gun control part 1: fuck yeah

Why did people's attitudes change?
Why did we grow as a society?
Why have morals shifted?
I'm absolutely certain all slaves throughout time have always believed they should be paid for their labor.
Modern technology uses slave labor. So, it's not that.

People are most afraid of -- and thus interested in news about -- things that seem like they could happen to them.

Most murders are one-on-one, in situations where the killer knows the victim. Most people can't really imagine those scenarios happening in their own lives, but the randomness of most mass shootings makes them seem more plausible.

I wonder if you can actually parse that sentence. Because you just argued very forcefully for banning guns, by saying that the failure to do so would be catastrophic.

oh yes a total gun ban would be epic FUBAR and be the most counter-productive and costly campaign ever undertaken. It would rival "the war on drugs" in being an open-ended quagmire.

I don't know what "parse" means but I read it back and indeed my sentence was full of discombobulation. So let me rephrase it: well for starters I wouldn't ban guns. A ban would be on the list of "solutions" with unintended consequences of biblical proportions.

Because of enlightenment ideals and the Bible
Because of enlightenment ideals and the Bible
Because of enlightenment ideals and the Bible.
Technology doesn’t use slave labor, people do. Technology most certainly has eliminated the need for slave labor. Technology is a tool, nothing more.

So people can't imagine the more likely scenario (statistically) but they lose their shit over the least likely scenario because of.....feelings, like baseless fears?
Politics? Peer pressure? Well if I have to give up my Constitutional right to bear arms to make those dumb-fucks feel better it's well worth it!

What measures that are currently being proposed would force you to give up your right to bear arms? Most of the ones I'm familiar with are along the lines of "hey, maybe civilians who keep guns for hunting and self-defense don't need enough firepower to take down an entire high school algebra class in 10 seconds," "maybe we should put numbers on these things so we can solve murders more easily," and "maybe we should have background checks to keep guns out of the hands of complete lunatics."

Parsing a sentence is understanding the construction of it in order to grasp the meaning.

Yeah. The US might become like other Western countries, where people aren't getting shot all the time. We couldn't have that, could we?

TGOCH, the Bible told us we shouldn't own slaves?

At BEST, it's ambivalent on the matter. Exodus 21:16 is pretty good - "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

But then we get this shit:

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

Titus 2:9-10
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Exodus 21:2
When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.

Ephesians 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

There's a lot of stuff about not mistreating slaves. But the above was certainly used to justify keeping them. The Bible didn't make anyone free of slavery, that was us. And even after the Civil War, blacks weren't seen as fully human till THEY stood up. Don't pretend reading the Bible made anyone less likely to enslave - the early US was BUILT on Puritanism.

You sure about that?

More at the link.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/civil-war-era/sectional-tension-1850s/a/abolition

A lot more at the link
https://americainclass.org/the-religious-roots-of-abolition/

Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_abolitionism

Link
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/abolitionist-movement

The bible allows slavery, period. It was our human moral conscience that prohibited it. Up until that time, the defenses of slavery by the South were routinely rooted in the bible.

https://daily.jstor.org/how-antebellum-christians-justified-slavery/

https://about.wfu.edu/history/the-s...efensible-wake-forest-baptists-and-the-bible/

https://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/The religious justification of slavery before 1830.pdf

Yeah, white men used the bible to justify slavery from the very beginning, as it expressly states it is OK in the bible and limited in its prescription by membership in the tribe or covenant, different rules applying for all others. That was the very basis of chattel slavery.

The fact that abolitionists also used it just goes to show how deep the need to justify morality through scripture was in that day.

But at the end of the day, there's nothing in the bible that says you have to free your slaves. Indeed, it tells you you can beat them to death as long as they don't die within a day, how to handle sexual slavery, and which people you are allowed to enslave forever as opposed to the ones you can only enslave for seven years.

So you're going to nitpick my statement to death then? Religion, religious movements, abolitionists using religion to convince other religious people that slavery was wrong, abolitionists using the bible to convince people that slavery was wrong. Call it what you want. I put it simply by saying the bible because I was on my phone at the time and @Jenee is stupid so I didn't want to waste a bunch of time on something I thought we all knew, but apparently not. You guys just can't ever admit that someone on the right just might be actually right about something and because you guys think I'm a dumb, racist teenager, you really can't admit I'm right about anything.

It rolls back to the universal background check. If it has a serial number, it can be traced. If we can trace every firearm to the last person it was transferred to, it makes it easier to find criminals.

Then why are you poo-pooing it?

I didn't say that all of these current proposals will infringe upon my right to bear arms. But some of these (and future proposals) might indeed infringe upon some gun owners' rights. Magazine capacity limits (for example) infringe greatly on your self-defense capability. Human physiology being what it is, bad guys don't necessarily stop attacking when they are hit with one, two, or three bullets - and hitting a moving target in the first place isn't as easy as they show it on TV or the movies. Also factor in bad guys often travel in groups. You can burn through a 10 round magazine faster than you might think. Also we already have background checks, but the data isn't being shared/communicated effectively. So do we need a different/better background check? If the simple ones we have aren't being utilized effectively what makes you a new one will be an improvement?

Welcome to the internet.

I'm not poo-pooing a ghost gun ban. I have no problem with needing a serial number on a weapon - it's like a VIN number on a car really. But ghost guns are not even a big problem - banning them won't really accomplish shit. It's a purely political move. But it could "soften gun owners up"/condition them to not provide any push-back for any future proposals that would indeed end up being draconian. It's too early to say, but it is a possibility.

I see it as the opposite. Making all firearm transfers traceable makes more draconian laws less likely IMHO.

Do you? You seem to have not addressed how a yacht is a great defense against people hunting you down with guns.

I dunno, I think OF's scenario sounds more like the thinking of politicians I'm familiar with: "They didn't fight so hard when we banned ghost guns and bump stocks, let's see what else we can ban."

I quit buying the "slippery slope" bullshit years ago. When has it ever happened? The Bush ban? the AWB? A truly universal background check takes a gun registration completely off the table. There would be no more reason for it that wouldn't be, "so we can confiscate all of your guns". No more fig leaf. I'm all for it.

That may end up being the case - who knows? Regardless all firearm transfers should be traceable. Even if it's family related with no nefarious intentions, it just makes good sense from a liability standpoint. And bottom line it doesn't infringe upon your rights, but it can keep you and yours out of trouble - money and time well spent!

Your statements are all incorrect - as has been pointed out. You want to call me stupid, yet you fall back on patently false statements to support an insupportable argument.

You have no intention of discussing anything here. You put your ideas out there and when proven wrong, you call others stupid.

That would require much more trust of the federal government than I'm capable of. There'll always be politicians wanting registration and bans. I'm all for background checks, I've been through plenty of them, but I can't believe they'll satisfy the hardcore gun grabbers.

Here I sit in NJ where the slippery slope has been piling on gun laws for decades that currently have certain named "assault rifles" (a long list) banned, magazines of over 10 rds banned ($10k fine and 1 year in jail per mag), slingshots banned, firearms of .50 cal and over banned, hollow points banned (18 months in jail). Firearms may only be carried in your car when traveling from your home to the range and back (locked in the trunk, with ammo in a separate part of the car) - it's illegal to stop in between, such as for food or gas. At the range, you may NOT try your friend's handgun, because picking up a gun that isn't yours counts as illegal possession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey
A lot of those laws didn't exist when I started shooting in the 80s, and I used to tease my shooting friends from NY they should move to Jersey. Kinda hard to not think of it as a slippery slope when they keep adding anti-gun laws all the time.

My statements are incorrect? So there were no religious movements that supported abolition of slavery? There was no such thing as The Second Great Awakening? Abolitionists didn't use the bible to justify the abolition of slavery? If all of those statements are incorrect then how does post #71 exist with all of the citations I provided?

And no, I'm not gonna move, the house is finally paid off.

Not all abolitionists were religious. But, they did use religion and the bible to appeal to slave owners because slave owners also used religion and the bible to justify slavery.

So, your argument, that the reason slavery ended was because "people wouldn't have the stomach for it", or "shifted morals" or whatever else is false.

Slavery ended because a few people convinced the masses that it was wrong and THAT is how society as a whole changed it's perspective.

It took a movement. A movement just like Black Lives Matter.

So, on one side of your mouth, you praise an anti-slavery movement, but on the other side of your mouth, you demonize a movement that would protect the progeny of slaves freed by a similar movement.

You cannot praise one while demonizing the other.

My argument isn't that slavery ended because people wouldn't have a stomach for it, my argument is that slavery would have died out anyway and I believe society would have progressed in a similar manner as it did, therefore people wouldn't and don't have the stomach for it today. It's a bullshit argument that the only reason we don't have slavery is because the wonderful, all knowing and loving government knew better and banned it. Society,humanity, the western world, whatever you call it, was growing up all around the world. Yes slavery exists in other parts of the world still, but you can't really blame the US for this and it doesn't change the fact that humanity has evolved as a society and will continue to evolve.

As for your claim that I demonize BLM, that's simply not true.

Slavery ended in the United States by force of arms. Not to downplay the accomplishments of abolitionists, but AFAIK they never significantly swayed public opinion against slavery anywhere in the South. The foundation, the cornerstone of the Confederacy was slavery and its preservation. The abolitionist movement didn't end slavery. The Civil War did.

I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that eventually it would have ended anyway because society was evolving.