• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Extreme gun control positions

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Strathos, Nov 12, 2018.

  1. No Swansong

    No Swansong Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!

    +619
    Christian
    Married
    US-Green
    That I would agree with at least generally.
     
  2. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +7,038
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    My first impression is this is a dumb question, as I proposed a max 6 round cap, and 7 is more than 6.

    But its quite possible there's some technicality I'm not understanding. This is probably what going on, as you dont seem like the dumb-question type of person.
     
  3. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +7,038
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    Or 36 shot revolvers. Really, pick any number greater than six, and that what I'm proposing to ban.
     
  4. No Swansong

    No Swansong Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!

    +619
    Christian
    Married
    US-Green
    Some others would be polygamy, and unregulated private ownership of explosives (neither of which I support, just using them as examples).
     
  5. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +6,605
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    Why does having one more potential round in the chamber make a 7-shot revolver worthy of being banned to you?
     
  6. OK Jeff

    OK Jeff Active Member

    432
    +320
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You’re kidding right? Some of the biggest but cases in the world are first amendment defenders. They use the first amendment to argue things that have nothing to do with speech.
     
  7. OK Jeff

    OK Jeff Active Member

    432
    +320
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    And it’s all dealing with mere symptoms of the core problem.
     
  8. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +6,605
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    Which countries have unregulated private ownership of explosives? And since you're using it as an example of having as much or more freedom than the private ownership of guns, why is having the unregulated private ownership of explosives better than the private ownership of guns?
     
  9. No Swansong

    No Swansong Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!

    +619
    Christian
    Married
    US-Green
    While I don't actually consider myself distinctly liberal many others do so I will answer the original question. I am a religious pacifist, however I do advocate for a reasonably regulated 2nd Amendment. Of course the difficulty is coming to an agreement as to what is reasonable. What I might consider a reasonable regulation, for example a magazine capacity cap, others may genuinely consider unreasonable and unconstitutional. To sum it up however as most people consider me liberal I confidently defend the 2nd Amendment reasonably regulated. I strongly oppose a ban on firearm ownership.
     
  10. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +7,038
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    You could play this game forever. Its the old "drawing the line" problem. Whats the exact right age to let kids drive? Whats the exact right speed limit on a certain street?

    Maybe it should be 3 shots. Maybe 7 is better. The idea is to permit reasonable self defense while reducing the likelihood of firearm mass casualty crimes.
     
  11. ToddNotTodd

    ToddNotTodd Iconoclast

    +2,781
    Seeker
    Married
    That’s a good point. I read recently that a lot of the guns used by Mexican cartels come in from the US because of our lax gun laws.

    So it’s not just a US issue...
     
  12. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +7,038
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    People have been trying to fix the human soul forever. Its a perennial problem. Meanwhile we deal with the people and culture we've got.
     
  13. OK Jeff

    OK Jeff Active Member

    432
    +320
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    But the problem with gun control is you’re restricting the innocent. And that’s who the NRA defends.
     
  14. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +6,605
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    7-shot revolvers are very reasonable for self-defense. If a militia were ever needed to be called upon, 30-round magazines would be very reasonable for self-defense, since a militia's purpose is defense. Since the Second Amendment is written to allow us to be ready for that day, I'm not seeing how your proposal is Constitutional.
     
  15. No Swansong

    No Swansong Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!

    +619
    Christian
    Married
    US-Green
    I didn't claim it is better. I claimed it is a right some have that U.S. citizens do not. The countries I have in mind are Brazil and Chile. Although I must correct my comment to change "explosives" which can mean many things to "Dynamite" and other like explosives.
     
  16. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +7,038
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    Of course this restricts the innocent. Thats what every single public safety limitation/law does. Even the ones you agree with.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  17. OK Jeff

    OK Jeff Active Member

    432
    +320
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Name one.
     
  18. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +7,038
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    If my proposal is unconstitutional (which I doubt) then it would require a constitutional amendment. I'm just proposing what I think is the right balance of gun control vs personal liberty.
     
  19. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +12,734
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    To think that in 1790 the Founding Fathers were concerned that men would not be allowed to own guns to feed and protect themselves, their families, and their property is laughable.

    What they were concerned about was a government that would try to take their guns in order to force the people into submission to tyranny. Thus the Second Amendment.

    Which in no way means that men shouldn't own guns for the other above rational and logical reasons that are just as justified today as they were in 1790.
     
  20. OK Jeff

    OK Jeff Active Member

    432
    +320
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    And there it is.
     
Loading...