Gun Control

[Sender]

This topic of discussion should break down barriers we may otherwise have. I hope I am in the right forum.

What are your thoughts?

[kctheshootinfool]

The armed citizen is a "check" on the power of government.

Really? How does that work? Let's say that you feel that your elected government has overstepped its authority and will not let you make unlicensed moonshine. How is being an armed citizen "check" this abuse of power? Don't the law enforcement services in your country have more firepower available to them than you could possibly imagine having? Is armed rebellion the best way to check abuses of power? I should think that in the entire history of your country, more abuses of power have been checked by the legal protections built into your constitution than by armed citizens. Oh, and just how many times have abuses of power within your country been prevented by armed civilians?

First of all, that's not the kind of abuse I meant, nor do I imply that an individual should take the law into his/her own hands. The abuse I'm referring to is, of course, when there's an oppression of basic human rights for all Americans, and the democratic process DOES NOT work. But to use your mocking example, if 95% of Americans want moonshine, elected members of Congress cant get it 'legalized' due to the veto power, the president has somehow managed to get his 4-yr term limit extended indefinitely, and then starts using the military to confiscate and imprison anyone caught with moonshine, it wouldnt surprise me at all if his days became numbered. He's a servant of the people, not the other way around, and DEMOCRACY is not served when the will of the majority is ignored.

Oh, and just how many times have abuses of power within your country been prevented by armed civilians?

Let's see, just the most important one that I can think of....the War of Independence (from Britain). Also, the Civil War was an attempt, though a failed one. The point is that our leadership needs to always be aware of where we stand with their actions and policies. But you are right, if none of the military abandon their posts along with the rebellion, the people could not stand up against today's military might. The scope of the Constitution was limited to what comprised 'military power' at the time. By and large, men with blackpowder (single shot) rifles.

As for gun control itself, and Christianity: Yes, Jesus would have likely said to "turn the other cheek." He also said, "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword".

It is sometimes suprising how few alleged Christians can quote their Bible in context.

And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

I don't quite see how this saying is an endorsement of an armed citizenry by Jesus, do you?

Let's keep it civil, there's no need to make personal attacks because you disagree. One who does not quote the Bible verbatim does not constitute an "alleged" Christian, and besides, you misquoted ME by not including the next sentence I wrote (which you quoted seperately below).

Yes, this is the bible quote to which I was referring, and I did NOT take it out of context. No, it is quite obviously not an endorsement of armed citizens. I was agreeing that Jesus:
1. taught us to turn the other cheek, and
2. said we should lay down our swords

That said, I also do believe Jesus would have justified a man defending himself and his family.

You do, do you? Why do you say that? Is there anything that he is quoted as saying that would lead you to that conclusion?

Here's the line you should have included above. Even though Jesus wants us to turn the other cheek, no I do not think he would fault a man for defending his family.

No, I cannot quote anything specifically from the New Testament acknowledging that Jesus ENCOURAGES self defense. Jesus did not condone violence or revenge. "Love your neighbor as yourself". The Old Testament makes several references, and though the New Covenant changed much of the Old Testament laws, it did not erase all. We do not ignore the ten commandments, because they are not listed in the New Testament.

If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;"

I dont think God was exactly off his rocker before he sent Jesus, you know.

It sounds like you are implying Jesus would have wanted a parent to just sit still as his child is tortured, and would entirely disagree with law enforcement and military. Let's leave the guns out of it for now. If someone attacked your child at a park and no one else was around to help, would you stand still and allow your child to be harmed, because you think that's what Jesus would do? I certainly hope not. If you're a parent like I am, I'm sure you'd fight that person tooth and nail until one of you lost. Now if someone can honestly say they'd defend a loved one with their life, then where does one get off criticizing honest gun owners for vowing to do the same? You dont need to own a gun if you dont want to, just leave everyone else who does alone. I think the man who REFUSES to defend the safety of his family would have a LOT more to answer for before God than the man who did, and harmed an evil stranger in the process.

But why DISARM law-abiding citizens? It's not the tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who legally obtained firearms that are involved in most gun-related crimes. It's the guns obtained by criminals, either legally or illegally.

Many of them stolen from the homes of almost law abiding citizens who do not properly and safely store their arsenal.

This concept is one of the most frightening liberal arguments ever made -- let's blame the honest man and hold HIM responsible for the actions of the criminal minded. It's not the crackhead's fault for breaking and entering, or for commiting an armed assault or robbery. Oh no, he probably just needs a few months in drug rehab because he had a bad childhood -- but let's put the honest citizen in prison because he forgot to lock HIS gun up in HIS OWN HOUSE that day!! What if the crook had stolen a car and run over someone? Should the car owner be prosecuted as an accomplice for owning the 'murder weapon', and Chevrolet be prosecuted for manufacturing a lethal weapon? It's McDonalds fault people got fat, it's Smith and Wesson's fault people used their guns to kill people. This liberal mindset of no accountability for the criminal is insanely illogical and -- at BEST -- absurd!

The easy solution to that problem is to license guns. Automobiles are dangerous and so are guns. We license automobiles. You must pass a test to prove to the authorities that you can safely handle a vehicle before you are issued a license. If you drive a vehicle without a license, you are guilty of breaking the law. Why shouldn't guns be licensed?

In some states they do require licenses, especially for concealed carry permits. As long as the ability and requirements to obtain are as reasonable and as standard as getting a D/L, then I'm not opposed to that. But who will FAIRLY set the standard, and leave partisan politics out of it? It would be unfair to require a person to be a military trained expert marksman before obtaining a self defense, hunting or sport-shooting weapon. A basic gun safety course and test should be all that's required.

Why shouldn't those who use guns in an unsafe way, lose the right to bear arms?

Again I agree, and we already do. Convicted felons (even non-violent felons) are not allowed to own guns. If that's REALLY all the anti-gun lobby wanted, I'd be satisified. But they want to remove EVERYONE's guns, because they think they know what's best for US.

But apart from that, many guns were designed for only one thing. Killing people. Pistols and handguns are not hunting weapons.

Not correct. The first guns were designed only for killing -- hunting for food, and of course, for war -- today guns are used for war, self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. Also, HANDGUN hunting is a sport these days. Some large-caliber handguns can be fitted with a little scope and used for short-range hunting.

Pistols/handguns are self-defense, primarily, but they (like all guns) are also used in recreational target shooting and sport-shooting. You cannot criminalize everyone who buys a handgun because handguns are for "killing people". They are manufactured for self-defense.

I own a few guns, which I do not keep loaded (or even 'ready'), and I do not own primarily for self defense. I target shoot with handguns and skeet/trap shoot with a shotgun. I've never hunted a day in my life, nor do I entend to in the future. Assuming anything else would be unfair stereotyping, now wouldnt it?

[theleftone]

Gun control is bad. When you start implementing gun control, crime goes up. And I mean the serious crimes. Canada has over 71.5 times... read that again 71.5 times!... no, read it slowly... Seeeveeennnntyyyy-onnnnnee point fiiiivvveee tiiiimmmmessss... more unpaid diplomatic parking fines per capita than the United States. [Source] And you guys want gun control?! Are you insane?! The last thing we Americans need are your Nazi Terrorist Parking Criminals to cross the border and start infesting our cities! The only ways to prevent this is (a) keep the guns flowing and (b) invade Canada to correct the problem.

Gun control? I don't think so.

[McCulloch]

Oh, and just how many times have abuses of power within your country been prevented by armed civilians?

Let's see, just the most important one that I can think of....the War of Independence (from Britain).

I would be interested in your response to Foundation of the USA Unbiblical ?

I was agreeing that Jesus:
1. taught us to turn the other cheek, and
2. said we should lay down our swords ...
Yes, this is the bible quote to which I was referring, and I did NOT take it out of context. No, it is quite obviously not an endorsement of armed citizens.

I am sorry, I misunderstood your point of view. It was, I believe, an understandable mistake. You said that you are a follower of Christ. You said that Christ taught us to turn the other cheek and lay down our swords (and guns presumably). You say that free citizens should be armed for self protection. Don't you see that you seem to be having a disagreement with Jesus?

You cannot find anything in the New Testament that acknowledges that Jesus encouraged self-defence. And quite a few passages in the New Testament which do seem to teach against violent self-defence. And your natural conclusion?

Jesus would have justified a man defending himself and his family.

Are my synapses misfiring? How does one come to such a conclusion?

The Old Testament makes several references, and though the New Covenant changed much of the Old Testament laws, it did not erase all. We do not ignore the ten commandments, because they are not listed in the New Testament.

Like the seventh day Sabbath? I was taught that the principle is that those laws under the Old Covenant which were specifically changed in the New Testament, such as eating pork, no longer apply to the Christian. It would seem that the clearly taught principle of non-violence by Jesus would trump any Old Covenant justification for violence. But I could be wrong.

It sounds like you are implying Jesus would have wanted a parent to just sit still as his child is tortured, and would entirely disagree with law enforcement and military. Let's leave the guns out of it for now. If someone attacked your child at a park and no one else was around to help, would you stand still and allow your child to be harmed, because you think that's what Jesus would do? I certainly hope not. If you're a parent like I am, I'm sure you'd fight that person tooth and nail until one of you lost. Now if someone can honestly say they'd defend a loved one with their life, then where does one get off criticizing honest gun owners for vowing to do the same?

You seem to mistake me for a Christian. I do not make my decisions based on what would Jesus do. I repeat, your argument seems to be with Jesus. You clearly do not agree with him. There are a number of Christian sects which teach that Christians have no place in the military or violent law-enforcement.

In some states they do require licenses, especially for concealed carry permits. As long as the ability and requirements to obtain are as reasonable and as standard as getting a D/L, then I'm not opposed to that. But who will FAIRLY set the standard, and leave partisan politics out of it? It would be unfair to require a person to be a military trained expert marksman before obtaining a self defense, hunting or sport-shooting weapon. A basic gun safety course and test should be all that's required.

I would add that the gun safety course should include safe storage and transport. I would also add that guns be registered like automobiles. If a felon is found with a gun, it could be traced to its owner and additional charges (gun theft) would be added to the felon's sheet. Further, the owner of the gun should be investigated with regard to safe and secure storage and/or providing the gun to the felon.

Why shouldn't those who use guns in an unsafe way, lose the right to bear arms?

Again I agree, and we already do. Convicted felons (even non-violent felons) are not allowed to own guns.

Great, we agree completely on this one.

But apart from that, many guns were designed for only one thing. Killing people. Pistols and handguns are not hunting weapons.

Not correct. The first guns were designed only for killing -- hunting for food, and of course, for war -- today guns are used for war, self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting.

War - killing humans. Self-defence - killing or injuring humans. Hunting - not killing humans. Sport shooting - killing targets.

You cannot criminalize everyone who buys a handgun because handguns are for "killing people". They are manufactured for self-defense.

No, I would not criminalize them, but I would be in favour of regulating them.

[kctheshootinfool]

You said that you are a follower of Christ. You said that Christ taught us to turn the other cheek and lay down our swords (and guns presumably). You say that free citizens should be armed for self protection. Don't you see that you seem to be having a disagreement with Jesus?
You cannot find anything in the New Testament that acknowledges that Jesus encouraged self-defence. And quite a few passages in the New Testament which do seem to teach against violent self-defence. And your natural conclusion?

Jesus taught against violence. True.

I was taught that the principle is that those laws under the Old Covenant which were specifically changed in the New Testament, such as eating pork, no longer apply to the Christian. It would seem that the clearly taught principle of non-violence by Jesus would trump any Old Covenant justification for violence. But I could be wrong.

"But I could be wrong" is the operative phrase. You could be. So could I.

You seem to mistake me for a Christian. I do not make my decisions based on what would Jesus do.

Rest assured, I never mistook you for a Christian -- or at least not a devout Christian.

There are a number of Christian sects which teach that Christians have no place in the military or violent law-enforcement.

Not the majority of Christian denominations. But the alignment with military force depends largely on the REASON behind the the use of force.

Look, the bottom line is that Christ taught against violence, but did Christ endorse apathy in the face of evil? Few Christians would ever agree with that. Just like our judicial and legislative branches are charged with the task of interpreting what the authors of the Constitution intended for us, so do the Christian churches attempt to interpret the bible in today's world.

Yeah, I'd like to be able to talk an intruder out of killing me and my family, and convince him to turn himself into the police, but there's usually little time for any kind of meaningful discussion in these circumstances.

I would add that the gun safety course should include safe storage and transport. I would also add that guns be registered like automobiles. If a felon is found with a gun, it could be traced to its owner and additional charges (gun theft) would be added to the felon's sheet. Further, the owner of the gun should be investigated with regard to safe and secure storage and/or providing the gun to the felon.

I noticed you didnt answer this part of my last response to you yesterday. I can't agree here ENTIRELY. Registration for crime tracking purposes, maybe, but in the end it's still NOT MY FAULT if YOU steal MY gun out of MY house and commit a crime with it. It was MY property to begin with. I am yet another victim in this (a victim of theft, as you pointed out), not an accomplice to the crime. Again, what if it were my car instead of a gun? Would you have me put in jail because I didnt lock my car door, someone stole the car and used it in a hit and run? I dont think so.

But apart from that, many guns were designed for only one thing. Killing people. Pistols and handguns are not hunting weapons.

Not correct. The first guns were designed only for killing -- hunting for food, and of course, for war -- today guns are used for war, self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting.

War - killing humans. Self-defence - killing or injuring humans. Hunting - not killing humans. Sport shooting - killing targets.

Not sure if I get your rationale here, but if youre implying that guns are made only for killing -- one way or the other -- I would not entirely agree. The point is that guns are used today for more than JUST to kill humans, and there are other items manufactured today that are also used to kill humans. Before firearms there were the bow and arrow, axes, spears, swords, daggers, rope, sticks, stones and fire. All had purposes OTHER than as weapons against fellow mankind. Take away the guns, and the murderers will kill another way.

Why is it that the liberal mindset is that all problems can be solved by excessive government regulation? Regulation is good in some instances, yes, but deviant behavior on the whole cannot be eliminated by more government restriction. What does law mean to a law-breaker? The criminals will always find a way around the law, hence the name, 'deviant' behavior. Liberals in the U.S. want tighter gun control, but weaker sentences for convicted murderers.
** It's a simple formula: Just keep the crime of murder illegal, and come down HARD on all convicted murderers. Dont worry about the tool used to commit the crime -- worry about the CRIME for goodness sake!

[Wyvern]

Not the majority of Christian denominations. But the alignment with military force depends largely on the REASON behind the the use of force.

This is coming from someone that used to be in the military, once you join up you don't have any say as far as the reasoning goes and if after you give your pledge of allegiance the second time you are little more than property to the military and if you are stupid enough to argue against the use of force in which you are used then you are nearly guarranteed to have the full meaning of the UCMJ used against you and given a Big Chicken Dinner(bad conduct discharge, for those of you that don't know) if not a full on dishonorable discharge.

Not sure if I get your rationale here, but if youre implying that guns are made only for killing -- one way or the other -- I would not entirely agree. The point is that guns are used today for more than JUST to kill humans, and there are other items manufactured today that are also used to kill humans. Before firearms there were the bow and arrow, axes, spears, swords, daggers, rope, sticks, stones and fire. All had purposes OTHER than as weapons against fellow mankind. Take away the guns, and the murderers will kill another way.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence. However, guns specifically were made for killing people, yes everything else you mentioned except swords had other uses. Guns have evolved into something other than killing instruments, but thats mostly because shooting is just plain fun.

Liberals in the U.S. want tighter gun control, but weaker sentences for convicted murderers.

I've been called by some a liberal but I'm not for weaker sentences, thing is you don't just limit it to just murders. Firearms are easy to use and just as easy to acquire, you make it harder to acquire the weapon of choice and the crime will be that much harder to perform.

[McCulloch]

There are a number of Christian sects which teach that Christians have no place in the military or violent law-enforcement.

Not the majority of Christian denominations. But the alignment with military force depends largely on the REASON behind the the use of force.

Christ himself taught that the majority is not a good guide to the truth (look up wide and narrow roads). Those Christians who teach non-violence (I am most personally familiar with the Mennonites but I do know that there are others) can read and follow the teachings of Jesus as is. The others must add, rationalize or find exceptions. I repeat, your argument seems to be with Jesus. You do not agree with his point of view.

Look, the bottom line is that Christ taught against violence, but did Christ endorse apathy in the face of evil?

Clearly he did not. In the face of evil he advocated self-sacrifice.

Registration for crime tracking purposes, maybe, but in the end it's still NOT MY FAULT if YOU steal MY gun out of MY house and commit a crime with it. It was MY property to begin with. I am yet another victim in this (a victim of theft, as you pointed out), not an accomplice to the crime. Again, what if it were my car instead of a gun? Would you have me put in jail because I didnt lock my car door, someone stole the car and used it in a hit and run? I dont think so.

I think that we agree more that you realize. Anyone who steals a gun for the purposes of doing a crime is guilty of more than one crime. Anyone who owns a gun and finds that it is missing should have to report the theft to the police. Gun owners should not leave their loaded weapons in places where it would be easy to steal. For example, don't you agree that it should be a crime to leave a loaded weapon on a bar in a tavern while you go to the washroom? Yes, if someone picked it up and used it, they would be guilty of theft as well as the other crimes, but leaving a loaded gun on the bar in a tavern unattended is clearly dangerous to the public health. If you agree with me on that point, then all that is left to be determined is to what degree should gun owners be liable for the safe storage of their weapons.

Take away the guns, and the murderers will kill another way.

But guns do make it so much easier. There are many killings which would not happen if the killers would have been required to use a knife rather than a gun.

Liberals in the U.S. want tighter gun control, but weaker sentences for convicted murderers.

Sadly, Liberals in my country seem to want the same thing. Gun crimes should carry stiff mandatory minimum sentences. If you use a gun in the commission of a crime, then the sentence should be greater than if you had committed the same crime without a gun. This is because with a gun the crime has instantly become more dangerous to the public.

[chachynga]

1. To protect my home.

The bible tells you to give your belongings to anyone who might steal them.

2. To protect myself

The bible tells you to not resist those who offer you violence.

3. To protect my family

Ditto.

4. To prevent any tyrannical governments from ruling me

The bible tells you to obey the government.

5. To do my constitutional duty.

The Constitution does not specify a duty for you. The bible tells you can't serve both a country and "the lord".

Neither he nor I would hesitate to shoot anyone attempting to commit a crime against us.

And yet Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself.

Seems a pretty violent version of christianity you got there.

DanZ

You dont understand the bible do you. Christ did not condone the two sowrds his disciples had for Nothing. He told them to sell their cloak and buy one if they did not have one. A Gun is the modern Sword.

It's a biblical mandate all Christians are required to hold. Your Job as a good citizen and a Great Christian is to Have Absolute Gun control.

Absolute Control over the weapon of your rifle shooting sub 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards and staying in the black 90% or better of the time in a fast shooting settint at 25 yards with a handgun, and to at least have a several inch group at 25 feet with at least one hand, definately all in the kill zone with two hands.... absolute Gun Cointrol is a must for a fit country.

[chachynga]

what use (except hunting) is a firearm to a supposed christian?

Well, let's see here.
1. To protect my home.
2. To protect myself
3. To protect my family
4. To prevent any tyrannical governments from ruling me
5. To do my constitutional duty.

Why would a Christian need protection? Christ said to turn the other cheek and to give to those who would take things from you. So your answers 1 to 3 seems to be at odds with your Christianity.
What does the Bible say is to be the Christian response to tyrannical governments? (need a hint? ). It appears as if your answer 4 is contrary to your alleged Christianity. Are you sure that you are really a Christian?
I am sure that if you were required to use a gun for some constitutional duty, that your government would provide the necessary firearms.

You don't understand Christianity.

There is nothing that says to allow a Government that is not in line with Gods laws to rule over you, in fact it is your Christian Duty to PUT THEM DOWN.


That is one reason why Christians, real ones, are a threat.

[chachynga]

4. To prevent any tyrannical governments from ruling me

I always wonder about this statement. How many tyrannical governments are marching toward the USA? I suspect that it is rather the USA who is exterting its military force elsewhere.

To be more precise it's the one Now OVER you to me most afraid and cautious with.


Here, I have a boat load of stuff, already here:
http://xsorbit30.com/users5/afterbite/i ... topic,74.0


Examples:
quote

What happens when self-defense is against the law?

Once people accept being disarmed, they become surprisingly easy to control…and to kill.

They have surrendered not only their weapons but [also] their independence.

The founding fathers fully expected that Americans would be prepared at all times to fight a government
when the government becomes the enemy of the people.

The founding fathers fully expected that the people would rise up against that government. SEE: Second Amendment!
The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm unquote


quote

"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights) unquote




quote

“Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” – William Tyndale (1492? -1536)

unquote


quote
"To bear arms" is thought by some to apply only in a military context. However, even at the time of the founders this wasn't true. For example in 1776, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights stated: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." For a more detailed discussion of this interpretation see the 5th Circuit's Court decision in U.S. v. Emerson (Part V [Second Amendment], C [Text], 1 [Substantive Guarantee], b [Bear Arms] ). http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#pe unquote


quote
“The said Constitution shall NEVER be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the PEOPLE of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams (1722-1803; American statesman & Revolutionary leader)

“No free man shall ever be debarred (forbidden by law) the use of arms. The strongest reason for the PEOPLE to retain their RIGHT to keep and bear arms is as a LAST RESORT to protect themselves against TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT.” --- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; 3rd President of the United States) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 25076.html
unquote



Enjoy!

[cad0830]

I really am not concerned about tyrannical governments or the like, to be honest. I don't think this will happen in our lifetimes. I will say, however, that refusing to allow people the right to bear arms in the United States would be a disaster for poor people. My dad had a gun. A .22 rifle. Now, for those of you who don't know much about guns, this particular gun is a light weapon, and is not used for hunting large game. My dad was given this rifle and there were times when we did not have enough money for food and my dad would use the rifle to go to the woods and kill a squirrel for food. See, bullets are fairly inexpensive--you can get a box of 100 for a .22 today for around $2.50 when many meats cost $3-$4 a pound.

There are still people out there who are willing to literally hunt for their families' food. They should have that right.