How does your faith affect your viewpoint about SIMPLE guns (rifles, six shooters, etc.) ?

Supportive. Our church has gun related activities (shooting targets, hunting trips, etc.)
26% (6 votes)
Supportive: I even own a gun of some sort
52% (12 votes)
Tolerant of gun ownership, though I do not have one
17% (4 votes)
Restrictive: guns should be very closely controlled and few should have them
4% (1 vote)
Guns are for police and military only.
0% (0 votes)
All guns should be destroyed; they are evil
0% (0 votes)
Okay for lost people, but Christians should not own them
0% (0 votes)
Other
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 23
Forum Tags: 
6823 reads

There are 18 Comments

Ed Vasicek's picture

Guns are a broad subject.  My observation is that urban people tend to favor guns less while small city, town, or rural people tend to favor them all.

What is your view on this subject?

Mine is that only simple guns should be allowed to the general public.  Carrying a handgun outside the home should require a license.  

Where do you stand?

 

"The Midrash Detective"

Jim's picture

Constitutionally citizens have a right to bear arms:

 

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

 

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, or merely a collective right, contingent on militia service? That was the question the Supreme Court faced in 2008 when the legal challenge to Washington, D.C.’s notorious handgun ban finally reached America’s highest tribunal. The Court’s answer was a resounding victory for individual rights and the original meaning of the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia’s gun ban is unconstitutional, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, because it deprives individuals of their right “to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

Heller was also a masterful victory for the burgeoning libertarian legal movement. As Brian Doherty reported in Reason’s December 2008 issue, the Heller litigation “was pulled off by a small gang of philosophically dedicated lawyers—not ‘gun nuts’ in any stereotypical sense, but thoughtful libertarians who believe Second Amendment liberties are a vital part of our free republic. Together they consciously crafted a solid, clean civil rights case to overturn the most onerous and restrictive set of gun regulations in the country.”

Jim's picture

Self-defense is natural law and approved by the Lord

 

"Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Luke 22:36

 

 

Dave Gilbert's picture

But I think for most Christians, it's a non-issue. Since we are all in His hand, then we are relying on Him for all of our earthly existence. The passage in the Gospels is clear in its showing that they had them, and that Christ used an incident using one to heal miraculously. Nothing else after the Gospels seems to indicate the Lord's wish that we have them, however.

 

IMO, appealing to passages in the Old Testament which deal with Israel, who had enemies on all sides of her, is stretching a bit IMO. However, I see nothing wrong with owning a gun as a Christian, if for no other reason than to have it in case of robbery and protecting one's family from harm. We know that the Lord hates killing and He hates violence ( Psalm 11:5 ), but we also know that there are professing Christians out there who are serving in the capacity of peacemaker and police officer, and so will have to carry one.

 

This is a tough issue...I once had a handgun, but no longer. I once had a Firearm Owner's Identification for the state of Illinois, but let it expire. Why? Because I am convinced God will take care of me no matter what...but I am also single and have no children to provide for. If and when I ever marry, my attitude may change. I voted as "Tolerant, but I don't own one."

 

Dave.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

I would hope that Christian men would do something to be able to protect the weak and helpless. Take a defense course, get a CCW- something. Little old ladies and children everywhere will thank you. 

God intervenes, but He often uses people who are equipped to do it. 

Rev Karl's picture

Dave Gilbert wrote:

But I think for most Christians, it's a non-issue. Since we are all in His hand, then we are relying on Him for all of our earthly existence. The passage in the Gospels is clear in its showing that they had them, and that Christ used an incident using one to heal miraculously. Nothing else after the Gospels seems to indicate the Lord's wish that we have them, however.

Here in the deep south, our independent Baptist church has organized 3 groups of 12 or more to attend the class required to procure a concealed carry license.

 

This has caused some discomfort for my dear wife. So I asked her what she would do if someone came into the church building and attacked her. Her response was very similar to that which is quoted above. I then asked her what she would do if someone came into the church building and attacked *our daughter*. Her response was "I'd kill him with my bare hands!"

 

Then it began to dawn on her. Carrying a weapon is not necessarily about self defense, but protecting those we are responsible for protecting.

 

Trust me, from personal experience: you have not *lived* until your wife wakes you up at 2:00 AM, holding an infant, telling you "Somebody is trying to break into the back window." Just the sight of the potential victim being armed is a great incentive for an attacker to turn and flee.

 

I had better get off my soapbox. This could go on for much longer than any of us want it to. Lol

Rev Karl's picture

In recent days much has been said about those who use firearms illegally, and kill/wound multiple victims in Colorado.

 

Seems like they have forgotten the 2007 shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A gunman armed with a LOT of ammunition came into the church building and started shooting. Four were shot, of whom two died.

 

A single individual, working at the request of the church as armed security, was able to stop the attacker. If not stopped, the shooter could have shot as many people as we shot in the Aurora theater.

 

One person, legally armed, was able to prevent injury for dozens of people who (at that time, in that situation) were not able to protect themselves.

 

Was it wrong for the church to provide armed protection for the congregation? 

 

Was this contrary to Scripture in any way?

Pastor Harold's picture

After the first murder, did anyone ban rocks?

David dodged a javelin three times and never told anyone they couldn't own one because "it" almost killed him.

I don't fear for my own life, but I do have a responsibility to protect the lives of my wife and children.

I would also be obligated to protect your wife and children if I saw them being harmed. How could I do this bare handed against armed thugs?

Dave Gilbert's picture

My post above is written from the perspective of someone with no responsibility for the life and / or welfare of others, just myself. My opinion is, were I married, had children or was in a situation that required me to be responsible for others, this would change my vote to" Supportive. I even own a gun of some sort".

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Isn't that a bit... cold? I mean, you'll protect yours but you won't protect anyone else? I am sure that's not what you intend to say necessarily, but that is how it comes across.

So if it is important for you to be able to protect your wife and kids, why wouldn't it be important to be able to protect someone else's wife, kids, or single moms, or widows, or the disabled...

jlamarcrowder's picture

My wife opposes me having a firearm and agreed to this before we got married. I however do have firearms stored at my parents house. I'm o.k. with firearms but believe people shouldn't bring them to Church unless it's someone trained to use them like law enforcement or security. A Church I believe it was in Georgia tried to get a ruling that stated people could bring them to Church and that to me sends a bad message. We don't want to mix guns with our faith which is a bad combination. At the same time if we ban guns we are in trouble because then only the bad guys and government will have them which is what the founders clearly feared would happen. So I think people should self restrict and teach Children that guns are not fun. They are to be used to hunt or in worst case situation to defend your life or the life of others. To me video games and toys make trivial guns and I'm guilty of this as a Parent of a son. I let him play games sometimes at Arcades (he can't have them at home my wives rules) because of the fun of us shooting zombies together. However I do think we make light of it considering the Colorado shooting and others by people living in a fantasy world.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

...my wives rules...

H-M-M-M-M-M - which one made that rule?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

So I think people should self restrict and teach Children that guns are not fun. They are to be used to hunt or in worst case situation to defend your life or the life of others.

I would disagree. I have fun with my guns. I don't hunt. I will defend myself with deadly force if necessary. However, I mostly use my guns for target shooting. I especially enjoy skeet shooting. People need to know guns are  dangerous and serious, but that doesn't mean they can't be a source of enjoyment. I just purchased a 9mm pistol to add to my arsenal (a .22 and a 20 gauge) and can't wait to have a little fun with it at the target range. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

I think it is much safer for kids to be familiar with guns than for them to be mysterious. Guns are loud and powerful. You can feel it in your head and all the way up your arm. The first time I took my boys to the firing range, they were so full of themselves, fussing about not needing ear and eye protection... and when they actually had the gun (9mm Glock)  in their hands and fired, a newfound respect immediately dawned on their faces, and they lost all that macho bravado. Get hit in the face with a spent shell, and suddenly they are thrilled that they are wearing eye protection. When you've shot a watermelon and watched it explode, you have no delusions that you or someone else can survive a gunshot. 

So IMO it is much more dangerous to let kids play with toy guns than teach them to use real guns. They get the idea that shooting a gun in a game is just like shooting one IRL. Ditto driving games- they can drive at 120mph around a virtual track all they want, but get behind the wheel and it's a different kettle of fish.

I don't know how having a gun at church is 'mixing guns with our faith'. I have no idea what that means. 

Rev Karl's picture

Twenty years ago a Christian brother shared with me this verse:

 

Luke 22:36  "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.'"
 

(While this was about the time of the crucifixion, *obviously* it was not Jesus' intent for them to prevent the crucifixion. This was [according to some commentators] His command to be prepared to live and travel in that area, in the manner men should be prepared.)

 

My friend's analysis of the passage was this: at that time, the Roman short sword was the state-of-the-art personal defense weapon. That would mean that this was God's instruction to my friend to go and get a Ruger 9MM Double Action Semi-Automatic hand gun (State-of-the-art 20 years ago...)

Dave Gilbert's picture

Susan R wrote:

Isn't that a bit... cold? I mean, you'll protect yours but you won't protect anyone else? I am sure that's not what you intend to say necessarily, but that is how it comes across.

So if it is important for you to be able to protect your wife and kids, why wouldn't it be important to be able to protect someone else's wife, kids, or single moms, or widows, or the disabled...

 

That's just my feeling on the matter, nothing much to read into it...;)

 

I suppose if it came down to it and I were capable of somehow affecting the outcome of a dangerous situation, the first thing I would do is be a peacemaker. If that didn't work or the situation degenerated too quickly into life or death, I would have a hard choice to make. Wounding would be preferable to killing in a situation like that, but in my mind, it would be the last straw.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Bro. Gilbert- You didn't answer my question, but I think I get what you're saying.