The issue is not just the Second Amendment but how the Christian is to live as a symbol of the kingdom of God in a world racked by violence. In cities where gun violence ruins families and churches and communities and the lives of far too many. How does the Christian live in this world? Can the Christian own a gun? And, Should the Christian own a gun?
As an Australian looking in from outside, I shake my head in disbelief that we christians even question these issues. Personal ownership of such weapons only multiplies the possibility of injury and death, whether unintentional or deliberate. Why would a follower of Jesus see that as a good thing?
Ownership of guns here is tightly controlled for the benefit of the community. If you’re not a farmer, a vermin shooter or a sportsperson, you’ll have to justify your need to acquire a weapon. And you’ll only be allowed to acquire a type of weapon that suits your specific need. And we like it that way!
However, I’d differentiate between private ownership of weapons and governmental ownership. Paul accepts that government has a role to enforce the rule of law and punish wrongdoing. So I have no issue with authorities (police, armed forces) having weapons, as long as their use is tightly controlled.
I was a serious scripturally and theologically based Christian pacifist for about 42 years. I finally realized that defense of the innocent was a legitimate reason to use a gun and even own a gun. I got to this realization from backing up through accepting Christian participation in war possibly being justified as the more loving thing to do (depending on the circumstances!). Likewise, having a weapon with which one might protect the innocent may be the more loving thing to do (given appropriate training, expertise, and some very particular circumstances!). I think this perspective is just as biblically rooted as the pacifist view.
I do wish the author would have commented on the usage of guns for hunting and/or target sports. Here in the Canadian context, those are the two approved purposes for our substantial set of gun ownership. Whether for healthy sustenance or conservation / population control, or even high skills target sports, there are some positive utilities that must be acknowledged if a conversation is going to be meaningfully nuanced. I think a totalizing equation that all guns are only evil is false. I see nothing is scripture that prohibits the humane harvesting of healthy organic game meat or putting holes in paper bullseyes for points.
Being both a hunter and a competitive target sportsman, I know countless people who hunt for food or compete for scores but would find it unthinkable to use their guns against a human.
In my own work on this, I'll just say that the arguments favor the conclusion that we really are supposed to do all we can to beat our swords, or guns, into plowshares. That is what the kingdom of God values, and if we are to seek to live out the Lord's Prayer, "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," we must make some changes. We can protect the rights of responsible gun owners while reducing gun violence. And we must.
Quite honestly, thinking about point one, perhaps the only way I think we can probably make everyone happy is to innovate on the technology. Star Trek stun phasers is, conceptually, a better way to go. (What I'm trying to get as if instead of lobbying for or against, all this effort should rather be put into innovating the technology into a new concept.)
The logic of this is incomprehensibly flawed. I drive a car. Many people die in car accidents every year. Therefore I must be driving a car in order to potentially kill someone.
I can well see Ian's point of view, and see positives in it. However, I have no particular problem with the 2nd amendment. That being said, the idea of semi-automatic weapons available on the market is lunacy, as they are designed for killing people, not for game hunting. So I guess I could say that it is one thing to have the right by law to own guns; as to the type of guns, that is another matter. Then there is this: as much as the sheer number of guns available in the States, it is the attitude of disregard of the right to life and the dignity of others that is driving gun violence. In short, the degeneration of personal and cultural restraint is a root cause. I own guns, but the idea of taking another person's life with them? No, I don't want that on my soul. Living in the South, I grew up with guns, hunted, and so forth. The idea of a young person, of taking a gun to school, or of harming another, that was not on our personal radar. But today, we live in a culture where so much of entertainment is built around revenge, and evening the score. We are aggrieved and driven by anger, Scot shares the point that we are far too consumed with rights in our land, and I think the point, a fair one. We would do well to be less consumed with our rights, but rather the good of society and the souls of others.
As an Australian looking in from outside, I shake my head in disbelief that we christians even question these issues. Personal ownership of such weapons only multiplies the possibility of injury and death, whether unintentional or deliberate. Why would a follower of Jesus see that as a good thing?
Ownership of guns here is tightly controlled for the benefit of the community. If you’re not a farmer, a vermin shooter or a sportsperson, you’ll have to justify your need to acquire a weapon. And you’ll only be allowed to acquire a type of weapon that suits your specific need. And we like it that way!
However, I’d differentiate between private ownership of weapons and governmental ownership. Paul accepts that government has a role to enforce the rule of law and punish wrongdoing. So I have no issue with authorities (police, armed forces) having weapons, as long as their use is tightly controlled.
I was a serious scripturally and theologically based Christian pacifist for about 42 years. I finally realized that defense of the innocent was a legitimate reason to use a gun and even own a gun. I got to this realization from backing up through accepting Christian participation in war possibly being justified as the more loving thing to do (depending on the circumstances!). Likewise, having a weapon with which one might protect the innocent may be the more loving thing to do (given appropriate training, expertise, and some very particular circumstances!). I think this perspective is just as biblically rooted as the pacifist view.
I do wish the author would have commented on the usage of guns for hunting and/or target sports. Here in the Canadian context, those are the two approved purposes for our substantial set of gun ownership. Whether for healthy sustenance or conservation / population control, or even high skills target sports, there are some positive utilities that must be acknowledged if a conversation is going to be meaningfully nuanced. I think a totalizing equation that all guns are only evil is false. I see nothing is scripture that prohibits the humane harvesting of healthy organic game meat or putting holes in paper bullseyes for points.
Being both a hunter and a competitive target sportsman, I know countless people who hunt for food or compete for scores but would find it unthinkable to use their guns against a human.
In my own work on this, I'll just say that the arguments favor the conclusion that we really are supposed to do all we can to beat our swords, or guns, into plowshares. That is what the kingdom of God values, and if we are to seek to live out the Lord's Prayer, "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," we must make some changes. We can protect the rights of responsible gun owners while reducing gun violence. And we must.
Quite honestly, thinking about point one, perhaps the only way I think we can probably make everyone happy is to innovate on the technology. Star Trek stun phasers is, conceptually, a better way to go. (What I'm trying to get as if instead of lobbying for or against, all this effort should rather be put into innovating the technology into a new concept.)
The logic of this is incomprehensibly flawed. I drive a car. Many people die in car accidents every year. Therefore I must be driving a car in order to potentially kill someone.
Does the author address the use of a gun to protect others? Is it okay for a Christian to call the police if there is a threat of violence?
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/
I can well see Ian's point of view, and see positives in it. However, I have no particular problem with the 2nd amendment. That being said, the idea of semi-automatic weapons available on the market is lunacy, as they are designed for killing people, not for game hunting. So I guess I could say that it is one thing to have the right by law to own guns; as to the type of guns, that is another matter. Then there is this: as much as the sheer number of guns available in the States, it is the attitude of disregard of the right to life and the dignity of others that is driving gun violence. In short, the degeneration of personal and cultural restraint is a root cause. I own guns, but the idea of taking another person's life with them? No, I don't want that on my soul. Living in the South, I grew up with guns, hunted, and so forth. The idea of a young person, of taking a gun to school, or of harming another, that was not on our personal radar. But today, we live in a culture where so much of entertainment is built around revenge, and evening the score. We are aggrieved and driven by anger, Scot shares the point that we are far too consumed with rights in our land, and I think the point, a fair one. We would do well to be less consumed with our rights, but rather the good of society and the souls of others.
How does he talk about hunting and are hunting rifles or shotguns a different category from guns?