Ted Cruz takes Alyssa Milano to Bible study — with an NRA edition of the Bible

[RainbowUnicorn]

Alyssa Milano is Super Awesome
Ted Cruz is poos

[Syne]

Alyssa Milano is Super Awesome
Ted Cruz is poos

Seems pretty much on par with the intellectual content of any RU post.

[Leigha]

In my opinion, the Bible doesn't forbid gun ownership (it doesn't forbid for example, owning weapons to protect one's self) but it doesn't suggest that one must own a gun, either. Christianity, whether people choose to believe this or not, is about personal freedom and choices. Now, Christians are to follow the ''laws of the land,'' and if gun laws change, then Christians shouldn't fight against those laws changing, they should abide by them. Of course, Christians have the right to vote for whatever legislation they'd like to see take place, in terms of gun control. I've read different interpretations, but owning a gun doesn't mean someone is a fear monger, or anti-peace.

I would be surprised if anyone claimed the Bible mandated gun ownership. But like many things in the Bible, goodness is only a virtue if a person has the freedom whether or not to be good. If all morality were forced, like by government threat, there would be no virtue in being moral. Christians do have a responsibility to fight unjust laws, just like they have a moral responsibility to go to war, when that means rescuing the weak from evil. There is no "only following orders/rules" excuse for allowing evil, and things like allowing yourself to be disarmed have historically led to evil.

I don't personally own a gun, but I don't look at someone's desire to own a gun as an immoral choice. He/she is using it for protection; but there are many people who wish to harm others, and obtaining a gun is a way that they can accomplish that. But, that doesn't mean that guns are inherently bad, they're rather amoral since they're an inanimate object. Like a sword, like a knife, like poison, etc...if someone wishes to harm others, a gun isn't the only tool to carry it out.

Personally, I'd rather be shot than attacked with acid.

Calling gun ownership a ''God-given right,'' isn't an accurate portrayal of Scripture relating to self protection. Gun ownership, or owning any weaponry at all, has nothing to really do with God, in terms of God approving or disproving. Again, it's about personal choice, and God allows for that as far as Christianity teaches. If a person sins through the use of owning a gun or any weapon, that is where one's relationship with God would be in jeopardy, unless he/she asks for forgiveness and repents. But, that statement (''God-given right'') sounds like God ''ordained'' weapon ownership according to the Bible, and that would be misinterpreting Scripture, I think. The Bible simply states that we have a ''right'' to self-defense, whether it is through war, individual protection, etc...but, only if we so choose to. God doesn't enforce the use of weaponry for self-protection, but he also doesn't forbid it.

The Bible tells us that we are created in the image of god and that our bodies are the temple of god. That implies a value and responsibility to protect life. You have a god-given right to life and a responsibility for said life. But yes, how you chose to protect it is your own to determine. You have the god-given right to protect life with a gun, whether or not you exercise that right. Just like you have a right to move around or own property, whether or not your choose to.

"Can" doesn't imply "must".

I don't disagree with your points, but can you help me understand what is meant by ''God-given right?'' Perhaps, it's just a mental block or a semantics thing, but when I think of ''right to life,'' or ''right to bear arms'' or ''women's right to choose,'' etc...it sounds like a mandatory expectation, not a personal choice or freedom. Maybe it is different when we are speaking of government ''rights,'' or ''civil rights.'' I have a right to certain things as an American citizen, for example. But, when it comes to God...I think the only God-given ''rights,'' are our personal freedom to choose. God even permits our choice to sin, it's always up to us which road we take. Gun ownership in and of itself, doesn't mean someone is 'less Godly,' and I think that is where a lot of the political arguments come into play.

We have heard it said a lot ''Christians, holding onto their Bibles and guns,'' as if the two are somehow diametrically opposed. Or it's a statement meant to marginalize Christians by dubbing them fear mongers, war promoters, and violence worshipers. But, the fact of the matter is...owning a gun doesn't render one less spiritual than someone who chooses to not own one.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Alyssa Milano is all that is good about America
Intellectual & humanitarian Giant
True Democrat & 

 
comparing Alyssa to someone who is yelling fire in a packed movie theater to get free early electioneering media coverage is not a fair contest

[Syne]

I don't disagree with your points, but can you help me understand what is meant by ''God-given right?'' Perhaps, it's just a mental block or a semantics thing, but when I think of ''right to life,'' or ''right to bear arms'' or ''women's right to choose,'' etc...it sounds like a mandatory expectation, not a personal choice or freedom. Maybe it is different when we are speaking of government ''rights,'' or ''civil rights.'' I have a right to certain things as an American citizen, for example. But, when it comes to God...I think the only God-given ''rights,'' are our personal freedom to choose. God even permits our choice to sin, it's always up to us which road we take. Gun ownership in and of itself, doesn't mean someone is 'less Godly,' and I think that is where a lot of the political arguments come into play.

We have heard it said a lot ''Christians, holding onto their Bibles and guns,'' as if the two are somehow diametrically opposed. Or it's a statement meant to marginalize Christians by dubbing them fear mongers, war promoters, and violence worshipers. But, the fact of the matter is...owning a gun doesn't render one less spiritual than someone who chooses to not own one.

I'm not sure how a "woman's right to choose" could be considered mandatory, especially when that phrase is only used to support abortion...as there's no need to "choose" anything otherwise (it just continues on its natural course). Rights, be they god-given or government-protected (as in the US Constitution), are freedoms that cannot morally/legally be infringed upon. They are negative rights, which means that they tell us what people cannot do, like take a life. They are not positive rights that tell people what they must do, like the left demanding people bake cakes, take photos of weddings, or provide healthcare.

Freedom (liberty) is a negative right, which means that no one can morally (god-given) or legally (government-protected, not given) impede or impel your actions, so long as those actions are moral/legal. God-given rights are only negative rights. You have the freedom to choose, but violating someone else's rights is a sin. With freedom comes the responsibility of using it and the consequences of misusing it.

Cruz, nor any politician I've heard of, hasn't made any intimation that not owning a gun is "less godly". Our right to bear arms, like all Constitutional rights (so far), is also a negative right. You simply do not have the right to disarm a law-abiding citizen. Now, wanting to deprive people of the means to protect their own lives is immoral (forcing no choice), but simply choosing some other means than a gun to protect your own is not.

"God and guns" is usually some kind of disparagement from the left, but a point of pride or just a matter of fact on the right. Christians likely are a majority of US gun owners. That's because Christianity teaches responsibility and self-reliance, both important factors in the decision to own a gun. The left loves dependence, on law enforcement (even though they claim to hate it) and government (which they think "grants" rights and can force people to do stuff, instead of only protecting naturally existing rights). I'm sure the left does intend "god and guns" to be everything you mention and more.

[Zinjanthropos]

I'm just speaking for the gunned down dead who it seems are resigned to a bad choice by a gun holder. Too bad for them I guess. 1 or 101, just shrug it off and move on to the next. Unless personally affected, the victims don't mean much to us it seems.

[Syne]

I'm just speaking for the gunned down dead who it seems are resigned to a bad choice by a gun holder.  Too bad for them I guess.  1 or 101, just shrug it off and move on to the next. Unless personally affected, the victims don't mean much to us it seems.

Nonsense. The problem is finding ways to stop them, instead of just appeasing Democrats with gun control laws that wouldn't have stopped any mass shooting but would criminalize law-biding citizens. Mass shooters have bought guns by passing legal background checks, so those are no effective for those who suddenly break. Mass shooters have bought guns from illegal gun manufacturers, so background checks on private sales wouldn't be observed.

[Zinjanthropos]

Good thing the dead can’t give their opinion. Let’s just fantasize they’re in a better place, someone actually did them a favour. You’re allowed to fantasize the total opposite if you wish.

[Syne]

The fantasy is that passing legislation can stop all crime. That no criminal deprived of a gun will resort to a knife, acid, a car, or a bomb. People are so afraid of inanimate objects that they completely fail to appreciate what other objects can be made equally as dangers in the wrong hands.

[billvon]

The fantasy is that passing legislation can stop all crime. That no criminal deprived of a gun will resort to a knife, acid, a car, or a bomb. People are so afraid of inanimate objects that they completely fail to appreciate what other objects can be made equally as dangers in the wrong hands.

Of course.  No one thinks that laws against murder, manslaughter or even harming someone else will stop all instances of those things.  Still, we make it illegal to drive drunk to reduce (not eliminate) the people someone else can harm with their car.  It's not a fear of an inanimate object (a car) - it's merely a way to reduce the risk to innocent people on the road.