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
The Catholic Church has a HUGE advocate on the Supreme Court. It’s that old Sicilian Scalia who makes his judgments from the pulpit, not the Constitution as his job description dictates the latter. But hell, he has never let the Constitution get in the way of his personal Papal religion.
G.Mason,
“On the left we have the anti-gun fascists who wish to remove the 2nd amendment and leave us defenseless against Government tyranny. ”
It’s worth pointing out that fascist regimes have a history of coming to power in part by using violence and intimidation carried out by paramilitary groups made up of civilians. Like you know, the Italian facists with the Black Shirts, the Nazis with the Brown Shirt, the Iron Guard of Romania, etc.
Even setting aside that history, one of the defining characteristics of fascism is it’s aggressive militarism. Fascist like guns, they like violence, they like war. Anti-gun fascist is just an absurd contradiction.
Fascism isn’t just “any political movement I don’t like.” So please, stop using it like that. It’s lazy thinking, ineffective rhetoric, and shuts down conversation.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
mespo,
Agreed.
Gene H:
Right you are. A gun is a tool and unless it’s wielded by a tool it’s safe and reliable. Everyone agrees to some gun restrictions like no bazookas or only heavily regulated folks owning automatic weapons, or even no guns in courthouses. We’re just deciding where to draw the lines on the issue. It’s not really a fight of good versus evil.
G. Mason:
“I also want to add that I do believe we will see a Revolution in this country in the not too distant future. if you do not see it you are not paying attention.”
**************************
Oh, I do love a good ol’ Prophet of Doom story. But here’s the better analysis”:
What they discovered, and described in their classic book, “When Prophecy Fails,” is that the failure of a prophecy does not cause true believers – people who have committed themselves to a belief – to reconsider. On the contrary, they become even more fervent, and proselytize even harder.
This insight seems highly relevant as 2012 draws to a close. After all, a lot of people came to believe that we were on the brink of catastrophe – and these views were given extraordinary reach by the mass media. As it turned out, of course, the predicted catastrophe failed to materialize. But we can be sure that the cultists won’t admit to having been wrong. No, the people who told us that a fiscal crisis was imminent will just keep at it, more convinced than ever.”
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Let-s-stop-listening-to-the-prophets-of-doom-4144018.php
Bob/Tony,
You fellas can engage in all the faulty logic you wish. I’m just pointing it out. Until a gun can kill of its own accord, the fault still lies with the human pulling the trigger.
As for the inherent safety aspect? A large part of that is human behavior as well although elsewhere on this blog I have proposed that the gun industry be required to make an inherently safer product.
Also, and this is for you Tony, something like 87% of all handgun crimes? Are suicides, not fatal marital disputes or even robberies. Doesn’t the fact that most handgun crimes occurs in poor neighborhoods too tell you something about the nature of the problem being societal ergo people related? Or are acts carried out by the manifestly insane? Yeah, we have a gun problem in this country. A gun problem created by people – like a vast number of other social problems we face. That’s not simple cause. That’s proper causation.
You mistake my support of the 2nd being based in some kind of abject love of the gun culture – or even stupider – a sense of “macho”. I have very good martial arts training. I understand better than many the consequences of violence. That is why I always prefer the non-violent solution although I do realize that sometimes the violent solution is the only option left and it should only be considered when it is indeed the last and only option left no matter if that violence takes the form of trigger or a joint lock or mobilizing an army. My support of the 2nd is based in sound Constitutional principle set in the intent of the Founders to bolster and protect the right of self-defense (including against a government run amok). I’m all for reasonable restrictions as I said above, but the bottom line is that prohibitions will not only not fix the problem, they are likely to make some aspects of the gun trade worse when they are simply not going to be futile considering the ease of building guns. I think the extremists at both ends of the spectrum – full ban to open season – not only miss the legal points but the reality of the situation as well. One wants to put the toothpaste back in the tube and the other wants to rub it all over their faces like war paint. Neither extremes are exercising proper logic or a clear grasp of the facts.
And all of this relates to the Constitution and the ignorance of the would be theocrats in re the 1st Amendment and the Constitution as a whole. The Constitution is the tool we use to anchor our definitions of law and ergo society. Bad tool users get bad results no matter what part of the Constitution they are trying to misapply (incidentally or deliberately).
An ounce of protection beats a pound of cure and the ounce of protection that would go farthest in both the “state religion” and the gun control debates (as well as other rights relevant issues) is a healthy dose of civics classes in junior high and high school.
Not to mention that cars are not marketed as “get your accurate killing machine” here. I wonder how many consumers, when contemplating which vehicle to purchase, are concerned with how effective it would be in thwarting a home invasion or defending against an invading Canadian, or taking down a 10 point buck.
Darren: If statistics is your game; there are 190 million drivers in the USA, and one fourth as many gun owners.
But your comparison is deeply misleading in another way: A DUI “homicide” is almost never an intentional homicide, a gun homicide is almost always an intentional homicide.
Besides, the point isn’t to ban guns, the point is to regulate them. Cars are registered, you have to pass an actual test (that some people fail) to use one, you have to prove you know how to operate one safely and according to the law. You can be prohibited from driving if you do not. If you own a car and drive it, the government knows it, and you have to display your license prominently; you cannot conceal it.
Further, I would be in favor of a lock on the car that prevented drunks from driving at all. A right to drive is not a right to drive on the sidewalk or to drive at a hundred miles per hour. A right to own guns does not imply a right to be an idiot with guns.
Darren,
No one is suggesting the banning of all guns. We are only talking about common sense restrictions that the vast majority of gun owners agree with. Is it a surprise that the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the highest rate of violence with guns? http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/
Bob Kauten,
In your statement, “The amendment has been abused by a paranoid, gun-worshiping, minority, egged on by the NRA.” you left out one very important entity, although you mention it in the body of the post … so I would edited you words with this small addition: “The amendment has been abused by a paranoid, gun-worshiping, minority, egged on by the NRA acting on behalf of the corporate America gun manufacturers.”
In 1968, as a reaction to JFK’s assassination but before the assassinations of MLK Jr and RFK, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was introduced. It was stalled in both the House and the Senate until wording was included that effectively added a “sporting purpose” test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a “points system” for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun.
The dirty little fingers of corporate America’s gun manufactures were all over that Act … if you’re gonna assassinate an American politician, we’ll supply the gun, thank you very much. No imports, buy American!
According to the CDC 10,228 DUI related homicides happened in the United States in 2010. According to the FBI there were 8,306 murders involving firearms in the same year.
Both causes of death involved the felonious misuse of an object that caused the death of an idividual. If guns are to be banned, should motor vehicles be banned as well? After all, motor vehicles were involved in more homicidal deaths than firearms were.
Gene H.,
Actually, if thousands of minors bled to death from cutting off their hands with circular saws, there’d be all sorts of safety laws proposed. The manufacturers would be sued. Circular saws are regulated, and they’d be withdrawn from the market, if there were safety issues. You can’t sue gun manufacturers for the damage they cause. The CDC can’t even compile gun injury statistics. Thank the NRA for that.
Firearms are not innocent tools. They are designed by gun manufacturers to appeal to violent, mostly male, fantasies. The second amendment wasn’t much of a problem, decades ago, when gun-owners were relatively rational.
The amendment has been abused by a paranoid, gun-worshiping, minority, egged on by the NRA. Time for an adjustment, in law and attitude.
I mean, as long as you are intent on turning this into a discussion of murder weapons. I feel very macho, now. Was it good for you?
Gene: And btw, you engage in the fallacy of the single cause; namely in saying it is people, not guns, that are the problem, or tool users, not the tools they have to work with. If, hypothetically, guns were just as difficult to kill with and took just as much intent to kill with and had to be just as close up as killing with a knife, we would have more knife murders than gun murders: After all, knives are easier to get and cheaper than guns. Gun murders exceed knife murders because that isn’t true, the majority of gun murders are due precisely to the ease of killing with a gun.
Gene: I think you are wrong, and it is not a fallacy to say a gun is easier to kill with than a knife, or by strangling. You can claim all the “fallacy” you want, but you are ignoring the valid points. I am not appealing to emotion, I am stating a fact: A child can kill with a gun (themselves or others) far more easily than they can kill with a circular saw, hunting knife, or thrown spear. I use a child not to appeal to emotion but to illustrate the differential in the ease of use: A five year old is pretty strong if he can pull the trigger on my circular saw; that is not true for many guns. If you dropped my circular saw, or any of the forty odd tools in my workshop, none of them will fire and kill somebody in the next room. You might break a foot or toe, that’s about it.
Tools do not have intent, but we outlaw rocket launchers, high explosives and other weapons precisely because they are more dangerous than other weapons; handguns are also more dangerous than other weapons and make it easier to kill other people.
I am not comparing a misuse of the tool by a minor to every other legal use, either. Being a minor is one aspect; it is also true that spousal homicide is higher in households with guns than in households without them, I do not think that is because people without guns get less angry, I think it is because it is easier to kill out of anger when a gun is handy than when one is not.
The point, which you seem to miss in your rush to judgment, is that guns are easier to kill with (and that is why we own them). And yes, if ten thousand people every year were being killed by circular saws, I definitely would say we have a circular saw problem.
I have to agree that we have both a gun problem and a problem with some of the people owning guns and some of the guns people own. The Heller decision discusses reasonable restrictions and as Gene noted, not allowing everyone to own rocket launchers and 50 caliber machine guns and Squad assault weapons has not harmed the 2nd amendment. Neither will reasonable restrictions like the background check for any and all purchases or transfers of guns.
And just so, the Constitution is a tool as well no matter what part of it is under discussion.
Tony,
Fallacies of incomplete comparison, false equivalence and appeal to emotion. You are comparing a misuse of the tool by a minor to every other legal use. If the kid cut off his hand with a circular saw and bled to death, would you say we have a circular saw problem? No. Tools don’t have intent Tony even when they are designed to kill. Users have intent (or negligence). Bad tool users get bad results.
G.Mason: Gene the problem isnt guns, its the people. The criminals in particular.
No, the problem is the guns. A kid playing with a knife seldom blows his head off, or kills himself at all, or his playmate. The issue with guns, versus other weaponry, is that guns unleash more lethal force with less effort than almost any other form of weaponry.
I speak as a person that owns guns, including handguns, for self-defense, and I was trained by the military in gun safety and operation.
It is true you can kill somebody with a knife, or wire, or ice-pick, or pillow, or by strangling them with your hands, but it requires greater intent to kill than using a gun. You do not accidentally drop a knife and kill somebody across the room, you do not get surprised by your child climbing in a bedroom window and kill them. It is just easier to kill with a gun, and therefore easier to unintentionally kill with a gun, and easier to impulsively kill with a gun. You are not going to be accidentally killed by a five year old playing with your hunting knife.
In fact, that is the whole point of owning a gun, instead of just owning a good hunting knife: Ease of use.
America does have a gun problem. I believe people should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, I believe they should be allowed to carry, but you do your argument damage with your implied pretense that guns are no different than any other weapons. They are very different, and the differences are precisely why we own them.
Ah Bob the foaming at the mouth anti-gun fascist. If you were younger you would surely be a member of the Obama Youth I am quite sure. HEIL OBAMA.
As for guns, I was merely pointing out that many people will not defend the 2nd Amendment because most of the Religious zealots do so.From there is took a life of its own. I am merely responding to the anti gun people chiming in. Which of course I notice you did not admonish, typical of your ilk.
Gene, I could not agree more. on your last sentence- “because we have another people problem – the cops are going to harass you because a great many of them are ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforcing.”
It is insane how little our police officers know about law in this country. Truly disturbing.