Wash your mouth out.

As pacifists, we must remember that every new restriction made by The Sword is violence. Any time we rely on The Sword to enforce something, instead of handling it through direct action, outreach, missions, evangelism, etc. we are advocating the way of violence, instead of the way of Jesus.”

I thought I was alone in my little crusade here! The ban is, in and of itself, a violent act. Whereas the absence of a ban allows a person to choose to be peaceful!

“Right wingers likely do believe that the US and its founding documents are worthy of worship.”

That’s a nice stereotype. It’s one that creates division, not unity. It’s a sweeping generalization that undermines and provokes people. As an advocate of peace we should keep our words………..well, peaceable. Am I wrong here?

It’s an interesting jump, actually, the association that McCain seems to be following to arrive at this gun-right as being sacred - from “inalienable rights” - a declaration of natural law - of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that the creator has built into humans - to extend this association of God’s order to the entire constitution, to the bill of rights, and then to move from an expression of natural law to language of sacredness of the individual rights themselves. God gave us free speech - it’s sacred. God gave us guns - they’re sacred.

Very very strange society, the sacralizing of the agents of death, of the power to inflict death, really. Associating worship with the power to kill others.

It pretty much makes me physically sick.

As pacifists, we must remember that every new restriction made by The Sword is violence. Any time we rely on The Sword to enforce something, instead of handling it through direct action, outreach, missions, evangelism, etc. we are advocating the way of violence, instead of the way of Jesus.

Recently in Baltimore a handgun owner and owner of a drycleaner shot a man (he’ll live) who had robbed him once? twice? Nope, three times prior! The fourth time he was on the receiving end of a handgun. The owner did what was needed to protect himself, all without taking a life.

If you want to be a pacifist I say that’s GREAT! But when you disarm innocent people using government (the most armed, most brazingly murderous instition in history) and leave the public helpless in violent neighborhoods then I have a problem.

Oh, one more thing. If saying owning a gun is the promotion of violence (which it probably is) then isn’t banning them the promotion of violence as well?

Let me explain. Government exists to enforce laws. Government is, in it’s very essence, an institution that we authorize to use violence to protect its laws, its borders, and its interests. So, in effect, by having a ban what you saying is: “Use violence to get guns off the streets.”

A call for a ban is, therefore, a call to CAUSE violence. A call to lift the ban merely gives folks choice as to whether or not they wish to cause violence at all.

Ugh.