Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 221

5864 posts

Flag Post
It’s not about making the marriage be recognised by the church at all. Not all marriages are performed in churches, people should know that.

It’s more the fact that marriage is a religious institution and every major religious institution defines marriage as one man, one woman. I feel like the government is reluctant to involve itself into regulating religious institutions in order to not produce a firestorm of controversy (see birth control mandate for institutions affiliated with religions). If want to call religions discriminatory or homophobic for defining marriage as one man, one woman, then fine. I completely disagree with that assertion, but to each their own.

Vika hit on the main problem in terms of gay rights – that is unions not having the same legal rights as marriage. The issue isn’t so much, in my opinion, making gay marriage legal, but rather, equating the rights of a civil union with that of a marriage. I know it sounds like I’m arguing semantics, and to an extent, but the difference between marriage and a civil union seem clear to me. I’ve always understood marriage to be something that God has blessed via the priest, whereas a civil union is simply something the government honors. I’m not a theologian, and I certainly may be incorrect about why marriage is something that is strictly religious, and if so, please correct me. All that being said, if the federal government did legalize gay marriage tomorrow, I would not care at all, although I would prefer the government works on either A) trimming the ridiculous amount of benefits for married people or B) make civil unions as legally binding as marriage as well as allowing gay couples the same privileges under the law as married people have.

I, unlike conservatives, dislike shootings and people killing each other and therefore I want them to reduce gun violence (which with more regulation and control will occur).

You got it. There’s nothing that makes me happier when I wake up and read the paper than to see another murder, especially when the murder was executed with a gun. When the murder was a shooting, I’m absolutely giddy.

 
Flag Post

Vika hit on the main problem in terms of gay rights – that is unions not having the same legal rights as marriage. The issue isn’t so much, in my opinion, making gay marriage legal, but rather, equating the rights of a civil union with that of a marriage. I know it sounds like I’m arguing semantics, and to an extent, but the difference between marriage and a civil union seem clear to me. I’ve always understood marriage to be something that God has blessed via the priest, whereas a civil union is simply something the government honors.

I think you may be surprisingly wide of the mark here. I’ve just been mugging up on this, and it appears that in England and Wales (I’ll come to America in a moment) all that was required for a marriage was for a couple to commit themselves verbally to it, whether ot not in the presence of a priest or legal official, or witnesses for that matter. That stopped in 1753, when all marriages had to be conducted by an officially recognised church, synagogue etc. Civil marriages were introduced in 1836, in the era when the church was beginning to lose its stranglehold on British society. These rules didn’t apply in Scotland, but then the Jocks always did like to do things differently.

Now as America was still a British colony in 1753, it is quite likely that the same rules applied, but I haven’t dug up any info on that so far. But as you say, it’s not just about a union being blessed by God, there are legal aspects to marriage as well. If one partner dies, everything in that marriage – possessions, money, custody of children and so on – automatically gets conferred on the surviving partner unless there is a will instructing otherwise. Even then, the survivor can often mount a strong legal challenge to have the will anulled. As I understand it, this is the main reason that gays are pressing for full marriage rights. Over here, it is likely that we will have full gay marriage before the next general election in 2015, so I imagine that in the usual way, America will follow our lead in thirty years or so.

And the reason liberals want to REGULATE gun control is because of all the American shootings. I mean, seriously? The Minneapolis shooting wasn’t even on The New York Times or the BBC for what I’ve seen. Do you want to know why? Shootings and Americans killing each other has become so commonplace in America that it is no longer news-worthy.

It is on the Beeb here, but it didn’t make the headlines. And you’re right, it is barely newsworthy because of the frequency of such events.

 
Flag Post
I think you may be surprisingly wide of the mark here. I’ve just been mugging up on this, and it appears that in England and Wales (I’ll come to America in a moment) all that was required for a marriage was for a couple to commit themselves verbally to it, whether ot not in the presence of a priest or legal official, or witnesses for that matter. That stopped in 1753, when all marriages had to be conducted by an officially recognised church, synagogue etc.

Out of curiousity, do you know what the reasoning was to chang it so a marriage had to become recognized by a religion?

 
Flag Post

I’ve dug up this explanation. The tldr version seems to be that the ease with which people could get married led to a lot of bigamous relationships. Hardwicke’s Marriage Act was an attempt to stop this practice rather than simply pandering to the church.

 
Flag Post

They want to take our guns away because they don’t care about the Constitution like the Republicans. No, they just want to do what they want to do not what America wants them to do. BUT most Americans minds are so corrupt due to all the biased liberal media we have. If you want the truth about America watch Fox News and if you want to keep your guns for the Republicans and donate to the NRA.

 
Flag Post

The idea that “marriage is a religious institution” is both wrong and completely irrelevant. Marriage is and always has been a civil construct. Weddings are the only religious aspect of marriage, and are completely optional. More importantly, if marriage is a “religious institution”, then it is religious discrimination to ban both gay marriage and polygamy as there are religions that recognise both.

 
Flag Post

What does gay marriage have to do with gun rights?

I think all guns should be legal.

Nobody would shoot anyone else if everyone knew that everyone else had a gun to defend themselves.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Cdr_CROWface:

I think all guns should be legal.

Nobody would shoot anyone else if everyone knew that everyone else had a gun to defend themselves.

Now there is some “logic” that no one can argue against….nor should they. It completely defeats itself. I guess he hasn’t heard of wars. But, maybe he’s just being sarcastic….lol
 
Flag Post

If the American people had no arms/guns there would be nothing we could do if a dictator gained control.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BronzeWolf:

If the American people had no arms/guns there would be nothing we could do if a dictator gained control.

Tank > Gun.

 
Flag Post

But Lucas, obviously a random person with a rifle is going to beat a co-ordinated house-by-house search for a sniper, and is going to be able to down vehicles like helicopters sent in to smoke out the rare actually-well-hidden home defender.

It’s not as if a lobbed camera bot or body armor would give the actual armed forces a chance, or that they could send in an armed robot with a steel hull instead of risking lives. Oh. All that is likely? Oh dear.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BronzeWolf:

If the American people had no arms/guns there would be nothing we could do if a dictator gained control.

Hmmmmm….definitely sounding more & more like a lifetime member of the NRA.

OH, btw….we already have a “dictatorship”. It’s called a Plutocracy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

You gun control Supporters, tell me why you want to Ban guns.

They’re lethal, and can cause a lot of damage in the wrong hands, and cause unecessary accidents.

Okay, What if we ban guns and Law breakers are still selling them, What do we do then?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Okay, What if we ban guns and Law breakers are still selling them, What do we do then?

Find some other ways to defend yourself.

And I know this might be new to some but there actually are other ways to defend yourself than by shooting someone with bullets.

EDIT: Actually, if they were only sold illegally, then that would actually make it kind of easier to confiscate them from people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Okay, What if we ban guns and Law breakers are still selling them, What do we do then?

Nobody’s asking to ban guns, just regulate them a lot more. Even the second amendment stresses the part about a well regulated militia. You can still have them, there are just more stringent checks, intelligent tracable guns, and higher training mandated.

I’ve said it before, it should be part of the school curriculum, like the English private schools do it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Okay, What if we ban guns and Law breakers are still selling them, What do we do then?

Find some other ways to defend yourself.

And I know this might be new to some but there actually are other ways to defend yourself than by shooting someone with bullets.

EDIT: Actually, if they were only sold illegally, then that would actually make it kind of easier to confiscate them from people.

Yes Bobneson, we are supposed to give up our guns and when only the criminal has them we can always resort to begging for our and our familiy’s lives. We should never offer resistance and if we do try to fend off the bad guy, we must be careful not to hurt him…the poor thing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Okay, What if we ban guns and Law breakers are still selling them, What do we do then?

Find some other ways to defend yourself.

And I know this might be new to some but there actually are other ways to defend yourself than by shooting someone with bullets.

EDIT: Actually, if they were only sold illegally, then that would actually make it kind of easier to confiscate them from people.

Yes Bobneson, we are supposed to give up our guns and when only the criminal has them we can always resort to begging for our and our familiy’s lives. We should never offer resistance and if we do try to fend off the bad guy, we must be careful not to hurt him…the poor thing.

It’s “funny” how YOU “see” what ya want in a statement. Is THAT really how ya read what tenco said (in bold)?
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes Bobneson, we are supposed to give up our guns and when only the criminal has them we can always resort to begging for our and our familiy’s lives. We should never offer resistance and if we do try to fend off the bad guy, we must be careful not to hurt him…the poor thing.

You’re doing that just to cope, right?

… Right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Okay, What if we ban guns and Law breakers are still selling them, What do we do then?

Nobody’s asking to ban guns, just regulate them a lot more. Even the second amendment stresses the part about a well regulated militia. You can still have them, there are just more stringent checks, intelligent tracable guns, and higher training mandated.

I’ve said it before, it should be part of the school curriculum, like the English private schools do it.

Maybe you better read that amendment again because you got the wrong meaning to that set of words. I just don’t believe they meant regulating firearms. I’m just guessing, but I think it meant having the ability to fight when needed. Of course you can do like most of the democrats and just read whatever fits your agenda. To hell with the founding fathers, what did they know.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes Bobneson, we are supposed to give up our guns and when only the criminal has them we can always resort to begging for our and our familiy’s lives. We should never offer resistance and if we do try to fend off the bad guy, we must be careful not to hurt him…the poor thing.

You’re doing that just to cope, right?

… Right?

Yes, I’m trying to cope with the total lack of common sense when it comes to gun bans.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Maybe you better read that amendment again because you got the wrong meaning to that set of words.

Too bad the framers left room for interperetation, huh?

I just don’t believe they meant regulating firearms.

Not entirely, just the people who get them.

I’m just guessing, but I think it meant having the ability to fight when needed.

And we can’t “fight back” with something a little less lethal? (Question: are tranquilizers legal?)

Of course you can do like most of the democrats and just read whatever fits your agenda. To hell with the founding fathers, what did they know.

… Yeah, you’re definitely just trying to cope at this point.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes, I’m trying to cope with the total lack of common sense when it comes to gun bans.

Unfortunately for you, that’s still not a reality, no matter how much you might want it to be.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Maybe you better read that amendment again because you got the wrong meaning to that set of words.

Too bad the framers left room for interperetation, huh?

I just don’t believe they meant regulating firearms.

Not entirely, just the people who get them.

I’m just guessing, but I think it meant having the ability to fight when needed.

And we can’t “fight back” with something a little less lethal? (Question: are tranquilizers legal?)

Of course you can do like most of the democrats and just read whatever fits your agenda. To hell with the founding fathers, what did they know.

… Yeah, you’re definitely just trying to cope at this point.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes, I’m trying to cope with the total lack of common sense when it comes to gun bans.

Unfortunately for you, that’s still not a reality, no matter how much you might want it to be.

I guess they did Tenco. It seems to get all kinds of interpretation from the left.

The founding fathers were worried about government taking arms from the people who were the militia. That is why the amendment is in the “BILL OF RIGHTS

Not yet it isn’t and if we in the firearms community have anything to say about it we shouldn’t get close.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I guess they did Tenco. It seems to get all kinds of interpretation from the left.

Because the right (and middle) has never done anything like that, right?

The founding fathers were worried about government taking arms from the people who were the militia.

Not exactly.

However, this was also when the military and citizens has access to the same firearms.

That is why the amendment is in the “BILL OF RIGHTS

Also not exactly.

Not yet it isn’t and if we in the firearms community have anything to say about it we shouldn’t get close.

Hey look at that, you specified a pronoun!

I think we’re making real progress now.

Oh, and just to remind you, Latro, it’s not because of the NRA and other gun-nuts that firearms aren’t banned.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Not exactly.

However, this was also when the military and citizens has access to the same firearms.

That is why the amendment is in the “BILL OF RIGHTS

Also not eactly.

Not yet it isn’t and if we in the firearms community have anything to say about it we shouldn’t get close.

Hey look at that, you specified a pronoun!

I think we’re making real progress now.

Oh, and just to remind you, Latro, it’s not because of the NRA and other gun-nuts that firearms aren’t banned.

Expand on not exactly in both answers. I’m inquisitive to hear what you have to say on that.

I don’t know what latro means. You are absolutely right, society is stopping the encroachment right along with the so called gun-nuts and several gun organizations.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
(Question: are tranquilizers legal?)

No.

They’re a ranged drug injection system and as such, you’d need a special permit to carry one. You’d never get hold of the rounds without it.

That’s a safety measure. You’re injecting anaesthetics into a living creature, and complications can arise from that. Anything from an allergic reaction to the drug, to an overdose stopping the heart. You need to know how to react of that occurs.

With a human target you would have the added complication that you don’t know what medication they are currently taking and how the two would interact. Non-fatal but permanently dehabilitating conditions are possible.