• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA executive suggests slain Charleston pastor to blame for gun deaths

At the very least, let individual churches choose as a congregation whether to be "CCW friendly" or not... and then let the parishoners "vote with their feet".

Exactly...inform the parishoners and let them decide if they want to worship there. Same with the colleges, you do have the choice to send your kids to a gun college or not. The only problem with colleges, it is not fair to the ones who do not want guns in their classroom or dorms if they are there already. They should not have to transfer to another college to get away from guns.
 
Oh dear. I guess I am a psychopath.


I carry in church, where it is permitted... and frankly whether it is permitted is a factor in whether I attend that church.


(Protip: I'm not a psychopath. I am however aware that churches are not protected by some mystic dome of peace that prevents bad people from targeting them... and just as I am not interested in being at the mercy of thugs and loonies when shopping at Walmart, ditto at church. See Luke 22:36.)

I apologize then. I can't imagine carrying a gun to church with me, at least inside the sanctuary and I would have thought most people felt that way. I was obviously wrong.
 
uh if he BOUGHT ONE it was before the pending felony charge but the at least some of the reports said his father gave it to him BEFORE the pending felony charge.

oh once he was under indictment it was a felony for him to own the gun-that worked to stop him didn't it?

No, it came out after that, he bought the gun shortly after his 21st birthday. His drug charge was in February of this year...he bought the gun after. His Dad did not buy it and his roommate hid it from him because he was so scary. He only returned it because he was afraid the shooter would accuse him of stealing it.
 
Exactly...inform the parishoners and let them decide if they want to worship there. Same with the colleges, you do have the choice to send your kids to a gun college or not. The only problem with colleges, it is not fair to the ones who do not want guns in their classroom or dorms if they are there already. They should not have to transfer to another college to get away from guns.

so it was not fair to let women into say the USMA because the men already there didn't expect to have women in the classes? or how about desegregating the top public universities like the U of NC or the U of Va.
 
Can you truthfully say that the 80 years and 2 crimes was because of the regulation? This can be seen both ways. We both could be wrong or right...we simply do not know for sure. You want wide open carry and ownership for every lethal weapon under the sun...others have a line in the sand.

What's wrong with open carry? What's "wide open carry" is there a "narrow" open carry

The three safest states in the country all permit open carry with no license
 
No, it came out after that, he bought the gun shortly after his 21st birthday. His drug charge was in February of this year...he bought the gun after. His Dad did not buy it and his roommate hid it from him because he was so scary. He only returned it because he was afraid the shooter would accuse him of stealing it.

well then if that is true, why did his "pending felony" not come up on the BGC. other stories claim his father gave him the gun

when did he turn 21?

edit

from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-suspect/index.html
Roof turned 21 in April, and a short time later he had a gun.
On Thursday, investigators did a trace of the handgun used in Wednesday's shooting and determined that it was a .45-caliber handgun Roof purchased from a Charleston gun store in April, two law enforcement officials told CNN's Perez and Bruer.
Roof purchased a Glock .45-caliber model 41, which holds 13 rounds, a federal law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation said. Witnesses have reported that Roof reloaded a number of times.
Roof's father and uncle contacted police after surveillance camera images of the suspect were made public, according to the arrest warrant. His father told authorities his son owned a .45-caliber handgun.
Joe Roof, his grandfather, said Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what he did with it.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with open carry? What's "wide open carry" is there a "narrow" open carry

The three safest states in the country all permit open carry with no license

true, I am not a big fan of open carry in many environments. in some places its quite appropriate-like a USPSA match or opening turkey day in the state park

downtown NYC or in the Victoria Secrets shop-not so much
 
No, it came out after that, he bought the gun shortly after his 21st birthday. His drug charge was in February of this year...he bought the gun after. His Dad did not buy it and his roommate hid it from him because he was so scary. He only returned it because he was afraid the shooter would accuse him of stealing it.

Well he did steal it in a technical sense.

But he should've called the police
 
well then if that is true, why did his "pending felony" not come up on the BGC. other stories claim his father gave him the gun

when did he turn 21?

You worked for the DOJ you know why it didn't trigger a denial, the court that indicted him didn't submit
 
It can still be interpreted differently...all of them can. This is part of the problem.

no wrong answer

you don't know what the hughes amendment is?
In 1986 the Firearms owner protection act was clearly going to pass and RWR was going to sign it

anti gun NJ congressman Bill Hughes was upset and he conspired with acting congressional leader Rangel to derail the bill with a poison bill amendment that would ban machine guns made after May 19, 1986 from being sold. Despite not passing a voice vote, Rangel claimed it did and it was attached with the help of George Mitchell the senate majority leader. RWR signed the complete bill based on the view that the overall bill was pro gun and the hughes amendment would be struck as unconstitutional and having been attached contrary to the rules of the house

in other words, the purpose of this amendment was not to prevent crime because there was no crime with legal machine guns but to harass gun owners and to derail a pro gun bill
 

well here is the problem-CNN says Roof bought the gun and the report you cite say his father gave him the gun. BTW if his father KNEW or should have known of his pending felony his father has violated federal law.

Its not a loophole btw so that claim is just biased nonsense
 
no wrong answer

you don't know what the hughes amendment is?
In 1986 the Firearms owner protection act was clearly going to pass and RWR was going to sign it

anti gun NJ congressman Bill Hughes was upset and he conspired with acting congressional leader Rangel to derail the bill with a poison bill amendment that would ban machine guns made after May 19, 1986 from being sold. Despite not passing a voice vote, Rangel claimed it did and it was attached with the help of George Mitchell the senate majority leader. RWR signed the complete bill based on the view that the overall bill was pro gun and the hughes amendment would be struck as unconstitutional and having been attached contrary to the rules of the house

in other words, the purpose of this amendment was not to prevent crime because there was no crime with legal machine guns but to harass gun owners and to derail a pro gun bill

Be that as it may...they are not in circulation and we are probably better off for it. Americans will live without machines guns added to the mix. You can't have everything you want.
 
well here is the problem-CNN says Roof bought the gun and the report you cite say his father gave him the gun. BTW if his father KNEW or should have known of his pending felony his father has violated federal law.

Its not a loophole btw so that claim is just biased nonsense

There have been many misreports about how the gun was obtained..the first one stated that his Dad bought it, then it came out he did a day later. Read the second article...it is the most recent. How did the kid buy the gun with a pending felony?
 
You worked for the DOJ you know why it didn't trigger a denial, the court that indicted him didn't submit

we don't even know what the real facts are

if his father gave him a gun knowing he was under indictment his father is guilty of giving a weapon to a prohibited person and Roof was guilty of being a prohibited person in possession-another federal felony

if he bought it from a gun store and said he was not under indictment he is guilt of federal perjury even if he passed the background check because the court of someone screwed up

there are plenty of federal felony charges to punish him without "needing" new laws
 
There have been many misreports about how the gun was obtained..the first one stated that his Dad bought it, then it came out he did a day later. Read the second article...it is the most recent. How did the kid buy the gun with a pending felony?

well it looks like bureaucracy 101 dropped the ball. One thing I can pretty much guarantee is that the dealer would not have made the sale if he had not received a PROCEED from NICS

you see, when a dealer is audited the ATF can check each 4473 and make sure it has a proceed number which is also kept by the data base doing the background check. if you have a 4473 and no proceed you, as a dealer are in deep doo-doo. and if a wholesaler has a record of you being shipped a gun and you have no evidence of it still being in your store you better have a disposition record-either a retail sale with a 4473 or a copy of the FFL of the other dealer you might have traded or sold it to
 
your argument against guns in churches is an argument against guns in any public place

Not really. A church is a special place to do a very intimate and personal activity - worship our religion, get close to whatever God we worship. Agree or not, having an armed congregation WILL interfere with that for many people. It would me, and I know it would for my wife, and others on this thread have said the same thing. It's completely different than a mall, or a movie theater or a restaurant. If those businesses want it, fine. But also if churches want guns, they can allow them. I'd vote against it an it's not a hard decision.

so you are against people CCW i take it

And if I didn't want anyone CCW, I'd say that. What I said is I'm 51 and haven't one time in my life regretted my decision to leave my firearms at home while going about my daily life. I'm lucky and live in a very safe area. Not everyone is that lucky. What they do is their business.

What you can't do is make the rational case for carrying a weapon inside a church to prevent an attack with odds with 6 or 7 zeros following the decimal point.
 
Not really. A church is a special place to do a very intimate and personal activity - worship our religion, get close to whatever God we worship. Agree or not, having an armed congregation WILL interfere with that for many people. It would me, and I know it would for my wife, and others on this thread have said the same thing. It's completely different than a mall, or a movie theater or a restaurant. If those businesses want it, fine. But also if churches want guns, they can allow them. I'd vote against it an it's not a hard decision.



And if I didn't want anyone CCW, I'd say that. What I said is I'm 51 and haven't one time in my life regretted my decision to leave my firearms at home while going about my daily life. I'm lucky and live in a very safe area. Not everyone is that lucky. What they do is their business.

What you can't do is make the rational case for carrying a weapon inside a church to prevent an attack with odds with 6 or 7 zeros following the decimal point.

spare me the BS. you cannot speak for most churchgoers so cut the crap. If someone packing is going to cause you psychiatric issues so be it. but don't speak for others.

and GOD help you if one day you leave your alleged gun at home and some guy comes walking in your church and decides to pull a Loughner on the congregation
 
What's wrong with open carry? What's "wide open carry" is there a "narrow" open carry

The three safest states in the country all permit open carry with no license

What states would those be?
 
For some people, the idea of being suddenly subject to violence is a matter of theory and math.


To others, it is simply a reality they've experienced and know about first hand. Once you realize it can happen anytime, anywhere, and is no respecter of persons or places, all those theoretical assumptions and stats become less important than what you KNOW can and does happen.

For me it isn't about theory or odds. I've seen the elephant and while he may be rare, when he does show up he's an SOB.

Carrying a gun may not be about theory or odds, but (to avoid making this personal) I'm quite sure the vast majority of those who carry firearms make more dangerous choices than going unarmed every day and ignore the risks. Just one example, those who drink to excess, smoke, are overweight, and/or get no real exercise are far more likely to die of disease caused by that than a 'bad guy' in most areas of the U.S. and certainly the risks are 100s or 1000s of times higher than getting attacked at church.

Or to put this another way, this all started with some incredible idiot at NRA making comments about carrying guns in churches. But I'm 100% positive that same guy would oppose new OSHA regs addressing remote risks in the work place, or EPA issuing new regs for cleaner air that MIGHT save 500 lives per year, but he wants everyone to go armed at church. It only makes sense because he works for the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers and fear sells lots of guns, i.e. he is for addressing remote risks at church with a GUN because his clients sell guns. But if addressing remote risks costs his clients or other interest groups that support the GOP money, I'd bet any amount he'll oppose them, and no one would take the bet on the other side.
 
Heck I got called "boy" the other day, by an older lady, and I'm pushing 50.


When I was 20 it would have pissed me off.... now I smiled the entire rest of the day. :D


It's a Southern thing y'all...

It appears to be age based-if you are older that is. I had a patient who was pushing 100, she called her 70 year old son boy. :lol:
 
Carrying a gun may not be about theory or odds, but (to avoid making this personal) I'm quite sure the vast majority of those who carry firearms make more dangerous choices than going unarmed every day and ignore the risks. Just one example, those who drink to excess, smoke, are overweight, and/or get no real exercise are far more likely to die of disease caused by that than a 'bad guy' in most areas of the U.S. and certainly the risks are 100s or 1000s of times higher than getting attacked at church.

Or to put this another way, this all started with some incredible idiot at NRA making comments about carrying guns in churches. But I'm 100% positive that same guy would oppose new OSHA regs addressing remote risks in the work place, or EPA issuing new regs for cleaner air that MIGHT save 500 lives per year, but he wants everyone to go armed at church. It only makes sense because he works for the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers and fear sells lots of guns, i.e. he is for addressing remote risks at church with a GUN because his clients sell guns. But if addressing remote risks costs his clients or other interest groups that support the GOP money, I'd bet any amount he'll oppose them, and no one would take the bet on the other side.

Very true...NRA has bought many politicians...both sides.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...on/msnbc-guest-says-democrats-are-pocket-nra/
 
Carrying a gun may not be about theory or odds, but (to avoid making this personal) I'm quite sure the vast majority of those who carry firearms make more dangerous choices than going unarmed every day and ignore the risks. Just one example, those who drink to excess, smoke, are overweight, and/or get no real exercise are far more likely to die of disease caused by that than a 'bad guy' in most areas of the U.S. and certainly the risks are 100s or 1000s of times higher than getting attacked at church.

Or to put this another way, this all started with some incredible idiot at NRA making comments about carrying guns in churches. But I'm 100% positive that same guy would oppose new OSHA regs addressing remote risks in the work place, or EPA issuing new regs for cleaner air that MIGHT save 500 lives per year, but he wants everyone to go armed at church. It only makes sense because he works for the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers and fear sells lots of guns, i.e. he is for addressing remote risks at church with a GUN because his clients sell guns. But if addressing remote risks costs his clients or other interest groups that support the GOP money, I'd bet any amount he'll oppose them, and no one would take the bet on the other side.

no it started with an incredible idiot in the White House wanting to use this massacre to push his failed jihad against the NRA and gun owners again.
 
Back
Top Bottom