Thursday, June 16, 2016

What if Gun Control Really Worked?

Folks, let's say for a moment that gun control really worked. Let's assume for a moment that the government would actually be able to purge the entire US of guns. Let's say that they could actually reduce gun crime to virtually zero.
The simple fact remains that all the firepower would rest in the hands of the government, the criminal communities, and other nations. The people of America would be disarmed and unable to resist an intrusive federal government, a foreign invader, criminal mobs or Islamic aggression.
Let's not forget that the statistics about gun crime are not really the issue. Even if the gun crime was higher, the point is still one of liberty vs. security. We must encourage our fellow Americans to educate and arm themselves; train for such situations; take your children out of public school; *take responsibility.* The government's job, Scripturally and Constitutionally (but not generally at a federal level), is to punish evil- *not* to keep everyone safe and cared for. We need to set aside the victim mentality and take responsibility for our own. That's what free men do. Liberty is dangerous (but not as dangerous as the alternative).
Mass shootings are absolutely terrible. But Nazi regimes, Sharia law, rampant organized crime- these are worse. Even if we assume (wrongly) that gun control would solve the shootings, we must realize that we would be giving up liberty for security.
If you think my examples are extreme, look at the middle east, where ISIS is murdering Christians by the hundreds and the Christians are not prepared to resist; look at Nazi Germany and all the other communist governments that disarmed their populace before bringing them into subjection.
If more Americans were armed and prepared to act, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes would be numbered among the slain- and it would be a much smaller number. That's all there is to it.
It is not compassionate to the victims of these crimes to perpetuate the problem.
I known not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. I'll take the animated contest of freedom over the tranquil servitude of slavery any day.
I don't trust these mass murderers any more than anyone else does, but I trust governments with incontestable power even less.
In any case, as the protector of my wife and my baby girl, the ability to fire back in their defense is a God-given liberty and responsibility that I am not willing to forsake in the vain hope that an angelic and incorruptible government will save us from all of the evils of a fallen world.



Anonymous said...

A couple of things:
1 A dude who was under investigation and watched by the FBI for 10 months should not be able to get guns so easily. Even you can agree to that. The fact that he was able to get guns and then go on a rampage is why we need gun control. We should be able to go to a movie theater, a night club, or wherever else without getting shot at. This is getting ridiculous.

2 No, the government is not going to attack you, and even if they did, your own personal arsenal is not going to fend off tanks, planes and an army.

3 Has a "good guy with a gun" saved the day yet? No? Okay then. In this country, mass shootings are a regular occurrence. There has yet to be a "no YOU move" good guy whip out his own gun and blast full of bullets. Even if one did step up, I think that a lot more people would get hurt in that fire fight.

It's absolutely adorable that you have this hero complex, dude. It's also incredibly naive.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Hi anonymous! Thanks for stopping by!

1. Are you suggesting that he acquired his weapons legally?

2. That is a very trusting view of the government which neither Biblical Christianity nor our founding fathers share.

3. Yes, the "good guy with a gun" has saved the day many, many times.

Anonymous said...

Yes, he did buy the guns legally.

The Bundy's tried to fight the government with their own arsenals, and where are they?

So even good guys with guns can't stop mass shootings? Interesting.

I find it really astonishing that you don't see the similarities between Sharia Law and Dominionism. It's pretty much the same thing, Dominionism is just the Christian version of Sharia Law.

Anonymous said...

I only mentioned the part about Sharia Law because you mentioned your fear of it your post.

I used to go to the same type of churches that you probably still attend when I was a kid. I left a few years ago, in my late teens because they praised guys like RJ Rushdoony and Gary North and then they would decry Sharia Law in the same breath. I read Rushdoony's ideas of who should rule the country and how they should rule the country and there's not much of difference between his brand of tyranny and the horrors that happen in countries where Sharia Law is common. After a while I got to the point where I couldn't sit there and listen to the pastor fangirl over Rushdoony anymore so I left and I never went back.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

I totally agree; fangirling over any teacher is not attractive. But I'm wondering if you could give me some quotes about "his brand of tyranny" to define that in his words for me?

Also, the site demonstrated that good guys with guns have indeed stopped shootings... generally with less casualties than when waiting for the police to arrive.

I do see the similarities. I also see the differences. They are big differences. :-)

Anonymous said...

If you want his own words, look at the Chalcedon website. The part that always bothers me is this one about pluralism . So Rushdoony and his homeboys don't like diversity of belief and thought. Interesting. Now, in this highly hypothetical scenario in which clowns like the Chalcedon fangirls really did take dominion over all of us unwashed heathens, how well would we the unwashed heathens fair in such a nightmarish dystopia?

It's interesting that you would call Rushdoony a teacher. Since we're having a civil discussion on this matter, what lessons have you learned from him that you would consider "good"?

Personally, I've never seen him as anything other than human garbage, but that's my impression of him and his ilk.

And no, there are not big differences between Sharia Law and Dominionism. Both hostile to non-believers, education, science, women's rights, and pluralism. Both use Iron-fisted religion to rule the land. Both use capital punishment for non-crimes. The only difference is that you're using different holy books to justify it.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

How would you suggest governing the land? Just curious. Totally switching directions here.

Anonymous said...

Hello! Apologies for taking so long to reply, it's been a very hectic week.

I don't mind switching directions at all! Despite our differences of opinions this conversation can turn into a very interesting one, and I hope you agree.

I would like for there to a government that is completely neutral when it comes to religion. I prefer complete separation of church and state. I say this, because I believe it benefits everyone because it makes this country safe for everyone to just be themselves and formulate their own opinions about religion. As an atheist I've read about the the murders of people like me in Bangladesh and naturally, that terrifies me. Someone can get murdered just for saying, "wait, WHAT? NOPE" when it comes to religion. I ask you, how messed up is that? A person should not fear for their lives just because they've got their own opinions and they don't conform to an official religion or ideology. When a country mandates that everyone follow a certain creed, they usually limit other freedoms as well, such as freedom of speech. Here in the States, we can't be jailed for blasphemy . We can't be executed by the government for speaking negatively about the parts of different faiths that we don't like. There is no standard religious belief that we absolutely MUST adhere to. We are free to disagree with each other.

In your blog post, you mentioned that you desire a gun because you want to protect yourself and your new family from Sharia Law. You want to protect yourself from it because you know that in that type of environment, Christians are not safe. Atheists are not safe. Even Muslims are not safe, that's why we have so many fleeing from that part of the world. I just don't see how someone can look at something like Sharia law, see what an absolute horror show that it is, and then turn around and want to inflict that same danger on other people in their own country.

We shouldn't have to convert to a religion that we disagree with to ensure our freedom, safety, and survival.

In closing, I think that, instead of having this country be run by pastors and "church-y type people" who all believe pretty much the same thing, I think it should be run by a whole bunch of different dudes and chicks with different faiths and backgrounds. That's a better representation of what this nation is now. The official attitude that the government should have towards religion should be this:

My name is Paul, this is between y'all.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

OK, Anon... so... by what standard should we make the laws for this society you envision?

Anonymous said...

You're trying to argue that without some sort of holy book or official religion, morality cannot exist. I beg to differ. Laws can exist without a holy book. The immorality of several Christian figures shows us that morality is not a solely religious or Christian concept. There are going to be bad apples no matter what the creed is, and when someone chooses to behave like a respectful, decent human being, it's not their religious beliefs or lack thereof that should be thanked for that.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

You said that there have been several Christian figures who have been immoral. I'm wondering... what do you mean by immoral? What standard of morality have they violated?

Anonymous said...

By their own standards.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

What's wrong with that?