Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Toledo Gun Rally



The Toledo News Leader 11 site has the story. The gun rally, as was pointed out by the commenters to the news article, was not about carrying guns in church, but rather about the compatibility of 2nd Amendment Rights and being Christian.

The rally will point to numerous biblical references claiming Jesus Christ would support second amendment rights. "We're just informing our folks you got to be able to protect yourself and what does the Bible have to say about it. We know our constitution. But this is the final authority here above our Constitution is the word of God," said Reverend Andrew Edwards with the Northwest Baptist Church.

Naturally it has its critics. As posted on the Gun Guys site, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence issued a very eloquent statement.

The gun lobby and gun industry like to disguise their radical and extremist agenda by hiding behind the flag, and now the Bible. People’s lives and safety should matter more than a radical and violent ideology purported by the gun lobby.

We need to honor our values by reducing the access to these tools of violence and not promote weapons and fear if we are ever to reclaim a peaceful and just society.

What's your opinion? Is it fair to say they have "hidden behind the flag," that now they want to "hide behind the Bible?" I think it describes pretty well what they do. I've often suspected that some of the most vocal supporters of the 2nd Amendment, the guys who quote the Founders with reverence, are really just guys who like guns. These means of justification came later.

May I make a prediction? These characters in Toledo won't be the last preachers of the Word who jump on the bandwagon. It started last month with Pastor Ken Pagano down in Kentucky. I can feel it coming like a tidal wave now.

Please leave a comment.

21 comments:

  1. I think it describes pretty well what they do. I've often suspected that some of the most vocal supporters of the 2nd Amendment, the guys who quote the Founders with reverence, are really just guys who like guns. These means of justification came later.

    Gonna cite some basis for that accusation, or will you stick to your usual pattern of throwing an allegation out, without any support whatsoever?

    May I make a prediction? These characters in Toledo won't be the last preachers of the Word who jump on the bandwagon. It started last month with Pastor Ken Pagano down in Kentucky. I can feel it coming like a tidal wave now.

    One can only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I might be a little rusty on my Jesus reading, but in what book did he say it was okay to carry guns?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I came to send peace on the earth. I came not to send peace but a sword

    Luke 22:36
    And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take and and likewise a wallet, and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword

    ReplyDelete
  4. Off topic sort of...but care to address this post from Pistolero's site?

    On more strike against the justice system...

    ...right here:

    Another man must serve the rest of his life in prison for killing a Houston woman who was staying at a Bossier City motel in 2005.
    Dwight Keith Bacon, 25, of Shreveport, pleaded guilty Monday to a charge of second-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, according to the Caddo district attorney's office.
    ...
    Tosha Lampkin, 30, was staying at David Motel while she and cousin Tonya Douglas were visiting family.
    Lampkin was carjacked from the parking lot when she left the room to get something to eat about 3 a.m. April 22, 2005.
    Douglas received a call about two hours later informing her their rental car had been found in Shreveport.
    It had been torched and there was a body in the trunk.
    Authorities said Lampkin had been raped and was alive in the trunk when the car was torched.
    ...
    Bacon, who never before had been arrested, is the second man to be sentenced to life in connection with Lampkin's death.
    Brandon Davis, 25, of Bossier City, was convicted of first-degree murder in April 2008.
    He raped and killed Lampkin less than two months after completing a five-year sentence for robbing and intimidating a 75-year-old woman.



    Wow, five years for robbing and intimidating a 75-year-old woman. I don't know how there could have been any doubt that punk would have been escalating his campaign of violence toward younger and stronger members of the population sooner or later. And I know the death penalty might well not be appropriate for robbery, but why could this guy not have been locked up longer than he was? Why is it that we let these people walk free in society when they're so obviously untrustworthy? And why do anti-gunners not have a problem with this? Why don't they demand gasoline and lighter/match licensing and registration too? And WHY would they want to make it so hard for people like the late Tonya Lampkin and this old woman to defend themselves? The lack of a gun certainly didn't hinder Ms. Lampkin's killers, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the opening few seconds of the video linked...

    "Should Christians be allowed to carry guns."

    Is it your position that those who wish to excersize one of their fundamental Rights should be forced to relinquish another fundamental Right in order to do so?

    Please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I might be a little rusty on my Jesus reading, but in what book did he say it was okay to carry guns?"

    If you have not read the bible, trying to debate the contents here or anywhere else will only get you spanked...very hard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob, I think it's pathetic that you would stoop to quoting the Bible to support your gun rights. I'm sure you have an answer for it, but what about the part that says turn the other cheek and the part about if a man steals your jacket give him also your coat? What about love your enemies?

    We read it the other day from the Ohio group. First you guys wrapped yourselves in the flag, now it's the Bible.

    I see it as self-serving justification, after the fact. The fact is you like guns, then you scrounge around for all the justification.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First Sparky, it was in response to a direct question from someone.!!

    Anonymous phuckpolitics said...

    I might be a little rusty on my Jesus reading, but in what book did he say it was okay to carry guns?



    So, I guess it shows you really don't pay attention to what is said in the COMMENTS of YOUR OWN BLOG POSTS.

    but what about the part that says turn the other cheek and the part about if a man steals your jacket give him also your coat? What about love your enemies?

    You are right, those are ideals to live up to...under certain circumstances. I get to decide when and where...NOT YOU.

    When you try to disarm me -- through 'sensible gun control laws' and reducing 'availability' you are taking away my choice.

    Before you start enforcing scriptures on others, shouldn't you be living them?

    Do you advertise your gun free status at home and while you are out?

    Do you leave your doors unlocked so thieves can take your cloak and tunic?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Noticed also you didn't address Pistolero's post, why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob, I think it's pathetic that you would stoop to quoting the Bible to support your gun rights. I'm sure you have an answer for it, but what about the part that says turn the other cheek and the part about if a man steals your jacket give him also your coat? What about love your enemies?

    I'm not Bob, and I'm not even religious, but I feel compelled to stick up for him in response to that kind of vituperative venom on your part. I always thought of "turn the other cheek" as being about refraining from seeking vengeance, rather than being about refusing to defend oneself, meekly submitting, in other words, to violence initiated by someone else. I've never heard a bible passage quoted that made that demand. In fact, with the Christian prohibition against suicide, does that not imply an obligation to defend one's life against violent attack?

    You have to understand that most of us love life so much that we're willing to defend it with lethal force. We love peace so much that we won't shrink from killing those would inflict violence on us and our loved ones.

    You will, most likely, find the above paragraph to be contradictory--perhaps to the point of parody--but that just shows how out of touch you are with the basis of our beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. By the way, Mike B, isn't the OCAGV "hiding behind the bible," just as they accuse Christian gun rights advocates of doing? Why is it contemptible for one group to find biblical justification for its agenda, but "eloquent" of an opposing group to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I think it's pathetic that you would stoop to quoting the Bible to support your gun rights."

    I think it's pathetic that you would stoop to quoting the Bible to support your desire to strip the public of rights.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thirdpower, Why do you say such nonsense?: "I think it's pathetic that you would stoop to quoting the Bible to support your desire to strip the public of rights."

    You know very well that's not what I do. I'm challenging Bob to explain what seem to me like contradictory messages in the Bible.

    That's Bob, who often calls me a hypocrite and accuses me of cherry picking data to support my ideas. He says, "You are right, those are ideals to live up to...under certain circumstances. I get to decide when and where." He's a Christian gun owner who was just quoting Scripture on my blog, citing Chapter and Verse, to defend his decision to be armed. But, to the more peaceful exhortations of Jesus, Bob says, "under certain circumstances. I get to decide when and where." That's too funny for words.

    ReplyDelete
  14. MikeB,

    I'm taking your challenge. I'm thinking about it carefully.

    I may post it on my site instead of here.

    But get something straight SPARKY. I wasn't quoting the bible to defend my right to keep and bear arms.

    I WAS ANSWERING A DIRECT QUESTION FROM ONE YOUR READERS THAT YOU NEVER SEEM TO MODERATE.

    HE ASKED THE QUESTION AND I ANSWERED IT.


    DO YOU NOT KNOW HOW TO READ????

    I might be a little rusty on my Jesus reading, but in what book did he say it was okay to carry guns?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bob, You're absolutely right you were answering a question. Phuck Politics sucked you in and you fell for it, quoting Scripture. Then when I jumped on it, you made it worse by betraying the fact that you pick and choose your Scripture verses, the ones that don't work with your agenda, "under certain circumstances. I get to decide when and where." But, yes you're right you were answering a question.

    By the way, I hope you're not trying to blame Phuck Politics for the mess you got yourself into. Remember everyone is responsible for their own actions around here, no shared responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mike, you still have done nothing, nothing to explain what was wrong with Bob S. answering the question, and doing so like he did.

    In short, why is quoting a biblical justification for armed self-defense any worse than quoting scripture in justification of government mandated defenselessness?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Remember everyone is responsible for their own actions around here, no shared responsibility.

    Really? So you'll gladly apply that to gun owners but not to your own blog?

    ReplyDelete
  18. MikeB,

    I only object to you describing what I did as using the bible to justify my actions.

    I was asked a direct question and provided a direct answer. At no time did I say that I JUSTIFIED my actions based on the bible.

    Just where Jesus said it was okay to carry a gun...question answered and asked.

    You attempted to say that it was pathetic to use the bible.

    That I objected to. I will will provide scriptural basis for my beliefs...but in this case I wasn't "stooping" to do that.

    I challenge you to provide scriptural justification for your anti-freedom activities. I'll provide the counter argument.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Really MikeB,

    Explain how Bob was incorrect. Did or did not Jesus endorse the carrying of weapons for self-defense?

    "Remember everyone is responsible for their own actions around here, no shared responsibility."

    Wow, that's a nice little contradiction from your position that all firearm owners are responsible for the actions of criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't feel comfortable using the Bible to justify the anti-gun position, although I think it could be done. Just off the top of my head there seem to be more quotes supporting the gun control side, swords into plowshares, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc.

    But, Bob told me everything I needed to know when he said "under certain circumstances. I get to decide when and where." That must be how pro-gun Christians read the Bible. Some things are taken literally, others, well, they're taken conditionally, or not at all.

    What's wrong with doing this, 45superman, is there are drastically contradictory statements in the Bible about this issue. One would have to do exactly what Bob does, pick the ones that match the given agenda and either ignore the others or come up with elaborate ways to discount them.

    It's much worse, but not totally dissimilar, to quoting the 2nd amendment in support of the pro-gun argument. Here you've got two schools of thought concerning the militia business and whether it refers to a collective or an individual right. But with the Bible, it's many times more complicated than that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here you've got two schools of thought concerning the militia business and whether it refers to a collective or an individual right.

    And one of those schools of thought has been thoroughly discredited as a settled point of law.

    So are you now saying that it's wrong for forcible citizen disarmament advocates to use their interpretation of the Second Amendment (even before that interpretation was soundly defeated), because they're just cherry picking what they want--or does that only apply to the pro-rights side?

    ReplyDelete