1. Perhaps Bird's attitude makes sense since Australia was largely founded as a nation where armed police officers kept unarmed prisoners in check? ;-)
3. One answer to Bird's question is maybe because American evangelicals care about the Constitution and Bill of Rights which supports the right to bear arms. Isn't it generally speaking good for Christians to be law-abiding citizens who honor just government?
1. For one thing, gun "size" is relative to what else is available at the time and place. What's considered a "big gun" in one place or time may not be considered a "big gun" in another place or time.
2. Also, why should one be forced to defend their family using only a BB gun or pellet gun when intruders have a Glock 17 or Mossberg 500? Should we seek to have parity in firearms between would-be victims and their assailants? Why should there be a fair fight when innocents are at risk against violent men? Why not use overwhelming stopping force against such individuals?
3. What's more, when it comes to tyrannical government, a tyrannical government may have the "biggest guns" of all, in which case why not argue responsible citizens should have access to "big [enough] guns" to defend themselves? Or are we supposed to surrender in the face of a tyrannical government?
As Churchill once said: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
4. Many Australians may not be aware but certain "big guns" are already heavily regulated in the US. Instead, many Australians like Bird might assume people can simply walk in and buy a fully automatic machine gun at Walmart or something like that.
I think Michael's question represents more of a desire to understand us rather than criticize. I posted a lengthy pro-2nd Amendment explanation in his comments section and he seemed to respond positively. Let's give him the benefit of a doubt.
At the same time, Aussies are known to bond by insulting one another (as people like D.A. Carson have observed on several different occasions), and hence Bird's opening salvo as well as some of our responses may in fact be taken as friendly gestures. :-) For example: "Targets of a piss-take are expected to reply in kind. An insulting joke in return often increases an Australian's appreciation for you."
I guess it'd be sort of like if Klingons were attempting to open good faith diplomatic relations with the United Federation. Their diplomacy may at first seem overly aggressive if not warlike to the Federation, yet if the Federation didn't reply with an appropriate barb, then it may mistakenly be taken as a real insult!
Anyway, it's all topsy turvy, but to be fair it must be hard living upside-down all the time. :-)
I'd add:
ReplyDelete1. Perhaps Bird's attitude makes sense since Australia was largely founded as a nation where armed police officers kept unarmed prisoners in check? ;-)
2. On a more serious note, there are some Australian Christians who "love firearms, hunting ... and Jesus".
3. One answer to Bird's question is maybe because American evangelicals care about the Constitution and Bill of Rights which supports the right to bear arms. Isn't it generally speaking good for Christians to be law-abiding citizens who honor just government?
By the way, why focus on the "size" of a gun?
Delete1. For one thing, gun "size" is relative to what else is available at the time and place. What's considered a "big gun" in one place or time may not be considered a "big gun" in another place or time.
2. Also, why should one be forced to defend their family using only a BB gun or pellet gun when intruders have a Glock 17 or Mossberg 500? Should we seek to have parity in firearms between would-be victims and their assailants? Why should there be a fair fight when innocents are at risk against violent men? Why not use overwhelming stopping force against such individuals?
3. What's more, when it comes to tyrannical government, a tyrannical government may have the "biggest guns" of all, in which case why not argue responsible citizens should have access to "big [enough] guns" to defend themselves? Or are we supposed to surrender in the face of a tyrannical government?
As Churchill once said: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
4. Many Australians may not be aware but certain "big guns" are already heavily regulated in the US. Instead, many Australians like Bird might assume people can simply walk in and buy a fully automatic machine gun at Walmart or something like that.
I think Michael's question represents more of a desire to understand us rather than criticize. I posted a lengthy pro-2nd Amendment explanation in his comments section and he seemed to respond positively. Let's give him the benefit of a doubt.
ReplyDeleteHi ambrs,
DeleteThanks, you're far more gracious than I am! :-)
At the same time, Aussies are known to bond by insulting one another (as people like D.A. Carson have observed on several different occasions), and hence Bird's opening salvo as well as some of our responses may in fact be taken as friendly gestures. :-) For example: "Targets of a piss-take are expected to reply in kind. An insulting joke in return often increases an Australian's appreciation for you."
I guess it'd be sort of like if Klingons were attempting to open good faith diplomatic relations with the United Federation. Their diplomacy may at first seem overly aggressive if not warlike to the Federation, yet if the Federation didn't reply with an appropriate barb, then it may mistakenly be taken as a real insult!
Anyway, it's all topsy turvy, but to be fair it must be hard living upside-down all the time. :-)
Why does he single out American "evangelicals." Does he not know any American Catholics?
ReplyDeleteIt's fashionable to bash Americans in general, and American evangelicals are always in season.
Delete