More Active Posts
Front Page
Whirled Views 3.29
 |
 59 Comments |
Happy Saturday!
Today’s quote is from an author and blogger: “A modern, tolerant liberal is a person who would deny a battered wife a snub-nosed revolver, yet who trusts Islamist dictators with missiles and nuclear technology.”
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
Hog On Ice? “Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.” (Thomas Sowell)
I see on Drudge that Rudi is considering running for governor of NY. Seems like a wise move.
Rudi needs a job.
NY needs a governor.
It will keep him out of national politics for a while, hopefully forever.
Ya gotta love that Thomas Sowell.
Good news to report; grandma and the brothers relooked their schedules and found they did, indeed, have time for the kids. Dropped by the hotel late morning and spent most of the day there swimming and talking with the kids so that is a good thing.
That is good news, Mumsee - I’m glad to hear that the kids didn’t have to go through yet another disappointment. Thanks for the update.
Book report. I finally read Frank Schaeffer’s memoir about his family life with Francis and Edith Schaeffer: Crazy for God.
No surprise to Victoria, I found this book disturbing.
Annie Dilliard noted in an essay that, “the most interesting thing about a memoir is what the writer choses to put in and what he leaves out.”
Frank Schaeffer gave me far more sex information than I cared to know about anyone outside of my husband. I also could have used more insight into how he and his sisters view God all these years later. Judging from what he seemed to say, the elder Schaeffers worked long and hard in God’s vineyard and some of their descendants . . . may no longer share their enthusiasm.
I’d rather have read about their spiritual lives than Frank’s behavior. I wasn’t too surprised by Francis’ depression, I just could have used more perspective as to how it affected his ministry and his view of God. At the time of Francis’ cancer battle, I remember reading that his earnest prayer was that he would finish the race without dishonoring God. I respected that prayer and prayed it along with the family.
I did see Frank’s point about his mother’s fixation with celebrities and name dropping–her book Tapestry is almost unreadable for that reason in my opinion. And while reading about the behind-the-scenes family and L’Abri life was interesting, it left me hollow and unsatisfied.
So, while Crazy for God is well written and easy to read, I don’t think I can recommend this book because the content feels more voyeuristic than insightful. Of course, it’s a memoir not a biography. But still, a shame.
Nice book report, Michelle.
Maybe WMB should start a book club thread? Pick a book, keep the thread open for a month. Could that work? Probably not, attention spans are kinda short around here, mine included. Been tried already??
Frank does not necessarily seem to have worked out all of his issues, such that I suspect his observations - though first ahnd - are colored as much by his own problems and disfuntions as the actual events. His take on things is not necessarily reliable.
The Graham (Hog On Ice) quote is sort of on point. The modern Left doesn’t trust us here in the West with much of anything, but is odddly credulous of foriegn people who readily appear worthy of, at best, very minimal trust if not outright distrust.
Graham’s books are also hysterical (like his “cookbook” and life commentary: Eat What You Want And Die Like A Man).
Friends,
My latest blog post summarizes Calvin’s position on Romans 13 (which was the dominant one in Christendom, up until the Enlightenment age of Revolution). I wrote:
This seems surprising, but I can defend it on the basis of what Calvin wrote. Anyone disagree?
Good news from the pasture. Daughter Llama, whose fleece is white as snow, was elected student body president of her high school on Friday. Llamadom is proud of her.
Momma Llama didn’t want her to run fearing that losing would be difficult but Daddy and Daughter, who is much like him, realize that you can’t be a winner or a loser unless you are willing to run and actually do compete.
So, both winning and losing are very much cut from the same cloth and the same in every way with the exception of one minor and quite insignificant detail not worth much in the scheme of things.
So, no having no fear leads to winning and losing and both are well worth having with so many problems yet to be solved by either.
Good news indeed Poppa Lama, good to see young people taking an active interest in their government, bodes well for our future unless you have been remiss in your teaching and she is following in the padsteps of her momma llama. Well, that is good also.
Michelle - 6
Holy fools
Jeff Sharlet Published 25 October 2007
My husband and I met Os Guinness and his wife Jenny in the early 80’s. Maybe some of you have read Dr. Guinness’s books, he is a wonderful man, and a scholar, his wife Jenny is very special. We had to opportunity to then attend a dinner party in the home of some of our friends, and then I was invited to a morning coffee which one of my friends arranged to introduce Jenny to all her friends.
Below you can read some of the comments left by those who KNEW the Schaeffer’s well, who had lived their daily lives observing their walk with the LORD.
Frank Schaeffer has dishonored his parents in my opinion.
Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exodus 20:12
osguinness
31 October 2007 at 01:47
I lived with Francis and Edith Schaeffer in their home for five years, and with Frank too for much of that time. What you have written is a tissue of falseness, distortion, and unchecked allegations — in short of shoddy journalism. Write if you want a more accurate account.
Os Guinness (Dr).
Bryan Pepperell
25 November 2007 at 08:36
os guinness was one of those people I met as a consequence of my visit to L’abri. Hardly a rabid right winger. Yes l’abri was more than Francis Schaeffer and certainly blessed with people like Os who graciously gave his time to me and my wife in London.
Cheers
Bryan Pepperell
PS Wonderful to see you in action Os-1976 was the last time we saw you. I’m so politically left and so blessed by L’Abri. www.pepptalk.net
Andy B
06 January 2008 at 02:39
I was at L’Abri for much of ‘74 and I concur with all of the comments by Os Guinness (to whom I owe an enormous debt), Jim Berkley, etc.
I well remember Frankie Schaeffer as a glowing, spoilt brat, to be quite blunt. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least to find him treating his parents this way.
By the same token, though, it is only fair to say, IMO, that the responsibility lay on both sides.
By the time I got there L’Abri was a thriving community where everyone wanted a piece of the Schaeffer’s preferably on a daily basis. It was my *impression* that Frankie felt that his home and his parents had been taken from him, through no fault of his own, and there were times when it seemed, to me, that Frankie was treated more like a favoured business associate than a son.
Personally I had, and still have, the greatest respect for Francis Schaeffer and that portion of his work that I am familiar with. I cannot begin to measure what I owe to him and the L’Abri community. But in the final analysis he still put his alpine trousers on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. And to expect him to be perfect, as this review seems to imply that some people did expect, would be complete anathema to the Francis Schaeffer I was privileged to know.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200710250048
Jon, I read Romans 13 essentially the same way. However, I don’t believe that precludes legitimate attempts to change the leadership. i.e. I don’t believe that the Revolution was, of necessity, an ungodly war.
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connect them to another, and to assume, among the powers of Earth the separate and equal station which the laws of nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
WE hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal… etc.
They didn’t attain that immediately, but they created a new concept of government for the world.
Llama: Congratulations. I hope she realizes this is not an honorary position. She could be a good link between the students and administration.
I think Franky Schaeffer unquestionably has some “unresolved issues” with Francis. Find me an adult son who doesnt in some way have things to resolve with his living father or with his memories of the departed Dad.
Frank has created great literature and nonfiction writing, and I do wish it got more publicity in WORLD. The book Frank cowrote with his son, John, is a beautiful testimony of a father/son love. Frank was a thorough man of the 1960s for whom Viet Nam created cynicism and perhaps even disdain for the armed forces. When John announced in his senior year of high school that he was passing up (temporarily as it turns out) the Ivy League for the USMC, Frank didnt know how to take it.
Today Frank exemplifies the idea of Marine Corps Dad.
And lets not forget the book he coauthored with Cathy Douquet on the paucity of children of our elite media and political leaders serving in our armed forces
I agree with you about Frank Schaeffer’s military books, Sawgunner, all excellent. I had hoped this memoir would be as insightful, but alas, he seems to have fallen back into the fiction writing schemes which served him well with Portofino (which I did not like for the same reasons–too much unnecessary sex).
But, a memoir is your own personal point of view, and he has written his as honestly as he could. He did appeal to his sisters, two of whom provided short letters and one who declined to participate.
Sawgunner, many have made it plain to Frank that he has not been fair to his father. It’s more a problem with Frank being jealous of his dad. Frank is an angry bitter person, and every time he writes against his parents, it’s his SHAME!
Papa Lama: Congratulations to daughter lama.
The only honor I ever got in high school was when I was actually believed to be one of the Principal’s office staff (by all the other students) because I spent almost all my high school years sitting in the Principle’s Office.
I was there so much that I knew more about the operation of the Principle’s Office than the Principle did, anyway. That was partly because there was such a high turnover of Principals, oddly just during my time in high school. They kept resigning and entirely quitting the educational field for some reason. Teachers too. Never could understand why.
Travis: “Maybe WMB should start a book club thread?”
Stay tuned. It is something we’ve been considering …
Thanks Chas. But my point was Romans 13 may be in tension with America’s Declaration of Independence and that America’s DOI certainly contradicts Calvin’s teachings on the matter.
Jon - Had the F.F. et al. not prevailed, they would have been meeted out the then “appropriate” punishment.
Yup — they would have been hung as traitors or insurrectionist with which John Calvin would have had no problem.
Jon Rowe: I would disagree at least in part. There is an implicit contract between governed and those who govern, even for the worst forms of government (tyranny, unlimited monarchy, etc.) If the government fails to do the JOB of government, then people are not culpable when they take matters into their own hands. I think an OT case at least in principle might be the time of the so-called Judges.
So for instance if a government fails for whatever reason to protect the people against invasion, cultural destruction, that sort of thing, it is not impermissable Biblically to do something about it, i.e. to form a government that will do the job of government ‘properly’.
If a king ceases utterly to exercise proper kingship and becomes utterly estranged from the most rudimentary functions of a true king, then he need no longer be considered a king, from any standpoint, either Biblically or practically. He forfeits that privilege, or responsibility. It seems to me.
So I don’t think that there would be any Christian basis in Romans or anywhere else for thinking that the Founders were unscriptural in founding a new nation. I guess you could argue that they should have ‘tried harder’ to ‘re-establish’ proper Kingship but I think all realized that it takes two parties to play that game successfully and George III was not up to it.
I don’t know about Calvin, though.
Jon, my point was that the Declaration of Independence was not in conflict with Romans 13. But I will concede that Calvin would likely have had no problem if the instigators were hanged had they failed. After all, the government had prevailed. However, a new government was established, and the point Drill makes is well taken.
Drill,
I concede alternate interpretations of Romans 13. There is, however, something in Romans 13 that arguably conflicts with the American Revolution (or perhaps arguably it doesn’t). And it’s the traditional understanding of Romans 13 up until the era of revolt, one in which many devout Christians who happened to be Tory loyalists believed and the one Calvin endorsed: You submit to the higher powers because God put them there. The people don’t have a God given right to demand a “good” King. Rather Kings are accountable God, not the people. If the King does wrong, it’s God’s province alone to punish him.
I think you are right that if a King utterly didn’t do his job in the way you speak — if his rulership resulted in a “failed state” — perhaps something could be done about it; but that really didn’t apply with King George III.
Chas.,
I would agree there are possible interpretations where Romans 13 wouldn’t stand in the way of the American Revolution. What I disagree with is that the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with the Bible or Romans 13. It’s theistic, but wholly a-biblical.
The Declaration is almost like an inverse of Romans 13. Romans 13 says submit, but doesn’t say when or even if revolt is permitted. The Declaration says when revolt is permitted. But such teachings are derived from “nature” and “reason” alone.
if his rulership resulted in a “failed state” — perhaps something could be done about it; but that really didn’t apply with King George III.
Seems like I remember a pretty long list of grievances in the DoI…treating the colonists differently than those still living in England, being forced to quarter troops, and so on.
Cameron,
I think the main point I’m trying to make is that the Bible really gives no guidance as to “at what point” revolt would be proper, if it permits revolt at all. Romans 13 says to submit, not revolt. The Declaration tells us when; but it’s an a-biblical standard.
Even if I agree with you about what Romans 13 says, are you really arguing it wasn’t a failed state?
Of course it wasn’t. North Korea is a failed state. Parts of Africa are failed states. What King George III attempted to do was typical for colonial powers of the time. It may have been unfair, perhaps even tyrannical. But the American colonies under British colonial rule were well functioning.
I’ve seen alternate “literal” interpretations of Romans 13. We could all just be cafeteria Christians and dismiss inconvenient texts, something the pro-revolutionary preachers during America’s Founding arguably did. I’ve seen one sermon by Samuel West, a prominent New England minister of America’s Founding, also a unitarian, say that perhaps Paul was just joking when he admonished followers to submit to the unelected tyrant Nero. In that same sermon he said, perhaps Paul wrote Romans 13 during the early phase of Nero’s reign when Nero was a “good” ruler, which seems quite a stretch. When was Nero ever a good ruler? I’ve also seen other interpretations that try to argue that Paul wasn’t referring to the Roman Empire. But the context belies this in my opinion.
John MacArthur is one of the most prominent Protestant fundamentalist scholars. I’m not of this religion; but he confirms my understanding right below (so if you think; don’t believe Jon Rowe, he’s just a pagan with an agenda — a logical fallacy in any event; Christians of impeccable orthodoxy and prominence also endorse what I’ve written here), where he notes Paul was referring to pagan Rome when he told believers in Romans 13 that the powers that be are ordained by God. God ordained the pagan Rome that executed Jesus, his followers and threw Christians to the Lions.
Unlike Robertson, Falwell, or the “Christian America” crowd, MacArthur is not one to let politics pollute the purity of his religious teachings, Founding Fathers be damned. And of course Barry Lynn of America’s United For Church & State offers a liberal cafeteria type of Christianity that is consistent with revolt, because it believes in reading away inconvenient biblical texts.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=42v-gs-GGQE&feature=related
Jon Rowe: I don’t agree with you exactly again. I think George III was entirely a failed king at least as far as the American Colonies went (or at least a big enough part of them, anyway), as Cameron indicated. He was not ‘failed king material’ to the British Isles but the British Isles did not reflect the needs and aspirations of the Colonies anymore, which had grown into an entirely separate people (or at least separate enough). I realize that this is a judgement call and you are right of course about ‘rebellion’ against crowned sitting monarchs in the 18th century being considered most ungodly.
But I think one has to look at it from the perspective of those patriots in the Colonies; that the monarchy of England no longer served as a legitimate or even a minimum-performance government, and hence was no sin to cast off.
That is greatly simplying a complex and probably mostly unknowable situation (what is not when dealing with men and women’s inner motives and justifications over two centuries ago?).
The fact was that the Colonies were essentially self-governing anyway by this time; one could argue that it was the British Crown that had literally evolved itself away from the business of practical governance in the Colonies (or many of them); so when it tried to reassert its prior domination, it was an alien aggressor, not the rightful government, whatever the forms and labels and habits and customs that still lingered.
What King George III attempted to do was typical for colonial powers of the time. It may have been unfair, perhaps even tyrannical.
So because it was “typical”, it was okay and prevented it from being a failed state?
What, specifically, makes your examples failed states? Genocide? Religious suppression? If we define the term, it may be more profitable.
I was surprised to see that the liberal contingent here had nothing to say about the tellingly accurate distillation of the inherently contradictory nature of theor political philosophy.
You mean in the original quote, KRM?
Probably no one’s responded to it because it’s nonsense.
“A modern, tolerant liberal is a person who would deny a battered wife a snub-nosed revolver, yet who trusts Islamist dictators with missiles and nuclear technology.”
On the first point, liberals hold varying views on gun control. Most of us have no trouble with legal and licensed gun ownership, but we want it controlled in an effort to keep them out of the hands of criminals. I would point out, though, that if a battered wife has access to a firearm, so does her batterer. (If it’s in the house, he can get to it as easily as she can.)
On the second point, currently there are no Islamist dictators with missiles and nuclear techonology, except possibly Musharrif. And it’s not just “liberals” who have touted him as a key US ally.
Sowell makes the same logic error as most critics: Arguing that disagreeing with the current conservatives regime’s methods is the same as disagreeing with its goals. To the conservative mind, there’s only one possible way to approach these problems, and anyone who disagrees with it must also disagree with the desired result.
But that isn’t true. Nobody wants to see a nuclear-armed Iran, but we can reasonably disagree on the best ways to prevent it.
KRM: It fascinates me that Christian conservatives, in general, support easier access to guns and even often advocate allowing people to carry them around. They also are the ones most likely to loudly call for military action in crisis spots and sneer at calls for less deadly approaches to keeping enemies in check.
Why is it that the alleged followers of the Prince of Peace are so fond of violence?
I was using “failed state” as a stricter standard than “tyrant” for when rebellion is permitted. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but Iraq arguably wasn’t a failed state under his rule as some places in Africa are.
In any event, I think the point is Romans 13 says to submit but gives no standard for when rebellion (or non-submission) is permitted if it is permitted at all.
I have no need, no desire, for a gun, SteveG, and I am a Christian and a conservative. But I do have a high regard for the Constitution and the Second Amendment. When I look at the issue of gun ownership through the lens of American history, I have no problem with gun ownership at all. It is not a fondness for violence; rather, it is an understanding that the real reason you have the gun is not just for personal protection, but mostly to be in the position to either defend the nation or bring it down, if necessary. I wouldn’t want to live in a country that wouldn’t allow its citizens the means to overthrow it.
You have an unbelievable trust in government, which simply amazes me. I’ve wanted to share the following quote from Milton Friedman about economic freedom, an essential requisite for political freedom. In response to government control and growth fostered in the UK which flowed to the US after WWII, he wrote: They have led to a growth in government at all levels, as well as a transfer of power from local government and local control to central government and central control. The government has increasingly undertaken the task of taking from some to give to others in the name of security and equality…. The experience of recent years…raises a doubt whether private ingenuity can continue to overcome the deadening effects of government control if we continue to grant ever more power to government. Sooner or later … an ever bigger govnerment would destroy both the prosperity that we owe to the free market and the human freedom proclaimed so eloquently by the Declaration of Independence. We have not yet reached the point of no return. We are still a free people to choose whether we shall continue speeding down the “road to serfdom”…or whether we shall set tighter limits on government and rely more heavily on voluntary cooperation among free individuals to achieve…[s]hall we have the wisdom…the courage to change our course, learn from experience and to benefit from a “rebirth of freedom?”
Your answer would be no to which I would respond that the whole liberal mindset is opposed to freedom. You don’t want guns, you want government control of the economy, you don’t want people to think and achieve — that’s why you believe you need thess incredible bureaucracies and all these regulations. Why are you so opposed to freedom?
SteveG - If “most” liberals, as you say, support legal gun ownership then why is it the many places without outright bans on gun ownership are all the places with the highest concentrations of liberals? And, conversely, how ia it that the most conservative places have the strongest gun ownership protections and none of the gun bans?
McDonald’s signs onto ‘gay’ agenda
Family restaurant puts executive on board of homosexual chamber
March 30, 2008
By Bob Unruh
McDonald’s restaurant’s, famed for the Golden Arches, Ronald McDonald and kids meals, has signed onto a nationwide effort to promote “gay” and “lesbian” business ventures.
The company, which is listed on the website of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce as a “corporate partner and organization ally” for an undisclosed financial contribution, also recently placed one of its executives on the NGLCC board of directors.
To expand on KRM#37 how is it that the places with the most restrictions on firearms are also the ones with the highest crime rate?
Llama, Congratulations to Daughter Llama! I have both won and lost elections and found both to be a blessing.
Victoria, I guess this is another good reason not to patronize Mc Donalds. I mean, other than the bad food.
Mtcon,
It sure won’t help their business. Check out what happened to Ford Motor . . . . A total of 780,365 individuals signed AFA’s Boycott Ford petition. This will more than likely happen to McDonald’s as well.
NJLawyer at #36: I might say you have a naive trust in the inherent goodness of people to do the right thing in the absence of government regulation … which is somewhat ironic considering you also believe mankind is a fallen, sinful race.
I think you’re offering a false dichotomy. I can’t speak for actual liberals … I am a left-leaning centrist … but I think there is balance to be struck between freedom and regulation.
So do you, unless you’re an anarchist. Most everyone thinks we need some limits on freedom. The disagreements are over just where to put them.
The Second Amendment is a good example. Its plain language states that “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But in practice, most people can’t agree with that in pure form.
Do you want violent felons to have legal access to firearms? Do you oppose requiring gun owners to register their weapons (so if they’re used in a crime it’s easier to find out who owns them)? Do you oppose mandatory waiting periods, so there is time to find out if a gun purchaser has a criminal record, or to prevent people from buying and using a gun while enraged with someone else?
Unless you’re going to take the position that anyone should be able to buy a firearm at any time, with no background check and no registration, then you’re in agreement that the Second Amendment isn’t absolute.
KRM: Other than Washington D.C., where else in the US is private ownership of guns completely banned?
SteveG, you misunderstand me when you say:
” I might say you have a naive trust in the inherent goodness of people to do the right thing in the absence of government regulation … which is somewhat ironic considering you also believe mankind is a fallen, sinful race.”
Friedman is not suggesting no regulation (nor am I), but he is suggesting not handing sectors of the economy (like health care) to the exclusive control of the government. There is a difference between regulation and taking over. I agree with Friedman that our country grew to what it is because we allowed the private sector to invent, to create, etc. He is saying that as you hand the government sectors of the economy, as you create a new bureaucracy, you stifle innovation, and ultimately people will no longer create new businesses. He believed that we lose freedom when we turn to the government.
I am not so naive that I trust big business to do the right thing. At this very moment, I know too many people who have been harmed by the latest greed with the mortgage crisis, not because they are losing their homes, but because they have lost their jobs!
The question being decided by the Supremes, whether there is a personal right to bear arms, doesn’t mean they will be kicking every regulation to the curb, and no one I know — including myself — is advocating that.
You have missed what I am trying to tell you. Regulation is one thing. Depending on the government for everything is another — and there is where you and I part company. I’m a centrist, too. If you want to call me “right,” fine, but I think that “right” is far more in sync with what this country was created to do and to be than any socialist doctrine. Socialism, and ultimately communism, steals freedom. I hope you’ll go to the bookstore, get a copy of the American Primer and read the original documents from the Mayflower Compact on. There was never an intention to hand all power to the government, and those people would be appalled at what is being proposed today.
I should also add, that if you think I’m naive about the inherent goodness of man, you are far more naive about the goodness — if there is any — in government.
SteverG: Chicago, Illinois. Morton Grove, Illinois. Wilmette, Illinois. Oak Park, Illinois. Just to name a few in one county here.
KRM: My understanding is that Chicago and the suburbs you name don’t ban gun ownership, they just requires guns to be registered to the city in addition to other requirement.
In fact, this site protests the “ban” but even it has to admit that it really isn’t a ban per se:
As required by Chicago ordinance, firearms owners must fill out one of these forms, front and back, for each firearm each year. In addition to being notarized, the form must be accompanied with 2 passport style photos, a copy of your driver’s license, a copy of your FOID card, and a check or money order for $20.
So to the firearm advocate, some paperwork and identity verification + $20 is a “ban.” In reality, no, it isn’t a ban at all, and to call it that distorts the meaning of the word beyond recognition.
D.C.’s “ban” is actually the same thing, except that D.C. stopped taking new registrations in 1976, making it a de facto ban.
In most places in the US they have as much registration requirements for a television set as they do for firearms. And that is about right in my opinion. If I buy a firearm I don’t have a problem with the sale being recorded but I do have a problem with everyone knowing what I have. The Chicago ordinance is a bit much and I would bet very few of the guns in the city are “registered” to the extent of the ordinance; especially those kept by less than law abiding citizens.
Victoria, I wonder if Disney’s big pro-gay push a couple years ago had any affect on their business? Did you see the note in PARADE magazine about the Lesbian couple that broke up but still have an amicable relationship because of their 11 year old daughter and 9 year old son. One married a guy and the other has a new lesbian partner and together they have 17 month old twins. I guess I read the wrong books on reproduction!! Wow!! I learn something new everyday.
MTCON: Sure, Chicago has more onerous requirements than some areas, but it doesn’t ban guns. To say it does is misrepresentation.
Mitcon, I think Disneyland’s attendance has been good from what I hear. Having been there many times I don’t care about going anymore for any reason.
Steveg, I did not say Chicago’s ordinance was a ban; I said it was a bit much to go through for the sake of owning a gun.
MTCON: Oh right. It was KRM that said it was a ban.
Is it “a bit much” if it keeps at least some guns out of the hands of criminals? Do you think filling out a form and showing your driver’s license is too much hassle in order to legally own a deadly weapon?
Seriously?
The problem is it doesn’t keep them out of the hands of criminals. Why not require the same for a knife since it is also a deadly weapon?
So to the firearm advocate, some paperwork and identity verification + $20 is a “ban.” In reality, no, it isn’t a ban at all, and to call it that distorts the meaning of the word beyond recognition.
Replace that with the word “voting” and reread.
I’m fine with one-time paperwork each time I purchase. I’m fine with an instant background check to make sure I’m not a felon/mentally ill. I’m not okay with registering or paying a fee each year. Where does the $20 go, for example? I doubt it’s to a victims’ fund…
Oh right, Cameron. Because owning a lethal firearm and voting for a political candidate are exactly the same thing.
They’re both listed in the Constitution’s amendments, last time I checked.
Steve G.,
Unless Chicago has radically changed its laws since I lived there, there is indeed a ban on firearms. At that point, the only way one could own one was if one was driving through the city (not living there) and had the gun disassembled. Perhaps they have changed the law since then, which would be wonderful! When I lived there (till 2003), it was illegal to own a gun for defense of one’s family, which made neighborhoods sitting ducks for criminals. If you did happen to break the law and own a gun, if an armed burglar broke in, you had to quickly come to the decision of whether it was better for your family if you were (1) killed or wounded or (2) jailed. I suppose some people with life insurance might have mulled that question seriously. Home owners with guns were indeed treated as criminals, even if the gun only showed itself in such a situation. It was an evil law.
It’s one of many reasons I left Chicago.
SteveG - These communities prohibit handguns in an operable condition. That is effectively a ban by my reckoning.
The ban does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals (guns are plentiful and gun crime rising rapidly) - the bans only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding so as to embolden the criminals (knowing that their victims will be unarmed).