-
This is in response to the following blog posting:
For this post to make sense you need to read that other post and it's associated comments.
Bear with me till the end.
The young man who died was not killed by illegal guns, he was killed by people.
People kill people, not guns. This is not just some pro gun rhetoric (at least for and from me) but a real point. The problem is people and that there are people who want to do harm to others. As long as we keep blaming external things for internal problems, these real and serious problems will never be addressed.
I don't see why the gun shop is involved at all since I've seen nothing to connect it with the death of Papito except its being three blocks away.
The organization "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" is not about stopping illegal gun violence but about banning guns.
They are not an honest organization (e.g. they have lied about how many mayors are involved and did not remove the names of mayors who chose to no longer be members). They are not a nuetral party that can be trusted.
The "Code of Conduct" looks interesting. Because it is associated with MAIG it is immediately suspect but since even a blind pig can stumble across an acorn the Code should be looked at on just its merits.
It looks like it is basically proposing two things. First, it proposes that gun shops follow existing laws. Second, it proposes that the gun shop engage in voluntary gun registration.
"Everything on that list is pretty much already what every FFL does. We never transfer a gun without that background check result. To do so is to invite the ATF up in your ass." (a quote from a gun dealer I checked with) Unless you want to go to jail you follow the law. and gun shops want to stay in business so they do even if they disagree with the laws. The laws are the requirements to do business. Guns are expensive so the idea that gun shops are lax in their security and are letting guns walk out the door is simply not a real situation.
So the first part of the Code is about doing things a gun shop already does.
With respect to the gun registration part there are three things that come to mind. First, there are some things that look like they are good that could come from gun registration. You might be able to track down the "straw purchasers" and that definitely seems good. However, I'll bet you that the gun that killed Papito was not bought through a straw purchase but was stolen. Such a vast Majority of the guns used in crimes are stolen that would go so far as to say that they are nearly ALL stolen.
Second, advocates of the second amendment are understandably distrustful of the government knowing they have a gun. Look at what happened in New Orleans with the gun confiscation? At a time when folks needed to be able to care for themselves the most, the government took away their means of self defense.
Third and finally, this
ad hoc gun registration would be a significant financial burden for each gun shop.
So with respect to the gun registration aspect of the Code, it is asking guns shops to do something that has little bearing on actually reducing crime, it is an action that the gun shop will not agree with, and it will cost them money to do it.
So you have document that implies you are not doing certain things that you actually are doing (out of both common sense and to comply with existing laws), asks you to start doing something you believe is actually wrong, not useful, and expensive, and is delivered in a context that implies you are a bad guy if you don't sign it AND that you are somehow culpable for the tragic death that happened to take place close to your location.
Can we see why folks who are serious about the second amendment would take umbrage to this? The Code, in and of itself but particularly in this context, is insulting. Now we are proposing that the code is blessed by God?
The organization that is putting out the
Code of Conduct is found at the following website:
www.heedinggodscall.orgHeeding God's Call.
Apparently God wants to implement this Code of Conduct.
Shane Claiborne made this a political issue and then runs behind a weak pacifist misinterpretation of Jesus. He writes in his article,
Beauty and Ugliness in a Shooting’s Aftermath:
"When we look at Jesus’ cross we see what love looks like when it stares evil in the face. It is non-violent, it is forgiving, it is steady and courageous."
Jesus was NOT forgiving of evil. (". . .White washed tombstones with the stench of death inside. . .")
Jesus used violence
John 2:15
http://bible.cc/john/2-15.htmJesus didn't clear the temple with strong language.
Jesus' disciples carried weapons
John 18:10
http://bible.cc/john/18-10.htmJesus calls us to be armed and prepared
Luke 22:36
http://bible.cc/luke/22-36.htmJesus knew the disciples had weapons and was ok with it.
Luke 22:38
http://bible.cc/luke/22-38.htmIt seems that Mr. Claiborne's position is at best on shaky ground.
I hope you're still with me.
Regardless of where folks fall on the political spectrum, some of them can tolerate conflicting opinions and some cannot. Ideally a person encounters a conflicting view and assesses whether the author of the view is capable of having a dialogue or if he is just a goofball to be ignored.
Instead the gun shop folks got angry with Mr. Claiborne using the death of Papito to push an anti-gun political agenda and decided to express it. If I had been able to talk to them I would have said, "Let the dude in the goofy hat do his thing. He either is an unwitting pawn of MAIG or he knows what he is doing and would like the publicity."
practicingresurrection said:
'You can hear Shane say "There is no us and them on this"' (In the video)
When he made it political like that, when he introduced the Code, he created "us" and "them."
After looking into this a bit I do not agree that this is a case of one "side" with the Lord's Prayer and the other with God Bless America.
You have Mr. Claiborne agitating for pretty specific actions that are highly debatable and then masking it in Jesus' cloak.
The gun shop people weren't calloused, they were ANGRY. Why were they angry? That would be a good question to ask them but I'll bet you it wasn't because people were mourning the death of Papito.
The "God Bless America" song was rude but Mr. Claiborne created that situation.
I suspect the reason
Mamasong posted this story was to illustrate the disturbing amalgamation of Christianity and Nationalism. This is an important discussion to have and there is no place in scripture where God tells us to love the USA. However, in light of what I see and have said above, I do not see this being a good example of it. Really it is all about guns and those who want American citizens to not have them.
K
