Bring guns to church?

[PeteZ28]

Not a good idea. I would deny and take away these rights from many people, for example, from the blind. A blind man in New Jersey shot himself accidentally in the leg and the police took away his guns. But he appealed to the courts and the courts restored the rights of this blind man to own and shoot guns. IMHO, it is dangerous to give automatic and semi-automatic weapons to blind people who can’t see what they are shooting at. Where is the concern for the children in school, for the people praying in Church as they are being gunned down in massacres and no one is doing anything about it?

theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/10/america-gun-licences-blind-people

I’ll tell you why blind people can get firearms. Weapon ownership is considered an inalienable right, one not granted by the government but endowed by natural right of birth. And it’s a slippery slope when one allows the government to determine who is “fit” to exercise their rights and who isn’t. For all the hubbub around that one very isolated incident, there does not seem to be an epidemic of blind people with guns causing public mayhem. It always amazes me when people latch onto the exception to justify the rule.

And what do blind people having guns have to do with school children being gunned down anyway?

 

[Hans_W]

This problem is solved by holding those friends and family members equally responsible for any murders which took place as a result of their gifting these guns to insane people.

What does that help victims and family members of shooting “accidents” and murders? Problem solved?

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ll tell you why blind people can get firearms. Weapon ownership is considered an inalienable right, one not granted by the government but endowed by natural right of birth. And it’s a slippery slope when one allows the government to determine who is “fit” to exercise their rights and who isn’t. For all the hubbub around that one very isolated incident, there does not seem to be an epidemic of blind people with guns causing public mayhem. It always amazes me when people latch onto the exception to justify the rule.

And what do blind people having guns have to do with school children being gunned down anyway?

I agree about this being an isolated incident from which we should not extrapolate, and I can even understand somewhat the slippery-slope argument. But blind people, including the legally blind, should not be in possession of firearms for their own safety as well as the safety of others. No slippery slope there.

 

[Tomdstone]

Cleaner how, by measure of the amount of the city streets?

Yes. As you cross the border from Canada to Buffalo, NY, you will see the big difference between a clean, well kept, tidy city and one filled with graffiti, dirt, and stinking with garbage.

 

[Tomdstone]

What does that help victims and family members of shooting “accidents” and murders? Problem solved?

You are right. It is only a stop gap measure which might not reduce violent crime in the end. It is only a tool designed to hold those people who have gifted guns to the insane responsible for their actions. So I guess we have to go to the root cause and strip away gun rights across the board. How else can we protect children in schools who are being gunned down and the worshippers in churches who are being murdered. Why give guns to blind people and those who are insane?

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes. As you cross the border from Canada to Buffalo, NY, you will see the big difference between a clean, well kept, tidy city and one filled with graffiti, dirt, and stinking with garbage.

It was many years ago, but I also remember how fresh the air was in Canada compared to the air in New York.

But back to the issue of bringing guns to church…

 

[PeteZ28]

I agree about this being an isolated incident from which we should not extrapolate, and I can even understand somewhat the slippery-slope argument. But blind people, including the legally blind, should not be in possession of firearms for their own safety as well as the safety of others. No slippery slope there.

I suggest you don’t underestimate the capabilities of a blind person. A few months ago, for example, I watched a blind man confidently navigate the New York City subway, walk up the steps, walk to the traffic light, cross the street, and go off about his business, in the snow and ice, with nothing more than a cane. God only knows ho far he came to get there, or how much further he went. And he never once stopped to ask for help.

A blind person is very much a target for a predator. I have no doubt that a blind person, if grabbed by an attacker, would have little to no difficulty locating that individual and defending themselves. They don’t call snubnose revolvers “belly guns” for no reason…

As for the “slippery slope”, it begins ANY time you place an exception. Because now the question is no longer “if” there are restrictions, but “where” those restrictions are. As the old saying goes, “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!”. It’s not hard to go a mile by moving the bar an inch at a time.

 

[PeteZ28]

You are right. It is only a stop gap measure which might not reduce violent crime in the end. It is only a tool designed to hold those people who have gifted guns to the insane responsible for their actions. So I guess we have to go to the root cause and strip away gun rights across the board. How else can we protect children in schools who are being gunned down and the worshippers in churches who are being murdered. Why give guns to blind people and those who are insane?

Please demonstrate a case where someone “gifted” a gun to the insane? Also, please demonstrate a case where a blind person shot someone, other than themselves, accidentally, which could happen to anyone?

 

[exnihilo]

The fear that without a gun on my belt that I’m a walking target is not a reality. It’s an exaggerated paranoid delusion that feeds a culture of war or cold war. Have you considered that the violent gun culture and crime potential in America is being fed by the presence of those very guns as necessary household items? When you look at other western countries that prohibit guns for personal defense… do you not see that there is no intense fear or victim mentality? Even when crimes occur no one believes that flooding the society with guns would end or curtail that unfortunate human reality of crime and criminals. Most of us are more likely to think in a moment of crime ‘lucky guns aren’t more of a feature in criminal activity here’.

Typically the only people I see wearing on gun on their belts are cops. They claim to be walking targets. People seem to agree with that and think it fine for them to carry guns. I think they are in fact targets. I also think a manger leaving a store carrying a cash bag is a target. A guy delivering pizzas is a target. Most people who carry guns aren’t paranoid. They realize there are threats in this world and want to be prepared to resist them.

Some guy in Austria just ran over a bunch of people and then get out and stab others. If Austrians don’t think it a good idea if someone had a gun to stop the lunatic that is their decision. But It wouldn’t be an unreasonable idea.

 

[meltzerboy]

I suggest you don’t underestimate the capabilities of a blind person. A few months ago, for example, I watched a blind man confidently navigate the New York City subway, walk up the steps, walk to the traffic light, cross the street, and go off about his business, in the snow and ice, with nothing more than a cane. God only knows ho far he came to get there, or how much further he went. And he never once stopped to ask for help.

A blind person is very much a target for a predator. I have no doubt that a blind person, if grabbed by an attacker, would have little to no difficulty locating that individual and defending themselves. They don’t call snubnose revolvers “belly guns” for no reason…

As for the “slippery slope”, it begins ANY time you place an exception. Because now the question is no longer “if” there are restrictions, but “where” those restrictions are. As the old saying goes, “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!”. It’s not hard to go a mile by moving the bar an inch at a time.

You make two good points: one about the capability of (some) blind people and the second about the origin of a slippery slope. Still, I do have some doubt that a “blind person, if grabbed by an attacker, would have little to no difficulty locating that individual and defending themselves.” IMO, they may have considerable difficulty defending themselves and may in fact injure themselves with the gun rather than the predator. If you want to make the argument that without the gun, they would be totally defenseless, you may have a point, unless they were skilled in karate. One would have to determine the risks vs. the benefits, I suppose. My gut feeling is, however, that this is a bad idea.

 

[PeteZ28]

You make two good points: one about the capability of (some) blind people and the second about the origin of a slippery slope. Still, I do have some doubt that a “blind person, if grabbed by an attacker, would have little to no difficulty locating that individual and defending themselves.” IMO, they may have considerable difficulty defending themselves and may in fact injure themselves with the gun rather than the predator. If you want to make the argument that without the gun, they would be totally defenseless, you may have a point, unless they were skilled in karate. One would have to determine the risks vs. the benefits, I suppose. My gut feeling is, however, that this is a bad idea.

I thank you for considering my points. I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree, as long as there is consideration on both sides, and I can completely appreciate why you would feel the way you do as well. Personally, when things like this become subjective I tend to always side towards people making the decision for themselves. Could bad things happen? Sure, life’s messy, bad things are always possible in any situation. But in the interest of rights, I think the greater danger lies in not giving people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Even_So]

The Vatican collaborates with the U.N.

So if the Vatican ordered you to jump off a bridge if you were afraid of heights, would you do it?

Therefore, the Vatican is evil.

Right? Is that what we’re concluding here?

Thank you for asking. It was only a matter of time before i rubbed someone the wrong way. The U.N. should be tossed off our soil. They may be backed by guys like George Soros, Bloomberg, and all others richies in power in favor of global disarmament. The gun ban treaty our president and Kerry signed is just that. The socialists are trying to even us out with the rest of the world.
republicmagazine.com/news/gun-grabbing-and-genocide-obama-prepares-to-sign-un-small-arms-treaty.html
investmentwatchblog.com/obama-breaks-oath-of-office-signs-un-gun-ban-treaty-gun-confiscation-day-after-christmas/Disarmthepeoples
thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16618-kerry-signs-un-arms-trade-treaty-civilian-disarmament-advancing.
Peace. Yeah right. The U.N. and Vatican are in favor of a two party Israel.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/vatican-palestinian-state_n_2215307.html
israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162688#.VYdy7kZQAgQ
If you know eschatology, there will in fact be a false peace. I find it curious how GOD is the author of all eschatology yet you are discouraged from learning it by the CC. I surmise few of you know anything about the book of Revelation and apologies if i offend thee. Read just the first three verses:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
You will be blessed for knowing! I get the whole sola scrpitura thing, but you need to question some things. I see quotes like “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines”, or someone says we are Catholic and don’t do eschatology, and i have to wonder if you are taught to believe anything and everything and also leads me to believe you would follow my post at the top. I was told sola scriptura was fallacious, yet following w/o questioning is zactly that. I know some of you are not down with everything the Pope says. So can you question it, or is it swallowed hook, line, and sinker? Keep your body mind and soul keen to what’s happening. And check out the Back Fence End Times Speculation where we bounce things around.

 

[Tomdstone]

So if the Vatican ordered you to jump off a bridge if you were afraid of heights, would you do it?

I am not aware of any order from the Vatican commanding me or anyone else to jump off a bridge. I doubt that they have ever given such an order.

 

[Tomdstone]

Please demonstrate a case where someone “gifted” a gun to the insane?

Dylan Roof received a .45-caliber pistol from his father in April for his birthday. Because of his criminal record, Roof would not have been able to buy a gun from a store. What do you think his defense will be? I don’t see any defense for him except for an insanity plea.

 

[PeteZ28]

Dylan Roof received a .45-caliber pistol from his father in April for his birthday. Because of his criminal record, Roof would not have been able to buy a gun from a store. What do you think his defense will be? I don’t see any defense for him except for an insanity plea.

Ok, I have to confess, I set you up a little with that question.

Contrary to the early reports, Dylan Roof did not receive a gun for his birthday, he purchased the gun with money he received for his birthday. He did not have a criminal record, or a mental health record, and he did in fact pass a Brady background check.

Had he been legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and someone knowingly purchased it for him, (known as a “straw purchase”), both the purchaser and receiver would have been committing felonies.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ok, I have to confess, I set you up a little with that question.

Contrary to the early reports, Dylan Roof did not receive a gun for his birthday, he purchased the gun with money he received for his birthday. He did not have a criminal record, or a mental health record, and he did in fact pass a Brady background check.

Had he been legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and someone knowingly purchased it for him, (known as a “straw purchase”), both the purchaser and receiver would have been committing felonies.

Interesting that the early news reports were in serious error on that point.

 

[Pulvis]

Interesting that the early news reports were in serious error on that point.

Never ever run with the rush to report crowd. Remember hands up, don’t shoot? Honestly we were better off before the 24 hour news feed started. At least the reporters had more time to get acurate information, if they chose to.

 

[Tomdstone]

Never ever run with the rush to report crowd. Remember hands up, don’t shoot? Honestly we were better off before the 24 hour news feed started. At least the reporters had more time to get acurate information, if they chose to.

True. OTOH, it appears then, that it was easy for an insane person to buy a gun.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

True. OTOH, it appears then, that it was easy for an insane person to buy a gun.

I have questions for you.

Exactly what would be the process for declaring someone insane enough to not purchase a firearm and what would be the criteria?

Who would do the declaration?

How would the declaration be enforced?

How and in what manner would the government be involved?

 

[Brendan]

I have questions for you.

Exactly what would be the process for declaring someone insane enough to not purchase a firearm and what would be the criteria? ?

And, should those same insane people be allowed to buy cars, or operate bank accounts?

If so, why, or why not?