Is Gun Control the Answer? Politics Didn’t Create the Oregon Shooter

[ejohansen]

GregH wrote:

In regards to the studies between the US and the UK, I have spent some time looking and it is sort of hard to determine which country’s laws work better. For sure, there is not a huge difference. It is not like one can claim the upper hand definitively.

I see no good reason not to have reasonable gun control. I would not mind if we were like the UK actually.

UK and USA gun crimes are an unfair comparison for obvious reasons. Compare instead violent crimes in each of these countries.

Yes but even that is hard because the two countries have different definitions of violent crime. And those statistics do not necessarily reflect crimes committed but rather crimes report. However, it does appear that the US has a higher homicide rate per capita and a higher rape rate per capita while the UK is worse in crimes such as burglary.

One thing the US has that the other countries don’t have is the second amendment. Which wasn’t about having guns for hunting, but to resist the government if it became tyrannical. Removal of guns from the citizens is the what the other countries have essentially done and is essentially what the 2nd amendment is a protection against. However, it is the only thing that will stop the shootings, not necessarily the killing. Department of Justice study shows none of the current gun control ideas will ultimately work. Background checks, waiting periods, smaller magazines, banning “assault” weapons won’t actually stop a person who wants get the job done. There are too many guns already in play.

For the record I am not personally in favor of rebellion from the government based on Romans 13; but to do what wants to be done would probably require removal of the second amendment. Just my thoughts.

It isn’t absolutely clear, but from this article,

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-k…

it appears that the mother of the killer and her son were avid members of the gun culture in America.

I don’t know what the solution is, I think it is incredibly hard to put the genie back in the bottle (too many guns in circulation already), but it seems to me the pro-gun mentality of almost unfettered access for everyone is no solution.

[wkessel1]

For the record I am not personally in favor of rebellion from the government based on Romans 13; but to do what wants to be done would probably require removal of the second amendment. Just my thoughts.

Does not our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution give us specific directive to indeed rebel, armed if necessary, should our government become (more) tyrannical. I doubt the Roman empire had that option in their founding documents.

[ejohansen]

Ask yourself why we are still fighting in Afghanistan. Ask yourself why Russia failed against Afghanistan. Dissidents with 300,000,000 guns in the USA could put up a pretty good struggle too, if need be.

There is a marked difference between Afghanistan / Iraq and the U.S. Neither country has the robust government intel, surveillance, and infrastructure that currently exists in the U.S. Every major city, highway, communication hub, and transportation hub is surveilled 24/7. The climate and terrain of both countries is rather hostile and remote compared to the U.S. And, it’s easy to smuggle serious firepower and trained foreign fighters into/out of these countries due to close proximity to other unfriendly Middle Eastern countries (i.e. Pakistan and Iran). Sure, dissidents could hide out in the woods or mountains for a period of time (probably longer in the Western states), but I doubt they could successfully hold/retake major cities or transportation hubs, especially if the local/state police and national guard side with the government.

In short, your S&W 9MM, Mossberg shotgun, or AR-15 is going to do you little good against a take over by big brother.

[Jim]

I personally would never rebel against the government:

• Were the law such (settled law) that all guns had to be surrendered … I would comply

My personal case for gun ownership is personal protection from armed intruders

As would I. I appreciate my right to keep and bear arms, and I do. But, if it is legitimately repealed, I would comply with the law of the land.

Just because those documents may give discretion to rebel, doesn’t mean we have to follow them. Romans 13 instructs us to submit to the government because their authority comes from God. Unless what the government want me to do is in direct conflict with God’s commands, I should submit. Even if it the government goes against the Constitution or other founding documents. That is how I apply Romans 13, you may certainly differ.

From your interpretation then, did the founding fathers of the USA sin in their revolution against the king of England? No new countries could be formed, no democracies created (I know, we are a democratically elected republic), no people freed from tyranny. God removes leaders, does he use revolution to do it?

God does in fact remove leaders and puts new ones in place whenever He wants. He can use whatever means He desires, including rebellion. He has used the sins of people to accomplish his purposes - thinking of Joseph brothers off the top my head. Since most (not all) of the founder father’s were Deist and probably not actually Christians, their first consideration wasn’t what would God think about this. That being said I can’t say it was sin for them, that is ultimately between them and God; I can only speak for myself. For me to not submit the government, they would need to go against Scripture and not my opinions or even my rights.

I began legally carrying a pistol wherever I legally can recently. One part of that was I no longer live and work in the Washington DC area (I now live in gun friendly Tennessee) that has much more restrictive policy than the rest of the US generally. The other catalyst was the Charleston shooting. It shocked me into consistent proactive action to be able to protect those around me, and myself.
Above someone mentioned that they wouldn’t mind open carry and were more concerned with concealed carry. This I both do and don’t understand. Open carry is inherently more dangerous for the carrier. He loses the advantage of surprise and becomes a target for opportunistic attacks from those wanting a free gun and are able to get a drop on the carrier. I see regular reports of this in the news. I support the concept of open carry being legal, but it’s a bad tactical move in most everyday cases. The fact is those concealed carrying who are a real danger will do so whether the law allows them to or not, and you will never know until a shooting occurs. I tend towards allowing all non-felons to conceal weapons or openly carry them. In America it makes a lot more sense in a nation of maybe 350 million guns in a huge territory with little structure to stop them.
Remember also that while driving is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms in common use is a constitutional right. The idea that one should be permitted to do so much like a driver of a car is missing this basic privilege vs. right difference.

Remember that the American Revolution was a conservative one. Always keep in mind the hundreds of years that lead up to it.

• - The colonies thought of themselves and were chartered as crown colonies outside of the reach of parliament.
• - Revolution occurred in England and the colonies were left to themselves for decades if not a century with their own state assemblies acting as parliaments might in England under common law.
• - When a weak monarchy presented itself and Parliament was ascendant, they started to legislate in ways that were averse to the longstanding common law powers of parliament.
• - Colonists appealed to the king as their protector against parliament but he refused his duty.
• - Colonists were standing up against a usurping parliament, and in the Declaration of Independence charged the king himself with not fulfilling his feudal obligations of his crown charter.

The American Revolution was perhaps the only conservative revolution in history. Treating it as a standard rebellion against government, contra Romans 13 is naive at best.

[Shaynus]

Remember that the American Revolution was a conservative one. Always keep in mind the hundreds of years that lead up to it.

• - The colonies thought of themselves and were chartered as crown colonies outside of the reach of parliament.
• - Revolution occurred in England and the colonies were left to themselves for decades if not a century with their own state assemblies acting as parliaments might in England under common law.
• - When a weak monarchy presented itself and Parliament was ascendant, they started to legislate in ways that were averse to the longstanding common law powers of parliament.
• - Colonists appealed to the king as their protector against parliament but he refused his duty.
• - Colonists were standing up against a usurping parliament, and in the Declaration of Independence charged the king himself with not fulfilling his feudal obligations of his crown charter.

The American Revolution was perhaps the only conservative revolution in history. Treating it as a standard rebellion against government, contra Romans 13 is naive at best.

known o

I could be wrong but it would seem tro me that any “rebellion” that Paul might have seen in his day would have been considered more conservative than his current Roman government so I’m not sure I follow your logic. A future “rebellion” in the USA would be either towards communism (socialism, fascism, pick your ism) or towards constitutionalty. One is OK one is not?