Oregon College Shootings

[RickD]

Rick,commercial MT gyms do NOT have any spiritual element at all, though they do tow the party of line of "self defence first".

Then that's not Muay Thai, is it?

That's like going to vacation bible school that has kickball all day. It's not really vacation bible school, is it?


Muay Thai has a spiritual aspect that is inherent in its teachings.

[melanie]

Kurieuo: Really, you're looking to Jesus for justification to carry guns? Don't invoke Christ's name, because that is a serious misrepresentation and insult.

OK, Kurieuo, you don't have to put on your sanctimonious, mock outrage on. Of COURSE, Jesus' meaning might not be so obvious. However, He IS referring to the obvious dangers His disciples would soon face. And He does mention common utilitarian items designed for specific uses. But IF you are going to use Scripture to try to endorse passiveness and pacifist sensibilities, I think you are greatly mistaken. Why did God have Israel create an army - armed with WEAPONS???!!! Why didn't He just want them all to be PRAYER warriors?

Fearful? No! Practical, a realist? Absolutely! Did God not give us a brain to perceive dangers and to do OUR part to protect our families? I never owned a gun until about 3 years ago, and I'll be 58 this week! But I came to realize it's a practical tool for protection. Yes, my faith is NOT in my guns, but in the Lord's protection. But He expects me to do my part, not ONLY in prayer and faith, but also to the best of my ability in prudent ways. K, do you wear a seatbelt when you ride the highway? Or do you just pray and have faith in God so that you don't need the protection of a nylon strap and airbags? Of, course, I'm sure you undertake all manner of precautions due to the hazardous potential of many things. But by your logic, that shows walking in fear, a lack of faith.

The passion I have is NOT for guns, but for my rights to protect those I love in a way I see reasonable in relation to widely known potential threats. I don't like emotional arguments or political correctness. And so people that think a law-abiding person shouldn't be able to legally own a gun, that don't understand criminals will still have and easily obtain them - well, that really ticks me off! I pray I'll never have to use my gun. So, do I have faith that God will never allow me to ever be in a position where I might need to defend myself against dangerous people? But why should I believe something that newspapers daily show me Christians facing such dangers - in which they are sometimes tragically killed. Was their faith too weak to avoid such things - or have they not also lived in a sinful world filled with threatening and dangerous people. Maybe even Christian cops don't need guns - maybe police departments should make them optional for those of such spiritual sensibilities? Do you think it's a lack of faith for a Christian to own, or to desire to own, a gun?

This is an important debate. Revelant. And one that needs to be debated free of BS.
Why?
Because people are dying.
That is why there is passion.
That is why a few Aussies would bother to discuss this issue with any concern. We are sitting pretty. We don't have this issue. It is is not relevant to our neighbourhood.
But we care.
That is the motivation
What the hell is going on? And going wrong?
Because something is wrong.
Abel I admire what you said and I agree. This should not divide us.
What is "us"
A dysfunctional family under Christ?
Different ideas, differing theology.
We discuss differences everyday surrounding our faith, and nothing brings about the nervousness anger and anxiety as does this discussion.
That is telling in itself.

Which brings me to an issue that has given me the irrits for long enough
How many times have I said let's call a spade a spade.
Let's get real and leave to the wayside political jargon that conflates the issue and does not resolve.

We need a lesson in what Political correctness means and what it doesn't.
The definition;
agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.

Myself personally I have been viewed as politically incorrect and as correct. Depending on the situation.
When I have heard people refer to our Aboriginal ancestors and people as coons and abos, I have found offence. More than once I have been asked ' so you are one of those politically correct people'? And my answer is if that means I'm not an assho*le then yes!
Political correctness is the direct use of language to marginalise a group of people.
It has its merits as we have seen in this forum.
That feeling of we love you, but not okay.
Those that have had the strongest feelings of protest against political correctness, have understood that at times, inflammatory language is not not okay.

Similar to the issue with FL. language that was not viewed as okay.
That by definition is political incorrectness.


How has it gone too far?
By redefining the purpose of language to not offend, to the extreme?
Some people are fat.
Call it curvy, which I'm not arguing is beautiful, but language is what is it and shouldn't be used as a political or social tool.
Some people are short,
Vertically challenged??
In the 90's political correctness just went berserk.
But it was defined by the use of language that was deemed offensive.

Fast forward to now and it the one of the most bastardised terms of this era.
If you don't agree with gun reform "polically correct"
You believe in helping refugees "politically correct".

That is not the meaning or definition of politically correct!!
A different point of view was never the intentional application of this term.
It is going out of your way to use non offensive language as to not marginalise anyone.
Great idea when applied rationally, stupid idea when over extended.


That is not at all the case with gun reform.
There is no margin for the political correct card to be branded except for intellectual dishonesty.
No use of offensive language to offend anyone is the crux of this issue.
It's a bullcrap argument.

Let's make this clear.
Issues regarding gun reform and the Syrian refugee crisis that has been repeatedly branded on this forum as political correctness have nothing to zero to do with politically correctness but rather a differing point of view that is dishonestly placed within those restrains.

The crux of political correctness is to not offend by use of specific language.
Whilst it is not my intention to offend by way of language if my opinion offends I couldn't give a rats ar*e.
Anybody who knows me would ever claim I am politically correct.
If you don't like my opinion then I couldn't give a flying fire truck.
Stiff titties.
I'm not going to whitewash it, pretend what is isn't, or glaze over it.

What has been branded as political correctness on this forum by some is the opposite.
To pussy foot around, to not want to offend based on opinion but rather specific use of language has never been my intention.
Yes, I disagree with you, it's not political correctness but a different point of view.
I'm my opinion a better point of view.
Call it many things but political correctness it's not, because I don't care if it offends you.
And that is what the term actually means to not offend and not how it's been bastardised to mean a differing point of view different to your own.

Cliff notes please.

Haha umm wrapped up in a nutshell the political correctness card is BS

[melanie]

Maybe I should start micah early...take him down the shooting range tomorrow

With my intruder, I felt like God sent him.running...but obviously God does not work like that everytime.

The intruder could have used that gun against her as well or maybe she could have shot her baby brother instead if she had one. Theres more to consider here than what seems to prove a good case for gun ownership

How about some preventative common sense. What was the girl doing at home alone?
If she was under 12 or turning 12, then that's a misdemeanor where I live and you can end up with a three year sentence.

PS. I send my daughter and eldest son both to Jiu Jitsu/Muay Thai classes.

Let's see...

K, you send your children to Muay Thai classes? You do realize the spiritual aspect of Muay Thai isn't compatible with Christianity, don't you?

So, owning a gun for defense of your family is against your conscience. But sending your children off to an anti Christian, spiritual practice is ok?

Seriously??
Are we going there?
Putting our kids in martial arts as some kind of equivalent to owning assault weaponry?
My son is starting mixed Martial arts.
Not in conflict with Christianty but because he is passionate about football and it is the maximum fitness regime he can follow.
He asked me if he could do it and I asked why? His repsonse for the ultimate fitness workout as pre season for football.
My repsonse yeh sure. That's commitment.


Dylan Roof the guy who shot all those people in Charleston got a 45. Calibre gun for his birthday from his father for his 21st which he used to kill 9 people.
Don't compare sending your kids to martial arts.
Not quite the same

I'm talking about a matter of conscience. If one's conscience allows him to own a gun for self, and family defense, yet K just calls it flat out wrong, then why isn't it flat out wrong to send children off to a Muay Thai class that teaches unbiblical spiritual things?

Did K ever say self defence was wrong
Or just that unchecked legislation and an over prevalence of guns combined with a distorted cultural ideal leads to well lots of gun deaths. Which is an issue that falls well aside Christianity alone.

[Philip]

Often, when I use the term PC, I'm referring to those seeming to take an established POPULAR view that is largely born out of a constant fear of offending people and/or is often an emotionally based view that is not only widely parroted, but is typically either unrealistic and doesn't match up with the known pertinent facts or universal truths. So, a majority racist society's PC talk is going to be different from one that equally values all people. Ultimately, PC talk is either not thinking for yourself and/or is playing to some specific crowd (often, a majority - not always) for either approval, a desire to not offend them, or due to a desire to win approval, clout or some advantage.

[RickD]

Rick,commercial MT gyms do NOT have any spiritual element at all, though they do tow the party of line of "self defence first".

Paul,

When I was younger, maybe 30 years ago, my friend invited me to the taekwondo? Class that he attended. The first thing we did when we walked in, was bow to something in the gym. I can't remember what we were supposed to bow to, or why, but I felt it was wrong in my spirit. And that was a commercial, supposedly, exercise class. Needless to say, as fun and challenging as the physical part was, I never went back.

Some people can ignore the bowing, and just do it. I couldn't. I'm not bowing to something other than God. It was simply a matter of conscience for me.


Which gets me back to the point of this whole discussion. Some people have decided between themselves and God, that they want to own a gun for protection. Some people have decided that they want to study martial arts as a form of protection. That also is between them and God.

Where something is allowed by law in one's country, then it's a matter of conscience. The law of the land in many US states, allows people to own guns for personal protection, and family protection. That's a matter of conscience between that person and God. Nobody else needs to judge those people.

Just like if one's conscience allows him to send his children to an martial arts class, then that's between him and God. Of course we can discuss the merits of such a class, but ultimately it's a matter of conscience.

Now, to say that gun confiscation worked in Australia, so it'll work in the US, is just wrong. Australia doesn't(at least to my knowledge) have a constitution that allows its people the right to bear arms. Where the US does. The law of the land in the US allows guns for personal protection.

So, to say that the government should just confiscate guns like the Australian government did, would cause a revolution, because the govt. would literally be breaking its own laws. Which is tyranny.

To sum it up, I'm an American who believes that constitutional law(the law of the land here) allows citizens to own guns. So, if you want to own one, or more, you have every legal, and moral right to. As long as your conscience allows it.

And this is coming from someone who has never fired a real gun, let alone ever owned one. I weighed the pros and cons of having a gun in MY house, and I haven't yet found that the pros outweigh the cons.

If someone can come up with a REAL solution for the kind of gun crime happening here, then I'm all ears. Let's hear it. But suggesting that the govt should follow Australia's way, and have the govt confiscate guns, is just not going to happen.

[Philip]

Rick, my 11 year old has a black belt in Tae Kwondo. The do a RESPECTFUL bow to the flags of Korea and the U.S. - meaning, they are honoring the ideals and values of those countries that they think are important. Not terribly different than standing for the National Anthem. The bowing in Asian culture is not an act of worship, but one of respect.

Rick: And this is coming from someone who has never fired a real gun, let alone ever owned one. I weighed the pros and cons of having a gun in MY house, and I haven't yet found that the pros outweigh the cons.

Rick, I had this same analysis. Negative is having children in the house. I've covered that by hiding my handgun (the loaded one), where they cannot get to it or that they know that it's there. I also don't want a criminal to come in easily find it (when I'm not home). Even I can't get to it without some effort, even knowing where it is. The other thing has always been the cost - when do I ever have $500+ to blow on a handgun. Finally, I inherited an older pistol and the .357 is on permanent loan from my sister - who has another weapon. Offered these, I realized they might come in handy/hopefully NEVER to be needed. I HUGELY respect them - they make me nervous, as I'm not a gun guy, not used to handling them, didn't grow up with them around, not even for hunting. But I don't want to be defenseless and recognized that we were vulnerable, so I accepted them.

[PaulSacramento]

Guns exist because people are afraid.
People use guns to kill other people because they are afraid.
The US has a gun culture and until that is addressed then guns will ALWAYS be a part of the US life.

[Philip]

The US has a gun culture and until that is addressed then guns will ALWAYS be a part of the US life.

Ultimately, if enough human minds and hearts were committed to God's principles of loving everyone, then guns would be unnecessary. And NO laws will do this! Ever.

[RickD]

Rick, my 11 year old has a black belt in Tae Kwondo. The do a RESPECTFUL bow to the flags of Korea and the U.S. - meaning, they are honoring the ideals and values of those countries that they think are important. Not terribly different than standing for the National Anthem. The bowing in Asian culture is not an act of worship, but one of respect.

Well, then it looks like your son's taekwondo place has watered down the spiritual aspect of the martial art. And if that's the case, and your conscience is ok with it, then I say that's fine.

But, I had to bow to the dojang, and all it represents. And I couldn't do it in good conscience. But that was me.

[RickD]

Some of you are advocating for physical training, martial arts, etc., for self defense, in place of guns. Which is fine by me. I'm not going to argue against that.

But I have a question for those who don't advocate for self defense at all. Be it guns, or martial arts, or whatever.

I'm not sure if there's anyone here that just holds the position that they don't need any of that because they trust God. And they'd lay down their life if someone attacked them or their family, because that's what they believe scripture says.


Is there anyone with that position?

[PaulSacramento]

Some of you are advocating for physical training, martial arts, etc., for self defense, in place of guns. Which is fine by me. I'm not going to argue against that.

But I have a question for those who don't advocate for self defense at all. Be it guns, or martial arts, or whatever.

I'm not sure if there's anyone here that just holds the position that they don't need any of that because they trust God. And they'd lay down their life if someone attacked them or their family, because that's what they believe scripture says.


Is there anyone with that position?

That is a tough one Rick.
Not because I don't trust God but because it is our duty as stewards of His creation to protect ALL of His creation and, one can argue, His children.
I don't think that I COULDN'T fight back to save my family or another if I could ( I could being the operative word).
I would do anything in my power to protect and when I could do no more, I would accept death as someone that has Faith in Our Lord, I would commit my spirit and that ot those that I can't protect, into His hands.

[Philip]

My son's Taekwondo dojo was explicitly stated to be guided by Christian principles, and the owner was a Korean Christian.

[RickD]

My son's Taekwondo dojo was explicitly stated to be guided by Christian principles, and the owner was a Korean Christian.

That's a good start. But then, you as a parent have to discern if his Christian principles line up with your Christian principles.

[RickD]

Some of you are advocating for physical training, martial arts, etc., for self defense, in place of guns. Which is fine by me. I'm not going to argue against that.

But I have a question for those who don't advocate for self defense at all. Be it guns, or martial arts, or whatever.

I'm not sure if there's anyone here that just holds the position that they don't need any of that because they trust God. And they'd lay down their life if someone attacked them or their family, because that's what they believe scripture says.


Is there anyone with that position?

That is a tough one Rick.
Not because I don't trust God but because it is our duty as stewards of His creation to protect ALL of His creation and, one can argue, His children.
I don't think that I COULDN'T fight back to save my family or another if I could ( I could being the operative word).
I would do anything in my power to protect and when I could do no more, I would accept death as someone that has Faith in Our Lord, I would commit my spirit and that ot those that I can't protect, into His hands.

Philip,

I agree with you here. I feel the same way. But this hypothetical wasn't really addressed to you. I'm talking about those who, when faced with them or their family being attacked, would just let themself and their family die.

I think danieltwotwenty may have believed this. Jac asked a hypothetical question where someone was attacking one's family, and someone handed you a gun to defend them, would you use it? And iirc, Daniel said he wouldn't. This question is for them. I guess we could call them extreme pacifists.

[Philip]

Rick: I guess we could call them extreme pacifists.

That's one term for it.