[Just a reminder to all: I make an effort to approve all comments regardless of the writer’s perspective. But when it comes to contentious issues like this (where passions are strong), I recommend reviewing my comments policy before writing your response.]
I agree with the basic premise of author Mark Lockhard’s recent post on the Sojourners website entitled “Making Guns our God”: Claiming that the best response to “the other’s” (real or imagined) possibility for violence is to have an equal or greater capacity for violence of your own is not in line with any flavor of Christian thought (thoughtless Christianity exempted). It is also futile and never ends well, as both history and recent news headlines have repeatedly shown.
But, I tend to be a bit more of a pragmatist, I think. We will not and cannot eliminate guns from society, and while I will never own a gun myself, I realize that we as a society have to make room for those who like having and using guns for sport and personal enjoyment; as well as for those who hunt.
The gun debate is about where to draw the line when it comes to owning tools of violence. We don’t allow people to own all the atomic bombs, fighter jets, tanks, or grenade launchers they want to have – i.e., our laws already make it clear that people cannot arm themselves with whatever weapons they want. So, the claim that gun ownership must have no limits [whether based on a questionable reading of the 2nd amendment or not] is unreasonable, just as a complete ban on all gun ownership is equally unreasonable. The line is somewhere in between.
The Here and the Hereafter 