MennoNet.com

Josh wrote:I’m not an NRA member.

Don't be surprised if the reader of your posts in this thread (other than this one) concludes otherwise...

PeterG wrote:

Josh wrote:I’m not an NRA member.

Don't be surprised if the reader of your posts in this thread (other than this one) concludes otherwise...

That’s a good example of turning everything into a partisan debate with a “good” side and a “bad” side.

In this thread, I’ve pointed out why I believe there is resistance to further gun restrictions, and how the most gun-crime-ridden places already have restrictions which clearly don’t work. That’s a personal opinion I hold.

Josh wrote:

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

They’re leaving out the details in Australia of the rising gun crime problem and no-go areas in the cities.

A few years ago, a crime syndicate had an underground factory turning out machine guns... and it took the government a while to figure it out and close it down.

Not just “not desirable,” it’s not even possible (to turn one culture/system) into another.
When playing that popular game of, “The U.S. needs to be like: Canada/Australia/UK!” - etc., most details are conveniently, or, in ignorance, left out.
Often to the point of being comical. This popular fantasy game is not new. It just doesn’t die a natural death, like it should.

Josh wrote:

PeterG wrote:

Josh wrote: I’m not an NRA member.

Don't be surprised if the reader of your posts in this thread (other than this one) concludes otherwise...

That’s a good example of turning everything into a partisan debate with a “good” side and a “bad” side.

In this thread, I’ve pointed out why I believe there is resistance to further gun restrictions,
and how the most gun-crime-ridden places already have restrictions which clearly don’t work.
That’s a personal opinion I hold.

it’s odd how the NRA is the go-to default presumption for all gun violence.

from what i gather, NRA members are not engaged in gun violence, either in chronic Chicago types of street violence, or, the affluent criminally insane neighborhood mass murderers, now all too
commonly known.

less frequently, George Soros’ name comes up as a contributor to these grisly crimes.

i’m not an NRA member.

i admit to (jokingly) suggesting to my daughter she buy a gift membership to NRA for another family member who lives in NYC, and is vehemently against any reference to any firearm by anyone
(she+her friends believe gun ownership is not required for censorship, merely mentioning guns is “enough.”)
i told my daughter, there may be some sort of special intro gift included, like an NRA backpack, or something.

AARP offers similar. fwiw, i’m not AARP, either.
my husband was a member of Pheasants Forever for awhile, i think. maybe.
if i recall, he had some sort of canvas bag with their pheasant logo.

Josh, evidence is, a whole lot of people of every description agree with your opinion regarding the gross ineffective results of strict gun control. it’s now widely accepted as fact.

it appears mike’s Page 2 “prophesy” regarding the inevitability of armed security in government schools is now underway in different forms, different locations, different states. this, in Florida:
Broward County FL
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/21/br ... oting.html

Josh wrote:They’re leaving out the details in Australia of the rising gun crime problem and no-go areas in the cities.

A few years ago, a crime syndicate had an underground factory turning out machine guns... and it took the government a while to figure it out and close it down.

You think the United States does not have a rising gun crime problem? You think the United States does not have no-go areas in the cities? One of the huge problems we have in the United States is that we have decided to make it very difficult to trace guns at all.

Here is the system we use to track guns:

At a sprawling, nondescript office in Martinsburg, W.Va., the department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives combs through nearly 1,200 requests each day from law enforcement agents nationwide seeking to trace a gun to its first retail sale.

“It’s important to know where the gun was first sold,” Troppman said. “That is a very good clue for law enforcement.”

The work would be far easier for ATF’s staff of 50 employees and 300 contractors if there were a national electronic database of gun owners and sales. But the National Rifle Assn. and gun-rights advocates have opposed such an idea, warning against allowing the government to collect such information.

The result is that traces can be tedious and time-consuming, sometimes requiring hours of scrolling through microfilm, digging through boxes, working the telephone or driving to gun stores, according to officials at ATF’s National Tracing Center, which is responsible for tracking guns found at crime scenes.

It starts with a request, either sent electronically or via fax, from a law enforcement agency seeking a gun’s origins.

Making it hard to track gun trafficking does not make us safer or freer. It contributes heavily to the gun problems we have in our inner cities, in drug gangs, and terrorist groups.

The extremist position says that guns should be available without a license, should not be registered, should not be traceable, and should include military-style weapons. Sometimes this extremist position says that people should be able to arm themselves to revolt against the government.

I would like our law enforcement community to be able to track gun sales and get rid of illegal arms trafficking. I would like them to be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, abusive spouses, and the mentally ill. I would like to see guns licensed and registered like motor vehicles. Criminals do not have the same access to weapons in other countries that they do here, and that's because of deliberate policy decisions we have made.

boot. yesterday, on Page 6, you were optimistic about reduction in crime. with stats+charts.
not that i think Josh was alluding to ^^^.

no matter.
it appears, grown men with guns are making adjustments to school security on the local level.

Josh wrote:...and how the most gun-crime-ridden places already have restrictions which clearly don’t work. That’s a personal opinion I hold.

But you contradict yourself with what you said here:

Josh wrote:A few years ago, a crime syndicate had an underground factory turning out machine guns... and it took the government a while to figure it out and close it down.

According to your own testimony here, the gov of Australia, backed by it's laws was able to shut down a criminal gun-making operation. So something worked and apparently (unless you have evidence to the contrary) those guns weren't used for harm.

temporal1 wrote:boot. yesterday, on Page 6, you were optimistic about reduction in crime. with stats+charts.

I still am. Overall, crime is going down. But we still have serious crime problems compared to most other countries, our homicide rates are significantly higher than other Western nations. There are no-go zones in many of our cities, including the one I live in.

I think we need to resist the fear and hate narratives people are throwing at us. But at the same time, I do think we have a serious addiction to violence in our culture, and modern gun culture is part of it. Just look at the movies, television shows, and video games that surround us and ask yourself what guns are for in modern American culture.

This extremist position is not what conservatives believed in the 1970s.

the word, “extremist” gets thrown around to the point it has no meaning.

PeterG wrote:

Josh wrote:I’m not an NRA member.

Don't be surprised if the reader of your posts in this thread (other than this one) concludes otherwise...

Josh, what NRA positions do you disagree with?

temporal1 wrote:the word, “extremist” gets thrown around to the point it has no meaning.

I am using this word precisely to describe positions that the NRA would not have defended in the 1970s, views that most conservatives did not have back then. People like to pretend that these positions are the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment, but that's wildly false.

Here in North Carolina, some people are seriously promoting this set of views:

• Everybody should have access to guns
• Licenses and training should not be required for guns
• Guns should not be registered
• There should be no waiting period for purchasing a gun
• Universities, playgrounds, and other public spaces should not be allowed to prohibit concealed-carry
• Military-grade guns should be available to everyone
• Armor-piercing bullets should be available to everyone
• Background checks should not be required for private sale of guns or mail order sale of guns (some people are saying background checks should not be required at all)
• Guns should not be easily traceable
• We need "Stand Your Ground" laws that say there is no requirement to retreat instead of shooting someone and you can feel free to defend anyone you think is threatened whether or not that's what they want

These are not the traditional positions of the NRA or conservatives. They are not required by the Second Amendment. They do not make us safer or freer. Go to a library and read NRA publications from the 1970s and compare them to what they publish today. Before the late 1970s there really wasn't a lot of discussion about the Second Amendment and very little litigation because there wasn't a whole lot of disagreement.

And I'm having a hard time understanding why Mennonites and other peacemakers would want to push society in this direction of lawlessness.

Josh, Temp, which of the statements in the bullet-point list do you disagree with?