Every once in a while you read something that is so far out in left field that you just can’t ignore it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kutter-callaway/i-am-renouncing-my-2nd-amendment-rights_b_8710880.html
I have no problem with the author of that article making their own choices. But I do very much have a problem with Kutter Calloway thinking that de-horning the rams is equivalent to de-fanging the wolf.
I could point out that, regardless of where we land on the political spectrum, we all already recognize that there should be some limits on lethal firepower among everyday citizens (e.g. no one owns rocket launchers or tanks).
I don’t agree. I can own a rocket launcher (legally) and not kill anyone. I can own a tank (legally) and not kill anyone. I can own a nuke (kind of a grey area), and not kill anyone. Kutter is making a generalization fallacy and using that to make an argument that somehow voluntarily disarming the least harmful in society will change things. What an idiot.
Hence, the language of the second and third amendments in all its historical-contextual particularity (e.g. “well regulated militias” and soldiers not being “quartered in any house”).
But the truth of the matter is that many of my fellow Christians would reject all of this evidence and all of these arguments out of hand.
Since “regulated” mean “make regular” which means “make professional” the point was to have a professional citizen militia. You know, kinda like the Swiss model. Of course Kutter will reject this historical explanation out of hand, because he’s a fucking idiot. The Revolutionay War was long over, the Articles of Confederation the law of the land until the founding Fathers realized that the Articles weren’t working. There’s a long time between 1776 with the Declaration of Independence and 1791 and creation of the Constitution.
I’m not talking here about whether Jesus was an advocate for violent or non-violent resistance, although that is certainly a related conversation. Rather, I’m simply saying that, as a Christian, my primary obligation is to stand in radical opposition to the forces of death and destruction that threaten to undo the very fabric of God’s good creation, regardless of what the Constitution says I can or cannot do as an American citizen.
Submitting, unarmed and powerless, to evil men who do violence without resisting somehow doesn’t strike me as “stand in radical opposition to the forces of death and destruction” there Kutter. Jesus commanded his followers to have weapons so that His sacrifice would be meaningful. If there were no swords, no ability to resist, then the sacrifice isn’t a sacrifice, it is a slaughter. I’m actually quite amazed at the amount of doublethink here.
As a Christian your primary duty and obligation is to testify your faith, the redemption of sin by Jesus, the living relationship with God. Losing sight of that is troubling.
So it is for this very reason that I am compelled to renounce my “right” to bear arms. In doing so, I’m neither suggesting that we do away with the Second Amendment nor am I attempting to radically reinterpret its meaning. As a follower of Jesus, I’m simply rejecting it. I am choosing to no longer accept the rules of the world it has established. And I would encourage you to prayerfully consider doing the same.
If you needed any more evidence that the author is a liberal nutjob, here it is. Symbolism over substance. Meaningless, pointless, and ineffective. But I’m sure Kutter feels better. And really, what do real world consequences have to do with anything as long as Kutter can feel good?I have done nothing wrong. I have used the innate capability for violence that all people posses simply by being human, to harm no one.
Of course, the truth of the matters is that this (possibly ridiculous) renunciation of mine is not going to magically undo the gun culture in America.
There’s no “possibly” there Kutter, your idea is ridiculous, unworkable, and counter-productive to your stated goal.
But that doesn’t mean it is an empty or merely symbolic gesture.
Yes it does. And counter-productive.
Imagine it with me, if only for a moment. Imagine a different way of being an American Christian. What if we were known not so much for our doctrinal orthodoxy, but for our political heterodoxy? That is, what might happen if we were daring enough to embrace, embody, and enact a way of life that was truly blasphemous to American sensibilities? What if, in a land where worship of the twin gods of weaponry and violence prevailed, we chose instead to serve a dis-arming God–a God who calls us daily to confront violence by laying down our lives (and our guns) for the sake of others?
American sensibilities are not religious doctrine (although liberalism is a religion), and so cannot be “blasphemous” by any definition of the word. Weaponry and violence are not gods, they are not worshipped. God is not a “disarming God” by His own words.
There are Christians every day who lay down their lives for the sake of others. Some do it with a gun on their hip, some don’t. The gun is not an impairment to service, the gun is just a tool. And in the hands of Christians it is a tool to stop evil. Crazy, huh?
Simply put, asking the peaceful disarm is pointless. Instead of praying for people to disarm themselves and line up to be shot by the bad guys, why not pray for the weak to be made strong, the powerful to be given wisdom, and the just to prevail.
I’ve seen a world where Christians are disarmed. Google it if you like.