“Inspired by our dialogue with Pope Francis, let all Americans engage in a politics that forges cooperation and sees the passage of just legislation that may bring us closer to grace.” That’s civilian disarmament evangelist Gabby Giffords declaration in an “Americans for Responsible Solutions” epistle to her flock. As for the self-serving graphic posted on the ARS (good acronym!) Facebook page, a better question might be “Why would anyone oppose effectively defending against those who plan to inflict untold suffering?” Keep in mind that . . .
the concept of “grace” has meaning in the Church. That someone not of the faith presumes to appropriate it for political opportunism seems a fraudulent act of rendering unto Caesar more than his due. It should also sound alarms for Americans who believe in a separation of church and state.
The whole point of having our government is the first place is articulated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Attaining “grace” is not within its scope, and thus remains outside the realm of delegated powers. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the First Amendment confirms.
Gabby doesn’t get to redefine defenselessness as a state of grace, although what she advocates may bring us closer to finding out for ourselves what happens when we die.
Whenever religious conservatives broach theological concepts in government-occupied settings, many are quick to loudly complain, some by reminding everyone of Jefferson’s (misapplied) “wall of separation,” some by leveling “Taliban” accusations, and some with lawsuits and even arrests. If for no other reason than maintaining logical consistency, those who object also ought to decry faith-based “gun control” justifications.
In fact, in typical “progressive” Opposite Day fashion, the reverse is true. We’re dealing with insincere hypocrites and liars who will do and say anything to impose the forced disarmament of all “infidels.” Still, if Giffords hoped to garner support for a “monopoly of violence,” she dropped the right guy’s name.