Pastor Favors Gun Control

[Dale00]

I found this interesting because it sounds so reasonable to the average reader but is so wrong. This is what we are up against.

...Why can’t we support sensible restrictions, such as a ban on military-style combat weapons? These weapons seem to serve no purpose other than the glorification of violence. If we take seriously the command to protect our children, we’ll avoid the risk of these weapons getting into the hands of unstable people. Sure, a ban won’t eliminate all weapons, especially those purchased illegally, but it may reduce the chance of another Sandy Hook massacre.

We also should also advocate making it harder for people to acquire guns, even sensible weapons purchased for self-defense or hunting. Gun ownership should be a privilege earned by good behavior and conferred only on the most trustworthy of our citizens. I think we can do this without disrespecting the Second Amendment, which besides guaranteeing the right to bear arms calls for this right to be “well-regulated.” As blogger Marty Duren says, “While the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear (“carry”) arms, it does not necessitate the right to own any armament the mind of man can create.”

New gun laws won’t prevent every future crime, but perhaps a few common-sense regulations would help destroy a culture of violence that so tempts young troubled men.

Some will argue that new restrictions only hurt those who are already law-abiding. This may be so. But as Christians called to care for the common good of our communities, we should be willing to endure the inconvenience if it saves one child from death. Since 9/11, we have all endured more hassle at the airport to prevent even one terrorist from killing our fellow citizens....

At the end of the day, living out our faith requires that we do more than simply react in a defensive posture but engage in this important debate. We can protect the cherished right to bear arms in self-defense and still make sure unnecessary and violent weapons are not sold on our store shelves and online and are not accessible by those in our communities who would use them to commit acts of aggression and murder.

Furthermore, an unwillingness to entertain common-sense restrictions casts the evangelical faith in an unnecessarily unfavorable light. It may cause some to think we love our guns more than our neighbors.

There are many things about which Christians should be unyielding; the right to own a killing machine should not be one of them.

Full opinion piece is at http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/28/my-take-its-time-for-evangelicals-to-speak-up-about-guns/?hpt=hp_c2

My response:

I read your CNN opinion piece on gun control with interest and disagree. Your thinking shows a lack of knowledge about firearms and gun control. You appear to have swallowed someone else's gun control ideas without verifying their veracity. Specifically I refer to your use of the terms, "sensible" and "common-sense." What is your definition of these terms expressed in firearms terminology?

The leading ideas being put forth are that military style weapons should be banned along with high capacity ammunition feeding devices. The gun banners will settle for these restrictions as a first step, knowing full well that they will have zero effect. They can then claim they need to restrict more until we are no longer citizens, as the founders intended, but rather subjects.

Your assertion that firearm ownership is a privilege and not a right is especially disturbing. Self-defense is a basic human right and one which is best met by means of firearms, especially for the small, weak and infirm. The government of Chicago denies this right, as do many other major cities - and yet you blindly believe we can trust the government to tell us who should have the privilege of owning a firearm.

You use the term, "violent weapons" as though you or someone else knows which firearms are violent and which are peaceful. This is strange to say the least.

You wrote, "..perhaps a few common-sense regulations would help destroy a culture of violence that so tempts young troubled men." Again your naivete is frightening. "Those who give up their freedom for the promise of security will have neither", Ben Franklin. You claim respect for the Second Amendment while simultaneously advocating infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Pastor you are out of your element here and need to retreat and rethink your position.

Respectfully yours,

 

[gaseous maximus]

I am a great admirer of the oxymoron "common sense". Very ,well thought out, reply.

 

[1fast8]

nice reply ,and i for one would be moving to another church pronto

 

[abajaj11]

Love the part where this preacher says the right to keep and bear arms should be "well regulated". Clearly someone needs to tell him that "well regulated militia" means "well trained militia" not one regulated by the government!

 

[Honeybee]

You could put up the same argument that churches should be regulated by the government, The way I read it, Seperation of Church and state could mean " keep the church 50 feet away from government buildings?" But Where does it say how far it should stay away!

New can of worms for the church to think about.

 

[10Seconds]

This genius is named Daniel Darling, in case anyone doesnt want to click the link, but in case you see the name pop up again elsewhere.

Funny how the media will give attention to a pastor who will feed their narrative, but not to those that are against their agenda. Religon only when its convenient....typical.

 

[Quick_Draw_McGraw]

Responses from the pulpit like that truly saddens me on several levels.

I think many on this board can counter his faulty logic on his gun "control" position but what saddens me most is his lack of understanding or for that matter care about the mentally ill people that cause these horrific killings. As a Christian I get disappointed when I see churches spend all their money on over the top buildings, laser lights for their sanctuaries, and paying for streaming services on line. What happened to the days when the church cared about people? When did they stop taking their extra money that used to stock the food pantries, or that were donated to local non profits, and start spending it on such useless self indulgent things?

There is a mental illness epidemic in this country and no one seems to care. No one cares about the schizophrenic kid who lives a tortured life, all they care about is whether or not he could ever get a gun in his hand.

If the leaders of the church today won't care about the most unfortunate in our society, then who will?

It's just a sad state of affairs....

 

[ncarper]

As a pastor I'm responsible for protecting my congregation. I primarily do this spiritually by faithful exposition of God's Word. However, if the need ever arises for me to protect the congregation physically, I will pull gun from it's holster and do what is necessary. Yes, I am a pistol packing pastor!!! I wholeheartedly support the carrying of concealed weapons by those congregants who are licensed to do so; in fact, I not only support it, but encourage it.

 

[rawhide]

The pastor fails to understand the 2nd Am, what "RIGHTS " are and that if the 2nd A didn't exist our rights would still exist.

 

[Jam Master Jay]

I'm pretty sure that my pastor carries. He regularly mentions his shooting range trips in his sermons. What strikes me as the dumbest is that he thinks there needs to be a restriction on the second amendment but I'm sure he'd flip out at a mention of "reasonable restrictions" on religion under the first amendment. Contradictory.