Thursday, January 10, 2013

Out-gunning the un-gunned

(note: This article was published in January 2013 and alludes to the aftermath of Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in December 14, 2012.)

I have never owned a gun, I do not presently own one and have no desire or need to own a gun. I have no problem with my neighbor who may have multiple guns, rifles or semi-automatic guns. As a disciple of Jesus it is neither a source of trouble nor an issue for me to hear saints in Christ voice their zeal and fervor to stake a right as Americans to own and use a gun. I understand and accept the constitutional right not only to own a gun as well as to use it on a mad dog, on the hunt, against an intruder into one's home, or as our Founding Fathers warned, when government ceases to be a servant of the people and presumes to rise up against its own.

What I do take issue is the gun control rants in the aftermath of every mass shooting. Worse than the rants are the disingenuous politicians and media Piers Morgans and Alex Joneses who run with it with no more desire to find a solution to the problem than to enhance their chances of re-election or buildup their egos and ratings. True enough, gun rights are no better expressed as rants and slogans than the sound bites of some saints in Christ on the convictions of their faith.

Government is not an anomaly. It is made up of American citizens. Really? A government with the authority given to it by the people and which it has been unable (or unwilling) to handle and solve the problem of violence presumes to effectively solve the problem by disarming its citizens? Government is a minister of God. The power and authority it has failed to exert on the lawless it aimlessly seeks to exert on the law abiding. As mindless as is a mass shooting so too is the notion of a policy that disarmed citizens in, Chicago for example, would be well protected by a government which has done no more for this inner city than its international southern border.

The solution is no more a gun than it was a sword when Jesus was arrested. Peter, who drew his sword in defense of Jesus, experienced a real and painful realization, namely, that for all his bravado about being ready to die for Jesus, - the fear of death compelled Peter to resort to the sword. Clearly, the response solution impressed by Jesus on Peter and for all who would surrender their lives to Jesus as Lord and Savior is one no more forced on believers than nonbelievers. It took Peter, like many other disciples, to grow in his conviction to willfully give up his life for Jesus. (This insight on Peter's death came to him from Jesus himself. [John 21:19]) Those who live without the sword are as prepared to face death as are those who live by the sword. I do not live by the sword, but I can understand the man who won't live without it and who won't die with it. I am not troubled by his/her decision anymore than I am about the appropriation of these words of Jesus:

Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

However, the truth is that while these words have been commonly adopted by various armed personnel the two are not to be mistaken as being equal. When Jesus laid down his life as a demonstration of that greater love he did so without first taking someone else's life.

The clear stance of the National Rifle Association as delivered by executive vice president Wayne LePierre has no political angle and no eloquence, but is founded on the authority of the constitution.

Lastly, I remember then Senator Obama's series on YouTube when he wondered out loud just about what brand of Christianity an imaginary Christians-only nation would follow. He wondered if it would be according to the Torah, James Dobson, Al Sharpton or the Sermon on the Mount which Jesus preached. (Matthew 5 - 7) Thereby, President Obama acknowledged the value, importance and role of authority, and, while the scriptures are not the source of authority in question on the matter of gun control and disarming citizens it is the constitution that is the authority to be heeded. It does not take a lawyer or the President of the United States to know and to understand that basic tenet of American democracy. Law is not for the law abiding, but for the lawless and all who will not submit themselves to order. Government, which rightly professes authority, is just as accountable and is to be held accountable to that authority by the people. Here's the grotesqueness of disarming people. It is when a simple hand gun becomes no less than an assault weapon (pardon the media misinformation with my use of that term) to out-gun and inflict unbridled terror on the un-gunned.


  1. I am not sure I should admit this on any forum. I am a member of the NRA. I own guns. I will protect my right as long as possible as I believe it is a right of every citizen. At the same time with this right comes a very strong and deep responsibility. Every gun owner should pass required licensing. Required to lock all guns either in a special gun cabinet or lock the gun itself. It is not responsible to own a gun and not understand that all who have access may not be responsible adults. I would stand as strong, as does the NRA, to protect innocent children who may be vulnerable to access, not understanding the lethal use of a gun.

    My father taught me by taking me hunting, as a young teen. He explained in detail and showed me the dead animal. I understood the profound lesson of what a gun can do and why. I have done the same with my children and any other person who would take classes with me. I also believe as in getting a driver's license or any other license. . . a person should have a repeat test at certain ages and time periods.

    Well enough of my rant.

    I certainly believe Obama is wrong in using the media as he does on this issue. Our hearts should go out to the hurting, those whose lives have forever changed. Each one should be in our prayers including the ones who have used a gun as an assault weapon on innocents.

    1. I appreciate and value your comment, Treasure. Your convictions concerning gun ownership and use is quite familiar to me. As I have stated, I am not troubled by that whether it comes from a brother/sister in Christ or a nonbeliever.
      I do not have to agree with either of them to be confident and at peace anymore than I need to agree with what President Obama does with respect to, for instance, Charleston in the media. After all, isn't that at least his reasonable exercise as much as it is his prerogative under the first amendment and citizens to own and use firearms.