Practical Poverty

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.  -- Luke 14:33

The cost of following Christ is great.  I believe I have mentioned before standing on a sidewalk one Sunday evening as a man with tears in his eyes and voice talked about the Pearl of Great Price.  God only wants everything we have, and it is what I hold on to, or try to hold on to that hurts me.  We get confused, though, if we see this as meaning that we have to live in the manner of monks or desert hermits.  We might think of the story of St. Francis who piled all that he had, even to his clothing, at his father’s feet and went off naked and trusting God.  But Wuest’s translation says, “… who does not in self-renunciation bid farewell to all his possessions …”, and this may help us to see that the problem lies not in what we possess or do not possess but in the self which would possess. 

Perhaps it would help clarify if we think not in terms of possessions but of rights.  We are all be endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and, as citizens, we may claim and exercise those rights.  Oppressive people, individually or in groups, may deny us our rights but they don’t take those rights away.  Every human who has ever lived has the right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness – which pursuit generally involves family and other relationships and the things that in turn support those girders of happiness.   

Jesus demands that we offer our rights up to Him and submit ourselves to His lordship.  If we need further evidence, we may look at another well-known passage wherein the Lord tells us to turn the other cheek, go the second mile, and surrender our coat along with our shirt.  We are bidding farewell to our right to self-defense, our right to liberty, and our right to our own possessions.

This is so contrary to the way I think.  If some fool comes down my road and decides he wants to slap me and take my motorcycle – especially Serenity – he’d better be mighty big and mighty quick.  In any case, he will earn it.  Here’s the thing, though, remember when Jesus sent His disciples to find a donkey for Him to ride into Jerusalem?  He said that if anybody questioned what looked like theft, the disciples were to answer, “The Lord has need of it.”  What if Jesus wanted my bike or my tractor or the old Chuckster?  Most of us would say without hesitation – and mean it, “What do I have, Lord, that You did not give me?  It all belongs to You.”  Does it matter that He sends an agent to take from us what we acknowledge is His?  His rights supersede ours, and we exercise our rights only as managers under His proprietorship.  If God’s agent is a fire or a flood should we weep long over what He has taken? 

God’s law forbids stealing and killing and abuse, so the thief or the thug  is operating contrary to the divine edicts.  We may reasonably resist such a one.  We have an obligation to defend the weak and the innocent from unlawful predation.  Nevertheless, if a thief steals my car, he has not stolen from me but from God, and to God he is accountable.  Of course, the Lord would be justified in asking the stupid steward why he left the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition and in leaving him afoot until he learned better. 

We renounce our rights to ownership not to care and good stewardship.

Beware of Insidious Increments

Lead bullet bravo sierra

Lead bullet truth -- from the CDC, no less

One reason I am linking to the two articles above is to demonstrate the desire in some circles to create a panic. Scared people, as the left has told us for the last seven years, are easier to control. Never mind that they were talking about real events, the terror attacks of 9/11, versus stuff the Democrats want us to fear, e.g., the terrorist myth of global warming or climate change or Algore Farted or whatever they're calling it now.

The first article is designed to get questions stirred up about using traditional lead projectiles in hunting ammunition. Waterfowl hunters are already banned from using lead shot and have to use steel -- which frankly sucks -- or some other expensive non-toxic alternative like bismuth. I suppose I can believe that lots of lead shot over heavily hunted waters could increase lead levels in ducks, geese and other wetland inhabitants. I have a lot more trouble believing that the amount of lead in the wound channel of a deer is going to result in increased lead levels in consumers of venison.

The second article confirms what I suspected: the first article is horse pucks.

Let's think about what you can expect for at least the next couple of years from those who just can’t stand the thought of the Second Amendment. Democrats have learned the hard way that running on gun control is a losing proposition, so they campaign by saying they do not want to take guns away from hunters. This sounds all right until you think about it. From whom do they want to take guns? It’s not from criminals because criminals don’t buy guns down at Bass Pro, or even at gun shows. Criminals buy guns from other criminals. Criminals steal guns. Criminals get guns even though it is illegal for them to possess firearms.

See, here is the problem. The Second Amendment does not give me any rights. It confirms a right possessed by every human born on the planet. A free man or woman has the right own weapons to defend himself or herself. I’m going to say something a little controversial, but it is what I believe. I have been in law enforcement, and I respect law enforcement officers in general. They do a tough job and do it well the vast majority of the time. Nevertheless, agents of the government should be just a little bit afraid to kick in an honest man’s door. Government, by its nature, is hostile to freedom. Governments are a necessary evil but still an evil. It is good for a government to fear its citizens.

Leave me alone, let me do my work and raise my family. I will pay my taxes and defend my family and my land if it comes to that. The state exists to provide sufficient security for me to live peaceably. From my point of view, that is the only reason it exists.

The conflict over weaponry comes because, as far as the collectivists in this country are concerned, I exist only to support the state. I should do, not what is in my own interests, but what most benefits the world as a whole. If I am reluctant to lower my standard of living to benefit some inbred, ganga-smoking jackass in a mudhat in Lower Bangagong then it is up to the government to force me to comply “for the greater good”. As some point this compulsion gets a little sticky with an armed citizenry.

Therefore, for the greater good, the private citizen’s access to weaponry needs to be limited, so says the collectivist. To translate what Obama and his ilk believe, modern weapons should be limited to agents of the government. You peons can keep your flintlocks, your fowling pieces, and your bows and arrows. You can hunt with those until we have complete control and you aren’t allowed out of your yard without our permission.

The collectivists plan to forge my chains by increments – one link at a time. They have discovered that threatening guns stirs up the masses and causes a loss of power. So they will try first to restrict ammunition. I would not be surprised to see attempts to add onerous taxes to firearms and ammunition, similar to the “sin” tax on liquor and cigarettes. It will, of course, be a public health issue. It might even be under the guise of providing universal health coverage, since we all know firearms are a major contributor to the rise of healthcare costs. Don’t worry. If you haven’t seen it already, there will be a study to prove this point touted by the MSM very soon.

As illustrated at the top, another point of attack in making ammunition prohibitively expensive could be the “dangers” of lead bullets. Lead is cheap and plentiful. It is malleable and easy to cast into precise, repeatable shapes and weights. For centuries, it has been the very effective projectile of choice for firearms. Banning lead bullets for hunting would seem minor enough, since most hunters fire only a few rounds in the course of the season. But what about practice? Won’t there be “toxic” deposits of lead at shooting ranges? As with all government regulations, the potential for an avalanche is always present. At best, with the introduction of new laws, manufacturers and shooters will find themselves facing higher costs, more restrictions and more twists and turns than a bucketful of snakes, or a dump truck full of lawyers.

We have to be ready to squash these attempts at the outset. There is no reason for further regulation or taxation of weapons and ammunition. Join the NRA and any other group supporting the Second Amendment. Get the names and numbers of your Congressmen and Senators, especially if they are Democrats. It is already time to start letting them know how vehemently you oppose any attempts to increase taxes on sporting goods, ammunition, and weapons, or to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

Keep an eye on your state fish and game department. Missouri has both a Conservation Department, which handles wildlife regulations, and a Department of Natural Resources which is more in control of ground water, waste disposal and such. New regulations curtailing the use of lead bullets could arise from either of these agencies. I’m sure there are similar agencies under different names in all the other states. This may well be the first line of attack by collectivists of the watermelon* variety.



*Watermelon – for those who might not know, refers to those who are environmentalist green on the outside and communist red on the inside.