The Sir

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 10:17 AM) Well this is all a belief system. In a belief system that is entirely based on faith, it's somewhat difficult to establish hard-line rules because none of these things can be traced back to facts...which allows for huge ranges in interpretation of how that belief system should work. What you choose to believe is what you choose to believe, and I don't really understand how you can force that on another person or expect them to agree with you. What did I force on you? What did I expect you to agree with? Did I not say that my comments could lead to interesting discussion? What hard line rules am I making? I was making a point about what I believe to be the nature of sin. Did I not repeatedly inject my statement with "I think" and "I believe" and "I was taught"? Geez. No wonder we are where we are today. If a Christian even talks about what he thinks, people claim he's forcing things on them. Kind of hints back at the title of this thread, doesn't it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:18 AM) I remember the context of the conversation very differently. If you honestly only mean that you wouldn't actively want a gay son, that's different. I wouldn't actively want a gay son any more than I'd want a straight son--I would not care one way or the other. I believe you brought up "shame" and the idea that any 'real red-blooded American' would be devastated. That's quite a bit different from saying that you wouldn't desire or prefer a gay son. I don't remember the conversation down to exact word choices, but I will be honest about how I feel right now. I want a straight son. I want a straight son because like I said and like Jake said, I don't want there to be so many more challenges for him to face than the rest of us already do. And I'll make no attempt to hide the fact that I'm a traditionalist. I want my son to call me and his mother and tell us that he's met the one, and when they come over it's Jane and not John. I think there are things all of us want our kids to be. I'd like my son to be a clean-cut, politically and culturally conservative Christian who believes in military service and acts on that belief. Would I love him if he weren't all of those things? Of course I would. Even to include being gay. Nothing could break that love. Would you want your son to have the traits of my ideal son? Would you still love him if he did? Either way, there's a lot more in that post that I find more interesting than this part. I hope it gets some attention. And yeah, this is a shameless plug, but that took like 30 minutes to write. Put it to use!

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:16 AM) If my son was gay, I'd love him. That said, if he was, he'd be born into the world with a big set of challenges ahead of him that others like myself did not have to deal with. I absolutely agree.

I suspect I'll be mocked here for expressing my views about sin and abortion. That doesn't really bother me, but I'd like to make something clear about sin. And who knows, maybe if people can think reasonably about it, interesting discussion will ensue. I'm reminded of a discussion I had a long time ago with StrangeSox, where I mentioned that I would not want a gay son. Would I love him any less? Of course not. But I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to not want a son to face any additional challenges. As far as I'm concerned, only a serious activist would want that, and likely at the expense of his own child. I think it's worth noting that want and accept are two very different things. The reaction, not surprisingly, was that I was a bigot. So, here's the part where I disagree with a lot of Christians. I don't judge them, I don't think they're awful bigots, I just think they got this one incorrect. Homosexuality is no greater a sin than any other. I don't get the focus here. I don't understand why some people in my own faith focus on this one sin to the exclusion of so many others. Homosexuality is a sin. Fornication, which I once took part in to my everlasting shame, is a sin. Anger, which I still take part in and must still confess for, is a sin. We ALL sin in one way or another. A homosexual is no more damned for that than I am for yelling at poor drivers on the highway. As Catholics, we learn that there is exactly one mortal sin. One sin, and one alone, from which you cannot be forgiven. That is the continuing denial of the Holy Spirit. I did that once. In college, I turned my back on God. I was adamantly anti-religious. I don't know if I was an atheist, per se. That would be too generous to my state of mind. I was confused. I was angry at judgmentalism, and instead of finding a denomination that I liked, I took it out on God. I found my way back and was baptized into the Anglican Communion last year. I have confessed my sins and my blasphemy, and I am confident that God has forgiven me. He truly does forgive all sins. The only one that cannot be forgiven is unrepentant blasphemy. If you are a blasphemer, as I was, and you repent, as I did, He casts no aspersions upon you. And this is possible all because He gave His only Son to die on the Cross. So if you go around, and pull a Fred Phelps (yes, Fred's REALLY loony but I wanted a high profile name to make this point), and exclaim with great glee, that the gays are burning in Hell and worse...not only are you committing a sin with your judgments, but you cheapening the sacrifice of God's Son, the focal point of our entire faith, by claiming that there is something that His death could not redeem. We all sin, without exception, and we are all capable of being forgiven. Homosexuality is forgiveable, fornication is forgivable, getting an abortion is forgivable and being an abortionist is forgivable. Hans Frank was a Nazi politician and one of Hitler's cabinet members. Obviously, he was in a position where he had great infuence on the execution of the Holocaust. As such, he was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to death. Before he was hanged on 16 Oct 1946, he became a devout Catholic. Now, I don't know if he was sincere; that is between him and God. But if he was, I know he was forgiven and is living in Heaven. Maybe that disturbs some of you. Oh well. It is what it is. I'm just bothered that some Christians infuse the message with unnecessary hate and scare off newcomers who are interested but don't want to believe in something they see as hateful. It's especially personal to me because that's what happened to me once. I just wanted to share my own thoughts on that particular topic. I'm not trying to save or convert anyone. I just want this thing cleared up so that people are able to see the loving message of Christianity and not any other. It's not a hate group.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 06:32 AM) I don't know if the smartest move for conservatives is to go down the road equating gun magazines to a woman's control of her own reproductive organs. What a funny euphemism. Murdering a fetus is controlling one's reproductive organs? No. Keeping your legs shut is controlling your reproductive organs. Abortion leads directly to a death, each and every time it is committed. My ownership of a high-capacity magazine does not do that. But since the law gives you the choice and you vigorously defend that choice to the point of coming up with rosy sounding metaphors to cover the true horror of that choice, who exactly are you to tell me that I don't have a choice on something that matters to me? Why does the right to privacy found in some magical corner of the Constitution apply to this 25 year old woman but not to me and my friends? Please tell me how the horrible results of the actions of a few lunatics merit me losing my Constitutional rights, as if EVERY abortion doesn't end with horrible results (for what it's worth, I'd make one exception and that is danger to the life of the mother). Is this a smart move for Republicans? That's a whole different topic and the answer is probably not. It'd be demagogued to death by the Democrats. But I'm not a GOP strategist so that isn't what I'm concerned about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 06:24 AM) What immoral behavior? Pre-marital sex. Whether you think it's a sin or not, the Bible tells us that it is. And the hypothetical parents in this scenario are going to think so too.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 09:25 PM) My assessment from some of the earlier parts of this thread is: When in need of protection, I'd like as large a magazine as I choose. also, When we have magazine limits, that will make no difference because anyone who knows a gun from their asshole won't be any less effective from having to do a .5 second reload. Because it's about choice. I should be able to own what I want until I've proven that I am incapable of doing so without hurting others. I want 30 round magazines and as far as defending my castle goes, I need them. Does a 25 year old girl with a good-paying job who gets knocked up by her boyfriend NEED an abortion because she doesn't want her highly conservative family to know about her immoral behavior? I would say no. But long ago, the courts ruled that I don't have any say in that. So it's her call. It about what she wants and needs, not about what I think she needs. I wish the GOP would add this into any gun control law that Dems want to send up to the POTUS. If our choice about weapons ownership goes, so does that girl's choice about abortion. I think that's fair.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 05:31 PM) Nice analysis. Now we would have to look at what the punishment is. Is the punishment not being allowed to mount an M-16 in the bed of your pickup truck? Or is the punishment not being allowed to own more than 10,000 rounds at one time? Or is it not being allowed to buy a gun without a more detailed background search? I hope we all would agree that there are reasonable "punishments" or restrictions that a well regulated militia will follow. Hell, you have restrictions at your work on weapons you can possess. That's a fair point. I'd think I'd draw the line at tanks and fighter jets. But seriously, I think the legal situation right now isn't bad. It generally respects the Second Amendment (as I read it, anyway) and also respects States' Rights. I wouldn't dare live in California, New York or DC, and people who are not comfortable with massive gun ownership can happily avoid living in Texas, Georgia or Idaho.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 08:05 AM) While I'm greatly impressed by those numbers (good job GLtI), I can't help but think... ...I really wish it was 1 in 300,000,000. So do I. But there's the world we'd like to live in and the world we do live in. I wish that guns were unnecessary because humans were, without fail, incapable of violence. But that's not the case, unfortunately. As a slight segue (and not aimed at you, Quin), this is the same reason I scoff at people who claim conservatives are pro-war. We can have a discussion about specific wars, of course. But please don't say we are pro-war. We're not. Do we support a more aggressive foreign policy? I can admit to that. But do we seek endless war, like that cockroach in the old Men in Black movie who says that war is good for him and his family? Not at all. We'd love it if war was unnecessary but we realize that that isn't always the case. Things are more complicated than that and, sometimes, violence is required as part of the solution. Again, I'm not rejecting anyone's ability to disagree with my support for specific wars. We can totally do that. It's just that blanket term, "pro-war", is far too simplistic and unworthy of use in a serious conversation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 07:49 AM) SO it's 1 out of 180 per year? So over say, a 45 year period known as a lifetime...the average comes down to 1 in 4? That's a pretty simplistic statement, which doesn't account for recidivism and repeat offenders who manage to avoid getting locked up, or the multitudes of new gunners who come into being every single day, or the black market portion of criminal's firearms.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 10:12 PM) Can I see these numbers? Twice I’ve typed this stupid thing up, and twice this stupid government computer has deleted it. So the explanation gets shorter each time. I can’t find the chart I used last time. But basically, I took the common numbers of 310 million guns owned by 80 million people. I took the FBI’s 2009 statistics, where the violent crimes committed with firearms added up to roughly 307,000. You do the math and the ratio comes out to 260 to 1, not 280 as I previously stated. The FBI does not compile weapons use statistics when it comes to rape, which is tragically underreported anyway. But even if you assume that all 94,000 or so of 2009’s rapes were committed with a gun, which is obviously not even close to true, the ratio only drops to 200 to 1. Now, we could even throw in accidental non-lethal shootings (roughly 23,000) and suicides (roughly 19,000). Do the math again, from our number of 307,000, and it comes out to 229 to 1. If you do it to include our bloated rape assumption, it comes out to 180 to 1. There are things I can’t account for. Not every violent crime is reported. Not every gun criminal is counted as one of my 80 million gun owners (Chris Kyle’s killer, as a recent example). Some criminals steal guns; should the people the guns were stolen from be counted as “bad gun owners” for allowing it to happen? Also, not every one of these 300-400 thousand violent gun crimes is committed by a different person. So the numbers are not perfect. But I think it’s an absolutely fair point to say that overarching gun laws will end up punishing a lot of people who had never done an indecent thing with their weapons.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 08:39 PM) So why do gun owners talk about all these criminals they have to protect themselves from? Hell it's only a handful. Compared to the the decent gun owners like myself, AD and Jenksb****, the bad gun owners are rare. I crunched some statistics last night and it comes out to roughly 280 of us for every one of them (I'm talking about violent criminals, not idiots who put holes in their own hat bills). But would you say crime is rare? I don't know how to better explain that paradox there. There are a lot of good gun owners for every whacko (armed or unarmed, I might add), but that whacko still exists. And I've said time and time again that my guns are a defense against unlikely situation, and not ones that lurk around every corner. I still don't want to be unprepared should that situation arise. And this doesn't even get into what I think is the real reason for 2A, which has already been discussed here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) right, I thought most proposals have a 10-round max, so your typical handgun magazine would be ok. You misunderstood. Most handgun magazines have greater than ten rounds. Not equal to ten, greater than ten. Edit: I worded it poorly. Regardless, I did not mean to the average handgun mag carries exactly ten rounds. I meant ten round and more.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:23 PM) don't need to be kidding about that, there's a lot of racial oppression in the history of gun control laws. I think there's a legitimate point there about making it a right that's only accessible to the (relatively) well-off. otoh we essentially do that with automatic weapons and I think that's an example of a good, effective gun control scheme. Well, I guess I can appreciate you understanding that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:17 PM) do tens of millions of people own firearms with magazines larger than 10 rounds? e.g. serious question. my fil, bil and grandfather all own a shotgun, but they wouldn't be impacted by magazine restrictions. isn't glock sort of the oddball with the 17 round magazine? Yes. I honestly believe they would. There are 114 million handguns in the US. I have three handguns, only 1 of which is less than 10 rounds. And really, unless it's a .45, most handgun magazines carry ten rounds. So yeah, if you're honestly curious, I do think that would affect millions of people. Probably tens of millions.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:56 PM) Because its not about you. The United States cant make laws for individuals. I can make the same argument that my smoking weed, getting high on mushrooms, tripping on lsd, wont hurt you and therefore I should be allowed to do it. The problem is, and I would hope you can also see this, not everyone is me, not everyone is you. Not everyone can handle their drugs and not hurt someone else. Not everyone can handle their guns and not hurt someone else. So as a society we have to make a decision. Do we the people, the ones who arent going to screw s*** up, agree that we will make rules that slightly curtail our freedoms, to try and prevent other people from being injured? You were in the military. You were trained to operate weapons. My concerns are not about you on the street with a weapon. My concern is about the 19 year old, who buys a gun to be cool, never learns how to use it and does something stupid like target practice in his backyard. Peoples concerns about drugs are for the kids who take them and drive a car, or do something stupid. Sometimes we all get screwed because there are irresponsible people. I can live in both societies. Im fine with a govt that has no rules, but when I say that, I truly mean, no rules on guns, no rules on drugs. I can live in a society with rules. Most people cant really live in a no rule society. It just isnt what they imagine. I disagree with this, but it's actually a well thought out post. So congrats. People are stupid. They are. I watched a video a while back of a guy whose shotgun jammed. So he looked down the barrel. The gun went off and blew his hat off. Luckily, it didn't kill him. But I don't think that because he's an irresponsible clown, my right to own a gun should be infringed nor should yours. So to put it as simply as possible, stupid people shouldn't be the reason for laws on normal people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) the thought process is that your easy ability to "have a gun and not need it," even if you will never, ever use your guns to harm a person and they never fall into 'the wrong hands' (which you can never know with 100% certainty) is that it means it's a lot easier for anyone to get a gun. That includes people who get them specifically to cause harm or people who are negligent or people who are perfectly normal law-abiding citizens but have a terrible lapse in judgement, an accident or some traumatic event. If we're going to have hundreds of millions of guns legally floating around this country, innocent people are going to die. That's the price we have to pay for liberal gun laws. You can be fine with that trade-off--we all make these choices everyday i.e. we allow millions of cars (heavy machinery) to be operated by basically anyone 16-dead who can pass an incredibly easy test. We allow alcohol, even though we know some will abuse it, some will drive drunk. But that's the thought process behind the desire for gun control, and you need to think beyond a single individual level. I accept that trade off. I would like to minimize unnecessary gun deaths. I simply don't think you'll get that by telling me or the vast majority of gun owners what they can and cannot own.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) I sure as hell hope so...you think you should be awarded extra points or something for this? Nope. It was my way of showing that, no matter what my personna on here, I am capable of owning and carrying a firearm, and not hurting anyone else.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:47 PM) the constitution literally establishes the government and "the United States," and you swear to obey the orders of the President. I never said anything about an oath. I was talking about my personal motivations. I'm not here for Obama and I'm not here for the government. I might follow their orders, but my mission has never had anything to do with their gradually increasing power over the people. I signed up for the flag. Think of that what you will. It is what it is. I signed up to defend my homeland. I signed up because I believe in our Judeo-Christian heritage. I signed up because I think baseball is something worth fighting for. I signed up because I think the Rockies are beautiful. You can agree or disagree with all of those assertions. But don't tell me I signed up because I believe in statism. That is ridiculous. My love for our homeland is why I did this. You can accept that or continue giggling like a school girl. I really don't care.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) See, that's why you need to think beyond your one incredibly-unlikely-never-going-to-happen-full-frontal-gang-assault situation and to what your ability to legally and easily get weapons x, y and z means. It means there's a lot more of them out there, that the likelihood of them "falling into the wrong hands" increases, that the likelihood of an otherwise perfectly normal "law abiding citizen" making bad decisions or having an emotional issue with a gun increases, that the need to defend yourself from other people with guns increases. Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Sure, I'm probably not going to get attacked by ten guys. I know that. I was only referring to the worst case scenario with AD. But home invasions happen all the time. Who are you to tell me what I need or don't need in that case? Don't you think this arrogance is a reason I scoff at you and have no desire at all to negotiate with you? And you've yet to explain to me how me having an assault weapon, several handguns and a shotgun affects you. I keep them secured. I am well trained. I practice weapons safety like its a damn job (partially because it IS). You might think I'm an angry guy, but I have kept my rage in and my gun in its holster even when tempted by some serious madmen on the roads. Despite my anger, I still managed to deploy. I'm intense, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot people for no reason or have "emotional issues". Please, tell me how this makes your life worse. Tell me how innocent people are going to die because of me or my guns. If you can't do that, stop telling me what I get to own and don't get to own. I don't need your advice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) I get a kick out of a guy in the military talking about "statists" You're full of juvenile arguments. I get a kick out of that. This is about patriotism. I'm not here for the government or for the president. I signed up to defend America because I felt it was my absolute duty. If you think that's statist, then whatever. I don't really give a s*** what someone thinks who also thinks its bigoted to not want a gay son.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:19 PM) do you really think you would have rambo'd down 7+ of them? I never understand this argument. So if I'm being attacked by 10 men who intend to hurt me, it makes sense to take away the one hope I have because its doubtful I have the skill and expertise to take out all ten? What's the alternative? That I simply have no weapon and am overran and slaughtered immediately. I don't know. Seems like a weak attack point. Maybe I can't get them all and will die anyway but the alternative isn't much better.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:04 PM) Who are You to judge what I NEED? Seriously, it is none of your business. YOU are not the arbiter of magazine size, or of what I need, or want. He wouldn't be a statist if he didn't feel uniquely qualified to determine what you are and are not allowed to own. Don't you dare question his authority. He's better'n you.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) No, it figures into this directly. Because 99% of the mostly BS excuses for why people need guns have been as "Protection", neglecting the additional risk that having it puts the owner in completely. But if people can't envision a situation where having more than 10 shots available prior to reloading is necessary, even from the "pro gun side", then you've made the case expertly for why they're unnecessary. Help me out. What difference am I missing that makes this argument inapplicable to abortion? Does anyone, except in cases of danger toward the life of the mother, NEED an abortion? You're pro-choice, aren't you? Why does that choice go away when it comes to what kind of guns I want to own?

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 10:21 AM) Straw purchasing is legal in most places as I understand it. For the most part, sales between individuals requires no paperwork or anything like that. My brother traded a stereo speaker for a Glock on Craigslist...called the Sheriff to see if he needed to do anything, and they told him not to worry about it. The background check system is seriously undermined if these individual to individual sales are not monitored. This is why a huge portion of gun sales occur at gun shows and why those guns are disproportionately more likely to be involved in crimes. I live in Memphis -- I wonder why a city with a USA high murder rate has gun show billboards in its worst neighborhoods? I don't think we agree on what straw purchasing is. To me, a straw purchase is when I, as a decent citizen with no criminal history, buys several firearms in a short period of time and turn around and give them to drug cartels. Or gang bangers. Or some creepy high school kid. Using my clean past to deliberately supply criminals or other sorts who couldn't otherwise obtain them. What you're talking about is private sales. Perhaps there is a way to set up a system so that citizens can call in easily and scan other private citizens. But its hard to force people to do that. I guess you could ban private sales but I don't see how that'd reduce the actual dangerous private sales. So that's a tricky one. Also, I agree with you that gun confiscation will go poorly and probably not happen. That doesn't mean I'm prepared to cede to what is the first step on that road.