Newtown Massacre & Gun Control

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Whats more amazing is that you are actually defending something you are strictly not a part of. Is that anyway different than what Gman does, not being a Jew and aggressively defending the law and Jewish tradition?

Neo, I wanted to throw in my 2 cents because I think I'm in a position similar to jlay's here.
I have never owned a gun myself. Nor have I ever even shot a gun(except for bb and pellet guns).
Because we don't own guns, that doesn't mean as Americans, that we don't think the freedom to own a gun isn't important. Now I think this gets into what FL was saying before, about people outside the US saying what we should do here. In the US, individual freedom is very important. It's what our country was founded on, and IMO, it's part of what has made our country great. Take away individual freedom, and the US becomes just your average country.
And, while I disagree with Gman on following the law and Jewish tradition, I believe he absolutely has the freedom to observe the Jewish traditions.

[neo-x]

Neo, I wanted to throw in my 2 cents because I think I'm in a position similar to jlay's here.
I have never owned a gun myself. Nor have I ever even shot a gun(except for bb and pellet guns).
Because we don't own guns, that doesn't mean as Americans, that we don't think the freedom to own a gun isn't important. Now I think this gets into what FL was saying before, about people outside the US saying what we should do here. In the US, individual freedom is very important. It's what our country was founded on, and IMO, it's part of what has made our country great. Take away individual freedom, and the US becomes just your average country.
And, while I disagree with Gman on following the law and Jewish tradition, I believe he absolutely has the freedom to observe the Jewish traditions.

Rick, I was not talking on gun politics or anti-gun or progun choices, either way. I only remarked on two things first that most americans I see are very protectoive of gun freedom and second that killing is not supported from Christ's teachings.

I am not saying you should follow my advice. I don't think I have given any nor would I presume to. You know about your country better than me. Speaking on a side note, I don't think the voice of a third world citizen matters anyway.

And, while I disagree with Gman on following the law and Jewish tradition, I believe he absolutely has the freedom to observe the Jewish traditions.

He is on all accounts, I only have problems when he tries to paint everyone under the law.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Rick, I was not talking on gun politics or anti-gun or progun choices, either way. I only remarked on two things first that most americans I see are very protectoive of gun freedom and second that killing is not supported from Christ's teachings.

Neo, most Americans are very protective of our freedoms, all of them. You hear the most about the protection of gun freedom because it always comes to the forefront when these kind of horrible tragedies happen.
And, to ask if Jesus would kill if he was here now, isn't a fair question IMO. I don't buy this whole wwjd thing. We aren't supposed to always do what Jesus would have done. He is God, we are not. We are told to apologize for our mistakes. Did Jesus ever apologize? Did Jesus have any reason to kill anyone? Even in defending himself? He didn't need to. He could simply slip out of harms way. Being God in the flesh allowed him to do that. Jesus didn't defend himself when he was being killed. That was why he came, to die. Can you say that our reason for being here is to die at the hands of a home intruder? Or the meaning of our time on earth is to watch our kids be slaughtered in front of us, and just sit and watch? I know that's not what you're saying neo. But I guess I have no problem scripturally or in my conscience, with allowing people to have weapons to defend themselves. If you or anyone else has a personal problem with guns, and self defense, that's your choice. But to say that we can't have the right to defend our families, to me that's the same as saying we need to follow the OT law.

[neo-x]

Neo, most Americans are very protective of our freedoms, all of them. You hear the most about the protection of gun freedom because it always comes to the forefront when these kind of horrible tragedies happen.
And, to ask if Jesus would kill if he was here now, isn't a fair question IMO. I don't buy this whole wwjd thing. We aren't supposed to always do what Jesus would have done. He is God, we are not. We are told to apologize for our mistakes. Did Jesus ever apologize? Did Jesus have any reason to kill anyone? Even in defending himself? He didn't need to. He could simply slip out of harms way. Being God in the flesh allowed him to do that. Jesus didn't defend himself when he was being killed. That was why he came, to die. Can you say that our reason for being here is to die at the hands of a home intruder? Or the meaning of our time on earth is to watch our kids be slaughtered in front of us, and just sit and watch? I know that's not what you're saying neo. But I guess I have no problem scripturally or in my conscience, with allowing people to have weapons to defend themselves. If you or anyone else has a personal problem with guns, and self defense, that's your choice. But to say that we can't have the right to defend our families, to me that's the same as saying we need to follow the OT law.

I never said, don't defend your families, what happens is between you and God. I said even if you kill you cant support it from Christ's teachings. On earth Jesus was a man, that is why he died. How does a God die? If Jesus made a mistake I am sure he would apologize. After all he can't go against what he preaches. Not on his time on earth. I would defend my family too, but as Jlay said about killing hitler, even if you see the snese of it, can not be supported from what Christ preached. There is no way aorund that.

[Canuckster1127]

All I'm saying is that people shouldn't consider the opinions of racial and cultural bigots as to who decides the "internal matters" of an entire nation and instead examine ideas and opinions on their own merits.

That's a general comment, not directed specifically to you. People can form their own opinions as to the validity of what you're saying here.

Happy New Year to you, my friend.

[jlay]

And aren't you assuming this is never the case?

No, that is exactly why I said that you are assuming the two "are always," in conflict. Your only adding one erroneous assumption to another. Two wrongs do not equal a right.

I dont' think the people who stoned stephen were murderers in the state's eyes either. Nor were the criminals in front of the Jewish authorities.

Surely you understand this statement adds nothing to your own argument nor detracts from mine.

Now you are conflating it. I was not talking about releasing prisoners, I was talking about forgiveness and how one defines it.

If you are going to accuse a fallacy, then break it down. I am addressing a specific point you made. You implied that all sin was the same. I pointed out that in one sense that is true, but not in all cases.
How is that conflating?

I would agree with Dietrich Bonhoeffer on all grounds except that assassinating Hitler has some form of Christian teaching elements to it. And if you are not arguing for that then there would be nothing to disagree with here.

This is where you keep making the same category error. You assume that if a Christian defends their family (with a firearm) that they are arguing for a specific teaching of Christ. This is where the self righteous part comes out. Bart has claimed that the reason he WOULDN'T defend his family (or own a firearm) is because he is simply following Christ. So, I addressed several of Bart's prooftexts and showed the error. Specifically martyerdom. Any conscession? No. Just arrogance that he is following Christ and those who support the lawful ownership of firearms are in contradiction with a specific teaching of Christ. Saying one is acting in accordance with a teaching is different than saying an action is not in cotradiction to a teaching.

You still haven't answered the question. I asked you, would Jesus kill in any circumstance?

I did answer. Please stop saying I didn't. You asked a very broad question, "Any circumstance" and I gave biblical examples. The flood, and you could add so many more. Ananias and Saphira. And then I said, in Christ's human incarnation I wouldn't say there were any circumstances. However, you could also say, Christ wouldn't open a 401k, run for political office, and a myriad of other things. Of course your response is to call them trivial. The grace of Christ is not an excuse to do anything we want. But, I'd also say it isn't a blanket condemnation of all things He likely would not have done either. As I said early, there are probably a lot of social issues that Christ wouldn't offer a specific do or don't.

Whats more amazing is that you are actually defending something you are strictly not a part of. Is that anyway different than what Gman does, not being a Jew and aggressively defending the law and Jewish tradition?

No, and I'm honestly shocked that you would make such a ludicrous statement.

Ties back into what I asked you earlier and your statements a couple of pages back.

I said that persecution was not the same as defending your family against non-persecution crimes. As far as I recall, you agreed. How does it tie in?

Rick, I was not talking on gun politics or anti-gun or progun choices, either way. I only remarked on two things first that most americans I see are very protectoive of gun freedom and second that killing is not supported from Christ's teachings.

Your assuming that killing, not being supported, is a condemnation of protecting one's family should it result in the killing of the assailant. Speaking very broadly here. We already know that the Bible supports killing. Now, of course that doesn't mean we are to apply that today. I'm not saying OT death penalty is a justification for killing in self-defense today. Only showing that your "any circumstance" example doesn't hold water.

I would defend my family too, but as Jlay said about killing hitler, even if you see the snese of it, can not be supported from what Christ preached. There is no way aorund that.

I didn't say killing HItler is supported by what Christ preached. I said perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to paint with a broad brush. You see, your implication in this is that Bonhoffer went AGAINST the teachings of Christ. IMO, that is a much different argument, and one you seem either unwilling, or incapable of distinquishing.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Three women were killed today in Switzerland when a lone gunman fired indiscriminately at passers-by in the sleepy village of Daillon, near Sion, in the Canton of Valais. Switzerland already has stringent anti-gun laws but the killer's weapons (3) were all illegal. The Swiss newsman covering this story suggested that Switzerland may have to strengthen its controls over firearms. He went on to point out that over the last 12 years, most of the shooting rampages in Switzerland were done with illegal weapons, including one in Zug in which 11 people were murdered. What is wrong with this picture?

On another front, an airliner leaving Sydney, Australia, flew hundreds of miles off course because the pilots had entered into the autopilot the latitude of their destination as being in the Southern Hemisphere instead of the Northern hemisphere. They realized something was wrong when they saw the coast of New Zealand in the distance! Where was the vigilance?

And speaking of New Zealand, an Air New Zealand DC-10 smashed into the flank of Mount Erebus on a sightseeing flight over Antarctica. All aboard died. The accident report stated that the pilots had erroneously skipped a waypoint when they copied the flight route into the autopilot. So, instead of being at the right place, at the right altitude, they slammed into a mountain in the clouds. Where was the vigilance?

+ + +

Americans have already changed the USA for the worse by applying the letter - and killing the spirit - of the First Ammendment. Americans should be very careful about modifying anything about the Second Ammendment. Little mistakes can have enormous consequences. Stay vigilant! from where I sit, you appear to be heading towards a mountain.

FL

[RickD]

FL wrote:
On another front, an airliner leaving Sydney, Australia, flew hundreds of miles off course because the pilots had entered into the autopilot the latitude of their destination as being in the Southern Hemisphere instead of the Northern hemisphere. They realized something was wrong when they saw the coast of New Zealand in the distance! Where was the vigilance?

Now that's scary. If they weren't paying attention when flying by New Zealand, they would've been dangerously close to the edge if the earth. It might have been the first report of a plane going off the edge.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Now that's scary. If they weren't paying attention when flying by New Zealand, they would've been dangerously close to the edge if the earth. It might have been the first report of a plane going off the edge.

Actually, there are mechanisms to prevent planes and ships from going off the edge of the earth. Even so, some do venture too far and fall off into space. Unfortunately, this truth is kept from us by the round earth conspirators. Off-the-edge events are usually reported as ''lost at sea'' or, more esoterically, ''victims of the Bermuda Triangle.''

FL

[Philip]

Bart, the whole issue in Rich's article is summed up in his belief that prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns to protect their families would end the senseless slaughter of children in schools. Where has Christ said that gun ownership for protection is wrong?

Great observation - Deem has no evidence to stand on.

Questions should be:

Do we have the right to stand up to evil or not? How do you stand up to an armed man, intent upon evil, without a weapon to counteract?

If we are not to stand up to evil, why did God have Israel keep an army? Why did God have Israel's army both defensively and proactively attack and kill its enemies? Why did Jesus say for those without a sword to sell their cloak to buy one?

It seems that people just love to separate God, highlighting things of the Son, but ignoring the actions of the Father. The OT God is the very same God as He was in the NT. And God ordered the killing of those who deliberately shed innocent blood.

Of these massacres, what part of gun control would have prevented them? Why is the emphasis on eliminating something most own legally/commit no crimes with but that determined criminals and insane people will always be able to obtain (guns), but not as much on mental health treatment, observation, monitoring, communication. Or upon securing and locking up weapons so that kids and the unstable can't easily access them? Or prevention? Or security? No, the reaction is always to go after law-abiding people's guns. Why?

Most government buildings have armed security and metal detectors, but the politicians in them don't want similar such protections for our children's schools? Really?

For schools, I say: have a main, locked entrance portico or foyer, that people must approach, ID themselves/state their business, pass through a metal detector and then they can be buzzed through/door unlocked. The entrance portico should have an armed security, armed with appropriate firepower. This will never stop the determined nut that hops the back fence, breaks in another door or window of the school, but what it does do is keep a guy with body armor and an assault rifle of just waltzing up to the main entrance, totally unopposed, likely not immediately even seen, strolling unopposed to the classroom hallways, and just blasting away. Why is this not a common-sense solution - not perfect, but it would go a long way to prevent school massacres.

[Canuckster1127]

This, to me, is an example of the all or nothing mentality that is brought to these problems that is counterproductive. The goal of looking at these things is not to assert that all risk of all incidents happening can be completely removed. If someone is committed to going on a rampage, they can do it with a nail gun, a chainsaw or for that matter a knife etc. The question is whether in the overall process what overall impact certain levels of gun control in general or specific types of guns being banned or more highly regulated will make their general availability such that even when events like this occur, the death and injury will be less.

In Newtown, if the gunman had a handgun as opposed to a bushmaster semi-automatic, it's conceivable that the gunman could have been subdued even by unarmed people before 26 children and teachers were killed.

Armed guards or police at each school carries cost to it and in each case also carries risk as well. There is the possibility that the gun present on the campus in the custody of that guard or policeman can be taken by someone and used in situations that might otherwise not carry that risk if the gun wasn't present.

Cost-benefit has to be looked at in both a specific instance as well as the overall mitigation of threat.

I'll leave the questions of moral rectitude alone as I've already addressed them earlier. It does indeed become an issue of whether you view the Old Testament through the lens of Christ and believe that Christ is the final and complete revelation of God to which the Old Testament points or if Christ is just one part of God's revelation and the Old Testament is to be weighed against that or even favored over what Christ Himself taught and modeled. In my mind, it's difficult to reconcile in places, but I choose to make Christ the lens by which I view all of Scripture.

[Proinsias]

Of these massacres, what part of gun control would have prevented them? Why is the emphasis on eliminating something most own legally/commit no crimes with but that determined criminals and insane people will always be able to obtain (guns), but not as much on mental health treatment, observation, monitoring, communication. Or upon securing and locking up weapons so that kids and the unstable can't easily access them? Or prevention? Or security? No, the reaction is always to go after law-abiding people's guns. Why?

I don't think it is. I think the reaction takes in all of the above, it's just the gun control issue is the one that provokes a loud negative reaction.
The problem I think with law abiding mentally healthy adults owning guns is than when they snap they have guns. There is not a reliable method to my knowledge to determine whether someone is likely to snap one day and go on a rampage. When a law abiding gun owning resident here in the UK walked into a school and started shooting with legally held pistols and revolvers we responded by restricting gun control for law abiding citizens even further. I think in short the attitude over here was if people are going to snap and go on killing sprees it would be best not to have as many guns around.

Most government buildings have armed security and metal detectors, but the politicians in them don't want similar such protections for our children's schools? Really?

Yeah, each to their own I suppose but I'd rather live here where I can't even carry a pen knife and the school's main security feature is a buzzer on the door lock than live somewhere I can own guns and have armed security and metal detectors at my daughter's school.

[B. W.]

After working in the field of Social Work, the real issue is liberal feel good policies that dictate that the criminally insane are just poor victims needing protection and care in home environments. While such terrorize their families, foster homes, group homes in their respective community, the laws in the books make it impossible to do the correct thing – commit them to an institution.

There are too many policy hoops to jump through, legal boxes to check, and test to go through to have such dangerous people committed. Why? Answer is simple – lawsuits the lawyers will come in on behalf of the criminally insane and sue those suggesting the whack jobs be institutionalized. These lawyers look to see if all boxes are check, all test done, and all policy hoops adhered too. It is a mess.

I know, I prepared many Imposition of Legal Disability filings in court to keep whackos in community group homes because sending them to an institution for life (as fitting the real need) is nigh to almost impossible. The States have policies that release perpetrators back into the community if their behavior checks off a certain criteria of legal boxes: easy for a criminally insane person to game. What needs to be done, can’t.

Gun control, is not the real issue. Liberal policies are. One of the left's goals is for the people to fear the Government. The Framers of the US Constitution designed the US Bill of Rights so that the Government fears its people as that was the last check to prevent tyranny of central controllers from fundamentally transforming America (Locke and Hobbs).
-
-
-

[RickD]

Fwiw:
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/g ... eep/31314/

[Philip]

Yes, Rick - this is pretty scary stuff. But the nefarious tactics of Obama and co, always eager to apply Chicago-style guerrilla tactics to politics, can never be trusted. But how could anyone who already knew what Obama was all about ever be surprised at him going after the nation's guns? He never fails to exploit a crisis or tragedy. But so few voters appear to be critical thinkers, that they just keep drinking whatever cool-aid he's selling.