From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:13:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu>
williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

>
>From article <1992Sep15.154148.12964@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, by rats@cbnewsc.cb.at.com (Morris the Cat):
>> Which certainly explains why the Methodist Church wants people disarmed
>> of handguns and assault rifles [Through the auspices of NCBH], right?
>> "Tell them how to behave"... give me a break... the busy bodies of the
>> "Religious Left" are just as interested in sticking their noses into
>> everyone's business as the "Religious Right." Are the "Religious Left"
>> interested in the agenda of "Economic Democracy" i.e. the U.S. Politically
>> Correct phrase for socialism or aren't they?
>>
>
>I wan't even thinking about the Methodists.  Thanks for tipping me off
>to their left leanings.  Actually if you went out and polled churches
>for their 'official' positions on gun control, you'd find many main-line
>denominations in favor of gun control.

     A lot of churches a that way.  It's got to do with commandments
and general prohibitions about killing people, plus a generally well-
inentioned want to "help people."

>As for sticking their nose into your business, being more strict about
>who owns guns is a lot different than turning all women into
>involuntary breeding stock.

     It always is.  Just like a waiting period on abortion is a
a violation of a woman's right, but one on a gun is "reasonable."
Just like allowing people to use drugs that might cause them to
act in harmful ways is "keeping the government out of our lives,"
and "no punishing people when they aren't hurting anybody," is
different when you're talking about guns.
     That something is "different" is a necessity when you are using
an argument that, otherwise, would be inconsistant.

>Maybe we should outlaw abortion so that
>we'll have more people to be moving targets.

     This is uncalled for.


>> |I could name a few very active, left-leaning religious organizations
>> |but I don't want to disturbe your ignorance.  Or blow their cover.
>>
>> Interesting. "Or blow their cover?" If they claim to be acting in
>> favor of "humanistic interests" why would they need cover at all?
>
>It's a joke son.  I forgot the smiley, so sue me.  I'm still working
>on my "you're a raving dickhead" glyph.
>
>The following few paragraphs are completely devoid of attempts at
>humor, so quit now if you don't want to read it.
>
>In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
>handguns.

     Perfectly reasonable.  Don't buy one.

>I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
>them if it was up to me, but the NRA position is cynical and self
>serving.

     Hmmm.

>Guns are big business.  Many of the people involved in the
>NRA manufacture, sell or trade guns.

      Many aren't.  But it would be fairly odd if people who *liked*
guns were not *involved* with guns.
      There is also a personal stake among the NRA membership for them
to be able to own the guns they want?  Does this personal stake invalidate
their opinions?  Does it show they are self-serving?
     Does the same idea apply to, say, women who support abortion rights?
Should we consider that fact that *they* might want an abortion against
them when weighing their opinions?

>People stand to lose money if we
>as a society try to limit gun ownership in some rational way.  We'll
>never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
>because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
>ownership.

     First, the NRA *has* supported "rational" (although I'm sure NRA
members will find your use of the word insulting) limits.  They support
preventing felons, minors, and the mentally ill from owning guns.  They
supported the Staggars alternative to the Brady Bill, which *unlike*
the Brady Bill *required* a background check.
     "Rational," I guesee, is in the eye of the beholder.  However, it
is inaccurate to portray the NRA as a group dedicated to seeing
criminals armed.

>Guns engender violence.

     There are two hundred million guns in the United States.  The vast,
vast majority a never used in any criminal matter.  If the easy availabilty
of a gun in someone's home made its use in an argument likely, we should
have *millions* of homicides.  We don't, because those who *do* use
guns like this have histories of violence.  Their use of the gun is
only one example.

>Fights that used to be settled with fists and
>bandaids are now being settled with bullets and funerals.

     Very few fights end up with somebody hurt, much less dead.  Even
fewer involve guns.

>Where do
>the guns come from?  Someone somewhere bought it legally.  Then it was
>stolen or sold or lost.

     Some are smuggled in.  Many, as you say, are stolen from legal
owners.  Many are stolen from the police and the military.

We are a nation awash in guns. We keep making
>more.  Why?

     Many use them for self-defense.   Many use them for hunting or
just target shooting.  Those used in crimes are a tiny, tine subset.
Even assuming that the guns themselves cause these tragedies, you
ignore that guns *can* have positive benefits.

>There has to be a better way than the status quo, but no one on the
>pro gun side seems to want to find it.

     This sounds a lot like, "Why won't you compromise?"

     The NRA *wants* an instant, point of sale, computerized background
check.  Doesn't this *indicate* at least they're trying?

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush