceration rate. We have a president that can assassinate his own citizens. We are told that we are at war with no end. Are borders are becoming more and more closed. Wealthy people cannot expatriate the US without a huge financial hit. These are not markers of a free nation.

Read “The Politics of Obedience” and think about he bread and circuses he talks about. That’s what we live under. Sure, we might be better off than other nations around the globe but that doesn’t mean we are free.

Jon,

Some of the anarcho-capatilists over at LRC claim that Somalia is better off stateless than its neighboring countries and that it has more order and prosperity – even with US governmental interference that brings more bloodshed to the region. I don’t know enough about the situation to make my own conclusion but it would be interesting to learn about.

ah, true freedom. Quick, let’s all move to Somalia where we can be pirates and make millions off our booty! The true irony of Jon’s whacked ideas is that he thinks the pirate world of Somalia is in any way better than America, even though Somalis thrive on theft. What a complete utterly stupid ideology…

When the millennial time comes there wouldn’t be any need for the state since people will live the higher standard and there will be no need to steal from one other through government, there will be no military (since there will be no war), no police, etc.

What about homosexuals? What about Muslims? What about anyone other than white Christians? Will they be around?

So how will people resolve disputes, I think through the free market and agreed upon arbitrators. It is utopian but I also think it would work better than what we have now.

well, sure under the constant threat of force by The King (a.k.a. Jesus Christ), why would anyone misbehave? Exactly how much freedom will we have, Jon? Will we be able to say no to Jesus Christ? Will we be free to think for ourselves? Will we be allowed to be different?

I may be idealizing but I think it’s important to try and figure out what the utopia would look like and the principles that back it. Then we can know where to head.

That’s utterly ridiculous because an utopia never considers all the parts of actual reality. I don’t see much about homosexuals and how they will live in the Millennium. And that is because that utopia does not account for them. If homosexuals are around in that utopia, then why are we being so harsh with them now? Homosexuals do not appear in that utopia, thus we are justified in being mean to them now because eventually they will not be around anymore. Will there be Jews in the Millennium? Jews don’t believe in Jesus Christ, and if I understand the Rapture Ideology well, Jews have to die in order for Christ to come back. So we’re being very nice to Jews right now, protecting their “homeland” until it becomes our homeland. After all, we believe Christ will rule from two places. Those who do not believe in Christ, in Jerusalem, will probably not be around when he rules there. Where do they go? They die of course.

I think what many people miss is the fact that we are only “free” because we don’t try to exercise our freedoms.

What freedoms do you think we are not exercising? Look, I can call you stupid and no governmental force is coming here to stop me. I can say “F*** America” or F**** the police and they won’t come to stop me from saying those things. I can even burn the American flag! I can, if I so choose, drink alcohol. If I so choose, I could abuse my daughter. I could abuse my wife. I could ruin my teeth. I could brush my teeth forever. I could go run a marathon. I could sit on my couch all day. I could write a song. I could not write a song. I could buy a gun. I could not buy a gun.

I’m surprised there wasn’t more of a discussion about how high carb diets or alcohol kill more people … 😉

So… Jeff, I just want to make sure I understand your position on this… should a guy like me (ten years in the army, experienced with small arms) be able to own a semi-auto AR-15 (kinda looks like an M-16, 20 or 30 round magazines 5.56MM.) If not then why?

@brjones,

I hope my previous comment didn’t come off to off putting towards you. I guess I’m just not buying your argument “Most people won’t buy into what you say is freedom therefore you shouldn’t advocate it and should join the masses in our current view.” I guess that is what I see as your general premise and it seems weak. Just because the masses like something or believe something won’t dissuade me from beliefs that I think are true. I would have to see a rational argument against my own.

@Dan
My point about the lone Tiananmen Square protester is: it would look pathetic if this protester was holding a gun at the tank, if any of you think that you can hold the government to ransom with your “Sticks & Stones” then just look at Waco.

Now the image of the lone protester holding two shopping bags is inspirational, it promoted thought this lone protester has never been seen again but the legacy he has left behind has caused a change of thought around the world.

@Jon
I agree I’m willing to put guns in the hands of those groups trained & appointed to use them, I also allow the democratically elected Government choose where those guns should go, They make mistakes but on the whole a organised group is more cautious than individuals, if individuals were given to shoot on site then anyone wearing a backpack would need a Kevlar vest.

Finally your last point for the sake of argument I’ll agree that conservatives are more willing to give MONEY to others however as every individual will always be bias or have an agenda, a diverse elected organisation of piers is better suited to consider the needs of the entire group.

Mr. Q&A,

My point about the lone Tiananmen Square protester is: it would look pathetic if this protester was holding a gun at the tank, if any of you think that you can hold the government to ransom with your “Sticks & Stones” then just look at Waco.

Okay, let’s unpack this a bit. You have two different scenarios. The “sticks and stones” Waco and the pathetic tank protester. I’m not sure what you mean about holding the government ransom with Waco. You do realize the Branch Davidians were heavily armed with far more than “sticks and stones.” I’m just wanting to be clear about this. The government wasn’t going after them because they had spears, and were rock throwers a la Braveheart. I’m also not sure that the Branch Davidians were attemptingn to “hold the government to ransom” whatever that means. Frankly I don’t care one bit about the Branch Davidians.

The lone Tiananmen Square protester is a far more fascinating story. He was a worker, not a student. He was there to tell the soldiers, “hey man, please don’t go there.” He stopped the tank and then went up to talk to the soldier. Afterwards, he went home. We’ve so misinterpreted that communication in America, because we think this guy was trying to “hold the government to ransom” as you put it. It wasn’t that at all. The workers of China rejected the student protesters. They refused to join with the students. And what’s worse (for the American perspective) is that the students were not protesting to overthrow the Chinese government. No, they were protesting for reforms. They themselves were organized in their protest on Tiananmen Square just like the Chinese government was organized. They didn’t look for democracy for China. They just wanted the Chinese Communist Party to reform some things.

Thus, the worker who stopped the tank would have looked very ridiculous holding a gun. Because for the one part, he would not have been effective. The tank would have definitely run him over if he had a gun.

Now the image of the lone protester holding two shopping bags is inspirational, it promoted thought this lone protester has never been seen again but the legacy he has left behind has caused a change of thought around the world.

well, at least in America…maybe Europeans liked this. But it is highly unlikely anyone else in any other part of the world even knew this occurred.

@Dan
You made my point exactly:

“The tank would have definitely run him over if he had a gun.”
If you play a Gun game against the government then they will raise the stakes making any artillery you have look like “sticks & Stones” in Waco David Koresh thought they were armed to the teeth until the ATF used tanks that shoot FIRE.
Gandhi was right non violent Civil-disobedience is the only way to effect change without catastrophic loss of life and loosing international sympathy.

@brjones,

Well, it just like they said in “Brave New World”. They thought the few were crazy because they recognized their slavery and the insaneness of the bread and circuses the people were receiving.

If I recall you’re not religious but bringing religion into it anyway. I agree with the sentiment Christ gave when he asked who were free, the Romans or the Jews? The Romans because they paid no taxes. The last great enslavement is that of the people towards the taxing loving ruling class.

@Dan,

Christ as king in a spiritual sense, not in the sense that man sees a king. Of course, you would need spiritual eyes to see that.

As I’ve said before, anytime you advocate the state to force people to do things, whether they like it or not, you advocate for violence. Plain and simple. I advocate for none of that. Neither do I advocate the use of violence any where else. If I recall right, you advocated violence against me in one of our first discussions.

Jon,

Christ as king in a spiritual sense, not in the sense that man sees a king. Of course, you would need spiritual eyes to see that.

Are you judging me?

On Christ being King, dude, I am quite familiar with the scriptures. This is no “spiritual sense” crap. He’s to be the actual King, the actual ruler.

As I’ve said before, anytime you advocate the state to force people to do things, whether they like it or not, you advocate for violence.

Yes, I believe the state should have the monopoly on the use of violence within its boundaries. No question there.

Neither do I advocate the use of violence any where else.

Yes you do. You advocate the abolishment of the state. That’s a violent act. Your refusal to answer my question of which Americans we must kill in order to further your goal of abolishing the state is notable.

If I recall right, you advocated violence against me in one of our first discussions.

You’re going to have to show me where I advocated violence against you dude.

@Dan,

Remember what I wrote before? You don’t need violence to overthrow the state. You don’t need to kill anyone. Read, “The Politics of Obedience” dude.

Christ is already my king. I see no authoritarian rule over me from Him. Only natural laws that He must also obey.

It was where Christ got the money from the fish to pay taxes. Of course, you will distort the scriptures like you always do.

Jon,

Christ is already my king. I see no authoritarian rule over me from Him. Only natural laws that He must also obey.

Then you do not understand the scriptures you profess to know. Jesus Christ is to be the actual king of the world under Mormon doctrine. The spirit of the law will come from Jerusalem and the letter of the law from Missouri. Who do you think will still run the countries of the world, Jon? Who will still maintain order? Will we be electing representatives? Or is Christ going to rule the world magically all by himself? Will people be under some spell to never ever say no to him? Will no one be allowed to reject him when he is right in front of them?

It was where Christ got the money from the fish to pay taxes. Of course, you will distort the scriptures like you always do.

hmm, let’s read the actual scripture. I believe you are referring to Matthew 17, which the KJV reads:

24¶And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

From these verses you get:

I agree with the sentiment Christ gave when he asked who were free, the Romans or the Jews? The Romans because they paid no taxes. The last great enslavement is that of the people towards the taxing loving ruling class.

ah, how little you know your own scriptures, Jon. You conflate these verses from Matthew 17 with those of the “render unto Caesar” verses, but if you actually know your scriptures, you’d see that this tribute had nothing to do with the Romans. Let’s look at two sources that will clarify this. Here is the NRSV translation of Matthew 17:

24 When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax* came to Peter and said, ‘Does your teacher not pay the temple tax?’* 25He said, ‘Yes, he does.’ And when he came home, Jesus spoke of it first, asking, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?’ 26When Peter* said, ‘From others’, Jesus said to him, ‘Then the children are free. 27However, so that we do not give offence to them, go to the lake and cast a hook; take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a coin;* take that and give it to them for you and me.’

Notice a difference? Let’s continue on with Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, one of the best authoritative commentaries on the bible. Here is what he had to say:

Verse 24. They that received tribute] This was not a tax to be paid to the Roman government; but a tax for the support of the temple. The law, Exod. xxx. 13, obliged every male among the Jews to pay half a shekel yearly; for the support of the temple; and this was continued by them wherever dispersed, till after the time of Vespasian, see Josephus, WAR, book 7. c. 6, who ordered it afterwards to be paid into the Roman treasury.

The word in the text, which is generally translated tribute- ta didracma, signifies the didrachma, or two drachms. This piece of money was about the value of two Attic drachms, each equal to fifteen pence of our money.

The didrachma of the Septuagint, mentioned Exod. xxx. 13, was twice as heavy as the Attic, for it was equal to a whole shekel, this being the value of that piece of money at Alexandrina, the place where the Septuagint translation was made; for the half shekel mentioned in the above passage, they render hmisu tou didacmou, the half of a didrachma.

Verse 25. He saith, Yes.] From this reply of Peter, it is evident that our Lord customarily paid all taxes, tributes, &c., which were common among the people wherever he came. The children of God are subject to all civil laws in the places where they live -and should pay the taxes levied on them by public authority; and though any of these should be found unjust, THEY rebel not, as their business is not to reform the politics of nations, but the morals of the world.

Verse 26. Then are the children free] As this money is levied for the support of that temple of which I am the Lord, then I am not obliged to pay the tax; and my disciples, like the priests that minister, should be exempted from the necessity of paying.

Verse 27. Lest we-offend them] Be a stumbling-block to the priests, or rulers of the Jews, I will pay the tribute-go thou to the sea-cast a hook, and take the first fish-thou shalt find a piece of money, stathra, a stater.

This piece of money was equal in value to four drachms, or two shekels, (five shillings of our money,) and consequently was sufficient to pay the tribute for our Lord and Peter, which amounted to about half-a-crown each. If the stater was in the mouth or belly of the fish before, who can help admiring the wisdom of Christ, that discovered it there? If it was not before in the mouth of the fish, who can help admiring the power of Christ, that impelled the fish to go where the stater had been lost in the bottom of the sea, take it up, come towards the shore where Peter was fishing, and, with the stater in its mouth or stomach, catch hold of the hook that was to draw it out of the water? But suppose there was no stater there, which is as likely as otherwise, then Jesus created it for the purpose, and here his omnipotence was shown; for to make a thing exist that did not exist before is an act of unlimited power, however small the thing itself may be. Some suppose that the haddock was the fish caught by Peter, because this fish has a blackish mark on each side of its neck or shoulders, as seems to exhibit the impression of a finger and thumb. The haddock is the gadus eglesinus. But this being a sea fish, could not be a native of the sea of Galilee or Tiberias, &c., for the river Jordan runs through the sea of Galilee, and falls into the Dead Sea, which has no outlet to the ocean: no sea fish of any kind can be found there; and we may add to this, that Belzoni, a learned traveler, who examined the produce of the lake of Tiberias, found only trouts, pikes, chevins, and tenches. That it may, besides these, have some fishes peculiar to itself, as most extensive fresh water lakes have, need not be denied; but it could have no sea fish.

As you can clearly see, your interpretation of this scripture is about the total opposite of what it actually is.

Jeff,

Are you suggesting that Satan is imaginary, and that he has no desire to vanquish liberty in this land? Is all well in Zion?

Just think of us like Helaman and the 2000 stripling nutjubs. 🙂

Gandhi was right non violent Civil-disobedience is the only way to effect change without catastrophic loss of life and loosing international sympathy.

on that i wholeheartedly agree.

That kind of thing works against an English-speaking society that values its self-image as an enlightened democracy. You can count on one hand the number of times it’s worked in any other context.

A genuine tyrant will just shoot, shovel, and shut up. Would-be-Gandhi problem solved.

“Who is more paranoid?”

I think that one is pretty clear.

Then we will cordially disagree.

A gun in my possession is no more danger to you than Martin Luther King’s arsenal of guns was to his neighbors.

Thomas,

#197,

I think, if I understand Jeff’s point, what he’s saying is that when someone claims they’ve got the guns and the patriotism to “defend the Constitution”, the scary part is that the Constitution’s definitions are still in flux, and were so from the very beginning. That some are willing to use their guns to “defend the Constitution” is scary, because, well, exactly who’s interpretation of the Constitution are they defending?

Thomas,

#200,

It worked with Martin Luther King Jr. A peaceful protest. Certainly you can count on one hand, maybe two the amount of times this kind of stuff works, but that is because there aren’t many instances where this kind of protest is actually needed or warranted. For instance, does anyone actually know what Jon is protesting? Because it certainly isn’t clear to me. Who know what he means by “abolish the state” because he hasn’t made that clear. On the other hand, the two instances we are talking about here, Gandhi and MLK, the goals were very very clear and easy for everyone to understand.

by the way, I am amused that my comments (#192,193) have three dislikes already…i would joke that the wicked take the truth to be hard, but that would give me more dislikes 🙂 I guess we don’t like understanding the actual scriptures anymore….just whatever fits our contemporary ideologies…

Thomas,

The one they believe, upon due consideration, is most faithful to the legitimate meaning, of course.

What if the one I believe, upon due consideration, is the most faithful to the legitimate meaning, but which happens to fundamentally disagree with theirs? Do I lose because they have guns and I don’t?

but if it ever came down to someone actually trying to abolish those fundamental principles altogether, I certainly hope good liberals would join with their “paranoid” opponents, in making sure that didn’t happen.

Was Timothy McVeigh defending the Constitution or was he trying to abolish those fundamental principles altogether?

oh Thomas, really? You’re going to limit yourself to “English speaking”….I guess the protests of 1989 happened only in England and America….

What if the one I believe, upon due consideration, is the most faithful to the legitimate meaning, but which happens to fundamentally disagree with theirs? Do I lose because they have guns and I don’t?

Only if the disagreement goes to the root of fundamental, non-negotiable principles. If so, then — yeah, probably. I can’t think of a single instance where the outcome has been otherwise.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Wisdom, or paranoia? What, if anything, specific do you disagree with in this? Is there ever a right of rebellion?

Thomas,

Wisdom, or paranoia? What, if anything, specific do you disagree with in this? Is there ever a right of rebellion?

you mean like South Carolina rebelling in 1860? I think the Civil War proved that there are indeed fundamental differences at the core of the interpretation of the Constitution, which, as we’ve seen with the South today still defending their silly rebellion, are not resolved. Will those who believe in “states rights” resort to their guns again? Must we bitch-slap them back into submission? 😉

you mean like South Carolina rebelling in 1860?

I had more in mind Massachusetts in 1775. And so again — Assuming we’re not talking about some obnoxious slaveowning hypocrites who for some inexplicable reason put mustard on their barbecue, is there ever a moral right of rebellion? Or was John Wesley right, and the American revolutionaries were acting contrary to the moral order, no matter how real their grievances?

I think the Civil War proved that there are indeed fundamental differences at the core of the interpretation of the Constitution, which, as we’ve seen with the South today still defending their silly rebellion, are not resolved.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Civil War pretty much settled the question of whether the Constitution permits secession.

Must we bitch-slap them back into submission?

Good luck with that.

Thomas,

is there ever a moral right of rebellion?

I do think there is a moral right to rebellion. Massachusetts 1775 was moral. South Carolina 1860 was immoral. The grievance has to be legitimate and account for the rights of all who are grieved. In the case of South Carolina, the debate was over whether South Carolina could continue holding a segment of the population as slaves. South Carolina was on the wrong side of the moral question. In Massachusetts, the question was whether citizens of the British empire in that colony would actually be allowed to be represented in Parliament so they could at least have a say over the taxation of their colony. That is a legitimate, moral complaint. The French peasants revolting against their king over crop failures and poor economic reform is a legitimate moral complaint. The Egyptian people, legitimately and morally complaining against their dictator failing to provide them a safe and economically prosperous land. The modern Tea Party, on the other hand, as an example, has no legitimate complaint. They’re just spoiled brats.

The Egyptian people, legitimately and morally complaining against their dictator failing to provide them a safe and economically prosperous land.

Now, if the dictator had just succeeded in providing a safe and economically prosperous land, that would have been fine.

I can’t remember who once paraphrased Orwell to the effect that wherever there is a boot stomping on a human face, there will be a Western liberal pointing out with a knowing tone that the face does after all enjoy universal health coverage and a 100% literacy rate.

“Doesn’t Mexico provide a useful counterexample?”

Actually Mexico provides the examplethat free market greed here in the US and in other countries is fueling the arming of the drug lords. If no one would sell them weapons, they couldn’t get them.

Granted those selling them are not good people, but at least here in the US, good enough to legetiamtely buy guns over the counter and turn around and sell them accross the border.

Criminals will obtain firearms no matter how many laws you pass. Just google police weapons stolen, or army weapons stolen.

Also, manufacturing a firearm isn’t exactly rocket science. Anyone with basic machining skills can manufacture a pistol, rifle, or even a cannon.

One can make a primitive pistol with some plumbing supplies and a spring loaded center punch. If ammunition isn’t available, black powder is very easy to make.

This idea that we can make society safer by making it harder for law abiding people to defend themselves is just absurd. Only criminals, and the incredibly naive would think that’s a good idea.

“No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper…this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord.”

(See 3 Nephi 22: 17; Isaiah 54: 17; D&C 71: 9-10; and D&C 109: 24-28.)

I realize this post is talking of fire arms, but “no weapon that is formed” includes all weapons, such as VX nerve gas, nuclear weapons and any other weapon of mass destruction. These scriptures cannot be verified (fulfilled) unless these weapons are used against the people of the Lord at some time in the future and are found to have no effect upon them.

So, the heritage of the servants of the Lord is to have the Lord fight their battles for them, by His miraculous, almight power.

Who among the saints honestly believes that God will protect this people from such weapons, should they be turned against us? Who among us has such faith in God that he trusts in this promise? The answer is that none of us does.

So, do we really need to arm ourselves? I believe we do, because we do not have faith in God. And people who do not have faith in God’s protection should not be restricted in their ability to protect themselves. Do we love our guns more than God? Again, I’d say that we do, because otherwise we would repent and exercise faith in God to protect us and not fear and worry about the guns and weapons that others have.

So, I agree with the title of the OP, but not with passing laws against gun ownership.

Actually yes, for the most part, people just want to live decent lives, not actually caring how free they are.

As long as we’re talking about irrelevant dead guys, that put me in mind of this:

“Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand, which they fear and dread- for nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom…But Thou wouldst not deprive man of freedom and didst reject the offer, thinking, what is that freedom worth if obedience is bought with bread? Thou didst reply that man lives not by bread alone. But dost Thou know that for the sake of that earthly bread the spirit of the earth will rise up against Thee and will strive with Thee and overcome Thee….”Feed men, and then ask of them virtue!” that’s what they’ll write on the banner, which they will raise against Thee, and with which they will destroy Thy temple….in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us”….Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering.

Then you miss a key point of the post is that it is mainly good people who are killing each other with these guns. Kids shooting their best friends, spouses killing spouses in a fit of rage at the moment. It is isn’t all bad guys, bang, bang, shoot ‘em ups.

Do you have any basis for asserting that the majority (“it is mainly”) of homicides are “good people” killing each other in a fit of rage? (Leaving aside the question of whether “good person” is the right word for someone capable of going from losing his temper — as we all do — to killing someone.)

Because I don’t see it. My impression (subject to correction) is that the majority of people who kill and get killed in this country are somehow involved in the Life — are thugs, or friends of thugs, or tragically stuck living in the same neighborhoods as thugs who can’t shoot straight.

Dan,

Sometimes I definitely envy you your job. How much time to librarians have just to explore their collections?

But you’re not sure, are you? That doesn’t sound like you.

When I’m not sure, I say so.

Everything else I say, you can take straight to the bank. 🙂

The problem is that those darned narcotraficantes never seem to have time to tell pollsters where they got their guns. And they tend to like to hang on to them, meaning that there aren’t many chances to look at actual examples and try and trace their provenance.

But of course that doesn’t stop people who don’t like guns from declaring with something approaching certainty that American gun dealers must be the main source of Mexican guns.

From what I’ve seen reported about drug lords liking to have the biggest baddest guns available, and knowing that it’s somewhat harder to buy an automatic weapon in the United States than to bribe a Mexican military arsenal custodian, I would be surprised if the local Big 5 in Tucson were the main factor here. But you’re right — I can’t claim to be certain.

I was reading some of the F.B.I’s crime statistics, and I found some interesting things. For instance, did you know that knives are used in more homicides than assault rifles? In fact, you are more likely to be killed by someone’s fist or feet than one of those evil assault rifles.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

#186 – Jon, how am I bringing religion into the discussion?

Jeff,

The truly paranoid are the conspiracy theorists, who see a demon under every rock not painted red, who are fully stocked with multiple years of food, fuel and ammo, waiting to kill anyone who might need to share with them.

Well said. Isn’t it ironic who is red these days?

Well said. Isn’t it ironic who is red these days?

Ironic indeed.

I remember, as recently as the eighties, when electoral maps showed blue for Republicans and red for Democrats.

When did the switch happen, and why? Did it reflect a shift in which faction represesents the status quo, and which represents change?

The truly paranoid are the conspiracy theorists, who see a demon under every rock not painted red, who are fully stocked with multiple years of food, fuel and ammo, waiting to kill anyone who might need to share with them.

No argument here, although maybe a small quibble with the word “the.” (I think there are a lot more “truly paranoid” people than just survivalists out in the desert. And re: “conspiracy theorists,” when something like six out of ten Democrats believe in JFK conspiracy theories, the saying about stones and glass houses comes to mind…)

If there’s an argument to be made, it’s with what seems to be a suggestion that more gun owners than just the extremes you specifically identify are motivated by similarly “paranoid” considerations.

“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Ha ha ha. What a wingnut.

If that verse is out of context (and good luck finding all of three people who agree about its precise meaning; it’s one of the more obscure passages in the Bible), what’s harder to discount is the apocalyptic theme running through all of Christianity, and Mormonism in particular.

Now, that theme may itself be paranoid. I, myself, have settled down to a nice, respectable, Romney & Marriott Episcopalian Mormonism, and confess to finding the apocalyptic stuff a bit…plebeian, I guess. (Tho’ I’ve never been able to perfect the requisite condescending smile.)

But recall that this whole thread is crafted in expressly religious terms — trying to enlist the force of Christian and Mormon religion in an anti-gun crusade. I am saying that this — and in particular, the sub-arguments about “paranoia” — don’t work very well in the total context of the total Christian/Mormon tradition.

“May the Lord preserve his people in righteousness and in holiness of heart, that they may cause to be felled to the earth all who shall seek to slay them….” In other words (mindful of the context), “Lord, help us slaughter the bad guys, and hang their leaders from the tallest tree, like we just did old Zera-whatsisname.” If you’re looking for anything resembling a Christian pacifism, stick with the Quakers. Mormonism’s just too square a peg for that round hole.

Shortly they must go into every part of the land, and will need weapons to defend themselves against wild beasts, and to intimidate wicked men, who, if they found them totally defenceless, would not hesitate to make them their prey, or take away their life.

Damned paranoid wingnuts.

Thomas,

It seems, from the analysis of that scripture that swords were only needed when lived in an environment where they might be in danger. As I’ve noted earlier, I’ve never had to “defend myself unto bloodshed” anywhere in the world I have been. It seems the only purpose Jesus noted the use of the sword was, was for when his disciples were going in dangerous areas, not as something they should carry around at home in their safe cities.

The “damned paranoid wingnuts” don’t follow this counsel.

Rich,

A simple observation from my time in Iraq that when the government collapses it gets like the wild west days is part of the reason.

From your time in Iraq, generally speaking who did you see killed? Was it someone holding a gun or someone not holding a gun?

huh, okay…i’ll be sure to remember should we ever go lawless here in the US to get myself an AK-47 as well.

SUNNofaB.C.Rich,

I would classify you as being 100% wrong about me on all counts.

I’m not sure the purpose of your post. Do bad thing happen because people own guns? Of course. The same can be said of the exercise of other rights. People say things that hurt others. People use religion against others. People do things in their privacy to hurt others. So would you deny to all people their rights of speech, religion and privacy because sometimes some people abuse these rights?

You must know that you will never be able to collect all of the firearms. Thus, some will still have them. Therefore all that you have done is to disarm “law” abiding people and put them at the mercy of criminals and the government. I wonder what would have happened in our history if the British had succeeded in securing the colonists’ arms and ammunition.

Steve