home
RSS
My Take: It’s time for evangelicals to speak up about guns
December 28th, 2012
10:00 PM ET

My Take: It’s time for evangelicals to speak up about guns

Editor’s note: Daniel Darling is a pastor, author and speaker in the Chicago area. His latest book is "Real: Owning Your Christian Faith." He tweets at @dandarling.

By Daniel Darling, Special to CNN

(CNN) – The Bible doesn’t clearly express an opinion on the possession of guns, but many evangelicals defend the unlimited distribution of firearms with the same fervor that they defend biblical orthodoxy. According to a recent Public Religion Research Institute survey, 8% of white evangelical Protestants favor tighter gun laws.

But in the wake of yet another deadly school shooting, it’s time for evangelicals to contribute to the national discussion beyond: “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.”

In fairness to gun enthusiasts, no reasonable observer could pin the blame for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting solely on the lack of effective gun laws. Even President Barack Obama and other influential voices have called for a balanced approach that looks not only at guns but also at mental illness, violent video games and a culture of fatherlessness that produces young troubled men. And the research about the effectiveness of gun controls laws seems mixed at best.

Still evangelicals should not defend the use, proliferation and availability of assault weapons with as much vigor as they defend their faith. In spite of some who insist the Second Amendment is drawn from the Bible, there is no clear-cut Christian position on gun control.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

On one level, the Bible affirms the government’s first and most basic job to protect its citizens, especially the most vulnerable, our children. Romans 13 reminds us that government is “God’s servant for our good.” The Bible also gives high priority to the welfare of children.

At times, the Bible seems to affirm the right to self-defense. Even when Jesus famously told Peter to put down his sword during Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, he didn’t tell Peter to destroy the sword but put it in its rightful place.

On the other hand, the Scripture is pretty clear that Christians should not only oppose violence but should be advocates for the sanctity of human life. This doesn’t simply apply to abortion but to any unlawful taking of human life. Advocating for life also includes taking care of children's and others' well-being after they are born. Each life is created in the image of God; therefore, death is the work of the evil one (1 John 3:15). The Apostle Paul labels death God’s final enemy. Christians are also called to be “peacemakers” and not lovers of violence.

Given the lack of a straightforward biblical imperative for or against guns, faithful followers of Christ should be more flexible in their opinions on this issue.

Why can’t we support sensible restrictions, such as a ban on military-style combat weapons? These weapons seem to serve no purpose other than the glorification of violence. If we take seriously the command to protect our children, we’ll avoid the risk of these weapons getting into the hands of unstable people. Sure, a ban won’t eliminate all weapons, especially those purchased illegally, but it may reduce the chance of another Sandy Hook massacre.

Massacre of children leaves many asking, 'Where’s God?'

We also should also advocate making it harder for people to acquire guns, even sensible weapons purchased for self-defense or hunting. Gun ownership should be a privilege earned by good behavior and conferred only on the most trustworthy of our citizens. I think we can do this without disrespecting the Second Amendment, which besides guaranteeing the right to bear arms calls for this right to be “well-regulated.” As blogger Marty Duren says, “While the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear (“carry”) arms, it does not necessitate the right to own any armament the mind of man can create.”

New gun laws won’t prevent every future crime, but perhaps a few common-sense regulations would help destroy a culture of violence that so tempts young troubled men.

Some will argue that new restrictions only hurt those who are already law-abiding. This may be so. But as Christians called to care for the common good of our communities, we should be willing to endure the inconvenience if it saves one child from death.  Since 9/11, we have all endured more hassle at the airport to prevent even one terrorist from killing our fellow citizens.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Followers of Christ know that it is ultimately not the gun that kills, but evil that resides in every human heart. And yet it is precisely this belief in total depravity that might inform our views on gun control. In a fallen world, the most vulnerable among us need protection from those who cannot or will not discern right from wrong. (Ironically, this is the focus of the Christian anti-abortion argument.) Let’s not put instruments of death so close to hands that would do evil.

At the end of the day, living out our faith requires that we do more than simply react in a defensive posture but engage in this important debate. We can protect the cherished right to bear arms in self-defense and still make sure unnecessary and violent weapons are not sold on our store shelves and online and are not accessible by those in our communities who would use them to commit acts of aggression and murder.

Furthermore, an unwillingness to entertain common-sense restrictions casts the evangelical faith in an unnecessarily unfavorable light. It may cause some to think we love our guns more than our neighbors.

There are many things about which Christians should be unyielding; the right to own a killing machine should not be one of them.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel Darling.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Evangelical • Guns

soundoff (2,819 Responses)
  1. Rogue351

    WHO cares what the Evangelicals think – Any group that would protest the funeral of a serviceman killed in action should not have any say what so ever regarding anything to do with this country. Any so called "religious" group that collect millions of dollars at "mega churches" promising salvation. While collecting enough money, not to feed the poor, find homes for the homeless or create jobs. But uses the funds to by dozens of Rolex Watches, Expensive cars, multiple homes and in some cases personal jets. All under a tax exempt status, not contributing one thing to the nation as a whole. Should NOT have any say about anything to do with the way this country is run, who runs it or it's laws.

    December 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • GAW

      To be fair those protesting the funerals of servicemen (Westboro Baptist Church) represent a very tiny minority of Fundamentalists. Without defending their cause the majority of Evangelicals deplore the actions of this extremist group and their blatant attempts to anger the American public.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • lol??

      Stop yer complainin'. After all, you inc'd em.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • Charles G

      Right, Westboro Baptists aren't evengelicals per se'. They are a cult – there's a big difference. Unfortunately, they both get lumped together by the media.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of adherents. All religions were once a cult. Religions have a life cycle, thank goodness, and eventually die.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      Burn the witch! With water! If she floats! During a full moon! Equinox! Expelliarmus! None shall pass! *puffpuff*

      December 29, 2012 at 11:51 pm |
    • Charles G

      Moby

      Everyone has faith in something don't they?

      Atheists are the worst variety of religious fanatics singly responsible for more deaths than all of the world's religious wars combined- pretty much all in the 20th and 21st centuries.

      I think I will stick with a God who loved the world enough to die for it himself.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:51 pm |
    • Rogue351

      Small fundamentalist part of the evangelical faith maybe. But the hatred for our elected president was very evident during this last election. And not just in the fundamentalist parts of the evangelical movement. Pure Hate across the board, any group that can gather and hate on that level has zero credibility as a religious organization. More over, any religious organization who's pastors collect millions of dollars buying personal jets and running mega churches for profit without paying one dime in taxes do not have the right to dictate any political, legal, or even moral opinion in this country. Evangelicals are all about themselves, their group and the money. They look down there nose at anyone who is of another faith. They will argue how horrible a person one is for not being born again. Look at the way in which they have treated gay and lesbian people in this country. Judging, discriminating, family disowning children. How is this in ANY way shape or form forgiveness, love, understanding or anything else they supposedly teach. It is the progression of hate via the interpreted word of god.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      No, not everyone 'has faith in something' although I would recommend it. Faith is a useful tool although it's stupid to use for belief in unproven deities.

      Your accusation about atheists is not correct, and it wouldn't matter if it did. More non-stamp-collectors are serial killers, too, so non-stamp collecting is bad? Thinking a little more before speaking will keep you from saying stupid sh!t. Atheists simply don't believe in any gods, so they aren't in any category or any religion any more than people who don't believe in bigfoot are in a category or a religion. If people didn't believe in gods, there'd be no atheists.

      Why would you "stick with" a being who is so invisible and unmeasurable as to be nonexistent? That's stupid. "Hey, here's this guy who tortures people forever and ever in a lake of fire that he built and maintains, but he's invisible and there's nothing to measure to show he exists. I think I'll believe in him!" Well, laddie-frickin-da, go believe in the tooth fairy while you're at it.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • Rogue351

      Charles G. proves my point, assuming the person typing this is an atheist. In the eyes of an evangelicals you are an atheist if you are not born again apparently. As for the so called fact he pulled from his rear end regarding the atheists being responsible for more deaths than the religious. I think some body need to go back and read their history books again. This is exactly the point, judgment, written off, moved on. Exactly how does that dictate into love forgiveness and turning the other cheek ? It doesn't and they are unable to see the hypocrisy or choose not to care. Either you are living the word of god or your not. From what I understand there is not half way point. But so many believe there is especially when it comes to business. How else would a part such as the GOP except money from the NRA when the GOP is supposedly supported by primarily religious moral people ? Hypocrisy, judgment, hate, greed, thats how. Not forgiveness, love, understanding, faith or acceptance. Instead the new word is tolerance. As if they are better, more knowing and have to Tolerate the rest of the people that are not born again.

      December 30, 2012 at 12:07 am |
  2. 2357

    After the recent senseless disaster, It would be gracious of patriots to lock away the recreational semi autos and long clips until actual threat of invasion from Mexico or Canada becomes apparent. NRA should consider giving an inch, to curtail its opponents from gaining enough support to take the whole foot.

    December 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • Nance

      Oh, bullsh!t. There is no reason to have those kind of weapons. Nobody wants to repeal the 2nd amendment, they just want to get rig of those stupid AK's. The NRA should grow the fvck up.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • lol??

      The USA should have invaded Mexico and annexed it a long time ago. It would have been a neighborly thing to do.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • NikNak

      At loloser,

      We DID invade Mexico and annexed it for ourselves in 1846.
      I know facts are hard to come by with you funndies, but at least try to pay a bit more attention in history class. At least American history since you live here.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
    • GAW

      An invasion from Canada for Mexico? After I read this I couldn't take this comment seriously anymore. And BTW 2357 is the codeword for my briefcase. How did you find it?

      December 29, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • lol??

      GAW, not to worry, niknak sayz there is no more Mexico.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • 2357

      Not certain on this, but a simple reclassification of semi autos to 'destructive device' should pretty much eliminate their legal possession by civilians under NFA 1934. It seems like an attainable goal considering the continuing pattern of mass shootings in the US and Norway.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Rogue351

      The NRA as well as ANY evangelical group is about the money and the power, NOTING more. These types of people along with most CEO, Board Members, CFO do not care about the people working for them or worshiping under them and in some cases both ! Greed is the problem. Greedy people willing to do and say anything to make a buck. Greedy people willing to sell anything to anyone regardless of the outcome. That is exactly why the NRA will NEVER give an inch. There profits will go down. Evangelical churches will NEVER denounce anything that is so popular among there flock because attendance will drop leading in both cases to a loss of MONEY. Just because the churches push, turn the other cheek does not mean the believe it. If they did why, during this last election cycle did I hear every single religious person, more so Evangelicals telling me how much they HATE Obama. Hate is a pretty strong word, and coming from a person that studies the words and supposedly lives by the words of a sacred book they of all people should know what exactly the word HATE means.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • Nance

      Norway has had 1 mass shooting. One. In thie history of Norway, there has been ONE. CLEARLY their laws are working.

      December 30, 2012 at 12:06 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      And, about 65% of Norwegians don't believe in the god of the bible but rather some sort of "life force" or "don't know" or don't believe. Hmmm...

      December 30, 2012 at 12:11 am |
    • 2357

      I have no criticism for Norway's laws. Brevik opbtained those rifles and grenades illegally. I merely pointed to that case to support my positing the 'destructive device' classification of semi autos.

      December 30, 2012 at 12:16 am |
  3. galvanism

    As an evangelical, I do somewhat support gun control. I do not support a total ban on semi-automatic weapons. I highly respect the 2nd amendment. However, we do need some restriction on semi-automatic weapons. In most of the mass shootings in the United States, the semi-automatic weapons are on hands of the mentally unstable people such as Adam Lanza and James Holmes. I do not understand why a mother have possession of guns when her child Adam Lanza is mentally unstable. Clearly, the mother lacks wisdom.

    December 29, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • Athy

      The mother lacks wisdom? The mother is dead, you vangie nitwit.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • galvanism

      I know that the mother is dead. You should not call people nitwit.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • GAW

      So what does one need with a semi-automatic weapon? Are you expecting an attack from a herd of rabid zombie deer?

      December 29, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      Those zombie deer with the glowing eyes are really creepy. Better keep lots of ammo handy and practice using videogames to be ready for the Zombie Deer Apocalypse that will be caused by a radioactive deer tick. Happens every time, so be ready!

      December 29, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
  4. Charles G

    Let's be honest; this has never been about saving lives – if it were, they'd ban most alcoholic beverages which take far more innocent human lives...

    Evangelicals, (who have failed as the moral standard bearers) are not about guns. They are about the establishment and free exercise clauses – period. Every other American citizen should be as well.

    The second amendment does not exist for hunting or personal defense – it exists just for what it says: ...being necessary to the security of a free state...the right to keep (yes, keep) and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It provides the only effective check against tyranny and oppressive government. An unarmed people can neither intimidate nor fight oppressive governments. Sticks and bottles are no match for a government-owned, 50 caliber machine gun or a Blackhawk helicopter. Today's American socialists know this as well as anyone.

    As national morality continues to decline (thanks to the left and the failure of evangelicals) and socialist government grows we can expect more meaningless violence and more calls to disarm Americans of effective weaponry by those who trust in (or run) government.

    December 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • Nance

      See, I have a problem with fvcktards who are so scared their gov't is going to do something that they go out and arm themselves to the teeth for fear that the gov't is suddenly gonna do all Syria on us. It simply isn't going to happen...and in the meantime, one of their retarded kids gets it in his head that because Mandy dumped him and Brock teased him at school, is gonna take one of Daddy's guns and blow the fvck out of a bunch of little kids before offing himself.
      The thing is, the extreme right teavanigals is making everyone so paranoid that they think that restricting one gun is the same thing as repealing the 2nd amendement – it's not – and that paranoia is going to help bring down America as much as anything else.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nance, brava! Great post.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • PevanB

      @Nancy Nancy I have a problem with small minded people that try to express themselves strongly by using the F word. You have lifted you little skirt and showed the world how really shallow you are as a person of thought and introspect. I'm sure you mother is proud of how she has taught you to speak

      December 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • Athy

      Nance hits the nail on the head. Well done.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • PevanB

      @ Tomtom the wanna be man. your sister Nancy and you are some very low brow people, with you agreeing with the base, course language. wow

      December 29, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Nance

      Tom, thanks. I get so PIST when someone doesn't see that!

      December 29, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
    • Charles G

      Nance,

      You make my point for the left so brilliantly

      Point one: People like you are the reason the second amendment exists for self defense for "everyday people".
      Point two: Josef Stalin had a name for people like you – useful id.ots.
      Point three: If you think it cannot happen here you aren't paying very close attention.

      Some advice: Turn off the Spongebob Squarepants and tune in to what's going on in the world around you. You may actually become alarmed – although I doubt it...

      December 29, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • Nance

      Peevan, I really don't care what you think of me...your insistence that you have to arm yourself with an AK to feel good about your limp dick also gives me the right to say exactly what the fvck I think about your willingness to keep letting kids get killed with your precious penile extention. Go blow a dog.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      Trying to prohibit something that is an easily crafted or grown thing, object, or whathaveyou after it was previously legal to obtain, own, create, buy, and sell for many, many years....
      ... is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard of. Making common objects illegal is madness. It makes more sense to do psych evaluations of anyone wanting to own a weapon of any sort. A few crossbow bolts shot into a crowd at long distance is sure to make you all look like idiots.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • GAW

      Paranoia? That defines about 90% of those living in the U.S. The rest of us are paranoid of the paranoid.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "PevanB", but:

      1. Your assumption that "Nance" is a woman is unfounded.
      2. Unfortunately, "paranoid" "extreme right teavanigals" are, in fact, also "scared" "fvcktards".

      December 29, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • Nance

      Peevan, I doubt you know what's up ANY woman's skirt, dil do. Take your little AK and go shoot some muskrats, you fvcking tard.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • Man Bites Dog

      Nance, why is it you guys on the Left always think that having an insurance policy against government tyranny is a stupid idea, when the majority of peoples throughout the world are THIS VERY DAY being oppressed by their governments, and have absolutely no way to defend themselves against false imprisonment, torture, and overall tyranny. If such tragedies were an exceedingly rare event in the world, I might say you're right: why indeed would we need these kinds of weapons? But when the entirety of human history is basically the story of governments oppressing their peoples, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it can't also happen here in the USA. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it hasn't happened here precisely BECAUSE a majority of Americans own guns? You think that because it HASNT happened here, it NEVER WILL, and that is an utterly stupid way to think, considering that human nature hasn't changed since the dawn of recorded history.

      If guns are bad, aren't a good deterrent to crime, and can get the owner shot (which, if you discount suicides, barely registers as a single percentage of gun injuries), why then do police and the military have them? You'd figure they'd have found something better by now if guns weren't terribly effective. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that criminals don't want to get shot any more than anyone else does, and, if you've ever seen security camera videos on youtube, it's pretty clear that as soon as a guy pulls a gun on a criminal, that criminal runs for his friggin life.

      People who argue guns aren't effective deterrents are basically arguing that the police themselves are impotent and provide no real deterrent to criminals, which of course is total nonsense. The threat of force is exactly what makes community policing so effective, and welcomed, by residents who live in bad neighborhoods.

      Guns are very effective deterrents, and given that 99.9996% of gun owners don't go out and kill anyone with guns (that's, 35000 murders (assuming one murder per gun owner, which is a generous number, divided by 100m gun owners, which own about 270m guns in the US), it's mind numbingly stupid to argue that GUNS are the problem, or that even legal gun owners are the problem, when you're more likely to get run over by a car (and 13 times more likely to just die of cancer). Yet nobody is proposing the banning of certain types of cars, now are they?

      December 29, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      Actually I think we should ban deer from all roads. I'm sure they'll listen and obey.
      Unless they're zombie deer. Then it won't work.
      Or hungry. Or both. Zombie plants are their main food. We should eradicate zombie plants first. Gotta do it in the right order or you'll just be wasting everyone's time, of course...

      December 30, 2012 at 12:07 am |
    • Nance

      Nance, why is it you guys on the Left always think that having an insurance policy against government tyranny is a stupid idea, when the majority of peoples throughout the world are THIS VERY DAY being oppressed by their governments, and have absolutely no way to defend themselves against false imprisonment, torture, and overall tyranny. We are not led by tyrants, we live in a republic that has electes officials every few years for this very reason, this isn't the late 1700's, and if you are so paranoid that the gov't is out to get you, stay on your compound and continue to plot against the goverment overthrow. Jeez! If such tragedies were an exceedingly rare event in the world, I might say you're right: why indeed would we need these kinds of weapons? But when the entirety of human history is basically the story of governments oppressing their peoples, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it can't also happen here in the USA.See my previous answer. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it hasn't happened here precisely BECAUSE a majority of Americans own guns? You think that because it HASNT happened here, it NEVER WILL, and that is an utterly stupid way to think, considering that human nature hasn't changed since the dawn of recorded history.<bYes, I considered it, and I rejected it for the very reason I pointed out previously.

      If guns are bad, aren't a good deterrent to crime, and can get the owner shot (which, if you discount suicides, barely registers as a single percentage of gun injuries), why then do police and the military have them?Police are out there putting their lives on the line every day to protect the public from morons with, well, AK's. It's called evening the playing field. If there were no guns like the ones you are advocating, the police wouldn't have them either. Many police departments don't. As for the military, they're the military. I hope you aren't thinking that you should own a drone because the military has them. You'd figure they'd have found something better by now if guns weren't terribly effective.Disingenuity at it's best. Well done.You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that criminals don't want to get shot any more than anyone else does, and, if you've ever seen security camera videos on youtube, it's pretty clear that as soon as a guy pulls a gun on a criminal, that criminal runs for his friggin life.So the 2nd amendment IS for personal protection? Which is it? Not to mention that any garden variety gun will do, why does it HAVE to be an AK you whip out?</b?

      People who argue guns aren't effective deterrents are basically arguing that the police themselves are impotent and provide no real deterrent to criminals, which of course is total nonsense. The threat of force is exactly what makes community policing so effective, and welcomed, by residents who live in bad neighborhoods. <b?Again, why does it have to be an AK??

      Guns are very effective deterrents, and given that 99.9996% of gun owners don't go out and kill anyone with guns (that's, 35000 murders (assuming one murder per gun owner, which is a generous number, divided by 100m gun owners, which own about 270m guns in the US), it's mind numbingly stupid to argue that GUNS are the problem, or that even legal gun owners are the problem, when you're more likely to get run over by a car (and 13 times more likely to just die of cancer). Yet nobody is proposing the banning of certain types of cars, now are they?This is a really stupid argument. Really, really stupid. A car's primary use is for transportation, whereas an AK'ssole purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the least amount oftime. When you're pulling the trigger of an AK, it's no accident. And if we could ban cancer, it would have been done by now.

      December 30, 2012 at 12:36 am |
  5. Robin Dale

    Just because someone is a pastor and calls himself an evangelical doesn't mean he knows the Bible very well. I would like to remind Mr. Darling that Jesus commanded his disciples to get some swords the night of His betrayal. When they told Him they had a few, He said that was enough. They did not have enough for every disciple, but they did have enough to protect themselves. The Bible is full of God's principle of people protecting themselves and each other from evil. And in case you don't know it, the sword was the most deadly personal weapon of that day. If they would have had guns, that is exactly what Jesus would have told His disciples to get. You don't bring a knife to a sword fight, or a sword to a gun fight. A little good sense would go a long way in this debate! How are law abiding citizens to protect themselves and each other from people who will not obey any gun law you make?!?!?!? Anyone who literally thinks that criminals will stop using guns if we make more laws is a fool. The only people gun laws hurt are law abiding citizens. Criminals will get guns wether they are legal or illegal. Wake up America!!!!!!!!

    December 29, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So you think Jesus meant 'swords' literally? Why would you believe that?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • Robin Dale

      Tom, the disciples showed Jesus two literal swords and he said that was enough. He did not say "you guys just don;t get it". You don;t get to choose between literal and allegaorical interpretation just to suit your position.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, were you there? Who says Jesus did so? Are you kidding me? Do you really think the bible was written by the disciples? I suppose you think Noah really built an ark, too, don't you? And do you think Jesus would approve of private ownership of AR-15s? I guess he must have smiled at Newtown, then, right?

      December 29, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Jacky

      Its astonishing to me that people who purport to follow Jesus would twist his intent and advocate for weapons that are designed to kill humans, rapidly. As twisted as the Spanish inquisition. An insult to the very term of being a christian

      December 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You have to laugh–if bazookas had been around when Jesus lived, he'd have recommended that all the "right" people buy them! Oh, man, it's just comedy gold.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, Jacky, the Spanish certainly insisted that the rack was a tool of God, didn't they? You can bet that Robin would have been cheering them on as they broke bones of those heretics on it.

      Wouldn't you, Robin?

      December 29, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • Robin Dale

      Mock all you want to. When you find yourself at the wrong end of a gun in the hand of someone bent on harming or killing you or someone you love, we'll see how much you wish for a gun or someone with a gun who would actually act to protect you.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Robin, where the fvck do you live that you have to fear some nut pointing a gun at you? I don't live in a neighborhood where that's a constant fear, and I'll bet you don't either, you disingenuous tw@t.

      That you think your Jeebus would endorse violence tells me all I need to know about ignorant yahoos like you.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • NikNak

      Yeah, we all need your protection Christopher Robin.
      Here comes Robin to save the day with his gun.
      Hurray for Robin, the big tough guy with his gun.
      So glad we have such patriots are you in this country Robin to save us all from the bad guys.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Robin Dale

      Tom, when all you can do is mock and curse, it proves that you cannot defend your psotion even to your own satisfaction. You may want to work on your debate skills before you publish your ignorance.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Nance

      Jesus told ME that guns are the weapons of Satan. What do you say NOW, you bloviating dingleberry?

      December 29, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • Robin Dale

      Well, Nance, I suppose I have no choice but to bow to you as the supreme arbitrator of God's will! I will throw the Bible away now since you evidently are in conflict with it but superior to it! All hail Nance!

      December 29, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      Nance get +10 points for using "bloviating dingleberry" in a sentence. Well done, Nance! Well done, indeed!

      December 29, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Nance

      As you should, Robin. Don't forget to ti.the me 10% of your income. Better yet, give that money to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
    • Nance

      Hrolthgar: (takes a bow)

      December 30, 2012 at 12:00 am |
  6. lol??

    Who was ruling over the school shooter's mama?

    December 29, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
    • mama k

      Is someone having trouble finding the reply button?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lollipop has trouble "finding" a lot of "little things", if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
  7. rj

    Luke 22:36: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/11/11783/#sZzhZVTFF78kaQ4O.99

    December 29, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
  8. lol??

    "Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.".....................The law isn't for killer mommies to rule over da hubby and train gang bangers from the Beast fadder.

    December 29, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • Big Mama

      Sheeeeeit, ya aint no spirit chica know nothin, innit?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
  9. rj

    check this out: http://www.wnd.com/2001/11/11783/
    several instances in the Bible where we are told to arm ourselves and Jesus told his followers to do so!

    December 29, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oooh, I'll bet you got all tingly over that, didn't you, little twerp?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • Akira

      Show me exactly where Jesus told his followers to arm themselves with AK-15's.
      I must have missed that passage.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Ken

      @rj

      "check this out: http://www.wnd.com/2001/11/11783/
      several instances in the Bible where we are told to arm ourselves and Jesus told his followers to do so!"

      This shows your ignorance of then Bible. Stop quoting the Bible if you know nothing about it, you end up sounding like a moron. The "arms yourself" refers to arming yourself SIPRITUALLY not PHYSICALLY.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Ken

      @rj

      "check this out: http://www.wnd.com/2001/11/11783/
      several instances in the Bible where we are told to arm ourselves and Jesus told his followers to do so!"

      This shows your ignorance of then Bible. Stop quoting the Bible if you know nothing about it, you end up sounding like a fool. The "arms yourself" refers to arming yourself SIPRITUALLY not PHYSICALLY.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
  10. Mopery

    To paraphrase your lord, "If you live by the gun, then you shall die by the gun."

    December 29, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
  11. Shawn

    hello!,I love your writing very much! share we keep in touch extra about your post on AOL? I require a specialist on this space to unravel my problem. May be that's you! Looking ahead to see you.

    December 29, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • NikNak

      Who the heck are you talking to?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      Shawn must be talking to the voice in his head.
      I wonder if noise-cancelling headphones make any difference to some of these people?

      December 29, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
  12. Jason

    "Gun ownership should be a privilege earned by good behavior and conferred only on the most trustworthy of our citizens."

    Does the author feel the same about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments? There is no mention of the right to trial by jury, the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, nor the right to free speech and freedom of religion.

    December 29, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • NikNak

      There isn't an age restriction in the 2nd amendment either.
      So let's arm the kids too.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      When the NRA starts fighting for all the other rights, I'll listen to what they have to say. Until then, they are too stupid for words.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
  13. Emelia

    Who the hell believes the 2nd Amendment is taken from the Bible??
    You know what else is taken from the Bible? The 6th commandment.

    December 29, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
  14. Jeremy Morrow

    Its amazing how many people have so deeply accepted being a sissy that they do not understand its even possible to defend yourself. In stead of coming up with ideas so only a few have to die why don't we come up with ideas where no one has to die except the idiot trying to do the killing. I am not a sissy do not ask me to be one with you.

    December 29, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
    • NikNak

      Sissy.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Arm those sissy kids...and never forget that trained assassins make the best kindergarten teachers.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
  15. Rediranch

    Wow, this guy needs to buy a study bible and get to it.

    Death is the work of Satan? Excuse me?

    Much to the chagrin of our human understanding, God uses the death of people to bring glory to Him.

    Need I really mention Jesus? Are you saying, Darling (and I use that loosely), that Satan killed Jesus?

    December 29, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • NikNak

      Can he take you to his glory soon?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • lol??

      Does this cover it?................"Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

      December 29, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • lol??

      "1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death."

      December 29, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • NikNak

      @ loloser,
      No, that does not cover anything.
      Just more babble from the babble.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
  16. pb

    Excellent article, and completely fact-on.

    December 29, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
  17. Mohammad A Dar

    I guess to keep everyone happy, civilian gun owners are allowed to carry only rubber bullets, I know law enforcing people around the world are known to use them on rioting crowds!! they don't kill, but they do hurt like hell, if you are on the receiving end

    December 29, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • S Kopfter

      "Don't tase me, bro!" – millions of people on the internet

      December 29, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • Sniper

      Please remain still as I adjust for windage and elevation.....

      December 29, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
  18. ed

    Everyone, meet Tom, the troll here, hes just being a grammer nazi because he has no other arguement. Poor Poor Uncle Tom.

    December 29, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
    • S Kopfter

      "And then did his post seem pathetic, for it turned out that the one he was attacking was a female and not a male of the species." – Capt. Krang, 3rd Space Fleet, Terran Quadrant, while monitoring the CNN website

      December 29, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's "grammar." It's "argument."

      Really, ed, did you quit school or did they kick you out?

      I wouldn't give a crap about your inability to spell if you presented a cogent argument, but you don't. Not even close.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • galvanism

      @Tom American-English: argument. Queen's English: arguement.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • Akira

      Uh, no, ed.
      Tom, Tom isn't a troll; she is part of the BB regulars posting here.
      She uses sarcasm to get her point across, and for that, I thank her; she is hilarious, and for that, I also thank her.
      If one can't take the heat from her razor-sharp wit, you should get the fvck out of the kitchen.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sorry, but no sale. This ain't England. And the argument isn't about England's laws. Go home.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      To Akira: Many thanks.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      Tom and Akira, sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

      December 29, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Jealous?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
    • Akira

      Hrolthgar:
      I'm not gay, but I bet you wouldn't have a problem watching a little girl-on-girl action if I were kissing TT, amiright?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • Akira

      TT, you're welcome.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Now, Akira, don't get the poor little guy all excited! He'll be spewing all OVER the place! And who's gonna have to clean that mess?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • mama k

      Ditto regarding what Akira said.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • mama k

      Ed, go back to school and try not to sleep through English class this time. At least download and use the Firefox browser for this site if possible so that the rest of us are spared your shitty spelling.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hey, mama k, how are you?

      December 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • mama k

      I'm fine, Tom Tom – thank you. How are you? I see you've been wading through the sea of illiteracy tonight. One would think they just dropped English as a requirement when you read these posts.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm well, mama. As to the English, it's truly sad. The requirements are still there, it's the will to insist they be met that is lacking, and not on the part of schools, either. Just look at the posts in which the worst offenders attempt to excuse their ignorance with lame excuses: "Hey, you knew what I meant." "If you read it out loud, you'd have understood it."

      And then they expect to be taken seriously. As if.

      Best of the season to you, mama!

      December 29, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Akira

      His mother will have to, TT, and we don't want to make her have to clean up pre-pubescent spooge...should have thought of that before I posted...

      December 29, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • mama k

      I understand, Tom. I think I'll just start feigning ignorance and just blurt out assumptions to try to make people revisit what they've written (in hopes that, if they start proofreading, reality will set in). Hope you enjoy the season as well, Tom. I've got to hit the sack.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Akira and mama, you two are a hoot. Have a nice snooze.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • mama k

      You too, Tom & Akira. Oh, I'm just catching up to the other conversation you had with Akira. Lol. I hope I don't fall asleep with that image in my mind. Whew!

      December 29, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • Hrolthgar

      I make a little joke and you can't loosen up a little? Sounds like you need some Big O action. Watch me make my "O" face:
      :eek:

      December 29, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
    • Akira

      Nice face, babe.

      December 30, 2012 at 12:01 am |
    • Hrolthgar

      Here's what I look like when it feels like thunder:
      8O :eek: 8O :cool:

      December 30, 2012 at 12:14 am |
    • Hrolthgar

      (yes it feels like I have four different heads, lol)

      December 30, 2012 at 12:15 am |
  19. Jeremy Morrow

    Military style weapons and non military style weapons both shoot bullets. A smaller clip means you just have to reload faster. Why can’t we support sensible restrictions you ask? Sensible restrictions are not going to make soft targets like children any safer. What people need to do is realize they live in a armed society whether they agree with it or not. The people you wish to keep guns away from probably already have them. Murder, no matter how its carried out, is against the law. That Law, or restriction, did nothing to deter any of the mass shootings. So please tell me how more restrictions and laws are going to stop bullets. I am 35 I have never owned or carried a gun in my life and so far I have never needed one. I will be buying one soon and I will be carrying it with me legal or not. I would rather do jail time instead of being dead, the thing about jail is they will eventually let you out.

    December 29, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Really? Talk to the parents of the children who lived in the Chinese school knife attack that occurred the same day as our school shooting. A less powerful gun? Maybe only 5 or 10 more kids would have lived, but to their families they were everything.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • JenniferC

      Sounds like the NRA paranoia advertising worked its magic on you.

      December 29, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
  20. ccb

    Those evangelicals of national and international prominence have been too silent on a lot of issues confronting this nation. We are not using God's Word, the Bible, when trying to educate people, Christians and non-Christians, about what God has to say about caring for the poor, racism(a taboo subject in many evangelical circles), and articulating moral principles like the immoral budget proposed by Ryan-Romney as well as many other societal issues. For those who do speak out(esp those politicians who call themselves Christians) they take positions that seem extreme and not in keeping with the love of Christ. Plus they come off as angry people. What kind of evangelical strategy is this? Years ago I wrote to several well known evangelical figures about why they didn't speak out against racism. Their reply: This was not their ministry. I was shocked beyond reason and very disappointed to say the least. I truly believe that racism is the #1 sin in America, not gay rights nor abortion. While there are people of color who are racist, there are for more incidents that people of color face EVERY DAY. Look how our first African American President has been treated since his election in 2008 and it has only gotten worse in spite of his re-election. Until evangelical leaders address this issue up front and personal, using God's Word, then folks will go to church on Sunday, say Praise the Lord but leave church with racism STILL in their hearts! Is this a trait of a 'saved' person who purports to follow the LORD of Lords and the KING of Kings? Something to think about isn't it!

    December 29, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • S Kopfter

      "I fart in your general direction!" – me, after skimming your post

      December 29, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • Linda Ballard

      For your information, I do not dislike Obama because his race, but because he oppsoses the views of God. How do you know he is treated the way he is because of his race? Don't you judge and don't assume. If you are "saved" then You know that God gives each person a calling. Who are you to get angry because they are not answering to the calling that "You" think they should be? Maybe it's Your calling, if it's that deeply on your heart. Also, do you really think that top officials speaking out on racism is going to change the way people worship from their heart? Maybe instead of pointing fingers at others, we should do our own deeper study of the bible and learn what it means to examine our own hearts, especially those of us tat like to name groups of people to push the blame on. (Pointing fingers at evangelicals) appears to be a racist remark in it's self.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      LInda? You lie.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • Argle Bargle

      Linda, and perehaps you should stop pointing fingers at gay people and trying to legislate your religious beliefs into law. That would be a great start. And anyway who starts a post out with "For your information, I do not dislike Obama because his race, but because he oppsoses the views of God." is really a racist protesting that she isn't. See, the big difference between your view on Obama and the TRUTH of Obama is that he knows he CAN'T legislate religious views into law; you know, that pesky civil rights thing that you hste so much.

      December 29, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      But, but, Argle, some of Linda's "BEST FRIENDS" are black!

      December 29, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.