Question for liberals

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If someone is known to be irresponsible/not properly trained/have a criminal record, their access to guns should probably be restricted.

Similarly, if someone is known for advocating violent jihad and terrorism, they should probably be monitored.

I don't see any issue here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeK
Upvote 0
Apr 9, 2010
127
29
✟1,336.00
Faith
Anglican
The last sentence was just me being sarcastic. The main point is, we are not supposed to judge all Muslims based on lunatics, but liberals judge gun owners based on lunatics. Why? Hypocritical.

Your analogy is not valid.
Nobody is judging gun owners.

What you need to ask yourself is this -should the government control the use of potentially lethal products in the best interest of society as a whole?Or should it not?
Why should a gun be treated any differently to explosives,toxic chemicals,a fully armed tank,a nuclear reactor etc?

Given that such things are regulated with very little protest the hypocrisy lies in NOT regulating gun ownership in a similar way.
Why should guns be the exception?

Here in Australia quite strict gun controls were introduced following the Port Arthur massacre.By a conservative government.
A sensible approach.Anybody who is of sound mind and character and has a genuine need of a gun for their work,for hunting or for sports shooting can still get one if they want.Just the screening process is more thorough and you can't buy weapons intended for military use or which can be concealed.

Even if this regulation only reduces fatalities involving guns related to domestic violence and suicide it is worth tolerating.If it prevents mass murder and terrorist fatalities too then that is a bonus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Since we aren't supposed to judge all Muslims based on the actions of a minority of lunatics,

Why are you judging all gun owners based on the actions of a minority of lunatics and shouting for bans?
Well, I am asking to ban guns, not gun owners.
Just like, e.g., people demand the ban of cigarettes without anybody assuming they want to ban or judge smokers.
Don´t take it personally.

In fairness and to be consistent, I expect you to start demanding bans on the Koran and background checks for Muslims. Thanks.
That´s a weird comparison. Are you suggesting that there´s a realistic chance of killing someone by throwing the Koran at him, or something?
 
Upvote 0

SnowyMacie

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
17,007
6,087
North Texas
✟118,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Since we aren't supposed to judge all Muslims based on the actions of a minority of lunatics,

Why are you judging all gun owners based on the actions of a minority of lunatics and shouting for bans?

In fairness and to be consistent, I expect you to start demanding bans on the Koran and background checks for Muslims. Thanks.

As a liberal, I don't judge all gun owners based on the actions of a minority. I am personally a gun owner myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poor Beggar
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
I don't like guns and will never own one myself nor would I allow someone to bring one into my house. But I don't have a problem with other people owning them so long as there is reasonable safety precautions being taken like background checks. I'd even support a class in gun safety being given to those seeking to buy their first weapon.

Where people don't like my view is that I think new gun sales should be registered.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Since we aren't supposed to judge all Muslims based on the actions of a minority of lunatics,

Why are you judging all gun owners based on the actions of a minority of lunatics and shouting for bans?

Can you provide any example of liberals judging all gun owners based on the actions of the lunatic minority?

And what does that judgement look like? are these mysterious liberals wagging their fingers and wringing their hands about it? is it that kind of Judging? What kind of judging is happening? Where can I find examples of it?
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Can you provide any example of liberals judging all gun owners based on the actions of the lunatic minority?

And what does that judgement look like? are these mysterious liberals wagging their fingers and wringing their hands about it? is it that kind of Judging? What kind of judging is happening? Where can I find examples of it?

There are extremists on both sides of the issues. Those who believe guns should be removed entirely and others who think guns should be unlimited to the point of not even banning larger weapons that can cause massive destruction. Neither of those are representative of the sides yet they are the ones who get targeted when in an argument because they are the fish in the barrel.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Issues like this really just come down to whether you believe all amendments should be followed or whether you think the ones you don't agree with should have strings attached because it's, well, you know, "common sense".

Do you believe that the part of the 2nd amendment requiring gun ownership be part and parcel to belonging to a "Well Regulated Militia" should be followed, or is that simply an unnecessary string attached?

Personally I opt for consistently following the law even when it's uncomfortable to avoid the mess we get into when everyone does what's right in their own eyes.

I'm not sure you actually do, until I hear how you consistently apply the Well Regulated Militia part of the 2nd amendment to the gun ownership part.

So we don't get to infringe on people's religions and we don't get to infringe on people's right to the same level of technology to protect themselves as the bad guy has.

Remember that 2 year old a few months back who reached into his mothers handbag in the grocery store, grabbed her gun and shot and killed his mom? - I think the real tragedy in that was that the mother didn't have another gun on her person so she could have returned fire, don't you?
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, I am asking to ban guns, not gun owners.
Just like, e.g., people demand the ban of cigarettes without anybody assuming they want to ban or judge smokers.
Don´t take it personally.

I don't support banning guns completely. Just have more regulation, i.e. background checks, required safety and training classes, limitation of automatic/semi-automatic weapons, etc.

That´s a weird comparison. Are you suggesting that there´s a realistic chance of killing someone by throwing the Koran at him, or something?

Well if it's hardcover and large enough, it could serve as an effective bludgeoning instrument... but so could many other books.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I don't support banning guns completely. Just have more regulation, i.e. background checks, required safety and training classes, limitation of automatic/semi-automatic weapons, etc.
Well, I didn´t intend to get into the gun control debate in detail (I live in Western Europe, and am quite happy with the state of affairs here) - I just wanted to point out the flaw in the argument as presented in the OP.
 
Upvote 0

FlaviusAetius

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2012
1,545
462
✟18,998.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
He didn't allow them to carry a sword as a weapon. They had to buy 2 swords to fulfill prophecy. And I don't believe in the modern day version of Armageddon.

Swords have no other purpose other than being a weapon. They're both tools made for the sole purpose of killing humans; a sword is no good to plow farmland and it's a poor choice to use when hunting animals. However having those weapons be used for a prophetic purpose does make sense, after all apparently Jesus crying out "God my God, why have you forsaken me?" was also to fulfill prophecy.

As for your second statement, so how do you see the final book of Revelations then? I mean it's pretty clear and cut that God (which includes Jesus) send down bowls of plagues for the sole purpose of torturing/killing humanity that had fallen to the Beast.
 
Upvote 0

Marius27

Newbie
Feb 16, 2013
3,039
495
✟6,009.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
As for your second statement, so how do you see the final book of Revelations then? I mean it's pretty clear and cut that God (which includes Jesus) send down bowls of plagues for the sole purpose of torturing/killing humanity that had fallen to the Beast.
I'd probably consider myself a partial preterist. I think most of Revelation is a metaphor for things that happened to Christians during the Roman Empire.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,154.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I've never seen the Koran, but it's not a deadly weapon (I suppose a hardcover copy could give someone a concussion if someone knocked their head in with one, but any hardcover book, wielded with enough force, could do that).

The Koran, containing much of the Judeo-Christian Bible, doesn't advocate violence to my knowledge, although manipulative demagogues could attempt to misuse it to incite violence.

Of course I believe that too many people own guns. You, Mikhail, have shared with us that you have Aspergers and are an alcoholic. While I won't make a blanket statement about you or other alcoholics or people with Aspergers or both, do you really believe that you and your family are safer because you own a weapon? Do you really believe when you meet other people with Aspergers or who are alcoholics, without making any blanket statements, that you are safer because they own weapons?

I knew a young man with Aspergers. In his early twenties, he went to the home of another young man who had started dating the mother of his child (after they had broken up). He started stabbing the second young man. The victim's father and brother rushed down the stairs, and clubbed the knife wielder to death. Three children were left fatherless that night--two of the victim's, one of the knife wielder's.

Yes, he didn't use a gun...but his emotions got the better of him, and he turned to violence. I don't know if any alcohol or drugs was also involved.

I knew him as a high school choir member. He'd been in my home. He was always pleasant but sometimes his emotions were absent or inappropriate.

And of course I have known alcoholics who have become violent--thank heavens they didn't use guns!

Here's how I see guns, liberal that I am:

Since Reagan, middle class men have lost much of their power. They've lost collective bargaining rights. They've lost job security. They've lost the ability to support their families without their wife working full time. They've lost numerous benefits that would have made their lives better--they have lost much of their economic power and freedom.

The Republican placebo? Guns!

I cannot imagine any human being who would rather not have the "power" that goes with being able to make a good living, have job security, a pension one day, be able to support one's family, etc. over a gun.

We liberals want you to have REAL freedom. The freedom to get an affordable education. The freedom to get affordable healthcare to help you cope with addictions, Aspergers, or other neurological challenges. The freedom from living from paycheck to four or five days before the next paycheck.

We don't want you to have the Republican placebo. We want you to have real freedom.

Disclaimer: As I have said, these are not blanket statements. There may be some people with Aspergers who can use guns safely. There may be some recovering alcoholics with long periods of sobriety who can own guns safely. I don't know you, Mikhail, or anyone else on this board.

If I had Aspergers or was an alcoholic--or had any serious mental health issues or addictions--I would choose not to own a gun (of course I choose not to own a gun, anyway, because we have had a good life and don't need the Republican placebo to feel free).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
I'm happy I live in a country where gun ownership is severely restricted both practically and legally. Nobody has guns here, nobody wants them.

None of the musllms I know - a dozen or two - has ever tried to kill me by hurling a quran at my head. Actually, none have tried to kill me, period, and I grew up in an area where over half of all families were of Turkish or Moroccan descent and practicing muslims. About a quarter of my primary school classmates were muslims. One was a twerp. Another was one of my best friends. I was entirely ambivalent towards the rest.

It's not exactly an answer to your question, but then again you're assuming the two are somehow related. They're not to me. Not having guns freely available makes me feel safe. Having muslims around does not make me feel unsafe.

I'm glad that you feel safe. that's an important quality to have in a fruitful life.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Your analogy is not valid.
Nobody is judging gun owners.

What you need to ask yourself is this -should the government control the use of potentially lethal products in the best interest of society as a whole?Or should it not?
Why should a gun be treated any differently to explosives,toxic chemicals,a fully armed tank,a nuclear reactor etc?

because the ownership of a gun was seen as necessary not only for protection, but also as a means of providing food for a family.
that's why gun ownership was allowed.

things like explosives,toxic chemicals,a fully armed tank,a nuclear reactor etc. are not designed to provide family protection,
nor are they designed to provide food for a family.
the difference is as simple as that.
 
Upvote 0