Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumEpiscopal Church in Michigan passes gun resolution
(crossposted from religion)
Episcopal Church in Michigan passes gun resolution
Niraj Warikoo, Detroit Free Press 9:41 a.m. EST November 3, 2014
The Episcopal Church in Michigan has passed a controversial resolution calling for stiffer gun control, drawing sharp criticism from conservative members who say it violates the right to bear arms.
The dispute is part of a larger debate among Episcopalians and other mainline Protestants about the future of their churches as they face sharp declines in membership.
Some conservatives say the gun resolution is the latest example of the Episcopal Church focusing on promoting liberal social issues such as gun control and same-sex marriage instead of the gospel, alienating congregants. But liberals say that their views are in line with the teachings of Christianity.
By a clear majority, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan which consists of southeast Michigan and the Lansing and Jackson areas voted recently to approve a resolution calling for universal background checks on all gun purchases, banning all sales of semiautomatic weapons, high-impact ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and making gun trafficking a federal crime.
snip----------------
Rick Schulte, director of communications for the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan, did not comment on the resolution. Supporters say it was a necessary move and one that reflects the views of the Episcopal Church and Christianity. They noted last week's shooting in a Washington state high school as the latest example of gun violence.
"We work to bring God's peace to the world," said the Rev. Chris Yaw, rector of St. David's Episcopal Church in Southfield. "God's kingdom is not of violence; it's of peace."
snip------------------
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2014/11/03/episcopal-church-michigan-gun-resolution/18382335/
ileus
(15,396 posts)Glad I'm not episcopalian...
The Kingdom of God isn't founded on being an easy victim. My life shall always be worth protecting while on this earth.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)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 obviousto 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
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Shame that they have fallen again for the "military style semi-automatic" fear bullshit like so many other hoplophobes
ORIGINATORS:
Heather Jones, Michael Blair, Margaret
Maycock, George Port, Karen Kienbaum,
Helen Santiz, Mark High
SUBJECT: Solutions to Gun Violence
RESOLVED:
that the 180th Convention of the Diocese of Michigan, in response to the impact on
Michigan communities of deaths from gun violence, join with other faith communities calling for the
following steps to be taken by Federal and State lawmakers:
1. Requiring and enforcing universal background checks on
all gun sales;
2. A clear ban on all future sales of military-style semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and high-impact ammunition
(i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting);
3. Making gun trafficking a Federal crime; and be it further,
RESOLVED:
that lawmakers advocate for public policy and adequate funding to provide community-based services, hospital care and research into
the causes and treatment of mental illness.
EXPLANATION/RATIONALE
The Episcopal Church supports the U.S. Constitutions
protections of the rights of law-abiding citizens
to keep and bear arms; but, we also stand for public
policies to ban gun violence
and assault weapons.
Further we, the undersigned, believe that the victim
s of gun violence extend beyond the grave of those
lost to these tragic shootings. Access to guns with
rapid fire ability and high capacity magazines are a
common, deadly ingredient in these repeated killings. Wholesale mu
rder is made possible because,
those without proper moral guide have easy access to
these assault weapons. We as a society must
face these hard truths. We must have federal and
local legislation to ban assault weapons, limit the
capacity of gun magazines, and institute universal
background checks for all purchasers of firearms.
From the Episcopal Church Office of Public Affairs
As an Episcopalian committed in baptism to seeking justice and peace and promoting the dignity of
every human being, I commit to being part of the solution to the violence in our culture that claims the
lives of 2000 innocent children through gun crimes each year. I commit to the pursuit of laws that keep
guns out of the hands of criminals, prioritize the needs of at-risk children, provide care for those
suffering mental illness, and address the many ways in which our culture trivializes violence. I commit
to holding my lawmakers, my community, and my own household accountable.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...those who aren't won't.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Banning semii-automatics? Really? Good luck convincing the military to return to single action revolvers...
As a matter of fact, they have not convinced me that this resolution would do a speck of good if implemented. Civilians have the right to keep and bear the same arms as the police and the military. Reality is already quite far from this ideal, but eroding it further does no one good.
-app
stone space
(6,498 posts)sarisataka
(18,633 posts)What high-impact ammo is. it says deadlier than ammo normally used for hunting. Ammo for hunting is designed to swiftly kill the animal on the first hit; that being the most humane way to harvest game.
How much more dead can you get after you are dead?
I wonder how many who ridicule people who believe in a sky-fairy and want religion to stay out of social issues will suddenly applaud this foray into an issue.
stone space
(6,498 posts)As an atheist, I don't really like ridiculing people simply because of their religion.
In my experience, most atheists don't.
sarisataka
(18,633 posts)it stumbles into an opinion they agree with and will castigate it on those they disagree with.
I am sure you have seen the anti-religious posts that regularly appear in GD. In real life I tend to find atheists far more tolerant; actually have some good theological discussions with atheists.
ileus
(15,396 posts)for these dumb Jesus freaks.
But since it's the proper regressive stance on the 2A it's totally acceptable.
stone space
(6,498 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)As progressives our job is to ridicule what we don't understand.
stone space
(6,498 posts)For example, some folks who call themselves atheists (I certainly don't call them that) like to bash Christian gun victims for thanking God to be alive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218164055
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Members attacking other members for giving a survivor a pass for saying "Thank God that book stopped a bullet".
I mean, really.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...more than half a century, and I have never encountered anything like that from other atheists in real life.
I just can't wrap my mind around the desire to bash victims like this.
I have to assume that there is some sort of psychological explanation for such behavior, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it might be.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And I've discussed them in prior threads, people are the way they are for reasons.
I had a reply hidden yesterday in your thread, I don't think you were the alerter.
But some people try to trip up others and then alert, that's part of the behavior, so I'm going to tread lightly.
Weird how things work.
stone space
(6,498 posts)sarisataka
(18,633 posts)You seem more like the atheists I am familiar with. We can happily allow each other our respective belief without ridicule and discuss the nature of a supreme creator vis a vis bing bang theory and evolution over a beverage or two.
I have a grounding in physical sciences and can integrate that knowledge with 90+% of my faith without contradicting either. Yet at the same time I can acknowledge I have 0% proof of a higher being so cannot tell anyone with a different belief 'you're wrong'.
We live and let live with an agreement to meet in the afterlife to see who was more correct. If no one shows up I will be pretty embarrassed.
stone space
(6,498 posts)sarisataka
(18,633 posts)you have met them
stone space
(6,498 posts)...religious folks, my experience, like yours, is that this is more of an internet phenomena than a real life phenomena.
Most atheists who I know in real life are perfectly willing to work with religious folks towards a common goal.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Response to stone space (Original post)
stone space This message was self-deleted by its author.
Straw Man
(6,623 posts)Well, considering that hunting ammunition is some of the deadliest ammunition on the market, I'm having trouble imagining what they want to ban. Maybe .50? Has that ever been used in a crime?
Odd -- I would have thought that gun violence was already against a wide variety of laws.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...they don't know what they're talking about.
If they targeted handguns, it might make more sense.
I don't see that much crime being committed with semi-automatic rifles...
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)"voted recently to approve a resolution calling for universal background checks on all gun purchases, banning all sales of semiautomatic weapons, high-impact ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and making gun trafficking a federal crime."
Gun trafficking a federal crime, the ATF just doesn't prosecute very many cases
Chances of a ban on all semi automatic weapons is ZERO
"High Impact ammunition" which ignorant fool came up with that nonsense? The 45-70 Government rifle cartridge, developed in 1873, will kill anything on the North American continent, so does a 141 year old rifle cartridge fall under the definition of "High Impact ammunition?"
What's the definition of a high capacity magazine? The first 10+ magazines go all the way back to the 1874 Gatling gun and the first commonly available handgun with 10+ round magazine was probably the 1935 Browning Hi-Power.
The video clip is someone who fired 24 aimed shots in 11.70 seconds using firearms of which the basic design goes back to about 1873. I could probably manage the same in about 35-40 seconds.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)"The first 10+ magazines go all the way back to the 1874 Gatling gun "
Further back than that. The Henry lever-action carbine of 1861-ish had, IIRC, a capacity of 16+1, as did numerous 1860s and 1870s Winchesters. The Evans rifle of the early 1870s had a capacity of 28 or 34 (may have allowed +1, not sure). To go back to a time when civilians couldn't buy over-10-round (or over-15-round) firearms, you have to go back to the 1850s or earlier.
IIRC, the precharged airgun that Lewis and Clark carried on their expedition in the early 1800s (comparable in power to a modern .45 ACP) had a 20-round magazine; production of that rifle began in 1795.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)It's truly stupid in some states that, presuming you have the $125,000, you can buy an original Colt manufactured Gatling gun in 45-70, but you can't own the magazines for it.
As a side note I know someone with an Evans and he would shoot it occasionally, interesting gun.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)FWIW I know the original Spencers (late 1850s/early 1860s) were set up to use speedloaders, so they could be reloaded pretty quickly, and each Blakeslee Cartridge Box (1864) held 6 to 13 speedloaders of 7 rounds each, for up to 91 rounds on tap per case. I am not aware of whether any speedloaders were made for the later Henrys and Winchesters or not.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)it's very unlikely a speed loader would have been practicable