Opinion: Now Is The Time to Pass Sensible Gun Policy Reforms

[phkrause]

The following op-ed appeared in the January 31, 2013 issue of the Campus Chronicle, the student newspaper at Pacific Union College.

http://religiousliberty.tv/opinion-now-is-the-time-to-pass-sensible-gun-policy-reforms.html

[joeb]

That got put into a magazine of the SDA church that is devoted to liberty? Ya gotta be kiddin me. Once there is a formal movement to change our constitution, or our rights are effectively over-ridden legislatively, all rights under the constitution are gone. Are there really that many educated SDAs who don't realize this?

[Tom Wetmore]

I don't think the student newspaper is a publication devoted to liberty.

[M. T. Cross]

That got put into a magazine of the SDA church that is devoted to liberty? Ya gotta be kiddin me. Once there is a formal movement to change our constitution, or our rights are effectively over-ridden legislatively, all rights under the constitution are gone. Are there really that many educated SDAs who don't realize this?

I agree, liberty above all. Also, an SDA magazine should really be focused above all on the rights of United States American citizens to own whatever kind of gun they want, and forget that they are a global organization that has members that have no liberties at all in other countries. I mean really, what has the world come to when the a publication of the chosen church of Jesus Christ concerns itself with trying to keep assault weapons, like the very ones used to kill Christians in other countries, out of the hands of nutjobs that would like nothing more than to pump a couple rounds into someone, preferably someone innocently trying to go about their daily business. Its the natural order of things isn't it? People live, people die, sometimes they get killed. Not like those freaky unnatural homo's that want the liberty to get married. Now thats some business that needs an end put to it...... maybe the gun totin good ol' boys good....... aww nevermind...

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

That got put into a magazine of the SDA church that is devoted to liberty? Ya gotta be kiddin me. Once there is a formal movement to change our constitution, or our rights are effectively over-ridden legislatively, all rights under the constitution are gone. Are there really that many educated SDAs who don't realize this?

I agree, liberty above all. Also, an SDA magazine should really be focused above all on the rights of United States American citizens to own whatever kind of gun they want, and forget that they are a global organization that has members that have no liberties at all in other countries. I mean really, what has the world come to when the a publication of the chosen church of Jesus Christ concerns itself with trying to keep assault weapons, like the very ones used to kill Christians in other countries, out of the hands of nutjobs that would like nothing more than to pump a couple rounds into someone, preferably someone innocently trying to go about their daily business. Its the natural order of things isn't it? People live, people die, sometimes they get killed. Not like those freaky unnatural homo's that want the liberty to get married. Now thats some business that needs an end put to it...... maybe the gun totin good ol' boys good....... aww nevermind...

LOL. Yeah, those nutjobs in other countries, that gun control laws in this country will have absolutely no effect on, never use stones or swords to carry out their "punishments" for what they perceive as sins. ***shakes head in amazement***

It's also an absolute fact that the ordinary, law-abiding, citizens are not the ones going around killing people and they are the only people gun control laws will affect. It's those who are willing to break the law, you know, like commit murder, that a gun control law will never affect. If they want a gun they'll be as willing to break any gun control laws as they are to break the laws concerning murder.

Your arguments aren't based in reality.

[joeb]

I don't think the student newspaper is a publication devoted to liberty.

Tom, you amaze me. Can you read? I have to wonder after that comment. This article was published on the ReligiousLiberty.tv website. That isn't an organization devoted to liberty? If it isn't, well, then they are certainly lying about the purpose of their organization in the name they chose for their website.

[JoeMo]

Hey MT!

I miss talking to you!

Quote:

Not like those freaky unnatural homo's that want the liberty to get married. Now thats some business that needs an end put to it...... maybe the gun totin good ol' boys good....... aww nevermind...

You were scaring me for a minute with the first part of your post. Converting back to Chritianity is one thing, but becoming a conservative legalist? I was ready to send you a scathing PM, rebuking and condemning you about what a legalistic religionist you have become. I was gonna come up to Canade and challenge you to a duel (with swords, though - real Christians don't have guns). Thanks for breaking out your sarcasm llama. Guess we'll have to break out the peace pipe instead. I could really go for a little peace right now.

[JoeMo]

Needed to edit my post 10 seconds after posting; but time had already run out.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

I don't think the student newspaper is a publication devoted to liberty.

Tom, you amaze me. Can you read? I have to wonder after that comment. This article was published on the ReligiousLiberty.tv website. That isn't an organization devoted to liberty? If it isn't, well, then they are certainly lying about the purpose of their organization in the name they chose for their website.

I was referring to the original article which shows this note at the very beginning:

"The following op-ed appeared in the January 31, 2013 issue of the Campus Chronicle, the student newspaper at Pacific Union College."

And for the record ReligiousLiberty.tv isn't a magazine of the SDA Church. It is an independent website.

From the website's "About Us" tab:

Quote:

About ReligiousLiberty.TV

ReligiousLiberty.TV , launched in June 2008, is a leading independent online resource for news, information, commentary, and insights on contemporary issues involving the free exercise and establishment clauses of the United States Constitution. Today’s rapidly evolving Constitutional landscape has led to countless ambiguities and uncertainties in legislation, public policy, and jurisprudence and has provided immediate opportunities for concerned citizens, religious leaders, elected officials, and attorneys to increase knowledge about these issues while ensuring that independent viewpoints are protected.

While we understand that we might not all agree on every issue, working cooperatively to create a climate of trust that supports meaningful dialogue is a primary objective of ReligiousLiberty.TV.

Perhaps it is not me that needs to read. But before doing so, an aid to comprehension would be the removal of partisan blinders...

Is it OK with you if the Quakers exercise their religious liberty to speak out against gun violence and in favor of gun control? How about students at Pacific Union College? We as Adventists have historically been strongly noncombatants, not even carrying weapons into battle in the armed services. There is a religious liberty turn on guns... Do you realize how many noncombatants unwilling for reason of conscience to carry a gun even in war that the Adventist Church has defended and represented? The Church has expended substantial resources to protect that anti-gun related act of religious liberty.

[OzarkWoman]

There doesn't need to be any more laws or such. What needs to be done is for the law enforcement to enforce the over 92,000 guns laws already on the books.

That is no different than the people that say we need immigration reform. We don't in reality. What needs to be done is to follow the laws on the books and enforce them, PERIOD. Also, they need to deport the illegals and I am sick of the excuses like a country won't take them back. That is not our problem. Ship them back and let their mother country worry about them.

Then you have a poor man who was given asylum into this country because of Germany threatening to take his kids away because he homeschooled. Now our stupid justice department is saying that he was not persecuted and that homeschooling is not a right of any kind.

The whole world is upside down just as the Bible said it would be in the last days.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

Perhaps it is not me that needs to read. But before doing so, an aid to comprehension would be the removal of partisan blinders...

Is it OK with you if the Quakers exercise their religious liberty to speak out against gun violence and in favor of gun control? How about students at Pacific Union College? We as Adventists have historically been strongly noncombatants, not even carrying weapons into battle in the armed services. There is a religious liberty turn on guns... Do you realize how many noncombatants unwilling for reason of conscience to carry a gun even in war that the Adventist Church has defended and represented? The Church has expended substantial resources to protect that anti-gun related act of religious liberty.

All well and good, Tom, let's do see if the partisan blinders can be removed...

There is indeed a religious liberty turn on the issue of guns - just as there is a affirmation of the 1st Amendment's religious clause (indeed, every clause there) within the 2nd. One can obtain a conviction of the 2nd Amendment from the Scriptures as well - something many Adventists simply do not like to admit.

People are all agog about wanting to sound off about what they think is right - they have the liberty to. It's easy to speak lots of words about the issues at hand. At what point, though, do the speakers realize the incumbency of responsibility for the consequences should those words find fulfillment in policy? Do these same people recognize their responsibilities inherent within what they speak of? For a great many, no, they don't. They are as ignorant of the source of their liberties as they are of the responsibilities incumbent with liberty, so they blather on in the liberty of free speech on things they haven't thought through at all.

Bringing in the religious liberty clause compounds the issue, as now people must not only maturely handle the ramifications and consequences of liberty of speech, they at the same time must do so in the entanglement of what a "correct" conviction of conscience and religion must be. And people have demonstrated a notorious inability to maturely consider differences in conviction, even when reading the same reference. "Our" belief is "right"; yours is not - is typical of the average collection of people approach this.

Quakers and Adventists are certainly at liberty to speak that being non-combatant as the better way (according to their convictions), but have they picked up and demonstrated a superior alternative to keeping the tyrant and the evil man at bay? No, they haven't.

They can keep a non-combatant conviction for themselves; do they, however, have the right to refuse the recognition of the liberty of self-defense others value, simply on the basis of their non-combatant conscience? No, they certainly do not.

To do so is as much a legislation of conscience as would be any Sunday law. While self-defense and defense of the disadvantaged are not declared a church doctrine, they are recognized as part of the natural law God has put in people's hearts, and their presence flows strongly throughout the Bible.

There are millions of people who are convinced of the inherent value of the least of people as it is in the cross, and are convicted in heart that such value is worthy of protection - even by the sword if necessary - against those who would choose to tread that life value down under foot. Who are the Quakers and Adventists to declare such a Scriptural conviction wrong?

Who is anyone to declare wrong those who look at Christ's admonition to Peter, not as a blanket call for pacifism, but as the exception to the rule of resisting evil and tyranny? That there is a time and a place where armed defense is the righteous response to evil, given the sheer numbers of times the Bible depicts men and angels engaged in armed conflict against evil men - but the Cross was the wrong place and the wrong time to do so?

That conviction, though does not give me the right to tell anyone they MUST adopt a similar conviction to mine own...while it is incumbent upon people like me to accept the responsibilities and consequences of that position, it is just as incumbent upon those NOT of the same conviction to respect that position and conviction similar to mine - even as I am to respect theirs.

I do realize the great expenditures the Adventist church has made to defend non-combatants during military conflicts - simply because most in the military do not want accept the responsibility to respect the true conscientious objector. It is an all too easy claim to make, when there is mandatory military enrollment. An all-volunteer US military today means the conscientious objector has no business poking his nose into the US military, for any reason, for in so doing, they are indicating a willingness to sell out their convictions for what 30 pieces of silver they think to get out of the deal.

I am well aware of the great expenditures the Adventist church has made to protect the "anti-gun" act of religious liberty...I have yet to see any indication, though, the Adventist church will respect and make as great expenditures to protect the "pro-gun" act of religious liberty; indeed, the Adventist church does not officially recognize such a thing even exists.

Where are the Adventists, when the weak are prey, and subject to the iron boot of the tyrant and the criminal? Many are over in the corner, saying they can help, but only if they don't have to use violence....such help, though, is useless when the victim is dead - or laid up in a hospital and accruing a medical bill that will keep the weak and poor firmly impoverished, in addition to the loss due to the crime and evil.

Tom, there are so many ways the issues are interwoven. You speak well of the historic Adventist position; I have yet to hear the church - or those championing conscientious pacifism, for that matter - give a mature credence to the flip side of the same coin - that rising up in defense of what should be defended is also a religious liberty issue. People tend to want to think only their side of the issue matters.

Blessings,

[joeb]

Tom,

I'm sorry for the tone I used in my initial post to you. That was uncalled for, and I apologize for it.

Now, down to the isse. Do you think I can't read? Of course I know the article was written by college students. Are they uneducated? Are they not Adventists? As educated people should they not be capable of clear thinking about the liberties we have been granted by our constitution? Should they not be able to reason from cause to effect? Isn't the goal of education to teach us to reason effectively, from cause to effect?

And, yes, I know the organization that republished this article is an independent ministry. But, they are educated people once again, and their stated goal is religious liberty. Should they too not be able to reason from cause to effect?

Any movement towards the eradication of our rights granted to us by the Constitution is a move towards the removal of all of our rights under that beloved document. It's much like God's law. You start breaking it in one area and the entire thing falls apart, becomes broken. As an educated Christian man do you not realize these things? Should the emotions brought out by a tradgedy override our freedoms? You can't seriously believe they should if you really look at the issues involved and how they are tied inextricably together.