Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
I don't agree that the root cause of all violence is a moral in nature?
I'm also not sure that "...violence is a moral in nature" doesn't have a typo in it somewhere. Perhaps you meant "violence is amoral in nature," although that doesn't make much sense either. Animals are neither moral nor amoral in the same sense we are. They kill out of need - food or defense. Violence has a cause. It may be cultural, as Westerns suggest. The root cause of violence could be hate as an outgrowth of mental illness. Look at the BTK killer. Outwardly very moral. A killer nonetheless. Can you explain him using a moral argument?
It is not the ultimate aim of most on the left to confiscate all privately-owned weapons. Many people on the left hunt and use guns for protections. They don't want them confiscated. That's just the uninformed opinion of linear thinkers in the bubble.
I don't own a gun. I'm against guns for me. That doesn't make me a leftist.There is a lot of logic in the idea of registration, and the banning of bump stocks, large clips, and weapons of war. You can do that without banning hunting rifles and certain handguns. If you want to shoot military rifles, go to a range, rent one and shoot.
|
Of course it is! Wake up and look around the world at socicalist/commie-light governments. It is these governments that have the the most stringent gun control laws. The ultimate aim of the left is to confiscate all guns. After all, isn't a disarmed citizenry much easier to control -- especially if things ever get dicey in a country for whatever reason?
And of course violence is moral in nature(Mat 15:19; Mk 7:21; Rev 9:21). And I would suggest this is precisely why amoral, inaminate guns have become the substitutionary moral object in this gun debate -- just as alcohol was during the prohibition era. Humans are never the moral objects in this debate. It's far, far too risky for politicians to go there.
