Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The foreign press view of Liberty Control and Gun Confiscation.

Published

on

A sampling of how the foreign press views the issue of the common sense human Right of self-defence.

The Anti-Liberty Left seems to have a false narrative for everything, including the common sense human right of self-defence. In this case, it is the rest of the world looks down on the states for it’s allegedly antiquated point of view.

However, a short perusal of some recent articles from the foreign perspective shows this isn’t quite truthful. Of course the Chinese Communists, ideological brethren in arms of the national Socialist Left were perfectly willing to offer their opinion on the subject that is nothing short of astoundingly ironic given their human rights record.

Curiously enough, the editorial from a government-controlled newspaper: China can offer lessons to US in protecting human rights sounds very much like the United States media:

If we look back in history, the US was founded on the use of firearms. The right to gun ownership is regulated by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Opponents of gun control argue that the Constitution guarantees them the absolute right to own guns. However, the situation of the US now is different from that of more than 200 years ago when protection of gun ownership was written into the law.

There is an urgent need for the US to impose harsh restrictions on gun purchases nowadays. The US has witnessed mad proliferation of guns and rampant gun violence. It’s estimated that civilians in the US own about 300 million guns, enough for every adult in the US. There are more mass shootings in the US than in any other country in the world. According to CNN, a 2016 study looked at 292 incidents in which four or more people were killed, finding 90 of them occurred in the US.

But the Leftists get things mixed up a bit with this little passage:

The US has no other choice but to adopt gun control. The right of life is the most fundamental human rights. The right to bear arms cannot overpower the individual’s right to live.

This from a collectivist nation without any vestiges of democracy,  known for the deliberate mass murder of millions and the Tiananmen square massacre when an estimated 10,000 people were killed alone.

Then there are these two stories from the Panam post: from Uruguayan teacher and writer Priscila Guinovart: Mass Shootings: Cultural Values Are the Problem, Not Guns

In Uruguay, a country where the possession of weapons is highly regulated, there are proportionally more deaths from firearms than in the United States (number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants). Switzerland, meanwhile, the third most armed country in the world, and where the acquisition of weapons is legal and (46 out of every 100 inhabitants have weapons,) does not have mass shootings or an alarming number of firearm deaths.

Someone could argue that it is precisely because of human evil that weapons should be prohibited. But such a person would be out of touch with reality, and unaware that in Europe the main “weapon” for mass murders is a truck or, should it fail, a sharp object. Would he also request a ban all types of vehicles and require plastic knives?

To find solutions you have to step away from naivety: if someone wants to kill, he will always find a way to do it, with or without weapons, with or without regulations.

This subject requires contemplation. For one, the Second Amendment is almost 230 years old, while mass shootings have been a recurrent event for just under 30 years. What happened in American society in recent decades? Are we not facing a kind of decline that plunges human beings into frustration and drags people towards violence?

Then there is this from the same publication on the issue of Gun Confiscation from Mamela Fiallo Flor, a university professor, translator, and interpreter, and the co-founder of the Cuban Libertarian Party.

On the experience of Gun Control in the home of mass murderer Che Guevara:

Unarmed citizens means submission: the Cuban experience

Far from reducing violence, disarmament monopolizes force and makes citizens vulnerable.

From a “social justice” position, the perpetrator is not the culprit but society as a whole and, therefore, weapons must be denied to all citizens. This is an inherited stance, typical of postmodernity, that denies the existence of the individual and his responsibility, and favors the collective.

But far from reducing violence, disarmament monopolizes force and makes citizens vulnerable, as the history of Cuba has shown.

Weapons for the Government, not for the people

We consulted with Rebeca Esther Ulloa Sarmiento, Cuban journalist and researcher, co-author of “Fidel Castro, the last dinosaur” and other political books, about what happens when a government takes away from its citizens the ability to defend themselves and how this process is experienced by exiles in the United States.

Ulloa says that Castro convinced the people that armament was not necessary. One week after seizing power, Fidel Castro said: “Weapons for what? to fight against whom? against the Revolutionary Government, which has the support of all the people?”. The audience present answered: “No!”

Officers, soldiers and revolutionary groups handed over their weapons. Later, many of them were executed or imprisoned.

Message to US citizens

It is precisely the great respect for the individual in the United States that leads to autonomy and freedom, Ulloa states. It allows citizens to achieve goals through their own effort.

She concludes that it was the Founding Fathers, the creators of the Constitution, who equated the success of the country to the sum of the individual success. Therefore, she urges not to allow individual failure to limit constitutional rights.

So much for the false narratives from the national Socialist-Left and it’s crusades against liberty.

Differential equations teaches us that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. The interaction of technological advances and the march of history is fascinating. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics.

Culture and Religion

Video: What is a Classical Liberal?

Published

on

By

A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.

In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.

OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?

Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.

The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?

Published

on

Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.


This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?

Published

on

By

Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.