Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[hippie_hunter]

Here's some examples of how our laws are modeled after the Ten Commandments...

1) "Do not steal." Pretty much self-explanatory.

2) "Do not murder". That encompasses a whole section of our criminal laws.

3) "Do not commit adultery". Over 20 states still have laws against it, though punishments vary.

4) "Do not give false testimony". Again, we have strict laws against perjury.

5) "Do not covet your neighbor's house, wife, property, etc." This relates directly to murder, adultery, and theft, since all are the result of a selfish heart.

Again, those are basic laws that pretty much every civilization developed without influence by the Ten Commandments. Let's go ask the Chinese, Babylonians, and Egyptians who existed before the Ten Commandments even existed.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You guys are arguing with a broken record.

 

[dnno1]

While Christianity isn't the major ideological source the way Joshua absurdly makes it out to be, you're mitigating Christian influences far too much. Even though they were deists, most of the Founding Fathers were still devout Christians and their views on Christianity developed their views on how American public life should be. Christianity can be a major inspiration of the Founding Fathers without there being an official state religion.

Benjamin Franklin was pretty steadfast in his Puritan views and was very supportive of religious sects that promoted good works to their followers. And in his writings he constantly promoted the Protestant work ethic and Puritan values such as egalitarianism, education, industry, thrift, honesty, temperance, charity and community spirit. Thomas Jefferson said that the teachings of Jesus Christ were perfect and he often allowed church services to be conducted within government buildings which he often attended himself. George Washington and John Adams would often call for days of thanksgiving and prayer.

People who preach this incredibly strict wall of separation between government and all religious practices have it just as wrong as the people who act as if we're some kind of theocratic Christian nation. When I've read up on the Founding Fathers, I've concluded that the Founding Fathers envisioned a secular government of a devout Christian society with tolerance to most faiths (atheists excluded). As long as all Christian faiths were treated equally, no one was forced to practice against their will, used reason and rationality, and the government was no in a corrupting alliance with the clergy, the Founding Fathers were perfectly fine with Christian influences in American politics.

So even though there is no reference to the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution, I highly doubt that they would be opposed to a public display of the Ten Commandments. I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers would be opposed of public displays of Christmas celebrations in places like schools and town halls. And honestly, I think they would be rather annoyed by how some on the left act in regards to the Culture War.

And on a side note, I'm an atheist. So it's not like I have some motive or incentive to actually promote Christian values in American society. But the fact is that the Founding Fathers really aren't as secularist as some people make them out to be.

They were deists, and there is no reference to God or the Ten Commandments in the Constitution. Just because they may have had a Christian background, does not necessitate or imply that the Constitution was influenced by Christian values.

 

[dnno1]

Here's some examples of how our laws are modeled after the Ten Commandments...

1) "Do not steal." Pretty much self-explanatory.

2) "Do not murder". That encompasses a whole section of our criminal laws.

3) "Do not commit adultery". Over 20 states still have laws against it, though punishments vary.

4) "Do not give false testimony". Again, we have strict laws against perjury.

5) "Do not covet your neighbor's house, wife, property, etc." This relates directly to murder, adultery, and theft, since all are the result of a selfish heart.

None of theses precepts are in the Constitution. In fact, they have nothing to do with the individual. The constitution was written to define the government and it's powers.

 

[Kelly]

I call BS that this 3 and a half minute "commercial" was banned. You know how much that would cost, now they probably had a condensed 30 second version but why not show that?

Um...SV, the actual commercial is only 1 minute. Did you even watch it. 2.5 minutes of it is a commentary about the commercial being banned.

Obviously you didn't watch it...

 

[SV Fan]

Um...SV, the actual commercial is only 1 minute. Did you even watch it. 2.5 minutes of it is a commentary about the commercial being banned.

Obviously you didn't watch it...

I watched like the first 30 seconds and got bored

 

[Kelly]

Because it doesn't jive with your opinion.....ok, So why even comment on it? Seems a waste of time.

Doesn't jive with my opinion either, but at least I watched the whole thing before posting it for discussion.

 

[hippie_hunter]

They were deists, and there is no reference to God or the Ten Commandments in the Constitution. Just because they may have had a Christian background, does not necessitate or imply that the Constitution was influenced by Christian values.

They were deists to an extent. They didn't see Jesus as God, nor did they favor the more mystical elements such as miracles, like most Christian sects do, but they still believed in the morals and values Jesus' ministry preached. They still believed in the one true Christian God, the rewards of the afterlife, and his omnipotence. Their belief in Jesus' teachings is a heavy influence in their ideology.

Christianity is just as an important influence as classical liberalism and classical republicanism in American political thought. And even though the Founding Fathers didn't bring up God in the Constitution, they still saw Protestant Christianity playing a major role in American public life.

 

[SV Fan]

Because it doesn't jive with your opinion.....ok, So why even comment on it? Seems a waste of time.

Doesn't jive with my opinion either, but at least I watched the whole thing before posting it for discussion.

I was bored by the first 30 seconds of it and saw it was 3 1/2 minutes and said screw it no way am I wasting my time and why the hell would somebody want to pay for a 3 1/2 minute commercial. If i knew it was 1 minute(and 2 1/2 minutes of some guy ranting) I probably would have watched the rest of it then stopped at ranting guy.

 

[hippie_hunter]

None of theses precepts are in the Constitution. In fact, they have nothing to do with the individual. The constitution was written to define the government and it's powers.

Actually when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they implied that the individual rights that we have today were already implied in the Constitution. The point of the Bill of Rights was to calm down anti-Federalists who demanded that such rights needed to be put down specifically in writing. But the Constitution always had the intention of going beyond just defining the government and its powers.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That and the laws and protections they had as English subjects could be done away with on the whim of the Crown. Hell, half the bill of rights were designed with laws the Crown broke in mind.

 

[Destructus86]

I think heavy restrictions should be put on place for owning a gun. You can't even buy one without extensive background checks and mental health evaluation. You also are only allowed to own one gun.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[wiegeabo]

If I'm a responsible citizen who checks out, why should I be limited to one gun?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I think heavy restrictions should be put on place for owning a gun. You can't even buy one without extensive background checks and mental health evaluation. You also are only allowed to own one gun.

Seems reasonable to me.

But hunters don't use the same gun for different animals. Your rule/law would effectively make every hunter out of compliance. You'd also make those that own a handgun and shotgun to protect their homes. It'd make gun collectors violators as well.

If you knew about buying guns, you'd know people already go through a pretty thorough background check and it stops plenty of felons and mentally ill from getting them. The system has flaws as it is only as strong the information put into it. If mental health institutions don't put the necessary information in, then the background check won't flag a buyer.

 

[wiegeabo]

It would also screw people who inherit guns.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

It would also screw people who inherit guns.

Remembered that just as I posted it. Another group that'd be hard hit by that one-gun rule.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I think heavy restrictions should be put on place for owning a gun. You can't even buy one without extensive background checks and mental health evaluation. You also are only allowed to own one gun.

Seems reasonable to me.

I definitely disagree, particularly with the 1 gun rule that you are suggesting. Aside from the issues mentioned by others (hunters who use different calibers for different game, collectors, inherited guns, etc), what about simple free will to own multiple guns?
Much like those with multiple cars (truck to haul items, economy car to drive to work and save on gas) or even shoes (athletic shoes for working out, dress shoes for job)...multiple guns USUALLY serve multiple purposes, but even if not, I can certainly find my own personal reasons for owning more than 1 gun.

Off the top of my head- it allows me to take friends out and teach them to shoot (done this twice this year already, actually). Its much easier to learn by starting with a lower caliber gun with less recoil and noise and then working up to higher calibers. Also, there are vast differences in learning to shoot a pistol, rifle, and shotgun. If I only have 1 of these, the student misses out on the opportunity to learn about and experience the others and possibly make a more informed choice about which gun would be best for them to purchase if and when that time comes.

Also, in the winter it is easier for me to carry a larger gun concealed. However, in the summer time I prefer a more compact firearm, as a t-shirt and shorts makes it difficult to conceal the larger frame of the "winter" gun.

Those are simple examples (just 2, but I could name more) of why it can be very practical and much more convenient to own more than one gun.

Lastly, I would like to know the reasoning behind your 1 gun limit proposal. I certainly dont think (and seriously doubt that anyone can prove) that legally owning more than 1 gun makes the owner more likley to commit a firearm-related crime.

 

[wiegeabo]

I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of household gun accidents occur in a one gun family.

They get a gun for self-defense, but don't know the first thing about owning or using one. Hence the accidents.

People with more than one gun usually know how to use them and keep them secure. Not many people (percentage-wise) are going to have multiple guns unless they enjoy using them, which means they know how.

 

[Destructus86]

I definitely disagree, particularly with the 1 gun rule that you are suggesting. Aside from the issues mentioned by others (hunters who use different calibers for different game, collectors, inherited guns, etc), what about simple free will to own multiple guns?
Much like those with multiple cars (truck to haul items, economy car to drive to work and save on gas) or even shoes (athletic shoes for working out, dress shoes for job)...multiple guns USUALLY serve multiple purposes, but even if not, I can certainly find my own personal reasons for owning more than 1 gun.

Off the top of my head- it allows me to take friends out and teach them to shoot (done this twice this year already, actually). Its much easier to learn by starting with a lower caliber gun with less recoil and noise and then working up to higher calibers. Also, there are vast differences in learning to shoot a pistol, rifle, and shotgun. If I only have 1 of these, the student misses out on the opportunity to learn about and experience the others and possibly make a more informed choice about which gun would be best for them to purchase if and when that time comes.

Also, in the winter it is easier for me to carry a larger gun concealed. However, in the summer time I prefer a more compact firearm, as a t-shirt and shorts makes it difficult to conceal the larger frame of the "winter" gun.

Those are simple examples (just 2, but I could name more) of why it can be very practical and much more convenient to own more than one gun.

Lastly, I would like to know the reasoning behind your 1 gun limit proposal. I certainly dont think (and seriously doubt that anyone can prove) that legally owning more than 1 gun makes the owner more likley to commit a firearm-related crime.

Because there's no reason to own more than one gun. I could see them making exceptions for people with hunting licenses I suppose.

But it doesn't matter...we are going to continue to have lots of gun related killings just so people can keep their precious hobbies.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of household gun accidents occur in a one gun family.

They get a gun for self-defense, but don't know the first thing about owning or using one. Hence the accidents.

People with more than one gun usually know how to use them and keep them secure. Not many people (percentage-wise) are going to have multiple guns unless they enjoy using them, which means they know how.

I would agree with this. Lots of people think that once they purchase a gun, they are secure, without every having any training or anything. Yes, I would venture to bet that most gun accidents happen "in-house" with those types of gun owners.

Because there's no reason to own more than one gun. I could see them making exceptions for people with hunting licenses I suppose.

But it doesn't matter...we are going to continue to have lots of gun related killings just so people can keep their precious hobbies.

Umm...I gave you a few reasons. Different guns fill different needs.

To reiterate another way, if I hunt deer with a bolt action rifle, but want a handgun for self-defense, I should certainly be allowed both. They fill two different purposes and neither would be adequate/appropriate to fill the other void.

Another example is 3 gun competitions....its in the name after all, the person needs 3 different firearms to compete in these competitions.

You are correct though, we will continue to have gun related killings and injuries. No doubt about it. We will also continue to have deaths/injuries from attacks with knives, baseball bats and more. And those are, in fact, a few of the reasons that I carry a firearm 24/7 personally. I want to be in the best position possible to protect myself, my family, or possibly some other individual from injuries or death, whether that threat comes from someone with a crossbow, knife, handgun, ak-47, a gang of thugs with no weapons, or something else.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Because there's no reason to own more than one gun. I could see them making exceptions for people with hunting licenses I suppose.

But it doesn't matter...we are going to continue to have lots of gun related killings just so people can keep their precious hobbies.

Just because you see no reason to own multiple guns doesn't mean everyone else sees it like that. You seem to have no idea about proper gun ownership and usage in this country.

And most killings are done by people who'd never pass background checks or bought illegally.

 

[Feenix]

So...do more people buy guns because there is so much violence or....is there so much violence because so many people buy guns?




It's like the chicken and the egg, which came first? The violence or the guns?

 

[mrvlknight21]

So...do more people buy guns because there is so much violence or....is there so much violence because so many people buy guns?




It's like the chicken and the egg, which came first? The violence or the guns?

Well there has always been violence. Some say fighting is in human's DNA. Either way, bad guys do bad things. It has been that way for thousands of years. Most would argue that guns simply make it easier for someone to commit violent acts.
I believe that a lot of people purchase guns in an effort to not be a victim. Although, as mentioned above, a lack of training (and common sense) often causes some of those people to have unfortunate endings.

 

[dnno1]

Actually when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they implied that the individual rights that we have today were already implied in the Constitution. The point of the Bill of Rights was to calm down anti-Federalists who demanded that such rights needed to be put down specifically in writing. But the Constitution always had the intention of going beyond just defining the government and its powers.

This is true, but it is not implied to mean that because there were Christians who drafted the document that the Constitution of the United States had Christian influence nor was it divinely inspired. That would be akin to someone saying that, I being a Roman Catholic, that the design I made for my kitchen 7 years ago was Christian inspired, when it wasn't. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other (unless I had placed crosses or other religious symbols in my kitchen).

 

[Thundercrack85]

Because there's no reason to own more than one gun. I could see them making exceptions for people with hunting licenses I suppose.

Well what if you like revolvers and semiautomatics?