# Guns In Church



## wst3 (Jul 7, 2010)

WOW!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2010)

I love the Republican party.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 7, 2010)

Let us please realize that this does not just allow anyone who legally owns a gun to bring one into church, as the op implies.


----------



## bdr (Jul 7, 2010)

yeah, I'm very anti-gun (was held up when living in LA) but don't beat this up bigger than it is. Read the full article.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 7, 2010)

I read the full article... and while I guess it is true that some might interpret it to mean anyone can carry a weapon into a house of worship, even with the restrictions, and acknowledging the intent of the bill, I still say... "WOW!"

What kind of world do we live in where it has become possible that one might need armed security in a house of worship? Or more to the point, how did we reach a point where a legislòëZ   ÛrëZ   ÛrëZ   ÛrëZ   Ûr ëZ   Ûr!ëZ   Ûr"ëZ   Ûr#ëZ   Ûr$ëZ   Ûr%ëZ   Ûr&ëZ   Ûr'ëZ   Ûr(ëZ   Ûr)ëZ   Ûr*ëZ   Ûr+ëZ   Ûr,ë


----------



## rgames (Jul 7, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> that's about as likely as me getting to sleep with Angie Jolie.



Actually I think you're more likely to sleep with her AND make a sex tape AND have her sign over the rights to distribute it. 

People object to guns because they can be used to harm other people. I don't think gun control will change that - DC had some of the strictest gun controls in the country and some of the worst gun violence - much of which was conducted with guns acquired outside of the regulated system.

I was carjacked at gunpoint, too (a gangbanger put a gun in my gut and pulled the trigger but the gun jammed - did I mention I'm invincible?). You'll never convince me that any amount of legislation will change his ability to get a gun. He's now a convicted felon so, technically, he can't get a gun. But I'm willing to bet he has a few guns, anyway, regardless of what the law says...

I think the old saying is true: if you make it a crime to own a gun, only criminals will have them.

Removing the legal methods to acquire a gun will never have a significant effect on gun violence. All you'll do is prevent the sport shooters from plinking away at bullseyes and killing some pesky deer. The criminals are still going to acquire guns regardless of what the laws say.

So what will be accomplished by enacting stricter gun control laws?

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jul 7, 2010)

WTF??? Someone essentially shot you? Where did this happen....Arizona?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2010)

Larry, I actually agree with everything you say, but what I mean about it being an anachronism is that the original idea was to prevent the rise of another standing army (they'd just fought off the British). That concept is a little out of date.

rgames, nobody is talking about removing legal methods to acquire a gun. It's a matter of how you regulate firearms, and I don't think even the biggest NRA bubba believes that there shouldn't be any regulations at all.

The answer to your last question is that some lives will be saved. Not all of them, because there are 50 billion guns out there and of course criminals can get guns. But every time someone doesn't have a gun around who would otherwise have had one and killed someone, you save a life. It's that simple.

Sure there are also times when people save lives by having guns, but I tend to think that's less common.


----------



## rgames (Jul 7, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> WTF??? Someone essentially shot you? Where did this happen....Arizona?



No - someone *tried* to shoot me. But the bullet knew better  It was in Macon, Georgia about 15 years ago.

It was the two guys he shot before me and the one after that really sealed his fate. But he stole my car - that was only part of the case against him. Actually it was a group of four gangbangers. I think it was some type of initiation because they never denied anything. I had no proof that he tried to shoot me but he admitted it.

Best part was they got arrested the next morning in a Waffle House near Atlanta because they got into a loud skirmish with each other and the waitress called the cops. Of course, the cop ran the plates on the car they were driving (my car) and it had been reported stolen the prevoius night. And they had illegal firearms. Stupid...

But that's the point: these guys aren't getting guns through legal means so it doesn't matter what the law says. No amount of gun control is going to change their behavior.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 7, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Jul 07 said:
> 
> 
> > that's about as likely as me getting to sleep with Angie Jolie.
> ...


[/quote]So what will be accomplished by enacting stricter gun control laws?]

The criminals and the cops will be the major players to have guns. Guns are used in a tremendous amount of family and interpersonal violence involving former non-criminals.


----------



## synergy543 (Jul 7, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> wst3 @ Wed Jul 07 said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of world do we live in
> ...


But that was in 1787. The gun back then, was the major weapon of war.

So if you account for weapon power inflation, then citizens today should constitionally be able to carry small nuclear warheads, some surface to air missiles, or at least a truckload of C4 into their church. >8o 

Were people just more sane back then or what?

And we'd have to revise the bumper stickers to read:

"If nuclear warheads were outlawed, than only outlaws would have nuclear warheads."


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 7, 2010)

I need serious instruction on how to quote specific parts of a response. geez. I just can't do it.

Anyways...ummm...I don't think they were really envisioning nucular weapons back then....


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 7, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> Larry, I actually agree with everything you say, but what I mean about it being an anachronism is that the original idea was to prevent the rise of another standing army (they'd just fought off the British). That concept is a little out of date.
> 
> rgames, nobody is talking about removing legal methods to acquire a gun. It's a matter of how you regulate firearms, and I don't think even the biggest NRA bubba believes that there shouldn't be any regulations at all.
> 
> ...



Nick, I know what you're saying, and you're right. The 'militia' part of it was to keep the Federal guvmint from becoming a British style monarchy. However, as you know, the fruit of that language has led to small, insane armed insurrections by 'strict constructionists'. It makes me sad about human nature all over again. However....

We're sorta fucked by the Constitution in this regard. The language is clear. It will be a long way around to bring sanity to those words in an increasingly insane world.


----------



## synergy543 (Jul 7, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> I need serious instruction on how to quote specific parts of a response. geez. I just can't do it.


Larry, its as easy as pulling a trigger. Any kid can do it. 

(minus the bullets)
[•quote="Larry"] Larry says some stuff about gun control. [•/quote]


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 8, 2010)

Re the op:

Just what Jesus would have wanted....


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 8, 2010)

I had a thought: maybe guns should *only* be allowed in church?


----------



## rgames (Jul 8, 2010)

synergy543 @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> Were people just more sane back then or what?



Yeah - public beheadings, public hangings, Salem witch trials, lynch mobs. People used to be so much kinder and gentler...

People will commit violence against each other regardless of whether they have legal access to guns.

rgames


----------



## Narval (Jul 8, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> Re the op:
> 
> Just what Jesus would have wanted....





Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> I had a thought: maybe guns should *only* be allowed in church?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 8, 2010)

That's brilliant.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 8, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> I dunno about an anachronism-gun ownership seems to be a growing trend, which really doesn't indicate that the stated rights are considered an 'anachronism' by most people.
> 
> I was reading the Constitution the other day. The right to keep and bear arms seems clear enough, and the words 'shall not be infringed" seem clear as well.
> 
> ...



No not really. The second amendment is completely distorted by the right. According to the constitution the right to "keep and bear arms" is only extended for the purposes of a well regulated militia. So in actually truth anybody that has a gun needs to be registered as part a member of the military dedicated to the protection of America in the event of invasion from a foreign government.

I'll always contend that Billy Bob packin' heat in church has nothing to do with a militia and thus has no right to carry a weapon unless he wants to join the reserves or something. And that MF'er that bought a gun to blow away students at Virginia Tech has no business or constitutional right to a gun.

I'm so sick and tired of these right wing yahoo's distorting the 2nd amendment. It clearly says what it says._ *A well regulated Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 8, 2010)

Ned: hahahahahaha

Jose: good point about the MFer at Virginia Tech. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was written for his protection.

Synergy: I love that bumper sticker!


----------



## rgames (Jul 8, 2010)

josejherring @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> Billy Bob packin' heat



Billy Bob packin' heat has almost nothing to do with gun violence, so leave him alone.

Why do you care if someone owns a gun? People have fun shooting guns. People also have fun growing gardens and fertilizer can be used to make bombs. Should we outlaw gardening with fertilizer?

I think what you actually care about is whether a person uses a gun to harm someone else - no amount of legislation is going to stop people from shooting each other. Hundreds of thousands of years of human history show that we always find a way to knock each other off, so removing guns is not going to change anything. Maybe we'll resort back to rocks and sticks, but the behavior won't change.

So why worry about it? There are much more pressing issues out there, ones where you can actually make a difference.

rgames


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 8, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> Why do you care if someone owns a gun? People have fun shooting guns. People also have fun growing gardens and fertilizer can be used to make bombs. Should we outlaw gardening with fertilizer?



How many people die every year because of fertilizer?


----------



## José Herring (Jul 8, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy Bob packin' heat
> ...



Total BS Richard. Look at the Stats http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_gun-crime-gun-violence (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gu ... n-violence)

I care because my parents and sister still live that God forsaken backwards state of Arizona. It ranks among the highest in gun violence even though the state has about 1/5 the population of New York or California. And, if you start blaming all the gun violence in AZ on the Mexicans you're beyond any understanding. I lived in a nice neighborhood and it was a pleasure to grow up. It still looks the same but I noticed that every time I go back kids don't play in the streets any more and my parents say that violence has gotten pretty bad in the neighborhood.

Plenty of AZ Billy Bob types commit numerous gun violations.

I'm not against the individuals right to own a gun. I guess growing up in AZ kind of taints me a bit. But, at the same time AZ's practically unrestricted gun laws drive me up the wall. The constitution was never, ever intended to imply that anybody can carry a gun for any reason. It was clearly specified that gun owners would be part of an organized militia intended to defend the nation.

Guns beget crimes and accidents. Things like this http://wcco.com/national/boy.double.mur ... 60083.html


----------



## synergy543 (Jul 8, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> How many people die every year because of fertilizer?


Fertilizer iz da shitz man! =o 

Actually, more people die from car accidents than guns (4x), or even wars, or terrorists. Yet no one seems to have any worries about cars. I think we should have stricter car licensing regulations like in Germany. Some people shouldn't be allowed to drive on the road.

Essentially, we're just shooting each other with cars. So if you're worried about death and statistics. Lets go for the big guns first, no?


----------



## rgames (Jul 8, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> rgames @ Thu Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > A lot - look up ANFO. Oklahoma City bombing, World Trade Center Bombing, large percentage of IED's in the middle east are ANFO-based. Very popular with terrorists.
> ...



and thousands of people killed by terrorist bombs in the middle east and elsewhere around the world over the last few decades...

Of course it's not as large a number as guns, but guns don't kill nearly as many people as a lot of other things that could be controlled via legislation. And that's the crux of the discussion here: using laws to control things that could be used to cause injury and/or death. Fertilizer is just another example - automobiles are another. There are many.

So the question then becomes how does legislation affect the use of guns in violent crimes? The answer is that it doesn't.

Which then leads to the same question again: why bother?

rgames


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 8, 2010)

I thought we were talking about US law. The fact that you have to look at multiple years and include the whole world just underscores the difference in magnitude.


----------



## synergy543 (Jul 8, 2010)

[quote:840d4eb5fc="rgames @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:12 pm"]So the question then becomes how does legislation affect the use of guns in violent crimes? The answòì1   Û¢•ì1   Û¢–ì1   Û¢—ì1   Û¢˜ì1   Û¢™ì1   Û¢šì1   Û¢›ì1   Û¢œì1   Û¢ì1   Û¢žì1   Û¢Ÿì1   Û¢ ì1   Û¢¡ì1   Û¢¢ì1   Û¢£ì1   Û¢¤ì1   Û¢¥ì1   Û¢¦ì1   Û¢§ì1   Û¢¨ì1   Û¢©ì1   Û¢ªì1   Û¢«ì1   Û¢¬ì1   Û¢­ì1   Û¢®ì1   Û¢¯ì1   Û¢°ì1   Û¢±ì1   Û¢²ì1   Û¢³ì1   Û¢´ì1   Û¢µì1   Û¢¶ì1   Û¢·ì1   Û¢¸ì1   Û¢¹ì1   Û¢ºì1   Û¢»ì1   Û¢¼ì1   Û¢½ì1   Û¢¾ì1   Û¢¿ì1   Û¢Àì1   Û¢Áì1   Û¢Âì1   Û¢Ãì1   Û¢Äì1   Û¢Åì1   Û¢Æì1   Û¢Çì1   Û¢Èì1   Û¢Éì1   Û¢Êì1   Û¢Ëì1   Û¢Ìì1   Û¢Íì1   Û¢Îì1   Û¢Ïì1   Û¢Ðì1   Û¢Ñì1   Û¢Òì1   Û¢Óì1   Û¢Ôì1   Û¢Õì1   Û¢Öì1   Û¢×ì1   Û¢Øì1   Û¢Ùì1   Û¢Úì1   Û¢Ûì1   Û¢Üì1   Û¢Ýì1   Û¢Þì1   Û¢ßì1   Û


----------



## SvK (Jul 8, 2010)

"Guns In Church" sounds like some counter-culture punk band name....

That should tell us how ridiculous the concept is. This is one of those laws that makes me ashamed of my country.

SvK


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 9, 2010)

I guess most of us in the UK look on in bewilderment and horror at the fanaticism of US gun ownership. We certainly have occasional problems - two this year in the North alone (one ongoing), and some gang-related stuff. But it's an infinitesimally small amount compared to the US, and long may it stay that way. I don't want anyone with a temper (ie almost everyone) owning a gun.

I don't know what you do when the genie out of the bottle though, especially with such a powerful, vociferous gun lobby. It's a complex issue, to be sure.


----------



## rgames (Jul 9, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 08 said:


> Richard, your question has been answered with several slam dunk replies. Really, it's time to move on to the next argument rather then repeating the question over and over with silly variations.



Obviously, stating that there are slam dunk answers doesn't make it so. There are none.

Of course some lives will be saved - the question is whether fighting gun owners is the best use of our collective time? Is that the best way to save lives? Not even close... You'll save a LOT more lives focusing on other things - like federal law requiring helmets for motorcycle riders. If you really want to save lives, Nick, you should take that up as your cause. You'll have a MUCH larger impact because you'll save many more lives and it'll be easier to accomplish: you won't have to worry about constitutional amendments because there's no constitutional right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

The trouble is gun control is an issue led by zealots, like the anti-gay marriage lobby. They're not actually interested in having an impact on society - it's basically a religious cult. Who cares what people want to do if it has no impact on society?

I've never owned a gun and have no desire to do so. But if some guy likes to spend his weekends at a gun range, fine. He's not the guy commiting gun crimes, so let him be.

Again, enacting stricter gun control will have almost no effect on gun violence. DC is the prime example.

There are much better causes to fight for.

rgames


----------



## Narval (Jul 9, 2010)

rgames, civilians being allowed to own hand held fire arms is anachronistic and barbaric. No civilized country allows it. Why? Because it makes killing too easy for everyone including drunk bastards and sociopaths. Occasional murder and fear should not be responded with general and legalized murder and fear. That's also why the death penalty is barbaric too. These two are related issues, both coming from a barbaric way of thinking, an obsolete paradigm, an atavism. Death, fear, and terror are not the right answers, especially in our times. As humanity, we have come to lose our claws and monkey tails.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 9, 2010)

Richard, repeating that gun control laws "will" have almost no effect on gun violence doesn't make it so either. To me even one saved life makes a law worth it. But it's not something I take up as a cause, just something I have an opinion about.

And of course people should be allowed to shoot at targets. I think anyone who wants to go hunting is sick, but I don't really see how you could make that illegal either. The arguments are over concealed hand guns, assault rifles, waiting periods, and so on.

As a motor scooter rider (a 50cc baby motorcycle) I'd go farther and say that people should be required to wear full-face helmets, since a third of the hits to the head are on the chin area. But I think you'll find that some people are religious about that too. Government infringement on my personal freedom, etc. etc. etc. In Germany I believe riders are required to wear full gear - helmet and protective jacket, gloves, and pants. Don't know about boots.

I wouldn't, but one could argue that helmets should up to individuals, since it's their business if they want to get hurt. But eye protection is another matter, since things hitting their eyes can cause them to lose control of the bike and hurt people.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 9, 2010)

THE NEW SOUTH


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2010)

It's nothin' new:


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 10, 2010)

The next female supergroup- Nuns With Guns!


----------



## rgames (Jul 10, 2010)

josejherring @ Fri Jul 09 said:


> THE NEW SOUTH



The new south? Lots more Catholics and guns around you there in LA...

OK maybe equal number of guns but you definitely have more Catholics.

So, the caption should be THE NEW CALIFORNIA.

rgames


----------



## Ed (Jul 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> wst3 @ Wed Jul 07 said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of world do we live in
> ...



DEM GUBMITS' AIN' GON' TAKE MA GUNZZ!!!!


----------



## José Herring (Jul 10, 2010)

rgames @ Sat Jul 10 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> > THE NEW SOUTH
> ...



The difference of course being that there isn't a law condoning it, but of course that would be stating the obvious. Pitty you don't see the distinction.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 10, 2010)

I have hunted all of my life and I am an enviromentalist who loves and cherishes the outdoors.
I got a 1600lb. 6 pointer last time and the meat lasts for a year. Besides I have been to slaughter houses and Chicken farms for field trips and if you see that you will never want to support it again. 
But hey, as long as someone grows your food and delivers it down the street to you why worry about the steriods which our " protectors" known as the FDA allow. This is exactly why I dont trust everything our leaders tell us. No tests are conducted for Genetically grown food from Monsanto, or the cancer the steriods could cause, we just have to trust them like we do with the tons of drugs they allow to be sold that turn up being dangerous later on, Whats even funnier is that the FDA allows this bull shit, and then when things go bad the company gets sued, not the all knowing scientists at the FDA.
Another reason I hunt, fish and love my guns is becasue when the trucks stop rolling, and they will, I have several spawning grounds for German Brown trout and game trails right here in Nevada that I will live off of.
My grandfather split from LA and lived off of hunting during the depression up in Arrowhead and Big Bear. My mom is still the best shot in the family.
I guess when I hear stories about how helpless people stood in lines for a bowl of shitty soup, the knowledge of hunting makes even more sense.
Someday when the trucks stop rolling what will you do...?
I know what I will do and that plan doesn't include listening to our noble leaders.
Besides, all of them have shelters stocked with rations, ammo and guns becasue they know that time will come.
So when I hear Rosie ODonnell calling for gun bans, except for her bodygaurds of course, and polticians telling me there's no reason for me to own my Remingtons, I ignore them because you always seem to hate whats in your house the most ( an old saying.)
But Jindal obviously is getting a nice endorsement in 2012 when he trys his shot at the White House. 
On the surface this law seems silly especially considering the Oil is getting closer everyday, but just look past the headlines and you can see the NRA pushing him for a shot in 2012.
Cant be any worry worse than the current batch of Law Proffessors, or previous Oil Tycoons.


----------

