JosephM

Paul, Unfortunately that is not the message i got. He seems to be pointing out that the real problem from area statistics says the problem is deeper than gun ownership as evidenced by a study of Canadian vs US densities The homicide rate is usually always higher in denser populations so the makeup of the population has a lot to do with higher or lower homcide rates with guns. Austrailia is sparsely populated compared to the US and large cities and their makeup and social structure has more to do with gun crimes than guns itself Joseph

Yes, No need to debate it. Smarter men than me more well read than most in history and the constitution have already debated and decided. Calling them right wing Supreme Court takes nothing from their intelligence and knowledge of the facts and their clarification of the challenge to what was meant.. Joseph

George, Read ALL THESE QUOTES by our founding fathers which includes multiple ones from President Thomas Jefferson and tell me if you still believe your statement " it is only recently been determined by our right-wing Supreme Court that we have an individual right to bear arms." I believe you will find that the recent determination was just a clarification because of a challenge to it and that the right has always existed.since the forming of our Constitution. I believe you will find It did not according to the quotes and arguments in the Federalist papers, just have to do with a militia but extended to personal protection and included even from our own government and standing army if need be. Joseph

I believe the individual right to keep and bear arms was pre-existing under common law and not just for hunting. The Second Amendment doesn't establish any rights, it prevents the government from infringing on them. Obviously one can see from the increase in sales from the threat of a ban on assault weapons that there are many individuals who feel that right includes weapons presently defined as "assault weapons" Those weapons while presently used by some for target practice and sport shooting and hobby reasons (collections) are i believe by most purchased for family protection of home and property against armed perpetrators or a group of perpetrators whether foreign or domestic. An assault weapon puts the individual citizen on more equal ground with any well armed perpetrator(s) . And yes for the same reasons our founding fathers are quoted saying THESE THINGS which are concerning guns and were not directed to hunting food.... I think many of the negative consequences can be addressed more properly and more effectively by better gun control, education, enforcement, training and a shift in our culture including raising more responsible citizens, less glorifying of violence and violent movies and game entertainment that desensitize many youth to acts of violence. All this along with a myriad of other social changes that include preventing repeat offenders, stiffer sentences to those who do harm, better recognition of the mentally ill and many other changes well thought out by those who specialize in such things. Joseph

Dutch, my response was to your question... "Do you think anything can be done regarding gun control that will contribute to a decrease in mass killings?" In general my answer was yes to your initial question not of these specific incidents but rather "mass kilimgs" (in general) by better gun control and enforcement. Your return to me was "How exactly would better enforcement reduce the chances that the Sandy Hook shooter or the Aurora theater shooter could obtain their weapons" i can't speak specifically to those 2 specific cases as far as enforcement goes "to obtain their weapons?" All incidents are not avoidable by either means but there are indeed cases where better gun control and enforcement of existing laws and possibly some new testing requirements might prevent an actual act along with citizen cooperation by reporting of any tale tell signs that might be suspicious in nature. "Should households with mentally ill residents not be allowed to own guns?" No but required training might include education of precautions to keep guns out of the hands of such. Will that guarantee it will not happen? No , of course not. Joseph

Welcome Indigeek, Thanks for the introduction Asking questions seems healthy to me. I'm in southern Florida at this time of year and not familiar with your area. Your story sounds most familiar and i am happy you found us here and hoping you are blessed in your journey by your presence here. Joseph

Dutch, Yes, most definitely. Gun control is not banning weapons, it is better control and enforcement before and after purchase. Joseph

Karen, I am most sorry that you have allowed your spirit of Christmas to be ruined this year. Both the incident and the excessive media coverage has been unfortunate for many. You are correct that you and many others here have not proposed banning all guns. My use of the word "all" was not meant to insinuate you or another did. It was meant to make a point that even if all guns were banned they could still be had by those whose intentions were criminal or 'evil' from those who would make a smuggling ring or 'black market' out of it. I think the majority of gun owners support (including myself) background checks, and training requirements. I have undergone both in KY and Florida and am licensed in both states for concealed carry which i used in the past conducting of a business with inherent risk and dangers. I am thankful i never had to use it. To limit an administrator, moderator, or a member of this site in having or expressing a different view from your own or the majority here is not acceptable whether concerning religion or other subjects brought up on this site. If one has a problem with that, they are free to search for a site where everyone , especially an administrator is expected to agree on what that person may deem as an important , more moral or intelligent view. We have no such accurate gauge here as relates to personal views being more or less worthy of expression. (JosephM as Admin) George, Since you ask.... I am in favor of background checks including both criminal and mental and , safety and use training requirements for all gun owners. I am also in favor of forbidding convicted felons from owning and stricter enforcement of present laws, I am in favor of our present fully automatic weapons ownership special permit laws and the forbidding of tanks, missile launchers, flame thrower and other such weapons of war without express government knowledge and licensing and other requirements. I am NOT in favor of a ban on the present definition of assault weapons that are purchased by individuals who have qualified by background checks and training. I am in favor of stricter laws pertaining to gun sales. I do not think at this point in time we can depend on police for complete protection of our family or our own life and doubt we will anytime in the near future even by spending more dollars. Yet, i do respect your right or for that matter the right of anyone to differ on this personal view of mine. Joseph

Dutch, The question implied no such thing except perhaps in the mind of the responder. Yet since you mention it, perhaps many crimminals may be in a sense addicted to crime and guns and some people addicted to guns? (Some have enormous collections of guns and ammo) Your analogy of discharge of a gun and pot to me seems totally unrelated to the question. Dangerous drugs such as cocaine, heroine and meth are banned yet they still remain available to social circles from a 'black market' and are often crime related. This relates to the same thing that happens when you ban all guns. In my view, there is always a lucrative market for smugglers willing to take the risk when you tell people they can't have something they think they need or want. I believe history shows whether it is booze, drugs, or guns makes no difference. I think our real problem is social/culture and deeper than banning all guns. I think one sided emotional rants do nothing to understanding both sides of the issues and uncovering the root of our problems. Joseph. PS For those wishing to hear another side here is a Canadian Link comparing Canada with the US and offering some reasons to consider for the difference in gun related death rates. And this Canadian link also

George , Hopefully that was not really a question you expected an answer to from me..... The only point made by the link was in response to dusktildawn comment which i quoted and supplied a link only to point out that for those determined, using common available items, they are not limited in committing atrocities to large number of people by the absence of guns.That was the only point i was making. Joseph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

Good point to the second question dusktildawn, Even the Tao speaks of what happens when we value property more than life. i agree with your accessment but you of course did not really answer the 2 nd question. I personally feel no need to shoot someone stealing property. joseph

Welcome Ed, From yet another minister that after publishing a book was also tagged as demon possessed and expelled from local circles. While somewhat painful it was most freeing in the long run. I'm certain you will find many similar stories here. Hoping you find this community of much benefit to your journey. Joseph

I would be interested in reading a response by anyone to 2 questions without rebuttal from me. 1. Exactly how will banning hand guns be anymore effective in reducing their availability and crime than banning drugs has prevented the availability and use of illegal drugs and related crimes? 2. Do you truly believe the police have the resources and time to protect your family and home from immediate danger of perpetrators? If yes, no followup question.,and if not, what will you choose to use to protect them against such or will you do nothing? Thanks, Joseph

Welcome dusttildawn and thanks for the honest and wonderful introduction, I wouldn't be too disappointed as only the Progressive Christianity forum is off limits to those who are not in general agreement with the 8 points. Progressive Christianity can be discussed by all in the debate and dialog section. Many but not all, PC's have had a painful breakaway from fundamental Christianity and desired a sort of 'safe place' of support and sharing rather than debate . I don't believe our restrictions/rules/guidelines will limit you in any way, as all topics are allowed and those that are willing, are welcome to respond and share with you respectfully in the debate and dialog area. Most of the guidelines here have reasons that with time i think will make more sense to you. There are fundamentally no winners and losers even in the debate and dialog section here. There is growth to be gained by all participants that participate in the spirit of learning or appreciation and understanding of the point of views of others. . The label you identify yourself with is not all that important to most of us. Mutual respect for the right to share a different points of view and behavior in avoiding personal type remarks that add nothing to the conversation is deemed much more important. Anyway, welcome to the community and i hope you find what you are looking for on your journey and that this forum will be mutually beneficial to all of us. Joseph

David, Uncertainty is in my opinion a healthy place to view things from. It makes for a humbleness that is to me a gateway to 'seeing' more clearly. Here is a past post (short writing) here you might enjoy reading. Click here -------> Uncertainty Joseph

Welcome David, Thanks for the introduction. Hoping you find this internet community mutually beneficial and enlightening. Joseph

Member Skinker Banned . after researching his history.... JosephM(as Moderator)

"Skinker"..... Alais ?Waterbear", alias "Sonoman" has been banned twice already and has had his chance in the past to post his views here along with his complaints etc. He has also been banned on numerous other forums and used various other alias's His IP's and new email and username is again banned on this site. His past and present behavior is unacceptable here. JosephM (as Administrator)

Skinker, Welcome, but please note this particular section of our forum as detailed in this section guidelines is reserved for those who identify as Progressive Christians or are in general agreement with the principles of the 8 points of Progressive Christianity. Please take the time to introduce yourself in the introductions area and share a bit about yourself so we can better get to know you and gain some understanding of what you might be looking for in this community or if you fit in this particular area of our forum in which you have posted.. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. JosephM (as Moderator).

Hi Donald, I think quotes are sometimes necessary to those who may require such so i myself have used them because of that opinion but i put no authority to them myself nor does it to me personally seem to add weight in discussing religious or spiritual differences or matters. So, while quoting sources may mean little to me, we are all different in that respect and so i have used quotes many times as an aid in getting past stumbling blocks i perceive by the other,. Joseph

Welcome Jay, Glad you were finally able to complete registration and chime in. Make yourself at home and feel free to develop and express your thoughts and beliefs as you share here while maintaining respect for the right of others to differ. Joseph

May i add my welcome also Wisdom_Bodhisattva, ​You will find many with similar backgrounds and stories here. If you are not looking for dogma and doctrine, i think you will find this community an encouraging and refreshing place. After all, religion is to me, more how we live and behave toward each other than what we say we believe. Your views are welcome in this community and even if not agreed with by some we endeavor to respect you as a brother/sister on your individual search/journey of discovery.which seems to me is the search for Love, Peace and Truth. May we all be a blessing on that path to each other. Love in Christ, Joseph.

Welcome Bearpawss, Christianity is more a way of life as you say. ( to be lived rather than just a label or preaching). As George said, i think we have to realize that "Christains are human like all other humans" and i would add an evolving species. There are a lot of things we can be upset about concerning the beliefs of others but i think forgiveness is a key tenet of Jesus's teaching. The words "Forgive them for they know not what they do" has been or is perhaps applicable to many of us at some time and some of us even now. We are all on a journey and often at different points in that journey. Sometimes all we can do is our best and encourage others to continue on their journey in which i believe will for the persistant wayfaring one eventually lead to the main tenet of the Christian religion regardless of any labels and that is love for one another. May you find rest, peace and encouragement on your journey as you share with like-minded people here. Joseph

Gobble Gobble... Have a wonderful day of thanks. Joseph