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
Tony C.,
How is my argument a misinterpretation of what you said? In what way is “taking responsibility” different from “the responsible thing to do?”
The entire phrase in both instances was “taking responsibility for the ownership and use of a gun “or “take full responsibility and accept full accountability for that ownership.” You ask me to accept your words and argue them as my own or to accept an editing of those words and argue a meaning that your editing has imposed.
If you can’t refute the assertion without the editing, then say so.
I am in favor of registration. I have asserted that law-abiding citizens should have no problem with registration because they have accepted the full responsibility and accountability for ownership. Questioning what I mean by accepted full responsibility and accountability for ownership would have led to the deeper meaning that I am asserting which would be the responsibility and accountability for one’s gun being used to wound or kill another individual and the responsibility and accountability a gun owner has to society in general for the use to which his/her gun has been put within or upon members of society. Registration is the manner in which society knows who has legal ownership of the gun and thus where the accountability begins.
The responsibility in filling out the paperwork for registration or the irresponsibility in not doing so is your conundrum, not mine. I suppose if I were to make it my conundrum I would suggest a fine, similar to fine one is charged if it is discovered one’s vehicle’s plates or registration are not up to date.
P.S: plus, corrupt merchants might go ahead and perform background checks on strangers, so they cannot be entrapped, but skip them for those they personally know are criminals that couldn’t pass. So the “mystery shopper” solution is easily defeated, if no record of who bought what is kept.
AY: I did stop and think, that is why I wrote the post! Because I can’t think of a way to perform an effective background check without, at minimum, revealing to the government exactly who a customer is (with some proof like a Driver’s License or picture ID), with enough ID to tell if the customer is a convicted criminal or charged with a crime or on probation or is currently on trial or has been prohibited by the court from purchasing weapons, along with where he is shopping. Perhaps also with a record of purchase, since the objective (for the government) would be to ensure every sale was accompanied by a background check, how else can they know that is true if each sale is not tied to a specific background check?
If sales are not tied to specific background checks (to prove the sale was legal), then all we have is the merchant’s assurance that “oh yes, we sure did perform a background check on every sale,” and we cannot prove any different. (Well, the government could recruit felons to try and buy guns, I suppose, but that might be entrapment…)
So I agree, if the background check is going to be effective it has to tie sales to customers, in a permanent record, which to me constitutes a back door “registry.”
AY, I did not understand your question at first. AFAIK, the proposed bill has not been written yet. As they say, the devil is in the details, we will have to see if that issue is addressed.
Tony C., what will be in such a background check is not known, but good question. I will do some research. An idea for a story this weekend is percolating in my mind. I had a conversation last night with my son, who is is the medical director of the emergency department at a regional hospital and former Aviation Medical Examiner (aka flight surgeon) for the FAA. He had some ideas. I also had a conversation yesterday with my favorite pharmacist about it. I am taking a continuing education ethics seminar on Friday, and plan to get some updates on the latest HIPAA regulations. Gotta get my facts straight and up-to-date before I publish anything.
Tony,
Stop and think…. There will be a list kept someplace…. On the background check….. Think of it in terms as a notch on the credit score….. There will be an inverse implication someplace….. Just because of an inquiry….
Gene, OS: Although it may not be linked to a specific gun, isn’t a background check on gun buyers going to act as a pseudo-registry of gun ownership?
I do not see how those records cannot be kept if background checks become law, without a record of them being performed as part of every sale, the law is toothless. Isn’t it? (If the information is erased or the result is just Go/NoGo with no record kept, how could we know the merchant didn’t just put a fake ID in for the check, or his own ID?)
I’ve never seen what is provided for a background check, but I imagine the information might include a description of the gun(s) being purchased, or even the serial numbers. Then presto, it is not just a sales record, it is a list of specific customers (and perhaps to some degree what they bought).
Blouise: Taking responsibility for the ownership and use of a gun is much deeper than merely remembering to fill out the paperwork.
That doesn’t refute my argument, it supports it. Taking responsibility is a risk or chore, not a joy. It is often a necessity to enjoy other rewards; those rewards may be financial or emotional. A better paying job; or raising children. But absent some reward, I do not see people wanting responsibility for its own sake.
Perhaps you invest more in the term “law abiding” than I do, I do not think it implies volunteerism, which is what I think I am hearing, an idea that they should want to take on a chore because they should believe it is the right thing to do. In other words, that the responsibility risk has a reward of ideological satisfaction in making the world a better place.
But I think it is common to be law abiding and neutral, to do what is demanded of you, without fudging, and nothing more. You don’t have to want it or like it, you just have to do it. (Like a chore in my current job I am avoiding by writing here!)
How is my argument a misinterpretation of what you said? In what way is “taking responsibility” different from “the responsible thing to do?”
Are we talking about mandatory registration, or voluntary registration?
the baby boomers are determined to take away all our rights and run the country into the ground before they die. Worst generation ever
OS,
Part of the veteran exception to the gun registry game, gives veterans a way out of having to comply… So the question is still the same….
AY,
“Question for you… If a soldier is discharged other than with honor…. Will they be able to get an exception…. ”
*************************************************
Exception for what? This may help explain some of it. There are exceptions to almost everything, including OTH discharges.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071211073249AAch6UM
And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. – Thomas Jefferson
I read with amusement part of he presidents plan is to attack SS benefits for those having gross income above a certain amount in retirement…… I need to read a little more…. But thought its funny….
Yes, bobtrent you are correct….
OS,
That is correct in that some States used to use you SSN for ID as well as place them on pay checks…. Can’t anymore…. But does not mean thy don’t have immediate access to that same prohibited information….
Question for you… If a soldier is discharged other than with honor…. Will they be able to get an exception….
Gene,
One right at a time is being stripped…. Soon… If you stop and think about it…. Every paper currency has a number on them…. When will they have to be registered….. Too much information is being collected already…..
If you stop md think before 911…. You could bank without the credit reporting agency’s knowing when you used your bank card…. Today…. If you use it for a pay toilet…. It’s reported…. All drinks on a commercial flight must be paid for by credit or debit card….
Darren,
You are correct about that…. But it’s misused over and over again…. I know a judges wife that uses it to obtain info about the other sides clients….
Darren, a number of states do not require a person who does not have a SSN assigned to get a driver license on stating under oath that the federal government has never assigned a SSN to his/her name. That is, no one has to get a SSN to get a DL. In fact, the SSA says that they will not issue a SSN just for getting a DL. A CDL is another matter. SSN is mandated.
Kentucky and Illinois provide a religious exemption to providing a SSN when applying for a DL. The Illini Gestapo, though, refuses to honor (obey) this law.
Foreigners whose visas permit them to stay (generally 6 months) are required by most if not all states to get a DL if they want to drive for longer. They do not have to get a SSN simply to get a DL.
Uhhh…Christianity is a religion?
Darren,
At one time, a number of states used SS numbers as DL numbers. As fraud became more of a problem, they abandoned it.
There is already a national data base that stolen articles, firearms, vehicles, aircraft, securities, etc can be entered into. It is called NCIC (National Crime Information Center). Access to this is provided by NLETS (National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System) to federal, state, and local agencies and dispatching centers. Firearms can be entered into this system by a local agency and whenever a LEO needs to check a serial number for a stolen report anywhere in the US. It is a regular occurrence to do this daily.
Any stolen article can be entered into NCIC, by serial number (preferrably) but it also includes MaKE/ MODel/ and OIN/ (Owner Inscribed Number) for those who wish to put identification on items that do not necessarily have serial numbers. It is a part of the Operation Identification program that was used during the 1980s.
The system is very large and versatile. It is the same system that is used to track wanted persons and wanted vehicles.
Someone mentioned social security numbers tacked to driver licenses. The requirement for this was forced on the states by congress in order to qualify for highway funding grants. State and local law enforcement agencies do not, without a court order, have access to social security records. But in my view this was used to make it easier for the federal gov’t to track individuals for investigative purposes. Oddly, Montana formerly used (I believe) Social Security Numbers for their driver license number but after a lot of fraud was used they changed it to a different format, As far as I know all states require drivers to provide SSN when applying for a DL but the states are not allowed to put SSN on driver license cards but it is available in the databases.
While I’m all for record keeping at the sales level, I don’t think a Federal gun registry is a good idea in the slightest. As OS points out, compliance would be at best problematic. The benefit as opposed to tracking sales is only a minimal gain and the potential risk for misuse of such a registry I think makes that gain not worth the cost. In the words of Ōsensei Morihei Ueshiba, “The best way to avoid trouble is not to be there when it starts.”
Tony C.,
“Your question was, Why would any law abiding person with a gun not want to register it? [emphasis mine]
You then went on to say it was the “responsible” thing to do. ”
No, Tony, that is not what I said and you built your whole argument around a clever misinterpretation.
What I said was “Registration simply means taking full responsibility for the ownership and use of a gun. ” Taking responsibility for the ownership and use of a gun is much deeper than merely remembering to fill out the paperwork.
Elaine,
The Praetorian Group does surveys for its membership as one of their services. I waded through several of their pages and do not detect any particular political bias one way or the other. The thing I did get is they push safety for all their member groups. Some police organizations have a specific agenda, mostly right wing, but the web page does not have that feel. There are a few anti-police blogs who don’t like them, but that is to be expected.
I looked at the home site, and did not get any kind of political agenda feel. They do custom surveys, and say they get statistically significant results. If I were a client ordering a survey, I would be sorely ticked off if they tried to skew it. No matter what one is selling, they need accurate information or it is money wasted. We saw some of that just before the last election when groups hired by Republicans had them convinced the election was going to be a Romney landslide.