While the North Carolina House of Representatives has finally killed the bill to allow the state to establish a state religion, a new study found that 34 percent of adults would favor establishing Christianity as the official state religion. While 47 percent opposed the establishment of state religion, it was less than a majority.
Another 11 percent thought that the Constitution allowed for the establishment of an official religion. Thus, they are entirely unaware of the workings of the first amendment or the prior rulings of the Supreme Court.
Republicans were the most likely to favor the establishment of a state religion with 55 percent favoring it in their own state and 46 percent favoring a national constitutional amendment.
While the poll reportedly included 1000 people (a sizable group), I still want to believe that it is skewed and that most people recognize the danger of religious-based government in a world torn apart of sectarian violence. Even if these people lack knowledge of the Constitution, they are given a daily lesson on the dangers of state-sponsored religion in their newspapers and news broadcasts. For those advocating such a change, they leave us with the chilling view that, for some, the problem with abusive theocratic regimes like Iran is simply the disagreement with the choice of the religion.
Source: HuffPost
In Blow To NRA, Senators Reach Bipartisan Agreement Expanding Background Checks
By Igor Volsky
Apr 10, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/10/1844301/in-blow-to-nra-bipartisan-duo-of-senators-to-announce-agreement-to-expand-background-checks/
Excerpt:
A bipartisan duo of senators with A ratings from the National Rifle Associated have reached a deal to expand background checks to private gun purchases that occur in commercial settings.
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) will announce the details of the plan during a press conference Wednesday morning. Currently, only federally licensed gun dealers are required to conduct background screenings.
About the only time I can say I am proud of Toomey.
Tony,
Also, in the absence of determinative evidence of causation, I’m always going to err of the side of retaining rights over sacrificing them as a matter of principle. Rights abrogated are rarely restored. That is the creeping nature of tyranny.
“You have no proof either, and no evidence on your side, all you have is a petulant insistence that I must be wrong.”
Right back at ya, Tony. And we come to a crucial problem with this issue once again – lack of good, unbiased, up to date statistical data. Absent good data, both positions are relegated to supposition and supposition is not the best way to make decisions. Still, the action is key. Impulse is meaningless without action whether it is by gun or other method. As you alluded to earlier, not all people have equal levels of self-control. While ease of an action may make an action more attractive on impulse, we don’t really care about motive until action is taken. Five seconds or five days, the duration of intent is not relevant until the decision to kill is acted upon. We aren’t punishing people for their thoughts. We’re punishing people who kill and their state of mind may mitigate or exacerbate the charge.
“You claim a state of mind goes to mitigation, well fleeting intent is definitely a state of mind different from persistent intent. But I am not advocating that fleeting intent be encoded into the law in any way, not even as a mitigating factor in sentencing or the definition of the crime committed.”
But it already is, Tony. That’s the difference between 1st degree murder and other forms of homicide. Premeditation is treated differently from a crime of passion or negligence for both charging and sentencing. In the end though, it’s the actus reus that defines the chargeable offense and intent only factors in as mitigation.
I’m not anti-gun, I’m pro-life.
Darren: “It’s ok, I only went out with him because I could get hunting rights on his dad’s land.”
I would be deeply disappointed in my daughter if she were sleeping with a guy for access to his assets, or even just dating them for that purpose. I raised her better than that.
BobK: Gene has not lashed out at me, you do not recognize friendly argument. I can take care of myself.
Gene: People get bludgeoned to death with furniture and accessories in the heat of passion and their still dead.
As I mentioned, at about one seventh of the rate that guns are used for murder (yes, primarily handgun murders). You claim I have no proof, but you have no proof I am wrong, all you have on your side is supposition. Absent any proof, why should the presumption be that I am wrong?
That lower rate is one element of the evidence I am right. Knives (and other means of murder) are cheaper, more readily available, and more difficult to forensically identify as the murder weapon or link to the murderer, they leave no gunpowder residue on the murderer, they can be disposed of easily, and if found, are far less likely to be reported to the police than finding a gun. You can buy a good sharp carving knife at many department stores for cash, without ID.
So what is the reason guns are used seven times as often as knives? The only plausible reason (I think) is that guns are so much easier to use and so much more lethal, and that brings with it the ease of impulsive use that results in murder. To some extent knives and blunt objects are used impulsively as well, but when they are, they are also less lethal; as you know from your martial arts training it is possible to deflect bats and knives, or even to take the hit (or cut) without being killed or disabled. But we are not going to dodge bullets.
The other pieces of evidence come from the studies in countries where guns are less available; the per capita murder rates are reduced. I would quote, but I think Elaine already has, and I have read enough recently to believer the evidence is on my side.
I posit that the murder rate in high-income countries where guns are much less available will better reflect the incidence of our (meaning humans) persistent intent to murder, while the difference between those countries and the USA will be due primarily to fleeting intents to murder that get realized only because the gun is so easy to use and so energetic that it allows fleeting intent to be realized. That makes murderers out of people that, in these other countries, would not have been murderers, and would not have damaged all the lives impacted by their murder, and would not have cost society all the expenses of dealing with a murder.
You claim a state of mind goes to mitigation, well fleeting intent is definitely a state of mind different from persistent intent. But I am not advocating that fleeting intent be encoded into the law in any way, not even as a mitigating factor in sentencing or the definition of the crime committed.
What I am advocating is that a recognition of fleeting intent should be recognized as the justification for making the laws and regulations that would make guns require more persistent intent to kill. For examples, I can see requiring a double-trigger pull; something easily accomplished purely mechanically; or a timed safety disengagement (again just spring mechanics) that only allows the safety to be disengaged for 15 seconds. Given the task, somebody can invent something that makes the gun take a full second to fire instead of 50 milliseconds to fire.
It is true that such mechanisms can be defeated, or guns can be made in a home garage shop, but we can make those actions both illegal and also to carry the presumption of premeditation; they would be guilty acts.
People that buy guns for self-defense would not modify them; the four year olds mentioned earlier on this thread would not have killed anybody.
Further, if “state of mind” before a guilty act were not considered in making law, why in the world would we outlaw, say, owning surface to air missiles with a rocket launcher? Or control the purchase of highly energetic explosives, or radioactive materials? I believe we do that because we know there exist people with states of mind that would use such products to kill hundreds of people, or equivalently, because those devices are too dangerous and lethal, and pose a greater threat to society than any benefit gained by being in the hands of citizens. Whatever rationale is used to outlaw S2A missiles (which are ‘arms’) can be equally applied to other weapons that are too dangerous and lethal and pose a threat to society; including guns, and making them more difficult to buy, and / or make them require more persistent intent to use.
You are correct, I have no proof, but I have psychological studies and sociological studies of differences in gun control that produce reductions in gun deaths that support my view. That is called “science,” we seldom prove anything unless we can reduce it to equations on paper; and almost nothing about human thought fits into that category. What we do is develop a preponderance of evidence that makes alternative explanations unlikely.
You have no proof either, and no evidence on your side, all you have is a petulant insistence that I must be wrong.
Raff,
I think you’re right…. About Guardian of Truth or GoT…. I think I know a thread killer…. This has been a good thread…. Now lets see where it goes….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0
Darren,
you are correct about the statements by the Guardian of Truth. Disgusting.
Chuck;
Good for her. I have a close friend who has a daughter who is just starting her second year of college. She’s probably the most headstrong and independent young gal I know.
On prom night, she borrowed her dad’s Plymouth Road Runner muscle car and SHE picked up her boyfriend to take him to prom. One time I asked her about how her boyfriend was doing and she said she broke up with him. I told her that I was sorry that happened and she replied “It’s ok, I only went out with him because I could get hunting rights on his dad’s land.”
Now that’s a daughter a father will never worry about.
Darren,
I always get a kick out of the macho guy who manages to try and abuse the wrong woman. I have a dear friend who lives out your way. Her first husband was abusive. She was young at the time, but she finally had enough. This is a Celtic lass, who had learned to shoot at an early age. One does not mess with women who have the DNA of Boudicca running in their veins. One day she told him, in all seriousness, “You know, I can take you out with a head shot at a hundred yards if you ever touch me again.”
She says his whole demeanor toward her changed overnight. A short time later he wanted a divorce.
Being married to her was no fun anymore.
Guardian of Truth:
Women do not deserve to be beaten. And a guy that advocates such a position is more like a craven dog than a real man. Don’t expect to be respected by decent people after statements such as that.
Blouise,
You didn’t mention that they were “special” brownies! Yikes! 🙂
You all are welcome to come to Washington and enjoy some state sanctioned special brownies here.
mmmm “special” brownies.
raf,
Yes, dear, I’ll email the recipe to you too but remember … use only for medicinal purposes.
Gene,
You are right about all that smiting stuff!
Blouise,
Did you say Brownies?!
Elaine,
See what happens when you listen to my reasoning!!
Elaine,
Yes, but, raf’s sound reasoning doesn’t hold up when baking brownies. I’ll email you the recipe. 😉
Blouise,
No…a kitten is a little kite–if I follow rafflaw’s reasoning. Now, I’d like to know more about that “certain type of brownies.”