Today's mass shooting in the US

[timmeh]

Yep, it's basically democracy in action. The NRA members are passionate about guns, so they are easily mobilised and motivated to engage their elected representatives. Whereas the anti gun supporters aren't. The NRA vote against gun control constantly, not just talk about it for a couple of weeks after a mass shooting.

They send out letters trying to fill people with fear that the government are trying to chip away at the 2nd Amendment and ban guns when that's not at all what they're doing.

I just got my annual NRA 'membership'* letter and it starts with:

Dear Friend,

There has never been a more important time for you to accept the enclosed NRA membership card and carry it with pride.

Hundreds of anti-gun politicians, judges, radical billionaires and the freedom-hating media elite are vowing to fight on and never surrender... not until they ban hundreds of popular firearms, register gun owners and drive a stake in the heart of your firearm freedoms.

"radical billionaires" hahaha

*I'm not a member. I went to a gun range once and now the NRA send me a membership card along with a slip to return with $30 to become a member.

 

[Angilion]

Not true. The earliest Christians refused to fight even in self defence, and likewise refused to serve in the military. They maintained these principles for several centuries, until Constantine the Great came to power and converted to Christianity, at which point Christian involvement in the military became acceptable.

Interesting. Do you have any references for that which are a reliable source? There's always a lot of propaganda around ideologies. The Acts of the Martyrs come to mind.

It's contained in the Law of Moses, which is 100% Jewish and 0% Christian. This is not a grey area. Christians inherited the prohibition through the Jewish roots of their faith.

The grey area lies in to what extent Jewish stuff applies to Christians. It's not the case, for example, that all Christians think that the famous 10 commandments don't apply to Christians at all.

No. The objection is to murder, which is why modern translations correctly render the verse 'You shall not murder.' There is no reference to clerical permission.

Murder is killing without permission from the authorities.
In the context of Judaism and Christianity, the authorities are the clerics. Technically their god, but effectively their clerics.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
There were two issues that appear to be (fairly firmly established) the motivation behind it however - the lacking military capabilities at the time combined with fears about "tyranny".

Which would imply citizens having the capability to enact armed revolt against the government or an invading military force. Which would imply little restriction on the type of weapons allowed. It certainly doesn't imply restricting citizens to single shot guns in an age of automatic guns.

I think that the truthful issue is the extent to which the 2nd amendment is to be amended rather than creatively interpreting it to suit a position.

 

[Angilion]

Obviously not, but if you want to waste your short time on this earth arguing about something that will never affect you or alter your life in anyway then go ahead.

Isn't that the main point of the internet?

Besides, people do it all the time. For example, I'm not going to be affected by a hurricane creating a storm surge and flooding my home, but that doesn't make it invalid for me to have an opinion regarding the extent to which the devastation in New Orleans could have been reduced by better planning and infrastructure, nor does it make it invalid for me to have an opinion on whether or not it should have been. Where would you draw the line on talking about that? Only people living in New Orleans at the time? Only people living in parts of the USA that might be badly affected by a storm surge created by a hurricane? Only people in the USA in general?

 

[Rroff]

Which would imply citizens having the capability to enact armed revolt against the government or an invading military force. Which would imply little restriction on the type of weapons allowed. It certainly doesn't imply restricting citizens to single shot guns in an age of automatic guns.

I think that the truthful issue is the extent to which the 2nd amendment is to be amended rather than creatively interpreting it to suit a position.

I think it implies a little common sense should be used - militias/reserve forces in a country with an established military generally are designed to be able to supplement or integrate with regular armed forces and not as heavily armed/equipped.

In terms of fighting a tyrannical government - ignoring how few are actually in any condition, etc. to do so people for some reason always underestimate the numbers game and attrition even assuming the regular forces are 100% on the side of the government the only thing that really swings the balances are WMDs.

 

[Rroff]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41907943

One thing I wasn't wrong about - in just about any other country he wouldn't have got near a firearm legally.

 

[FlakGunna]

Isn't that the main point of the internet?

Besides, people do it all the time. For example, I'm not going to be affected by a hurricane creating a storm surge and flooding my home, but that doesn't make it invalid for me to have an opinion regarding the extent to which the devastation in New Orleans could have been reduced by better planning and infrastructure, nor does it make it invalid for me to have an opinion on whether or not it should have been. Where would you draw the line on talking about that? Only people living in New Orleans at the time? Only people living in parts of the USA that might be badly affected by a storm surge created by a hurricane? Only people in the USA in general?

Did I say it was invalid? I pointed out that I thought it was funny that a predominately British forum were arguing over another country's gun laws and how some people were getting uppity about it. Now you're babbling on about hurricanes..

 

[Sankari]

Interesting. Do you have any references for that which are a reliable source? There's always a lot of propaganda around ideologies. The Acts of the Martyrs come to mind.

Kirk R. MacGregor has written an excellent monograph on this subject. Here's an excerpt:

Prior to the Edict of Milan, the ancient church leadership's aversion to civic occupations invested with the sword, including magistracy and military, could be summarized in three observations.

First, Christianity on principle rejected war and the shedding of human blood.

Second, magistrates under certain circumstances were obliged to pass the death sentence, and soldiers were obliged to carry out all acts of violence ordered by their military commanders.

Third, the unconditional imperial oath or sacramentum required of the civic official stood in direct conflict with the baptismal sacramentum to God.

On this threefold basis, church leaders universally denounced the practice of baptized civilians serving in either the government or the military from the New Testament period to the reign of Constantine.

Furthermore, while some segments of the post-174 church leadership permitted converted magistrates and soldiers to retain their positions insofar as they practiced civil disobedience when their duties violated the precepts of the gospel, other segments maintained the earlier ecumenical standard of not allowing converts this luxury.

(Source).

Another good article here:

The Christian community in Jerusalem refused to participate in the violent insurrection against the Romans (66-70 C.E.) and for 300 years the church resisted service in the Roman military. Christians refused to worship Caesar, who claimed to be God, or to kill for Caesar.

The Church prepared its members to face the consequences for following the nonviolent Jesus: persecution and martyrdom. It nourished a culture of spiritually-grounded nonviolence through the corporal works of mercy, through the practice of forgiveness and reconciliation, and through resistance to the culture of violence.

Not a single Christian writing exists before the early fourth century supporting Christian participation in warfare.

(Source).

Likewise this Orthodox perspective:

The early Church strictly followed this principle, and that was why early Christianity was decorated with thousands of martyrs who never resisted the tortures and persecutions organized by the emperors or their agents, or other religious or ethnic groups.

Unfortunately, it is believed that pacifism remained as an essential characteristic of Christianity only until the time of Constantine early in the fourth century.

The Roman emperors starting with Constantine brought in a revolutionary change in the attitude between the early Church and the Roman state.

When Christianity was brought closer to the State, the former lost its earlier purity and began to accommodate herself to the needs of a larger secular empire that embraced the entire Mediterranean region.

(Source).

Examples could be multiplied, particularly from the writings of the early church fathers.

The grey area lies in to what extent Jewish stuff applies to Christians. It's not the case, for example, that all Christians think that the famous 10 commandments don't apply to Christians at all.

Correct. However, the prohibition against murder is not exclusive to the Old Testament (e.g. Galatians 5:19-21; Revelation 21:8, 22:15).

Murder is killing without permission from the authorities.

No, murder is unlawful killing. Killing in self defence is lawful, and you don't need to ask permission from the authorities before doing it. Instead, the lawfulness of an act of self defence is determined retrospectively, through the courts.

 

[wesimmo]

Did I say it was invalid? I pointed out that I thought it was funny that a predominately British forum were arguing over another country's gun laws and how some people were getting uppity about it. Now you're babbling on about hurricanes..

Is there a term for the specific irony when someone wastes their time posting on the internet to accuse people of wasting their time posting on the internet?

 

[FlakGunna]

Is there a term for the specific irony when someone wastes their time posting on the internet to accuse people of wasting their time posting on the internet?

I really couldn't care less.

 

[FTM]

No one needs to own anything beyond the essentials, yet we all still do. People may own 10 "assault" rifles because they like guns, they enjoy shooting, it's their primary interest and hobby and they have a passion for it. It's that simple.

I own about 8 fly fishing rods..I can only use 1 at a time but I have many

guns are the same...and I am not against owning a gun, I know if I lived in a country that allowed easier access to gun ownership , I would have guns for hunting

I just think better control could be exercised over who has what..

or they should regulate the more extreme guns and accessories...does anybody really need a huge banana clip

 

[Avenged7Fold]

"radical billionaires" hahaha

You laugh but a handful of billionaires feel passionately enough to do radical things like match NRA donations penny for penny and launch their own crazy high campaigns as well as give complete financial support to gun control groups.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/mik...tch-every-donation-to-fight-gun-violence.html

If paying out of your own pocket to fight guns in America is not radical, i don't know what is!

 

[wordy]

They send out letters trying to fill people with fear that the government are trying to chip away at the 2nd Amendment and ban guns when that's not at all what they're doing.

I just got my annual NRA 'membership'* letter and it starts with:



"radical billionaires" hahaha

*I'm not a member. I went to a gun range once and now the NRA send me a membership card along with a slip to return with $30 to become a member.

that's insane, wow! As if registering a gun owner could be considered freedom hating.

 

[Sankari]

'Radical billionaires'... like Trump, whose campaign received $36 million from the NRA.

 

[Sankari]

This is from last year. It's still entirely relevant.

'Largest Study to Date Finds Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Actually Works.'

 

[DAIR]

What is the difference between a "mass shooting" and a "terrorist attack"?

 

[XeNoN89]

What is the difference between a "mass shooting" and a "terrorist attack"?

Terrorist attack is politically or religiously motivated


A random loon shooting people with no actual objective is just a random loon not a terrorist

 

[DAIR]

Terrorist attack is politically or religiously motivated


A random loon shooting people with no actual objective is just a random loon not a terrorist

Is that so?

I don't know about you. But I'd feel terrified if anyone (regardless of their motivation). Went around shooting people.

Terror is Terror.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

It actually depends where in the world you are as the definition of terrorism isn't universally agreed. I agree with Xenon89 though for the UK definition at least.

It was pretty tiresome to view people on social media complaining that the Vegas shooter wasn't labelled a terrorist.

 

[DAIR]

It actually depends where in the world you are as the definition of terrorism isn't universally agreed. I agree with Xenon89 though for the UK definition at least.

It was pretty tiresome to view people on social media complaining that the Vegas shooter wasn't labelled a terrorist.

But he caused Terror.... Didn't he?