Hmmm: I think I can explain the apparent paradox.
“Knowledge and Paradox:
Our knowledge is so vast about Adolf Hitler that anyone can say 1000 things about Hitler, historical events of Nazis and world war (Fight with violence) as if they lived in 1940’s Germany. But most hardly know 10 facts about Mahatma Gandhi or historical event of Satyagraha (Fight with Peace).”
One thing we know for sure is that the evil of Hitler could not be solved by Ghandi’s passive resistance: Hitler killed anyone he disliked. The only kind of effective resistance to Hitler’s regime was violent, extremely violent. If it had been less violent we’d be speaking German today. Ghandi’s methods only work against decent human beings who can be shamed into doing the right thing. The fact that he used passive resistance against the British Empire is actually a sincere compliment to the British.
The “Same anti-Nazi moderate people who claim to fight against antisemitism would also fight against marriage equality when the fact is that the Nazis were as homophobic as they were antisemitic. Is it not hypocrisy? Similarly many who support pro-life to save unborn lives, also oppose gun control intended to save real human lives.”
No, it is not hypocrisy. Christians view the Jewish race as our older brothers in the Faith, who first worshipped the God of Abraham, and they view marriage as a Sacrament between a man and a woman, joining them for life, for the principal purpose of forming a breeding pair to have and raise children. So being pro-Jew, and pro-Marriage is entirely consistent. Pro-life means being against the murder of a defenceless unborn baby, again consistent with Christ’s teaching. I am old enough to remember when abortion was as taboo as cannibalism still is. The left have been very successful in moving the politically correct view of abortion from horror and disgust to “a woman’s right to choose.”
The Gun control debate is completely independent of the abortion debate: you can be pro-life and pro-Gun control, pro-abortion and pro-the right to bear arms. The two positions are not inter-related as you imply.
I would argue that pro-life and pro-Gun control would be consistent as anti-death, yet I’ve met people who are anti-abortion while sincerely believing in the right to own guns to protect themselves and their family. These people are not guilty of hypocrisy, but I’d have to say the people who think it is fine to pay doctors to dismember unborn children, while at the same time forbidding teachers from carrying weapons to protect grown children from serial killers are at least consistently anti-life.
I support Police checks before an individual can purchase a gun. I support the right of the local police force or the FBI to confiscate weapons from people who have threatened to kill, in person or on-line, or have committed crimes of violence, or have mental health issues likely to make them violent. I don’t believe the right to bear arms is absolute: I don’t believe the writers of the Second Amendment intended that violent lunatics should have unfettered access to automatic assault weapons.
Clearly James Madison intended That “his fellow citizens need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” He contrasted America’s right to bear arms with the “European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust their people with arms.””
He and the rest of the founding fathers of America wanted a heavily armed citizenry as a foil to Federal Power, so that people could fight off a Federal Government prone to tyranny. It is no coincidence that those who seek Big Government to grow ever bigger also are pro-gun control, and want to make US citizens as defenceless as unborn children.
