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
Elaine, ((*_*))
leejcarroll,
NRA? National Reefer Association?
Rafflaw whatever he is smoking was probably provided by the NRA (:
gbk, Blouise: It is overblown rhetoric to say a gun is manufactured as a killing machine, it makes it sound as if everybody that buys a gun must want to kill something.
Are martial arts experts getting years of training in the hope of killing somebody? Perhaps a few, but in my experience that would almost always be a lie; they take years of training because at first they do not want to be helpless in the face of violence, and later because they want to be experts in the face of violence, to themselves or others. Martial artists are taught how to kill, break bones, and cripple, but they use their skill to prevent violence by others, not to increase their kills. The vast majority of black belts have never killed anybody.
The same is true for the vast majority of gun owners. The gun may be capable of killing, but the reason it is usually owned is for defense, not attack. I own guns but have no desire to kill anybody ever; if I ever point it at anybody (and I haven’t thus far) it will be in the hope it is enough threat to prevent them from doing violence, not in the “Dirty Harry” hope they will give me an excuse to shoot them.
As for knives; I assure you I can walk into any department store and pay cash with no ID for 50 different kinds of knives and cleavers that are designed to butcher animals, I could walk into a sporting goods store and buy a knife built to gut large animals, and there are many places to buy with cash military-style combat knives, built expressly for killing people, without any ID.
Blouise says: Ah, that’s right … you wouldn’t.
Since when is this about me? This is about people, not me specifically, you asked a general question about why “law abiding citizens” would not want to register, I have been answering that question. Both for the purpose of understanding them sociologically and selling them products from various businesses, both of which I have done successfully, I have some working models for why people do what they do, or don’t do what we’d like them to do. I am applying those working models here to answer your question.
I am not “gun lover,” Blouise, I do not hunt, I do not own a rifle or shotgun, I find no sport in shooting anything, not even targets. I own guns for self defense, I believe they present a threat that can prevent violent victimization even without shooting anybody.
In general, people do not volunteer to be responsible or accountable unless there is something in it for them. So far, the “benefits” you describe are not in the least attractive to the people you want to register: More investigation, more accountability, more scrutiny by law enforcement with a greater presumption of guilt instead of innocence. To them, that is not a benefit, that is discrimination and persecution because they want to defend themselves and their property.
Tony C.,
Certainly, I will play applying saint to your devil’s advocate for the questions are appropriate and lead to further exploration of the subject. Some of this has been discussed up thread so I’m going to save myself some typing by using cut/paste.
Bear with me as I spend a couple of paragraphs building my case.
I begin by stressing the difference between a vehicle made for transportation and a gun made for killing. Don’t you find it interesting that the thing made for transportation requires registration yet the thing made for killing does not?
I then stress the point that over the last 20 years, the number of Americans dying in motor vehicle crashes has decreased by 31%. Deaths from fires and drowning have been reduced even more, by 38% and 52%, respectively. This progress through injury prevention research was achieved without banning automobiles, swimming pools, or matches. Instead, it came from translating research findings into effective interventions. Yet thanks to legislation, this kind of injury prevention research cannot be done on firearm violence and continues to be part of the present gun bill now making its way through congress.
Now my sainthood application, to which you are playing devil’s advocate (I’m referring to the original purpose of the Devil’s Advocate in the Catholic Church which was to challenge applications for sainthood): Should someone steal my car and use it as a killing machine, I’m investigated. If I have left it unlocked, the investigation deepens. If I’ve loaned it to the known drunk down the street, the investigation turns ugly for me. The registration of that vehicle has made all that accountability possible because the registration assigned ownership to me.
For these reasons, I secure the car, report it as missing if I can’t find it, and never loan it to the drunk down the street. Could my car, despite all my precautions be stolen and used as a killing machine? Sure, and the investigation would start with me, as it should and based on my arrangements in securing that vehicle some action either criminal or civil could come my way. Interestingly enough those who own an actual killing machine, a gun, don’t want that sort of scrutiny because they don’t want that sort of accountability.
Now for carving knives. I’m chuckling as I write this because I used to own a catering business. You would not believe the number of laws, regulations, and inspections that have to do with knives, slicing machines and the like. Everything is registered and there are regulations and restrictions about where such implements are located, stored, cleaned, the ages workers have to be before they are allowed to handle such tools coupled with constant inspections from Health Boards and workman’s comp people and if any of the big knives are missing, I better be able to find them or I will be paying fines and going to court. Not to mention what happens when someone cuts himself or herself and needs stiches.
So yes, Tony, in the two areas you gave me, vehicles and carving knives neither which were manufactured as killing machines, even if a death results that is not my fault, I am held accountable to some degree or another. How would you like to have that sort of accountability for the actual killing machine that is your gun? Ah, that’s right … you wouldn’t.
Matthew Warren Bought Unregistered Gun Online To Use In Suicide, Rick Warren Says
By Jaweed Kaleem
Posted: 04/11/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/matthew-warren-unregistered-gun-bought-online_n_3064359.html
Excerpt:
Matthew Warren, the son of evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren who committed suicide last week, killed himself with an unregistered gun he had bought online, the pastor said on Thursday.
“Someone on the Internet sold Matthew an unregistered gun. I pray he seeks God’s forgiveness. I forgive him. #MATTHEW 6:15,” the pastor tweeted, referencing a Biblical passage about the forgiveness of sins.
“If you forgive men when they sin against you, your Heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you don’t…,” Warren then tweeted, quoting the verse.
Since Matthew Warren, 27, died in his Mission Viejo, Calif., home on Friday, Rick Warren has taken to Twitter and Facebook to publicly grieve his son’s death and spread awareness about mental illness. In an emotional letter he wrote to his Lake Forest, Calif.-based Saddleback Church community last week, Warren revealed that Matthew had been through years of “mental illness resulting in deep depression and suicidal thoughts.”
leejcaroll,
that is an amazing story that you linked to. What is this guy smoking?
Tony C.:
“To play devil’s advocate, would it be your fault if your car was stolen and used to kill somebody? How about your carving knife? Why should a gun invite any more scrutiny than that?”
Cars aren’t designed to kill, though they admittedly do.
Kitchen knives serve purpose in everyday use.
Guns are designed and manufactured for an express purpose. Your argument should reflect this fact to have any validity.
Blouise: To play devil’s advocate, would it be your fault if your car was stolen and used to kill somebody? How about your carving knife? Why should a gun invite any more scrutiny than that?
Rep. Jeff Duncan says progressives might murder registered gun owners in their homes
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201070/-Rep-Jeff-Duncan-says-progressives-might-murder-registered-gun-owners-in-their-homes
Tony C.,
“Your assertion is wrong, until the law is changed, a gun purchase does not entail “full responsibility or full accountability,” and that is certainly not a reason to “want” registration, or “have no problem with” registration.”
Now we’re cookin’ with gas.
“And many law-abiding people that want to own guns because it makes them feel safer, also do not want to be held accountable for something they feel is beyond their control, or would require an excessive amount of additional caution on their part.”
Exactly! That is the problem with the gun culture … I want my gun but don’t you dare hold me responsible for any damage done because I am not accountable. It’s always someone else’s fault, isn’t it?
Well, let’s give registration a shot (pun fully intended) and see what happens when accountability meets the gun culture.
Now, do I have any reasonable expectation that registration will become law? Of course not. I’m a realist. But it is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys to force gun lovers to admit out loud that accountability is not something they want nor choose to accept. For it is in that admission that the guarantee of more Sandy Hooks comfortably resides.
gbk: Chris Rock is just smarter than me. (And funnier.)
“. . . and $10 per bullet sold.”
New Research Confirms Gun Rampages Are Rising—and Armed Civilians Don’t Stop Them
Data on 84 attacks echoes MoJo’s investigation and further debunks the NRA’s “good guys with guns” myth.
By Mark Follman
Thu Apr. 11, 2013
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/mass-shootings-rampages-rising-data
Excerpt:
By the time the nation confronted the unthinkable school massacre in Connecticut last December, Mother Jones’ groundbreaking investigation of mass shootings, launched the prior summer, had shown that mass gun violence in America was on the rise. The trend appeared to be no coincidence in light of the proliferation of guns and looser gun laws nationwide. One leading criminologist took issue with our criteria, arguing that mass shootings had not become more common. But now, research from an expert on criminal justice at Texas State University further shows that gun rampages in the United States have escalated.
The research, to be published in a book in July, further confirms that:
– Public shooting rampages have spiked in particular over the last few years
– Many of the attackers were heavily armed
– None of the shootings was stopped by an ordinary citizen using a gun
The author of the study, Pete Blair, advises law enforcement officials and has conducted extensive research on gun rampages in workplaces, schools, and other public locations. He gathered data on 84 “active shooter events” (ASEs) between 2000 and 2010 in which the killer’s primary motive appeared to be mass murder.
Elaine: I think you interpreted my comment backwards. Which may be my fault. What I mean to say is that because guns (and arms) were around in the 1700s they received special Constitutional protection in the Bill of Rights restricting government’s ability to regulate them.
Cars were not, and have received no special protections, so the government is free to regulate them as they see fit.
The founders argued precisely this point about enumerating rights, and whether enumeration would actually do harm to freedom by acting as a presumed laundry list of what the government was not allowed to do. That is what happened in this case, logically Rafflaw is right, what applies to gun ownership should apply to ownership in general, but because the Amendment was written about “arms” the government has felt free to regulate, register, tax, and restrict ownership of many things that are not “arms.”
So that gives me an idea on gun control: Establish a national sales tax on all gun and ammunition sales, public or private, of $500 per gun sold, and $10 per bullet sold. Make violation a felony.
If property taxes do not inhibit property ownership, and sales taxes do not inhibit car, boat or power tool ownership, then it isn’t reasonable to think that gun sale taxes would run afoul of the Constitution, either.
Tony,
Cars weren’t around back in the 1700s. What do you think of one’s constitutional right to own a home? Do you think if a right to own something is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights that it is not constitutionally protected?
rafflaw: I think your right to own and drive a car is not Constitutionally protected. At least, it isn’t an enumerated right.
If the government cannot keep a record of who sold dangerous weapons to whom, why in the hell can they keep records of who I sell my car to? Aren’t IRS records kept on all taxpayers by the government? They seem pretty secure. Why would a record of guns sales be any more of an intrusion?
Blouise: I have asserted that law-abiding citizens should have no problem with registration because they have accepted the full responsibility and accountability for ownership.
I do dispute that, currently a law-abiding citizen has legally purchased a gun, and by law their responsibility ends there. They have not accepted any additional responsibility or accountability, and doing so is above and beyond the current law. So your assertion is that they should not mind a law that imposes upon them additional responsibility and accountability.
Now that depends on what you mean by “should,” but the fact is obeying current laws does not automatically imply they will welcome additional laws. Outside of gun control, I am pretty sure there are potential new laws you would not welcome either, law-abiding as you may be.
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.
I did not have to ask that, I assumed that, and it is precisely why I think many people would not want to register, or would not want registration to become law. Registration carries a risk, the very “accountability” you mention.
Registration is the manner in which society knows who has legal ownership of the gun and thus where the accountability begins.
And many law-abiding people that want to own guns because it makes them feel safer, also do not want to be held accountable for something they feel is beyond their control, or would require an excessive amount of additional caution on their part.
I have known people, for example, that believed locking a gun up defeated much of the purpose of the gun, as did leaving it unloaded. If you had to get it out of a gun safe to defend against an intruder, or load it to use it, the intruder could have killed you already, or could be blocking the path to your gun safe or ammunition. So they kept a handgun in their bedside night table, or in a sideboard drawer close to the front door.
If their home was burglarized while they were not home, those guns could be stolen, used in a murder, and then they would be “accountable.”
I don’t think summarizing your claim changed the meaning at all or affected my argument, but there you go; I refute your statement in its original form. Your assertion is wrong, until the law is changed, a gun purchase does not entail “full responsibility or full accountability,” and that is certainly not a reason to “want” registration, or “have no problem with” registration. For somebody that wants to own guns the prospect of increased responsibility and accountability, above and beyond the current law, is a reason to not want registration to become law.
Tony,
Bingo…. And I’m tired of the Bush promises…… That we will all be better for it…..