In the decade since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, that perspective has helped drive the guns debate toward an almost religious tone – that of a battle between good and evil that goes well beyond good or bad policy. For a small group of Americans and religious leaders, the more access to firearms has become a moral question, the more defending them has become a righteous cause in defense of the freedom to protect America’s virtues.
Second Amendment: Has the gun become a sacred object in America? – CSMonitor.com
Noteworthy article since the author reached over our side and ask our point of view rather than accept the propaganda bleated from every screen out there by the antis. David Yamane, a regular reader of the blog is quoted. And even some obscure blogger got to dip his 2 cents in the process:
Mr. Gonzalez, the Florida gun owner, traces his attachment to firearms to his family’s experiences in the Spanish Civil War, the Cuban Revolution, and gun restrictions in his native Venezuela.
“We do not pray or light candles to any type of weapon just like a biker does not kneel in front of a Harley or a car aficionado genuflects at the sight of an original Shelby Cobra,” writes Mr. Gonzalez, the founder of the tongue-in-cheek-named Gun Free Zone blog. “The ‘article of faith is written’ in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the ‘gospel’ is the historic precedents here and abroad where unarmed people were massacred by either the government or civilians who had the privilege to be armed.”
…
“By blaming the sacralizing of weapons, he says, critics “fail to see the irony [created] by assigning an almost evil intent to the inanimate object rather than seeking and healing what ails the soul of those who use the object to commit evil …,” says Mr. Gonzalez. “It is the equivalent of blaming the cross for the Crucifixion of our Lord.”
I saved the whole email interview, and you can read it here. (Be advised, the whole thing is backwards, so you have to start at the bottom and read up)
I believe Patrik Jonsson did a fair job and for that I thank him.
Naturally liberals bring up religion of inanimate objects because THAT is what liberals do- “climate change”, “eco whatever”, ect… well done Sir.
I disagree with the authors closing comments about the 2A being vague. It’s only vague if you go looking for ways to poke holes it. Arguments over the text and 18th century verbiage/meaning are getting old, and only happen because liberals love to change the meaning of things to fit their latest whim.
–
Guns are not some sacred object, and they aren’t to be worshiped . What they mean for freedom, and the underlying meaning for the survival of our nation IS sacred.
Thank you for sharing the email exchange companion to the article. As someone who has had a direct quote cropped, to convey support for something I was opposed, by a local paper, I distrust reporters. Even when Patrk took the,”blaming the cross….” quote out of the paragraph it was tied to he didn’t change the meaning. Well written email exchange led to a well written article. Rare indeed
Wow, I hadn’t seen that bit about blaming the Cross before. That is positively brilliant.
Curby was spot on. Leftists will use ridicule (Rule# 5) when attacking something they do not like, but will get all offended if you point out their actions/behavior over the things they like is exactly the same.
.
“Conservatives worship guns.” Not true, your evidence is what…we read gun magazines/blogs, and take care of them, and generally tend to have more then one. How does that differ from any other form of human behavior? Show me a human being that acts differently about anything they enjoy.
.
Yet, the leftists feel the need to ridicule it because that gives them the power. It changes the discussion to one they can win.
.
Good exchange.
IMHO, Jonson is smoother than most libtards, but he is still looking at demonizing guns and those that have/want them.
Miguel,
–
Thank you for taking the time to provide your well thought out responses to the reporter. Many people (like me) would not make the effort, or they would reply with trite platitudes.
–
I am glad the reporter was honest and ethical enough to not unduly chop up and parse your words to twist the meanings.
–
You were also very wise to make sure your exchange was captured in email. I am amazed how many people, especially politicians who should definitely know better, do not record any exchange with reporters, especially when they do sit down interviews. I would have video cameras and a voice recorder running if I was a serious politician.
–
Great Job. I hope you gain some more new blog followers from this exposure.
RE: “blaming the cross” —
–
Not directly gun-related, but….
–
Historically, Christ’s cross was made of wood from the dogwood tree. Anyone who sees a dogwood tree these days will note that dogwood grows stunted and bent; it does not grow straight and tall.
–
It is said, dogwoods used to grow tall, but after its wood was used to crucify the Son of God, the dogwood tree asked the Lord to never be used for such a brutal act again. The Lord in His mercy took pity on the tree, and ever since then dogwoods grow bent, unsuitable for making crosses.
–
The lesson here is that nobody, not even a tree, wants to be blamed or held to account for the transgressions of others, and some are willing to (literally) bend over backwards to avoid it. The reason the “gun debate” goes nowhere is that one side wants to blame law-abiding gun owners for the acts of criminals (or alternatively, blame all similarly-styled guns for the actions of one owner), and the other side wants to hold individual criminals to account for their own acts. (Note that this isn’t a “Left vs. Right” or “Democrat vs. Republican” issue; it’s a “collective justice vs. individual justice” issue, and neither party holds a monopoly on either point of view.)
–
Those fundamentally-opposed First Principles means there will never be common ground between them.
I would call it “collective guilt vs. individual justice”. “Collective justice” is a contradiction in terms. For the same reason, I’d hesitate to use the term “principle” for both of them.
It’s true that neither party holds a monopoly on either point of view. Still, viewing as a D vs. R issue is a reasonable approximation. It’s really hard to find a D politician who sincerely supports individual rights, especially the individual right to keep and bear arms. Conversely, some R politicians do sincerely support, by and large, those rights. And a fair number more at least oppose major new infringements. That’s not great, but it certainly is better than the “Australian approach” confiscation push one hears from all too many D politicians.