Sounding Off 3.24.2008 Gun Control

Not much really happening this week in either Republican or Democratic circles, as far as the pres race stuff goes. Obama will continue to get flack, and some of his other past political relationships will haunt him. If he can weather this storm, though, and get the nomination, he'll still probably beat McCain in the general -- although I have personally heard a couple of my die-hard Democrat friends finding themselves very disappointed with Obama and Hillary and leaning heavily towards McCain. McCain might have more of a shot than I think if the moderates view Obama and Hillary as too liberal, much like they did Kerry in '04.

Hillary has been eerily quiet recently, which means she's found some more reasonable advisors. If she had openly exploited Obama's latest debacle, she would've only continued to make herself look worse, which has been her modus operandi for the past few months.

On to the issue today -- gun control.

Recently, the Supreme Court asserted the right to own a gun ... but also the government's right to place some limitation on that ownership. Relatively safe and accurate constitutional decision, and it only really continues the modern status quo -- enough gray area to give both the NRA and liberals pushing room.

The US has extremely open gun ownership laws for an industrialized country. I know in Korea you cannot own a gun at all. I'm sure there is some illegal gun ownership, but its pretty rare there. In fact, most other nations in Europe and Asia view America as too free in this area.

But just as every nation has their own cultural history, so does America, unique in ways that applying even common standards may not work ... this is the case with gun control. (Funny to me how some are very adamant about not spreading our culture abroad but are more than willing to point to another country and go, "hey, they do it!", to prove some argument)

Historically, the US has maintained the importance of gun rights for two reasons: self-protection and hunting.

Initially, the liberals during the framing of the Constitution would not sign off on the document without something protecting the rights of the individual. They wrote the 10, one of the main ones being the right to own a gun. Britain had attempted to disarm the colonies as they imposed their will upon the Americans. The liberal fear of big government required the protection of that right. The fact that many Americans were members of a allowed the colonists to hold out long enough to get French help.

After independence was attained, the pioneer spirit took over. In "lawless" areas, pioneers felt the need to protect themselves from Native Americans and one another, as well as hunting for food.

Both of these elements have been glorified over our history, for good or ill, and so we have a /hunting culture associated with guns.

Historically, the disarmament of the citizen is an act of despotism and oppression, a way to put more power in the hands of the government to subdue a people and remove their ability to rebel, a monopoly on the power of force much like over-taxation is the power over money and provision. It makes the government the source of both.

I understand the liberal viewpoint though: not necessarily to give more power to the government (although that is what you're doing), but to keep gun from occuring. That is a noble motivation, but I'll ask a couple questions to quickly delve into this issue.

Over the past twenty years, has gun control increased or decreased? Increased dramatically in many areas.

Over those same twenty years, has gun increased or decreased? If we believe the news, this has also increased. School s are common events in the news. They weren't twenty years ago.

So gun control doesn't seem to be working for its intended effect. Not because it isn't a valid idea but because of our cultural history, which will take more than just a couple new laws to change. Those new laws might make politicians sound and look good, but it isn't getting at the root issue of our violent cultural history. We would seriously have to look at rap music, violent movies, TV and gaming, which is touchy concerning free speech rights, also placing more power over us (what we can say and express) by the government.

How about the Church? Well, I wouldn't say it's un-Christian to own a gun (Remember when Jesus told his disciples to bring their swords, and they had a couple ready? That was after being with him for three years ... and he didn't rebuke them for it). At the same time, for most Christians in America, hunting is not a necessity, and we aren't called to protect ourselves physically against even an oppressive government.

Jesus healed the ear of the centurion Peter attacked with that very sword -- and his words to Pilate are very important -- "My Kingdom is not of this world, if it were, my people would fight." We are to love our enemies, not shoot them; die for them, not kill them. We serve the Kingdom of God, are we in need to protect ourselves from the USA? I think God can handle it. If a Christian in China can pray for his government despite its many injustices against humanity, I think we'll have the grace we need when we need it.

One more spiritual point -- the dichotomy between Jesus and Barabas is telling. Jesus was willing to die to save and preached a different message than Barabas the zealot, who attempted to establish a new Israel through and force. As Pilate pleaded with the Jews for the life of their true King, the Jews declared, "We have no king but Ceasar!"

Let's not choose Barabas again and declare an earthly government our King.

Peace.