Why it Won't Work

In my last post, I did something that I get upset with other people for doing. I made a statement of opinion as though it were an accepted fact, and without telling why I hold this opinion. I was talking about the recent knee-jerk reactionary gun-control proposals that followed in the wake of the latest domestic terrorist attack. The statement that I refer to was:

"I cannot help but observe that the problem with their proposals is that they, in fact, will not work. There are many reasons that this is true. I don't really want to go into this at the present time as there are many others who are expressing this point at present."

So let me do what I should have done, and explain why I do not think that the current proposals will work. The current proposed restrictions on law-abiding people, as I understand them, are as follows:

• Banning "assault weapons"

• "Expanded background checks"

• Banning sale of firearms to persons on "Terror watchlists"

The "assault weapons" ban will not work because there really is no such thing as an assault weapon! What we term as such, are the product of an image in contemporary movies and TV action dramas in which the action heroes are involved in gunfights with true military assault weapons, that is, fully automatic rifles that we used to refer to as "machine guns". These full-automatic weapons, widely used by the military are already highly restricted by federal law in the US, and are not readily available to anyone outside the military and law-enforcement. They require a special (and very expensive) permit to obtain and possess. I will not go so far as to say that they would be impossible for a terrorist to obtain one of these true assault weapons, but none of the domestic terrorists in any incidents in the US have actually had one of these.

The "assault weapons" that the gun-haters want to ban are actually semi-automatic, that is, you must pull the trigger for each round you wish to fire. They are no different from normal semi-automatic hunting weapons, except for their appearance, and their capacity. The military style appearance of these weapons is very popular nowadays, and is very functionally  practical as well. The expanded magazine capacity is often questioned by gun-haters and others who fear an armed citizenry. The need for higher capacity magazines is open to debate, but I, for one, do not see this as a significant issue. Certainly it is not an issue that would have any real impact on protecting us from domestic terrorists.

The expanded background checks is a very good-sounding idea, but it is difficult to see how these could be further expanded. What would we be looking for that we are not already looking for in current background checks?  What sources would be checked that are not already being checked?  What sources would be checked that would assist us in differentiating the would-be terrorist from you or I?

This brings us to the third item. The only thing that I see that can assist beyond what we are already doing in our background checks are use of the heretofore secret "terror watchlist(s)". Beyond the Department of Homeland Security, I am unaware of just who might be keeping such lists. I am able to see some merit to such an idea as this, however, in the course of discussion it has emerged as to how subjective these lists can be. The idea of an appeals process attached to this proposal is an idea that has merit, but I can see this as turning into just one more hoop for the honest, normal gun owner to jump through. I see the possibility that if this is enacted that the terror watchlists themselves could be expanded to include any person or group that its compilers wish to include.   

The real problem that I see in these proposals is; what happens next when these things fail to have the desired effect on the violence? The fact that these gun control measures will not work , will lead us to even tighter controls, which also will not work (precisely because they are not aimed at the true source of the problem), eventually leading to complete gun confiscation, Australian style, which in the end also will not work, except in the fact that they will result in an unarmed citizenry, totally reversing the intent of the Second Amendment. I am increasingly concerned as this debate goes on, that the true intent of the current gun-control agenda is not primarily a safer society, but a disarmed citizenry.

Once again, the only solution that seems workable is to determine what makes the problem shooters and other terrorists different from the rest of us and focus on a solution based on those differences.

It is very easy in this election year to abandon my usual commentary on spiritual matters for that on political matters. I apologize for this. In truth however, this is a spiritual matter as the results of all this will have a profound effect on how we will lead our spiritual lives after the election is behind us.

I don't want to close without quoting a scripture. It is one that I quoted in a recent post that increasingly seems to be relevant to our current political situation, including the gun-control debate:

" . . . behold, I am going  to raise up a shepherd in the land who will not care for the perishing, seek the scattered, heal the broken, . . . but will devour the flesh of the fat sheep, and tear off their hoofs." Zechariah 11:16 (NASB)

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.

Not a Solution, but a Suggestion

As the late President Ronald Reagan used to say, "Here we  go again!"

The recent shooting in Orlando was a tragic and deplorable event, make no mistake about that, and I do not want to diminish that fact in any way. I too am greatly disturbed that such a thing could happen and all too frequently does happen in our nation. I would be a fool if it did not disturb me that these terrorist-style events are happening in increasing frequency. It is an understatement to say that this is an alarming trend! The fact that I was in Orlando just  a few months ago makes this all the more real and disturbing to me.

Unfortunately, it was predictable that king Baraack and queen-regent Hilary and their cronies quickly called for increased gun-control measures. They apparently are insistent that their scheme of disarming everyone will somehow prevent these things from happening. While I find it hard to believe that they really believe this themselves, I cannot help but observe that the problem with their proposals is that they, in fact, will not work. There are many reasons that this is true. I don't really want to go into this at the present time as there are many others who are expressing this point at present.

The point that I do want to make is: how do we keep these terrible tragedies from happening? As with most problems of this magnitude, there is not quick-fix easy answer. I, like everyone else, do not have the answer. I do, however have a suggestion. A friend of mine, a fellow NRA member, has a bumper sticker which reads "Our right to keep and bear arms does not make us villains!"  Instead of lumping all gun owners together, and vilifying us all when one of these deplorable tragedies occurs, and thus polarizing us and making us resist the "one-size-fits-all" gun confiscations solutions; what would happen if we focused on discovering what sets us, the ordinary law-abiding gun owners, apart from the terrorists such as Omar Mateen who actually commit these horrible crimes? In fact, as it appears to me, the only thing we have in common with these terrorists is that we own guns.

I think that an action such as this would be a giant step forward in preventing  these horrible crimes from occurring in the future. Perhaps the ordinary, law-abiding gun owners would even feel comfortable in joining in an effort that would not threaten their right to keep and bear arms, or tries to vilify them for standing up for this Second Amendment right.

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.

Pray!

"First of all then I urge that [requests] prayers, petitions, and[expressions of thanksgiving] be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead tranquil and [calm] lives in all [reverence] and [godly dignity]. This is good and [pleasing] in the sight of God, our Savior." 1 Timothy 2:1-3 (NASB. Bracketed material is substituted from Mounces' Greek-English interlinear translation)

I read this passage in my daily Bible reading today and our Lord spoke to my heart as to how appropriate it is for the situation that His church is going through in our nation today.

We need to pray! Not just "say our prayers"  but to really get into our prayer closets and speak to our Lord, and let Him speak to us as well! Pardon my use of a well-worn cliché but prayer changes things. In a recent post, Repentance in an Unrepentant World, I spoke of  the necessity of our distancing ourselves morally and spiritually, albeit not physically from the world where we live. In today's post I want to emphasize the necessity of praying for our world.

I must admit at the outset, that I do not fully know how prayer works in this regard. Isn't God sovereign? Doesn't He already have planned what He is going to do? On the one hand the answer to these questions is "yes". On the other hand, as I pointed out in my book Going Forth in the Name, God invites our participation in what He is doing in our world. One of the larger means of our participation is prayer. Often, prayer changes us, and aligns us with God's will and plan, but there also appears to be examples in scripture that God changes His approach (or does it just seem that way) because of our prayers. I don't know the answer, but I do know through both my reading of the Bible and my own experience, that prayer is powerful.

Many of you are like me in that you have always been taught to "put feet to your prayers" as Frank Kellogg used to say. While I think that this is true, I have certainly been made aware that prayer, as a stand-alone activity is infinitely more powerful and important than we are willing to give it credit for.

One important thing that I noticed as I was studying the above passage is that the Greek text really had no hidden surprises. With the proper selection of the appropriate English words (hence the substitutions from Dr.s Mounce) we can completely understand what the scripture, through Paul, is trying to tell us.

First, we are instructed to pray "on behalf of all men" (emphasis added). Let us pray for our world, and for our nation. Let us pray for our enemies, and for all who spitefully use us and persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). Let us also remember to pray for those who are doing good, and attempting to rightly serve our Lord in this world. Let us never forget to pray for our local congregations and for those close to us as well.

Next, we are instructed to pray for our leaders. In our country we do not have a monarchy (king Baraack and queen Hilary notwithstanding), but we certainly need to pray for "all who are in authority" regardless of whether we like them, or agree with them. They are our leaders, and the ones that God has put in authority (Romans 13:1-2). We are given a reason and a prayer objective for this in the above passage:

                "in order that we may lead tranquil and [calm] lives in all [reverence] and [godly dignity]."

In an earlier post I quoted Lou Dobbs as saying that we Christians were willing to vote for anyone in this upcoming election that "will not hate us". We need to be praying in this same spirit and toward this same objective, regardless of who the leader is, or whether or not they do in fact hate us, as many these days do.

Further, the scripture goes on to say that this action on our part is  "good and [pleasing] in the sight of God, our Savior." Does this mean that God is pleased that we pray for all of the above matters, or simply that we are praying ?  I would like to think both of these are correct.

Prayer and praying for our world and our leaders has always been of primary importance, and I feel that it will take on increasing importance in the days ahead.

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.