Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III

[gym]

I find these discussions to be a waste of time, and rarely accomplish anything. It's amazing how a persons attitude changes when something happens to them. All the statistics and theories mean nothing when looking down tha barrell of a 45.
There is no "safe area" of "good neighborhood". You can't avoid crime, if you could, then only stupid poor people would be victims. The Dali Lama accepts guns as a part of society that is sometimes necessary, and he's as much a Holy man as they come.
the Dali Lama - "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
Show that to the reverend, most Buddhist holy men, "my nephew is one" are not against guns. They are part of society. To ignore them would be unrealistic, and to have predisposed ideas of where and when crimes occur, would be similar.

 

[Trent]

Like I said previously, I'm a devout Zen Buddhist, and do not believe in propagating acts of violence on my fellow man.

But if you back me in to a corner or try to hurt a loved one of mine, I will take your last breath without hesitation. THAT is not an act of violence. THAT is an act of survival. THAT is the natural order of the universe.

 

[Trent]

And Gym, you are absolutely right.

EDIT: Except the waste of time part - because this was a VERY public discussion and people WERE listening. Over 2,000 people immediately had visibility on that debate, including everyone in his congregation he's "friends" with. PLUS everyone of my friends, and my friends friends who also commented along the line, and so on. In the end, NOT counting the pro-gun people who saw a transcript here, I reached potentially tens of thousands of other eyes.

That is not insignificant.

I wasn't trying to change the dear Reverends mind - it was already made up.

I was trying to present an argument for everyone ELSE to read, so they can make up THEIR minds. About him, about firearms, and so on.

Such is the nature of the modern world - debates such as these, ding cell phones and private news feeds in browsers around the globe.

 

[Trent]

In the end, I *think* it came across as

A) he has some really strange ideas about how he thinks our society is built, and who should answer to who

B) he got brought out, and exposed, for what I suspected he was

C) his argument was strictly religion and fear based, and contradictory on itself "god is dangerous" -> "absolute trust in god"... still scratching my head there.

Anyway, fortunately THIS good Reverend was not truly skilled at the art of debate.

I'm chalking this one up as a victory.

Anecdote; to the mother, who's feed that debate happened to occur on, I wrote:

By the way.. I am truly sorry that the conversation with the dear Reverend happened on your feed, I didn't intend on that getting so ... long winded.

I can't believe at first he appeared to be so moderate, how that progressed, and how deeply anti-gun the poor fellow actually is. He once stated he was ok with people carrying guns, but by the end, showed how he believed NO ONE should own guns, outside of the government or law enforcement.

That was striking. I've never seen anything quite like this. I hope, truly hope, that I remained civil enough and did not make you uncomfortable during that lengthy debate. I know when I brought up a specific scenario, that I may have crossed a line; but the topic at hand was decidedly unpleasant.

We're essentially talking about Good vs. Evil. And the worst evil act I could think of, off the top of my head, was the one that I fundamentally fear the worst.

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended you in any way, and if I have, you have my deepest apologies.

Thanks,

Trent

Moral of the story - remember to tidy up after yourselves.

 

[KTXdm9]

You did all you could do. You won't be able to make converts of everyone. His true colors have been exposed. Others can now make their own decisions.

His comments on governments and God make me question his legitimacy.

 

[Trent]

I'm beginning to wonder - honestly, tell me I'm not being paranoid - if the anti gun crowd has people working social media under the color of religion.

We almost universally grant an automatic "appeal to authority" to religious figureheads.

Even though I'm not of that particular faith, I felt VERY uneasy debating - arguing if you will - a topic directly with "a man of the cloth". I was raised with a deep and profound respect for religious leadership. It was only as I grew, and matured, that I began to understand what "abuse of power" means, before I even questioned this.

Many people automatically give reverence to religious figures of any faith - it's baked in to our culture. Sure, we might pick out SPECIFIC targets who are exposed for what they truly are, but ONLY after they've made it abundantly clear they have other agendas. (Yes, I'm talking about Jonestown, and many other things).

Religion almost grants an automatic armor against rational debate, because the pious can always claim you are attacking them BECAUSE of their faith. This is an especially slippery slope when the conversation is happening between two people of DIFFERENT faiths (Islam/Christianity/Buddhism/etc).

The knot in my stomach is slowly, slowly releasing itself.

But I'm still nervous, because anti-gunners have gained VERY serious traction locally under the color of religion.

 

[Nanook]

One thing I must comment on, from the Reverend's remarks. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, it's always been my understanding that He was talking about minor offenses occurring in the church among Christians.

In other words a slight, or an insult among brothers. He certainly did not mean a physical slap in the face, self defense is a natural right. Many people, including reverends have that one wrong.

In a similar vein, those who use the "Thou shalt not kill" argument against self defense are incorrect. Self defense is not murder, which is what the commandment refers to. War is not murder in that sense, either.

Looks like you're doing an excellent job, Trent. Commendable restraint in the face of an obvious anti-gun zealot.

 

[Trent]

Shut off the computer, not the phone. Damnit. This is still ongoing.

I need an out, I'm tired of this.

Rev. David Haberer : I never said I was anti gun in fact I defend your right to own and carry one. I think there us a higher way and yes I think God takes precedence over the decisions of man and here is our fundamental difference. I would defend my daughter, your daughter or my enemies daughter from rape or any danger. Just have never needed a gun nor do I desire to own one. I respect your rite to carry but so.show you are fearful of my position not to have one.

You said "Again I am against gun ownership. I don't see the need and guns are an American thing compared to the rest of the western world."

How can you say two different contradictory things ???? You have me all confused here, Reverend.

In one breath you say you are pro-gun, in another, you clearly indicate you are anti-gun.

Which is it? You can't possibly be both.

Sigh.

He's drawing me in for something... I bit.. now I'm waiting for the left hook I didn't see to smash me in the chin...

 

[doc2rn]

Trent ya done good! As grandpa always told me, "ya cant fix what ain't broken." The facts of the case are clear, when threatened with personal violence even Jesus said to take up the sword of righteousness (don't let the Romans murder you/hang you on crosses/feed you to the lions, protect yourself). They can always be melted down into plows later.
Even when the soldiers came to take Jesus one of the apostles cut off a soldiers ear. Of course Jesus knowing what had to take place healed the soldier, but the point is clear God grants you the ability to defend you n yours each to his own ability.
I once struggled with taking life, even in combat, its not easy and it never should be. But a soldiers life is easier to define when fighting against other soldiers. I embraced my role as the old man in order to protect those younger than me with bright futures ahead. Just remember a man knows no greater love than to lay down his life for the ones he cares about. If everybody protected each other, it would be a peaceful world. That's what my pappy taught me. Just hasnt caught on with everybody else yet...

 

[Trent]

Still going.. energizer bunny, this one.

He's fully retracted his statements now.

Rev. D. Haberer: I think gun ownership is a constitutional right but just because you can doesn't mean you must. I have shot guns often. I just question the need for safety. Some need guns for protection most don't. No contradiction at all.

OK - it appeared earlier, very clearly, as if you were saying that you believe there is no need for private gun ownership, and that only military or law enforcement should own guns, and that they alone should be the ones to provide for our security.

To that, I *strongly* disagree, as mentioned.

As far as your individual choice to not own a gun, and by default not have one for your own protection, or the protection of others, by all means, that is your right.

Consider the very ugly scenario above (I pulled my own worst fear out for that one). Make it uglier. You arrive home. There are two men. Both of whom are larger than you. They are armed with knives, baseball bats, or other handheld weapons. There is absolutely no way you can "beat" them in a hand to hand fight.

By the time you draw your cell phone to call for help, and get an operator, you are dead. Meanwhile, if you had a firearm on your person, THEY are no longer causing harm to your family.

What if you are walking home from your church, and see a gang raping a woman in an alley? Surely you are no match for an entire group of healthy young men on your own. And by the time the police arrive? They've escaped, and you are beaten, bleeding, or dead. Dead witnesses can't talk.

Not long ago an entire family - man, woman, three children - were brutally butchered in their rural home not 30 miles from where I live by a hatchet. Surely, a firearm would have helped save the lives of those small, innocent children.

There have been many instances where churches - themselves - have been attacked. Three of these in recent memory were stopped by lawful use of firearms.

April 2012, Aurora CO Church shooting stopped by off-duty cop in congregation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/police-congregation-likel_n_1446969.html

March 2012, NC Church shooting stopped by armed citizen
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112

December 2007, CO Church shooting stopped by armed security guard
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/11/nation/na-shoot11

Surely God was looking out for the congregation by placing someone with a firearm - a civilian in one case - in harms way to protect others.

Harsh words wouldn't have helped in any of those cases.

I believe ALL citizens should have the right to choose, for themselves, to carry firearms for personal protection. Our government, in FAR too many jurisdictions, restricts or prohibits that right to protect our very lives.

THAT is wrong.

 

[Trent]

(PS - feedback loop properly at work there. I stole those links from another thread on here.)

 

[Trent]

Response

Rev. D. Haberer: Never said jt was wrong and I respect your choice. I chose to walk a different path. I hope you respect my choice.

Wow. 100% reversal from a couple (few) hours ago.

Response back:

Trent Lawrence Absolutely - as long as you aren't going out of your way to work to restrict my rights, you're fine in my book.

As mentioned before, I am 100% tolerant and will be 100% respectful towards everyone, regardless of faith, race, or any other factor, who is not working towards or who has an agenda to restrict or deny my rights, or that of my descendants. It is hard enough working towards the goal of RESTORING those rights we have already lost.

I thought for a little while there you were crossing the line, and saying that people should not be allowed to own guns. That is different from believing there is no NEED to own them. One is an opinion, affecting only one-self. The other is an agenda, which can potentially affect many.

Are you simply stating an opinion, or are you also working an agenda as well?

I am - admittedly - both expressing my opinion AND working an agenda - we lack a fundamental human right in Illinois, and are NOT allowed to carry a firearm to defend ourselves. My agenda is to change this to give people a choice; a right to life, if you will.

If you don't want to answer, that is fine - you don't have any obligation to provide one, and I also respect one's right to privacy!

But, as I wish to close this conversation with some understanding, and obtain "closure" if you will, what is your opinion on the effective ban of firearms permits in New York City? Do you believe people should have the choice, in YOUR city? Or do you believe that people should continue to be DENIED the right to protect themselves? Being a figurehead, a man of the cloth, your opinion does matter, and carry weight.

Your message could save a life one day. As could mine. Those are the stakes we are dealing with.

 

[Trent]

I need this conversation over, this is costing me many hours of recoil therapy on a BEAUTIFUL day... but I feel the end is in sight. Pushing for a final yes/no answer.

Also, it's quite possible that he's reversed and back-peddled as quickly as he has, because the shift happened IMMEDIATELY after I said I was copying the conversation to message boards.

Which means my gambit actually worked, to a degree. It got us off the God topic, at the very least.

 

[youngda9]

Drop some verse on him...the one about sell your cloak and buy sword and the one about the intruder in your home should be struck down. Turn the other cheek is a reference to insults, not physical violence, in the context it was written. If he comes back at ya with the one about telling Peter to put away his sword tell him that they were surrounded and outnumbered by an angry mob and it was the smart thing to do.

This guy you are debating with is all over the place. You've done WELL, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

 

[Trent]

Well, it's just time. If nothing else, keeping busy helps pass it.

I really haven't wanted to get in to scripture, thankfully I've avoided it so far. I'm a bit rusty. Been a while since I've cracked open the Good Book.

My wife finds it ironic, that a Buddhist would read the Bible, the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Koran, etc. Or that I'd engage in theological debates with Catholics, etc. I find religion fascinating on all levels.

BUT - if I start quoting scripture, I'll be rapidly out matched.

Remember, first rule of warfare - fight the battle on your turf; or at least, turf you are most familiar with. Steering this debate away from God and Religion to arrive at a decision was tough, but we're almost there.

So far.. no response.

Might not get one, or I might get another left hook out of the blue and find myself on a new playing field.

Doesn't matter, I'm about to call this one over. Been going on for about 9 hours now.

 

[Trent]

Oh wait, the first rule of warfare is "cheat like hell".

My bad.

 

[EvilGenius]

Another thing is he keeps bringing up "love thy enemy".

Just because I may be put into a position where I may need to use force (possibly even lethal force) to defend myself or others does not automatically mean I hate them. I don't need to hate them to stop them from hurting me, it's not even part of the equation.

In a similar fashion is a blog post by Rory Miller (I refer to him too much, but he does have good points) I read about a year ago. It's a reference to his early years in the LE. It goes something along the lines of "Every society has criminals, those who do not contribute and may even detract from society as a whole. They are like barnacles on a ship. My job is to be a barnacle scraper. By getting rid of the barnacles the ship of society sails more smoothly and efficiently. However, I do not have to hate the barnacles."

Also, I personally believe that too many people confuse love and kindness. They're both very important things to have in abundance. However, to love someone is not always the same thing as being "kind" to them.

 

[Trent]

His answer - got as clear of an answer as I'll probably ever get out of him.

I'm satisfied with the results.

Rev. D. Haberer: I think there nbeds to be some checks
Responsible gun owners are one thing. There are some people who for a number of reasons are unstable and shouldn't have guns. Gun owners as drivers should have some training and I think you would agree. To be clear I would defend the right to own guns and disagree with my mayor and elected officials on this point. I do believe that the majority of people don't need guns for protection. On this we probable disagree but that's what makes the world go round.

My final response:

There already are plenty of checks in place on the state and federal level.

However, New York has some of the most confusing, convoluted gun laws on carry permits of the entire US. (You can review a general synopsis here if you aren't familiar: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyork.pdf)

Bottom line, is New York is "may issue" - it's up to the discretion of the law enforcement of each county whether a permit will be issued. MOST states in the US are "shall issue" - meaning, if you pass the requirements (training, legal background check, mental, etc) you WILL be issued a permit.

New York can choose to accept or deny any permit and it is done entirely at the whim of one person. New York CITY will not issue permits, period, regardless of need, cause, or community standing.

There are plenty of good, working systems in place out there that can serve as an effective, FAIR template.

But, the first step on that road is a long one indeed. That battle is waged in the court of public opinion; for it will take public opinion to vote in the people who are willing to MAKE the change effective.

As a community figure, I am sure you understand that this starts at the level of the individual community leader, and spreads from there.

While non-violent and making your own choice on a personal level, I would respectfully ask that you - as a spiritual leader - guide people in to making the choices that are right for them. The greater good can be served if criminals understand their pray may not be so easy a target - not everyone has to carry for THAT to be effective. Just knowing people have the OPTION may be enough to deter someone from making a bad decision that affects their lives, and others.

And that MIGHT just give you another couple of souls to save.

Food for thought.

Thank you, greatly, for the discussion! Was enlightening, entertaining, and eye opening. Peace be with you and yours, stay safe in the Big Apple.

 

[Trent]

I think this ended rather well, all things considered.

Lot of work, this activism stuff!

Rev. D. Haberer:
I would not try to talk someone out of owning a gun and I think there are too many laws on the books. Good decisions are made after much discuss and plenty of disagreement. Conversation is always god when you walk away friends. Be blessed and pay us a visit some time. we are still the safest big city in America.

 

[Trent]

I'd also like to thank everyone - mods included - for allowing this thread to complete, and for individuals, who kept religious talk to PM's.

Truly the High Road we walk together.

Couldn't have posted this on pretty much any other gun board on the Internet without drama or argument.

So, thanks guys.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Gun laws are redundant. They are an attempt to regulate a tool that might be used to do something that is already illegal. Anyone willing to risk the severe penalties associated with armed robery and murder will not be disuaded by the penalties of carrying a gun.

 

[Trent]

Owen -

It was a separate thread, but one of the things that has me all fired up is the local attitude of our neighboring county has swayed DRAMATICALLY anti-gun recently, while the county on the OTHER side of us has swayed dramatically PRO gun.

There are sweeping tides of change in Illinois right now, some heavy momentum.

On one side of me, we have the states Attorney of Mclean county saying he won't prosecute anyone who is arrested for carrying a firearm safely.

On the other side of me, we have Peoria county running a massive anti-gun media campaign called "Don't Shoot"

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x186674162/Peorias-Dont-Shoot-hits-the-streets

Relevant quote from the article:

"It's not about putting more people in prison at all," Assistant U.S. Attorney Tate Chambers said at a recent presentation on the program. "We sentence someone to life in prison. He cries. His family cries. Then we lead him away. The next day, we come back and do it all over again."

That cycle hurts families and has created a rift between law enforcement and the communities where crime is most prevalent. Don't Shoot looks to address that rift with a new attitude.

"We have to love these gangsters," Chambers said. "We all have to love these gangsters, and make them feel like part of this community."

THIS, and the church/city/state sponsored illegal gun buybacks (bring your crime guns to us anonymously, face no repercussions whatsoever) has got me filled with all SORTS of fury. I'm bottling it up best I can, and using these little sparring matches with anti-gunners as preparation for something bigger - a public challenge against their campaign. (Yes, I have funding - but media outlets won't run pro-gun ads, and our local papers out right BAN any gun advertisements or language in editorials).

So .. 100% grass roots. Which means I need to sharpen my wits, my arguments, and my resolve. Probably in that order.

Because, I am not content to "love those gangsters".

Not one bit.

 

[lloveless]

Trent,
A very thoughtful, and insightful presentation of the 2nd amendment to a "non-believer". I am wondering if some of the Rev incoherence was due to substance abuse? You did much better than I could ever have done. Take a walk or whatever you do to unwind as you deserve it.
ll

 

[jhco50]

I'm having the same problems on a site called Kongregate. It is like a den of snakes with so many liberals from not only our country, but other countries. I can lay out a perfect argument and they ignore it to carry on with their ignorant ideals. Although I still push my points, I don't think people like that can be reasoned with. Logic isn't in their vocabulary, just emotion and ignorance.

 

[Iramo94]

If the debate were not already over, I would have suggested that you quote this, which is one of the few recorded instances of Jesus being in the Temple. He forcibly and violently (with a whip) drove the corruption out of the house of God.
And I don't think Jesus was one of those "do as I say, not as I do" kind of people