Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by temporal1 »

Bootstrap wrote: .. And I'm having a hard time understanding why Mennonites and other peacemakers would want to push society in this direction of lawlessness ..
where do you see this? :?

are you going camping with survivalists? or, to protest them? missions?
what are they interested in surviving?
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Bootstrap »

Dan Z wrote:I’d no sooner want to see government take someone’s hunting rifle or shotgun away then confiscate their fishing pole.

I’m not crazy about handguns because of the likelihood they will be used against a person - often in a moment of irrationality or error. I’ve also been on the wrong end of a few of them in a robbery once - thankfully they weren’t used. As a matter of conscience, I would never choose to own one. But I doubt there would ever be the political will in America to limit their proliferation.

I’d like to see a universal licensing process that would better limit the access troubled people have to firearms, and give law enforcement the right to get a court order to confiscate a verifiably troubled person’s guns.
I agree entirely. And as Mennonites, I think we should clearly teach that this is not our way, and we should question some of the gun and violence narratives.
Dan Z wrote:Regarding assault rifles - I wish they were illegal. I don’t like my family living in a society where weapons of war are recreationally bought & sold. Frankly, I’d love to see all the Assault Weapons melted down and made into John Deer Tractors.
Agreed. These guns were designed for warfare, see Military Today's Overview of the top 10 assault rifles. Civilians don't need military grade weapons. And these are what people are using in mass shootings.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Bootstrap »

temporal1 wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: .. And I'm having a hard time understanding why Mennonites and other peacemakers would want to push society in this direction of lawlessness ..
where do you see this? :?

are you going camping with survivalists? or, to protest them? missions?
what are they interested in surviving?
I don't know that much about this particular group. They do open-carry, they seem a lot less extreme than some groups I have encountered, a lot of them seem to be members of a prepper group too.

I enjoy being outside and like to learn outdoor skills. I used to backpack a lot, I still do a lot of trail running in remote areas. I certainly don't plan to protest them, I do want to learn about them. Missions are always on my mind wherever I go, but not any more so for this group than anyone else.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Bootstrap »

Dan Z wrote:Finally, I think the 2nd amendment was a bad idea that has taken on near-religious significance in this country. It will likely contribute to the USAs eventual undoing.
I really don't like to mess with the Constitution, and I consider the Bill of Rights important to our freedom. But for the first 200 years, the Second Amendment was rarely litigated or discussed, and courts have never held that it means some of the things extremists are saying today. I think it's rather obsolete - we no longer have a "well-regulated militia" that depends on individuals having guns, and we do have a standing army, which the founders were opposed to. I don't think that privately held guns are the source of American freedom or the true test of our freedom. But I think it's hard to change the Constitution, and I don't think the Second Amendment is as extreme as what some people say.

Remember the Heller Decision, which was considered a major expansion of gun rights? It was about handguns in the home, and the Supreme Court ordered that Washington DC must allow Heller to register and license his gun. That's nothing like the extremist position that government should not be allowed to require registration or licenses.
Scalia wrote:The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
That decision made headlines in 2008. And that's a pretty good measure of how fast gun laws are moving, and in what direction. Heller is still the standard of how courts currently understand Second Amendment rights. Heller also said this:
Scalia wrote:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Here's one definition of what I mean by "extremist" - the view that the Second Amendment protects every one of the things that Scalia said it does not protect in Heller. After all, Scalia was considered a conservative on gun rights, and this ruling made the front pages of newspapers because it expanded gun rights.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Dan Z »

KingdomBuilder wrote:
Josh wrote:I do think that turning into Australia or the UK isn’t desirable.
The leftist rhetoric that I hear seems to state that becoming like the UK/ Australia in this regard should be the goal
  • USA Firearm Deaths per 100,000 = 10.54
    Australia Firearm deaths/100,000 = 0.93
    U.K. Firearm Deaths per 100,000 = 0.23
In this regard, consider that it might not just be "leftists" who see a reason to be more like Australia or the UK when it comes to gun violence, especially when our gun-death rate is 10X that of Australia and 50X that of the UK.

What I'm saying is that I'm not so sure this is the leftist conspiracy some make it out to be. To a certain degree, the NRA and their sympathizers are battling against common sense here.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7029
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by RZehr »

Dan Z wrote:
  • USA Firearm Deaths per 100,000 = 10.54
    Australia Firearm deaths/100,000 = 0.93
    U.K. Firearm Deaths per 100,000 = 0.23
In this regard, consider that it might not just be "leftists" who see a reason to be more like Australia or the UK when it comes to gun violence, especially when our gun-death rate is 10X that of Australia and 50X that of the UK.

What I'm saying is that I'm not so sure this is the leftist conspiracy some make it out to be. To a certain degree, the NRA and their sympathizers are battling against common sense here.
The entire nationwide conversation isn't a leftist conspiracy, sure. But to the extent that the NRA represents a small percentage of population with one position, there is most certainly another set of the population on the left that have a goal of removing essentially all firearms.
And so if it is true that the NRA and their sympathizers are battling against common sense, it is just as true that the far left is battling against common sense. Who decides what common sense is? Does the fact that it is called "common" repel it from either extremes and deposit it in the middle? Or is it what you or I believe on an issue? Or is it a sturdy thing that can stand regardless of popularity?
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Dan Z wrote:My 2 cents - for what it’s worth:

I’d no sooner want to see government take someone’s hunting rifle or shotgun away then confiscate their fishing pole.

I’m not crazy about handguns because of the likelihood they will be used against a person - often in a moment of irrationality or error. I’ve also been on the wrong end of a few of them in a robbery once - thankfully they weren’t used. As a matter of conscience, I would never choose to own one. But I doubt there would ever be the political will in America to limit their proliferation.

I’d like to see a universal licensing process that would better limit the access troubled people have to firearms, and give law enforcement the right to get a court order to confiscate a verifiably troubled person’s guns.

Regarding assault rifles - I wish they were illegal. I don’t like my family living in a society where weapons of war are recreationally bought & sold. Frankly, I’d love to see all the Assault Weapons melted down and made into John Deer Tractors.

Finally, I think the 2nd amendment was a bad idea that has taken on near-religious significance in this country. It will likely contribute to the USAs eventual undoing.
I had my fishing pole confiscated once by a "constable of the law"...

I don't really "like" guns (except my .22 magnum Mosburg "Chuckster") or the fact that some people obsess about them.

I understand the fear some people have of gun laws and universal registration - though I don't think "they" have a chance of defending themselves against the government if it did decide to round up registered gun owners and confiscate their arms. The original intent of second amendment was negated long ago by the state and federal governments maintaining standing armies and police forces. Though the right of a citizen to defend himself with a firearm still stands as at least "reasonable" in American society; the government cannot be held accountable under the law to protect you from bodily harm. I have to disagree with you on one point Dan, there are other "rights" that will contribute more to the downfall of America than the second amendment (especially those that derive from "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional amendments).

Most people killed by criminals with guns are killed one or two at a time by hand guns. Most often those hand guns are in the possession of people for whom it is illegal to own a hand gun. Assaulting the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment or ArmaLite or gun nuts (I know some gun nuts) who want to play with semi-automatic "military" looking firearms won't go very far toward reducing gun deaths where they are occurring most frequently. The term "virtue signaling" comes to mind when I think about the current push to "keep our kids safe from gun violence".

I would like to think that banning violent video games and films and that glorify violence (without showing the suffering of the victims and survivors) would likely go a lot further than trying to ban semi-automatic firearms in preventing kids from shooting up schools (assault weapons - that is, machine guns, are already banned). Humanizing humans again might save a lot of human lives. Families and schools paying closer attention to the mental health of "youth at risk" might help too.

As we are talking about an issue outside of God's Kingdom: swift, sure, and harsh punishment for criminal activity has always been an effective deterrent to criminal activity. That's common sense. And we already have some very good laws that are not enforced, swiftly or otherwise. In Massachusetts there is a mandatory 1 year prison term if you are in possession of a firearm illegally or while committing a crime (I believe New York has a similar law). It has not been enforced for decades.

The fact is too, most ongoing gun crimes by bad people with guns are stopped by good people with guns (generally the police). I feel uncomfortable being around people openly carrying a hand gun at the local grocery store, but I suppose criminals do too, so... Bad people with guns are not deterred by the declaration that they are entering a gun-free zone, rather they are likely encouraged by it! That too is common sense.
Last edited by Wayne in Maine on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7029
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by RZehr »

Bootstrap wrote: I really don't like to mess with the Constitution, and I consider the Bill of Rights important to our freedom. But for the first 200 years, the Second Amendment was rarely litigated or discussed, and courts have never held that it means some of the things extremists are saying today. I think it's rather obsolete - we no longer have a "well-regulated militia" that depends on individuals having guns, and we do have a standing army, which the founders were opposed to. I don't think that privately held guns are the source of American freedom or the true test of our freedom. But I think it's hard to change the Constitution, and I don't think the Second Amendment is as extreme as what some people say.
I think the Second Amendment is every bit as extreme as people believe today. Remember the context it was written in. It wasn't about personal protection, or hunting. It was about over throwing the government with a well regulated militia (a point lost among many on the right) - a militia that was equipped with the same firearms that the government used.

Maybe it is obsolete with life being so much different nowadays. Maybe it isn't. But whether it is obsolete or not, shouldn't hinge on crime rates.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7029
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by RZehr »

When I was young and thought hunting was fun, and even more ignorant as I am today, I joined the NRA. I had no idea of the big picture or the politics, I just wanted a new hunting magazine and cool decals, and a fancy hat. I think I was a member for just a year or two, whatever the minimum was.
I remember my dad sort of rolling his eyes and maybe saying something negative about it.

I would never join it now, and would be very much against Christians joining the NRA.
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by temporal1 »

RZehr wrote:When I was young and thought hunting was fun, and even more ignorant as I am today, I joined the NRA. I had no idea of the big picture or the politics, I just wanted a new hunting magazine and cool decals, and a fancy hat. I think I was a member for just a year or two, whatever the minimum was.
I remember my dad sort of rolling his eyes and maybe saying something negative about it.

I would never join it now, and would be very much against Christians joining the NRA.
i appreciate this. i have a strange view of myself as a teen and young woman. sometimes i miss her and wish i could return, other times, i wonder, “what?!” .. life was (so much better) when young people could freely grow up without having every thought-action documented/judged on the world stage, for all time to come. i do not envy today’s young people! ugh. no.

:arrow: regarding the NRA. i think of it so little of the time, i have no opinion.

:arrow: regarding gun sales .. i’ve read, obama takes the all time award:
Forbes / April 2016
The Gun Industry Says It Has Grown 158% Since Obama Took Office
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminit ... 3be87d7f4e

trump is not keeping up:
Gun Sales Have Dropped Since Trump's Election
Fortune / Aug 2017
http://fortune.com/2017/08/04/trump-gun-sales-obama/

Remington is in bankruptcy
Trump slump? Remington files for bankruptcy amid declining gun sales.
WaPo / Feb 2018
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... b6db32a763

but, really. can this be a surprise? basic human nature at work.

the threat of market scarcity reliably drives up value+prices.
try buying bread-milk-batteries after hurricanes are predicted! :shock:

while i’m certain they know “all the buzz,”
there is (strategic silence?) from both presidents on how they view these stats.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Post Reply