Prayer shaming, stopping mass shootings

[Jumi]

Regarding the recent mass shooting, I read that there has been prayer shaming. While I think there should be action, instead of praying these things stop. I think it's ridiculous to try to change something that's obviously meant well. I will pray for them is like saying my heart goes out to the victims.

Of course, what the action to to stop mass shootings could be is up for debate. I wouldn't go for banning firearms as the only option as seems to be the trend in public debates.

 

[JRMcC]

Regarding the recent mass shooting, I read that there has been prayer shaming. While I think there should be action, instead of praying these things stop. I think it's ridiculous to try to change something that's obviously meant well. I will pray for them is like saying my heart goes out to the victims.

Of course, what the action to to stop mass shootings could be is up for debate. I wouldn't go for banning firearms as the only option as seems to be the trend in public debates.

Yeah, personally I haven't heard too many (if any) people say that God will stop mass shootings*.
This "God won't stop mass shootings" thing sounds a bit more like people taking an opportunity to attack religious people.

* Maybe indirectly when conservatives talk about the kind of ethics we have or need to have.

 

[Quetzal]

Regarding the recent mass shooting, I read that there has been prayer shaming. While I think there should be action, instead of praying these things stop. I think it's ridiculous to try to change something that's obviously meant well. I will pray for them is like saying my heart goes out to the victims.

Of course, what the action to to stop mass shootings could be is up for debate. I wouldn't go for banning firearms as the only option as seems to be the trend in public debates.

Well, for someone like me, prayer is a nice gesture but ultimately does nothing. To some, however, they subscribe to the power of prayer and it means something to them. I do not think shaming those people is a kind thing to do because they find value in it. Just my .02.

 

[Sunstone]

Prayer seems for some people in situations like this one to be a means for them to more profoundly align their sentiments with the victims, and so forth. I see nothing wrong with it unless it becomes an excuse for doing nothing else.

 

[Draka]

I think the reason for this is that the ones sitting on the pro-gun side are offering prayers while maintaining ignorance that guns are the problem. Offering up prayers and well-wishes at least makes them look or feel like they are doing something positive while they actually do nothing productive in this problem at all.

 

[George-ananda]

I read that there has been prayer shaming.

I haven't heard that and I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'prayer shaming' in this case. Why should someone be shamed for praying; i.e. sending out positive emotions.

 

[Altfish]

The Daily News' front page...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...the-new-york-daily-news-god-isnt-fixing-this/

 

[Draka]

I haven't heard that and I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'prayer shaming' in this case. Why should someone be shamed for praying; i.e. sending out positive emotions.

Look what I just posted. It is happening, especially on social media such as FB, and mostly due to politicians that sit on the pro-gun side just tweeting out "prayers" rather than ever address this issue. We have more mass shootings this year than we have calendar days. Yet no one on the right, no one in the pocket of the NRA that is, wants to dare address that fact. They would rather tweet out prayers and "thoughts" than ever truly address the real issue.

That is why it is happening. That is why they are being shamed. That is it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the reason for this is that the ones sitting on the pro-gun side are offering prayers while maintaining ignorance that guns are the problem. Offering up prayers and well-wishes at least makes them look or feel like they are doing something positive while they actually do nothing productive in this problem at all.

I offer no prayers.
I'm pro-gun.
And I see no evidence that the anti-gun crowd is better informed than I.

Question......
To those who would give up a constitutional right, in this case the 2nd Amendment
right to own guns, why should this be the singular right up for consideration?
Why not give up the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion? Instead of banning
guns, we could ban any religion seen as dangerous, especially the fundie versions.
Do we become safer by disarming ourselves with new laws the evildoers will ignore?

As the events of this latest shooting unfold, these questions become more compelling.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't think people should be ashamed for expressing empty platitudes. For some people, trite banality is the most they can muster.

 

[George-ananda]

Look what I just posted. It is happening, especially on social media such as FB, and mostly due to politicians that sit on the pro-gun side just tweeting out "prayers" rather than ever address this issue. We have more mass shootings this year than we have calendar days. Yet no one on the right, no one in the pocket of the NRA that is, wants to dare address that fact. They would rather tweet out prayers and "thoughts" than ever truly address the real issue.

That is why it is happening. That is why they are being shamed. That is it.

I understand. I would not shame prayer though. But I would agree also that prayer alone is often not enough.

 

[Draka]

I offer no prayers.
I'm pro-gun.
And I see no evidence that the anti-gun crowd is better informed than I.

Question......
To those who would give up a constitutional right, in this case the 2nd Amendment
right to own guns, why should this be the singular right up for consideration?
Why not give up the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion? Instead of banning
guns, we could ban any religion seen as dangerous, especially the fundie versions.
Do we become safer by disarming ourselves with laws the evildoers will ignore?

As the events of this latest shooting unfold, these questions become more compelling.

The 2nd Amendment was originally about arming a militia. Not the "right" of all citizens to have guns. We have a militia now. "Citizen-soldiers". The National Guard and our other reserve forces. They are the militia. They are armed. The 2nd Amendment was re-interpreted to give this "right" to all citizens. There is no reason that it couldn't be re-re-interpreted back to its original meaning. The original meaning was warped to give gun lovers something it never intended they have. What reason do we have for not bringing it back to its original intent?

 

[Draka]

I understand. I would not shame prayer though. But I would agree also that prayer alone is often not enough.

What's being shamed is the fact that the people that can actually do something about this problem don't, they just offer up prayers as if that means something. As if they are really doing something about this. That's like a firefighter sitting down on a curb and watching your house go up in flames and just saying "my prayers and thoughts are with you" as if that helps the people losing everything.

 

[George-ananda]

What's being shamed is the fact that the people that can actually do something about this problem don't, they just offer up prayers as if that means something. As if they are really doing something about this. That's like a firefighter sitting down on a curb and watching your house go up in flames and just saying "my prayers and thoughts are with you" as if that helps the people losing everything.

There is debate on what laws regarding firearms should look like. We control those laws through our votes and elected representatives. It is just that we are not as a country all on the same page as to what the laws should look like. I don't buy that the NRA can thwart the efforts of our elected representatives unless the representatives allow it.

Don't get me wrong I am personally on the gun control side of this debate but apparently everyone does not agree. We can each make this issue a great determinant in our next voting opportunity.

 

[Jumi]

I haven't heard that and I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'prayer shaming' in this case. Why should someone be shamed for praying; i.e. sending out positive emotions.

I read about it on various news outlets today

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34992061

 

[Revoltingest]

The 2nd Amendment was originally about arming a militia. Not the "right" of all citizens to have guns. We have a militia now. "Citizen-soldiers". The National Guard and our other reserve forces. They are the militia. They are armed.

The National Guard is part of government, & not the sole owner of gun rights.
The USSC has ruled that the rest of us have gun rights too.
Moreover, the Bill Of Rights was not a list of rights which government has.
It's about rights which citizens have.
You wouldn't argue that freedom of the press is about government's sole right to free speech, would you?

Btw, the Nat Guard also poses a threat, as some Kent State students discovered.

The 2nd Amendment was re-interpreted to give this "right" to all citizens.

"re-interpreted"?
I argue that an originalist interpretation give us gun rights.
But as you point out, the USSC agrees with this.

There is no reason that it couldn't be re-re-interpreted back to its original meaning. The original meaning was warped to give gun lovers something it never intended they have. What reason do we have for not bringing it back to its original intent?

You say gun ownership isn't a constitutional right.
I say otherwise.
Fortunately (at least for now), the USSC is on my side.
Or they just "ignorant" "gun lovers" too?

 

[Draka]

The National Guard is part of government, & not the sole owner of gun rights.
The USSC has ruled that the rest of us have gun rights too.
Moreover, the Bill Of Rights was not a list of rights which government has.
It's about rights which citizens have.
You wouldn't argue that freedom of the press is about government's sole right to free speech, would you?

Btw, the Nat Guard also poses a threat, as some Kent State students discovered.

"re-interpreted"?
I argue that an originalist interpretation give us gun rights.
But as you point out, the USSC agrees with this.

You say gun ownership isn't a constitutional right.
I say otherwise.
Fortunately (at least for now), the USSC is on my side.
Or they just "ignorant" "gun lovers" too?

The wording of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that it is for arming a "well-armed militia". What is a militia? A force of trained and organized citizen-soldiers willing to supplement a nation's military forces. Are you saying that every single gun owner in the country is part of a militia? That they are all trained and organized to come together as one as a united force that can be called upon to support military needs? That is what a militia is, that is what the Constitution was speaking of in the 2nd Amendment. Since there was not the military force in place back then as it is now that was what they were trying to accomplish with that Amendment. Did the USSC re-interpret the Amendment to suit a purpose it wasn't originally intended for? Yes. Could it be fixed? Yes. Should it be...most assuredly. This insane idea that every citizen in this country has a "right" to bear arms is a large part of the reason that we have the gun issues in this country we have.

 

[BSM1]

I offer no prayers.
I'm pro-gun.
And I see no evidence that the anti-gun crowd is better informed than I.

Question......
To those who would give up a constitutional right, in this case the 2nd Amendment
right to own guns, why should this be the singular right up for consideration?
Why not give up the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion? Instead of banning
guns, we could ban any religion seen as dangerous, especially the fundie versions.
Do we become safer by disarming ourselves with new laws the evildoers will ignore?

As the events of this latest shooting unfold, these questions become more compelling.

Exactly. Who's to say these wackos in CA didn't pray for a successful shoot?

 

[BSM1]

The wording of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that it is for arming a "well-armed militia". What is a militia? A force of trained and organized citizen-soldiers willing to supplement a nation's military forces. Are you saying that every single gun owner in the country is part of a militia? That they are all trained and organized to come together as one as a united force that can be called upon to support military needs? That is what a militia is, that is what the Constitution was speaking of in the 2nd Amendment. Since there was not the military force in place back then as it is now that was what they were trying to accomplish with that Amendment. Did the USSC re-interpret the Amendment to suit a purpose it wasn't originally intended for? Yes. Could it be fixed? Yes. Should it be...most assuredly. This insane idea that every citizen in this country has a "right" to bear arms is a large part of the reason that we have the gun issues in this country we have.

I believe the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

 

[Draka]

I believe the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

And? Still doesn't mean I'm wrong does it?