Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

American Christians & other religious people have a religious duty to urge their legislator to support reasonable gun regulations


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-18 of 18 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 19, 2012 12:40:19 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
--starting with banning the kind of assault weapons and extended clips used to accomplish the Newtown massacre.

Your legislator may fear the gun manufacturers' lobby, that works on legislators behind closed door. You need to make them fear their voters even more.

Posted on Dec 19, 2012 9:38:17 AM PST
Jenn D. says:
I don't believe American culture and society will benefit from the knee-jerk reaction of gun control brought on by the Sandy Hook tragedy. I am not opposed to limiting certain types of guns or magazines but I don't believe that will resolve the true problem that lead to the murders. We should be putting forth our efforts, in both our local communities and on national forums, to changing our mental health care vision.

First off we need to learn to recognize the signs that someone has a potentially violent mental health condition in our family, friends, and local community. Then we need to learn to drop the stigmatism attached with mental health problems so that we can reach out and obtain help for those who are truly disturbed.

On a national level we need to get our legislators to change the budgetary constraints that our placed on our mental health system so that our society will have the ability to cope with the vast array of mental health problems we are faced with.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 12:08:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 19, 2012 12:09:40 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
Jenn, it's not an either/or proposition. We can tackle gun regulation reform AND the "crazy people regulation reform" issue at the same time, and we certainly need to. Murderous crazy people who can't get guns kill far fewer people than those who can, on average, and those who can get assault weapons with extended magazines kill more people than those who can only get conventional guns. At the same time, society must recognize that when someone is crazy, what they do is not a crime (it's a disaster but not a crime per se), so we don't have to wait until he commits a crime to institutionalize him.

It used to be that it was easy to get someone locked up. Relatives would get a rich elderly person locked up so they could steal his property. Harmless craziness was treated the same as the dangerous kind. But we've now gone too far in the opposite direction, and we have to recognize that individual rights don't always trump public safety. Also, we have better diagnostic tools these days, and are better equipped to sort out the potentially murderous crazy people from the harmless kind.

But, that said, we can't lock up everyone who acts funny. That's where gun regulation comes in. There's no excuse for a private citizen owning weaponry that's only suited to the battlefield. You don't hunt deer with an AR-15, and you don't defend a home with one either (for that a shotgun is best both for you and for the safety of your neighbors). So banning assault weapons of every kind won't affect either hunting or home defense. And it sure won't thwart the Founders' intent with the Second Amendment, which was about flintlock muskets that took at least 20 seconds to reload between shots.

I put this OP here because I believe every major religion requires its adherents to think about the common good and try to help that common good wherever they can.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 1:20:18 PM PST
all nonsense

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 3:22:24 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Ehkzu, I am in 100% agreement. My goal is to see all guns banned, all over the world. All guns, bombs, and anything that can kill from a distance.

Sure, mental health needs to be a major focus, but if there had been no guns available to all the crazy people here in Springfield, in Colorado (twice), in Virginia, in Colorado, etc., etc., etc., there wouldn't have been mass murders. They might have gone armed with knives or even swords, with axes or sledge hammers, but there would not have been mass murders. Do away with guns!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 3:35:04 PM PST
uh huh

doesnt work in the mideast

two words
car bomb

remember mcveigh
molotov cocktails

there are many ways for someone to kill many others if they want to

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 4:00:32 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
Black & white thinking.

I've been in Japan. Virtually no guns. Virtually no gun deaths. Modern, high-stress society that's an emotional pressure-cooker for most citizens, and a cultural history of enormous violence. Read the accounts of the war in the Pacific.

Every so often, someone get hold of a gun and kills someone. It makes the news big time. By your logic, Japan's gun ban doesn't work because it only works 99% of the time.

I'd settle for 99%.

It is a simple, plain fact that the easier you make it to get deadly weapons, and the deadlier the weapons you make it easy to get, the more massacres happen.

I shouldn't even have to prove it, because who in the NRA would say that we should sell M249s to the public, with or without a license? Who in the NRA thinks we should remove licensing for car drivers? Who in the NRA would say we should make hand grenades legal to buy and own? How about mortars? How about mortar shells loaded with weaponized Anthrax spores? Tactical nukes? Armed UAVs?

EVERY NRA member who isn't psychotic would say of course not to all of that.

So we aren't talking about permitting all "arms" or banning all "arms." We'e just talking about where to draw the line.

If you think this isn't true, please tell me why, say, M249s should be offered for sale to the public without so much as a background check, as the current laws permit--and 40% of all firearms are bought without a background check.

Hmmm?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 4:06:27 PM PST
Isn't an M249 a fully automatic machine gun and therefore unavailable to the general public?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 4:45:32 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: M249

Yes. That's my point. It belongs in the category "arms" that any fit adult could physically "bear." But you (I presume) and most NRA members and everyone else agree that while it's "arms" that can be "borne" you DON'T have a right to bear this particular type of arms. Meaning that most all of us agree that the right to bear arms doesn't include all arms that could be borne.

Frankly, if it were up to me I'd stick to the Founders' obvious intent and restrict the "right to bear arms" to firearms with the rate of fire, hitting power, and accuracy of a flintlock smoothbore musket ca. 1800.

But it's not up to me. However, it's also not up to the nutty types who'd love to be able to own an M249.

We have to set a limit, and today--according to a Gallup poll just conducted--63% of Americans agree that assault weapons and extended magazines belong with the M249, not the double-barreled shotgun suitable for home defense, and which should remain legal (if I can't get 100% of what I want).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 7:47:00 PM PST
Astrocat says:
The "founders" spoke of militia, not of individual home owners owning arsenals of guns. The 2nd amendment was about a national guard of its day, not about people carrying guns into schools and churches, into malls and national parks.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 8:25:12 PM PST
"But you (I presume) and most NRA members"

I'm not an NRA member. Just pointing out the untrue assertions.
Your post indicates that you're whacked out over "gun control." So I guess it doesn't matter if what you say is a lie.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 1:30:26 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
You can't tell I'm lying unless you could demonstrate that I said untruths knowingly. Pretty hard to do over the Internet. Unless you're a long-distance telepath. In which case, what number am I thinking of?

But it doesn't take mind reading to read your evident contempt for the 2/3 of the country that wants "gun control."

Romney let us know his contempt for half the country, and it didn't do him so good. The people who want more gun control aren't your enemies unless you make them so by being intransigent.

Since you didn't appear to understand that I brought up the M249 precisely because it is an automatic weapon, maybe you should try re-reading what I said. Very embarrassing to call someone a liar, only to discover that conclusion came from misreading what he or she said.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 1:33:46 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: 2nd Amendment and militia

Well, I think you're right, Nancy, but the Supreme Court's right wing majority doesn't. What's ironic is that they could only do what they did with the 2nd Amendment if they believe that the Constitution is a living document that we can revise any way we please to suit the times and our preferences.

Yet they say that's exactly what the Left does, and that they believe it's a fixed thing and all power to the Founders.

The Founders who thought "arms" meant flintlock muskets.

Now I'm all confused.

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 4:11:45 PM PST
Yog-Sothoth says:
American Christians & other religious people have a religious duty to raise children who don't shoot people.

These animals who perpetuate these heinous acts do it because they do not have any respect or compassion for another's life. They are conditioned to "look out for Number One", and anything they choose to do is justified to themselves - the ONLY justification they need. 50 years ago, guns were a lot easier to get, fewer restrictions on who could buy/own one, kids had guns in their cars at school for before- and afterschool hunting - and these type of horrendous events were nearly unheard of. The guns haven't changed that much. More modern, perhaps, but guns like the AK-47 have been around since 1947. The M-16/AR-15 has been around since the late 1950's. Semiauto pistols since the turn of the 20th Century. Even in the "Wild West", when there were NO restrictions, these things rarely happened - "mass shootings" usually were done by groups, not individuals.

The guns haven't changed - but society, and people's attitudes have.

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 6:35:52 PM PST
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/china/a/TiananmenSquare.htm

"...by the time the Tiananmen Square Protests and Massacre were over less than two months later, 250 to 7,000 people lay dead."

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/tiananmen-square-china-standoff-student-protest-10042597

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/20-1989-china-declares-martial-law-13629321

"...a good number of the demonstrators are prepared to fight, although I haven't seen any indication, that they have much to fight with Carol, except their body..."

J.H.--The second amendment wasn't written to defend hunters. It was designed to give pause to the people who command the tanks and the flame-throwers and the black helicopters. Government must always be disabused of the notion that 'it' may do whatever 'it' may please. So sorry someone's mainstreamed mentally ill child was taught to brandish firearms by a public school teacher, his mother.

Mainstreaming exposes all the special ed. students to the fullest measure of impatience and cruelty the juvenile of the human species is capable of. Shooting a six year old to death, eleven times over beyond dead, that's beyond rage. It's revenge. Revenge for being born.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:10:55 AM PST
'probabilist says:
'The association presents itself as a grass-roots organization, but it has become increasingly clear in recent years that it represents gun makers. Its chief aim has been to help their businesses by increasing the spread of firearms throughout American society.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/national-rifle-selling-association.html?nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=edit_th_20121221&adxnnlx=1356084241-i1KZiJ8RZdt5rcJCNpvOsA

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:12:45 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: the guns haven't changed

That's part of the NRA's propaganda pitch.

The truth is the guns have changed, and changed radically. The biggest difference is extended magazines and gun designs that accept extended magazines.

That's what's new. If you're bump firing an AR-15 with a 100-round aftermarket extended magazine you can empty the magazine in under a minute, before the barrel overheats and the gun jams--possibly after cooking off a round or two--not that that would bother a mass murderer.

Meaning the equivalent to such an assault weapon would be a 19th century Gatling Gun. Only an AR-15 can be hand-held.

Anyone who knows their way around guns knows this.

And anyone who knows the weapons industry knows that their sales were dropping after the advent of "first person shooter" video games, because young people would rather play such games rather than spend on that money on a gun and then go out in the woods before dawn and try to find a deer for a couple of hours and maybe not find one but if you do bag one then you have to gut and skin it and haul the meat home.

Hence every time there's a massacre the gun industry says "It's the video games! Ban the video games!" They'd LOVE to see shoot 'em up video games banned, because they're their biggest competition.

But then the gun industry discovered something. Even without increasing their number of customers, they could sell more guns to customers if they sold them assault weapons. They look much, much sexier than a ordinary old hunting rifle. They're black, they're lethal-looking--especially with a monster magazine installed--they're used by Navy SEALs, and if you use one YOU look like a Navy SEAL. Woo-hoo.,

The gun industry's present success rest almost entirely on selling assault weapons. That's why they put out so much propaganda insisting that such weapons are no different, when it's obvious that they are radically different.

Their purpose is not hunting--hunting rifles are far better. Their purpose is not home defense--a shotgun is vastly better at that. They're not better at target shooting, because from the AK-47 on that hasn't been the focus since the military discovered that soldiers in combat rarely aim and fire at an individual target.They lay down fire as fast as they can, without precise aiming.

Meaning the pure, specialized purpose of assault weapons--rifles, carbines and handguns--is to massacre a group of people, whether it's a squad of charging Taliban fighters...or a classroom full of screaming little children.

And the real reason why gun advocates not in the gun industry's pay want these is because (a) nothing makes you feel manlier than cradling an assault weapon and (b) the gun industry has filled these people's heads with apocalyptic visions of their home being assaulted by a dozen gangbangers with Mac-10s and whatnot, and (c) some of them think they can go to war with our government--another Civil War--if they have AR-15 with extended magazines in their homes.

The more you learn about the 29% of NRA members who oppose eliminating the gun show background check loophole, the more disturbed you'll be.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 1:19:09 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: NRA is a lobbyist organization first and foremost

Exhibit No. 1 in support of this was today's press conference by NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre, saying the solution to the NewTown massacre is even more guns in more hands.

The NRA has been 100% consistent. It has never proposed anything in response to a massacre that would reduce arms sales. And nearly every "solution" they propose mandates more sales and more profits for the gun industry.

America, with 4% of the world's population, contains 50% of the world's guns in private hands. Yet for all that firepower, of the 24 mass murders of the past 50 years, 14 occurred here...and 6 in all of Europe combined.

Guns don't kill. Killers kill. But killers with guns kill more. And fighters who get guns kill instead of fighting.

The greatest correlation with getting killed by a gun is if you live in a home with guns.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  18
Initial post:  Dec 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions