-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
People who do and do not think we should own guns
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Bingo, slam dunk, outta the park!!!
Daddy would be pleased...
Ohhhhhhh Comrade! :laugh:
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Please cite a reference where the POTUS has said law abiding Americans should not own firearms.
:thumbs: ....I doubt you'll see any such citation, the OP routinely makes false accusations and slanders towards others.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I'm sorry in advance, as I know the source won't meet with your approval. Frankly, I don't care. But that doesn't negate the fact the president has been on record stating that people shouldn't be able to own guns.
Lott's impression, from that first meeting onward, is that Obama was and remains, vehemently anti-gun, to the point he would confiscate them if he could. Fortunately, he can't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Was just about to post a different article about the same quote. Whether true or not, it is in character.
The only thing that I would add to Disconnected's comment is that Obama would never intentionally make such a comment as President, simply for political reasons. Look at his record and actions.
The only thing that I would add to Disconnected's comment is that Obama would never intentionally make such a comment as President, simply for political reasons. Look at his record and actions.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
So, the best you have is hearsay with no corroboration? Sorry counsel, that evidence is thrown out. Anything else?
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
If you want to define that as "hearsay" then you'd have to define everything you read in the daily newspaper or see on cable news is "hearsay" because you have only the reputation of a distinguished journalist that he/she is giving you the facts, correct? Granted, there are slants galore depending on which paper or news outlet, but the essential facts remain at the center of nearly all reports, wouldn't you agree?
Or are you actually willing to believe that only those news organizations you don't like outright lie while those you do like are pristine with the truth?
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Not at all. Yes, everyone has biases. However, there is a vast gulf between one person asserting a claim, and one that is verifiable with multiple witnesses, sound and video, etc. If I am incorrect, I am willing to buy your assertion...but I need verifiable evidence.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Let me add that I find it a cheap shot to make such images as the OP that impugn a person, and have no validity to them. This is not a fair, nor even a Christian, thing to do, IMO.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
It's only impugning if it isn't true. We have one person saying he was at least at one time for the outright ban of all gun ownership.
We have his statement that he would "like an Australian type of gun ban" -- outlawing long-barreled semi-automatic guns and establishing a 28-day wait period for firearm purchases. The Australian government in 1996 also began a massive mandatory buyback program that is reported to have cut in half the number of gun-owning households. This followed a mass shooting in which 35 died and 23 were injured in what became known as the Port Arthur prison massacre. It is not impugning, because he has gone on record for at least a partial gun ownership ban.
If a buyback program and the introduction of new laws were considered in the US, the same affect seen in Australia would mean that as many as 40 million firearms would be taken away. Nevertheless, public support in the states is far from what was evident after the Australian shooting. After two-dozen people were left dead in late 2012 when a mass shooting occurred at a high school in Newtown, Connecticut, only 52 percent of Americans surveyed by the Washington Post and ABC News said they favored stringent new gun laws. A year later, those wanting reform were once again in the minority.
That hasn't deterred Obama. He has, however, been forced to put his agenda on the back burner because most of Congress are NRA members. They aren't going to vote for that kind of massive ban on gun ownership. So I'll leave it to others to judge. You say he doesn't want to ban guns. I say it is obvious he does.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
For the sake of discussion, let's assume Obama wants to:
1. Restrict gun ownership to non-criminals and the legally sane.
2. Use background checks to determine a person's status.
3. Have a waiting period to let emotions cool if a person is tettering on the edge.
4. Limit weapons ownership to those not capable of mass-killings (e.g. Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, etc.)
Unless one takes a radical view of the Second Amendment, none of that negates it. In fact, it calls for gun regulation, in the form of a "well-regulated militia".
You see, it is not as cut and dried as it might appear. I myself own firearms, and respect their awesome power. However, I do not want to walk around like the old west, with everyone having a sidearm in all public places. We would have even more killings in the heat of the moment by those who today who may be limited to giving you the finger in a fit of road rage.
1. Restrict gun ownership to non-criminals and the legally sane.
2. Use background checks to determine a person's status.
3. Have a waiting period to let emotions cool if a person is tettering on the edge.
4. Limit weapons ownership to those not capable of mass-killings (e.g. Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, etc.)
Unless one takes a radical view of the Second Amendment, none of that negates it. In fact, it calls for gun regulation, in the form of a "well-regulated militia".
You see, it is not as cut and dried as it might appear. I myself own firearms, and respect their awesome power. However, I do not want to walk around like the old west, with everyone having a sidearm in all public places. We would have even more killings in the heat of the moment by those who today who may be limited to giving you the finger in a fit of road rage.
A direct quote is not hearsay.
But, then, we all knew no evidence would be good enough.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
It is already illegal for a felon to own a gun if he hasn't had the court reinstate his gun ownership rights. That doesn't stop felons from having guns. As to the legally sane, it is a subjective arena. Many so-called "psychiatrists" believe their patients are perfectly fine until they go out and kill a dozen people for no apparent reason. Every state has a waiting period, and it is a federal mandate they do so. You're talking checks and balances that are already in place. He doesn't need to change anything. Those already exist.
Anyone at any time is capable of becoming unhinged and committing a heinous crime. It is impossible to "pre-identify" such people. "Criminal Minds" not withstanding. :laugh:
No argument there. But again, the first three of your points don't require any change to be realized.
Your last sentence is debatable. I agree, I live in Kansas where there is both concealed and open carry. I don't think walking around with my Army issue Colt .45 1911A strapped to my hip is a good image for either an addictions counselor or a home builder. I do both. But the reality that major gun crimes have decreased dramatically in states with concealed or open carry can't be denied. True, it might be debatable as to whether or not the concealed or open carry laws had a direct impact, but given the statistics are proven in all such states, it's hard to argue they didn't.
From what I know about all the people in the OP, it's 100% accurate. Not a cheap shot at all. It's a direct shot and it's on target.
For you to contend Obama is a supporter of the 2nd amendment is ludicrous, false and not even a Christian thing to do. Christians , of all people, should recognize Obama for the evil he has done and prepare themselves to oppose the evil that we know he will do if he gets the chance.
The Federal Government has not shown itself to be a fair arbiter of rights. We would be foolish to trust their judgement on this. Our forefathers had it right.