Chatham County Online BBS
July 25, 2014, 02:44:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read the best Chatlist posts at Chatham Chatlist Highlights
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Can there be a middle ground?  (Read 9920 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #150 on: December 28, 2012, 08:29:47 PM »

Jeff, did you watch the video posted earlier in this thread? The evidence has been presented through multiple videos and news investigations. Did you go to YouTube and search for your own similar video evidence? The documented evidence in there, all over the place, even if some seek to distort or deny it exists. You can see from the video many of these folks do have a booth and often display 50+ weapons for sale with no background check, but they call themselves 'collectors' to avoid having to do any background checks. The one guy in the video claims to have sold over 300 AK-47s, with zero background checks. I have also stated very clearly from the very start that this is a small minority. If you look around various forums, etc, people say - oh, the 'gunshow loophole' is a myth, most dealers have a license. It is true that most of the dealers do in fact have a license, but that doesn't mean the gunshow loophole for private sellers does not exist.

The claim that any law would 'outlaw all private sales' is not proven by your facts. It is an opinion on a policy that has not been implemented and could obviously have provisions for various options and rules. As I said above, one workaround would be to have local ATF officers or perhaps the promoter of the show provide a table where sellers could obtain a free background check and certificate to be presented to private sellers. This is not the only way it could be done, but if the will to follow the law and improve the current system was desired, it is one possible suggestion. I would not apply this law to all sales that take place outside of gun shows through face to face transactions, but I would require more documentation of such sales. I think there is a big difference between someone selling hundreds of guns a year at these shows and a legitimate private sale a few times a year or to a relative. Again, just looking at the issue and thinking of many possible ways this could be addressed.

I also mentioned above that since the majority of these private sales by 'collectors' have no paperwork, it is hard to say just exactly how big the problem is. Evidence has been presented here already that they do in fact take place and that 'collectors' are often willing to ignore the law for cold cash in hand. That's not an emotional analysis, that is simply the truth to anyone who cares to investigate it themselves. You know, maybe if we could just get Breitbart to post it, suddenly it could morph into hard evidence!  Roll Eyes

In fact, back in the 90s, NRA-sponsored amendments proposed something similar to this - a new class of Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder, who would be granted access to the NICS to facilitate non-dealer sales. For example, as far as the claim that any such legislation would 'ban all private sales,' a bill proposed in 2010 only included regulation related to events where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale, which would obviously exclude the vast majority of legitimate private and family sales and gifts.


Yes Yip, I did watch the video, and I concluded, much like Pi has, that what we need is better enforcement, not new laws, as there are laws currently on the books that prohibit much of these types of transactions. Is it not?
Logged
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #151 on: December 29, 2012, 12:37:46 AM »

Where's your "middle ground" for this guy?

"'The lawmaker told CNSNews.com that he not only supports prohibiting the future sale of 10-round gun magazines, but he would like to confiscate high-capacity clips already legally possessed by American citizens.

... “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence.  And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”"


Oh?  That's "one of the definitions of a nation state"?  The ability to define "legitimate violence" and inflict it on its own people?!

Nadler goes on:

"“We have a lobby, the leadership of the NRA, who function as enablers of mass murder,” Nadler told CNN Host Piers Morgan.  “And that's what they are. They're enablers of mass murder because they terrify the class of political people."


I see.  The "class of political people" is rightfully terrified by armed citizens -- and they OUGHT to be considering what they've been inflicting on us -- and this somehow translates into the NRA as enablers of mass murder.  But never mind the NRA, Nadler admits the issue isn't how to ensure "our" safety and security, it's control, because he's worried about his, despite his having armed security.

"“They lie. They say they will take your guns away,” he said.  “And they stop any kind of legislation to prevent that.”"


No, Nadler lies, not the NRA; no citizen with guns is the end-game.

 


You know, 19, I previously mentioned that emotions play a large part in coming to some conclusion about guns; however, as you clearly pointed out with your post, there are other agendas at play too. Thanks for the post! Although Pi may find it a little over the top, I thank God for people like you and him. I just wished more folks were able to clearly keep the main thing the main thing.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 12:40:16 AM by Jeff G » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 23, 2014, 02:55:42 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3318



« Reply #152 on: December 29, 2012, 12:44:59 AM »

Although Pi may find it a little over the top, I thank God for people like you and him. I just wished more folks were able to clearly keep the main thing the main thing.

Not sure I am worthy of such praise, but I am humbled by it and I thank you.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 10:48:55 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7648


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #153 on: December 29, 2012, 07:36:26 AM »

Jeff, you wrote:

Quote
It is very clear that the vast majority pushing for more gun regulations/bans are doing so based upon emotional aspects, not logic. The simple fact is not a single individual, on either side of the argument, wants the violent incidents we see year after year to continue along. We all agree there must be something done to effect some semblance of a remedy; the question is when arriving at a solution, or legislation, are we doing so via emotions, or logic? Lets look at the data and use common sense; however, as sad as it is, this doesn't seem to apply nowadays. Emotion rules the day simply because most people have no idea how to think critically.

".... they think they can make people better, and I do not hold with that." -  Captain Mal Reynolds, "Serenity".
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #154 on: December 29, 2012, 11:13:23 PM »

Jeff, you wrote:

Quote
It is very clear that the vast majority pushing for more gun regulations/bans are doing so based upon emotional aspects, not logic. The simple fact is not a single individual, on either side of the argument, wants the violent incidents we see year after year to continue along. We all agree there must be something done to effect some semblance of a remedy; the question is when arriving at a solution, or legislation, are we doing so via emotions, or logic? Lets look at the data and use common sense; however, as sad as it is, this doesn't seem to apply nowadays. Emotion rules the day simply because most people have no idea how to think critically.

".... they think they can make people better, and I do not hold with that." -  Captain Mal Reynolds, "Serenity".



Excellent quote, 19.
Logged
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #155 on: December 29, 2012, 11:18:05 PM »

Here are a few videos and articles put forth by the Fox TV affiliate in Cincinnati OH. I wished everyone, who is sincerely looking toward a solution, would watch these. The news segment is appropriately called, "Reality Check."

Here are a few of the segments I found very helpful and beneficial for those who are unfamiliar:

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

http://www.fox19.com/story/20388396/rc-reduce-violent-crime-by-issuing-more-concealed-carry-permits

http://www.fox19.com/story/20378064/reality-check-are-calls-for-stricter-gun-laws-really-about-guns
Logged
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 21, 2014, 06:29:11 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 04:52:41 PM
Posts: 9558



« Reply #156 on: December 30, 2012, 12:54:30 AM »

Pi, here is the study document you linked to: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/167263.pdf

Because it was not the full document, I did not see any reference in it to gun shows at all. However, upon tracking down the full length document I did find this section on page 99:

"Beginning in 1995, DUF began asking arrestees about guns with a special questionnaire.....less than 2 percent reported obtaining them from a gun show."  

http://www.ccebook.org/preview/0788178318/Homicide-In-8-Us-Cities-Trends-Context-And-Policy-Implications

So if there is some other part of that document that deals with gun shows and supports your claim of an actual study of some kind that determined that 2% number (and does not use a survey of arrestees or criminals), please let me know. I didn't see it and was familiar with the earlier research by the same folks. This seems to simply be a repackaging of that same survey info.

As far as your second point, I did not ask for examples of bias in other studies or publications, what I asked you to show was evidence of any bias in that particular study. For example, the only connection that Mayors Against Guns has to the ATF report is that it is posted on their website. So I guess you may have just been going by the url and did not review the actual info. Some of the info is an estimate in the report, but there are specific figures and factual data.

As to your point on collectors already violating the law - is there any law about the number of guns they can sell? Or any related to private sales - as far as numbers? If not then many of these folks who are operating as dealers but calling themselves private sellers may not be breaking any laws.

Also, I don't think I have a disconnect - the two different views are simply me considering that I may in fact be wrong, and I'm almost always willing to consider that.

I do see some common ground emerging - better enforcement of existing laws. If there was funding to provide undercover ATF officers at many more gun shows, that might help deal with some of the more blatant criminal activity taking place.

Side note for Jeff: I'm not aware of any large issues confronting our society today in which the church is no longer a major participant in the war of ideas. It is almost always mentioned in the debates by those for or against one side, as well as by the politicians we elect.
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 23, 2014, 02:55:42 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3318



« Reply #157 on: December 30, 2012, 02:19:47 AM »

Pi, here is the study document you linked to: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/167263.pdf

Because it was not the full document, I did not see any reference in it to gun shows at all. However, upon tracking down the full length document I did find this section on page 99:

"Beginning in 1995, DUF began asking arrestees about guns with a special questionnaire.....less than 2 percent reported obtaining them from a gun show."  

http://www.ccebook.org/preview/0788178318/Homicide-In-8-Us-Cities-Trends-Context-And-Policy-Implications

So if there is some other part of that document that deals with gun shows and supports your claim of an actual study of some kind that determined that 2% number (and does not use a survey of arrestees or criminals), please let me know. I didn't see it and was familiar with the earlier research by the same folks. This seems to simply be a repackaging of that same survey info.


What exactly are you looking for here?  Once again, I'm not sure you're getting what I'm trying to say.  If this is all the data we've got, it isn't enough to conclusively prove that guns bought at gun shows are over represented based on how many are used in crimes.  It isn't my job to run out there and find a rope to hang myself with.  If you want to further restrict my rights, and it certainly seems that is what you're arguing for, then would you please go forth and make your case.

I don't know how to say this more plainly.  You want more regs, you need to make your case.  And not just based on the idea that gun laws are somehow lax.  You need some hard data to back that up when it comes to actual crime reduction.  Otherwise, you're supporting symbolic legislation.  I think that's simply wrong.

As far as your second point, I did not ask for examples of bias in other studies or publications, what I asked you to show was evidence of any bias in that particular study. For example, the only connection that Mayors Against Guns has to the ATF report is that it is posted on their website. So I guess you may have just been going by the url and did not review the actual info. Some of the info is an estimate in the report, but there are specific figures and factual data.

As to your point on collectors already violating the law - is there any law about the number of guns they can sell? Or any related to private sales - as far as numbers? If not then many of these folks who are operating as dealers but calling themselves private sellers may not be breaking any laws.


I already answered that question to the best of my ability, quoting the law.  It is up to the discretion of the ATF.  I don't understand why you keep insisting that laws aren't being broken.  That is part of the reason the ATF goes undercover at gun shows.  Look at it this way: I could call myself a new reporter, get a tiny camera, and record all sorts of crime taking place.  Just because I catch it on camera doesn't mean that law enforcement isn't doing what they can to enforce the law.  I bet if I rode into downtown Raleigh I could probably find a drug deal taking place.  But are more drug laws going to make a difference?  Or is it not logical to say that what we really need is better enforcement?

Also, I don't think I have a disconnect - the two different views are simply me considering that I may in fact be wrong, and I'm almost always willing to consider that.


We're going over the same ground here.  You want to further restrict my rights.  I think you've made that abundantly clear.  The thing is, I don't sell guns to make a profit.  In fact, I think I've only sold 3 guns in my entire life.  I've got nothing personally to lose if the ATF decides to set some hard number on what a person can and can't sell in a given period of time.  At least, I would hope I don't.  The ATF does make a distinction between people selling firearms from an estate and acting as a dealer.  The difference is that even though this doesn't affect me personally, I still understand that further laws mean further restrictions of my rights.  A right is something that you have available to you.  Rights aren't defined just based upon whether you take advantage of them or not.

In a sense, you are asking that your own rights be infringed upon.  What I would say is that you have the choice of taking advantage of the right to make a private sale or not to make a private sale.  You have the right not to have a gun at all.  But I don't think you have the right to further regulate my rights just because you don't take advantage of them personally, or think that said rights are a bad idea.  I think bungee jumping is a hell of a bad idea.  I think lots of things I don't participate in are bad ideas.  But far be it from me to restrict others from doing them, especially if I can't make a very good case as to why those rights should be taken away.

As to the law itself, I get that you don't believe me, but I would urge you to just email the ATF.  Look, I've talked to ATF agents on and off record.  You don't have to believe that I know what I'm talking about.  That's your deal and that's ok.  But if you haven't figured out that I really do have a clue at this point in our discussion...  Well, I give up.

I do see some common ground emerging - better enforcement of existing laws. If there was funding to provide undercover ATF officers at many more gun shows, that might help deal with some of the more blatant criminal activity taking place.


Agreed.  But I sure hope that eventually you will acknowledge my point about who needs to make their case.  Because when we are talking about "middle ground", I don't think those that want more gun control are engaging with my side in good faith.  Especially when the pro gun control side wants laws that are largely symbolic and cannot be proven to reduce crime.  

Even IF you could somehow prove that certain laws lower crime, does that really give you the right to restrict my rights?  Does it make sense to infringe upon a constitutionally guaranteed right for some small percentage reduction in crime?  What calculus makes it fair to punish the vast vast majority of gun owners for the actions of a few?  
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 02:39:35 AM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
wolfpat
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:June 12, 2014, 03:59:44 PM
Date Registerd:October 12, 2008, 12:13:39 PM
Posts: 597



WWW
« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2012, 09:57:45 AM »

Tiredofbs:

I would like to first say that labels don’t apply very well to me, as I don’t consider myself a viable candidate to pigeon-hole with an unnecessary label such as right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, and the list goes on. In all actuality, the only label that’s appropriate as it applies to me is, Christian.
Anyway, since you’ve asked for some opinions, I will gladly give you mine.

As I’m sure you are already well-aware, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. I feel that it can, however, be successfully accomplished via a multi-tiered effort. Unfortunately, our elected officials typically are not well-suited for such difficult tasks, as their concern lies in getting reelected; not passing some legislature that will alienate several voters. Nonetheless, it seems common sense should dictate that we, as a nation have many issues that must be effectively dealt with while aspiring for an appropriate solution.

First and foremost, we have a morality issue that has dwindled, particularly over the past couple of decades (or so), to the point we are at now. I shouldn’t have to point out how bad things are in every aspect of our society (political and societal) with intentional and willful misconduct running rampant everywhere one cares to look. This is the very root of what ails this once great country.

As only one example, we are constantly lied to from politicians. They lie because we let them. We let them because many of us are lying too. Who are the people lying to?  Themselves.  I mean, for goodness sakes, can you live beyond your means?  No.  So why do we allow it?  Why do we remove from personal responsibility the consequence of having children, for example?

EBT cards are one example.  It used to be that if you were hungry you could go to a soup kitchen and stand in line for a bowl of soup and some donated (and usually stale) bread.  It didn't taste all that good, but it was reasonably nutritious; it usually contained beans or some similar source of protein, and occasionally some small pieces of meat, all donated.

But you had to stand in line before the church or other place running the kitchen, effectively announcing "I'm poor." We decided as a society that your self-esteem is more important, and thus we started issuing "food coupons."  That (partially) hid your poverty.  But even that was visible, so now it's done via what looks like an ordinary credit card, but isn't.

Why?

Because we're dishonest.  We think it's perfectly fine for people to hide that they're sponging off everyone else (please don't get me wrong, as many folks aren't actually "sponging" off of the system intentionally; however a few indeed are. But, more so, its the perception by many folks).  We claim that self-esteem (in the negative sense) is not a motivator, even though we know that failure does motivate people (to not fail again!)  We further claim that you won't get more of whatever you subsidize, even though we know you will, and that you won't get less of whatever you tax.

These are all lies.  They're lies that you tell yourself.  You tell your neighbors, friends and acquaintances those same lies. Worse, you lie to your children, and tell them they'll have a better tomorrow, and a better future, even though you know darn well that what you're doing and demanding is destructive and mathematically impossible.

The worst offenders are school teachers, administrators and politicians of all stripes.  I have particular disdain for those political types that claim to be "for the people" or even worse, "for liberty", because they're not only lying they're either doing so from positions of power or trying to achieve power through lies.  Teachers lying to students are particularly mendacious; those who use students for political protest (and there are many) or who selectively teach that collectivism is somehow superior and will "work" (even though history shows it never has) and then argue that they are somehow "special" and should have "retirements" that are guaranteed at a level that nobody else can achieve in private industry are in fact trying to defend the right to financially hornswoggle their students!

We will never address what ails our nation until we cut this cr*p out.  It begins with you, I, and everyone else.  It begins with we the people demanding that those who we choose to associate with and those who we elect to office hold a higher moral standard and when they fail if they are in a position of power they be immediately removed and replaced by someone else.  If they are an associate then we must cease association until their behavior changes.
A nation and her people are only as moral and ethical as those who reside within it demand of those who lead, and especially those who instruct our youth.
 
Our founders were wiser than we, in the main.  John Adams comes particularly to mind, who said, among many other things:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The responsibility begins and ends with us folks. To accept that our government cannot fund that which we will not pay for in the present tense. To demand that our government put a stop to the medical monopolies right now throughout the system, without exception, fear or favor. To return poverty "assistance" programs to their former status which places your acceptance of such aid in public view; if "society" is paying for it then we have a right to see it, for good or bad, in all its splendor, and be able to count it, as this not only is a check and balance on people claiming that which they don't really need, it also prevents hiding the scope of problems when they're real.

Finally, I challenge everyone to look at your own personal associations in your daily life, and to decide.  This is not just a matter of your personal way of life, although it may appear that way.  We are, as a nation, governed by liars and thieves, yet arithmetic does not know politics nor will it sit still for them.  It just is, and if our conduct does not change in the immediate future the outcome as dictated by arithmetic will come and your weal, or woe, will be determined not just by your own conduct but also by the conduct of those who you choose to associate with.

Choose wisely, for the time remaining to choose at all is coming to a close.

To be perfectly clear, the basis for morals flow from the very character of God, who has been systematically removed from our lives in every aspect, as well as every aspect of our country. For those so inclined, I have previously written a couple of post discussing the nature of the basis for objective morals, as well as some scientific evidences and arguments for the existence of a theist God. Please have a look at them (its in large part why I had a change of heart in being a militant atheist to now a Christian).

Objective morals:
http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,24267.0.html

Evidences and arguments for a theist God:
http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,27088.0.html

Second, we must protect our society from the ravages of these cowardly killers. And gun bans are the total antithesis of what is required to effectively protect ourselves and our loved ones from such an onslaught as witnessed far too many times now. As one illuminating scenario, out of 7 movie theaters within a 20 minute drive of the Aurora CO shooter earlier this year, there was only one that had a ban on guns. Common sense would suggest it was no accident that the gunman chose the particular theater that he did. We have got to do something to disallow these disarmament zones, which serve as prime targets for people wishing to commit such evil acts we continue to witness year after year. Please have a look at a few articles and some statistics in the following links that explain the situation much better than I ever could.

Look at the following annual survey of sheriffs and police chief around this nation regarding their take on citizens arming themselves (questions 15-18):

http://www.nacoponline.org/22nd.pdf

And some surveys of police on the streets:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/police-surveys.html

Then looking at the following link, one can see that while CCW's were increasing, crime rates were decreasing (as seen in next link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

Decreasing crime rates baffle experts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1&

Then, as previously posted in the other "shooting" thread, a few links to ponder, that aren't discussed much by main stream media, in which mass killings were stopped by an armed citizen, or in one instance, police:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/1996/the-chronicle,-muskegon,-mi,-82395.aspx?s=%22%27All+In!%27%22&st=&ps=

http://blutube.policeone.com/police-training-videos/935831023001-jeanne-assam-and-the-new-life-church-shooting/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911219/posts

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few

http://www.ktxs.com/news/RV-PARK-KILLINGS-Witness-shooter-recounts-shootout-with-gunman-who-killed-two-in-Early/-/14769632/15933066/-/30wo2o/-/index.html

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/95032689.html

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/college-student-shoots-kills-home-invader/nD9XG/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Middle_School_dance_shooting

http://kdvr.com/2012/04/24/police-identify-man-who-shot-killed-pastors-mother-at-church/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

Third, although better mental health services would be a tremendous help, we cannot compel individuals to do anything they are unwilling to do, such as voluntarily seeking out a healthcare professional. According to my understanding (and hopefully someone will correct me if I’m wrong), as it stands today, a family member can appeal to the court system to have someone, who is in a state of mind to inflict harm to themselves or others, involuntarily committed to a hospital for evaluation and subsequent treatment. And, being that it is involuntary, the patient cannot simply up and leave the healthcare facility; they must meet the criterion set by the state (?) in order to be released from said facility. I think the real help, though, lies in learning how to better spot the signs of mental illness and effectively dealing with them, simply because we love someone and desperately want to see them get better.  

There are so many other things to suggest as potential solutions; unfortunately, I’ve run out of time for the evening. Please accept my apology, but I will return tomorrow to follow up, if necessary. And thank you very much for your concern, tiredofbs, as we must come to a viable solution, and soon. But one thing is absolutely certain; we can't let the anti-gun zealots unabatedly exploit this tragedy for political gain, as there will be furtherance of unintended consequences like those we continue to see year after year.


I've been avoiding this discussion since it was posted. I started reading it today, and Jeff G's response was so on the spot, I HAD to copy it to my Facebook page. Thanks Jeff.
Logged
Muddylaces
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 09:14:23 PM
Date Registerd:December 26, 2007, 10:46:35 AM
Posts: 2927



« Reply #159 on: December 30, 2012, 11:35:17 AM »

I've never been to a gun show.   This question is for the gun rights people mainly, but would you object to having your driver's license run as you're being admitted to a gun show?   Could this counter the charge that a felon can buy a gun without a background check at a gun show.   

I guess this could be a 4th amendment problem....but what do you think?
Logged

NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 21, 2014, 06:29:11 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 04:52:41 PM
Posts: 9558



« Reply #160 on: December 30, 2012, 02:15:16 PM »

Pi, I will respond in a longer post later. However, for clarity - you said I was putting words in your mouth regarding the 2% claim and criminals. Did you have some different source to back up that 2% claim? The way I read it was what I said before - it was a survey or crimnals. More later...
Logged
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #161 on: December 30, 2012, 03:22:30 PM »


Side note for Jeff: I'm not aware of any large issues confronting our society today in which the church is no longer a major participant in the war of ideas. It is almost always mentioned in the debates by those for or against one side, as well as by the politicians we elect.


I don’t want to get too sidetracked from the discussion; but, I do want to attempt to clarify.

I am sorry Yip, but I may have not clearly stated the context of which your quoted passage refers. The point I was trying to emphasize was the church, the entire evangelical community, is no longer taken seriously by the vast majority of the secular community, and for good reason. The church has immensely contributed to the problem, ergo; the reason the church is no longer the “salt” to the world, as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 5:13.

There used to be, over some 250 years ago in the church, an utmost regard and pursuit of the development of the intellectual mind as mandated in the Scriptures as to what a disciple of Christ truly is:  e.g., in Matthew 22:37, Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”; in Romans 12:1-2, we are instructed, “Therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. And there are many other clear references in the Scriptures regarding what a Christian is to be doing in pursuit of an intellectual life. Therefore, from the earliest Christians until approximately two-hundred and fifty years ago, Christians were able to achieve this due to the fact they commonly engaged in developing their minds through the study of various subjects and disciplines (math, science, history, etc), and in particular, philosophy. These previous Christians, particularly church leaders and pastors, possessed stunning intelligence and were intensely devoted disciples of Christ.

As largely viewed nowadays by the secular world, Christianity is comprised mostly of fools, knaves, and liars. Not to mention the current prevalent view of Christianity is mostly as an emotional crutch. Unfortunately, not only the vast majority of secular society, but also the modern Christian community, primarily perceives Christianity as purely a means by which some apparent emotional needs are meet, and nothing more. Most certainly there are indeed emotional aspects and needs being met by Christ, and the Christian community as a whole; however, as true as this may be, such an approach to evangelism (as a means of addressing felt needs) is inadequate for two reasons. First, it does not reach people who may be out of touch with their feelings. Consequently, if men in our culture are in general less in touch with their feelings than women, this approach will not reach men effectively. Second, it invites the response, “Sorry, but I don’t have a need.”

It is the view of this “felt” need that is partly responsible for much of society, including Christians, arriving at a misunderstanding of the Christian faith. Religion is now viewed by many as a placebo or an emotional crutch precisely because that is how we often pitch the Gospel to unbelievers. Sadly, this incorrect presentation of the Gospel message is due to the lack of real basis in logic and reason serving as a guide. Moreover, logic and reason should dictate that the Gospel does not appeal only to emotional needs; if it’s true that God exists, and Christ died to reconcile all of us to Him, then, the Gospel message applies to every human regardless of any perceived need.

Further, the value of the intellectual mind began to slowly unravel circa the mid-1800s. These seeds for change had been planted during periods of huge spiritual revivals, or the “Great Awakenings.” There is no doubt that much good came from these great revivals; however, their general effect was to overstate the importance of instantaneous personal conversion to Christ instead of a deliberate period of thoughtful consideration, as had previously been viewed as a critically important step by many church leaders. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the personal transformations resulting from these movements. What was, however, quite a subsequent problem was the intellectually and theologically shallow form of Christianity that emerged from these great revivals, which was also evident in the revivalists of the American frontier (approximately from the 1750’s to 1850’s) who grounded their preaching in emotionalism, not reason.

There is so very, very much more to say about how this has happened in the evangelical community, and the subsequent problems such as the issue of morality I keep referring to, but I don’t want to derail this thread and further than I already have. But, suffice it to say anti-intellectualism adversely affects the church because it cripples the very purposes and reaches of the church, which will continue to further erode the church and society if church leaders, and the entire evangelical community, do not step up and take the necessary actions to correct it. And these problems I’ve alluded to (and others I haven’t mentioned), NC Yippie, are the foundation for the church no longer being perceived as feasible to many folks in secular society, and even academia. When considered as such, Christianity will not be taken seriously, and will not find much viable participation amongst the war of idea, nor will the evangelical community effectively impact the world for Christ, particularly with the issue of problematic morals running rampant.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 03:26:28 PM by Jeff G » Logged
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #162 on: December 30, 2012, 03:28:15 PM »

I've been avoiding this discussion since it was posted. I started reading it today, and Jeff G's response was so on the spot, I HAD to copy it to my Facebook page. Thanks Jeff.


You're most welcome!

Would you mind if I asked why have you avoided this discussion?
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 23, 2014, 02:55:42 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3318



« Reply #163 on: December 30, 2012, 03:58:34 PM »

Pi, I will respond in a longer post later. However, for clarity - you said I was putting words in your mouth regarding the 2% claim and criminals. Did you have some different source to back up that 2% claim? The way I read it was what I said before - it was a survey or crimnals. More later...

Maybe I am wrong and this time, unlike several other times in the past, you dis not put words in my mouth.

But, that does nothing to change the main point of my argument, which is that you do not have sufficient data to prove that guns bought at gun shows are over represented in crime.

We can keep going around and around on this but if you havent been able to make your case by now, I dont think you ever will. The data we do have is data that you will not accept, i.e. the 2 percent figure. I understand your issues with it, but even if you did manage to find something else you still have to make the other case, which is that it is worth further infringement on our rights.

If I must submit to going through an FFL each time I buy a gun, it is an infringement. As I said earlier, it wont kill gun shows. Somehow they will adapt. But what it does is effectively add a tax to the sale if the item. Now, instead of selling my 100 dollar .22 rifle, I have to split the transfer fee. Or the buyer has to pay it. We have to both go together to an FFL. That means we have extra coordination, find a time that works for three schedules, etc.

That might not seem like a big deal to you. I mean, why do you care if I have to pay a 25 dollar transfer fee on a 100 dollar rifle?  It is more things that I have to put up with to exercise my second amendment rights.

And you know what?  Obama is not talking about that specific measure. He wants to ban certain types of rifles and magazines. I am curious. You probably voted for Obama both times. Is this what you envisioned when you cast your vote?  And do you agree with his policy?
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 23, 2014, 02:55:42 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3318



« Reply #164 on: December 30, 2012, 08:00:09 PM »

For those that haven't quite grasped the impact of gun laws and the futility of more laws, please read this analysis:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!