Catholic Online Forum

I think it's clear to people who are looking at the situation int he United States with minimal preconceptions that the cause of violence in the US is more than merely access to firearms and that violence would not be minimized solely by restricting said access.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Meh. Specifically targetting Morgan's arguments is myopic. Specifically targetting the UK and comparing it to the EU and South Africa is of limited use.

But more importantly, one of the problems with comparing nations is that the way we track violent crimes is frequently different. I'd have to see the methodology used to compare that data to know how reliable it is. Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that jazz...

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Val,

Heck, Piers Morgan? Is he still about? Hasn't he been sent to prison yet?

(No, it's not an ad hominem; it is a question of his integrity and veracity, or rather, the apparent lack of either.)

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Unfortunately the gentleman(?) is over here now spreading his manure all about the land.

_________________
Bob C

I saw something on Facebook saying that the NRA supported the 1967 Mulford Act in California. The Mulford Act prohibited the public carrying of firearms. It was named for its primary sponsor, Republican assemlyman Don Mulford and was signed into law by then governor Ronald Reagan. It seems like it was mainly a measure aimed at the Black Panthers and their community "police patrols".

I haven't been able to find any verification that the NRA took a position on Mulford. Does anybody know?

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

The NRA generally supported Reagan even though he restricted some aspects of the Second Amendment but I didn't find anything indicating the NRA directly supported the Mulford Act. I intend to keep checking but whatever I find would not change my opinion today. I'm convinced there is no reasoning or bargaining with the extremist Liberals, they will continue to nibble away at the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments until those amendments are no longer viable after which the entire constitution becomes worthless, indefensible.

_________________
BobA

In the big scheme of things it does not matter to myself what the NRA did or did not support. IF the NRA disappeared from the face of the Earth today my inalienable rights and all that derives from them would remain.

Anyway, it is the first I have heard of the raising of this issue as somehow relevant to the discussion going on right now. I would suggest that those raising the issue simply pursue the same path leftists have always pursued when promoting and pushing forward a leftist agenda. This path consists of among other things (as detailed in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals") to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”.

-small excerpt:


Which rules do you think are possibly being applied as far as the NRA is specifically concerned? For that matter, which rules do you think are possibly being applied as far as the entire "Gun Control" 'debate' which not so coincidentally the left now wishes to reframe and call "Gun Violence Reduction" -"for the children" of course.

I have enjoyed and will enjoy watching the leftists in action on this issue -consider it a case study. The issue will present what some might say will be a clear Petri Dish view for all to see as to what exactly is the disease of leftism and which supposed impartial organizations comprise the leftist threat which now ails the Republic.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-17/h ... te/4469482



Details, details, details.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

"Mr Howard concedes that any move to limit gun ownership in the US would face different challenges from Australia, including a more powerful gun lobby and a constitutional right to bear arms."

It appears Mr. Howard is a master at understatement.

_________________
BobA

I am posting this video, more to educate those who participate here that may not understand the various gun calibers and their capabilities.

Jessie Duff at the NRA Range

_________________
Bob C

Interesting. Thank you.

I think something like this is mostly useful in a constructive debate on the topic.

"Mostly" 'cause of a couple of drawbacks.

For one, it would have been a better presentation if the host didn't keep interrupting her every minute or so to make sure he got his point or question in. Nature of the business, I guess.

The other drawback was the disconnect between a couple of her statements. In discussing the first rifle, she dismisses some concerns about the appearance of the so-called scary-looking rifle as "cosmetics". Ummm... yeah. The "cosmetics" don't change the basic operating characteristics (semi-automatic) common to all the examples on her table. With her next breath, however, she described the grip (stability/control), the scope attachments (ability to hit a target at long range), and the collapsible stock option (that would make it easier to conceal, right?). Sounds a lot like performance-related to me.

_________________
Rob

Sure does. So what?

Are you suggesting a less accurate weapon is a safer weapon or that a larger weapon is a safer weapon? Maybe President Obama can add an Executive Order to attach a ball and chain to any light or small weapon? Maybe mandate that weapon sights have a minimum required error? I am sure that criminals will be first in line to modify their weapons according to the law they ignore already.


In my opinion, the whole point of showcasing and highlighting the primarily cosmetic differences was to point out the lies premising the absurd notion that there is a dangerous "weapon of war" among us (as President Obama, child safety advocate and leader of the organized homosexual sex and abortion clinging left) termed, the 'assault weapon' that must be removed from society -for the children.

You can at least admit that the left is lying...

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

It's empty (and somewhat insulting) rhetoric on her part to say "B" and think she can pass it off as "A" by prefacing it with "A" (when "A" and "B" are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive, but somewhat like skew lines - they don't intersect.

It's similar to some of those cases when some public figure (often a politician or sports star) makes some sort of press statement when they're trying to defend/restore their image against the allegation of having done/said something really stupid (insensitive, socially incorrect, bigoted, etc..). I suspect we've all seen examples - starts with words in the accepted form of an apology, and proceeds to undercut themselves the longer they talk. They make explanations and qualifying statements that tend to reinforce the impression that caused them trouble in the first place and cast doubt on the sincerity of the apology.

It's a shame, especially when it's an important part of the conversation and it looks as though there's a lot of truth to the point she was trying to make.

_________________
Rob

I generally agree with your assessment of the apology/undercut.

Regarding the features of the rifle, you're right that it's contradictory. However, I disagree with your interpretation that those factors actually impact the lethality of the firearm. A pistol grip, accessory rail, scope, foregrip, and collapsible stock have little overall impact on the lethality of the weapon against unarmed targets like those in a mass shooting.

Again, I continue to think that focusing on assault weapons and mass shootings is silly. They are edge cases and statistically small compared to the 11,000 handgun deaths that occur every year in shootings of one or two people at a time. THAT is where we need to address policies.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Jeff and all, homicides of all kinds are fifteenth or lower on the list of causes of death in the US, this is not where we need to focus policies if our intent is truly to save lives. One of the, if not the highest on the list of causes of death is death through faulty medical care so why aren't we attacking that rather than establishing a medical system that will likely reduce the level of care; maybe reducing the level of care through Obamacare is a good thing, fewer chances for the system to kill us!

It is absolutely ridiculous to think any significant number of the millions of law-abiding gun owners, people who have owned and/or been around guns for years if not for life are going to suddenly go amok and start slaughtering everyone in sight, absolutely insane hypothesis. Obama and Biden have it right in strengthening penalties for crimes committed with guns but they are totally off-base for penalizing non-criminals, especially those who have already passed state and federal background checks. It's just as stupid to tell those who use firearms for self-protection they are now limited to 7 or 10 rounds of ammunition knowing their assailant probably has 15 to 50 rounds; what kind of asinine logic is that?

No one will convince me this is any more than a step in an attempt to disarm the population, a gun-grab by Liberals who fear an armed population is a hindrance to their goal. If this blows up let's remember those who started this fight wasn't the lawful gun owners who, by the way, are being legislated from lawful to criminal with the stroke of a pen.

_________________
BobA

I agree it's just political theater, being used to disarm the populous.

_________________
Bob C

It is silly -hilariously silly. YET, some still argue it is not.

The truth is that handguns cause more deaths than the 'weapon of war' creation that the left touts as evil. As well, the truth is that there is a right to bear arms.

This effort, IT is in reality simply an incremental approach to disarming law abiding citizens. Fifty shades of grey -an attempt to encroach upon an absolute truth by incrementally violating it. This approach is nothing new -it is evidenced right now on the Religious Liberty front where the left claims among other things that those of faith only have the right to worship.

Chicago is a case study on the effects of leftist gun control much as Detroit is a case study on leftist economic policy -both epic failures. The leftist king has no clothes YET some still claim him well dressed.

This whole debate is crazy -there should be no debate to discuss how best to accomplish the illegitimate. Really, if one is honest, there is no debate of consequence here or anywhere. The left already has the prescription in hand and simply seeks to apply it. This 'debate' is nothing but a propaganda war being waged by the left.

By analogy, comparing murder to rape -following a mass rape, the left now calls for all men of a certain stature and mental mindset to be imprisoned.

Some argue that all men can rape -lock them all up. Some, too many, completely miss the point -blind to what actually transpires; evil calling itself good.

This blind herd mentality is nothing new -both Hitler and Stalin did not rise to power in a vacuum. Imposing a collective evil in answer to an individual evil is nothing new either especially when the path sought is Utopian in nature -any means necessary is the battle cry.

Those who blindly work to establish a heaven on earth conveniently ignore the fact that they partner with evil each and every time they support evil means.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Maybe she should just be a good 'martyr' and die quietly? Maybe just agree with her accusers a little bit and renounce God in only some areas?

I think you miss completely the issue. There is nothing wrong or illegal about bearing arms let alone arms that are effective and preferred. I would suggest that the distinctions you feel are important are distinctions only important to those who seek to remove arms from those who have the right to bear them.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Bob,



Thanks. As has already been noted, perhaps her comments on the M15 ArmaLite were just a little disingenuous.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Properly it is an AR-15, and I found her comments both proper and accurate, yet concede that someone unfamiliar with the platform might find them confusing.

_________________
Bob C

I have no idea what your first paragraph has to do with the presentation made in the video clip.

As to your second paragraph... Since I have not said that bearing arms is wrong or illegal; since I in fact believe the opposite to be true; since I have indicated so in this thread - I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that I seek to remove arms from those who have the right to bear them.

_________________
Rob

It was an implied analogy. In essence, she practices freely her right which possibly she may not even be aware is currently under attack AND with all this she is criticized for not being 'careful' enough differentiating between that which is only of import and consequence to those seeking to curtail her right.



I was simply pointing that what you point to as distinction is fundamentally irrelevant and only being pushed for inclusion in the 'debate' by those that actively seek to curtail the right of others to bear arms.

The way this concerted community organized effort evolves now I would not be surprised if soon it was not proposed by some that camouflaged clothing be considered a violent threat -assault clothing; clothing of war...

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Uh oh! Sounds like Bloomberg needs some new laws restricting the sale and possession of fruit: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/20/search-on-for-vandal-who-hurled-fruit-damaged-cars-in-new-rochelle/.

_________________
BobA

My error. Crossbows may be used against Moslems.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow

The text



http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM10.HTM

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

I wonder if that meant "good Christians" only?

Maybe we could get a ban on using guns against Christians.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

Absolutely sometimes maybe we can or cannot! I love emotionally based absolute fiats.

_________________
BobA