Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Christforums

Franklin Graham Addresses Open Letter to Obama on Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Franklin Graham has written an open letter to President Obama, telling the President that his executive actions to curb gun violence fail to address the root cause of the issue.

 

 

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about encouraging more use of Kevlar in everyday clothing? :)

 

Seriously, everyone seems to dance around the issue looking for an opportunity for a sound bite rather than really looking for solutions or even asking hard questions.

 

Do we need more guns than people?

What does the Second Ammendment mean? Should the people have a right to defend themselves against there government?

Is it right to be able to buy parts to convert semi-auto weapons to full auto at a gun show because it is just a part?

Where is the discussion about concealed carry and the rights of both self defense and those around you? Open carry?

 

Instead we get a president who cries over "evil guns" and Graham blaming "violent TV shows".

Is that really the best discussion that we can muster.

 

Here is a proposal that I would like to throw out ... the most thorough background check in the world, including smart gun technology to prevent use by the wrong people, granting US citizens a right to own fully military weapons suffient to defend the Republic against Government tyranny. It might be rediculous, but at least it is not the usual pablum that they have been drooliling over this issue and calling 'discussion'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a proposal that I would like to throw out ... the most thorough background check in the world, including smart gun technology to prevent use by the wrong people, granting US citizens a right to own fully military weapons suffient to defend the Republic against Government tyranny. It might be rediculous, but at let it is not the usual pablum that they have been drooliling over this issue and calling 'discussion'.

 

Just pointing out that at the time the Bill of Rights were written the Musket was the most lethal weapon carried by military persons. Our forefathers never required background checks etc. I believe public schools even had shooting activities some 40+ years ago. Students actually carried guns into school. What has changed, and by all means I'd like to see the intent of our forefathers addressed in its historical context. You bring up some good points atpollard.

 

Furthermore, I can understand the left's position on this, tightening gun control. I know a gun dealer or two, and the shows they sell at are open to the general public. Just pointing out that the left does have a legit argument, the question is whether it's irrelevant by the Constitution? Executive order executive order.....enforced by people with guns. See, I believe this is what our forefathers had foreseen.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just pointing out that at the time the Bill of Rights were written the Musket was the most lethal weapon carried by military persons.

 

Conversely, our Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined our modern ability to stop and catch criminals. Back then, if you walked into someone's home and shot them, you were home free. Now, DNA and cameras are likely to nail you. Back then, even if there were witnesses, once you got out of town, you were home free. Now there's almost no place you can go to get away and you'll have to hide for the rest of your life to avoid getting caught.

 

Our ability to fight crime has more than kept up with advances in guns and other weapons. But, maybe our willingness to fight crime hasn't kept up.

 

Franklin Graham is essentially right. We don't have a gun problem. We have a culture problem, mainly promoted by Hollywood and so-called Civil Rights groups that champion black criminals, as well as the Democrat party in general. A fair objection might be, "Since the culture isn't about to change for the better, what's the next best thing we can do?" But, I think gun restrictions are mostly ineffective. You might make it harder for criminals to get guns, but you disarm people against all matter of attacker and you create a black market for guns,

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Conversely, our Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined our modern ability to stop and catch criminals. Back then, if you walked into someone's home and shot them, you were home free. Now, DNA and cameras are likely to nail you. Back then, even if there were witnesses, once you got out of town, you were home free. Now there's almost no place you can go to get away and you'll have to hide for the rest of your life to avoid getting caught.

 

There are over 5,000 guns confiscated in one year in the local city. The cause of it is there are a lot of irresponsible citizens. Some people only buy guns because it is an extension of their masculinity.

 

My wife came home and the man across the street was holding a gun at his father and my family couldn't come in the house because they were afraid of getting shot so I called 911 and the police came and someone emptied the rounds on the ground. Ask yourself where the bullet goes when someone misses. It is going to keep going until it hits something or someone. Guns may only work when society is responsible for the most part and they aren't. A lot of people are proud instead of responsible which makes them fools.

 

1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

 

James 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have wrestled with the issue of gun ownership on a personal and practical level. Part of my job involves conducting inspections of undeveloped property to locate and flag wetland boundaries. I look silly in my boots and jungle hat with a machete and bright orange survey tape hacking my way through vines and thickets. It occasionally brings me within spitting distance of alligators and snakes (most harmless, some not). So I found myself with a genuine, legitimate reason to get a handgun and a concealed carry permit. I came close to purchasing one, but two things swayed my decision against it.

 

The first was my daughter. I hated the statistical reality that my family was far more likely to be injured by any gun that I purchased, either through an accident or through an intruder or through some unforseeable tragedy, than I was to actually be attacked by an alligator or snake and require a gun to defend myself.

 

The second was my past. I grew up with guns, and not in a good way. Holding a pistol in my hand brings back a lot of old memories and feelings that are better off buried. Like the verse about meat dedicated to idols, it means nothing ... unless it violates your conscience, then it is a sin for you. I decided that guns are not for me.

 

So this places me in the unusual position of not wanting to own a gun, but staunchly defending your right to own one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are over 5,000 guns confiscated in one year in the local city. The cause of it is there are a lot of irresponsible citizens. Some people only buy guns because it is an extension of their masculinity.

 

My wife came home and the man across the street was holding a gun at his father and my family couldn't come in the house because they were afraid of getting shot so I called 911 and the police came and someone emptied the rounds on the ground. Ask yourself where the bullet goes when someone misses. It is going to keep going until it hits something or someone. Guns may only work when society is responsible for the most part and they aren't. A lot of people are proud instead of responsible which makes them fools.

 

1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

 

James 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

 

I agree, but the problem is that gun control laws mostly just restrict the most responsible people. You make it harder for the man who wants to do everything right to buy a gun for home defense, but unregulated sales will still happen at flea markets, and conversion kits will still be available through mail order, and I can absolutely guarantee you that stolen guns will still be available on the black market.

 

The problem seems to be that one side wants to protect our "right to bear arms" without ensuring that guns cannot be obtained by those with no business having them (like a felon at a trade show or flea market) and the other side wants to regulate guns without ensuring that "responsible" people can know that their Rights to self defense are being protected and their Government isn't working with the criminals to turn them into helpless victims.

 

I live on a street with 10 houses, 1 murder, 1 felony home invasion and a 20 minute 911 response time. (My house is easy to spot, it is the one with the very large, but tired guardian angel). To disarm everyone except the criminals and tell us to just trust the Sheriff to handle it is not a very realistic plan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just pointing out that at the time the Bill of Rights were written the Musket was the most lethal weapon carried by military persons. Our forefathers never required background checks etc. I believe public schools even had shooting activities some 40+ years ago. Students actually carried guns into school. What has changed, and by all means I'd like to see the intent of our forefathers addressed in its historical context. You bring up some good points atpollard.

 

Furthermore, I can understand the left's position on this, tightening gun control. I know a gun dealer or two, and the shows they sell at are open to the general public. Just pointing out that the left does have a legit argument, the question is whether it's irrelevant by the Constitution? Executive order executive order.....enforced by people with guns. See, I believe this is what our forefathers had foreseen.

 

God bless,

William

 

 

Will

 

What are you talking about? Of course the gun shows are open to the public. Because the 'general public' has a right to bear arms. And, what are you trying to say? That the gun dealers at gun shows are selling without background checks? That is 'bull'. Every dealer at the gun show has to require background checks. You have fallen for the Obama lie. And there is already on the requirements when one purchases a gun the question as to whether you have ever been admitted for mental health reasons. There is nothing new to be added.

 

As to your statement about 'muskets', that was the firearm of the day to which either side can obtain. An equal access. Therefore the right to bear arms means the 'arms of the day'. Remember this, the first ten amendments were placed there, not because the framers of the Constitution wanted it. They didn't. They were placed there because the people of the states didn't trust these framers, and so they required a 'Bill of Rights' in order to ratify the said Constitution. In other words, the Bill of Rights is there to protect us from our own Government. The 2nd amendment is not to protect turkey hunters. It is to protect us from the threat of our own government. Which is why Obama and others are so against it.

 

If you buy the leftist argument, you are selling us out just like the left is.

 

Ship Alone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the requirements when one purchases a gun the question as to whether you have ever been admitted for mental health reasons.

 

Right, from the IRS targeting Conservatives to Religious groups. If they wanted to purchase a gun, I can only imagine how easy it would be for the government to target individuals against a tyrannic government with this clause and put them on a no sell list.

 

What are you talking about? Of course the gun shows are open to the public. Because the 'general public' has a right to bear arms. And, what are you trying to say?

 

Just meant every type of gun was available to the general public. I think the most amazing gun my friend ever brought back from a gun show was an old Japanese type 99 light machine gun.

 

As to your statement about 'muskets', that was the firearm of the day to which either side can obtain. An equal access. Therefore the right to bear arms means the 'arms of the day'.

 

I agree with you, and that is what I meant when saying the liberal argument is irrelevant by the 2nd Amendment. As to the rest of your post I agree again, I think it captures the intent of our forefathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask another question.

It is completely legal to purchase a perfect replica of a colt SAA revolver with a non-bored cylinder as an unregistered "for display only". At the next table I can legally purchase a fully functioning cylinder that will swap out in my replica gun. Neither required registration or a background check.

 

Once I swap the cylinders, I have a fully functioning, unregistered revolver (and I have probably committed one or more felonies).

Is it possible that we have made the process too easy?

Is it reasonable that the table full of "Replicas" and "cylinders" side by side really have no idea that crimes are being facilitated and they have no responsibility to safeguard public safety.

My father was proud of the semi to full-auto conversion kit he ordered for his AK style weapon.

 

Now personally, I think that the intent of the Second Ammendment is that We The People should have legal access to Full Auto weapons if we want to own them (without special 'collector' licensing) but that is something that the Supreme Court should be fixing, not a legal loophole at gun shows ans mail order companies. The current system favors criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

atpollard

 

You say our gun laws favor criminals. How? And what is this 'loophole' at the gun shows you speak of.

 

Ship Alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
atpollard

You say our gun laws favor criminals. How? And what is this 'loophole' at the gun shows you speak of.

Ship Alone

Let's take it one step at a time:

Is it legal to own an unregistered Colt 45 revolver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take it one step at a time:

Is it legal to own an unregistered Colt 45 revolver?

 

 

Yes it is legal to own an unregistered Colt 45. It is legal to own any gun that is not registered. I know of no Federal law requiring registration. A background check is not 'registration'.

 

Ship Alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is legal to own an unregistered Colt 45. It is legal to own any gun that is not registered. I know of no Federal law requiring registration. A background check is not 'registration'.

Ship Alone

I may be conflating some of the draconian laws of my old stomping ground (New Jersey) with national laws ... so I yield that point.

 

It has been a while since I went out of my way to engage in criminal activity (longer than the statute of limitations) :) ... so I double checked to make sure that it was still possible, and it is.

 

I can purchase a "museum quality replica" revolver that does not have a cylinder bored all the way through (thus is not an operable firearm). It requires no check of anything, no restriction on resale, it is no different than purchasing a hammer. I can also buy a cylinder to convert my black powder revolver to fire modern cartridges that is also not a weapon and also requires no documentation or restriction on resale. I can swap the cylinders and have an operational firearm with no paperwork, no record of sale, no serial number. I just checked online and I could have those delivered to my house by Tuesday morning ... most of the delay is because they don't ship on Sunday. If I ordered M-F, I could have a functioning gun in my hand in 24 hours.

 

I could purchase a stolen revolver in about the same length of time for a fraction of the cost (and they are open on Sunday).

 

Is there any chance that I could file the paperwork and leave a legitimate gun store with a legal revolver by Tuesday morning?

 

Thus my claim that the laws as written favor criminals ... I can legally get the parts to build a gun faster than the 3 day waiting period that I have been told is required to buy a handgun from a gun store.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

atpollard

 

Well, you could have a functioning gun in your hand by just buying it from an individual that you knew in 1 hour. You don't need paperwork when buying from private individuals. If you have a gun, and I would like to buy it, then you can sell it to me. That does not require any background check. That's part of being a free country. Of course if you purchase a 'stolen revolver' , and you knew it, that would make you a criminal also.

 

Im not aware of any 3 day waiting period for a long gun or handgun. It all depends on the background check. You could receive it immediately.

 

The whole point you are making is that the criminal will always have guns. Your criminal actions will get you a gun. It is not that the laws 'favor criminals'. It is that the criminals will always break the law and get the guns when they want.

 

Ship Alone

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thus my claim that the laws as written favor criminals ...

 

Maybe "printed" guns aren't so good now, but they'll get better. You can also order custom metal parts over the internet pretty cheaply. As a kid, I made a couple of zip guns, just for fun, and just with stuff laying around the house. How much better could I make those guns now?

 

But, why bother perfecting homebrew guns, I don't foresee professionally manufactured guns ever being harder to illegally buy than illegal drugs. Yes, gun laws favor criminals. And, if I were a criminal, I'd love both gun laws and drug laws.

 

I think some people miscalculate how easy it would be to get guns off the street with gun laws. There are 120 countries in the world with a higher murder rate than the US, and most of them have vastly tighter gun laws than does the US. Guns are all but illegal in Mexico (mere possession can bring a 30-year prison sentence), and their murder rate is multiples higher than America's.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
atpollard

 

Well, you could have a functioning gun in your hand by just buying it from an individual that you knew in 1 hour. You don't need paperwork when buying from private individuals. If you have a gun, and I would like to buy it, then you can sell it to me. That does not require any background check. That's part of being a free country. Of course if you purchase a 'stolen revolver' , and you knew it, that would make you a criminal also.

 

Im not aware of any 3 day waiting period for a long gun or handgun. It all depends on the background check. You could receive it immediately.

 

The whole point you are making is that the criminal will always have guns. Your criminal actions will get you a gun. It is not that the laws 'favor criminals'. It is that the criminals will always break the law and get the guns when they want.

 

Ship Alone

 

 

Not so fast. ;)

I yielded to the earlier 'no federal waiting period' because NJ has a 7 day state waiting period following a 30 day application process, so your answer was closer to generally correct than my personal experience. However, the federal background check can take up to 3 business days so buying a gun from a professional gun dealer (who will presumably be more responsible than the average citizen) is a slower and more difficult process than buying a gun off some anonymous stranger at a flea market. That does (IMHO) slightly favor criminal behavior over the most strictly law abiding behavior. I am punished (in time and paperwork) for going to a more responsible source for firearms.

 

Anything that makes legal purchases harder than illegal purchases is a bad idea, in my opinion.

If it is a good idea to require a background check before a gun sale, then it should be required for all gun sales. If a background check is unnecessary, then it should not be required for any gun sales. To punish the most 'legitimate' sales and exempt the most potentially shady sales is a bad policy.

 

My current state of Florida also has a mandatory 3 day wait for handguns, so the lack of a federal law may mean little where the rubber meets the road.

If we believe that people should have guns to be able to protect themselves from the threat of government tyranny, we do not have that now.

If we believe that we need some form of gun control to restrict sales to criminals and the mentally ill, we don't have that either.

What we have is the worst of both worlds, easy access to those who shouldn't have guns and restrictions to prevent people from really challenging the government.

 

 

From experience, what works is risk vs reward. It needs to become easier to get a legal gun through legitimate channels and riskier to purchase a gun 'no questions asked'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say gun laws favor criminals. How?

 

If guns were completely banned, I'd know I could break into any home with no fear of an armed resident. Even if I didn't have a gun, I could choose homes of women and old people, and break into those homes without fear that they'd have any ability to even hurt me. Someone half my size with a baseball bat or a knife, haha. I'd be long gone before the cops get there (and, do they still get guns?). Your neighbor owning a gun protects you too, because a criminal doesn't know that you don't have a gun.

 

Meaningful gun prohibition would create a black market for guns. A criminal would be happy to make money selling illegal guns to other criminals. Organized crime would flourish. And, because guns are illegal, a criminal would have to use his own guns to protect his business because he can't call the police or go the courts for recourse.

 

So, gun laws give criminals a money-making business as well as disarming their victims. How do gun laws not favor criminals?

 

I favor gun restrictions aimed directly at criminals, including stiff penalties for using a gun to facilitate a robbery or possessing a gun after a felony conviction. I support laws limiting how guns are handled, such as prohibitions against discharging a gun within city limits or in a fashion causing danger to innocent people. I even support laws against mothers giving their psycho children guns; that is, when the kid uses a gun in a crime, mommy gets to go to jail, too.

 

A very effective way to reduce murder would be enforce laws against blacks as they're enforced against whites. If Black Lives Matter where White Lives Matter, their leaders would already be in jail for a variety of crimes (racketeering, inciting riot, trespassing, etc.) and maybe even charged with plotting to overthrow the federal government as claimed by an infiltrating FBI agent provocateur.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so fast. ;)

I yielded to the earlier 'no federal waiting period' because NJ has a 7 day state waiting period following a 30 day application process, so your answer was closer to generally correct than my personal experience. However, the federal background check can take up to 3 business days so buying a gun from a professional gun dealer (who will presumably be more responsible than the average citizen) is a slower and more difficult process than buying a gun off some anonymous stranger at a flea market. That does (IMHO) slightly favor criminal behavior over the most strictly law abiding behavior. I am punished (in time and paperwork) for going to a more responsible source for firearms.

 

Anything that makes legal purchases harder than illegal purchases is a bad idea, in my opinion.

If it is a good idea to require a background check before a gun sale, then it should be required for all gun sales. If a background check is unnecessary, then it should not be required for any gun sales. To punish the most 'legitimate' sales and exempt the most potentially shady sales is a bad policy.

 

My current state of Florida also has a mandatory 3 day wait for handguns, so the lack of a federal law may mean little where the rubber meets the road.

If we believe that people should have guns to be able to protect themselves from the threat of government tyranny, we do not have that now.

If we believe that we need some form of gun control to restrict sales to criminals and the mentally ill, we don't have that either.

What we have is the worst of both worlds, easy access to those who shouldn't have guns and restrictions to prevent people from really challenging the government.

 

 

From experience, what works is risk vs reward. It needs to become easier to get a legal gun through legitimate channels and riskier to purchase a gun 'no questions asked'.

 

 

We do have the ability to have guns and protect ourselves from the Federal Government. Just go buy one, unless you are a criminal. You don't have to buy from a Firearms dealer. You can buy from a private individual who just wants to sell the gun. If your state has a waiting period, then that is them being leftest in their beliefs. The only waiting period the Feds have is if in your background check something comes up that is suspicious and they need more time to investigate.

 

We do have restriction of sales to criminals and the mentally ill. If they lie on the form, that is what the 'background check' is for. If the Feds blow the background check, what can you say. We have everything in place but it depends on a Federal Government to do their job. Remember, 'fast and furious' and the illegal sales of guns to Mexican Cartel's, by our own Federal Govt?

 

Guns exist. You are not ever going to be rid of them. Bad people will kill good people with them, and good people will have to kill bad people with them.

 

Our laws are already in place. We need the Federal Govt. to do their job in enforcing them. We don't need new laws. And just because someone or some people get killed by a gun, doesn't mean we jump up and shed a fake tear, and try and make it harder on law abiding citizens to get a gun.

 

Ship Alone

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If guns were completely banned, I'd know I could break into any home with no fear of an armed resident. Even if I didn't have a gun, I could choose homes of women and old people, and break into those homes without fear that they'd have any ability to even hurt me. Someone half my size with a baseball bat or a knife, haha. I'd be long gone before the cops get there (and, do they still get guns?). Your neighbor owning a gun protects you too, because a criminal doesn't know that you don't have a gun.

 

Meaningful gun prohibition would create a black market for guns. A criminal would be happy to make money selling illegal guns to other criminals. Organized crime would flourish. And, because guns are illegal, a criminal would have to use his own guns to protect his business because he can't call the police or go the courts for recourse.

 

So, gun laws give criminals a money-making business as well as disarming their victims. How do gun laws not favor criminals?

 

I favor gun restrictions aimed directly at criminals, including stiff penalties for using a gun to facilitate a robbery or possessing a gun after a felony conviction. I support laws limiting how guns are handled, such as prohibitions against discharging a gun within city limits or in a fashion causing danger to innocent people. I even support laws against mothers giving their psycho children guns; that is, when the kid uses a gun in a crime, mommy gets to go to jail, too.

 

A very effective way to reduce murder would be enforce laws against blacks as they're enforced against whites. If Black Lives Matter where White Lives Matter, their leaders would already be in jail for a variety of crimes (racketeering, inciting riot, trespassing, etc.) and maybe even charged with plotting to overthrow the federal government as claimed by an infiltrating FBI agent provocateur.

 

 

 

 

I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying the gun laws we have now favor the criminals. Which I say they do not. Any of Obama's new laws, will favor the criminals. I agree.

 

Ship Alone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×