If the NRA were a Religion


If the NRA were a religion (and let’s face it, it is the only religion many people ascribe to), they would be members of the Hellfire & Brimstone camp. The ones who are always yelling in your face, spitting all over the first two rows as they toss out dire predicament after dire predicament. They would be the ones instilling the Fear of God and unknown boogey-men within others.

If the NRA were a religion, its members would be stockpiling toilet paper, buying up all the granola bars, and squirreling away antibiotic as they prepare for the Armageddon to end all Armageddons.

If the NRA were a religion, their worship music would stir the congregation into a frenzy. Their songs would instill in those worshipping a sense of righteous indignation and a determination to protect their own from demons unknown.

If the NRA were a religion, they would be a mega-church run by a charismatic beloved pastor whose congregants cling to the outrageous things he says because there’s enough fear twisted into his lies that it passes for truth. Outlandish! declare the non-believers who always leave the mega-church shaking their heads in disbelief.

If the NRA were a religion, they would be dogmatic about their doctrine, convinced that their way is the only right way to God. Every Sunday School teacher, every Training Union leader, every pastor, every elder, every deacon would be well-armed and well-versed in the necessity for that.  Preschoolers would be given pop-guns and water pistols and encouraged to play nicely. Children would stand before bemused congregants and loudly march to I’m in the Lord’s Army!  And all the people would laugh and applaud and shout “Amen!”

If the NRA were a religion, their celebrity pastor would live in a gated-community. He would travel with an entourage of thick-chested men. He would hop around the world in a private jet owned by the church. He would have his own TV station where he would preach about all the ways in which assault weapons build a better nation and save the righteous from the impending damnation of the unrighteous, and where he could beg for more money to fight the good fight for the good people, God’s chosen, who, left unarmed, will always be at risk of evil-doers.

If the NRA were a religion, members would be encouraged to raise holy hell against anyone who dares to suggest that arming a nation may not be what the founding fathers had in mind when they enacted the Second Amendment. Congregants would be schooled in who in Congress is a true believer like them and who is only a poser. They would gather together at shooting ranges and at gun shows across this nation and talk about all the ways in which their religion is maligned by liberal media. Church members would be encouraged to bad-mouth anyone who doesn’t believe the same as them — to regard those who don’t buy guns, who refuse to arm themselves, or to prepare for the coming apocalypse fools of the worst sort, deserving of the impending destruction coming their way.

If the NRA were a religion, their evangelism efforts would entail big-dollar advertising. They would employ only the best public relation teams Wall Street had to offer. They would appear as goodwill ambassadors at every tragic shooting across the land, preaching their doctrine of “This is why we must arm each man, each woman, and each child..”.

If the NRA were a religion, their foundational  verse would be: “For God so loved the world that he gave us all these firearms, so that whosoever arms himself should not perish but have everlasting safety.” 

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Wow. I just realized I could substitute the phrase “Democrat party” in the place of NRA, and many of those sentences still ring true. Yelling in your face? check. Self-righteous indignation? Check. Have their own TV stations? Check.

    • Excellent point, James. I think this tirade is a bit over the top. People turn all kinds of ideologies into “religion”, but Karen has chosen to lamblast one she disagrees with. I TOTALLY respect her right to do that, but it doesn’t make her right. I am not a member of the NRA (yet) but most of my family members are and none of them act like Karen suggests they do.

      • Luke, my point isn’t really that Democrats are a cult. It was to point out the problem I have with pointing out the faults of any organization, and saying, either implicitly or explicitly, that we can decide what these people, as a group are up to, what their motives are, etc. I think very highly of Karen, and am disappointed in this post. My substitution of the word “Democrat” for NRA was meant to convey that in a more or less satirical way.

        • Oh, I got your point loud and clear. We know Democrats aren’t a cult and neither is the NRA or those who believe in their right to defend themselves instead of relying on the police.

      • Karen Spears Zacharias

        Good Gentlemen: There is no tirade here. Nothing of the sort. Only the imaginations of a writer at work.

      • Good Gentlemen, there is no tirade here — only the imaginations of a writer at work.

  • That picture is, umm….yeah. Where’d you get it?

  • well thank God the NRA is not a religion and just a gun rights advocacy group, that’d be one crazy religion. I suppose some people worship their guns like others do other possessions. All I can say after reading that is thank God for the grace and love we find find in Jesus his Son. Blessings Karen


  • I wrote on this yesterday here (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/looking-luke/2013/jan/15/obama-gun-control-and-constitution/). The sad fact is that the left is being disingenuous, and if they think the law of the land, that’s the Constitution, should be changed, then by all means let’s change it. There is a process for that. Debates like these create lots of heat and little light, but here is a site that claims to provide Just The Facts. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

  • Got this email yesterday… Interesting…

    Why is it that those who steal guns, who then go and kill movie goers and children in school have never been a conservative NRA member?

    Ft Hood – Registered Democrat – Muslim

    Columbine – Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals

    Virginia Tech – Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff – Registered

    Colorado Theater – Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal

    Connecticut School Shooter – Registered Democrat; hated Christians

    John Hinkley Jr. Hated Ronald Regan, Registered Democrat

    Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats

    Why do Progressive Liberals want to take away Guns from Law Abiding

    • LorenHaas

      Luke, you worry me. You seem to have entirely missed the point and at the same time made Karen’s point more concrete. The NRA and it’s supporters have made an idol of guns and gun ownership. It is in fact, a religion whose proponents will allow no intrusion of reality to challenge its system of belief.

      • I got Karen’s point loud and clear. Are there people like those she describes? Undoubtedly there are. There is no defense for people who make an idol out of guns.

        But what part of “shall not be infringed” do liberal progressives not understand? This is about the “rule of law”, a concept liberal progressive miss entirely. They want to do whatever they want to do regardless of the law, or make laws to justify it and expect everyone else to go along. The Constitution is the law of the land.

        I happen to believe that all people have the right to defend themselves against violence. I think that this right is basic, inalienable and God-given. The framers of the Constitution agreed and went so far as to put it Second in the Bill of Rights. Did you not read the article? http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/looking-luke/2013/jan/15/obama-gun-control-and-constitution/

        The problem is that the government, with bills like the NDAA, have been stripping Americans of basic rights (in this case 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights). Until this year, NDAA allowed the US military to detain indefinitely any American citizen labelled a terrorist. This is completely unacceptable. Innocent until proven guilty! And that by a jury of peers in an impartial court! Liberals and conservatives alike are guilty.

        You mentioned reality. Reality is a tricky thing. It usually means “the facts I’m willing to accept.” And this is unfortunate. If you are truly interested in “reality”, see this link for some sobering facts about the debate. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


        • LorenHaas

          The Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of guns is constitutional. (The legal opinion was written by Scalia) That is reality. The questions is only where do you draw the line. So you tell me what should be legal for an ordinary citizen to possess:
          1. Nuclear armed rockets.
          2. Conventional explosive armed rockets.
          3. Fighter/Bombers with bombs, rocket, cannons.
          4. Howitzers.
          5. Tanks with cannons, etc.
          6. Light vehicles with launchers, etc.
          7. Mortars.
          8. Heavy machine guns.
          9. Light machine guns.
          10. Automatic assault rifles.
          11. Semi-automatic assault rifles with large capacity magazines.
          12. High powered sniper rifles.
          13. Semi-automatic handguns with large capacity magazines.
          14. Semi-automatic handguns with restricted capacity magazines.
          15. Semi-automatic hunting rifles & shotguns.
          16. Bolt action rifles and shotguns.
          17. Bows and arrows.
          18. Swords.
          19. Sharp knives.
          20. Pointy sticks.

          • The court has also ruled that abortion is legal and has put no restriction on term. Do you accept the abortion of children? Do you accept third trimester abortion? Partial birth abortion? The courts are not always right in their decisions (you apparently know enough about history and the law to understand that).

            The Second Amendment was clearly meant to give the people the ability to resist tyranny (government and individual tyranny). The founders could not have envisioned nuclear bombs, fighters, rockets, or tanks, and probably even fully automatic weapons, so I think it is safe to say that those are not covered under the Second Amendment and imagine the Supreme Court and most reasonable people (maybe not Ted Nugent) would agree. 🙂

          • LorenHaas

            So, you do agree that gun ownership can
            be infringed. Glad to hear that. So the constitutional issue is behind us and we can ignore those claims. Great! Now we can move forward to make an agreement as to how to regulate firearms constitutionally.

            Seems like we are on the same side.

            Let’s all do our best to fairly advocate
            for our own comfortable level of gun control without name calling or
            misrepresenting those with differing viewpoints.

          • No, I do not believe that “gun” ownership can be infringed. Nuclear arms are not “guns” in any classic sense of the word, nor are tanks, nor rockets, nor missile guided bombs. But, my attempt to be genuine and forthright has been met by your strawman argument.

            The irony here is that the Obama administration seeks to regulate personal firearms, but is delivering them to Syrian rebels and Mexican drug cartels. Fast and Furious! It is this sort of hypocrisy that gets gun-rights advocates riled up.

            What do you view as “acceptable” regulation? Can people own semi-automatic weapons and clips as large as those of their possible foes? Should they be forced to obtain a permit for the privilege of exercising this right and pay a special tax (fee)? Should their be limitations on where they can protect themselves from harm?

            I’m not that interested in the answer. The questions are rhetorical? I wish you all the best!

          • LorenHaas

            Sorry if you feel it is a strawman arguement. I was just trying to see if you were a constitutional absolutist when it comes to firearms/weapons or were open to some sort of compromise. Now I am not sure. No non-gun weapons, but that would include howitzers, heavy machine guns, etc. Not sure about mortars. You did agree that the writers of the constitution did not envision even automatic weapons. Let’s go with that concept. “Original intent”, right? Muzzle loading muskets is reasonable to me.
            Nice chatting with you.

          • Again, you refuse to answer any of my questions… 🙁 Original intent = arming the people with the weapons that could be used against them. I’m willing to admit that nuclear weapons, bombers, tanks, etc. probably go beyond anything the Framers could imagine. I do NOT believe that they would have written the Amendment any different if there had been a self-loading musket, or repeater rifle available. Muskets were obviously NOT the intent. How silly! You sound like Piece Morgan 🙂

          • LorenHaas

            Luke, you cannot even say where you would draw the line and you keep changing the subject. What is behind that?

          • I keep changing the subject? I keep answering your questions and employing facts and logic to support an exceedingly complex target. You are not being honest. You have refused to engage in the discussion by answering any of my questions. You have tried to make it sound as if I said things I haven’t. I pity you, sir! But, I shall not waste one more moment on a “discussion” with someone who refuses to be open and sincere and then accuses me of “changing the subject.”

          • LorenHaas

            Luke, maybe you can clears some things up for me? You said:

            “But what part of “shall not be infringed” do liberal progressives not understand?”

            But then:

            “….probably even fully automatic weapons, so I think it is safe to say that those are not covered under the Second Amendment”

            and then:

            “No, I do not believe that “gun” ownership can be infringed.”

            but you had nothing to say about:

            “The Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of guns is constitutional.”

            Kinda hard to follow the trail here.

          • Darren

            [QUOTE]”The Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of guns is constitutional.”[END QUOTE]

            Say what?

            The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.

            The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an “avalanche” of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.

            [END QUOTE]


            Where did they rule that regulating guns is constitutional? It seems this report says they did not make any ruling in regards to regulation; only affirmed that the 2 Amendment means what it says.

          • The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any and all arms.

          • Darren

            I agree.

          • I think I answered your question on behalf of Luke.

          • Actually the people should be able to own a tank .. and I believe one can purchase such a thing, and folks who live in the desert DO own them .. though where to legally drive it might be a problem. One does not need a nuclear weapon to protect against the government, since a nuclear weapon is not a useful weapon BY the government against its own people. But we of the citizen militia certainly are intended to own anything that could serve to protect against the government armies. As the 2d Amendment states, that is the way to regulate and check the power of the the government militias.

          • So which government militia have you been fighting lately?

          • ymoore

            If citizens can arm themselves to fight the government, why is that kid from California who joined the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan in jail? He took up arms w/ the Taliban and ended up fighting the U.S. government, and he was charged with treason. I really haven’t followed his trial so I don’t know if he was convicted on not, but he is in jail. If he has a constitutional right to fight the government, why’s he in jail?

          • Really, Luke? Inflamatory and intended to divert the argument that you are so obviously losing.

          • I suppose losing, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve honestly answered questions and asked many (none of which were answered).

            My point with the list is obviously not to be inflammatory. I’m sorry if it inflamed you somehow. The point was to demonstrate the clear intent of the founders and the Bill of Rights (remember sacrosanct freedom like speech, religion, fair trial, etc.) was to outline in no uncertain terms those rights which the Founders felt every man deserved by virtue of being human (i.e. created in God’s image). The second “right” on the list is the right to keep and bear arms and what the founders meant by that is abundantly clear from the historical record, namely to protect themselves from harm and especially against government tyranny.

            I cannot protect myself against a government drone if all I have is a smooth bore flint-lock, but we know from Afghanistan that even the poorest people can oppose even a world super-power with modern firearms.

            The world is full of evil. Ask the Cambodians if they would have liked weapons when Pol Pot’s carnage began. Ask the Syrian Free Army to lay down their weapons. Ask the Libyan people why they rebelled against Qadaffi. Obama was happy to supply weapons there! Governments, all governments, ours included, tend to corruption, and who will oppose them if not the people?

            I understand your non-violent nature and your wish that guns would not be used, but none of these mass shootings were performed by NRA members. You’re anger is misdirected. Nor was it “conservatives” who committed these atrocities. Look at each of the shooters and you will see that they were all anti-conservatives.

            You’re on the wrong side of this one, Karen. People should always be allowed to have the means to protect themselves from tyranny.

            Maybe wielding deadly force violates your conscience. I can appreciate and respect that, but depriving others, who do not hold your convictions, of the right and means to protect themselves against violence and government tyranny is simple indefensible.

          • Only #1 should be banned, as it is not a weapon that the federal government would be able to use against the States or their citizens.

          • LorenHaas

            Thanks for the responses to this list. It always reveals so much about the mentality of those who honestly answer.
            Have a nice day!

          • Darren

            Heh, even though the premesis of your inquiry is false regarding the US Supreme Court? And I do believe more people die from kicking and punching than they do from guns. Let’s stap ligaments together in public. You know, “if we can save just one life…” :>)

          • Your list proves the degree of absurdity that gun right activists will go to. The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to bear all arms.

          • ymoore

            “The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to bear all arms.”

            Does this mean you agree with efforts to ban semi-automatics and large magazine?

          • It does.

        • pagansister

          Guns are a god given right? Really? God said “let there be guns so my people can kill innocents”? For centuries humans have been killing each other—many times in the name of some god or other. So people need automatic weapons with huge clips to hunt deer etc.? Are you serious? I have a huge problem with the NRA and their leader’s insistence that guns are fine—when (f the things I have read are accurate) their membership have no problem with some restrictions ie not clips full of a million bullets—for their military style weapons.

          • You think the second amendment is about hunting? Wow, I suggest you revisit the history class you slept through. Here’s what the founders said: (the gem is at the end from G. Washington)

            Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the UnitedStates who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams

            “Nofree man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
            – Thomas Jefferson

            “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” – Thomas Jefferson

            ”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.” – Benjamin Franklin

            “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment

            “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence’s and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington, First President of the United States

            “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some
            will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” –
            Thomas Paine

            “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788

            “The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, American Patriot

            “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” – Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States

            “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; …” – Thomas Jefferson, In a letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

            “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

            “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

            “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
            serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

            “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” John Adams

            “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry

            ”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

          • LorenHaas

            I am sure that emptying a 31 round magazine in the direction of a Congresswoman and innocent bystanders is exactly what John Adams had in mind 200+ years ago.

          • Darren

            A nearby gun carrier rushed to her aid and would have used it had the shooter not already been subdued. And regardless of the tragedy, Congresswoman Gifford’s husband did NOT want to take away people’s guns.

          • pagansister

            Which proves what exactly? Did he happen to mention whether he was for automatic weapons in the hands of regular citizens?

          • Darren

            It proves that carrying a gun on one’s person does have its advantages and is available on demand to save lives. But, hey, I guess it doesn’t feel as good as an outright ban on guns which can help to artificially fill an authentic spiritual void.

          • pagansister

            Did I say I was for an outright ban? No. Ban on certain types of weapons for ordinary citizens, yes.

          • Darren

            You’re correct, you did not say there should be an outright ban on guns so I withdraw my comment but do so curious as to why not? After all, “if it’ll save just one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?”

          • pagansister

            I have no problem with people wanting to own guns—after background checks required everywhere before purchase—-but I do not feel that ordinary citizens need assault weapons with huge clips.

          • Darren

            You tread dangerous ground regulating what people can buy based on what you think they “need”.

          • pagansister

            In your opinion do ordinary citizens Need huge clips or assault weapons? For what reason? Perhaps the word “need” should be changed to “want”.

          • Darren

            Some may need assault rifles but let’s assume most don’t. Who cares? Even if you replace “need” with “want”, who cares? Besides, who cares if people want to protect themselves?

          • pagansister

            Sure, whatever. Protection doesn’t require a zillion bullets a second. BTW, in testimony yesterday, in Washington, Senator Gifford pleaded for restrictions, as did her husband.

          • According the NRA that is the shooters God-Given right. Eye Roll.

          • pagansister

            Yes,I do know that the 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting. Hunting in those days was necessary for some in order to eat anyhow, not just for “protection.’ However today it seems hunters want to kill with military style weapons. I think a person can “protect” themselves with a gun that has less than a million bullets in the clip, and shoots how many bullets in a second? To many. I think it is about not having rapid fire guns available with huge clips so unstable sons/ can get hold of them and enter a school and shoot 20 first graders, or movie patrons, or people in a mall etc. Yes, the Newtown shooter’s mother had a legal weapons—but really—military style rifles are necessary for “target shooting”? So not impressed with the above as those wise men had NO idea how guns would advance.

          • Darren

            The Newton shooting happened at a “gun free zone”.
            The Colorado movie shooting happened at the one theater (not the closest or largest theater of the culprit) but the one theater which blatantly advertised itself as a gun free zone (which is their right to do).
            Go figure.

          • Darren

            These gun free zones should heed the wise men’s advice and allow liscenced citizens to carry.

          • Darren

            Absolutely gun ownership is a God-given right. Are you suggesting that I, a human being, a son of God, needs a law to say that I can protect myself and my family? And quit the tripe about man killing man in thee name of a God unless you wantto unleash your disdain upon those who truly use the name of God for killing, ergo., Islamists.

            No, people do not “need” huge guns with lots a bullets to hunt dear but the 2nd Amendment does not say that We the People have the right to hunt. It says that We the People have the right to bear arms. That means to hold a gun and use it.

            While I’m not fond of the NRA, their position in protecting gun rights is sound. Personally, I’er no problem with my neighbors owning lots of guns, nor them owning powerful guns. In fact, I sleep safer at night knowing they do have them.

          • pagansister

            First, what god wants folks to go around shooting innocent people? So that “right” has nothing to do with a god. Does the 2nd Amendment mention God as the author of that right? “I, GOD say let there be guns for mankind, in order for him/her to protect him/herself? Maybe you read it that way—I don’t. BTW, I’m not a daughter of a god. My parents made me. Anyhow, I have no problem with legal guns obtained after background check at gun shows (which apparently isn’t necessary now) as well as licensed gun shops. However I do think automatic military weapons with large clips should be just for the military and police departments, not ordinary citizens. Those that wish to have a gun for protection can kill just as easily without a military style weapon. (If indeed they don’t get killed by their own gun). As to my neighbors having guns? I have no idea if they do or not. Would I feel safer if they did? What good does it do me if they have guns in their house and I don’t? One more thing—you mentioned Islamists killing folks—there is a long history of many Christian wars in the name of god, so as I said—lots of killing has happened in the name of some god or other. The militant Muslims are just the latest in a sad history of killing for a religion.

          • Darren

            “First, what god wants folks to go around shooting innocent people?’

            Gadzooks I think you’ve totally missed the mark. (No pun inrtended). Who here has advocated God wanting innocent people shot? Did I? Hold a moment…………NOPE, I did not. In fact, I said the exact opposite, “Are you suggesting that I, a human being, a son of God, needs a law to say that I can protect myself and my family?” is what I wrote and protecting myself and my family does not include shooting innocent people.

            The 2nd amendment has lot to do with God. Throughout history, people have taken up arms for righteous causes. Tghe american Revolution, the Civil War, and freeing Iraqis by deposing a dictator who was a threat to the United States, etc. There are various cases where people grabbed a gun to protect themselves and their home. Here’s one: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/no-shots-fired-home-intruders-decide-not-to-stick-around-after-seeing-their-victim-holding-an-ar-15/; and here’s another righteous cause for guns: http://pinkpistols.org/ insofar as protecting themselves, the pink pistolers are absolutely correct. I think God is happy when his sons and daughters protect their sacred lives that God gave them. As for the lack of “God” being mentioned in the Constitution, isn’t it ironic that Christians can form a nation and NOT imposed their sacred beliefs upon its citizens? How blessed we are for being a Christian populace.

            “BTW, I’m not a daughter of a god. My parents made me.’

            [YAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN] – Spare me the atheist tripe. You *are* a daughter of God as you are a daughter of Mother Eve who was created by God for divine purposes. You therefore have a natural right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. Say, aren’t those rights of yours endowed upon you by your “Creator”?

            “However I do think automatic military weapons with large clips should be just for the military and police departments, not ordinary citizens.”

            Wonderful. What law is going to stop non law abiding citizens from bringing one to his/her murder spree? Many gun laws were already broken to carry out the malignant Newton shootings. Why didn’t these laws stop the bad guy? An armed teacher or officer would have stopped him real quick.

            “I have no problem with legal guns”

            So you think you have a natural right to have guns? hmmmmm, how quaint…say, isn’t that what I was saying?

            “Those that wish to have a gun for protection can kill just as easily without a military style weapon.”

            That’s right. And it is these people who stop bad guys all the time. From normal everyday citizens, to full time police, to our military, those armed for protection stop bad guys and bad things from happening. Also, as one fellow blogger recently pointed out, [depending on where you live] you probably pass buy hundreds of concealed carry gun owners everyday. And to add to that, many i not just a few, probably do carry with them as you pass them by. how many of these people have shot you? How many have committed violent crimes. So I’m glad we agree.

            ” (If indeed they don’t get killed by their own gun)”

            Geesh, I hate it when my own gun kills me. It happened six times last week. :>)

            “What good does it do me if they have guns in their house and I don’t?”

            Good question.

            Case #1: http://www.guns.com/2012/11/16/man-defends-neighbors-with-shotgun/

            Case #2: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/grand-rapids-mi/T51NUNQQ7CDGP2BNM

            “One more thing—you mentioned Islamists killing folks—there is a long history of many Christian wars in the name of god’

            Lol -In the past 500 years, how many Christians have killed in the name of God versus Islamists (not the same as Muslim) killing in the name of Allah?

            “lots of killing has happened in the name of some god or other”
            Yeah, don’t forget the roughly 60,000,000 in a three year span under Mao and the 30 or so million under Stalin. All in the name of creating a utopian atheist community state. (And didn’t Mao and Stalin take people’s guns away? Don’t know for sure but I think that’s a fair question)

          • pagansister

            You did say that to have a gun was a God given right. I still disagree that god had anything to do with it. Thus my previous question. As previously mentioned by me–and you replied to—Just who or what is the Creator referring to in the Constitution? God, Mother Earth, Sheela Na Gig? Who? Have no idea if Mao or Stalin took away guns. Seems likely I suppose. I wasn’t there. Would have to delve deeply to answer your question of how many innocent folks were killed by the Christians vs the current over the top Islamists. The Islamists have more improvements in their killing methods than the old time Christians did. Too many then and too many now with the current group. Only pointing out that a lot of people have died in the name of some religious belief—including Paganism. I don’t deny that it has had a bloody past also. Think we have covered things pertaining to laws regarding guns. Yes, they will be broken–but if more limits are made as to the types of weapons and amount of ammo that can be purchased—and those limits stop one death—it would be so worth it. One last thing—I disagree that this country is a Christian nation. It is fortunately a nation of many faiths—and those who choose no faith. No matter whether we are of a certain faith or not, all human beings have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….no matter what country they live in. Unfortunately that isn’t the case in some countries.

          • Darren

            did say that to have a gun was a God given right.”

            No,my right to bear arms, ergo,; a gun or guns is a God-given right.
            Obvously bearing arms means you have to have arms to bear. Even if one does not bear arms, he or she still has a God-given right to do so.

            “Justwho or what is the Creator referring to in the Constitution? God,
            Mother Earth, Sheela Na Gig? Who?”

            That’s easy., it’s the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Alpha and the Omega. It’s YHWH / Jehovah. And this is the beauty from a christian nation. Neither you nor I are under any legal obligation to interpret “Creator” in the exact manner I wrote above but here’s the
            kicker. If, to you, “Creator” is Mother Earth than only Mother Earth may take that right away. If, to you, “Creator” is Sheela Na Gig” than only Sheela Na Gig” may take that right away. If, to you, “Creator” is chocolate fudge, than only chocolate fudge may take that right away. If, to you, “Creator” is your parents than only your parents may take that right away (and frankly, to a limited point, they absolutely may, but the topic is *Congress* not infringing on the right to bear arms). So, despite what you may think or believe is “Creator”, man may not take away the right to bear arms.

            “Would have to delve deeply to answer your question of how many innocent folks were killed by the Christians vs the current over the top Islamists.”

            No,not really. The info’s out there readily available. It’s just that
            you do not want to dig into it because it would fail to substantiateyour equating of Islamists and Christians in killing in the name of God. In fact, it would dreadfully go against equating the two.

            “The Islamists have more improvements in their killing methods than the old time Christians did.”

            So what. The question is who is doing it? Besides, it is in the Quoran to kill thine enemy and this is what Islamists use to publicly
            insight killing westerners / non-Muslims. By the way, modern-day Christians have weapons that are far more destructive than modern-day Islamists. yet, curiously, Christians are not rioting over burned Bibles and killing Muslims in their mosques.

            “but if more limits are made as to the types of weapons and amount of ammo that can be purchased—and those limits stop one death—it would be so worth it.”

            The only way to stop or significantly reduce deaths by guns is to
            massively confiscate guns from the citizenry. Is that constitutonal?
            And will that stop violent deaths? Absolutely not to both questions.
            And to think that limiting ammo purchases will prevent a single death by guns is incredibly naive. What law will stop non law abiding citizens from buying more bullets than the state dictates? The same people who support limiting guns also cry foul as to the success of outlawing drugs. While I think drugs should remain illegal and that it is a state issue so long as the drugs remain within the respective state, I find it highly ironic that people who criticize the drug war for being a failure wantto use the same tactics upon gun owners regardless of the 2nd Amendment.

            “I disagree that this country is a Christian nation. It is fortunately a nation of many faiths—and those who choose no faith.”

            Exactly. It is a Christian nation which completely upholds the idea that people ought to have the individual freedom to worship God freely, without state compelations. We are NOT a theocracy, nor should we ever be, including atheistic, but virtually all Americans were Christian at the nation’s founding and thus knew what was meant by “Creator”, and and the vast majority stil adhire to
            Christian theology today. And while people are ,and should be, free
            to worship God according to their ow conscience, as we move away from Christianity, so do we jeopordize our freedoms. There is simply no other ation on earth whose citizenry’s makeup of any other faith has forged a nation with so much freedom for all and good will towards others (despite the gross sins in American’s past and present).

          • pagansister

            First, I totally agree that the word “Creator” may have many different definitions as to just who that is. BTW, I love chocolate, but I don’t think it created me. Many of our founding parents were, of course, male, and adhered to some form of Christianity, but 2 of the most well known, Thomas Jefferson & Ben Franklin had a different slant on it. I’m sure you already know that. And yes, the founding parents had the good sense to not make this a theocracy. A huge plus for us all. I repeat—assault weapons and huge clips shouldn’t be sold to regular citizens. Nothing will stop all gun deaths (or drug deaths etc)—but it sure doesn’t hurt to at least try with sensible restrictions. A question–how do we jeopardize our freedoms by moving away from Christianity? Do you actually think that this country wouldn’t survive as it is if it wandered away from Christianity? I don’t think so. Christianity is not the answer to everything—-far from it.

          • Darren

            “A huge plus for us all. I repeat—assault weapons and huge clips shouldn’t be sold to regular citizens. ”

            And what’s to stop a non law abiding citizen from modifying a magazine to be high capacity?

            “A question–how do we jeopardize our freedoms by moving away from Christianity?”

            *All* modern-day democracies who originated their own form of democracy are Christian nations. Other democracies had democracy forced upon them by Christian nations (Japan and India) or they were significantly influenced by Christian counteries (South Korea & Taiwan though I’d argue against Taiwan having been a functioning democracy). What nation characterized by other faiths would you cite as having formed a democracy and creating something such as the Bill of Rights? Move away from Christianity and you move away from freedom.

            “Do you actually think that this country wouldn’t survive as it is if it wandered away from Christianity?”

            There will always be some sort fo country but that is not what I argued. I argued that our *freedoms* would not survive if the masses wondered away from Christianity.

            ” Christianity is not the answer to everything—-far from it.”
            It absolutely has the best answers to everything.

          • pagansister

            Obviously there will always be someone who will get past the restrictions (modifying clips etc.) no matter what restrictions are put in place. I would think that could go without saying. As to your assertion that all democracies who originated their own form of democracy are Christian nations, I will have to take your word for that. Yes, many nations had Christianity forced on them (though I have often wondered what was wrong with the religion of those countries, as no faith is superior to another) or were perhaps influenced by Christian countries. I’m wondering, however, why there are so many problems in African countries that have had Christian missionaries there forever, and can’t get their acts together. I tend to disagree that our freedom wouldn’t survive if the masses wandered from Christianity—but that is just my opinion.

          • Gun Ownership is a God-given right? Which Bible are you reading?

          • Darren

            The closest “collection of books” I read to justify the
            2nd Amendment is a God-given right is the US Declaration of

            “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for
            one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
            Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
            mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
            equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
            unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
            pursuit of Happiness.”


            Looks to me that my Creator gets all the credit for my rights.
            Within the US Constitution some, but not all, rights are enumerated
            (not “granted”). Here’s the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
            right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be


            I also have reason on my side. As previously posted, I said to pagansister, “Are you suggesting that I, a human being, a son of God, needs a law to say that I can protect myself and my family?” To say I need a law in order to protect myself and my family by using a weapon such as a gun is absurd. I need no law to tell me that, nor to justify my using a gun to in my defense. I have a natural right to arm myself wuth guns. I have this right because I am a human being. I exist as a human being by nature which is governed by God and thus my right to bear arms comes from God; not government. Govnerment is established to uphold my natural rights, which, again, comes from God.

          • Just because a historical document says that you have a God-given right does not mean that you have a God-given right.; God didn’t give you that right. Man bestowed that right upon himself. But a right to bear arms does not equate to a right to bear ALL and ANY KIND of arms.

          • Darren

            I have the God-given right because God gave me that right. The US Delcaration of Independence is true in that our rights come from our Creator, not man. Therefore, only the Creator may take away those rights, not man.

            ‘But a right to bear arms does not equate to a right to bear ALL and ANY KIND of arms”
            You’ve made that point directly to me before and I agreed with you. But I think you’re trying to make this point to ban assault rifles. By your logic we should ban handguns since they are used in killings and result in deaths far more than assault rifles. Just survey any given liberal-controlled metropolitan big city, particularly Chicago right now. There you’ll see.

          • Darren
          • zedy

            How about a low overall murderrate?

          • pagansister

            Totally agree!

  • Love this piece, Karen.

  • Darren

    “If the NRA were a religion (and let’s face it, it is the only religion many people ascribe to)”

    Huh? Where the heck did you get this from? And the Jesus holding a gun? That adds nothing to the substance to your argument but it does add a whole lot to the emotions, doesn’t it? And who cares if Jesus taught a child how to use a gun? I think Jesus would be totally responsible in teaching that child gun safety as well as how to use one with good morals. Some of the best military defenders in history were ardent Christians.

    “The ones who are always yelling in your face, spitting all over the first two rows as they toss out dire predicament after dire predicament. They would be the ones instilling the Fear of God and unknown boogey-men within others.”

    The NRA does this how? You call out a boogey man but we have a sitting president who just issued, what, 34 executive orders regulating guns. Nothing will change another Newton, nor would any of these have prevented it in the first place. in fact, several state and federal laws were broken to carry out that horrific act of violence. more laws will very likely open up more opportunities for killing. The highest rate of school shootings happens in Germany and they have very strict gun laws.


    But Obama is not legislating, he’s dictating via executive orders and hiding behind children to push his orders through without having to answer to them publicly. That’s because, like your post, there is no substance to his position. Just feel good screeds.

    You typed words without meaning. There are no frenzied NRA meetings. People go to gun and knife shows all the time and there’s no shootings there. Can’t say the same for rap concerts, can you? Your arguments are nothing more than baseless gestures to emotionalize the debate and move people towards gun regulation. *Only* regulating guns is rational. *Only* taking guns away from people is sane. *Only* trusting the police for protection is acceptable. There’s a lot of dead people in history from trusting their governments.


    • I typed words with meaning. The fact that you don’t agree with them doesn’t negate the substance. I applaud Obama and his willingness to take on the NRA and say enough is enough.

      • Darren

        Karen, typing, “and let’s face it, it is the only religion many people ascribe to” is hyperbolic and conjectural with absolutely no meaning to it whatsoever. you cannot cite me one source as to why you conclude this outside to your own supposition. You are arguing that since you assume it’s true than your words have “meaning”. What writing or debate class did you graduate from?
        Obama has not taken on the NRA. In fact it is obama wgho is swelling the NRA membership, not the NRA “spitting” and “shouting” about apocolypse. Obama made no argument under pressure. He signed a bunch of executive orders which are meaningless and used children for cover from being attacked over his arguments. how many children did he invite to his bold executive order orgy to testify how his or her parents protected him or her from an intruder. Whose mother protected herself from a potential violator? You honestly admire Obama for using chuildren to make his arguments? Please. Admiring an empty shell like Obama is on gun control is a true cause for eye rolling.
        And I’d like to repeat that *none* of Obama’s executive orders will prevent another gun massacre nor would they have prevented Newton or any other school shooting. They were nothing more than show so that he can sit back and let others demonize organizations like the NRA and 2nd Amendment suporters as well as take the heat for stepping out and proposing gun legislation. TThingsl ike this give Chris Mathews and I guess others thrills up their legs and it’s curious why this happens over meaningless gestures from a sitting president.

        • pagansister

          Is it possible a life might be saved by some things that he signed? Yes, our “trusty” Congress has to pass actual laws that he proposes, and unfortunately I don’t trust them to give up their “donations” for the safety of citizens. Time will tell. Hopefully no other looney tune will kill more children in the time we will have to wait!

      • pagansister

        We can just hope that those in congress aren’t more persuaded by the money “donated” to them by the NRA vs the lives of those they were elected to represent. They will just have to decide which is more important—lives or money! I too admire President Obama for his willingness to take on the NRA.

  • Turn off the computer, get out and meet members of the NRA. After spending some time doing so, consider apologizing. Really.

    • Really? Perhaps I should call Gabby Giffords and see if she would like to come along?

      • Was it NRA members who shot her? Come on, Karen. Enough with the demagoguery.

        • Darren

          It was an NRA member who went to her aid.

  • Steve Martin

    The NRA is trying to protect what the Founding Fathers of this country guaranteed us..the right to own weapons…as a hedge against the tyranny of government, which raises it’s ugly head from time to time. (human nature)

    We can clearly see what tragedies can occur where people could not defend themselves from their own tyrannical governments.

    We have a morality problem…not a gun problem.


    • We may have a morality problem but we also have a gun problem. Too damn many of them in the hands of irresponsible and dangerous people.

  • DaveP

    If the NRA has idolized gun ownership, then I think that you have idolized freedom of speech. What speech are you willing to give up? Or how about religion? What part of your religious expression are you willing to give up?

    • I’d give up my right to bitch about the NRA when they give up their fanatical fear-mongering campaign against reasonable gun control.

      • pagansister

        Well said!

  • if the nra were a religion, we would pay closer attention the the Old Testament which has warned us repeatedly Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:2-5 against sacrificing our children to Moloch. The Jews are then condemned by the prophet Jeremiah 32;35 for having committed this horrid sin.

    When little children are led to slaughter to satisfy the blood lust of the gun worshipers, we are all guilty – those to whom Leviticus applies and those who answer to the call of Jesus Christ.

    • Good points.

    • Darren

      Gun free zones are the preferred killing grounds for killers. If the NRA is argued to sacrifice children to Moloch, than could not that same argument be used to say the same for Newton?

  • If pro-choice N.O.W. demonstrators were a religion …

  • achmafooma

    If the NRA were a religion, it would be the second largest religion in the United States (after Christianity). There are more NRA members in this country than there are Jews. There are more NRA members in this country than there are Muslims.

    If you caricatured the 2.6 million American Jews in this way, you’d be called a bigot. If you caricatured the 2 million American Muslims in this way, you’d be called a bigot. But you don’t flinch one bit at insulting the 4.3 million NRA members with this nonsense.

    Go talk to some NRA members before spouting off…ask them why they own firearms, and why they think they’re important. Don’t peddle in stereotypes and exaggerations.

  • Steve T

    And here I thought it was a religion …

  • Karen does not sound very Christian to me….

  • The Uber NRA core is a religion with bizarre practices otherwise known as an evangelical cult of death and destruction.

  • Darren

    Excellent, excellent, excellent testimony on gun control


  • zedy

    i don’t find the idea of a society where everyone is everyones bodyguard as propagated by the NRA very compelling.

    The logic behind it is that people carry guns with them at all times to shoot bad guys and stopping them in their tracks.

    Let’s assume that I’m capable of using a gun and have the knowledge to encounter attackers. What happens if I am incapacitated by my armed attacker? I have to rely on other people to engage him. Considering that most people watching just stand around even when a normal accident has occured, there are probably not many who want to help me. Additionally I need to hope that they can muster the courage to help me, since stepping forward will put them at risk. Can I expect a mother who has to look after her own children to step forward and save me at the risk of her life? Can I expect a man who has a sick wife and needs to work in order to not lose his home to step forward and save me, a stranger he has never met and maybe never will again?

    Of course it’s possible to talk about how I need a gun to defend myself, but is it fair to command all the other people to step forward and save me? I think the image of a society of bodyguards is somewhat naive.

    Civilians with guns to protect themselves from tyrants? If I recall correctly, the US had guns when they fought for independence against the British. Still, they needed the help of France, Spain and the Netherlands to ultimately fight them off.

  • jerry lynch

    One question, karen, and please try to be plain: are you for or against the Way of the Gun as spaketh by the NRA?

  • And if gun controllers were a religion, they’d be akin to the Patriotic Catholic Church in China..always willing to do the government’s bidding…

  • Darren

    Joe Biden admits that nothing Obama has done will impact mass shootings.


    “Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,” Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

    “But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives,” he said…

    “I’m not saying there’s an absolute consensus on all these things,” Biden said, “but there is a sea change, a sea change in the attitudes of the American people. I believe the American people will not understand — and I know that everyone in that caucus understands — they won’t understand if we don’t act.