Now is not the time to talk about gun control (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    There is a deep, irrational and disturbing sickness on the right and it's not just Covid-19. It grows larger with every passing year and threatens to engulf us all.
     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    So can I on both fronts.
    Click to expand...
    I sure can agree with the part that our efforts are not returning a benefit and therefore we ought to table the issue. Every time we've pushed the issue, and every time they've pretend that we've pushed the issue, more guns are made and sold.

    This latest school shooting might change legal precedent some, holding the parents responsible because they bought the gun for the monster they created.
     
    Interesting read, not sure this is the right thread for it

    I’ve never heard the term ‘muscular Christianity’ before
    =======================
    When two members of Congress recently shared images of their well-armed families gathered in front of Christmas trees, many assumed it was merely an act of provocation, a loaded gesture designed to exasperate opponents and excite supporters.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), responding to the photographs posted by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), asked on Twitter, “Tell me again where Christ said ‘use the commemoration of my birth to flex violent weapons for personal political gain’?”


    Others, however, saw in the photos something worth emulating. A week into the controversy, the Republican mayor of Maury County, Tenn., Andy Ogles, posted his own fortified family portrait to Facebook, commenting with a line often (dubiously) credited to George Washington: “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”


    No matter their intended effect, the photos represent a tradition far older than our current penchant for political trolling — one that, like it or not, is part of widely held interpretations of the upcoming holiday and the beliefs of many who observe it. That is the tradition of Muscular Christianity.

    At the heart of both the outrage and the delight inspired by these Yuletide pictures was not just a surprising display of firepower but a common aspect of American religion that is unsettling to outsiders.

    These photos represent a shift in attitudes among some evangelical Christians that may have broader implications, as the previously subtle influences of firearms on faith become impossible to ignore…..

    For more than a century, American Protestantism has been shaped by the movement known as Muscular Christianity, which arose to combat expressions of the faith that critics of the time claimed had become bookish, soft, sedentary and — as they judged it then — excessively feminine.

    Popular publications such as 1912’s “The Masculine Power of Christ; or, Christ Measured as a Man” argued that Jesus was “distinctly manly and virile,” and it was the task of the Christian to be so as well…..

    More than 40 percent of White evangelicals own firearms, far outpacing other religious groups and the general population, according to a Pew Research Center study. In a sense, American evangelical culture is a significant part of American gun culture, and vice versa. Neither would be the same without the other.

    Their entwined influence can be seen in scriptural arguments for bringing firearms to church, as well as on hoodies extolling the trinity of “God, Guns and Trump” worn at the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6……

     
    Op Ed from Gavin Newsom
    =====================
    It’s outrageous that the Supreme Court continues to allow Texas to use the threat of civil lawsuits to nullify women’s constitutional right to control their own bodies. But if this kind of lawmaking is fair play, then California will at least use this tool to save lives instead of harming them.

    That’s why this month I called on California’s legislature to send me a bill creating a similar way to take action against those who produce or sell assault weapons and “ghost guns” in California.


    Many applauded this move when I announced it, but some have argued that California should not follow Texas down this path of vigilante justice. I understand the concern. But I strongly disagree.


    Let me be clear: The Supreme Court should never have opened this door in the first place. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, it’s “madness” to approve a state law like Texas’s “that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review.”

    California opposed Texas’s ploy at the Supreme Court, and I wish the court had agreed with us. But so long as this door is open to states, we’re going to walk through it, too, to protect Californians and bolster our common-sense gun laws that have come under attack. It’s not “taking the low road” to seize an opportunity to keep people safe.


    And unlike the Texas law, my proposal would not chill a constitutional right. No binding precedent has ever held that weapons of war or homemade “ghost guns” that evade basic regulation are constitutionally protected. Texas’s law, on the other hand, blatantly flouts Roe v. Wade’s fundamental protections.

    Maybe California’s move will lead the court to change its mind about allowing Texas’s bounty-hunter scheme. If that’s the case, women’s reproductive care across our nation would be better off.

    If there’s anything I’ve learned as a father of four kids, it is that sometimes you don’t realize you’ve made a mistake until you see the consequences of your actions come true.


    Or maybe Congress will respond to both laws — and also Florida’s recent proposal to allow private suits against those teaching “critical race theory” — by putting an end to this chaos and making it easier to challenge these laws up front, before suits filed under those laws result in thousands of dollars in damages.

    But if only radical conservative interests follow Texas’s playbook, we’ll never see change…….

     
    brandon said:
    Asked and answered.

    Nowhere in the constitution are you granted the right to a handgun.
    Click to expand...
    It doesn’t specify what gun I may own. It just says that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You want to ban assault rifles, fine. Define an assault rifle for me please.
     
    V Chip said:
    They’ll change their opinions once there is a BLM protest full of people open carrying, watch.
    Click to expand...
    We have the same open carry law in Wisconsin and had no issues with open carry during the riots other than Kyle. If you go further north of Green Bay damn near everyone is carrying a gun in the open.
     
    Semper said:
    It doesn’t specify what gun I may own. It just says that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You want to ban assault rifles, fine. Define an assault rifle for me please.
    Click to expand...
    It was written at a time when they were using muskets and couldn't have possibly dreamed of the kinds of guns people are "bearing arms" with on city streets today.
     
    insidejob said:
    It was written at a time when they were using muskets and couldn't have possibly dreamed of the kinds of guns people are "bearing arms" with on city streets today.
    Click to expand...
    Understood. That’s not what I mean though. Defining an AR is tough to do. Is it by appearance, caliber, mag size? How do we define an AR without it effecting other firearms. For instance they make rifle that holds 30+ rounds with a collapsible stock that is a .22lr. Would that also be banned under an AR ban? I have a bolt action rifle that shoot .223 so would that be banned? I personally sold all of my AR type rifles after Sandy Hook. I know what you mean by banning an AR but politicians don’t. How do we define an AR without effecting other firearms that would accidentally fall into this class of banned firearms?
     
    Semper said:
    It doesn’t specify what gun I may own. It just says that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You want to ban assault rifles, fine. Define an assault rifle for me please.
    Click to expand...

    would be okay if the law only allowed a specific kind of gun?

    you way own a Wyatt Earp style six shooter, a specific hunting rifle, and specific shotgun and that’s it

    with a cap on how many arms a person may bear themselves with?
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    would be okay if the law only allowed a specific kind of gun?

    you way own a Wyatt Earp style six shooter, a specific hunting rifle, and specific shotgun and that’s it

    with a cap on how many arms a person may bear themselves with?
    Click to expand...
    Not a chance. Look you want to ban an AR style platform I am ok with that but there has to be a meet in the middle approach. I already said I got rid of my AR’s, and I had 6 of them. But now you’re asking for more? And limiting what I can own? That’s where you will lose almost every gun owner. I at one point had over 150 guns. I am down to the 30’s now. But all of them I have for specific reasons. Several are collector pieces. For instance I have a Springfield trap door that was made in 1878. I do shoot it but it’s a collector piece.
     
    brandon said:
    No person needs 30 guns.
    Click to expand...
    You're right no one needs 30 guns, but some people like to have more than 30 guns.

    When I was a teenager one of my friends dads was an antique gun and old west memorabilia dealer and I suppose he never had lass than 600 guns in his house at any one time.

    Optimus Prime mentioned a Wyatt Earp style six shooter above. I've held one of Wyatt Earp's pistol and read the certification paperwork for it with my own eyes when visiting my friend at his house. His dad would sit there by the house dragging out treasures to show us one by one.

    The thing is those kinds of collectors don't kill people. They handle their guns safely, lock them up so they don't get stolen. What they have is too expensive for criminals. I don't think that class of gun owners contribute to the problem. So they should be left alone so that they don't add to the resistance to gun control legation for the weapons that do contribute to the problem.

    We on the left we need to not make more resistance for what we want than we have to. Gun collectors in-effect help us, don't hinder our efforts insofar as making the world less safe. The help because they hold firearms out of circulation locked up, and handle them in way that makes them safe for the rest of us.

    I read what Semper said about his gun ownership and i think he's doing fine.

    BTW I have 6 hunting type rifles and shotguns, none of them have ever harmed a living human being, and I doubt that they ever will.
     
    brandon said:
    You only have two arms.

    If you have a family of ten, that's only 20 arms.

    No one needs 30 guns.


    And some people are a hazard for getting their guns stolen.
    Click to expand...
    Dude someone would have to get into my house, through the security system, into the basement, into my gun room and then into my safes. I am very responsible with my gun collection. I get you don’t understand, I don’t understand your position either. I have friends that have over 1000 guns.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom