tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post8126844616417739153..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: In Guns We TrustPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-73116733584304148502009-10-14T15:06:37.441-06:002009-10-14T15:06:37.441-06:00Thanks, all, for commenting: re: 2nd Amendment. ...Thanks, all, for commenting: re: 2nd Amendment. A literal reading focuses on defense, yes, but a contextual reading sees gun rights in the broader context of their uses. The same applies today, just with much fancier (more lethal) weapons. I don't know about the new edition of the Gita; thanks! Finally, I'd love to have the beam in my own eye taken out, but I fail to see how pointing out American religious devotion to weaponry is identifying a "speck" in our national body. Hain was a true believer, sharing a religion that trusted in guns with the gun-toting husband whose object of misplaced trust killed her, and then killed him. Some "trust."Jon Pahlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-60031717129218327972009-10-13T08:07:05.641-06:002009-10-13T08:07:05.641-06:00Your research is interesting. I like the idea of f...Your research is interesting. I like the idea of fitting our gun culture into America's civic religion.<br /><br />But I don't find your connection to Hain's case compelling. All other things being equal, if she had not been a gun owner she would still have been shot and killed. If that had been the case, pro-gun folks would likely have used her death as proof that we need more guns. "If only she had had a gun..."<br /><br />Your argument is the mirror image of your opponents'. So though you might be correct to point out the flaws in their reasoning, it ends up being a case of the "mote and the beam."Paul M.http://religioninamerica.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-85581796005056746032009-10-11T19:45:45.943-06:002009-10-11T19:45:45.943-06:00"The Second Amendment secures the right to be..."The Second Amendment secures the right to bear arms because in the 18th century guns fed people." This is absolutely not what the Second Amendment says! Defense isn't the "deeper reason" for the Amendment, it's the single reason, clearly stated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com