Universal background checks Dems' top priority

[Ridgerunner]

No, this Spadaro fellow really said that, ignoring the fact that The “Bible Belt” in the U.S. has been what it has been for going on 300 years now, with little change. And he doesn’t seem to understand that “Evangelicals” and “Fundamentalists” are not necessarily the same thing. There is some overlap, but it’s only overlap. It’s like saying all Catholics are Byzantine because some Catholics are Byzantine. Apparently the article you’re citing at least recognizes that much. Evangelicalism is not necessarily made up of political conservatives, either. Most Fundamentalists would be thought of as “conservatives” by casual observers, though some Fundamentalist beliefs are not at all politically conservative.

And he doesn’t understand that the “Deep South” which he accused of being the well-spring of American Evangelism, isn’t anything of the kind and never was. It’s a different culture from the “upper south” and “Greater Appalachia” where Fundamentalism and a certain kind of Evangelicalism actually does prevail and from where it really did spring.

And my pointing out that Spadaro and Figueroa don’t appear to understand America is not an “ad hominem” attack. It’s simply observing something that ought to be obvious to anyone who has actually lived among American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

And I’m not sufficiently interested in what Brits think Evangelicalism ought to be or what they think American Evangelicals are, to listen to them at this time as you recommend. Maybe sometime, but it will almost certainly not be relevant to American Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism, any more than “conservatives” in Britain are the same as “conservatives” in America.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Think he means it?

It is all talk.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Gun owners have guns, and we will kill for our right to keep them.

There’s the Catholic Spirit.

 

[Theo520]

Encouraging compliance with background checks.

I think Canada found it fairly useless in helping solve crimes,

Leaf- It’s not for solving crimes. It’s for preventing them.

How did registration prevent crimes? As I said it showed no value in solving them. Seems like unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.

Confiscation doesn’t take years, where did you get that idea?

Leaf - Assuming 1,000 teams each confiscating 10 guns per day, that’s 300,000 per month. It would take 1,000 months - about 80 years - to confiscate all 300,000,000 guns. But if there was going to be a backlash, it would happen in the first two days, long before any significant degradation of the arsenal.

Your math is conveniently bad. Australia completed their program from inception in less than a year. It would hardly take the US any more time, especially if they had gun registration as a reference.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We already have “universal background checks”. As far as I can tell, every firearm used in a mass shooting since Columbine was purchased by a person that passed a background check.

I’m guessing the next step would be to require much more information in the background resource, and a lot more opportunity for someone to say “no gun for this fellow”. One remembers Janet Napolitano’s “Dangerous persons” list, which one could get on simply by showing up at a prolife demonstration.

 

[niceatheist]

Road-Worrier:

We already have “universal background checks”. As far as I can tell, every firearm used in a mass shooting since Columbine was purchased by a person that passed a background check.

I’m guessing the next step would be to require much more information in the background resource, and a lot more opportunity for someone to say “no gun for this fellow”. One remembers Janet Napolitano’s “Dangerous persons” list, which one could get on simply by showing up at a prolife demonstration.

Is that necessarily a bad thing, though? While I agree that defining what would constitute a list of incidents or disorders sufficient to prevent sale of a gun to someone, that it is a hard problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem that shouldn’t be tackled. The fact is with the long history Cruz had of clear behavioral problems, including what sounds like at least one previous uttered threat about using a gun, this is a person who should not have been able to purchase a gun.

Obviously it is complicated, and the Constitution is going to require due process in revoking of a Second Amendment right, and it’s also obvious, unfortunately, that some people who are not a threat will find it more difficult to purchase a gun. But it’s not as if lawmakers and courts don’t have to deal with balancing of liberty with public safety all the time.

If we are going to accept that people with some significant form of mental illness or behavioral problem shouldn’t be able to purchase guns, that means having to accept that there needs to be some sort of system of background checks in place with enough data so that someone can actually make that determination. And I think people have to accept that there is no such thing as a perfect system.

 

[Theo520]

Is that necessarily a bad thing, though? While I agree that defining what would constitute a list of incidents or disorders sufficient to prevent sale of a gun to someone, that it is a hard problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem that shouldn’t be tackled. The fact is with the long history Cruz had of clear behavioral problems, including what sounds like at least one previous uttered threat about using a gun, this is a person who should not have been able to purchase a gun.

It’s not that simple. If you hang around kids, they often act ‘ghetto’ and threaten each other all the time. It would need to be something more substantial and proveable, not a simple “I heard him say”.

The issue is less about stopping a purchase than responding better to appropriate red flags. The shooter here bought his gun a year prior, not the day before. The Sandy Hook shooter never bought a gun, he killed to get weapons.

We need to figure out how to respond to red flags, which would likely include advising any other adults in the home to remove weapons while the person is being treated. As Sandy Hook showed, locking them up isn’t enough.

Candidly though, any real prevention will hinge on treatment of the ‘red flag’ issues. If treatment doesn’t take, the person bent on harm will still be able to locate a weapon in the community.

I think the motivation for waiting periods is to prevent domestic abuse escalating. I find the reasoning highly suspect and it also prevents an abused spouse from obtaining defensive protection.

 

[niceatheist]

Cruz had no lack of interventions, that’s for certain, a lot of them predating the purchase of his first gun. This wasn’t just a kid talking big to his buddies, this was a kid with a consistent and persistent set of behavioral problems throughout his adolescence. I know hindsight is easy, and to some extent unfair, as I’m sure no one at any point in Cruz’s troubled life actually thought he’d go to his old school and start shooting people, but it does seem, in retrospect, there were plenty of red flags.

Sandy Hook is a whole other ball game, and honestly, I could see something like that happening even in Canada. I fully concede you are never going to eliminate mass shootings entirely, that there will be those who slip through the cracks, or, in the case of Adam Lanza, there really were few external clues of what was going on inside the house.

But not every mass shooter is an Adam Lanza. There are James Holmes’ and Nikolas Cruz’ shooters, people who have already exhibited some sort of violent and erratic behavior, and while you can’t prevent the Lanza’s of the world, because you literally never saw them coming, maybe you can do something to keep the Holmes’ and Cruz’s from getting their hands on guns.

 

[Luke6_37]

Your post attacking Ridgerunner is not ad hominem?

No, because if calling out an ad hominem was an ad hominem you’d have an infinite regress that would be impossible to resolve. That itself is illogical.

 

[Theo520]

No, because if calling out an ad hominem was an ad hominem you’d have an infinite regress that would be impossible to resolve. That itself is illogical.

FYI, you have to be debating something for a claim of Ad Hominem to have any merit.

He may have slagged off the guy, but it wasn’t an Ad Hominem as you claimed. Study up on your logical fallacies.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Is gun ownership a God-given right?

Yes.

If I’m part of the movement to amend the Constitution to outlaw gun ownership and confiscate guns will you shoot me?

Are you going to threaten deadly force in order to confiscate my gun? Are you going to take up arms to defend the hypothetical government that is attempting to take my guns?

You ever heard that saying: “I disagree but I would fight and die for your right to say it?”

Seems kind of silly to fight and die for everything except your right to fight and die.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Universal background checks are completely impossible.

1. You’d have to get a registration of who has what (never gonna get that done).
2. You’d have to do inventory on what people have regularly after the fact.

It’s logistically impossible. I would never voluntarily register any of my firearms that I already own. They might be able to register all new sales going forward, but that’s it. And there’s a lot of hardware already on the streets.

Plus, since the same people wanting this are the ones fighting the border wall, there’d be a constant stream of guns coming in from the southern border to fill the market void.

 

[Theo520]

It’s logistically impossible.

No, other countries have done it, so it’s possible to create a registration and have periodic verification.

I agree with your other comments that it’s practically useless in the US. People don’t trust the Govt and far too many wouldn’t comply during the initial registration.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It’s not for solving crimes. It’s for preventing them.

How did registration prevent crimes?

By making private sellers more accountable for who they sell to.

Leaf - Assuming 1,000 teams each confiscating 10 guns per day, that’s 300,000 per month. It would take 1,000 months - about 80 years - to confiscate all 300,000,000 guns. But if there was going to be a backlash, it would happen in the first two days, long before any significant degradation of the arsenal.

Your math is conveniently bad. Australia completed their program from inception in less than a year.

That was not forced confiscation. That was asking for the public to comply. Registration had nothing to do with it and would not have made any difference in how many people complied.

 

[Lev]

Keep praying then. The gun grabbers have one major flaw in their plan:

Gun owners have guns, and we will kill for our right to keep them.

Which is the whole basis for massacre culture. Solve your problems by killing people. This is as far from Christianity as anyone can get.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I guess the Israelites should have had a ‘dialogue’ with the Cannanites. Maybe pass some “Ba’al control” laws.

Constantine obviously misheard: it was actually:

“Under this sign shall you surrender.”

 

[Lev]

I guess the Israelites should have had a ‘dialogue’ with the Cannanites. Maybe pass some “Ba’al control” laws.

Constantine obviously misheard: it was actually:

“Under this sign shall you surrender.”

Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called Gods children… Matt 5:9

 

[Raxus]

Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called Gods children… Matt 5:9

Peacemaking and gun ownership are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Theo520]

By making private sellers more accountable for who they sell to.

That was not forced confiscation. That was asking for the public to comply. Registration had nothing to do with it and would not have made any difference in how many people complied.

Your first comment is unsubstantiated conjecture. Do you have any links were private sellers have been “more accountable” or punished if not?

Of course it was forced confiscation in Australia, They had an amnesty were people were allowed to turn in their weapons without deemed breaking the law. Aussies had no choice in the matter if they wanted to remain law abiding.

Since the law was implemented, I’m sure the police have followed up on any tips of people keeping illegal guns, don’t you?

If the US started a similar program but also had a gun registry for reference, they would tick off what was turned in and then start targeting people that failed to comply. It’s common sense really.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

By making private sellers more accountable for who they sell to.

That was not forced confiscation. That was asking for the public to comply. Registration had nothing to do with it and would not have made any difference in how many people complied.

Your first comment is unsubstantiated conjecture. Do you have any links were private sellers have been “more accountable” or punished if not?

My suggestion was a proposal of something that has not been tried yet. So of course I don’t have any links.

Of course it was forced confiscation in Australia, They had an amnesty were people were allowed to turn in their weapons without deemed breaking the law. Aussies had no choice in the matter if they wanted to remain law abiding.

If American gun owners were to comply with such an amnesty threat then they would not have mounted an armed rebellion. You can’t have it both ways. Either American gun owners have the courage to take on the US military or they don’t. If they do have the courage, then the rebellion would begin as soon as the first request for compliance was made, and registration would not matter. If they don’t then again registration would not matter because they wouldn’t stand up to the military anyway.

Stepping away from the world of fantasy we realize that even with AR-15s, the populace is not going to take on the US military. It would be much easier to vote the bums out of office and put our own bums in.