Pro Gun Control Member of NRA

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#1
........speaks out



If the Republicans had nominated a skunk in the contest against Hillary Clinton, the National Rifle Association would have heartily embraced the odoriferous Mr. Stinky. A week ago, the NRA, which has millions of members and is eager to target congressional races in which guns are an issue, endorsed Donald Trump for president. He spoke, of course. Hand in the air for emphasis, he told the NRA that Clinton would try to "abolish" the Second Amendment. How does one "abolish" anything in the Constitution? It takes many steps. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't matter. It was what the NRA's Louisville audience wanted to hear, and, true to form, Trump delivered. In fact, almost any Republican ...
Read more

Politics

[h=3]What I discovered as a pro-gun-control member of the NRA[/h]
 
Apr 30, 2016
103
3
0
#2
........speaks out



If the Republicans had nominated a skunk in the contest against Hillary Clinton, the National Rifle Association would have heartily embraced the odoriferous Mr. Stinky. A week ago, the NRA, which has millions of members and is eager to target congressional races in which guns are an issue, endorsed Donald Trump for president. He spoke, of course. Hand in the air for emphasis, he told the NRA that Clinton would try to "abolish" the Second Amendment. How does one "abolish" anything in the Constitution? It takes many steps. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't matter. It was what the NRA's Louisville audience wanted to hear, and, true to form, Trump delivered. In fact, almost any Republican ...
Read more

Politics

[h=3]What I discovered as a pro-gun-control member of the NRA[/h]
Are you pro gun control?
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#3
Would it be a problem if he is?
Isn't the idea of access to lethal weapons being limited a good thing?
Some Americans make it sound like it's a human right to have a weapon ready to kill someone with....
Should insane people be allowed to use guns without any... control?
 
Apr 30, 2016
103
3
0
#4
Would it be a problem if he is?
Isn't the idea of access to lethal weapons being limited a good thing?
Some Americans make it sound like it's a human right to have a weapon ready to kill someone with....
Should insane people be allowed to use guns without any... control?
Absolutely no problem at all. Giving people guns without checking their criminal histories and assessing their mental stability is crazy.
 
S

Susanna

Guest
#5
The 2nd amendment is important to Americans. However, arming nut jobs and criminals, shouldn't be protected by said amendment. Why somebody would like to make insane people able to purchase guns is not easy to understand.
 
Apr 30, 2016
103
3
0
#6
The 2nd amendment is important to Americans. However, arming nut jobs and criminals, shouldn't be protected by said amendment. Why somebody would like to make insane people able to purchase guns is not easy to understand.
It would be as simple as demanding a criminal records check and a mental health assessment for people who wish to buy firearms. For some reason, congress keep blocking attempts to create these universal control measures. Are many members of US Congress tied with weapons manufacturers, or perhaps they take political donations from people who are?
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#7
It would be as simple as demanding a criminal records check and a mental health assessment for people who wish to buy firearms. For some reason, congress keep blocking attempts to create these universal control measures. Are many members of US Congress tied with weapons manufacturers, or perhaps they take political donations from people who are?
One of the reasons not much is accomplished in this area is ........... who decides who gets a gun, and who doesn't?

For instance, if I were the one deciding, I would never allow you or Bushido to purchase a gun. Why? Because I don't like your various positions/ideologies the two of you have expressed here.

See, that's the problem with limitations...........THE WHO.......is determining/enforcing said limitations.
 
Apr 30, 2016
103
3
0
#8
One of the reasons not much is accomplished in this area is ........... who decides who gets a gun, and who doesn't?

For instance, if I were the one deciding, I would never allow you or Bushido to purchase a gun. Why? Because I don't like your various positions/ideologies the two of you have expressed here.

See, that's the problem with limitations...........THE WHO.......is determining/enforcing said limitations.
You wouldn't let us buy a gun because we disagree with your opinions. You're all about providing power only to those who side with your religious views. You're a theocratic dictator at heart. Well done.

It's not difficult though. The constitution makes it clear that the 2nd amendment is to serve the purpose of arming a well regulated public militia for the defence of the people. Violent ciminals owning weapons, and people at risk of violent crime, owning weapons, is poor regulation of that militia. Therefore those with criminal records involving violent crime would be disqualified from owning guns. Those without criminal records who apply for a license would have to undergo a mental health assessment before being granted a firearm. It's the same system that works in countless countries all over the world.

Your conditions (that Bushido and I would be disqualified) are based on spitefulness and motivated out of nothing exCept that yoh don't "like us", though. That's a worrying mentality. Disadvantage what you can't control. You wouldn't be banning us from owning guns to protect anybody from violent criminals. You'd be banning us to oppress us.

My suggested conditions for buying, by contrast, have only one aim: to ensure guns are impossible for violent criminals and those at clear risk of violent crime, to obtain legally.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#9
You wouldn't let us buy a gun because we disagree with your opinions. You're all about providing power only to those who side with your religious views. You're a theocratic dictator at heart. Well done.

It's not difficult though. The constitution makes it clear that the 2nd amendment is to serve the purpose of arming a well regulated public militia for the defence of the people. Violent ciminals owning weapons, and people at risk of violent crime, owning weapons, is poor regulation of that militia. Therefore those with criminal records involving violent crime would be disqualified from owning guns. Those without criminal records who apply for a license would have to undergo a mental health assessment before being granted a firearm. It's the same system that works in countless countries all over the world.

Your conditions (that Bushido and I would be disqualified) are based on spitefulness and motivated out of nothing exCept that yoh don't "like us", though. That's a worrying mentality. Disadvantage what you can't control. You wouldn't be banning us from owning guns to protect anybody from violent criminals. You'd be banning us to oppress us.

My suggested conditions for buying, by contrast, have only one aim: to ensure guns are impossible for violent criminals and those at clear risk of violent crime, to obtain legally.
My goodness........you are quite blind to sarcastic wit right? Goodness..........

My example reveals how things can spiral out of any reasonable control once people have the power to determine who may and who may not purchase a firearm.

But, then, I guess I should not have expected you to understand that. Even though I clearly stated:

See, that's the problem with limitations...........THE WHO.......is determining/enforcing said limitations.
 
Apr 30, 2016
103
3
0
#10
My goodness........you are quite blind to sarcastic wit right? Goodness..........

My example reveals how things can spiral out of any reasonable control once people have the power to determine who may and who may not purchase a firearm.

But, then, I guess I should not have expected you to understand that. Even though I clearly stated:

See, that's the problem with limitations...........THE WHO.......is determining/enforcing said limitations.
You're not witty. You're a about as funny as a heart attack, actually.

Who? The government is who. Normal people is who. Look: if the problem is that violent criminals are murdering innocent people with guns they got off the internet (Sandy Hook, Columbine, the list goes on) then the next step is clearly to implement measures that ensure people who are at clear risk for violent behaviour, or those who have previous violent crime convictions, can't legally access guns. How do we go about that? Make everyone who wants a gun undergo a mental health assessment and criminal records check. Again, the WHO, is obviously the government. Obviously. Who else can create laws??
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#11
You're not witty. You're a about as funny as a heart attack, actually.

Who? The government is who. Normal people is who. Look: if the problem is that violent criminals are murdering innocent people with guns they got off the internet (Sandy Hook, Columbine, the list goes on) then the next step is clearly to implement measures that ensure people who are at clear risk for violent behaviour, or those who have previous violent crime convictions, can't legally access guns. How do we go about that? Make everyone who wants a gun undergo a mental health assessment and criminal records check. Again, the WHO, is obviously the government. Obviously. Who else can create laws??
Odd, I was thinking you are about the same..........hmm

The Government........who is the Government? Oh, that's right, they are people. People with social/political agendas and ideologies.......hmm...........
 
Apr 30, 2016
103
3
0
#12
Odd, I was thinking you are about the same..........hmm

The Government........who is the Government? Oh, that's right, they are people. People with social/political agendas and ideologies.......hmm...........
Rehbein, if the problem is mentally unstable people killing people with guns, obviously the sokutiom is to stop mentally unstable, violent people from getting guns. When people apply for guns, a simple criminal records check and mental health assessment will determine if they are at risk for aggression and violence. Its not about "an agenda". It's a simple equation.

If x is violent criminals and mentally unstable people without guns, and y is guns then xy is violent mentay unstabke people with guns. So, xy is almost certainly also violent gun crime.

Xy - y = x
 
S

Susanna

Guest
#13
Unstable people with guns are extremely scary. Nobody really knows how scary before one of them is actually pointing his gun at you. I'm praying that the politicians will see this. Sane, law abiding people are the only ones whom should be allowed to own guns. Unfortunately, the criminals are getting their guns elsewhere, but we should at least make purchasing guns more difficult if the buyer is a crook or a nutjob.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#14
Rehbein, if the problem is mentally unstable people killing people with guns, obviously the sokutiom is to stop mentally unstable, violent people from getting guns. When people apply for guns, a simple criminal records check and mental health assessment will determine if they are at risk for aggression and violence. Its not about "an agenda". It's a simple equation.

If x is violent criminals and mentally unstable people without guns, and y is guns then xy is violent mentay unstabke people with guns. So, xy is almost certainly also violent gun crime.

Xy - y = x
You still don't get it........but, at least you are trying....guess that's something
 
Apr 30, 2016
103
3
0
#15
Unstable people with guns are extremely scary. Nobody really knows how scary before one of them is actually pointing his gun at you. I'm praying that the politicians will see this. Sane, law abiding people are the only ones whom should be allowed to own guns. Unfortunately, the criminals are getting their guns elsewhere, but we should at least make purchasing guns more difficult if the buyer is a crook or a nutjob.
You could add methamphetamine, crack cocaine and heroin addicts to that list as well. If they're adamant, they can get guns elsewhere. But as you say, making them impossible to obtain legally, is a dent out of their chances. Eventually, if guns were only sold to same people, and registered, and those people had annual renewals,nearly all guns in circulation would have licence numbers, and missing guns would be easier to identify, possibly even track. There's also this new technology that requires a fingerprint to shoot a firearm. That would be revolutionary.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,623
1,381
113
#16
It's not difficult though. The constitution makes it clear that the 2nd amendment is to serve the purpose of arming a well regulated public militia for the defence of the people. Violent ciminals owning weapons, and people at risk of violent crime, owning weapons, is poor regulation of that militia. Therefore those with criminal records involving violent crime would be disqualified from owning guns. Those without criminal records who apply for a license would have to undergo a mental health assessment before being granted a firearm. It's the same system that works in countless countries all over the world.
News flash....Those with criminal records are already disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

Nobody is against criminals, or the mentally unstable being prevented from ownership.

How would you suggest that the mentally unstable be prevented from purchasing a firearm? We have laws that prevent public disclosure of medical histories, including mental diagnoses and treatment. On the form to purchase a firearm, the question is asked, have you ever been judged mentally deficient... or something to that effect. Answer "no", and what kind of background check will find out you lied? How would you correct that "loophole"? Insist that all private medical histories be made public? Do you want YOUR private records made public?

This isn't like driving a car... driving a car is a privilege, not a RIGHT. Firearm ownership is a RIGHT. There's a difference.


No "license" to own a firearm is Constitutional. The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And, just what kind of "mental health assessment" would you recommend? I'm interested in seeing the evaluation process. And, who would administer that test? More hired government agents, like our highly qualified TSA agents?
As soon as you put the administration of "permits" under a government employee, or group, you have effectively abolished the 2nd Amendment, without due process.

In areas that require "permits" to purchase a handgun, you should be aware of what actually happens. Celebrities and "important" people get permits, and the "common man" does not.
If a rabidly anti-gun person gets put into that post, NOBODY gets permits..... again, effectively abolishing the 2nd amendment.

There is a reason our ancestors left England.... we are CITIZENS, not subjects.
 
Oct 16, 2015
824
12
0
#17
........speaks out



... he told the NRA that Clinton would try to "abolish" the Second Amendment. How does one "abolish" anything in the Constitution? It takes many steps. It's not going to happen..
Yet we have seen examples of how easy it is to circumvent the constitution during the Obama Presidency. Our constitution allows only congress to take certain actions, and yet we all sit quietly and watch the President enact law through executive order. Gitmo prisoner releases, border enforcement (or ordering an end to enforcement), Obamacare, refusing to investigate voter intimidation by Black Panthers. If Hillary could use executive orders to restrict gun purchases, repeal concealed weapons laws, redefine what weapons citizens can own, extend waiting periods, and do these types of things without consenting congress, she would. It does not require abolishing the second amendment, although it accomplishes that goal.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#18
I'm all for law-abiding citizens being able to arm themselves but this country has more gun deaths than any country in the world so clearly something is wrong somewhere
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,623
1,381
113
#19
I'm all for law-abiding citizens being able to arm themselves but this country has more gun deaths than any country in the world so clearly something is wrong somewhere

Yes, there are a LOT of contributing factors to that, probably the #1 reason is not locking away "gun felons" for LONG periods of time.

It's interesting to note that if you took out the three locations in the US with the highest murder rate, the US would rank almost at the bottom of the list of developed countries for gun deaths.

Those three locations are, coincidentally, the areas with the most draconian, strict gun laws in the nation.

It is NOT an issue of "too many guns"..... it's an issue of law enforcement, which goes all the way to the White House, controlling the DOJ.