Jesuits call for repeal of 2nd Amendment

[stone space]

The National Catholic Review

February 25, 2013 Issue

EDITORIALS

Repeal the Second Amendment



Plagued by rising levels of violent crime, in the autumn of 1976 the District of Columbia enacted one of the nation’s toughest gun control laws. The law effectively banned handguns, automatic firearms and high-capacity semiautomatic weapons. Police officers were exempt from the provisions of the law, as were guns registered before 1976. Over the following decade, the murder rate in Washington, D.C., declined, then increased, shadowing a national trend. Overall, however, the new law helped to prevent nearly 50 deaths per year, according to one study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “We knew there were problems we couldn’t wipe out,” said Sterling Tucker, chair of the district council at the time, as he reflected on the law 22 years later. “But we had a little more control over it.”

On June 26, 2008, in a closely watched, far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the D.C. law, ruling that it violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In the court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that the prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

snip------------------------

http://americamagazine.org/issue/repeal-second-amendment

[shenmue]

1. It'll never happen, but it should

[Brettongarcia]

3. On gun regulation: murderers do not constitute "a well-regulated militia"

[rug]

2. Solid.

[cbayer]

4. Was not aware of this. Thanks for the link.

[stone space]

5. De nada. (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

6. We had a Jesuit at the seminary I attended

He was awesome. We didn't always see eye-to-eye, but he always engaged in discussion about the issues, admitted when I raised a good point, and pushed me on those points I raised that weren't so good. Glad to have known him.

Good to see the Jesuits stepping up on this issues--makes complete sense given their philosophy.

[cbayer]

8. I think the Jesuits are my favorite order.

In New Orleans, much of the population is defined by the high school that they attended.

There was a notable difference when it came to the men educated at the Jesuit high school.

Glad you had a positive experience.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Very positive.

Which is why it's kind of frustrating to read the one poster's comments on this board that those that are atheists are suffering from bad experiences with religion in their lives. I had very positive experiences and very fond memories of my time at the seminary. Wouldn't change it for anything. Have several friends still that I love like a brother from that time.

[cbayer]

13. I think that every one gets to their individual space on their individual paths

and I also reject any broad brush generalizations of why people are religious or not religious.

I had forgotten that you had been in seminary. I'm not surprised that it was a valuable experience for you.

I may have recommended this before, but one of my favorite books is "The Sparrow". It's about the first manned mission to a known inhabited planet. The crew includes a significant number of jesuit priests. You might enjoy it.

[Goblinmonger]

17. I've added it to my list

It will be a few months before I get to it given the slot it is in (I have a rotation of book "types" I cycle through so that I don't find myself reading just one type of thing--feel like I need to be well rounded in my reading as an English teacher).

I read the summary on Amazon and it had me at Jesuit linguist.

[cbayer]

20. Let me know what you think after you read it.

She has a second one as well, but I didn't find it as good.

[JoePhilly]

106. I'm an atheist, and a big Jesuit fan.

I went to a Jesuit university as a non catholic, and the Jesuit priests were some of the smartest, most intellectually honest folks I ever met.

Debating them on any topic was always a positive challenging experience.

Except if you were a catholic kid who memorized the Sunday school answers and thought those would pass for thinking.

Our Jesuit priests tore them a new one. They seemed to dislike a faith that had never been challenged.

[NYC_SKP]

7. This article is almost two years old. February 25, 2013.

Wow, you're really having fun with bringing the Gungeon stuff into the Religion group, aren'tcha?

Yesterday it was an Episcopalian church, now it's Jesuits?

Why not post these in the appropriate fora?

And, FWIW, the Second Amendment is not going to be repealed.

I'll just copy and paste one of the comments from your link:

Jack Klompus | 1/7/2014 - 3:51pm

This is a naive and appalling editorial unworthy of the level of intellect that I have come to expect from the Jesuits. It's interesting that the main and compelling reason for a responsibly armed citizenry, holding the tyranny of the state at bay, is dismissed in one sentence as a "remote and fanciful possibility."
Based on what evidence can you assert that the possibility of the state rising to the level of tyranny is "remote" other than your own, dare I say, faith? Could it be possible that state tyranny is held at bay by the existence of the very amendment you call for repeal?

Do you truly believe that we as human beings are beyond electing earthly leaders whose proclivities are bent toward imposing prejudicial legal sanction against members of different groups including religious ones?
It is ironic that you consider the possibility of tyranny "remote" yet you fail to map out a plan for the disarmament of the average citizen. Do you believe that people will simply accept this repeal of the 2nd Amendment and willingly hand over their arms to representatives of the state. What if they do not? I assume that under the threat of force they will have their weapons confiscated. Sounds to me like this "remote and fanciful possibility" has just become a real issue, direct, and close. Will you be ministering to the new occupants of the prisons that refused to turn in their weapons?

In the post repeal world, as you call it, you have your vision of those who will, in your kind benevolence, be permitted(?) to possess firearms, including those with "morally reasonable purposes." Who is going to sit in judgment of and determine the moral reasonableness of one's purposes? Your loopholes, exceptions, and vague categories of acceptability all but render the effect of your repeal laughably toothless. In the end, this silly, vapid, and intellectually unserious piece smacks of little more than empty posturing. You can do better, Jesuits, much much better.

[stone space]

10. Um...you do know who the Jesuits are, don't you?

Wow, you're really having fun with bringing the Gungeon stuff into the Religion group, aren'tcha?

Yesterday it was an Episcopalian church, now it's Jesuits?

Why not post these in the appropriate fora?

Hint: They aren't a gun group.

This is a religious issue.

[Goblinmonger]

12. FWIW, I think the post is fine here. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

14. Is your post about Jesuits or is it about gun control? You posted yesterday in the RKBA....

...about a pro-gun control resolution passed by an Episcopalian church.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172155979

Jesuits aren't a gun group, and Episcopalians aren't a gun group, either.

You have posted a 21-month old editorial gun control article without any of your own commentary.

If a person is afraid of guns, well that's fine, not owning one would be a good idea for them.

But don't dare try to repeal any of my constitutional rights, 1st, 2nd, none of them.

Republicans are doing enough damage without any group's help.

Self-defense is a Civil Right.

[stone space]

19. I cross posted that other article because I felt that...

...it might be interesting to have a religious viewpoint on the issue.

Do you believe that religious viewpoints should be ignored on this issue?

You have posted a 21-month old editorial gun control article without any of your own commentary.

No problem. I'll tell you right up front. I'm opposed to guns. As an atheist, they are against my religion.

But don't dare try to repeal any of my constitutional rights, 1st, 2nd, none of them.

Why not?

I favor repeal of the Second Amendment. Why shouldn't I work towards that goal?

That's like telling somebody "Don't dare try to pass an ERA".

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I bet if you look realy hard, you can find an even OLDER editorial.

From an even MORE irrelevant group.

[stone space]

74. How are the Jesuits irrelevant?

From an even MORE irrelevant group.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. First off, that editorial is not representative of The Jesuits(TM).

Feel free to find one that speaks for them all/the order.

[stone space]

80. You may speak for the Jesuits if you wish.

But I don't understand what's got you so angry right now.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Am I afraid or angry? Make up your mind.

[stone space]

83. Seems like both to me. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

86. I'm generally only one thing at a time.

In this case, a qualified 'annoyed'.

The least you could have done is bring us something recent, rather than a two year old editorial. I Probably wouldn't have said anything at all, if it was from the last 2-3 months.

I'm from a school of forum use wherein thread necromancy is highly offensive. This is basically the same thing.

[stone space]

93. I'm of the school of thought that...

...good ideas don't have an expiration date.

I suppose that that's an Old School approach.

Whereas you want to see the latest fads.

I'm sorry that you find good ideas from last year offensive.

But I'm pushing 60, so don't expect too many new ideas from me.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. The age of the post makes it difficult to verify.

First and foremost in my mind is, how many Jesuits does this idea represent? (Or, how many share it?)

Where do I start verifying that? Who? Where? How many?
Data gets old, man. A lot faster than humans do.

[stone space]

100. If you don't like old stuff, ...

...you are probably in the wrong forum.

Do you have any idea just how old religion is?

[AtheistCrusader]

101. I KNOW, RIGHT?!

[stone space]

103. So why are you whining about how this...

...statement by the Jesuits is so 2013?

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Because if this was representative of their policy or doctrine, you could probably find something

more recent/verifiable, etc.

[stone space]

105. Why should I do searching for anything, ...

..when I can just post their well known position?

I'm assuming that they put it out there to be read.

I don't need to search for anything.

If you feel the need to search for something else, be my guest.

Nobody is stopping you.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. You had to search for that editorial.

Well known? Got a cite for that claim?

[stone space]

108. It was well known to me.

And it's not much of a search when you already have the article.

It's just looking up the URL, if you want to dignify that with the word "search".

[AtheistCrusader]

112. You had a two year old article?

[stone space]

113. I remember when it came out.

It was only last year.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. Why wasn't it relevant to post when it came out?

[stone space]

116. I did.

It was every bit as relevant then as it is now.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. So, dupe thread, or you posted it where it belongs, in the gungeon?

[stone space]

122. No. (nt)

[cbayer]

21. And this is a great example of why I think this issue might be best left alone

and not made into a religious issue.

NYC_SKP is one of the pro-RKBA members here who I respect. We don't always agree on everything, but we agree on many things. One thing we most certainly don't agree on is guns.

He is representative of a not small group on this site and within the liberal/progressive wind of the democratic party.

As I have said, we need glue not wedges. This is a wedge.

I have mixed feelings about it being discussed in religion, but if it turns into your typical gun debate, I'm not going to have mixed feelings at all.

[stone space]

24. Religion has always been controversial.

When the UCC (whose resolution on guns and violence I posted below) came out in favor of gay marriage, for example, National TV Networks refused to even run their ads, because they were so controversial.

[cbayer]

26. Yes, that is why there is a separate religion group

and discussions purely about religion are not permitted in general fora.

The problem here is the crossover. Do we as regular members want the often heated, irresolvable issue of guns (also prohibited in the general fora) to take place in this group which is already filled to the brim with heated and irresolvable issues?

I certainly have no power over making it one way or another, but personally I hate the topic of guns with a passion and I would prefer not to see it here.

But I can always just stay out or trash those threads.

[stone space]

27. Certianly religious discussions would be less...

...controversial if churches stopped speaking out on heated "political issues".

But so long as they do, it's kind of hard to avoid such discussions on a political board like this.

[cbayer]

28. Well, I guess my point is that there are controversial issues

on which pretty much everyone here agrees (GLBT rights, abortion, social justice issues, civil rights) and those on which there is intense disagreement.

Guns is the one where there is probably the most intense disagreement. It is divisive and I'm not sure more division is what this group needs.

But I will defer.

[stone space]

29. Democrats supporting gay rights is a rather recient phenomina.

For decades they were in opposition, and churches that took a stand found many Democrats in opposition.

[cbayer]

30. While I see your point, I'm mostly just looking at this site in general and

this group in particular.

How do you think bringing up a highly contentious topic that divides the members of this board will help us as liberal/progressive democrats?

And before anyone jumps on me for this question, I want to say why I see the discussion of religion as different.

Religion is also a highly divisive topic on this site, but I truly believe that we can have a live and let live position when it comes to religion and recognize that while we may differ in terms of our religious beliefs, we have much, much more in common than differences. I get "accused" of promoting kum-ba-yah, but that is exactly what I think would be the best resolution in terms of religion.

With guns, I don't think that is even remotely possible.

[stone space]

31. Well, I've never called myself...

...a "liberal". (I'm old enough to have a hard time hearing that word without mentally inserting the phrase "cold war" in front of it.)

How do you think bringing up a highly contentious topic that divides the members of this board will help us as liberal/progressive democrats?

I'll cop to "progressive", but probably "radical pacifist socialist" or "militant atheist" would be closer to my own viewpoint. (And I'll admit, that my own perspectives are sometimes controversial to some.)

I don't worry too much about Democrats, even if they do generally get my vote.

I'm probably closer in perspective to Militant Christians like the folks in the Plowshares Disarmament Movement than the Democratic Party.

Their beliefs and actions, such as those illustrated in this thread, are probably much more controversial to most Democrats than the Jesuits' statement on repealing the 2nd Amendment.

[cbayer]

32. This might explain our differences.

I do care about democrats. I don't think that there will be a viable third party in my lifetime, so I'm going to build an support the party that I think has the best chance of pushing through the things I believe in.

I'm with you on supporting rather radical religious groups that work for social justice, civil rights and economic equality. That is the church I grew up in, but I also grew up in the Democratic Party.

[stone space]

59. That could be.

I think that issues like this have the potential to bring people of all faiths, as well as atheists and agnostics, together to work towards a common goal.

It can create bridges.

Even if it is controversial.

[cbayer]

60. Ah, no that is a good point.

I would love to see believer and nonbelievers come together over a topic, but that is highly unlikely to happen here.

Two of the more aggressive atheists that participate in this group are strong RKBA advocates, while some others are for gun control.

Same is true for believers.

There is no common ground when it comes to guns, so this venture only runs the risk of alienating people who are otherwise on the same page.

But, hey, go for it.

BTW, I am completely baffled as to why NYC_SKP's post below was even alerted on, let alone removed.

Any idea?

[stone space]

61. I'm guessing that it is because the list comes from...

...a creepy right wing website.

I posted a video below from that webpage of the guy soliciting other pastors to put their churches on the list. (I hope I don't get hidden!...lol)

It's pretty creepy.

The guy even has a page devoted to him and his "Liberty Fellowship" organization on the SPLC website:

Chuck Baldwin

Date of Birth: 1953

Location: Kalispell, Mont.

Ideology: Patriot Movement



Chuck Baldwin, a 35-year Florida “guns and God” pastor and a leader in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, moved his apocalyptic mission to Montana in 2010, forming a new church in a burgeoning center for antigovernment and white supremacist extremists. Baldwin’s arrival in the Flathead Valley, where his Liberty Fellowship is drawing an array of radical-right congregants, followed years of activity on the far right. He was the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2008 and its vice-presidential candidate in 2004. In recent rants, he’s raged against any form of gun control and warned darkly of an imminent and violent confrontation with government forces. The U.S. as we know it is going down, Baldwin insists, and patriotic citizens must lead the charge to save it.

In His Own Words
“I believe homosexuality is moral perversion and deserves no special consideration under the law. … I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am not a racist.”
—“Me in a Nutshell,” May 2, 2006

“The Muslim religion has been a bloody, murderous religion since its inception.”
—“What Every Christian Should Know About Islam,” Feb. 1, 2002

“America is headed for an almost certain cataclysm. As Christians, we suspect that this cataclysm could include the judgment of God. As students of history, we believe that this cataclysm will most certainly include a fight between Big-Government globalists and freedom-loving, independent-minded patriots. I would even argue that this fight has already started.”
—“Why We Are Moving to Montana,” Sept. 15, 2010

“To take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to fully disarm him. … There is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle. … We are not going to surrender our semi-automatic firearms, period.”
—“If Americans Lose Semi-Automatic Guns, Tyranny will Engulf the World,” Jan. 26, 2013

snip--------------------------

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/chuck-baldwin

[cbayer]

66. I see. Bad choice on his part.

[stone space]

65. Well, I don't expect RKBAers and those of us who...

...would like to repeal the 2nd Amendment to come to common ground.

But that doesn't mean that both religious and non-religious folks on the same side of the issue can't come together to make change.

I would love to see believer and nonbelievers come together over a topic, but that is highly unlikely to happen here.

Two of the more aggressive atheists that participate in this group are strong RKBA advocates, while some others are for gun control.

Same is true for believers.

There is no common ground when it comes to guns, so this venture only runs the risk of alienating people who are otherwise on the same page.

[cbayer]

84. Well, there is a protected group on this site for gun control advocates.

It is a place where all kinds of people can come together to discuss advocacy for this single cause.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

If you are sincere about what you say you want, I think you will get a lot further there than here.

I think this thread was a problem very early on.

[stone space]

85. I really don't see a problem with this thread.

In fact, I support the Jesuits on this.

[cbayer]

87. I support the jesuits as well, but I still have a problem with this thread.

Time will tell, but I would hate to see this become the religion/guns group. It's tough enough already.

[trotsky]

76. Believers and non-believers come together on TONS of topics.

You'll find them on the left side of the screen, under "Topics." Click on that and explore to your heart's content.

In this group, believers and non-believers have different opinions on religion. Yet for some reason, you expect non-believers to withhold their opinions in the interest of this strange goal of yours, a discussion group about religion where you can't discuss certain things about religion. And those who don't follow your rules are attacked and demonized.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. It took two years for someone to post it here.

I don't think it was hard to 'avoid' at all.

[stone space]

69. Is there some reason why you don't want statements by...

...the Jesuits posted in the Religion forum?

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Because you seem hell bent to make sure the Gungeon is leaking.

[stone space]

73. What is your problem?

Your behavior is becoming erratic.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. I stopped posting in the gungeon a long time ago.

these articles are, tangentially related to religion. They belong in the gungeon. For the same reason they do not belong in GD.

If this were DU 2, and you posted that in GD, you know damn well the mods would move it to the gungeon, not here.

[stone space]

78. Yes, editorials by the Jesuits...

...tangentially related to religion.

these articles are, tangentially related to religion.

It is good that you are still able to recognize that.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. It is interesting that you are still characterizing this as 'the jesuits'.

I'd say 'some', not 'the'.

[stone space]

118. Whatever. It appeared as an editorial in their magazine.

Honestly, I don't understand your reaction here.

It's like you really, really don't like Jesuits.

Not only that, you appear scared of them.

I mean, really really scared.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Right wing assholes worry me when they get involved in politics.

You realize they are right wing assholes right? Fascinating that NYC_SKIP got a hide for citing right wing assholes, yet your thread endures.

Jesuits are anti-choice. http://www.jesuit.org/blog/index.php/category/prolife/abortion/
Jesuits, or at least, the top jesuit, is anti-same sex marriage. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage/
Jesuits are anti-sex ed. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/08/1834341/nyc-sex-ed-catholic/
Jesuits are anti-physician assisted suicide. http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=15010

The wonderpope is a Jesuit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/pope-francis-assisted-suicide_n_6172982.html

He's a right wing asshole. Just a little to the left of Ratzinger. Mostly just on the poor. Still a right wing asshole overall.


The individuals within it may not all be, some are calling for change, but those that aren't are sometimes forced to stop being Jesuits in order to hold progressive values. http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2373/Jesuit-Abandons-Priesthood-Protesting-Teachings-on-Womens-Ordination-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx



And last, but certainly not least, they don't know a fucking thing about the universe or our place in it, that ANY human exercising their five senses (sometimes fewer) can't discover on their own. They don't know shit about shit. Their imaginary friend, and imaginary enemies, are just that; imaginary. But they'll tell women they have no right to choose whether or not to have a child, no right to have sex and use contraceptives, because their imaginary fucking friend told them so.

Fuck the Jesuits.

Your cited editorial contains outright falsehoods too. 30k instances of 'gun violence per year'? Tell me, what do you call a suicide in which someone hung themselves? Rope violence? 2/3 of that number is suicide, not 'violence'. Distortion, spin, lies. Just like when they talk about a woman's right to choose.

More or less, I feel about these clowns, how you feel about a Heller supreme court.

[stone space]

123. The Jesuits are coming for your gunz, AC. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

124. Pretty sure, not. But do me a favor.

Find a pro-gun-control source that isn't right wing, an I'll be happy to listen.

[stone space]

125. They're coming for your gunz. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

126. And your birth control.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Oddly until skip showed up you were fine

with the op. Now not so much.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. No it isn't. It's religious people with an opinion on a political issue.

And issue they have no grasp or expertise thereof.

[stone space]

67. Who are you to tell the Jesuits...

...what is and isn't a religious issue?

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Well, I've heard said 'God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal', but really, it's a americanism.

[stone space]

94. God may or may not have made Treyvon Martin, but...

...Samuel Colt sure as hell didn't make Treyvon equal.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Minors... actually, people under 21, are not allowed to carry a pistol by law.

Also, it's Trayvon.

If anyone would have been justified in using force in self defense that day, my money is on Trayvon. Every single thing Zimmerman did screamed 'predator' to me.

[stone space]

99. Unfortunately, they are allowed to collect bullets.

Minors... actually, people under 21, are not allowed to carry a pistol by law.

It's just one of the small prices that we pay for your freedums.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. He should have gone to jail for it.

Not just for what he did, but for the signal the case outcome sent to potential yahoos like Zimmerman.

I may be a gun owner, but I'm not a predator. I don't share philosophical space with him. Force is a last resort. Not first.

[stone space]

111. Jail wouldn't have helped Trayvon.

Making it harder for Zimmerman to get a gun would have helped Trayvon.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. I agree.

Zimmerman's former violent run in with the police should have disqualified him.

[Goblinmonger]

11. It's about religion and this isn't Latest Breaking News

Seems like it fits here.

Would you expect the Jesuits to be gun supporters?

[NYC_SKP]

16. My one friend who was trained as a Jesuit keeps a rifle.

He's gay, he's a school teacher, and he lives in an area that's pretty deep in RW teabaggers, not that this is the reason for having the rifle.

People in semi-rural and agricultural regions just often keep guns.

It's very off-putting when people try to punish the many for the sins of a few.

I don't know that the author of the two year old article speaks for a majority of Jesuits or not.

It's seemed to be a pretty narrow view, and political, and I find that a bit disturbing from Jesuits.

[Goblinmonger]

18. I grew up in rural Eastern North Dakota.

My mom (and my brothers, and pretty much everyone I knew) had .22 rifles. I get that.

But I think it is an interesting take and I don't find that most Jesuits (from my experience) take the positions they take lightly even if they aren't speaking for all Jesuits. It's usually a thoughtful conclusion.

[NYC_SKP]

40. My favorite governor and potential POTUS trained as a Jesuit.

Still awesome, Jerry Brown. And his actions on gun legislation have been pretty sound, with a mix of signatures and vetoes.

[stone space]

15. Here's a PDF of the United Church of Christ's...

...General Synod 20 resolution on guns and violence from 1995.

It makes reference to a previous resolution from the UCC's General Synod 7 in 1969.

The UCC statement refers to gun idolatry as part of a culture of death.

http://www.uccfiles.com/pdf/GS-20-Guns-and-violence.pdf

This article is almost two years old. February 25, 2013.

Christians didn't just start addressing this issue in 2014 (or even 2013).

There is some history and tradition here going back a bit further.

[NYC_SKP]

22. Here's a very readable pros-cons article from a non-denominational but spiritual writer.

I agree with the General Synod's recommendations, most gun owners would. Some are even "NRA talking points"!

--Increase civil and criminal liability for misuse of firearms;
--restrict possession by convicts;
--strengthen handgun licensing regs;
--limit handgun purchases to one/month;
--require training in the safe use of firearms;

There are only two that I disagree with: gun safety device requirements and prohibit semi-automatics (depending on the details).

OH, LOOK AT US! We're talking about guns, not religion!

I don't doubt for a moment that some people in some churches are opposed to the Second Amendment.

That said, it's a gun argument and not a spiritual one, absent some dialogue.

Somebody representing a religion takes a stand on guns. I'm bored before I begin.

Here is a far more readable and rational look at both sides of the question:

http://www.meditations-on-life.com/american-politics/gun-control-arguments-pro-gun-control-vs-anti-gun-control/

From this, a dialogue might develop.

[stone space]

23. Your 4 posts to this thread show just how bored you are.

Somebody representing a religion takes a stand on guns. I'm bored before I begin.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Your articles bore me, but refuting them is fine good sport.

If a bit easy, not particularly challenging.

I prefer more of a challenge, a more level playing field.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. If if we're all soooooper lucky, you'll dig it all up and come post it here too.

[stone space]

72. Your behavious in this thread is bizarre.

What are you so afraid of?

[AtheistCrusader]

79. I'm afraid now? Fascinating.

[stone space]

82. You are all over the place making...

...one random throwaway comment after another, crying about how much you don't like this editorial from the Jesuits being posted here.

Your irrational intolerance makes it appear that you are acting out of fear.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. TWO YEARS OLD.

You keep skipping over that point. Yeah, it's not LBN, but it's not like it's a couple days, or a month old.

[stone space]

95. What's your point?

You keep skipping over that point.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. *twitch*

[mr blur]

127. You know, you do seem to be a ridiculous person, but carry on,

you're quite entertaining.

[stone space]

34. Do you have a link to that list? (nt)

[NYC_SKP]

37. What Does the Bible Say About the Second Amendment?

Is Self-Defense Biblical?

By Mary Fairchild
Christianity Expert

Peacemakers or Pacifists?

Rendered in the English Standard Version, Jesus told Peter to "put your sword back in its place." Wilsbach explained, "That place would be at his side. Jesus didn't say, 'Throw it away.' After all, he had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason ... was obvious—to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. Jesus was saying 'Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.'"

It's interesting to note that Peter openly carried his sword, a weapon similar to the type Roman soldiers employed at the time. Jesus knew Peter was carrying a sword. He allowed this, but forbid him to use it aggressively. Most importantly, Jesus did not want Peter to resist the inevitable will of God the Father, which our Savior knew would be fulfilled by his arrest and eventual death on the cross. Scripture is quite clear that Christians are called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5 ), and to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-40). Thus, any aggressive or offensive violence was not the purpose for which Jesus had instructed them to carry a sidearm just hours earlier.

Life and Death, Good and Evil

A sword, as with a handgun or any firearm, in and of itself is not aggressive or violent. It is simply an object; it can be used either for good or for evil. Any weapon in the hands of someone intent on evil can be used for violent or wicked purposes. In fact, a weapon is not required for violence. The Bible doesn't tell us what kind of weapon the first murderer, Cain , used to kill his brother Abel in Genesis 4. Cain could have used a stone, a club, a sword, or perhaps even his bare hands. A weapon was not mentioned in the account.

Weapons in the hands of law-abiding, peace-loving citizens can be used for good purposes such as hunting, recreational and competitive sports, and keeping peace. Beyond self-defense, a person properly trained and prepared to use a firearm can actually deter crime, employing the weapon to protect innocent lives and prevent violent offenders from succeeding in their crimes.

More at the link.

http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/The-Right-To-Bear-Arms_2.htm

Link to the list, found by just Googling around: http://libertyfellowshipmt.com/Resources/SecondAmendmentPastors.aspx

[stone space]

39. I'm not familiar with the Liberty Fellowship.

Link to the list, found by just Googling around: http://libertyfellowshipmt.com/Resources/SecondAmendmentPastors.aspx

Interesting sermon, though.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. It is an extreme rightwing hate group.

The post by SKP is a TOS violation.

[stone space]

45. Ah, that explains the sermon. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

52. yeah, and why there weren't any UU churches.

[stone space]

54. Yeah, I had a little trouble finding the UU's on that list, too. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Yes indeed there certainly are a whole lot

of extreme rightwing churches out there.

[NYC_SKP]

38. Yes, those Unitarian Universalist Teabaggers, OMG WTF?

What I love about UU is that we discuss matters, we don't troll.

We understand that there are two or more sides to every issue and that divisive insult is not productive to finding solutions.

https://www.facebook.com/events/114974838687138/permalink/114982782019677/

http://www.spiritoflifeuu.org/ai1ec_event/sermon-that-pesky-second-amendment/?instance_id=

http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/297088.shtml

We are inclusive.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Which UU church is on your long list of hideous fundamentalist churches?

I admit to not looking at every entry, but from scanning it, the vast majority of your data points appear to be fundy rightwing whackadoodle churches.

Oh and I certainly did not claim that "all churches advocating for the 2nd amendment are rightwing nutjobs", but again - where are the Unitarian churches on your list?

[NYC_SKP]

46. The list was just a grab from the Intertube, but then you knew that. They aren't my "data points".

Were they "my data points", you'd see pro-Second Amendment representation by Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Mormons, etc.

And Unitarian-Universalists.

Surely, you don't cast all of these churches as whackadoodle?

Or, maybe you do.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. They were your data points.

At least have the honesty to own up to what you did.

[stone space]

50. OK, here's what the UU website has to say.

Here's the main page: http://www.uua.org/liberty/guns/index.shtml

Take Action to Prevent Gun Violence


By our silence, by our willingness to compromise principle… by our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim, by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing, by allowing all these developments, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.
—Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

At the bottom of that page are some links to specific official UU positions on the subject.

Gun Control

1972 General Resolution

BE IT RESOLVED: That the 1972 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association recommends uniform gun legislation as follows:

1.Licensing for the purchase and possession of all usable guns;

2.Gun registration-holding owners legally accountable for all their guns and registrars legally accountable for privacy of records;

3.Federal, state, provincial and local codes for responsible gun ownership regarding how they are kept, knowledge of proper use and to whom they may be transferred;

4.Sound standards for the responsible use of guns by law enforcement agencies;

5.Restriction of ownership and possession of concealable handguns to persons showing a specific need, such as law enforcement officers and security guards;

6.Strong legislation forbidding use of "drop guns" by law enforcement officers.

http://www.uua.org/statements/statements/19787.shtml

Handguns

1976 General Resolution

WHEREAS, nearly three out of four murders are impulsively committed by previously law-abiding citizens during arguments with family members or their acquaintances;

WHEREAS, for every robber stopped by a homeowner with a handgun, four homeowners or members of their family are killed in gun accidents;

WHEREAS, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly held (most recently in 1939 upholding the 1938 National Firearms Act) that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution only prohibits Congress from restricting the right of each state to maintain an armed militia and does not create a right for individuals to own guns;

BE IT RESOLVED: That the 1976 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges upon the government of the United States the passage of legislation which would prohibit ownership or possession of all handguns, except for: law enforcement officers; members of the armed forces; guards and messengers while on duty; licensed pistol clubs for on-premise use; owners of permanently inoperable handguns; and manufacturers, wholesalers, and dealers as merchandise only.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That such legislation provide for strict control of handgun ammunition and specify security measures to guard against theft or exempted handguns and ammunition, a six-month period wherein handguns may be surrendered in return for reasonable compensation, and that the unlawful possession of a handgun shall be made a felony.

http://www.uua.org/statements/statements/20237.shtml

Gun Control

1991 General Resolution

BECAUSE Unitarian Universalists affirm the inherent worth of every human life; and
BECAUSE safe coexistence within society requires reasonable compromise with the concept of absolute personal liberty; and

WHEREAS the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association passed, in 1972, a resolution advocating mandatory licensing for the purchase and possession of all usable guns and, in 1976, a resolution urging the passage of legislation restricting the ownership or possession of handguns;

WHEREAS in the United States legislation regarding firearms varies widely from state to state;

WHEREAS according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in a report covering the period 1986-1988:

1. firearms are a leading cause of accidental death among children ages 14 and under in the United States;

2. an estimated 130 million firearms exist in the United States, one for every two households;

3. and

4. every year there are over 1 million "gun incidents," including nearly 11,000 murders involving firearms, 15,000 suicides, 1,900 accidental deaths, 175,000 criminal assaults committed with firearms, 221,000 armed robberies, 90,000 forcible rapes, and over 200,000 gun-related injuries;

WHEREAS many consumer products sold in North America are regulated to protect the public from hazards associated with their use; and

WHEREAS machine guns and semi-automatic and automatic assault weapons are highly powerful weapons designed for the efficient destruction of life;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists be encouraged to petition legislators to enact and support laws such as:

1 .the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1991 (HR7) in the United States, which is intended to place nationally uniform, effective limitations on individual possession of

2. handguns, including waiting periods, licensing, and registration;

3. the "Mitchell Compromise"; and

4. Bill C-80 (1991) in Canada, which is intended to make the purchase of firearms more difficult;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists be urged to petition legislators to include safety training programs as a mandatory condition that must be met before firearms can be owned and used; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists in the United States be urged to petition legislators to enact and support laws banning private ownership or use of machine guns and semi-automatic and automatic assault weapons.


http://www.uua.org/statements/statements/14420.shtml

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Of course, because UU is just about as liberal as a christian denomination gets.

[stone space]

56. How are the UU's teabaggers when they aren't even on that list?

Yes, those Unitarian Universalist Teabaggers, OMG WTF?

[Warren Stupidity]

58. SKP can't respond.

But I suspect that at that point he was just desperately making shit up to cover up his blunder with Christian Identity fundaloon sources.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Liberty Fellowship Really? No wonder you didn't provide a link.

The link you left out: http://libertyfellowshipmt.com/Resources/SecondAmendmentPastors.aspx

God told Chuck Baldwin to move to Montana. Specifically, to Kalispell. God did this, according to Baldwin, sometime in the summer of 2010.

For 35 years Baldwin, a fundamentalist Christian, had lived and preached in Pensacola, Florida, railing in a syndicated column in recent years about U.N. gun control conspiracy theories, tyranny-minded globalists and FEMA internment camps.



Chuck Baldwin, a leader of the right-wing extremist
Patriot movement, recently moved to Kalispell.
His new ministry includes local white supremacists.


Baldwin is now one of the leading figures in the Patriot movement, which has grown explosively since the U.S. economic meltdown and election of President Obama in 2008. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, the number of Patriot groups in the country skyrocketed from 149 in 2008 to 824 in 2010. The SPLC describes such groups as comprised of "people who generally believe that the federal government is an evil entity that is engaged in a secret conspiracy to impose martial law, herd those who resist into concentration camps, and force the United States into a socialistic 'New World Order.'

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/11/16/high-country-extremism-patriot-games/181612

Even for you, this is a new low.

[trotsky]

44. "His new ministry includes local white supremacists"

Swell guy, I'm sure.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. The thing about gungeoneers is that they invariably cough up the rightwing

hate propaganda. Just be patient.

[trotsky]

57. I avoid the Gungeon for a reason.

Was disappointed seeing that fight dragged into here by someone cbayer respects so much.

[NYC_SKP]

47. What's the matter Warren? Losing your argument? Guilt by association? That's your foil?

Pretty pathetic, dude.

Come at me with some cogent arguments, not a bunch of accusations and associations that aren't relevant.

I posted a list, now I've reached a new low?



How about posting something of value and reason, rather than react with your bullshit association? Oh, yeah, you can't.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. it isn't every day I see somebody using a rightwing hate site as their source

congratulations.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. I honestly don't think he checked.

I would have at least asked him to clarify or delete, before alerting. (Not implying *you* alerted.)

Edit: well, I guess he was given a couple opportunities. Unfortunate.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. He doubled down on it and pretended that it included UU churches.

And then he told me that I'd lost the argument by pointing out what a shit site it was. Plus not putting a link on it was a guilty act. So screw that. And yes I did alert on it after I checked it out. I have no problem with the gun debate. I have a huge problem with right wing nuttery.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Yeah, I followed that thread fork and then edited my post.

Unfortunate, I think maybe he just painted himself into a corner with a bad search, but he had the opportunity to fix it and doubled down so... Yep. Bummer dude.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. Out of curiousity

did you notice the OP of this entire thread got away with citing right wing nuttery?

Just happens to be a single article that happens to be left of center on guns, representing an unknown number of Jesuits.

Have a gander at what the Jesuits think about ordination of women, same sex marriage, abortion, family planning, physician assisted suicide, comprehensive sex ed, sex outside marriage, etc.


Someone pulled a fast one on us.

[Prophet 451]

55. They're free to make that argument

Like any other group, they are free to argue and gather support for a change in the law.

Personally, I think they go too far but it's certainly a case they're free to make.

[NaturalHigh]

90. Never going to happen, and it shouldn't.

I respect the Jesuits, but they're just wrong on this one.

[Kurska]

109. Don't care, currently enjoying my handgun and my gay marriage. EOM

[stone space]

110. Congratulations on your marriage! (nt)