Summations Only

I'm all for requiring guns to be registered. But I'm pretty sure I don't want the government to behave as you describe. Deciding to investigate mom because she's legally purchased too many guns is on shaky enough grounds. But then the government decides my mom is nuts, so suddenly I'm a target to investigate? That's way too "State-y" for me. Yes a bullet proof vest does raise suspicions, but what should the government do about that? There are plenty of things that are indicators of trouble. I'll bet Lanza's reading list and his internet searches are full of worrying information. But I don't want to give the government access to my information in order to catch that guy.

A transcript of the NPR program mentioned in the title can be found at the link below:On Gun Ownership And Policy, 'A Country Of Chasms' : NPRI had a question for gun advocates regarding this exchange between gun enthusiast Gwaltney and host Melissa Block.

quote:

---

PAUL GWALTNEY: This is where we keep everything. So...

​

BLOCK: In the basement, Paul shows me shelves of ammo and their 36-gun vault.

​

GWALTNEY: And we're making room for a second vault because we're overloading this one. So...

​

(LAUGHTER)

​

BLOCK: It's full?

​

GWALTNEY: It is full. Yes.

​

BLOCK: And he keeps one more handgun upstairs for protection. How many guns in all? Paul tells me that's a question only non-gun owners ask, fixating on the number, implying that people have more guns than they need. For gun owners, he says, there is no distinction between need and want.

---

Gwaltney had something on the order of 50 guns. I simply cannot fathom the idea that only non-gun owners, upon hearing about Gwaltney's overloaded gun vault, and his plans to build a second vault, would not ask how many guns Gwaltney had. Could some gun owner comment on this question?The Gwaltney part was a preliminary to the debate/discussion. The three participants in the gun discussion who owned guns each owned two-three guns and they each knew exactly how many they had.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : effing homonyms.

From what I have read not all of the guns belonged to the mother. I believe that Adam Lanza also purchased his own weaponry as they said they found a gift certificate (Card) that his mom got him to go and purchase another weapon.

Hmm. From what I've heard, all of the guns used in the shootings belonged to his mother, but that's not quite a rebuttal of what you said is it? We also know that Adam Lanza tried unsuccessfully to buy a rifle at Dick's sporting goods.

Well, the Senate has rejected the Bill that would have expanded background checks in the US. What can I say? Yuck.

quote:

---

Self-defense is not murder, Jaderis, and nobody who defends the second amendment is out to "kill" in that sense. Those who make a moral equivalence between justice and murder are committing a great sin themselves. Just like those who make an equivalence between the death penalty and murder. Are you one of those?

---

I don't know what you mean by "one of those," but doesn't the Gospel of Jesus compel us to reserve judgement of those who sin and those who are our enemies unto Him? Can you point out any text where Jesus asks us to defend ourselves with arms and judge and kill those who would oppress or oppose us? Jesus also does not make the distinction between nations and individuals in His gospels so still I have no idea how you are able to justify killing people in the name of national self defense when Jesus explicitly ordered his followers to turn the other cheek and He allowed Himself to be killed rather than give in?If our nation is held accountable for the actions that you feel are antithetical to God's wishes and subject to God's wrath, then we should also be held accountable as a nation for those things (like waging war instead of turning the other cheek) which go against His teachings about loving thy neighbor and helping those who who are in need.

That is, do you make a moral equivalence between the death penalty and murder? What does this have to do with the situation of self defense, in which one's life is being threatened, perhaps by a gun? This isn't "judging," this is defending oneself. He allowed his disciples to have two swords among them, which implies that He thought they might need them after His crucifixion, and what else for than to defend themselves, which while they were with Him they didn't need. First, turning the other cheek does not occur in a life-threatening situation, but when one's face has been slapped, which is an insult.The distinction is obvious and implicit, it seems to me. Where was Jesus EVER talking to anyone but his assembled disciples and individuals? Where is he EVER advising rulers or heads of state? NOWHERE. And how can we expect the government of a nation to "turn the other cheek?" Its JOB is to protect its citizens. Turning the other cheek can't possibly be anything a nation is called to do, but of course it is possible for nations to violate God's laws and come under judgment, for unjust wars as well as corporate or legally sanctioned violations of his laws about abortion or the murder of the unborn, divorce, adultery, violations of marriage as a Creation Ordinance, sexual misbehavior and all kinds of other things. God does judge nations, but the source of instruction about all that is the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 9 I think and Leviticus 26 and a few other places.Jesus did NOT address nations, He came to save individual souls.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do equate the two. Our government should be focused on rehabilitation, mental health, and ensuring that the cost of incarceration is not astronomical. As it stands at this time, the death penalty is simply government sanctioned murder, that actually costs taxpayers more money to have in place. Another problem is something you have mentioned many times Faith. Here is a paraphrase, "human beings are fallible". This means that we can make mistakes and sentence the wrong person to death. One innocent death means that we, as the funding party of that death, all have that murder on our hands. Not only do we have the blood on our hands, but we paid more money to have this blood on our hands then we would have to simply incarcerate the individual for life. Plus, if evidence ever cleared the innocent person, there is still a chance to release them from prison. The death penalty takes away all chances on the decisions of fallible individuals. Ummmmm......just a little later in the entire comment Jaderis states: Jesus is supposed to be our example, correct? And according to Scripture even in the face of impending death Jesus chose to go quietly and accept what was to be done. How does this show that "Turn the other cheek" does not apply in life-threatening situations?In fact, let's look at the entire "Turn the other cheek" scripture, shall we? So, not only are you supposed to allow the person to slap you twice, but once he or she has robbed you of your cloak, you are supposed to remove your coat and hand that to him or her as well. You understandably want to defend yourself because it is the rational thing to do, but according to scripture that is never the method that should be followed. You simply want to reduce the meaning of the statement to apply only to slaps on the cheek, but it clearly reads as a metaphor for always display restraint, control and offer peace in exchange for violence and theft. So, they were going to defend themselves against the Romans and the Jews with two swords, huh? Seems like a plausible choice.......wait....Not even close! Also, when one of the disciples took out his sword during the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, what was Jesus' reply? He tells him to put the sword away and no more violence, even again in the face of impending death. It definitely seems like your violent Jesus is based not on scripture but on reading scripture how you need to in order to get what you want."Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane."This site does a great job taking the entire verse in context and describing how the swords are much more a metaphor for the tensions that will be present in the Holy Land following the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalam. So, forget the "two swords" in defense of gun laws and ighteous wars, because that is not the intent of those verses. And if it was, then Jesus was a hypocrite for reversing on his earlier teaching of love, compassion and peace. SourceHere, you finally got something partway right. However, the government is not protecting its citizens by fighting for multiple causes across the world that have very little to do with the protection of the American people. Rather, they are protecting political and economical resources and creating more enemies in the process. I am not saying that radical fundamentalists (Christian, Islam, etc..)are not a risk, but the methods being employed do not seem to quell the risk, rather they accentuate it.The nation can be, and is, called to turn the other cheek. However, there are certain situations that arise in the political spectrum that this cannot be the solution. Iraq, Vietnam, Korea....these are not situations that the United States should have involved itself in. World War 2 and the attempted gross destruction of an entire segment of the population for being different...that is cause for a "righteous" war. Sadly, it wasn't this terrible treatment of humanity (6 million dead) that the US cites as its reason for entering the war but rather the deaths of over 1,000 US servicemembers. Made it less of a righteous action and more retaliation, which would go against Jesus' teaching.

I wish the result were some kind of surprise. But only the fact that a vote was even taken should surprise us.Next time, Gadget. Next time...

deleted. Too angry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I awarded you a cheer for recognizing that your anger had gotten the best of you and deleting your post. But perhaps you should reflect on why someone disagreeing with you, even on an issue like capital punishment, should make you so angry.Surely you've encountered people having opinions similar to Tempe 12 foot chickens before.

While this is as real a tragedy as can be, I cannot help but wonder what the heck...A 5-yo had gotten a 22-caliber rifle for his birthday!!! Who the h3ll thinks a real firearm is a proper present for a CHILD? I thought that idiocy had reached its pinnacle but apparently it had not.5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister - CNNAnd then something that made me want to puke. I reallly, really loath people like this. They are the vilest of vile and lowest of low. "He just picked (the gun) up before he realized it," grandmother Linda Riddle told WLEX.

​

Riddle said her granddaughter enjoyed singing and playing outdoors, and she loved her brother.

​

"It's just tragic," uncle David Mann told the CNN affiliate. "It's something that you can't prepare for."

​

Riddle said she is devastated, but comforted knowing that her granddaughter is in a better place.

​

"It was God's will. It was her time to go, I guess," she told WLEX. "I just know she's in heaven right now and I know she's in good hands with the Lord."Edited by saab93f, : Correcting typos and adding a bit.

I agree, that is the worst idiocy I've heard of in a long long time. I grieve for that little boy who didn't know what he was doing and will suffer from this the rest of his life. Unbelievably stupid.

Give children guns.
What could possibly go wrong.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I can't wait to hear the NRA's comment:"This would not have happened if his two-year old sister had had a gun herself."I guess there are more guns in the USA than braincells.