Link.
Category: Politics
-
Guns in the Home
- No, not that kind of gun!
Image via Wikipedia
In general I support gun ownership rights, though I think these rights are easy to carry to excess. Are reasonably thorough background checks really a form of denying someone their rights? Does one really have the right to carry a gun almost anywhere? I think there are a number of quite reasonable weapons limitations.
Despite the fact that I have the basic skill, I do not own, nor do I intend to own a weapon. My reason for this choice is simple. I think the odds are vanishingly small that I will get to the weapon in time and use it successfully to defend myself, and the odds are high that I will do so in error if it’s accessible, especially if I’m caught waking up. I’m not that guy in the movies who sees the threat, evaluates it, draws his weapon, and shoots the bad guy all before the rest of the world knows anything is wrong.
There is a problem, however, in that not everybody who thinks they’re safer with a gun actually is safer. Idiots will doubtless possess weapons and will, being idiots, do idiotic things. What’s more dangerous, because it’s less obvious is that reasonably intelligent people who are easily distracted, or who are not always fully aware of the immediate situation, are likely to do dangerous things, and not necessarily recognize their weakness. There’s a study that suggests that 90% of American drivers believe they are above average. But make sure to read the funny stuff about people who think they understand statistics! Then be aware that more than 50% of a sample can be above average. But I digress–at least 57% of the time!
I was set on this line of thinking this morning by this post at Greg Laden’s blog. He provides some statistics, but also gives two anecdotes that are worth thinking about. Into which category do you fit?
My personal view is that this is an area in which we need to err just a bit on the side of freedom. People should be free to choose some dangerous behaviors. While there are places guns should not be allowed, and circumstances under which safety should be first, in one’s home one should be able to choose which risk to face.
Related articles
- Should You Carry A Gun? (time.com)
- 78 reviews of Gun Control (rateitall.com)
- Clay Duke: The Latest Poster Boy for Gun Control [Greg Laden’s Blog] (scienceblogs.com)
- Latest FBI Crime Data Continues to Refute Anti-Gun Rhetoric, Says CCRKBA (eon.businesswire.com)
-
New Jersey Wants to Seize Gift Cards
… if they’re not used after two years. What can possibly make this a good idea? (HT: The Agitator).
-
Spiritual Fitness in the Army
I find the very phrase “spiritual fitness” in any context other than a voluntary group, such as a Bible study, prayer, or meditation group, very troubling. What makes one fit can find such incredibly odd definitions.
When I was in the Air Force, I was told by a supervisor that if I did not go out to bars with the men, my career would be stunted because people wouldn’t want to help me if I wasn’t their friend. He said this quite seriously in front of a room full of people. Oddly enough, our unit was dealing with quite a number of DUI incidents at the time, and I was and am a non-drinker. (No, I don’t think it’s wrong to drink; I just think it’s a bad idea for me to drink.)
I give this as an illustration of the way such authority works. “Different” becomes dangerous. “Unit cohesion” or “morale” can be the excuse for forcing people to conform to what the leadership wants. If you think the leadership will always want something sensible, then you live in dreamland.
Now I’m reading that the army tests for spiritual fitness and has remedial training for those who don’t seem “spiritually fit” enough. I think Ed deals with the topic sufficiently from the point of view of the secular person. What I’m wondering is how a believer can think this is a good idea. As a veteran, the very idea of any of the military leaders under whom I served, and that includes some people I regard as stellar leaders, is terrifying. The military is simply not the place for it.
Fellow Christians, when we take the power of the state to enforce something we like, the results will not be good. The results of this idea will not be good either.
-
Linking the Birth of Our Nation with the Birth of Our Savior
Chuck Baldwin maintains that the birth of our Savior and the birth of our nation are closely linked. I’m afraid I don’t get it, even allowing all his facts, some of which I would dispute. I just don’t see the parallel between the guns of the revolution and the Babe of Bethlehem emptying himself of divinity to come save us.
What do you think?
-
Greetings from the Religious Arm of Socialism
In a blog post My Dream: No More Methodist Church, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation fame says that his dream is that there be no more Methodist church. What set him off was a church sign (on a Methodist church, of course) urging passage of the DREAM act. He says that the church is nothing more than the “‘religious’ arm of socialism.”
My response? Check the title!
Related articles
- Midday open thread (dailykos.com)
-
A Christian Officer and DADT
Image via Wikipedia Lt. Col. Stacy L Maxey has written a letter to Stars and Stripes indicating that he has plans to violate military regulations following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Or something like that. Actually it’s hard to tell precisely what he plans to do. One paragraph of the letter reads:
Here’s the truth: I will continue to witness to who I want, when I want and where I want. My commitment to my God supersedes my commitment to the DOD and, if officials are upset about that, then I guess they can “learn to deal with it.”
Now it’s hard to tell precisely what he means by “witnessing” but it appears his plans include things that would violate regulations–regulations that exist for very good reasons. I was not a Christian while I was in the Air Force, and I encountered situations in which I was very glad there was protection from officers who felt their religious views could be forced on others appropriately.
While I support the repeal of DADT, and am glad to see it happen after so many years (note to objectors: straight servicemen and women have been serving with gay servicemen and women for years, and often we knew it quite well; our unit cohesion did not evaporate), my post is not about that issue.
There is one way in which I support Lt. Col. Maxey, and this is it. He is absolutely right that his “commitment to [his]God supersedes [his] commitment to the DOD” and he must obey God first. I say that without any form of sarcasm. I believe it.
But he also took an oath (or made an affirmation) as an officer in the U. S. Air Force, and that promise is also sacred. For those who may quote Jesus saying not to swear at all (Matthew 5:33-37), let me point out that Jesus was calling for a higher, not a lower standard of honesty, one in which a simple “yes” or “no” was your commitment.
There is an option for someone who cannot carry out the duties of an officer in good conscience: Resign your commission. It comes down to this. If you can’t obey Caesar’s laws, don’t take Caesar’s money.
Related articles
- Christian Air Force Officer Vows to Violate Military Regulations if DADT Repealed [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
-
Ignorant of Church Domes
I think the combination of ignorance and bigotry expressed by opponents of this church is both said and somewhat frightening.
(HT: Dispatches)
