The Batman killings

Holmes bought his guns legally, but look at the explosives he used to boobytrap his apartment. It’s clear he was willing to do whatever it took to carry out his plan, and no gun control laws of any kind would have stopped him from obtaining weapons. And I say that as someone who’d like to see it become much harder to buy guns.

He didn’t kill himself; this points to the likelihood that he’s nothing more than a narcissistic attention seeker; others, are for such, nothing more than means to getting that which they crave. Thus the movie was nothing more than an excuse for his actions; something else, with a similarly-strong spotlight on it, would have been a fit substitute for him.

As for the second amendment: No. No it is not time to repeal it. Consider that in this case, had guns been unavailable, it’s likely that the explosives in his apartment would have been brought to the theater in their place, and many, many more would have been injured or killed. Misuse of rights by some does not and should not lead to their elimination for all.

Just for the sake of reducing defensive emotionality by looking at countries other than the USA, countries in Europe have much higher gun ownership rates than many places that have much higher homicide rates. So the prevalence of arms in Europe does not correlate to higher violence.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

UN study on homicide worldwide

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

There is a sense in which we have already repealed the 2nd amendment — it’s says we have a right to bear arms (as in a right to vote), but there are already quite a few restrictions in place — for example, it’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, and you can only bring your gun to certain places.

@5 Interesting point. What about the 1st Amendment which is also restricted, although not much?

If we can limit a constitutional right when it comes to shouting fire in a theater, then certainly, when it comes to firing in a theater …

If strict gun control, like Norway’s, would stop atrocities like this, please explain the case of Anders Breivik. And if you think that an outright ban would help, please don’t forget that the great genocides of the 20th Century (Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Hitler’s, Pol pot’s, Mao’s, etc..) were all preceded by bans on private gun ownership. Far easier to liquidate the (insert group of choice) when they’re not shooting back, after all.

And even where genocidal dictators have not come to power, like Britain, firearm death rates actually rise when you ban firearms. See “Chicago” and “Washington DC” for examples here.

The ugly reality here is that the only thing to stop some people is to return fire–or at least respond to lethal force with disabling force.

What I find ironic is that much of our entertainment (including the Batman movie) prominently features violence. Our culture is awash in it, then we are surprised/shocked/dismayed when ‘life imitates art.’

Those in charge of the creation of the content in TV and movies assure us there are no deletrious effects on our society from this flood of violence and sex. Meanwhile, the advertising arms of these same companies are busy convincing businesses that a well crafted 30 or 60 second ad inserted into these same shows will have maximum impact on people viewing the ads. So according to them, a program or movie lasting an hour or two has no real influence on the culture, but a 30 second ad has massive influence. Yeah, riiiight…

In the book of Genesis before the flood it says the earth was full of violence and it grieved the Lord.
After 50 years of witnessing violent acts on TV every night, and 20 years of some parts of the culture listening to violent music (think rap, especially the gangster variety) what surprises me is that there aren’t more of these types of incidents.
Debates about the 2nd Amendment are only discussions of the symptoms of what ails us, and will no doubt be used by our ‘leaders to distract/divide and ‘rally the troops’ for election purposes.

@Tom@7

It wouldn’t be violating freedom of speech if Gene kicked one of us off because of what we post — it’s his blog. Similarly, a theater owner has his property, and therefore his rules. However, you are correct in asserting we don’t have 100% free speech in the US. We can’t advocate murdering the president. We can’t advocate having sex with children, or depict child pornography. We can be sued for libel. In Europe, free speech is even more limited. You can go to jail if you say the Holocaust never happened.

What I find ironic is that much of our entertainment (including the Batman movie) prominently features violence. Our culture is awash in it, then we are surprised/shocked/dismayed when ‘life imitates art.’

But cultures that are not awash in violent entertainment are more violent. So, it probably just comes from people not art or entertainment. I am not absolutely sure of this, but that is how it looks.

Tienanmen may not have happened if China had a 2nd Amendment.
One marksman who was carrying in Colorado might have limited the slaughter. What are Colorado’s concealed carry laws?

“As a mountain state, Colorado has a history of broad support for Second Amendment rights. But in the years since the Columbine tragedy, the state’s lawmakers and voters passed some gun restrictions, including requirements governing the sale of firearms at gun shows, a law regulating people’s ability to carry concealed weapons and legislation banning “straw purchases” of weapons for people who would not qualify to buy them legitimately”–
John Schwartz NYT

@8 Strict gun control in Norway? They have 31 guns for every 100 people. They are ranked 11 for most guns per capita.

A few points,
1. Michael B. Yelling fire in a theater is a criminal violation, it has nothing to do with the theater owner. The government restricts the speech.

2. The second amendment was always viewed as permitting regulation of gun ownership until this most recent iteration of SCOTUS. Before that the state of the law viewed the amendment as having more to do with state militias than anything else.

3. One question I have is this. Conservatives on this blog have in the past described issue of gun ownership as being a safeguard against an oppressive government. I am very curious how those who have made such comments rationalize such revolutionary/armed insurrection fervor with the various biblical passages instructing us to not challenge the government since it is ordained by God (and in NT times we are speaking of evil emperors such as Nero). See for example Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:13-14, Titus 3:1, 1Thes 4:11-12, 2 Thes. 3:12 and the Gospel passages about enduring, turning the other cheek, not fighting evil with evil, etc. This is not simply a passing comment in one passage. If we are aliens in this world and it is not our home, then we ought to be at least cautious about our involvement in insurrection. This is a difficult issue . Curious about your thoughts on this.

Reg good question on #3. I would caution you that on ths blog there are a lot of good theologians here but many (if not most) of them are mid-west redneck Lutherans. The LMCS has this strange mix of good theology and hick flag waving gun toting values. I still don’t get it. One iditot even puts Lutheran slogans on his fire arms. Then he blogs about them. The LMCS is the Twilight Zone.

reg’s #3 is made more complicated by a number of factors. Many study Bibles, for example, put subheadings over Romans 13 such as “The Christian and the State.” Reg speaks of “government.” The terms in the text tend to be more concrete. They are people in various offices. People who might honor you. Most likely not the emperor since few got to see the emperor. More likely a centurion. Then there is the question of where our “Words of Institution” are for civil authority. Surely not in the New Testament so long after the fact. When Jesus is confronted with questions on marriage, he points his questioners back to Genesis where marriage was instituted, rather than allowing them to center their question on words from the law which came later, even if those words came from God. These questions must be taken back to their beginning. So I would see Genesis 9:6 being more germane than Romans 13. Until Genesis 9:6 is deeply understood, there should be no talk of Romans 13. Romans 13 surely does have applications in our day. I would suggest it comes into play when you’re pulled over by a cop. But don’t begin your discussion of government as an overall entity there.

reg:

I’m not sure how would have rationalized under Nero, but it is important to note that, under the constitution, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment, the individual is, in a real sense, one of the powers that be. The armed and voting individual is, by virtue of the consittution under which we live, a check and balance on the rest of the entities that possess governmental power. Applying the principle (that God has given authority to all who have it and that it is rebellion to try to take authority from one who hves it) to a government in which authority is intentionally divided is a lot more complicated than it is to apply that principle to a monolithic government. In the case of the United States Constitution, if it is rebellion for me to try to take away the political authority of (for example) Congress, is it not equally rebellion for Congress to try to take away the political authority that belongs to me? And if it rebellion for someone to try to take away the political authority from one (eg. me) to whom God has given it, is not the one to whom God has given the authority (me again) justified in defending that authority by force?

That is at least one way to approach this question in a concrete way under the system of authority under which we live, and it presupposes that Christians are bound to support all authority at all times, which I question.

Remind me why we shouldn’t defend ourselves?

Militias are by their nature defensive. Consider the Swiss. Tons of guns, yet non-aggressive. Militia service is mandatory for the Swiss.

How about the Finns?
Ranked 4th most heavily armed citizens in the world
45 guns for 100 people.
Loaded with guns and have proved they are willing to shoot ya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

They just don’t shoot one another too much.

OMG !!!!!!!

It just occurred to me! Finns, Swedes, Germans, LCMS, Redneck Midwesterners. They are Lutherans! That must be what makes them gun fanatics!!!

(kidding)

Another problem we face is how this is to be applied when there are competing candidates for authority. Take some countries in which what we would call the governemnt lacks effective control over parts of the country. For example, in some latin American countries, the actual “powers that be” in lsignificant parts of those countries are drug cartels. If I live in a part of Colombia under the control of the Medellin drug cartel, am I biund by Scripture to recognise that God has given the power of the sword to the Medellin drug cartel to protect the good and punish the evil doer? Because in thos places the cartel surely has the power of the sword and by until God takes it from them we must conclude that the cartel has it by God’s sufferance, if not His overt choice.

And what happens when power seems to be changing hands, or that it could be changing hands, but it might not? Is it always the Christian’s duty to support the side that seems to be winning, or that appears to, for the moment, have won?

At some point, is the opportunity to exercise some power over the polity something a Christian should contemplate?

sg; yes, strict gun control in Norway. Breivik went through a series of background checks and even an interview or two before getting his pistol. Strict gun control is not equal to a banning of the right to keep and bear arms.

Reg; great question about when it might be Biblically permissible to use violence against an officer of the government. More or less, the historic explanation is that in the Anglo-American view, the Romans 13 government authority is vested not in a person, but in a Constitution–much like Paul appeals to his rights as a citizen of Rome in Acts 16 when he is punished unlawfully.

So the answer, in a nutshell, is that a government official may be attacked when (a) acting counter to the principles by which the government is bound and (b) posing a threat of death of grievous bodily harm to citizens.

The armed and voting individual is, by virtue of the consittution under which we live, a check and balance on the rest of the entities that possess governmental power.

I’ve heard this umpteen times. But is this really the role the Founders meant militias to play? “Hey, you armed citizens! If we, your elected leaders, ever get kind of tyrannical, you’ve got permission to shoot us!” I’m a little bit skeptical. Yeah, there’s Jefferson’s snarky comment about a little rebellion now and then, but I think original intent was made clear by the Founder’s response to the Whiskey Rebellion. So much for the citizenry as an armed check and balance.

@23 Perhaps the 2nd amendment was one of many compromises with the colonies who didn’t want to just be ruled by new aristocrats instead of old aristocrats. Does anyone have some more details as to the initial hammering out of the 2nd Amendment? Were the ordinary folk very very sure they wanted it? Was is the states who really wanted it? If no one cared, they wouldn’t have bothered to write it. Since it was the 2nd item in the Bill of Rights, it makes it look like folks were pretty sure they wanted it and it was a fairly high priority. They wanted rights and they wanted to be able to defend their stuff themselves.

Tom H:

Or their response to the Civil War… The fact is, everyone with power thinks they are the “powers that be” and they all expect everyone else to behave as if God himself wants them to have, and keep, their power.

I never said it was a PERFECT theory.

Bike I think your analysis is a little to facile. The notion that we are the government and the actual government is rebelling against us seems a little to glib. What about 1Thes 4:11-12, 2 Thes. 3:12 which suggest the Christian is to lead a quiet life and basically mind his own business.
I asked this questions since personally I share some discomfort with the thought that the 1776 revolution was unjustified biblically, but Scripture seems to lead me there. The song “if I had a rocket launcher” always resonated with me, but it may not be a very Christian sentiment, it may well be my sinful nature that draws me to it. I am actually reading an overly long biography of Dietrich Bonhoffer to try to get some understanding of his take on this issue, since clearly he lived the dilemma. So I would love to here more of your takes on this.

kerner brings up a great question. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg wrote about this question during the Revolutionary War. As a pastor he tried to cover the theology dispassionately, but wasn’t so good at hiding his revolutionary sympathies. If the colonial government had ordered you to fight, but then they seemed to be losing on your street, would you be under compulsion to recognize the British? Or could you say, “They aren’t rulers in my house until I’m dead”? Civil War may be a rarer condition on our continent than many. But it has probably been a very common condition in history. Stable nation states have probably been the exception rather than the rule.

I also question the translation of “powers that be.” When I look up the word, this seems to be more about authority than power. You can have power without authority. And you can have authority without power. So how do we determine authority? (Hint: I don’t think the answer is power.)

For a pretty nuanced approach to the paradoxes read the Defense of the Augsburg Confession on Political Order:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_15_politicalorder.php

I have also read some of Luther’s later writings (which I’ll have to look up later) , and they reflect Luther’s original hard line on rebellion against the powers that be (in response to the Peasants’ Revolt) that was later tempered by Luther’s support for the Princes who were willing to protect him and his co-religionists against the Holy Roman Emperor, who was their overlord.

The upshot I got from reading all this is that Luther and his colleagues were strongly urging Christians to engage in the political system so that it might actually protect the good and puniish the evil doer, and thus avoid the problem of how to respond to a government that seemed bent on doing the opposite. I also get the impression that Luther was pretty gtateful that authority under the Holy Roman Empire was as divided as it was, because it really helped hisconscience to be able to claim that there were governments out there that were on his side.

Lutheran theology is clearly opposed to anarchy, and against Christians withdrawing into Amish like communities and leaving the political decisions to some non-Christian authority figure. But I don’t believe it can be reduced to a simple principle of always obeying anyone with any aparent authority either.

sg,
There is a fascinating article on the history of the second amendment on Wikipedia, including its various pre-adoption formulations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

sg@11,

‘But cultures that are not awash in violent entertainment are more violent. ‘ Please provide an example and some corroborating stats. The anti- gunners are always talking about how our per capita murder rate is one of the highest in the world.

Also, I have several folders in my office provided by different media outlets that make a pretty convincing case that a 30 or 60 second commercial/four color print ad can greatly influence members of several different demographic to become customers of my business. I have used advertising to build my business. To say that entertainment has no effect on us strikes me as naive.

Please provide an example and some corroborating stats

I provided two links above regarding which countries have the most guns per capita and which countries have the most homicides. I did not provide evidence of which countries have lots of fake violence in their entertainment because I think we all know which countries watch a lot of TV and movies and I thought that was the sort of entertainment violence we were referring to. Many are also the ones with the most guns. So, there is a negative correlation. I specifically left out the USA because our population is more diverse than Europe or pretty much anywhere.

Reg, if that’s your understanding of my argument, then agreed that understanding is facile. However, that’s not my argument, which is that the authority of government is vested in the founding document. The difference between my phrasing and yours is the essence of the difference between a democracy (which the U.S.A. is not) and a republic (which it is); a democracy truly does vest power in the citizens, where a republic vests authority in the res publica, the public things.

It’s a difference that most politicians these days don’t seem to understand, but a crucial one. The Puritans that founded our nation held tightly to a British Res Publica, the 1689 Bill of Rights, as a precondition for the return of a monarchy. When King George ignored those limitations, at least in “our” view, he was viewed as essentially having abdicated his authority.

Hence we did not technically have a revolution, but rather a war of independence. Make sense now?

Gun control and an outright ban on guns is nothing more than political posturing. There will always be guns in this country and people will always own them or have access to them.

Drugs are illegal and we have been engaged in a ‘war’ against them for forty years. I can take you any day of the week to streets in LA, Orange County, or out in Riverside that are open air drug markets. Gang members whistle or wave at cars, often flashing their bags of various substances if you look their way. And people talk seriously about ‘banning’ or ‘controlling’ guns. Its all BS.

These laws will only deter those prone to follow the law or a percentage of timid gun owners that could be convinced to give their guns up. Simultaneously, a very lucrative black/grey market will spring up enriching those who can get guns and ammo or reloading supplies.

Patrick Kyle @33

As you stated below:

“Drugs are illegal and we have been engaged in a ‘war’ against them for forty years. I can take you any day of the week to streets in LA, Orange County, or out in Riverside that are open air drug markets. Gang members whistle or wave at cars, often flashing their bags of various substances if you look their way. And people talk seriously about ‘banning’ or ‘controlling’ guns. Its all BS.”

Your comment is correct, I live in Southern CA.

The areas within those stated above, have both up-scale and lower, to poor areas, it makes no difference. Guns will still exist.

Patrick,
I live in Massachusetts. We have few guns and less gun violence than most states. Coincidence, correlation, causation, what do you think? There certainly is no great underground gun economy. Nobody is clamoring for guns. I must tell you that I know very few people who own guns and the vast majority of them that do own a hunting rifle-no handguns.

Bike,
I hear your argument. Everything you say may be true, but I am not sure you can take what Scripture says and avoid it with the slight of hand government =constitution/founding document and therefore if that is being violated in our opinion we can go to war with the institutions allegedly violating it. Romans 13 speaks of governing authorities and rulers and those who are in authority. Peter speaks of honoring the emperor and submitting to him and governors. Jesus speaks of giving to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. In your view, since the emperor supplanted the duly constituted republic the people should have been free to rebel, but scripture doesn’t go there.

Map at the bottom of page 9:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

Compare it to the small arms survey and notice how the Europe and Middle east are loaded with guns but have low homicides.

Saying that Massachusetts gun crime is low is a little misleading. Its violent crime is very very close to the national average. Property crimes are lower. But you don’t use a gun to shoplift.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/massachusetts/boston.html

Reg @35

“I live in Massachusetts. We have few guns and less gun violence than most states.”

Current gun laws have been a failure in reducing crime and respecting civil rights.

CURRENT GUN LAWS HAVE INCREASED FIREARM-RELATED DEATHS AND INJURIES IN MASSACHUSETTS

EXCERPT –

The WRISS and ISP data show that, in the four years prior to passage of the Gun Control Act, gun-related deaths and injuries actually decreased in Massachusetts:

There was a 50% DECREASE in firearm-related homicides from 1994-1997 (ISP Reports), the four years BEFORE passage of the Gun Control Act.
There was a 57% DECREASE in firearm-related assaults from 1994-1997 (WRISS, March 2007), the four years BEFORE passage of the Gun Control Act.

Those same reports show that there has been a dramatic INCREASE in deaths and injuries from guns in the years since the Gun Control Act was passed in 1998:

Homicide –
DOWN 46%-
UP 47%

Robbery & Attempted Robbery
DOWN 53%
UP 38%

Aggravated Assault
DOWN 37%
UP 49%

ANOTHER EXCERPT

“THE GUN CONTROL ACT HAS PROFOUNDLY DECREASED LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP IN MASSACHUSETTSThe Gun Control Act has resulted in a dramatic decrease in legal gun ownership in Massachusetts since 1998 – a significant sacrifice of civil rights.

According to a July 2002 House Post Audit and Oversight Committee report on firearm license numbers, there were approximately 1,500,000 licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth before the Gun Control Act was passed.

Today, this number has been reduced to approximately 240,000 – a decrease of 84%.

Some people point to this statistic as evidence that the Gun Control Act is working. But, the increase in gun-related crime since the Act shows otherwise.

Mostly, the Gun Control Act has resulted in a confusing and overly-regulated system that impinges on citizens’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

READ THE REST: http://www.massgunlawreform.com/evidence.html

I’m going to suggest that a more important change than any possible new gun control laws is this: movie theaters will no longer feel like a safe place to escape to. Can anyone sit in one now without thinking, “It’s dark in here, I can’t see what others around me might be doing, and it’s going to be darn hard to escape if I have to – with all these rows of seats in my way.”

Grace, Grace, Grace,
You cite to a tendentious, axe-to-grind web site put out by the clearly biased “Gun owners action league”, with links to “supporting” statistics that either don’t work or say the exact opposite of what the web site says they say. Please try to use discernment in assessing what you read on the internet. I will let you in on a secret, if you promise not to tell anybody-everything you read isn’t necessarily true. But I know truthiness is what matters to you-look it up if you don’t know what that means. At least sg relied on actual published data in his response to me, not an advocacy group’s claims on its website. (Next you’ll be telling me Justice Roberts ruled on Obamacare because he was out of his mind on drugs-No that would be too crazy for even you to assert. )

I live in Massachusetts. We have few guns and less gun violence than most states. Coincidence, correlation, causation, what do you think?

I think it depends on the people, not the guns.

According to the Small Arms survey, Spain and Venezuela have about the same number of guns per capita. Spain has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world; 1 per 100,000. Venezuela has one of the highest; over 35 per 100,000.

Massachusetts and West Virginia have about the same homicide rate. 3.2/3.3 per 100,000.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Tom,
As long as neither Fred Willard or Paul Rubens are sitting next to me I will feel relatively safe. Sorry, I shouldn’t make jokes about this.

Seriously, I doubt this will be a lingering effect, there have been so many shootings of this kind in so many settings, that the reality is no place is safe, a mall, a theater, an army base, a university, a high school, etc….

reg,

I don’t agree with you. The site I used is credible. Whether you agree or not doesn’t change the facts. Mass, is not the safe place you’re trying to prove it is.

Okay, here is the FBI site. I think we can agree on that.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls

reg @41

It’s just this kind of nonsense below, which you conjure up in your mind, that cancels out any sort of civil discourse.

“(Next you’ll be telling me Justice Roberts ruled on Obamacare because he was out of his mind on drugs-No that would be too crazy for even you to assert. )”

Obtuse, pointless comment!

Grace,
I live here. If I compare it to the California you describe in your posts it is exceptionally safe. Whether you agree with me or not at least rely on credible sources, like sg goes, which shows mass to be fairly safe for a state with a major urban area.

Reg,

YOU WRITE: “If I compare it to the California you describe in your posts it is exceptionally safe.”

I have never said that California is “exceptionally safe.” I have said that the area in which I live is safer because we have an excellent police force.

Again, you twist what I write!

What about the endless crime sprees by illegal immigrants you are always talking about and the drug dealing, violent-movie-addled madmen roaming your streets you have described. Are these not as big a problem as you have portrayed them to be? Was that just truthiness too?

Reg,

California, being a border state, has many problems that other states don’t even understand, or know about. They are under the impression that because they have visited Disneyland, LOL, the beach, and a few other tourist areas, they know what California is all about. It couldn’t be further from the truth.

reg @ 49,

Give me LINKS and post numbers to substantiate exactly what you claim I have posted.

We have problems, that are linked to drugs, and illegal aliens. Drugs cross the southern border. We live in an area that has one of the strongest police forces in the state.

reg @ 49

“ violent-movie-addled madmen roaming your streets you have described. “

You’ve run your self into the ditch with that one!

… I doubt this will be a lingering effect … (@ 43)

Unless there are copycat shootings. The likelihood is … not low.

reg, are you in the Boston area? I just ask because in a lot of cities there is huge variation in crime by neighborhood. A little municipality here is West U. It is actually in Houston and has very low crime, but Houston is much higher.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/west-university-place/crime/

But just a couple of miles away

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/houston/old-spanish-trl-fannin/#crime

Hey Grace it’s a good thing that Martin Luther did not own a gun.

Tom @1, ever try to buy a gun? You basically open your entire life to the federal government. Same with getting a concealed weapons permit: it’s hard enough to get a gun. Don’t punish good people for the sins of a few.

J. Dean @56

As you stated very well “Don’t punish good people for the sins of a few.”

Don’t punish good people for the sins of a few. (@ 56)

Conversely, don’t endanger the lives of others for the sake of convenience. Both the Aurora and the Virginia Tech shooters bought their guns easily (and legally). I think it ought to be impossible to buy a gun without passing a battery of mental health tests. We should, by now, have profiles that would pass/fail applicants with a measure of certainty. This wouldn’t keep stable persons from buying guns, but it would directly and sensibly address the problem of unstable persons. Which is the problem we’re talking about – and facing almost daily (if you follow the news closely).

Tom,
On the money.

Anders Brevik could probably have passed all those tests because although evil, he likely was not insane. I don’t know about the others. They seem crazy, but has that been established? I didn’t follow those cases closely.

What can be said, if anything, about the gunman’s action? I mean, what can any so-called “rational” explanation about his intent and action possibly offer to those those who mourn? “The human heart is deceitful above all things and is beyond cure. Who can understand it?”(Jeremiah 17:9) Wickedness and evil are at the root of all murder:”…out of the heart come…murder…(Matthew 15:19)” I’m a gun owner, hunter; but, frankly, I find the injection of the right to bear arms issue (both pro and con) to be poor timing at the moment. My brother was a janitor at Columbine. I can’t offer much of an explanation why that should matter , but; this latest carnage opens old wounds.

‘I think it ought to be impossible to buy a gun without passing a battery of mental health tests.”

Really? Do you really believe the lie that tighter control will prevent incidents like this? People will buy their guns from the same places/people who supply their illegal drugs. Apparently Mr. Holmes had no trouble acquiring explosives with which to booby trap his apartment, and those materials are very tightly controlled. ( There is also speculation that he may have used his federal grant money to amass his arsenal. How does a 24 year old full time student come up with enough money to purchase thousands of dollars in expensive firearms and 6000 rounds of ammo, plus explosives?)
Gun control and talk of banning guns gives the naive a false sense of accomplishment and security, as though ‘bad’ people couldn’t get guns easily despite whatever law is in place. The law, no matter how severe, does not restrain people like Mr. Holmes or the Columbine killers, and renders anyone prone to following such laws helpless in defending themselves from such people.

“The day is evil.”

Nothing surprises me anymore. Nothing.

There’s no end to the evil that lies within this world and the hearts of man.

Until that Day.

This is probably going to seem entirely heartless, but a little perspective may be in order:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/07/23/us/ap-us-deadly-truck-crash-texas.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Twelve die in a horrible massacre in a Colorado theater and the nation is outraged. Thirteen die in a horrible accident and the nation yawns. By the way, there are explicit laws regulating the number of persons in a vehicle, and especially riding in the beds of pickup trucks. Further there is a complete licensing process for drivers, mandatory insurance rules, and annual inspections required in Texas. Yet, all of that did not stop this from happening. When will the President be flying to south Texas to comfort the bereft?

It seems that all tragedies are equal, but some tragedies are more equal than others.

Tom,

I’m in favor of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership/purchases, but why mental health tests? I get that we don’t want maniacs running around with firearms, but would you really want to subject yourself to a rigorous battery of psychological tests just to buy a hunting rifle? And cars are far more deadly, statistically, than guns. Should we all have to pass mental evaluations just to purchase and/or drive a car? A knife? A machete? A chainsaw? Fertilizer?

Meanwhile, do you really want every corner in low-end neighborhoods–you know, the ones that already have several payday loan outlets–to be occupied by some hack psychiatrist who offers “certificates” of sanity for a “small fee” for anyone who needs a gun? Do we really want to degrade the psychiatric profession by creating a market for hack psychology? Because that would happen.

And just who determines what constitutes sanity? Who’s going to concoct these batteries? Psychologically speaking, I doubt folks like Homes or Breivik would have set off any alarms. They were intelligent, determined folks. If I have ever had suicidal thoughts, would that disqualify me? If I’ve ever been angry with someone–maybe even considered revenge–would that disqualify me? What if I just “look” unstable?

The mental health angle is a misnomer. It’s one thing to argue that a diagnoses schizophrenic shouldn’t be sold weapons. It’s another problematic thing entirely to call for “extensive batteries” of psychological tests for anyone who wants to purchase a gun. Within the purview of the Second Amendment, there’s only so much you can do to keep guns from falling into the hands of the wrong sort of person. I don’t think extensive psychological evaluations are a viable option.

The mental health angle is a red herring*

…is what I meant.

I doubt too many psychiatrists would want the responsibility of judging who should get a gun anyway, because allow just one clinically sane but evil and determined person to legally purchase a weapon and then go out and kill a bunch of people and your reputation is shattered and it’s suddenly your fault. Who would really want to deal with that possibility?

Tom H:

How about this?

…I think it ought to be impossible to (Vote) without passing a battery of mental health tests…

Voting, after all, can cause just as much damage and is just as important a responsibility.

Those who want gun control fail to see these obvious consequences:
1) A continued push to ban all guns, which is invariably the goal.
2) Criminals still bent on getting guns.
3) Punishing the majority that are responsible with guns.
4) Strengthening of government control over people.
5) Weakening of the defense of the nation and of citizens (what’s the average police response time?).

I’m all for gun control on criminals, but not law abiding citizens. What is suggested is antithetical to America’s whole criminal legal system. The assumption thus is no longer presumed innocent until proven guilty, but presumed guilty until proven innocent. Gun control = less violencd is another utopia dream, which the socialists- Soviets and Nazis- attempted, yet it only monopolized violence into the hands of the autocrats. Here’s the deal a misuse or abuse of a gun does not invalidate its proper use (self-defense), to suggest otherwise is to make an exception the rule.

The thing is, this kind of thing is not just happening, it is being bred somehow in our culture, and becoming a more or less regular phenomenon. It isn’t “unspeakable” or “unheard of” any more. It is becoming a commonplace.

What is it about our times that such extremes of attention-seeking are becoming more and more common? I think it speaks to a particular pathology that exists in our culture, but it would probably take reams of research to figure it out. Or maybe not.

The thing is, this kind of thing is not just happening, it is being bred somehow in our culture, and becoming a more or less regular phenomenon.

Awareness of these events is going up. Incidence is actually going down. So, it is being “bred” out of the culture if anything.

The problem with discussions like this is that they rabbit trail endlessly into idealistic philosophical arguments about “well what if this…” or “turn the other cheek period” sophistries.

Why people don’t wrestle about the speed limit with as much mental fervor and biblical quotation – which I dare say everyone disobeys on a daily even hourly frequency and which leads to more deaths and injuries per year than any issue concerning guns and crimes – can only be answered by the fact that “well now we cannot talk about something I do right/wrong and deal with daily”.

Rick your point is spot on the money!

Gun ownership in this country versus revolutions is wholly separate issues. The fact is personal gun ownership is legal and authorized and so is the use of deadly force, variously in states. In some states like ours one is specifically authorized under weight of statute as a private citizen, for example, to shoot an intruder to their home without the threat of deadly force on their part. That’s just out state. But here we have the state, the authority, under God (and it’s in our constitution still) who then authorizes the private citizen to protect his/her domicile with even the use of deadly force if necessary.

Here we see the proper exercise of the vocation and authority to love the neighbor, namely one’s domicile and family therein (Gen. 9:6, & commandments 4-10, or 5-10 for the enthusiast) under the authorizing power (i.e. the state, Rom. 13), which does not contravene “turning the other cheek”.

A lot giddy spirits like to interpret “turn the other cheek”, as did – not surprisingly – the Anabaptist, to mean basically a complete overthrow of the commandments of God both first and especially the second table toward the neighbor or in short; “If you and your wife get mugged and they demand your wife, throw her under the bus and give her to them (i.e. turn the other cheek)”. That’s hyperbole to expose their sophistry on “turn the other cheek”. Furthermore, ‘turn the other cheek’ is always SELF sacrificing, and reneging my office as protector of my family and handing them over by not defending them or one’s home is not sacrificially “turning the other cheek” but an act of self protective cowardice.

I’ve even seen Christians falsely use these passages for reasons to never carry out legal lawsuits, in spite of the fact that Paul himself appealed to the law of the lands when wronged.

As to when to avail oneself or not concerning a government truly having gone rogue or even antichristic or beastlike; there are a lot more hand wringing worry wort Melanchthonian lawyers than bold Luther cross theologians in the Christian world. The former I’d hardly want in a “fox hole” with me, but the later yes! Interestingly enough German Lutherans well know this problem during the rise of the Nazis. D. Boenhoffer wrestled much with the ethics of this issue and makes for some very interesting reading. But the atrocities arose to the point that he did resist and eventually was executed for it. Eventually he basically chose to love his neighbor by resistance and to in the words of Luther, “Sin boldly but believe all the more boldly”. In short when faced with real gritty smelly sweaty earthy “rubber meets earth” reality in front of his face and not bunch hypothetical ethical sweating in a philosophical ivory tower (or internet) over “what ifs” and bending scriptures to solve philosophy he acted boldly locally toward the neighbors in his reach, which was against the beast like government, but in GREAT faith entrusted his eternal forgiveness and righteousness to Christ (Sin boldly but believe all the more boldly).

Pretty good counter-arguments @ 65 there, Cincinnatus.

sg -

Umm, well, you are the statistician around here, but really? Maybe violence itself is going down, and even gun violence, but this kind of random act carried out against strangers isn’t, is it? Where are you getting your information?

My intention was to point to this particular kind of spasm that seems to be almost expected once or twice a year. I suppose you could argue that the reason Charles Whitman was so shocking had to do with the fact that it played our on TV in 1966, but the unbelievability of the tower shootings had to do with the fact that this kind of thing hadn’t happened before. So, I am referring to a particular kind of pathological behavior and not the tendency to use lethal violence as a whole.

I realize that this isn’t the purpose of this post, but I was wondering if I could bring up a point made back awhile ago.

reg@26 stated that “I share some discomfort with the thought that the 1776 revolution was unjustified biblically, but Scripture seems to lead me there.” I’m curious, if the U.S. government had an un-Scriptural beginning, should we in theory recognize and obey the British government instead of the U.S. government?

Also, Bike bubba @ 32 made an interesting point. I’ve never heard about the 1689 Bill of Rights being used to justify the American War of Independence.

The article below is a
MUST READ:

The DAILY BEAST
SHOOTING IN AURORA
Colorado Shooter James Holmes’s Family History Goes Back to the Mayflower
by Michael Daly Jul 22, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

“James Holmes allegedly used a load of weapons to kill 12 people in Colorado. But his relatives, who descended from the Pilgrims and America’s first militia, had a very different relationship to arms.
As she presided over the regular luncheon meetings of the Monterey Bay Colony of Mayflower Descendants, Mary Jane Crawford Holmes represented a lineage stretching proudly back to the original Pilgrims.

She never could have imagined that her family’s landing on Plymouth Rock would extend almost four centuries later to a grandson accused of mass murder at a Batman movie.

That sort of violence couldn’t be more foreign to the genteel gatherings in the Beach House at the Monterey Peninsula Country Cub on idyllic Pebble Beach in California. And Holmes was not just a member of the chapter. She was the governor. Her duties included conducting an annual reading of the Mayflower Compact, marking the day in 1620 that the Pilgrims pledged “to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

By all accounts, the Stanford-educated Holmes had always lived up to the principles of the predecessors in whom she is said to have taken an increasing interest after retiring from a long career as a librarian. She had determined that she was a kind of American aristocrat, genealogically speaking. She was descended not only from the Pilgrims, but also from a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston, the first American militia. This was the type of outfit that the Second Amendment of the Constitution refers to as “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.””

READ THE REST: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/22/colorado-shooter-james-holmes-family-history-goes-back-to-the-mayflower.html

James Holmes’ Family Pastor Recalls Alleged Colorado Shooter As A Shy Boy Driven To Succeed
07/22/12

SAN DIEGO — “A pastor for the family of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes recalls him being a shy boy who was driven to succeed academically.

Senior Pastor Jerald Borgie (BOR’-gee) of Penasquitos Lutheran Church in San Diego said Sunday he was always the one to start conversations with Holmes, who never approached Borgie and wasn’t seen mingling at the church with other people his age.

READ THE REST: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/pastor-colo-suspect-was-s_n_1693563.html

Grace @ 77 and 78 – I cannot fathom exactly what those two articles are supposed to tell us other than the one at 78 offering us the same blather we always seem to hear about killers: “He was very quiet. Polite. Well-behaved. He kept to himself. He’s from such a good family. Really nice people. Etc. etc.”

And the article at 77 – Tying the family’s Mayflower and colonial history, with the Second Amendment, and Oh! the delicious irony! What crap.

This quote,

“Holmes’s forebear in the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston may have been shocked to see how talk of a well-regulated militia has been twisted into keeping gun laws so lax as to threaten the security of a free state,”

is of such a level of asininity as to have Benjamin Franklin rolling in his grave and wondering about how the First Amendment could have possibly allowed for such stupidity to be put on display in the press so as to call into question the future of a free press.

Shockingly and appallingly stupid commentary and conjecture. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was an outfit that stood outside Crown authority and maintained a complete arsenal. It is just as likely that Mr. Holmes ancêtre, while being perfectly scandalized by his descendant’s heinous act, would have wondered why there were no persons willing or able to restrain Mr. Holmes fils from his actions. Such abdication of responsibility and lack of concern for one’s fellow man, may have shocked the colonial Mr. Holmes more than the perceived laxity of the First Amendment.

One thing, in the 2nd Batman movie: there was hardly any tears shed for those who were killed by the Joker. I thought that rather heartless of the scriptwriter and director.

I think Grace’s point is that Holmes was a Lutheran and….. well …..you fill in the blanks

SKPeterson @79

“I cannot fathom exactly what those two articles are supposed to tell us other than the one at 78 offering us the same blather we always seem to hear about killers: “He was very quiet. Polite. Well-behaved. He kept to himself. He’s from such a good family. Really nice people. Etc. etc.”

The post I made at 78 is inregards to the Lutheran Church the family attends, including their son James Holmes – and the remarks the pastor (Pastor Jerald Borgie) made regarding James:

Just to recap it for you SKP: “Senior Pastor Jerald Borgie (BOR’-gee) of Penasquitos Lutheran Church in San Diego said Sunday he was always the one to start conversations with Holmes, who never approached Borgie and wasn’t seen mingling at the church with other people his age.“

The pastor was the one to “start conversations” with Holmes – the pastor also notes that Holmes “wasn’t seen mingling at the church with other people his age.”

There is nothing in that statement which states as you did @79 “78 offering us the same blather we always seem to hear about killers: “He was very quiet. Polite. Well-behaved. He kept to himself. He’s from such a good family. Really nice people. Etc. etc.”

It’s your “blather” that needs attention -

“Shockingly and appallingly stupid commentary and conjecture. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was an outfit that stood outside Crown authority and maintained a complete arsenal. It is just as likely that Mr. Holmes ancêtre, while being perfectly scandalized by his descendant’s heinous act, would have wondered why there were no persons willing or able to restrain Mr. Holmes fils from his actions.“

I doubt anyone knew what James Holmes was doing, planning to do. It’s an outright loud ignorant rant, to accuse, or ‘suppose, when you don’t know the facts – as of right now, no one does.

reg @81

“I think Grace’s point is that Holmes was a Lutheran and….. well …..you fill in the blanks”

You don’t have a point reg, you slip off your answers from your hip, with some sort of supposed hidden meaning –

His family were Lutheran, who knows what he believed. Check out the piece below:

The Blaze

James Holmes Had a Match.com Profile — and Woman Is Stunned to Find Him in Her Matches

July 22, 2012 at 10:21am by Christopher Santarelli

– Favorite movies: “Too many good movies to have a favorite, maybe Dumb and Dumber, Hachiko, Star Wars, etc.”
– Favorite book: Where’s Waldo?
– “You should message me if you’re interested, obviously. Or lookin’ for sexy times. Very nice!”
– Political views: Middle of the road
– Faith: Agnostic
– “I spend a lot of time thinking about the future. Mind = blown”

READ THE REST: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/james-holmes-had-a-match-com-profile-and-woman-is-stunned-to-find-him-in-her-matches/

Let’s see, let’s see. Which sub-thread shall I respond to? Gun control and the Second Amendment? Christians and submission to the government? Violence and culture? Violence in popular entertaiment? Or the ancestry of the shooter vis-a-vis American history?

I think we can all agree that the most important topic offered here is what, exactly, James Holmes’ forefathers were doing several hundred years ago.

But, since everything — everything! — that needs to be said about that has already been said, I will make this point about gun control:

The generic argument from the anti-gun-control wing generally goes something like, “There’s no point in making [something gun-related] illegal, because people like James Holmes will just go and [something gun-related] illegally, anyhow.”

I’ve never found that argument terribly persuasive, because it’s clear that the change regarding [something gun-related] would make it more difficult to get a gun for the purposes of mass murder. It would make it more difficult (if not impossible) to do it the legal way. And, you know, being forced to go the illegal way is rarely less easy for the average person.

I mean, can I get illegal drugs? Almost certainly. I could probably buy a kilo of cocaine, I’m guessing. But it wouldn’t be easy for me. I’d have to ask people about who the drug dealers are. I’d probably have to gain their trust, so they were sure I wasn’t an undercover officer. I could do it, but it sure would be easier if it were legal.

So no, making tougher laws (or otherwise making it harder for people to get ahold of, I don’t know, assault rifles) would not stop the long-term planner intent on methodically carrying out his plan. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t prevent any potential murderers from getting a weapon.

I mean, I have lots of devices in my home that are solely designed to make it difficult for someone to enter my house without my permission. I am under no illusion that they would completely prevent someone from getting in, if they were determined enough. But they do make it harder. I can live with that.

Grace – I hesitate to respond to your posts as they are so blinkered as to beggar belief. You insinuate @ 78 that his Lutheran background is somehow culpable or that Lutheranism somehow has helped this tragedy along. Why stop there? We Lutherans are quite adept at murder. BTK, half of the Nazi’s, maybe Jeffrey Dahmer. Heck, we’ll take Gacy and Bundy for good measure. So what? Lutheranism is not and never has been comprised of the sinless. We’re made up of the repentant and forgiven.

As to my trashing Daly’s comment eith a counter example you state no one can know anything for sure about the situation. Thanks for underscoring my point and why Daly’s article is such indiscriminate bull. He doesn’t know either but that didn’t stop him from projecting several hundred yesrs in the past to conjure up some supposed ancestral reaction to the tragedy. As I said – stupid and irresponsible.

tODD:

But we’re not talking about whether gun control laws would make it harder for a run-of-the-mill murderer from getting a gun. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t.

We’re talking about a guy who, if he couldn’t get guns–an unlikely scenario in any possible world, but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument–would have walked into the theater with homemade pipe bombs or grenades.

For that matter, if a “run-of-the-mill” murderer wanted to kill his cheating wife, for example, there’s nothing stopping him from using a knife or a baseball bat if he can’t obtain a gun. So your point seems to be moot all around.

I’ve seen a lot of academic research on guns and gun control, but none of it has ever conclusively demonstrated that stiffer gun regulations do anything to prevent violent crime. I’m open to persuasion, but every dataset I’ve seen can be punched through with a thousand wholes in seconds. And all that’s aside from my point, which is that the debate surrounding gun control–on either side of the issue–is completely irrelevant to this incident.

/clinging to my actual guns
//Let’s talk about Holmes’s ancient ancestors instead. And the fact that he called himself agnostic, but was once Lutheran. Which is…somehow an important observation, I’m sure.

HOLES, A THOUSAND HOLES*** FOR GOD’S SAKE

SKPeterson @85

Daly wrote what he was given by James Holmes family.

“You insinuate @ 78 that his Lutheran background is somehow culpable or that Lutheranism somehow has helped this tragedy along.“

Sounds a bit, or a lot touchy SKP – The BLAZE gives another rendition of Holmes being an “agnostic” – did you read post 83? Or were you in a blithering hurry, to mistate, and misrepresent what I posted, or both?

There are people who come from good families who commit terrible crimes, for whatever reason. No one, including myself knows this mans real background. It will take a long time to unravel what transpired in his childhood, and early teens and adult years.

Grace,

Why did you bold the name of the Lutheran church and pastor in the quote @78? That’s what has people confused.

BW @89

I bolded the information because it is relevant – Just as Holmes states he is an “agnostic” – I bolded “agnostic” as well, go back and check it out @83-

I see no reason not to point out what was stated by the pastor, and what was stated in The Blaze, regarding his being an “agnostic” the two are diametrically opposed.

If he was an “agnostic” – did his family know? – if they didn’t, that might be reason to believe they knew very little, about what he believed or many other things.

Cincinnatus (@86), I guess I forgot to point out that I’m not terribly interested in coming up with a solution that would only apply to this most recent mass shooting. But I don’t have any data sets; just thinking out loud.

Grace said (@90):

I bolded the information because it is relevant

So, just so we’re all clear here, you thought this was the part of the article (@78) that was most “relevant”:

Senior Pastor Jerald Borgie (BOR’-gee) of Penasquitos Lutheran Church in San Diego said Sunday

Yes, of course. I can see how you thought that was the part that most needed our attention. I mean, it’s not like you’ve ever engaged in Lutheran-bashing repeatedly on this site or anything. How silly of anyone to assume you were doing that once again.

Grace, who cares what his family knew or didn’t know about his faith? What does that have to do with anything?

Cincinnatus @94

“Grace, who cares what his family knew or didn’t know about his faith? What does that have to do with anything?“

What an individual believes about God ALMIGHTY colors his view within every aspect of his life. It is VERY IMPORTANT.

Maybe I’m the exception, but I think it’s kind of eerie how many points of commonality this guy has, or has had, with so many people on this blog. He’s from California. His family goes back generations in this country. His father had a Ph.D. in statistics. His family went to a Lutheran church. Apparently he liked the movie Star Wars. If we dig hard enough, we could probably all find something this mass murderer had in common with each of us.

I felt the same way when I saw photographs of Jeffery Dahmer as a child wearing a Cub Scout uniform. Only an idiot would look at them and say, “See, that’s what joining the Cub Scouts does to you…”

But I still find it so jarring to try to think about how the little blond Cub Scout could grow up to be a mass murderer. So it is with James Holmes. How can someone so much like you and me turn out to be…him? But I guess it just means that the murder in his heart, which is in all our hearts, emerged from his heart and got out into the world. We are like him, and he is like us, in more ways than one.

INTERESTING ARTICLE:

FOX NEWS
Grad school dropout James Holmes ‘not on anybody’s radar’ before horrific attack

Published July 20, 2012

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE:

“Holmes enrolled last year in a neuroscience Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado-Denver but was in the process of withdrawing, said school officials, who didn’t provide a reason.

As part of the advanced program in Denver, a James Holmes had been listed as making a presentation in May about Micro DNA Biomarkers in a class named “Biological Basis of Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders.”

In academic achievement “he was at the top of the top,” recalled Riverside Chancellor Timothy P. White.

Holmes concentrated his study on “how we all behave,” White added. “It’s ironic and sad.“

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/20/grad-school-dropout-horrific-attack-came-out-nowhere/

Kerner @96

“Maybe I’m the exception, but I think it’s kind of eerie how many points of commonality this guy has, or has had, with so many people on this blog. He’s from California. His family goes back generations in this country. His father had a Ph.D. in statistics. His family went to a Lutheran church. Apparently he liked the movie Star Wars. If we dig hard enough, we could probably all find something this mass murderer had in common with each of us.“

You’re wrong Kerner – being from a church which many belong to, or the same State, movie, generations back, a Ph.D in statistics –

You’ve left out the main point, that being, mass murder, and harm to many people: that being, he murdered 12 people, and injured more than 60. I don’t think anyone here has any “commonality” with such an individual.

Kerner,

Is this the way in which you, if you were the Lawyer in this case, would defend him? You wouldn’t last to long, the jury would laugh you out of your chair, the prosecution would role their eyes in disbelief.

I’m surprised you came up with such an idea, using “commonality” -

Grace @99:

What makes you think I’m defending James Holmes? I’m not his attorney.

@98:
” I don’t think anyone here has any “commonality” with such an individual.”

Of course we do. Every one of us. But for the grace of God, each of us is capable of what he did.

Kerner @ 100

<blockquote“Of course we do. Every one of us. But for the grace of God, each of us is capable of what he did. “</blockquote

No Kerner, everyone here is not "capable of what he did" – just speak for yourself, leaving out everyone else.

We ALL have FREE WILL, whether you believe that or not, doesn't change the fact.

12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. James 1

This passage is proof that man can be tempted,….. drawn away of his own lust, it is a ‘choice to do good or evil, ie; FREE WILL.

Grace – If fws sees this he is now going to pound you on the proper distinction between Law and Gospel.

Matthew 5:21-22

“21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. ”

I John 3:15

“15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. ”

Romans 3:9-19

“9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[b]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.”

But for the grace of God we are all utterly lost and condemned. Without the Holy Spirit we are utterly incapable of doing anything but sin. But for the grace of God we are all just like James Holmes. And by the grace of God, even James Holmes may be saved. Without the grace of God, the only “choice” you or I can make is the wrong one.

SKPeterson @ 102

What point is there in reading or listeng to someone who believes “homosexuality isn’t a sin” – I certainly will not!

Kerner @ 103

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1 Corinthians 10:13

Those who believe God, and believe that HE can and will deliver us from “temptation” will stand on the promise of this passage. God does not lie, nor does he deceive us.

Kerner @ 103

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2 Peter 2:9

Those who don’t have faith in our LORD and Savior, and do not believe are not “godly” they don’t belong to Christ. That’s where many become confused.

I don’t believe for one moment, that anyone can go out and slaughter a dozen people, plus put bullets in 60 plus others is a Believer in Christ, there is nothing “godly” about such an individual.

It’s not a matter of standing on a promise. Only God himself can make us capable of doing any good thing.The Epistle to the Romans continues:

“21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood —to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

I repeat, without the utterly undeserved and unaided grace of God, we are all just like James Holmes. God does not give all people “free will” in the sense that we can choose righteousness on our own. By His grace, and the shedding of His innocent blood, He gives us His Holy Spirit and only through this do we have any righteousness at all.

Really, Grace, this is Basic Christianity 101.

Grace @106:

I didn’t say James Holmes was a believer in Christ. In fact, his Match profile said he is not. But like all of us, who are by nature just like him, he may yet be saved.

I mean, things aren’t looking good, but murderers have turned to Christ beofre.

@kerner@108

Wouldn’t it be interesting if James Holmes ended up saved and his victims were not?

Kerner,

There is no way whatsoever, in which you can convince me that we as Believers don’t have “FREE WILL” –

Perhaps Holmes will Believe in Christ as his Savior.

There are a number of video’s. Very INTERESTING.

Alleged Colorado Gunman’s Family Stands by Son

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN

July 23, 2012

The family of suspected gunman James Holmes said they will support the Ph.D student accused of entering a movie theatre last Friday and not leaving until he had killed 12 people and wounded another 58.

Asked if they stand by Holmes, lawyer and family spokeswoman Lisa Damiani said at a press conference today, “Yes they do. He’s their son.”

Damiani said the family was holding up “as well as anyone could under the circumstances.”

“I think everyone can imagine how they’re feeling,” Damiani said, “anyone who’s ever been a parent.”

Damiani would not comment on the family’s whereabouts or their relationship with Holmes.”

READ THE REST: http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-colorado-gunman-james-holmes-family-stand-son/story?id=16840162

Just glancing through comments here this evening. I had made a comment this afternoon on another post and lost it due to the computer failure. Didn’t bother to re-post it, but in it I said I agreed with SKPeterson. Maybe I can locate it. No big deal anyway.

I think Kerner makes a good point in his comments above. There but for the grace of God, go I. There is none, righteous, no not one.

Helen K @ 112

YOU WROTE: “I think Kerner makes a good point in his comments above. There but for the grace of God, go I. There is none, righteous, no not one.”

You’re RIGHT – however Helen, it would be good to look at posts 105 and 106, check out the Scripture.

The promises are there, for anyone to read, and understand.

God delivers man out of temptation, IF, man chooses to follow God.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1 Corinthians 10:13

And then there is this one:

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2 Peter 2:9

The “godly” are those who love, trust, and believe in our LORD Jesus as Savior. That is wonderful – and so is the “escape” we are given in
1 Corinthians 10:13.

Everyone has lusted, but most certainly only those who have committed adultery, (physically in the flesh) can be DIVORCED by their spouse.

“Lusting” after another is a dangerous game, but doing something about it, such as sexual intercourse and contact, are the only way a man/woman can divorce their spouse and remarry, Biblically – “LUST” doesn’t give one that right! It is a good thing to remember -

tODD @ 117

YOU WROTE: “You know, Grace, I’ve seen you quote 1 Cor. 10:13 so many times here that it seems it’s the verse that most embodies what being a Christian is about for you. That is, that being a Christian is about looking for “the way out” in any tempting situation, and then making sure that you take that way out.“

tODD – God gave us an “escape” – since HE was so gracious to do so, why would I be so stupid not to take the “escape” which the LORD offers?

tODD @ 117

YOU WROTE: “If so — and I hope I’m wrong, appearances notwithstanding — I have to point out to you that such a belief has nothing to do with our savior, Jesus. Who needs a savior if they’re always successfully avoiding giving in to temptation?”

I do need a Savior, I’ve always needed one, and Jesus Christ is my Savior – When a Believer gives into “temptation” they are avoiding the obvious “escape” which our LORD gives – in so doing they further go astray, committing the sin, they can “escape” – How dumb is that?

tODD @ 117

YOU WROTE: “But in all the times you’ve quoted that verse, I’ve never once seen you grapple with the question of what a Christian is to do when she doesn’t take the way out which God has provided. What does a Christian do, that is, when she gives in to temptation?”

Fall on my knees!

tODD @ 117

YOU WRITE: “The answer of Scripture is quite clear on that answer, pointing to Jesus, who died for the sins of the whole world. But it’s not clear that you see that. Your response to people who admit they are sinners always seems to be that they should simply try harder to find the way out, that they should try harder to avoid giving in to temptation. Indeed, whenever I have asked you if you believe you’re a sinner, if you believe that you sin willfully, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an answer from you.”

That which is BOLDED – NOPE, they don’t have to “they should try harder to avoid giving in to temptation” they need to rely on the “escape” the LORD has given all Believers.

Well, tODD, I have sinned wilfully, and I’ve paid for that mistake more than once. However, since I KNOW that the LORD offers an “escape” I look for it, and I cling to HIS promise.

tODD @ 117

YOU WRITE: “Perhaps you have deluded yourself into thinking that you do always take the way out, that you don’t give into temptation. If so, you are, well, deluded. You have deceived yourself, and the truth is not in you. I pray that’s not the case.”

You are NOT my judge. You’ve followed me around this blog like a little brother, trying to catch something that can’t be held.

Whatever you want to accuse me of, whatever you believe me to be, that is unworthy, so be it. It is your thoughts, which are not God’s but yours.

tODD @117

YOU WRITE: “Yes, God always gives us a way out, so that we cannot blame God and say that we had no other option. But Scripture does not tell us that we are always faithful to God — quite the opposite, as far as we are concerned. No, it tells us that God is faithful to us.”

God gives us an “escape” not a blame game.

Who said “Scripture does not tell us that we are always faithful to God” – I certainly have never said that, no matter how you twirl, twist it around.

God is faithful, and we are to follow HIM, accept the gifts HE has given us, and that includes the “escape” when we are tempted to do wrong.

Grace, you said (@118):

God gave us an “escape” – since HE was so gracious to do so, why would I be so stupid not to take the “escape” which the LORD offers?

You would be so “stupid” because you’re a sinful human, like the rest of us. It’s not a matter of intelligence, it’s a question of the nature of our flesh.

I do need a Savior, I’ve always needed one, and Jesus Christ is my Savior

Well I’m glad to finally hear you say that.

When a Believer gives into “temptation” they are avoiding the obvious “escape” which our LORD gives – in so doing they further go astray, committing the sin, they can “escape” – How dumb is that?

Except that it’s not possible for humans to live perfect lives. There is always a way out, but it is not possible for us as sinners to always take that way out. That’s what it means to be a sinner.

In answer to my question (@117), “What does a Christian do, that is, when she gives in to temptation?”, you said (@120):

Fall on my knees!

Amen. One of your better answers.

But when I said (@117), “Your response to people who admit they are sinners always seems to be that they should simply try harder to find the way out,” you, well, proved me right (@121):

NOPE, they don’t have to … “try harder to avoid giving in to temptation” they need to rely on the “escape” the LORD has given all Believers.

See? You did it again.

You then said:

Well, tODD, I have sinned wilfully, and I’ve paid for that mistake more than once.

That is definitely the first time I can recall your actually admitting to willful sin, though I still have to wonder if you “believe that you sin [present tense] willfully”, which you didn’t actually answer. Also, Jesus paid for your sins — all of them — even if you experienced temporal consequences as a result.

However, since I KNOW that the LORD offers an “escape” I look for it, and I cling to HIS promise.

Again, your answers cause me to think that you believe your life is one mainly characterized by obedience, not sin. That’s certainly not what Scripture teaches us. When Scripture refers to promises and grace, it’s referring to something more significant than avoiding falling into sin. It’s talking about Jesus. But you constantly turn the conversation away from your own sin and need for a Savior, and towards your own ability to avoid sin.

Finally, as to your saying (@122):

You are NOT my judge. You’ve followed me around this blog like a little brother, trying to catch something that can’t be held.

I never claimed to be your judge. But you seem to bristle whenever anyone responds critically to your comments. If you can’t handle the dialogue, you’re in the wrong place. You’re not above reproach.

Also, I have news for you: I’ve been commenting on this blog for several years more than you have. I’m not “following you around”, I hang out on this blog, like several others do. I read the posts, and I comment when I have something to say. If you don’t like it, you can hang out at any other blog I don’t frequent, which is pretty much the rest of them. Otherwise, feel free to get over yourself and join in the conversation.

tODD @124

YOU WROTE: “But when I said (@117), “Your response to people who admit they are sinners always seems to be that they should simply try harder to find the way out,” you, well, proved me right (@121):

See? You did it again.”

-

No I didn’t tODD, you twisted what I posted, left off what you wrote, and then preceded to further convolute what you wrote and then promote it, as though I posted it. You leave half sentences off, etc.

BELOW is what I posted in response to your statement @117: Compare your response above with my comments below.

121 Grace July 24, 2012 at 2:23 am
tODD @ 117

YOU WRITE: “The answer of Scripture is quite clear on that answer, pointing to Jesus, who died for the sins of the whole world. But it’s not clear that you see that. Your response to people who admit they are sinners always seems to be that they should simply try harder to find the way out, that they should try harder to avoid giving in to temptation. Indeed, whenever I have asked you if you believe you’re a sinner, if you believe that you sin willfully, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an answer from you.”

That which is BOLDED – NOPE, they don’t have to “they should try harder to avoid giving in to temptation” they need to rely on the “escape” the LORD has given all Believers.”
</blockquote.

Grace – What is the escape?

Well, this got awful hinky in a day.

So, moving past gun control (if it is possible), would anyone like to take up the question as to why the US is such fertile soil for this sort of crime to spring up?

The Irish. Once we let them in, it’s been all down hill: gang-related crime, poverty and every other social pathology ever evident in American society can be traced to the Emerald Isle. And giving women the vote. Nothing has probably driven more men to murder than that – and most of them have been drunken Irishmen with red hair. http://cdn.everyjoe.com/files/2012/07/james-holmes-court-pictures.jpg

The Irish are synonymous with booze, feminist broads and a love of casual violence as the cornerstones of their so-called “culture.” Obviously, immigrant Irish feminists have had the most deleterious impact on our social fabric.

On a far more serious note, here’s an excellent take from Pr. Peters:
http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2012/07/who-knows-what-evil-lurks-in-heart-of.html

Yeah, I think it was those chicks in junior high and high school that tormented all the boys. That stuff stays with you. It all goes back to Eve, or maybe Adam’s first wife Lilith. What a bee . . .

SKPeterson @126

YOU ASK: “What is the escape?”

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Those who believe God, and believe that HE can and will deliver us from “temptation” will stand on the promise of this passage. God does not lie, nor does he deceive us.

1 Corinthians 10:13

Grace – Let me rephrase the question. What is the escape?

I smell a dodge and/or vague answer coming…

tODD and Kerner,

Thanks for your spot on replies to Grace on free will. I don’t have to read my daily meditation today, I’m just going to reread what you both have written.

SKPeterson @126 and @132

ASKS @126: “What is the escape?”

ASKS AGAIN @132: “Let me rephrase the question. What is the escape?“

Same question, now you’ll get the same answer:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13

Those who believe God, and believe that HE can and will deliver us from “temptation” will stand on the promise of this passage. God does not lie, nor does he deceive us.

You kinda have to wonder about Christians who spend more time talking about how they avoid sin than they do talking about, you know, Christ the Savior.

This is one of the most important pieces I have read to date:

Dark Knight gunman ‘forced to wear a face guard in prison after spitting at officers’

The DAILY MAIL – UK
By Lydia Warren and Daniel Bates In Aurora, Colorado

PUBLISHED: 11:32 EST, 24 July 2012

AN EXCERPT from ARTICLE______

“It is just the latest example of Holmes’ bizarre behaviour and comes as his mother revealed she feared he had been disturbed for years and was concerned about his social isolation.
Arlene Holmes, who lives in San Diego, California and was only made aware of the shootings when a reporter called her for a comment, is said to have urged her son to seek counselling.

The claim in the Washington Post about Mrs Holmes, a nurse, is the first sign that she could have averted the massacre and raises grave questions over what else she knew.”

ANOTHER EXCERPT __________________

According to reports, the neuroscience graduate was adopted and Mrs Holmes, 58, and husband Robert, 61, a software developer, raised him as one of their own.

The reports come just one day after Holmes’s startling first appearance in court on Monday, where he rolled his eyes, stared directly ahead and swayed from side to side.”

READ the REST: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178304/James-Holmes-Gunman-used-police-evidence-bags-hand-puppets-mother-admits-feared-disturbed-years.html

This new information brings up many questions – Questions that are rarely brought to discussion, but plead to be discussed, and answers sought. It is a grave problem in our country.

When I read the Corinthians passage, I think the context suggests this is not talking about all temptation to sin. I think it has in mind something more like apostasy. The word rendered “temptation” (PEIRASMOS) is sometimes rendered “trial.” The situation has to do with being put to the test by the devil. (Luke 22:28 renders the same word as “trial.”) Most trials do involve what we would call temptations, so these are closely related. But everything we call a temptation may not be a trial. Peter is a good one to consider as we think of this subject. Satan wanted to sift him like wheat (Luke 22:31). That would probably involve putting him to the test. Jesus prays that Peter’s faith would not fail. Jesus tells the disciples to pray that they would not enter a trial (Luke 22:40, 46). Later, Peter denied Jesus. Now, did he enter a trial there? Was he sifted like wheat? Satan probably imagined he was chaff and not wheat. Jesus prayed for Peter’s faith to continue. But Peter did what many of us would imagine was right. He resolved in his heart to follow to the bitter end (Luke 22:33). Yet this was not the right course. Praying NOT to be tested was the right course. Peter slept instead of praying. But Jesus’ prayer was answered despite that. Now all this said, I do think Peter is an example not to follow here. But avoiding what he did might involve more prayer about being away from trials than how we act within them. While St. Paul mentions escape within trials, Jesus tells us we should wish them to not happen at all. If St. Paul is right, there was an escape for Peter. But if this was a trial, then Jesus wanted Peter out of the situation in the first place. The first escape would have been prayer. If there was another, I don’t think it’s an obvious one. And would there need to be another one for St. Paul to be right about the promise?

Grace – I am asking you to try to think through what you are saying or implying when you quote Scripture.

This is very typical of you – you provide half an answer using Scripture and when asked for clarification of meaning or intent, you reply with the same quote. It is a non-answer.

Here is the method:

1)You provide a quote from Scripture.
2) People respond, asking what you mean by 1) and how it applies, etc., or what you think 1) means.
3) You respond with 1).

I was asking you to explain what escapes does God provide? Your answer is like telling someone who comes to your office one day, “We have a means of escape if there is a fire.” They then ask, “What is the means of escape?” and you respond, “We have a means of escape if there is a fire.” Repeating your assertion is not an answer to the question asked.

This was disappointing because you got very, very close with your statement: “Those who believe God, and believe that HE can and will deliver us from “temptation” will stand on the promise of this passage. God does not lie, nor does he deceive us.”

That reliance upon the promise of God is actually quite Lutheran of you. But, I would have to ask, if you believe this promise and that God does not lie or deceive, why do you not believe His Word or promise regarding Baptism or the Eucharist?

Anyhow, Rick answered the question for you @ 138. It is prayer Grace. Prayer. God saves us from temptation and provides our means of escape when we pray the Lord’s prayer, when we pray in our times of temptation to be given the righteousness of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit. When we recognize that our power and will is insufficient and weak, we must then call to our Savior who withstood all temptation and paid the price for our failures to withstand temptation. That is the promise; that by and through prayer, we are strengthened and enabled by the Holy Spirit through our faith in the person and promise of Jesus Christ.

Interesting there at 137, Grace.

What do you think are the things that aren’t discussed or questions that are not asked? Adoption? Social isolation? The interplay between the two?

I hope that it isn’t that adoption coupled with being raised Lutheran creates social isolation and a descent into evil. Then I’m surely done for.

SKPeterson 139

I have quoted the passage in 1 Corinthians 10:13 many times. God does give us an escape, so that we will not be tempted above what we can bear. This is one of the promises that makes clear, FREE WILL is a choice. When we are tempted to sin, we have a choice. We don’t have to pray the LORD’s Prayer, we can simply pray and rely on HIM to guide us.

SKP, when asking a question, you and most all the others come back to this question, which I’ve answered many, many times, in the past: – “That reliance upon the promise of God is actually quite Lutheran of you. But, I would have to ask, if you believe this promise and that God does not lie or deceive, why do you not believe His Word or promise regarding Baptism or the Eucharist”–

I don’t believe in infant Baptism, we’ve discussed it dozens of times.

The book of Mark makes it clear, as Christ Jesus lays out clearly the way to be saved. It’s little man who wants to switch the way around to meet his beliefs.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16

As for the LORD’s Supper, I’ve given Scripture many times, but you and others decline my answer.

I believe the Scripture as stated below, regarding the LORD’s Supper.

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. John 6

Aw, Grace, you completely went off the rails of orthodoxy at 141. So close, yet so far.

No, we don’t have to pray the Lord’s Prayer, but it was the prayer given to us directly from Jesus, so it is thebasis and model for all subsequent Christian prayer. Prayer is our escape, it is our way out from sin.

Free will is a reality, especially if we ignore John 8:34 and Romans 6:20. Paul is saying directly – you are either a slave to sin, or a slave to righteousness. Yet we are told that we cannot choose righteousness of our own accord as it says in 6:22 we have been freed, not we made ourselves free, in order to be slaves of God. So if before you were a slave to sin, who’s will were you doing? Your’s, or your Sin? Now, if you are a slave to God, who’s will are you doing? Your’s or God’s? Either way, you are not and were not free, and your will is not and was not your own. Remember Paul’s words “Why do I do the things I hate?”

SKPeterson,

It appears very strongly, that no matter what I post to you, .. you will find fault with. Even to the point of praying to God ALMIGHTY.

No. I think what you said was fine – it just did not go far enough. It’s my professorial side coming out and asking you to clarify and expand your thoughts. You’ve got the nugget of a thesis, but it just needs to be expressed more clearly. You’re making some assumptions in your assertion that are best explained openly and not just implied. Therefore, while quotes from Scripture are useful, it helps to explain your argumentative intent in using a particular passage, and then how the passage supports or explicates the point you are making so that others can understand and hopefully learn.

SKPeterson @144

YOU WROTE: “It’s my professorial side coming out and asking you to clarify and expand your thoughts.”

Excuse me SKP, that’s a most smug presumptious comment, one I would take note of, if I were you.

YOU WROTE: ” Therefore, while quotes from Scripture are useful, it helps to explain your argumentative intent in using a particular passage, and then how the passage supports or explicates the point you are making so that others can understand and hopefully learn.”

If you’ve read many of my posts, which appears to be the case. You would notice that I do explain, and clarify – - – answering the same questions over and over again, is a waste of time. The questions will never be answered to satisfaction because I am not a Lutheran, I depend on the Bible, not books, written by men. The Bible is inspired and inerrant, the books you use are not, they are written by men.

A good discussion is not based upon the B of C, it’s based soley on the Word of God – a commentary once in a while is a good thing, but not the way it’s used here. When I see answers that have come from Lutheran doctrine, or recognize that the answer has been re-written for the purpose of giving me Lutheran doctrine – I ignore it.

SKPeterson,

YOUR QUESTION @ 139
“That reliance upon the promise of God is actually quite Lutheran of you. But, I would have to ask, if you believe this promise and that God does not lie or deceive, why do you not believe His Word or promise regarding Baptism or the Eucharist? ”

Your entire post was going along, and then BINGO – the same question squeezed in the middle of your post, ONCE AGAIN. You should know better.

The reason I ignore many of the posts here is; they are to long,( in some cases they are short thesis) of which I don’t have time, or the interest to read. There are some commenters, who must believe, that what they write, (never mind how long it is) is waited for with breathless anticipation.

I post Scripture because it gets to the meat of the problem right away. In my post 141, I gave passages of Scripture which were very easy to understand. On other questions, I gave explicit answers as to why there would not be another go-around on the same questions. This however is not what you wanted to hear. Instead you wanted more explanation, so that ONCE AGAIN, you, or some of your friends on the blog could once again, give me a lecture from the BofC as to what “infant Baptism” is. Which cannot be found in the Bible. That discussion is over, it’s not fruitful to ask the same questions repeatedly.

⚫

EXCLUSIVE: Movie massacre suspect sent chilling notebook to psychiatrist before attack
By Jana Winter

“AURORA, Colo. – James Holmes, the accused gunman in last Friday’s midnight movie massacre in Colorado, mailed a notebook “full of details about how he was going to kill people” to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the attack, but the parcel sat unopened in a mailroom for as long as a week before its discovery Monday, a law enforcement source told FoxNews.com.

Police and FBI agents were called to the University of Colorado Anschutz medical campus in Aurora on Monday morning after the psychiatrist, who is also a professor at the school, reported receiving a package believed to be from the suspect. Although that package turned out to be from someone else and harmless, a search of the Campus Services’ mailroom turned up another package sent to the psychiatrist with Holmes’ name in the return address, the source told FoxNews.com.

A second law enforcement source said authorities got a warrant from a county judge and took the package away Monday night. When it was opened, its chilling contents were revealed.

READ THE REST: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/25/exclusive-movie-massacre-suspect-laid-out-plans-in-package-mailed-to/

⚫ The post above @ 147 was from FOX NEWS
July 25, 2012

The theater had and other places were mass shootings have occurred have almost invariably been gun free zones; my opinion is that gun free zones should be renamed target rich environments or sitting duck zones.