Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Interesting article. As ever, discuss: http://bigthink.com/21st-century-sp...chobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1452214422
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Has the 2nd Amendment become a Religion?
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
People are always dis'n this or that by saying "It's your religion!".
This is shallow stuff....using "religion" to insult people over secular beliefs.
This is shallow stuff....using "religion" to insult people over secular beliefs.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I think the comparison of the widespread, red-neck American stance on gun control to its infantile attitude toward nudity
is right on. America is indeed an adolescent in terms of its cultural priorities. Gag-inducing images of human slaughter are far preferable to the sight of the naked human body. As old as European culture may be the United States still has a long way to go in catching up to its moral principles.
.
"Interestingly, during my conversation with Dr. Ryan, I asked him why America is so immature in regards to sexuality.
In European countries women’s breasts are regularly on magazine covers and at beaches. Penises are common in movies.
There is no infantile response to any of this, which is basically how Dr. Ryan responded, stating that America is an adolescent in terms of cultures."
In European countries women’s breasts are regularly on magazine covers and at beaches. Penises are common in movies.
There is no infantile response to any of this, which is basically how Dr. Ryan responded, stating that America is an adolescent in terms of cultures."
.
Is this Europe worship?
At least we aren't so juvenile that we don't censor offensive speech in order to shelter fragile feelings.
And given a choice between red neck gun culture & effete authoritarian liberals, I'll take the former.
I wish people stopped tainting the word "religion" like that.
The Second Amendment has not become a religion, but it has become scripture - complete with convenient reinterpretation to make it support the reader's agenda, no less.
The Second Amendment has not become a religion, but it has become scripture - complete with convenient reinterpretation to make it support the reader's agenda, no less.
Curious George
Veteran Member
No more sacred than the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, right to privacy, etc. some people get up in arms when discussing all sorts of issues. However, there are plenty of people willing and capable of having a discussion on guns (or God for that matter).
However, what has not been said, that has not been countered by one side or the other. Yet, instead of driving towards an intellectual discussion on the matter, the author paints a very large ad hominem: "these people potentially crazy and infantile at best" the article might well have read. The idea of calling your opponent crazy is not a new one, nor a well accepted one. That some people literally are crazy though is a truth we must face. However, that some people are crazy does not prevent intelligent dialogue. We discuss free speech amidst the crazies; we discuss abortion amidst the crazies; we discuss gay marriage amidst the crazies; we discuss religion amidst the crazies; and some of us discuss guns amidst the crazies. But I would suggest that a group of people bent on ad hominem attacks amidst rational discussion is something people who actually want to discuss guns must cope. In short, we must discuss guns amidst these crazies as well as the nutters that think "Obama is coming for our guns."
Skwim
Veteran Member
I've heard reference to this. What is the case in particular?
Thing is, here's no such either-or choice to make. You can still be for sane gun control and remain a macho, submissive, conservative.
Case? They're pretty well known for anti-hate speech laws, eg, the latest scandal in Germany in which authorities were too scared of offending refugees they couldn't warn of criminal activity.
Hey! No middle ground!
It's either or at RF.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Those wacky Krauts....they love their regulation.Interesting, Germany being the most repressive.
.
(My own Kraut genes require constant monitoring to keep in check.)
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Unless you're liberal, then it's all conservative.
Baladas
An Págánach
I wouldn't say so.
That said, I will admit that I have been known to skirt this topic.
In the past when I have so much as suggested that I support minimal restrictions to keep the mentally ill, and criminals from purchasing weapons, I have typically had my entire argument ignored and even been yelled at.
I do continue to attempt to engage people respectfully on occasion, but the results are usually the same, sadly.
If I support any restriction on firearms at all, I must be a major Obama-supporter who is either ignorant of what is perceived as an eminent danger, or who actually wants a police state.
I am neither particularly fond of President Obama, nor a liberal and I certainly don't (and would never) support the confiscation of legal guns from lawful citizens.
It's really a shame the way that we make so many assumptions about each other.
That said, I will admit that I have been known to skirt this topic.
In the past when I have so much as suggested that I support minimal restrictions to keep the mentally ill, and criminals from purchasing weapons, I have typically had my entire argument ignored and even been yelled at.
I do continue to attempt to engage people respectfully on occasion, but the results are usually the same, sadly.
If I support any restriction on firearms at all, I must be a major Obama-supporter who is either ignorant of what is perceived as an eminent danger, or who actually wants a police state.
I am neither particularly fond of President Obama, nor a liberal and I certainly don't (and would never) support the confiscation of legal guns from lawful citizens.
It's really a shame the way that we make so many assumptions about each other.
Baladas
An Págánach
I agree. In America, we tend to glorify violence but a set of boobs drives everyone insane.
It's very odd.
I am wondering how any regulation could keep the mentally ill from buying
a gun????
If a person is mentally ill they don't slobber, stutter, or have crossed eyes.
A mentally ill person is perfectly capable of LYING on the form 4473.
The 4473 is the yellow form that a gun buyer fills out and lying is a felony but
it is difficult to even know that someone lied on the 4473.
It asks: "Have you ever been ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent (ill).
That means a court (Judge) ruled that you are nuts.
It makes no difference if the purchaser had been committed to a mental
institution 100 times.
The nut can simply answer the question on the 4473 form "no; never been
adjudicated mentally ill" and be LEGAL to purchase.
I would hazard a guess that very, very, few people have ever been "adjudicated"
mentally incompetent. Why? Because judges are not psychiatrists and without
an opinion by one or more psychiatrists are unlikely to declare anyone mentally
incompetent.
a gun????
If a person is mentally ill they don't slobber, stutter, or have crossed eyes.
A mentally ill person is perfectly capable of LYING on the form 4473.
The 4473 is the yellow form that a gun buyer fills out and lying is a felony but
it is difficult to even know that someone lied on the 4473.
It asks: "Have you ever been ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent (ill).
That means a court (Judge) ruled that you are nuts.
It makes no difference if the purchaser had been committed to a mental
institution 100 times.
The nut can simply answer the question on the 4473 form "no; never been
adjudicated mentally ill" and be LEGAL to purchase.
I would hazard a guess that very, very, few people have ever been "adjudicated"
mentally incompetent. Why? Because judges are not psychiatrists and without
an opinion by one or more psychiatrists are unlikely to declare anyone mentally
incompetent.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Baladas
An Págánach
Agreed, anyone can lie on a form (that should be something that should always be checked on though), and judges are not the best ones to determine someone's sanity.
I think that the idea that is usually being referred to is something like psychological screening by a mental health professional to be a requirement for the purchase of high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles. I do think that this could go far to keep guns out of the wrong hands...but obviously, I can't be sure how well something like that would work.
There is definitely no "magic bullet" for this issue, but I do think that we should make gun safety a priority as a nation.
It would be really tough to make it "law" to have the purchaser of a hi cap
rifle or handgun pass a psych review first.
There is no one easy answer to balance the 2nd amendment with today's reality
and so many mentally ill walking the streets among us.
30 + years ago those deemed dangerously mentally ill were place in a mental
care facility and often released for short periods to responsible family members.
Today almost NO mentally ill person can be committed, at least not for very long.
Sometimes a ( here in Ohio ) a judge will commit an obviously mentally sick person
for a 3 day evaluation if there is strong evidence to indicate that person might be
mentally ill.
When I was a cop I found a man on his hands and knees licking water from a mud
puddle in the middle of a busy street.
Hummmmmm???????????? Methinks this guy is drunk, drugging, or nuts.
I arrested him for the old charge of "suspicion of dementia" (no longer allowed)
and took him to the e.r. for evaluation. The docs agreed the man was mentally ill
and not suffering from a physical ailment so they "pink slipped" him to the
State institution some 40 miles away and I had to transport him witch took me
off the streets for the entire shift.
He was released 3 days later.
rifle or handgun pass a psych review first.
There is no one easy answer to balance the 2nd amendment with today's reality
and so many mentally ill walking the streets among us.
30 + years ago those deemed dangerously mentally ill were place in a mental
care facility and often released for short periods to responsible family members.
Today almost NO mentally ill person can be committed, at least not for very long.
Sometimes a ( here in Ohio ) a judge will commit an obviously mentally sick person
for a 3 day evaluation if there is strong evidence to indicate that person might be
mentally ill.
When I was a cop I found a man on his hands and knees licking water from a mud
puddle in the middle of a busy street.
Hummmmmm???????????? Methinks this guy is drunk, drugging, or nuts.
I arrested him for the old charge of "suspicion of dementia" (no longer allowed)
and took him to the e.r. for evaluation. The docs agreed the man was mentally ill
and not suffering from a physical ailment so they "pink slipped" him to the
State institution some 40 miles away and I had to transport him witch took me
off the streets for the entire shift.
He was released 3 days later.
No, 18 USC § 922(d)(4) et seq. includes anyone who “has been committed to a mental institution”:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person--
[. . . ]
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922\
27 CFR § 478.11 defines “committed to a mental institution” as:
A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11