“Rosalind C Hughes [above] is an Episcopal priest and immigrant from the United Kingdom,” cleveland.com reports, by way of an introduction to her Op Ed Guns everywhere, but our safety is never more compromised. Reverend Hughes isn’t happy with Ohio’s gun law liberalization. Her hand-wringing harangue asks the following questions of her readers — which is about to include you . . .
What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon do to our way of being in community? What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together? What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?
Answers below please. Meanwhile, here’s Reverend Hughes’ answer to [what she thought was] her rhetorical questions:
There is something profoundly alienating about the idea that the only way we can be safe is to be ready at any moment to kill. It is a bias of mine that we do not make ourselves or one another safer by carrying death more closely in our pockets, or binding its tools to our bodies.
I recognize the irony that the cross I sometimes wear over my heart was itself an instrument of terror, as excruciating as any organ damage inflicted by a bullet. Even the stories surrounding the crucifixion of Christ include cynical debates over who carries the right to kill.
Perhaps, two thousand years later and half a world away, we still have some lessons to learn.
For example, when Jesus said, “Suffer the little children,” he did not mean, “Make them suffer.” On the contrary, he was saying, “Let them live.”
Really? Who knew?
[NB: As always, ad hominem attacks will be deleted. Persistent offenders will be permanently banned.]
We need a ban on immigration from the United Kingdom. Don’t need any of their corrosive ideology in our country.
Don’t tar everyone from the UK with the same brush!
I know a lot of Brits living in the US, every single one of whom owns firearms and has wholeheartedly thrown themselves into the US culture.
There are plenty of constitution shredders that are homegrown, but I do agree 100% that more should not be imported!
First person to ever take me shooting 19 years ago was my buddy’s dad from England, who remains a Resident Alien in the US to this very day. He’ll lose his pension from the RAF if he becomes a US Citizen, as well as several security clearances, and would (ironically) end up paying more in taxes with fewer benefits as a US Citizen, and he can legally own guns while he lives here.
“SHE HAS TO GO BACK”.
right… look what all that warm furry crap did for them brits. those bobbies wish they had some firearms and so do the citizens living there.
“What’s wrong with guns everywhere?”
Um — nothing?
Beat me to it.
Yeah, me too.
Maybe an increased slip and fall hazard from the left wetting themselves.
…unless your a tyrant.
Are you a tyrant? Really?!?
We believe in the God given right to self protection and preservation. I’m sorry this truth has eluded you.
I have said it before and I will offer the same again: if she can absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guarantee that I, and my loved ones, will never be the victim of a crime or tyrannical government. If she can swear and produce a perfect world where there is no crime, no poverty, no drugs, and no risk of evil from people or governments. A world where wars do not happen and we all will live to well over a hundred years and die peacefully in our sleep then I will gladly turn in my defensive tools (but not the ones I keep for sport).
Until then STFU.
I think you’re missing the big picture, here. She would be happy to swear to that and anything else you’d like, so now it’s your time to disarm and put your faith in hey-zeus or whatever, all done here, move along. She’s a moron, no sense discussing anything further with her.
Larry,
That is why I added the requirement that she had to first produce that perfect world of peace, love, and unicorns farting rainbows. Until that world is produced I won’t be turning anything in.
But you are right and I will amend my statement and simplify it to say that “when they produce a perfect world I will turn in my defensive tools.” However, it is also worth noting that if we live in a perfect world where there is no crime and all governments are honest and benevolent then there will also be no need to regulate firearms and I will continue to own the, for sporting purposes.
Additionally, if they promise such a world and fail to produce it then that should be a capital crime since they are placing fellow citizens at risk. Let’s see if they are willing to place their own lives on the line for unicorn farting rainbows.
We do not have enough home grown bigotry and intolerance in these United States. We need to import more anti-civil rights bigots from England!
You know, if she really hates firearms that much, she should move back to the UK, very few guns there. As for her safety, who knows…
Go back to England. They deserve you.
Episcopal and from the UK…..enough said.
The instruction of the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 14 is this:
33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
This woman appears to be a rebel against Christ, not a faithful teacher of His word.
Only if you read Paul, who is famously misogynistic. Jesus welcomed women into his community, Paul not so much. Other apostles have far less vitriol–if any–against women. Today we would call him a male chauvinist pig. Or a faithful Muslim male who ascribes to the old traditional view that women are only one step above a slave.
If you deny that the Holy Spirit is speaking through Paul — a supposition that has been accepted by all the greatest men of faith in Christian history — then you are rejecting much of the New Testament of the Bible and effectively saying that you are wise enough to pick and choose which parts of the Bible that you are going to listen to.
I’d that’s a pretty arrogant position.
Analysis of the text in Greek suggests that the verses you quote are not Paul’s words but some he is quoting — and negating. His theme is that the Spirit gives to whom He will, to speak. Then the question “Did the word of God comes from you?” is a rebuke to those who claim the Spirit only speaks through men.
That’s in keeping with Paul’s argument elsewhere that “there is neither male nor female”, and his inclusion of women in listing apostles, along with the fact that he approved of a husband-wife teaching team as essentially the first theological seminary and his appointment of women as leaders in some of his churches.
DrewR55,
Yeah, pretty much this. ^
Unfortunately, we will probably never live in such a perfect world. It only takes 1 person in a crowd of 1,000 to break the silence.
It is not that one must be ready to kill. It is acceptance of personal responsibility and acknowledgement that you and you alone are ultimately responsible for your safety and that you are always the first responder to any crisis you are in.
“What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together?”
“an armed society is a polite society”
“What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
“Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!””
I like to cite 1 Samuel 13:19 as the earliest know gun control which is always been based on race, religion, ethnicity and keeping others restrained with violence. After over 3000 years the issues have not changed. If any one knows of older gun (weapon) control, please post it. Thanks!
I like to think of Nehemiah: if you know the other nations and people surrounding you and in your midst are making threats against you and your people, then let everyone strap on a weapon as they go about their work, some working and others guarding the workers. Interestingly they were building a wall to keep out those who would harm them. Read that however you like…. It seems the modern thought is to ignore or deny the existence of any threat, or even to encourage those who might harm you, and embrace being a victim. Victims are cool!
I’ll pile on:
According to that Book she claims to believe, person #4 killed person #3 (over a matter of religious practice, no less). People haven’t changed much since.
What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?
Nothing. It does imply, though, that an armed maniac can bust in and slaughter dozens of people in a house of worship just as easily as they can a school, movie theater, or workplace. If we could get maniacs to agree not to bust in and slaughter dozens of us in these and other venues, I’d agree to leave my gun in the car; until then, this woman can keep clutching her pearls while I tool up.
The Pilgrims went to church well armed and posted an armed watchman outside the meeting room. My ancestors left not-so-Great Britain for a reason.
#Murica
#1620
Church walls provide no sanctuary from evil deeds, and God will not and cannot protect his flock when the windows and doors are nailed shut and those walls burned down around them. Not then, not now. Until there is a genetic modification of the human animal, who strives mightily to survive through the use of violence, not ever. Our faith (if any) may give us strength in adversity, but it is up to protect ourselves.
“What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
It acknowledges what everyone already knows, but won’t talk about.
1. There is no “god”.
2. If there is, he could care less what happens here. (Other than sports, apparently he’s a super bro’. )
3. Or, he can’t really affect anything. At which point….
Also known as “why is the pope-mobile bulletproof?”.
what everyone already knows
Speak for yourself, thank you.
“For example, when Jesus said, “Suffer the little children,” he did not mean, “Make them suffer.” On the contrary, he was saying, “Let them live.””
Oh really Rosiland? Your country, the UK is letting Charlie Gard die and not allowing him to go to the US for care. You liberals say let the little children suffer and die. You are evil people.
I’ll also note that “let them live” was in damn short supply when a certain evil little shit was stalking the halls of Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2013.
Two dozen innocent kids crying for help, only to receive a murderer’s bullet instead — because the adults in charge all thought the same as Reverend Rosalind C. Hughes.
If life is God’s most precious gift to us, then it’s our most sacred duty to protect the lives of the innocent (and who is more innocent than a child?) against those who would unjustly take it. Ms. Hughes and her ilk are on the wrong side of this question, and I can only hope for her sake that her god judges her mercifully in the end.
our communities will be polite and safe.
the children will learn a sense of security and worth.
faith can exist with the knowledge that your higher power is not going to defend you. that’s your job.
ad hominahominahominems begging to be spewed.
Add hominy? Yes, please.
i only grit my teeth when i’m sleeping.
I’m grinding my teeth cause of your puns. 8>)
The point is not to be able to kill at any moment. The point is to protect with overwhelming force when force is used against you. The point is to be prepared. You can’t be prepared if your gun is at home locked up or locked in your car.
Killing is the last thing, the last straw, the last option. The British, having lost the colonies and also more recently having given up their guns, and soon to be knives too, don’t get it. (I won’t say the Episcopal Church because I know a few of all faiths that are 2A supporters.) Even in the face of being overtaken by Muslims in their country they don’t understand what’s needed. They don’t understand personal freedom. They don’t have any. For them, the first thing is King and Country. (For a while King and God were the same thing.) Here, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution give us freedoms. To choose. To elect. To speak. To protect ourselves (including our family and our way of life) through bearing arms.
The 1689 English Bill of Rights allows that Protestants may have arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law. Catholics could go fuck themselves. Sadly, this is another English law which only serves as toilet paper, as English subjects have no rights. Except to be the victim of the next knife or gun attack by fanatics. And if you carry any object which might serve for your defense, you will spend time in gaol (Old English for jail). Mind you, the chances of being murdered are far less in the UK. There is that.
“I know a few of all faiths that are 2A supporters”
I’d like to see a Jehovah’s Witness that does
She needs to study up on history.
Take a good long look at nazi germany. The nazis disarmed people for “public safety”. Look how that turned out.
Take a good long look at what is going on in the Uk. Take another one at France.
Do us all a favor and go back. You can preach your bs there.
Have a nice day.
John 18:10 “Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.”
Maybe she forgot this verse in the Bible and should ponder it a bit more. From the context of the verse, it suggests that Peter had been armed longer than just that day. Now why would someone who was in the actual physical company of Jesus, the Son of Man, need a sword? Is she suggesting that Peter lacked sufficient faith? Jesus being who he was surely knew Peter had a sword. Christs objection to Peter using it wasn’t that he had the sword as evidence in verse 11. “Put your sword back in its sheath!” Jesus said to Peter. “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given Me?” Jesus was staying Peter’s hand from fighting back so He could fulfill His Father’s plan not as a rebuke for Peter’s desire to stand against evil.
The version of that story from the Gospel of Luke leads us to believe that two of eleven disciples were carrying swords, even before Jesus told them to tool up. Self-defense was important then, as it is now.
Apparently in her world the Apostles were getting all set to murder some children because they didn’t want Jesus to be disturbed and He had to reign them in
^^^ Well stated.^^^
Yet another mistake by the lake.
Just repeating what others have posted, send this seditionists back to where FLAME DELETED came from!
She’s not opposed to guns everywhere. She’s opposed to guns anywhere.
But being a good English cleric, she is a highly practiced liar.
LIke most good authoritarians, she’s probably not opposed to guns in the hands of the government (whom she naively assumes will never turn its guns on her).
As long as she is quoting the Bible….
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
“What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon do to our way of being in community? What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together? What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?
What about the fundamental and relentless attacks on our Constitution? When / if America ever goes away, you better watch your a _ _ . Chuck the 2nd at your peril, without it, we’ve got no need for the rest, and you’ll get no rest for your needs.
Tried to delete.
Rosalind’s beliefs about altruism and violence are 100% correct. If, indeed, every single person on the earth believed and behaved as she claims SHE does, then yes indeed – I’ll sing kumbaya with her. If that was the case, then there would be no reason to rid the word of guns, since there would be no person on the planet that would harm another with a gun.
Bottom line: Rosalind has escaped from reality and will never find the way back.
“What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon do to our way of being in community?”
It allows us to be in fellowship with our friends in the community, while being prepared to defend ourselves from the enemies of our community. Was that a trick question?
“What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together?”
It teaches the children that we love them so much, we are prepared to protect them from evil, using the best tools available. You may have heard of a thing called evil. The Bible mentions it over 600 times.
“What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
It says that we love God so much, are prepared to defend ourselves as we worship, rather than avoid Him out of fear. See Nehemiah 4:17.
There’s certainly something telling in the fact she talks about “community” as something that is defended by others, from without, rather than as a group that collaborates in its own self-defense.
Well said.
“There is something profoundly alienating about the idea that the only way we can be safe is to be ready at any moment to . . .” BEND OVER AND TAKE IT???
“I recognize the irony that the cross I sometimes wear over my heart was itself an instrument of terror, as excruciating as any organ damage inflicted by a bullet. Even the stories surrounding the crucifixion of Christ include cynical debates over who carries the right to kill.”
SO SHE HATE’S PEOPLES RTKABA, AND THE CHURCH.
Nice when she squeezed the nuts of the euro-trash church hard enough to admit women as priestesses, only to have her continue to kick them in the junk over her broke faith.
“Perhaps, two thousand years later and half a world away, we still have some lessons to learn.”
Yep, don’t even call for help when you get schooled. You’ll be up on top of the episcopal bishop’s residence whining while he’s throwing slippers. It’ll be like World War Z.
Progressivism equals government registration lists.
When there are guns *everywhere* there are increased tripping hazards. I stubbed my toe pretty hard on a full ammo can once. That hurt, and it encouraged me to clear a path.
I was raised in the Catholic Light church by Democrat parents, and none of their Left Wing crap took. Even my mom figured out that the priest that puts the most people to sleep in the least amount of time becomes the bishop.
replace the words gun(s) with sword(s) and see if it still makes her feel the same way. most likely not. so again, she just fundamentally misunderstands gun ownership.
That’s a woman? Really? OK, that explains why she became a priest. 😮
Read her piece about the American flag. They definitely need to vet more strictly those that are to become citizens.
http://religiondispatches.org/what-american-flag-worship-looks-like-to-a-new-citizen/
Unicorns, rainbows & glitter for all.
“What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon do to our way of being in community?”
From a practical perspective the answer to your question should be “nothing,” but if you would change the way you interact with a person based on their choice to go armed, then you need to reconsider how you treat people in the first place.
“What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together?”
It would teach them that mankind deals in two ways, reason and force. It would teach them to use reason unless and until they must respond to force with force.
“What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
We value human life enough to try to protect it against those who would take it, and if we fail and become martyrs we won’t do so as helpless victims.
Met a Brit at a party over the weekend. Talk came around to guns. She said, “we are much better off without guns.” I thought oh no!! She said, “we have less firearms violence since we got rid of them.” I said those are bogus statistics because I have less than zero chance of dying skydiving because I never do. She said, “Oh we still murder each other.” I’m going wait… She says, “America has guns in their Constitution.” She says, “Brits aren’t sane. Americans are sane or you’d have a lot more violence if it’s measured by how many guns you have. She said who gets on a moped and splashes acid on people? We Brits aren’t sane.”
Then she says walking away, “by the way we live here and have lots of guns.” 🙂 🙂
You’d think that someone that closely associated with a church would understand that evil exists.
That was my first thought in response to all her questions: it says we’re aware that though the Fall has been set in reverse, the full measure of that will never be accomplished in this world.
“There is something profoundly alienating about the idea that the only way we can be safe is to be ready at any moment to kill.”
“be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet”
~~General James Mattis
Works for me.
It’s called “free will.” It’s the very core foundation of man’s relationship with God, the creator. From the very beginning, humans have had the free choice to disobey God’s instructions and to do evil to one another. The ability to deter and resist evil acts from other humans is a fundamental human right, and this right has absolutely nothing to do with any of the points the deceived clergy woman makes.
“If life is God’s most precious gift to us, then it’s our most sacred duty to protect the lives of the innocent (and who is more innocent than a child?) against those who would unjustly take it.”
Amen
Evil exists. Be ready.
(easy answer to all of her questions)
Because she is incapable of using simple logic, or discovering in the Holy Bible any basis for faith in Christ, she believes in Man’s instrumentality rather than Divine Will. She actually thinks if we all just try hard enough, we can become a peaceful and safe society. She does not recognize Bible teaching that the Ruler of this world is Satan, and he and his evil angels are everywhere influencing the insane and malignant to malicious acts. She does not understand that the Catholic church, and its Prince the Pope, are recognized by all Protestant reformers from Luther onward as the Antichrist, in league with Satan. Her Church is divorced in name only from Catholicism, and is embroiled in its devilish practices. She takes the 6th Commandment as the King James translators stated “Thou shall not Kill”, when the correct translation is “Thou shall not Murder”. Paul repeatedly states that women shall not speak in church, not shall they be ministers. She speaks nothing but empty words.
OMG this person despite her profession is theologically illiterate. If you tried to explain to her what a Parable was she would probably have a stroke trying to process it.
“Even the stories surrounding the crucifixion of Christ include cynical debates over who carries the right to kill.”
Umm, no those questions were settled way back early in the Old Testament. Do any of the Gospels has any condemnation for Poncius Pilate in particular or the Roman Empire in general over the Crucifixion?
“For example, when Jesus said, “Suffer the little children,” he did not mean, “Make them suffer.” On the contrary, he was saying, “Let them live.””
So what the Apostles were all tooled up to murder those children until Jesus reigned them in? Or did He mean that everyone can come to him at anytime.
That it doesn’t stop bullets?
“What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
Bad guys get to win. God wants you dead.
Hughes’ objection is to using force to defend yourself. I’m sure she would have the same reaction to practicing a martial art for self defense or to keeping a baseball bat for use on burglars and home invaders. Her model is the Sandy Hook teachers who died interposing their bodies between Adam Lanza and the children in their care (not that they had a better alternative). It’s noble to sacrifice your life in a futile gesture that saves no one. Putting down a would-be murderer, thereby saving his prospective victims and yourself, makes you no better than the murderer. Self defense requires prioritizing your own life and the lives of innocent persons over the life of an assailant. She doesn’t agree with that. Her logic (if you want to call it that) is that the way to create a peaceful world is to let violent people kill off all the peaceful ones.
“I recognize the irony that the cross I sometimes wear over my heart was itself an instrument of terror, as excruciating as any organ damage inflicted by a bullet.”
AS excruciating? No honey, I would MUCH rather be shot than crucified… or stabbed for that matter, but that’s another show.
Britain’s motto is “Carry on and bleed out.”
America’s is “I’m your huckleberry.”
She can take her servile submission to evil and go home.
“What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a (secure method of money transfer) do to our way of being in community? What do (locks) in schools teach our children about how to live together? What does the introduction of (fire extinguishers) to our churches say about our faith?
Fixed it for you lady. You wouldn’t have sounded crazier by saying this than you already do, but I just thought I’d highlight it for the thinking impaired.
Move from England to effing Ohio and complain about guns? Oh well, she might as well be farting in a hurricane, Ohio is armed to the gizzard and nasty as cat shit!
“What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon do to our way of being in community? What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together? What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
In reverse order…
Weapons, in our churches and elsewhere, demonstrate the god-given agency to make of your life what it is in the reach of your arm (and for homo-technicus, reach of your brain) to do.
Guns in our schools teach our children that adult humans have agency, to hold their own place in the world, and a right to their own life. My life is not yours to grant or revoke at your will. Guns in our schools teach our children that, though holding a means of life or death, people can choose not to kill, or even use force to make a point. People can choose to convince rather than coerce, even when they have the means. People can forbear when taunted and abused; not to resort to force, though they could. And people can choose, at need to take on the terrible burden of being their brother’s keeper, say, when some whack job is shooting up a school. (Just making something random up there.) The brave teachers hearts were in the right place, who died buying their students another second by stepping between an armed whack-job and the kids. Adults also have the responsibility to be as competent as they can; able, responsibly, to do the hard thing that will keep their kids alive to die, long, long after, from something other than some whack-job delayed for just an instant by simple, unarmed, heroism.
And a trip to the local sports bar doesn’t so much “require” a concealed weapon, though carrying one might change the risk profile of the trip there, depending on where you are. Carrying in a sports bar, or anywhere else simply demonstrates the intrinsic, natural prerogative of people to defend their own lives at need. The tools to sustain you own life are natural and normal. Grown people are responsible for sustaining their own lives, including against terrorists, thugs, whack-jobs, and predators, who can only be prevented, not persuaded.
That this person, or any other, doesn’t get this is a shame. That this person *refuses* to get this is something worse.
Much like I don’t much mind if you want to stay disarmed, happier to quietly let yourself be eaten than fight back. I do mind forcing that choice on others — that’s immoral, and spectacularly inconsistent. How you gonna force them to do as you prefer? Hmmm? Hunger strike? Strongly-worded memo, maybe from the U. N.? The folks who would disarm you because force is bad, will do it by force. They will take the guns away by force, when they can. And they’ll do the taking by force, with guns. Who’s OK with causal violence again? I get confused.
“What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
It says that we recognize with Jesus that to call on God to protect us against every little possible harm is tempting/testing God. We don’t jump off tall buildings and expect God will keep us out of the hospital, and we don’t go out and about where we know from the daily news that there are people who mean other people harm and expect Him to make up for our lack of responsibility, either.
Hughes is the only person I’m aware of that has suggested that “a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon”. As well, her assertion that others believe “the only way we can be safe is to be ready at any moment to kill” indicates she has no ability think clearly & realistically. We should not take seriously anyone that is mentally ill to this extent.
“What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon do to our way of being in community? What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together? What does the introduction of weapons to our churches say about our faith?”
The places she mentions have all been the sites of mass murders by people with guns. The introduction of guns into these places by lawful people means we recognize that there are people with evil in their hearts who desire to kill us. If she thinks that self defense is bad, I’m sure she won’t offer any resistance at all to being physically attacked. Well, actually, I’d bet hard cash that she’s a hypocrit in this, and would, indeed, offer resistance.
“For example, when Jesus said, “Suffer the little children,” he did not mean, “Make them suffer.” On the contrary, he was saying, “Let them live.””
Actually, that’s not what Jesus was saying. I would expect an Episcopal priest to be just a tad more intimate with the Bible.
The actual quote from said Bible is this: “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” That’s the KJV version of Matthew 19:14. What it means is that we should be bringing our children up to be Christians. Nothing in that quote about letting them live, but rather about how they should live. That this can be so misunderstood by a supposed priest of a Christian church is troubling.
As far as the idea that carrying a gun troubles her, maybe she should read Ephesians 6:10-18, concerning the armor of God, which speaks of using the weapons of the day to protect yourself from spiritual evil. She wears a cross, not to inflict pain to anyone else, but as a symbol of herself being protected by the armor of God through Christ (at least that is what I assume it means to her; maybe it’s just a pretty piece of jewelry to her).
Overall, her perception of the Bible seems to be at odds with what even a cursory examination of it would grant.
First impression of a person sometimes is the right impression. I looked at the photo of this person and thought, this is a confused person who is female but tries to look like a young male. She could be a lesbian.
“What does the notion that a trip to the local sports bar requires a concealed weapon do to our way of being in community? What do guns in schools teach our children about how to live together?”
This one’s easy: it says “Don’t F*** with us!” We are a community. We pull together. If you bring your jihadist, anarchist, or criminal BS in here, we will respond together with deadly force. It teaches our children that part of living together means that we have to be willing fight and maybe die together for the values we believe in. No, that doesn’t fit with the utopian visions of leftists and hippies. But the world isn’t the gentle place they wish it was. We don’t want to resort to violence, but we had better be prepared if somebody forces us to.
What does the presence of guns in our churches and schools say about us? That’s actually a pretty good question. The answer however, is really very different from what she supposes.
I think it says several things about us:
1) it says that we Americans do not choose to live in a fantasy world where everyone is always safe, because God is watching (He is presumably also watching the massacres of Jews and Christians all over the mid-east, no? Perhaps this is a sign that He wants us to protect ourselves?).
2) it says that we Americans trust our ordinary citizens to behave peacefully and responsibly in churches, schools, and in fact, everywhere (yes, even in sports bars).
3) it says that we Americans believe that God helps those who help themselves.
4) it says that we Americans are an independent people (something our schools SHOULD be teaching our children).
5) it says that we Americans are an inherently peaceful people (else there would be widespread shootings and blood shed all over our country – which obviously, there is not).
6) it says that we Americans are an inherently altruistic people, who feel responsible for our fellow citizens, and choose to be prepared to help them in times of need (the same folks with guns are the ones who also have first aid and CPR training, often carry the tools to provide those things at need, etc.).
7) it says that we Americans are generally willing to be our own “first responders” and are capable of controlling our own society and behavior, without the need for wide-ranging, coercive government agents to control us.
8) it says that we Americans generally respect and trust each other.
She is correct when she says “it is a bias of (hers)” that carrying death (by which she means guns) close to us doesn’t make us safer. Not only is it a personal bias of hers, but it is objectively a false notion. In fact, all the available data clearly show that it DOES make us safer. It is also a personal bias of hers to find it “alienating.” I see nothing “alienating” about the presence of guns in any place where I am, or have been. What I find “alienating” is being forced by cowardly others, to forego the ability to protect myself (or them) effectively, simply because my carrying a gun in their presence incites an irrational fear response.
Meekly allowing yourselves to be slaughtered because you are afraid of guns, does nothing to further the Christian religion, nor to benefit of the society as a whole, much less the individual members of the society. Indeed, it serves ONLY to benefit those more savage, ruthless, and inconsiderate thugs whom God has placed among us (perhaps as a test?). I suspect God, not only the Christian God, but any others out there as well, would be much more pleased by our all acting to care for each other, and that includes making it harder for the bullies and predators among us to prey on us at will (which is the inevitable consequence of disarming the honorable, peaceful folks whom God has also placed among us).
The biggest reason I carry, is I’m friends with officers. You know, the people who directly deal with what happens to people who don’t carry.
“I don’t carry a gun because I was a cop. I carry because I saw what happened to the victims who didn’t.” – Former NYPD officer John Cardillo
Maybe she can figure out a way to disarm criminals. Until then, and after, I will continue to protect my family and myself in the American 2nd Amendment tradition. Why did she come here,her own country is screwed up and needs saving. Not us.
Here’s her interesting dilemma-
If she believes in the inherent goodness of people, she has no reason to worry about them being armed, as they would do no harm;
Yet, if she does NOT believe in the inherent goodness of people, then she should WANT those who would protect society against depredation to be armed.
In either case, she should have no objection to the carrying of arms by the public.
Comments are closed.