Living On Common Ground
Does it feel like every part of your life is divided? Every scenario? Every environment? Your church, your school, your work, your friends. Left, right. Conservative, liberal. Religious, secular. From parenting styles to school choice, denominational choice to governing preference, it seems you're always being asked to take a side.
This is a conversation between a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist who happen to be great friends. Welcome to Living on Common Ground.
Living On Common Ground
When Violence Divides Us: Finding Common Ground After Tragedy
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
When violence enters our political landscape, can meaningful conversation still survive? In this timely episode, recorded just hours after a high-profile political shooting, two friends from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum wrestle with one of America's most divisive topics: gun rights and the Second Amendment.
The heart of their discussion centers on a fundamental question: Does the right to bear arms truly serve as a check against government tyranny in modern America? The libertarian perspective argues that an armed citizenry provides crucial protection against potential overreach, while the progressive viewpoint suggests this reasoning has become dangerously outdated in an era of advanced military technology.
Their conversation ventures into fascinating psychological territory as they explore how moral barriers to violence function differently when confronting armed versus unarmed populations. Drawing on historical examples from Nazi Germany to Afghanistan, they examine how the human mind processes and justifies violence – and what this means for our understanding of self-defense, both personal and political.
What makes this episode particularly powerful is its context. Recorded immediately following a politically-motivated shooting, these friends must navigate their theoretical debate while acknowledging the very real tragedy unfolding in the news. Rather than retreating to partisan talking points, they find their way toward shared grief and common ground – not by compromising their principles, but by maintaining their commitment to authentic dialogue even when it's uncomfortable.
The conversation ultimately transforms into a meditation on friendship itself and how sustained dialogue across dividing lines might be our best defense against political violence. As one friend poignantly observes: "When you stop talking, you start fighting." Their example reminds us that finding common ground isn't about agreeing on everything, but about continuing the conversation even when – especially when – it's difficult.
Join us in creating ripples of understanding in a divided world. Follow and share this podcast with someone who thinks differently than you do – the conversation might surprise you both.
© NoahHeldmanMusic
https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com
©NoahHeldmanMusic
https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com
Does it feel like every part of your life is divided, Every scenario, every environment, your church, your school, your work, your friends, left right, conservative, liberal, religious, secular? It seems you always have to take a side. This is a conversation between a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist who happen to be great friends. Welcome to Living on Common Ground.
Speaker 2:Do you think if we met today, we would still be friends. I don't know but we're friends now.
Speaker 4:A mob is no less a mob because they're with you, man. So what? We won a few games and y'all fools think that's something. Man, that ain't nothing, y'all. And you know what else? We ain't nothing either. Yeah, we came together in camp, cool. But then we're right back here and the world tells us that they don't want us to be together. We fall apart like we ain't a damn bit of nothing, man. How?
Speaker 2:you doing Good, yeah, mm-hmm, excellent. So it's been a couple months. I want to preface it by saying that, before we jump into what our topic is going to be, it's been at least two months since you sent that document about topics that would be good for us to discuss right, All right, so anyway we try to get organized and have kind of a schedule. I'm still working on that. You know, when you said we tried, come on. No, it's, it's no, we're didn't, Did you?
Speaker 5:notice that it's going well.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what I really like is we're not recording and then I'm quick trying to do a turnaround and get it out.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I did notice that. So like what's today's date? Today is the is September 11th.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's right, Um, and so okay.
Speaker 5:September 11th.
Speaker 2:Yeah and um, and this morning when I got up, uh, the episode today had already posted.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I saw that Right.
Speaker 2:So I like that. Uh, it does mean this by the way, exactly this.
Speaker 5:This is what makes Krista insane. She said the housekeeping stuff makes her insane.
Speaker 2:Okay, this isn't housekeeping, Krista. What this is is. This is porch building. Okay, which the porch building stuff drives Larry insane. He says that sometimes you need to not build such a big porch and just go right in the front door.
Speaker 5:Yeah, can I tell you, though, this is the thing. This is the thing this is the thing, I, we, we started this podcast because we wanted to talk about stuff. We just wanted to talk yeah right and uh, I asked you very selfishly and I well, and and um, and I love it. I just like I, I was very excited. You know I've been, I've loved this and I just like I.
Speaker 5:I was very excited. You know I've been, I've loved this and you know, just like everything else that you do, you start doing it. If you do it consistently, then after a while people know this, who do like jujitsu or like if you ever played a, an instrument a lot of times, especially for, like adult learners you start it because you're interested in that thing. Yeah.
Speaker 5:And if you keep going you keep practicing, like take the instrument thing, you keep practicing. After a while you go, well, it'd be better if I could like I kind of want to perform in front of somebody. So I think that is a big reason why recitals exist, Because after a while you go, I just want to refine it and see how you're doing. You're doing jujitsu, you get into it because you want to get some exercise or whatever. You want to train a little bit. It would be interesting. And after a while you go, I wonder how it would go if I entered a tournament, you know like you want to do.
Speaker 5:So I feel like that's happened with us, where we got into it. We were talking and we just we literally would just be like, well, what do you want to talk about today? Let's just chat. And then, after we did it enough, then we started being like, well, we should have an intro, well, we should have a schedule, and so here's what I'm getting to. At some point we've, we've done that, we've created something well I think, and then I find myself like this week.
Speaker 5:I I'll be honest. When you asked me, when you texted me, part of the reason I didn't respond, part of the reason I didn't respond, is because I'm a terrible friend.
Speaker 2:Okay, just to make sure that everyone knows, the text that I sent you was. Which of your topics do you want to talk about today?
Speaker 5:Yeah, that's right and you texted me that like four or five days ago so we could be prepared, and I didn't respond immediately. And then part of the reason why I didn't respond at all is not like I was planning on not responding at all is because I'm a terrible friend and then if I don't respond immediately then I forget, okay. But the reason I didn't respond immediately is because there's a part of me that's like I don't know. I want to keep having it be all polished like and and, with the schedule and stuff, like I just want to talk something you know, what I mean Like but but so anyway.
Speaker 5:So I know, but but it's better if we have a topic. Probably, I think people like that.
Speaker 2:Well, what I like about it is it often gives me an opportunity to be prepared.
Speaker 5:I think that that it makes a lot of sense, yeah, and by prepared I mean like, not sound like I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I don't think you ever sound like you don't know what you're talking about, but I think it makes sense to be prepared. There's one other thing that I wanted to say too, and then we can just move on to the topic, but it's just something that I've been thinking about as well. Doing these topics has forced out, I think, some positions that I have, which I think this is part of what I wanted to do. I want to be clear and like have this be like. I have these positions and we can still be friends, right, that's the whole point of the podcast.
Speaker 5:But I also recognize that when we talk in a medium like this and people are listening, they don't get to respond and we don't get to have an interaction with them, and I get a little concerned that I'm going to end up hurting people's feelings. That I'm going to end up hurting people's feelings and that it does concern me because our listeners, primarily, are just my friends and I don't want to hurt their. You know what I mean. Like I don't.
Speaker 5:I really hate the idea of like somebody listening to it and then being like, like, feel like I was a jerk, or like my position is the position of a jerk or whatever. And not because, like, not just because I don't want people to think that of me, cause, like, cause, I do care about what people think, but also because, like you know it, just it makes me sad to think, like if I hurt people's feelings, sure, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2:So, anyway, that's been these things have been on my mind. Yeah Well, there's no intentionality behind it and I'm thinking about some stoic philosophy right now with regards to hurting people's feelings and being concerned about that, but that's not our topic today. But I do want to say this to you mentioned that a lot of our listeners and I would say that's probably true Our friends of ours have a relationship with us in some way. Yeah, I will say this. I want to give a real quick shout out, though. We're getting quite a bit of following in canada and so if you're, listening to this and you're in canada.
Speaker 2:We greatly appreciate it?
Speaker 5:did you say canada, canada, like on purpose, like that?
Speaker 2:because I feel like you got an accent a little bit when you said that no, canada all right, how did I say it?
Speaker 5:I don't know. It just sounded like yeah, I'm not, I'm not, maybe, I'm just. No, I'm just hearing it, maybe.
Speaker 2:Anyway. But, uh, yeah, I noticed that when I was looking at a few things Okay, so, anyway, topic, oh, and just okay, so you mentioned, I do. I want to say this too One of the things that I have appreciated from the conversations is it has increased my, it has increased my already, uh, how do I want to word this? I was, I've always, I've always been curious, um, and I've always been like, when I come on top of a topic, I want to attack it and learn as much as I possibly can about it. It has increased my curiosity into areas that maybe I wouldn't have been previously. Okay, sure, right, and so, um, so, so, anyway. And then going back to your jujitsu, you know, now I want to perform in front of people, I am working on something and, um, I, I will shamelessly plug that at some point yeah, um, that's what we were talking about before.
Speaker 5:That's what you're, yeah, you're referring to. Yeah, I think that's great.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm putting together so okay, so, real quick, I'm putting together a one-hour talk, I'm developing a one-hour talk on my belief that Christian theology today is a fusion that Paul did with his Hellenistic Judaism, his exposure to Stoic philosophy growing up in Tarsus, which is second only at that point, probably to Athens, and then the third thing is his Roman citizenship. Yeah, and it's those three things that come together to form what we would call today Christian theology. So I'm going to present that in such a way Now. I'm trying to work right now on putting all that together and then also coming up with a creative way of presenting it. So it's not just me standing that in such a way Now. I'm trying to work right now on putting all that together and then also coming up with a creative way of presenting it. So it's not just me standing up and giving a lecture.
Speaker 5:It's cool. It's cool. I want to hear it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think I might do it as a uh, pretending like it's a trial and we're putting, we're putting it on trial and then everyone get to vote whether or not. Paul's guilty, and then what does that mean? For us today. If Paul's guilty, what does it mean?
Speaker 5:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so that's Huh. Okay, yeah. So my goal is to make Paul guilty of doing this, yeah. I don't think it's bad, I think it's true. So anyway, all right, I'm getting off on a topic, all right. So here's the thing, this. So anyway, all right, I'm getting off on topic all right so here's the thing.
Speaker 2:This is what I want to talk about. Yeah, uh, one of your bullet points was and again I want to say this, this came out a month, months ago, yeah, but you wrote the number one reason that citizens should have rights to firearms yeah, and then in parentheses and all other weapons is as a check against government tyranny. All right, my my rubric comment was which I believe is a joke, since no firearms a person could own has the ability to protect them from the government today. So I wanted to talk about firearms, yeah, but I also want to introduce into the uh conversation what happened yesterday. Yeah, knowing very well that by the time this episode comes out, for many people this will already be old news, the way our news cycle works. But here, just take a listen.
Speaker 6:I'm Ed Lavendera in Orem, utah. The sun is setting here on a horrifically tragic day where we have seen what some are describing as the political assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Oh my God, go, run, run. He was just shot and that shooting took place on the campus that you see behind me. Earlier today the entire campus, according to police, has been cleared. It is shut down. School officials say that the university will be closed for the rest of the week, until next week, as officials here and investigators comb through this horrific crime scene. But what we saw unfold here this afternoon is that Charlie Kirk had come to this campus a massive rally, there was a huge crowd that had turned out for him to see. When one shot rang out, witnesses described seeing Fudd gushing from his neck and Charlie Kirk falling over. There is a manhunt underway and that has become a very confusing part of this story because the suspect and the shooter in this case still as of Wednesday evening here, is still not in custody.
Speaker 2:All right, so that's the end of the clip.
Speaker 5:And still, as of Thursday morning, not in custody. Mm-hmm. Which is interesting.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So let's talk about guns and what I don't know. Okay, your comment is the original reason that we have guns written into our Constitution, right, that we have a right to bear arms, and it is to protect us against tyranny of government, of government, and at the time that made sense because you would be then just as well-armed as the government. But today, if the government wants you dead, no amount of firearms in your house are going to protect you. In your house are going to protect you. So what do you say? Like I feel we got to get this under control.
Speaker 2:I also feel like no side actually has an invested interest, and by sides I'm talking about political sides here Republican, democrat specifically, and I know that there's others libertarian. But I don't think that, politically, anyone has a desire to actually see a resolution, because it has become some simply political ammunition at each other. And if you resolved the issue, then I have nothing to attack you with, right? So I, we don't really want to solve this because I can accuse you and you and then of so if I'm, if I'm progressive, I can accuse you. Or if I'm liberal, progressive is more of a religious term in my mind if I'm a liberal politically, then I can accuse you of not caring about children and being more concerned about your guns, and that becomes a political shouting point for me.
Speaker 2:If I actually work with you to come up with a resolution, I lose my shouting point. If I'm a conservative, then I can shout about my uh, my rights as an American and how you want to steal my guns, and that becomes my shouting point. And if I, if I work with you to resolve it, I lose that. Um, and I think that right now, in in my very humble, and I and I think that right now, in my very humble and I mean that this is not tongue in cheek in my very humble opinion, because there are people that have a much better grasp of the situation than me, but in my very humble opinion, that's the reason that no one seems to, no one who's in a position of authority to make decisions for us, seems to have any urgency in coming up with a solution.
Speaker 5:So thoughts, you're the one that wrote the bullet point yeah, I'm trying to decide if I want to, um, stick to the specific topic or or than the other. We're talking about guns, so they came up.
Speaker 2:Yeah you opened a topic, yeah, so we'll see where this goes, because I do actually want to talk a little bit about the charlie kirk shooting, um, and some of the interesting responses I've seen to that. But I want to give you, I want to give you, space to talk about your topic here.
Speaker 5:Yes, uh, it's. It's tough to talk about, obviously on any on any day, where in the news there is a shooting, whether it's a um, you know a school shooting or um, a you know political shooting like this one, um, it's. It's tough to talk about uh without um upsetting people and and hurting people's feelings and um and uh, and I and I understand that um. So I do think that your general tenor at the end there about um, that there not being any political will to actually create a solution, I think that's probably true, um, and part of the issue with that, I think, is that we do not have a system and I don't think anybody actually wants a system in which there is an authority that can quote, unquote, solve problems. I mean, if we think about what that would mean, um, we want you would have to give up a lot of things that we assume about our system.
Speaker 5:Our system is supposed to be a representative system, which means these people in Congress are not our authority or our leaders. They are our representatives. The president is not supposed to be our leader. He or she is supposed to be the executor of the laws that are passed by our representatives. Now, what we actually have is an administrative state, where most of the quote-unquote stuff that gets done the rules and the enforcement of those rules happens in the administrative state, but we don't.
Speaker 5:What you would need to have in order for a solution to be brought and executed, I think, is a system that is far more authoritarian than anybody really wants Right, at least far more authoritarian than we assume our system should be Right. But I do think that there's a tension there between what we assume our system, our system, to look like politically and, I think, what's deep in the hearts of most humans, which is we do want an authoritarian, we just want our authoritarian yeah, um friend of mine always says what we, what we really want, is a benevolent dictator yes, and when we say benevolent, what we really want is a benevolent dictator, yes, and when we say benevolent, what we mean is a dictator that that's on our side.
Speaker 5:That's what we mean.
Speaker 2:It's looking out for my best interest.
Speaker 5:That's right, and that is what populism is right. I mean, populism is the idea that the system's been screwing you over and I'm going to take it to them. That's, that's the underlying, and that screwing you over and I'm going to take it to him, that's, that's the underlying, and that's whether you're Trump or you are. Huey P Long in Louisiana, I think, is where Huey Long was leftist. You could think of him as a leftist Trump, very populist, right, but also very and and also very authoritarian, which is what populists usually are. Okay, I'm getting off topic, I'm getting off track here. I actually stand by this position that that that is what, um, the purpose of having uh rights to firearms is, and I don't think that that goes away because of any news story, any kind of specific circumstance. Here's how I will defend your assertion that that's a joke because of the weapons that the government has. Two things. Number one I'm a libertarian. All libertarians think all weapons should be legal Nukes for all.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we had an episode called Nukes for all. Nukes for all. Yeah, I remember that.
Speaker 5:And we say it tongue-in-cheek, but we kind of don't mean it tongue-in-cheek, okay, so let's just get that off the table. Let's assume that we just have the laws that we have currently. For instance, no automatic weapons are illegal. That already exists. You're not allowed to have automatic weapons, right? Semi-automatic, yes, but for anybody who understands the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic or what might be called a fully automatic, you know that really, those two things should be. We should have different terminology so that they don't feel so connected, right? Um, we just lost a 20-year-plus war in Afghanistan, with the full might of the US being put at it to tribespeople, essentially with AKs. You know, it is true that if you decide you are going to, um, uh, be a, you know, a free stater or a? Um, what is it called? Sovereign, sovereign citizen? Okay, that's the there's. I think I got that right. It's terminology.
Speaker 2:It's people who it makes sense, the term makes sense. Who?
Speaker 5:announce, right Like on the office, I declare bankruptcy right.
Speaker 5:You can't just say bankruptcy, I didn't say it, I declared it right that declare themselves sovereign. If you did that and you started making trouble and our government came to to to take you in and put you in a in a box, almost certainly, yes, at the end of that you're going in the box. It's going to either be pinewood or metal, but you're going in the box at the end of it. Right, that is true, but that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is it becomes, it's a, it's a check um. We're not talking about one person being able to, um, fight off a, you know, an F1 fighter with a handgun.
Speaker 5:We're talking about our government that's supposed to be representative having to think about us because of the violence that can be brought and not being able to have overwhelming violence. And I don't think that. I really don't think, even with, you know, the superior firepower on an individual weapon-to-weapon basis that the government has, I don't think that you can, you know, completely eliminate the threat that comes from an armed populace the way that you can if the populace is not armed. This is really uncomfortable talking about in the wake of what just happened, obviously, yep, really uncomfortable talking about in the wake of of what just happened, obviously, um, but I think that if you're going to talk about principles, you you have to talk about those things and and I know and I I can hear the thoughts of some of our friends saying this is uncomfortable talking about this now, what about all the school shootings? Talking about this now?
Speaker 5:what about all the school shootings right, and I can understand that, mm-hmm, and I don't really want to go into the differences, I don't. I mean because I there's no, I mean there's no doubt that all of those school shootings are tragedies and that are tragedies, and that you know that nobody wants that to continue and everyone wants that to end. It's just a matter of you know what's the solution to have it end. Yeah, those are my initial thoughts.
Speaker 2:So okay, so go ahead, go ahead no, I'm just going to say the reason that I wrote, which I believe yeah is because I don't necessarily disagree with the premise okay right.
Speaker 2:I do, though, think that, at this point in time, I mean I I hear your argument and um argument and um, and I see your point that, uh, you look in Afghanistan, right, and 20 years later, we just withdraw because we're not quote unquote winning Um and uh.
Speaker 2:I also, though, think that, if a government truly wants to, I think that there's more nuance to that. I think there's also the idea of deglobalization and all that that's happening at the same time, and so to just say that they couldn't eventually defeat, I think that I think that, a lot of times, what we see is, for reasons, whatever the reasons are, it's almost like, with one hand tied behind their back governments in those situations, and so, actually, I think I'm not sure that it would be guns that would keep our government from trying to do something that we ever felt like we needed to defend ourselves against. I think, if, I think, if the government truly decided that this is what they were going to do, they would, they could do it, because, at that point, I think, also, what it comes down to is what's more important is what we're trying to accomplish, more important than the loss of life?
Speaker 5:Yeah, and there are ways to put down insurgencies. The Boer War is one that I always think of, um that they effectively put down the insurgency and we just the reason. Part of the reason why we don't put down insurgencies anymore is because we don't have the stomach for it. And when I say that, it sounds like I'm saying we should and that is not what I'm saying right what I'm saying is we don't have the stomach to go.
Speaker 5:this is what we're doing. Every one of you is in a concentration camp now. All of you, you all live within these walls. Okay.
Speaker 5:Now anybody who is found outside of these walls. It's a free fire zone. That's it and this is. You can be effective to your point, you can be effective, but you have to go to the wall like that.
Speaker 5:You have to, in my opinion, give up your soul, um, to do that, sure, and so what I'm saying is it's, it's a lot harder to do something like that, to to get yourself over that that hill, if on the other side of the hill, the people you're trying to do that to are all armed as well, right, um, I think it's, I think it's easier because because you've got that, that barrier, that kind of like well, that that makes me a different type of person barrier for every soldier that has to do it, for every. You know, and I would highly recommend everyone read the book Ordinary Men about the now, I can't, oh, it would have made me sound so smart if I could remember the, uh, the German word for it it's the, the Einzengruppen, it's the, the group of people who followed behind the uh, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, the German army.
Speaker 5:the quote unquote police and they would come in, and they were the ones coming in. I mean, the reason it's called Ordinary Men is because it is about how do ordinary people get themselves to that point, and it's a whole process of getting over this natural revulsion to these horrific things.
Speaker 2:Okay, well, let me ask you a question then.
Speaker 5:Yeah, just one second real quick. What I'm saying is, if you have to get yourself over that to do that horrific thing, and once you get over that, that person you're trying to do that horrific thing to at least has an option of killing, you makes it a lot more difficult, I think, to get over that.
Speaker 2:I would think it would make it a lot easier.
Speaker 5:You think so?
Speaker 2:Yeah, because, if I, if I have, okay, so let's just stick with that example, yeah, right. So what we're talking about here is that, after the German army would move through, there would be a group of people that were considered police and they were Germans, and they would come in and their job was to round up all the undesirables Right that the Nazi party had determined were undesirables, and to either put them into a work camp or, a lot of times, eliminate them At first.
Speaker 5:Yeah, At first it was a lot of shooting.
Speaker 2:It was a lot of shooting and then so like a lot of the trenches and stuff where they found mass graves. That's what that was from. That was pre, and then what happened was they weren't able to stomach it anymore, and so that's really when they upped the death camps. Yeah, because they decided that was an quote unquote easier way to accomplish their ultimate goal.
Speaker 5:It turns out, killing a lot of people traumatizes the killer.
Speaker 2:Yes, okay. Now here's what I'm saying, though, where I think it actually makes it easier if they're armed, because there are people and I've heard the argument made between the difference between killing and murder.
Speaker 5:Yeah, yeah, sure, right, of course.
Speaker 2:And so I would say that if someone is unarmed, you're faced with the feeling of murder. If they're armed, you can at least tell yourself that.
Speaker 5:You can rest in a rationalization of it.
Speaker 2:Yes, yes, absolutely. You can change the narrative for yourself and you can say well, it was kill or be killed, right, and so by being armed, I think it's not a deterrent anymore. I think, especially in the culture that we live in today, which what we're talking about, is different than the culture when that was written, the right to bear arms was written right, because go back and think about this you yourself talked about how things are different now. If let's just say for a moment, ridiculously, that England at the time had access to not even nuclear bombs, but bombs, just bombs, yeah, like World War II level bombs, they would have bombed the shit out of North America to put it down, without any question about the morality of it. Sure, right, nowadays we wouldn't. It just wouldn't happen because of the different perspective that we have on morality, the different perspective we have on human rights, the different perspectives that we have on all of these things. Right.
Speaker 5:But what's happening in Gaza, though?
Speaker 2:Okay, but I'm talking about right in the United States the right to bear arms in the United States to defend ourselves against our government.
Speaker 2:Right, If we have reached this point and I think it's also because of that same document that gives you the right to bear arms it's also the reason, I think, built within it, that we are a culture now where we're not as comfortable with going in and just killing people, right, Like we don't want to see it, we don't want to know about it, Um, we can turn off, like you know. Um, we have become very sensitive to it, and so I think that actually now it works in reverse, um, where, if, if the government had this and this is all what if? And speculate like, right, we're talking. I mean, this is 1984.
Speaker 2:This is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, this is Friday. This is all of the dystopian stuff that we're talking about, which I hope, I mean. It just seems unfathomable to me at this point, but I think that if the United States government determined that there was a need, in order to do something to the general population that the general population did not want to happen, the moment you pick up your weapons to defend yourself against the United States government, you've actually made it easier for the United States government to use force against you because it relieves them of that moral obligation to not murder.
Speaker 5:So okay. So I do see your point that it gives a rationalization. Here's the part that I would nitpick on is that and I do this too we talk about organizations as entities, but they're just people. The people who would be shooting are just people, and you know they have to make the decision to shoot, and so you know, I don't know.
Speaker 2:Which is my point.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I do see your point. I do see your point, which is my point. Yeah, I do see your point, I do see your point.
Speaker 5:There's something deep inside me that wants to fight back against that, because I'm not going to lay down, I'm not going to lay down so that, in an attempt to ask the person who is coming at me to please don't shoot me because I'm, because I'm the victim here, mm-hmm, do you know? I mean, like I, there's something in me that just like rebels against that, you know. And I think about the well, going back to the Einstein group, and I think about the lines and lines and lines of people that that I mean. Uh, timothy Snyder's bloodlands book describes um going on, I think it. I think it was Bobby. Uh went on for a day and a half people lining up and walking in to be shot. Yeah, um, and I mean they weren't and I don't know. Yeah, you know.
Speaker 5:I'm hesitating because I don't Well okay think about this for a moment.
Speaker 2:Think about the emotional, moral, intellectual impact that that had on that group of people. Sure, as opposed to the German soldier who was going up against people that were shooting back, the average German soldier didn't have the emotional, mental, moral breakdown.
Speaker 5:Some did I understand what you're saying. But not percentage-wise, those that killed the unarmed, but I think we have to if we're going to stick to the not stick to I'm not trying to say like you're getting off topic, that's not what I mean but if we're going to keep to this question. No, you're not. You're not. That's not what I'm saying, because I think you're making a good point, but I think that we have to ask the counterfactual then. Are you saying that it is that it no-transcript.
Speaker 2:I think, given time, I could make that argument Really Mm-hmm, because it would be other Americans who, generally speaking, share our same moral position. Hmm, okay, here's another example. I am what I would describe. I self-describe as Sorry. I leaned away from my microphone there. I self-describe as sorry. I leaned away from my microphone there, I self-describe and it was Dr Thobaben that actually came up with this for me.
Speaker 2:But I am an extremely tolerant, just-worth theorist. I'm not a pacifist. So let's say, someone breaks into my house, all right, and they're unarmed. They're there because, for whatever reason, and their goal is to take my stuff, all right, I'm probably just going to get my family out the back door and I'll worry about you know, I'll just do whatever I can to protect my family. Now, if they come in and they're armed, whether it be with a knife, a gun, whatever and their goal is to hurt my family, I will attack them and not feel any remorse for what I do.
Speaker 2:I think that, on average, most Americans whether they believe in the right to bear arms or they think that everyone should just be armed to the teeth, all the way to the person who claims to be and I do say claims to be pacifist I've not met many actual pacifists in my life but claims to be a pacifist. I think that we all sort of share that same moral ground. Um, which is why I do believe that that we would actually be less likely to have an average military, because, because it would be the military it would be it'd be another American citizen who was asked to carry this out. Yeah, I think they would be a lot less likely to shoot at us knowing that we were unarmed.
Speaker 5:Okay. So, um, let me respond to a couple of things with um, uh, cause I've I've heard you give it that analogy before. Um, I need to go up with a new one. There's a couple of. No, I don't mean it like that. I just mean like I don't think that we've ever talked about this in detail, but I have a couple of things that I would quibble on. The first is this If the person breaks in and they are unarmed, how do I know that?
Speaker 2:Which is why I'm getting my family out.
Speaker 5:The back door, because I don't know that for sure, okay, but that's the thing. I don't know if they're unarmed, right. And then the second part is, their goal is to hurt my family. So this is the reason why I quibble with it is because I think that the reason that we have, uh, an ethos that some people have an ethos of if you break into my property, you die or or you get maybe not you die, but like you get attacked yeah, there's signs that basically say that yes, and I'm just saying, like that whole spectrum of I'm going to to attack you, you might die.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think I saw one that was like forget, dog beware of owner Right, and that's ancient, I think, because this isn't conscious.
Speaker 5:It's an unconscious understanding that if you would do this, I don't know what else you would do. And I'm, and I'm not going to. I, I cannot. This is all going to happen in a split second. I cannot have, um, the conversation with you about, um, what your intentions are, or not conversation, that sounds. It sounds like I'm being condescending. I'm not trying to be. My point really is and we'll bring it back to here Um, I, I get uncomfortable with the idea that, um, we will, um, we'll set up a system that relies on the better angels of our nature to work out.
Speaker 5:I would rather have the system assuming the worst nature and still be able to work out in my mind. And now I know I can hear people saying you know, we do that all the time, first of all, so you, so what? You want to just shoot somebody at the uh, at the first sign of of trouble? And no, that's not, that's not what I, that's not what I mean, um, but I, it's.
Speaker 5:It seems um kind of incomprehensible to me, to, I guess what I'm saying is that once I realize, oh, we should have been armed at that point, it seems like it would be too late. Yeah, that's my concern. I do understand. I my concern. I actually think that you make a strong argument that, psychologically, it might be more difficult to get humans to attack their own people, their own countrymen, for for lack of better term um, if they're, if they're unarmed, that might be more difficult. Um, uh, it's still. It's again, though, because my concern has to be for my, my family. It makes it, um, no, but I'm switching. I'm switching topics If I turn to protection of family, because that wasn't the topic, and I will say this my, my, my point of my story is yeah, there's all sorts of problems with it.
Speaker 2:One is uh, I have to assume that I know the intent and all that kind of stuff and it was really my thought experiment.
Speaker 5:I get it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but this was my point with that one is that I am I'm probably I'm a just worth theorist and extremely tolerant just worth theorist. So someone who does not own a gun and has only fired a gun on several occasions right, and who considers himself to be a pretty moral person, who would never dream of killing another human being If the intent was to do harm to my family. I wouldn't lose sleep over it, and that's sort of my point.
Speaker 2:If I knew that you were armed and your point was to do harm to my family, then I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Speaker 5:Your point is to extrapolate that psychology.
Speaker 2:My point is to extrapolate yeah, is to take that and then apply it out, and so I think most people and here's the thing go back to the Germany one again, because you even talked about our own citizens. These were not their own citizens. They've invaded.
Speaker 2:Poland at this point. Right, they're moving into czechoslovakia well, yeah and um, and they're. They're people that they have been taught, aren't? They're kind of less than human anyway, sure, and they were still having those emotional experiences. Yeah, and the intellectual breakdown, right, and the moral quandary, um, I can't even imagine, if it had been to other germans what would have happened. Right, and I think too like, like, in a situation like that, even if well, we kind of know, because when it first was starting, yeah, it did happen to the.
Speaker 5:Well what I was german yeah, but what I was going to say is that, um, like, um, we all know about kristallnacht um but what I think doesn't get taught a lot because it gets washed away.
Speaker 5:and what happened, you know, for the next eight years or whatever, is that Kristallnacht was considered by Hitler and at least his top officials to have been a mistake. That was that public opinion turned pretty strongly against them in Germany. So I'm giving you your point here, but I would go back to do we think, at the end of the day, that it's better for the government to be afraid of its citizenry or not be afraid of its citizenry in terms of political freedom. And another point that I would make is that I tend to think that restrictions on weaponry, any kind of weaponry, are not really a restriction on the weaponry. All it really is is a restriction on who's allowed to have the weaponry. We don't really mean that we want to get rid of guns. What we really mean is we just want these people to have guns.
Speaker 5:We just want these people to have guns, and I don't have enough trust and faith in humans as a general rule to want to. I mean, I don't really I see it as a kind of as a necessary evil, cause I'm not a I'm not a true to the wall anarchist libertarian, um, you know, I, I I am a little bit moderate as far as that goes Um, and so I see it as a necessary evil to have one group of people uh be, uh entrusted with the legitimate use of violence, right, which is what we give law enforcement and and soldiers and you know, I don't even like that and I, and I think that um that because they have the legitimate use of violence, um, they have to be held to a hugely high standard, um, cause we're not given that, uh, that same, that same right. I'm rambling a little bit here.
Speaker 2:Well, no, I think here's. I think you're making a good point, at least the way I'm hearing you is this um, I, I don't think I, I even, even in my position, I would not advocate for outlawing firearms wholeheartedly.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I know, I know Right.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I think that you're absolutely right that what we're talking about whether it's someone who says we need to, you know, left or right the actual debate is determining who can have the firearm. I also think, though, that what we're getting into here is that this is actually, like most of the world, really kind of a gray area, because, yes, I think part of the conversation is determining who can have them. I also think that part of the conversation it needs to be determined on what kind of firearms they can have. What kind of firearms do they need? Right, and so, if it's your average citizen who wants to go hunting, okay, hunting rifles are probably a pretty good thing for them to have, right.
Speaker 2:I think, though, like I think about people that I know who are very responsible with those and keep them under lock and key and they don't keep them loaded and all that kind of stuff, but how do you keep it out of the hands of someone who we know is mentally unstable and and probably likely, or more likely to, to shoot someone, like we saw yesterday, or shoot a group of someones, like we saw just a couple of weeks ago? Um, you know how do you do that? And then, and then, if you can begin to peel that back, what? To what level can you begin to peel back the um, the firepower of a local law enforcement? Um, and do you, or do you, you not? I think that you have like, are they be? Are they, are they paramilitary groups or are they groups that are just, are they peacekeepers?
Speaker 5:and what does?
Speaker 2:it mean do you ever watch? By the way, do you ever watch the show?
Speaker 5:uh, peacemaker no, I haven't you have hbo it's the um is. Yeah, it's it's. Is that his name? Yeah, yeah, it's really bad Um.
Speaker 2:Yeah it's it's, the language is bad, full frontal nudity, a lot of violence. Um, denise, and I love it anyway, um, but one of the things in there is is he is committed to making peace, no matter how many people he has to kill yeah all right and um and so that like that.
Speaker 2:But I think that that has to become part of the conversation, and I think too often what happens is, whenever we start having these conversations politically, it becomes uh, we create a false dichotomy and and we don't understand that it's more nuanced than what we want to say, um, or what we're willing to at least admit. Does that make sense?
Speaker 5:I. I think that it does make sense that um, that it's nuanced, um. I also think that the, the way that the, the arguments usually um, go, are ways that I don't know that they're helpful. Um, I, you know, I know that the um, the question of you know what firearms should be allowed, is always one that comes up. That's always.
Speaker 2:That's typically part of the and I and I and someone like me doesn't need to be the person to make that decision, because I can't, like I can't differentiate between, like, like, the different types of firearms, like I. Okay, I know that semi-automatic basically is how quickly you can pull your finger um, as opposed a fully automatic, which is just pull it down. But like.
Speaker 2:I don't know and and. So how great would it be if you brought together people to have a conversation some of them from the NRA and some of them from families who have lost people in mass shootings or or things like that and said okay, you guys need to come up with a plan that'll work for everybody.
Speaker 5:Or.
Speaker 2:We could do like they did when they came up with the Nicene Creed and they said we're not letting you out of this room, which now I need a gun so I can defend myself against that. The only way you have a situation where something gets done, you out of this room, which now I need a gun so I can defend myself against that.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I know the only way. You have a a situation where something gets done, quote unquote gets there has to be and there has to be nice and creed happens because there's an emperor who has power all right, all right.
Speaker 5:So here's the thing, wait, but this is I do want to make this point because that the whole, the whole question of what should be which types of firearms always comes up. And I will say for myself, I'll just say very clearly I don't trust anyone to make that decision for me. That's why I'm I mean I, I I don't trust anyone to make the decision for me what words I can use or what firearms I can use. I don't trust anyone to make that decision. And I'll also say that when you look in societies that have banned guns, you find that the questions remain the same. Everyone keeps having the same conversations.
Speaker 5:You go over to the UK and I'm not kidding, I can show you the videos of people saying, because you know I mean, like over there in the UK the conversation is about knife crime and it's just. As you know, the arguments are just as hot as they are over here about which types of knives you should be able to have in your home. And I'm not kidding you when I when I tell you that, um, very prominent people argue for having knives that are not sharp as ones that you're allowed to have in your home. And so, and if we home and if they're able to ban knives, I guarantee you there will be arguments about clubs or about whatever.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I don't disagree. I do think, and I almost hesitate to say this, though Very rarely do you see a mass stabbing, just here, Well, you see, mass shootings they're way more prevalent. You can kill a lot more people with a gun than you can with a knife.
Speaker 5:I mean, I've seen a lot of them in the UK.
Speaker 2:Okay, so okay, I'm trying to think of common ground. We're not going to solve the issue. I think it was healthy to talk about it.
Speaker 5:It's Nicene Creed we don't get to leave until we solve it.
Speaker 2:Nobody's going to listen to that. Yeah, um, they may have already stopped, but where? Where is our common ground? So for me, I think this is where it is. Um, what happened yesterday was horrible it was horrible um, it was horrible. That kind of thing shouldn't happen, but it wasn't any worse than any of the other shootings.
Speaker 5:And for all of my friends who might be listening to this and yelling at their phone right now the school shooting that happened yesterday, the school shooting that happened yesterday, the school shooting happened two weeks ago. All of the other school shootings also were absolute tragedies and should not happen. And yes, I want that solved and I don't know how to. I don't believe I. I didn't anyway I don't want to go down the road because we're trying to get to common ground. But yes, it's tragedy.
Speaker 2:No, I think that is our common ground.
Speaker 5:It's all tragedy. Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 2:It's all tragedy. And you know, I had someone today come in and they were for the. It's the first time I've ever heard them lament one of the shootings and their comment was that he was such a good Christian man and I don't. I don't want to get into all of that, but I just do want to say that it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it's it all needs it, all we need to figure out. Maybe this is where we start. I think that I think that we need to take it seriously and try to come up with some solutions to this down this road.
Speaker 5:This is um a different topic, but this one is different, and it's not because it's more important or less important. The reason it's different it's not because it's more tragic or less tragic has nothing to do with that. Absolutely nothing to do with that. The thing that I am actually concerned about is that this, this, was a completely political um, you know, I'll just say assassination and it's and I'm I'm not saying like, therefore, his life meant any more than anybody else's. What I'm concerned about is if this is a some sort of indication of where, you know, the political world will be going.
Speaker 2:Start shooting at each other.
Speaker 5:I am actually very concerned about that and that is a big reason why I hope that you and I make, I hope that what we're doing here actually is a little tiny, tiny ripple in holding back that wave, because if we stop talking, I mean, when you stop talking you start fighting. Yeah, and I will say this.
Speaker 2:That was what the person that was talking with me earlier today that was kind of their thing is like why can't we just talk to each other? Um, maybe that's the solution. Just just the conversation.
Speaker 5:I'm betting my life on it, yeah.
Speaker 2:All right. Well, that's the reason that we want everyone to live on common ground. All right, thanks.
Speaker 1:Thank you for listening to live on common ground. All right Thanks. Thank you for listening to Living on Common Ground. Please follow wherever you listen to your podcasts and share it with your friends. You can also find a link to our social in the description. The more people we have living on common ground, the better the world will be.
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
The Bible For Normal People
Peter Enns and Jared Byas
Peter Rollins - The Archive
Peter Rollins
A Twist of History
Ballen Studios