Expert Actress on Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because sometimes you have to go to extremes so that a person can grasp that even they wouldn’t want a lunatic to have legal access to a mini-gun. Thus in principle, on some level, you agree with gun control, even if you don’t agree with banning. AR-15.

Recently AR-15 or other semi-automatic rifles, have caused a lot of harm. So now we have to ban those too.

Sorry.
 
17 students murdered is horrible, but what about the 3000 + murdered in their mothers womb every day. seems like the abortionist tools are far deadlier that an AR 15
 
If Catholics are to represent the morality of their faith, doesn’t it make sense to consider what Pope Francis would do/say about America’s Gun Situation ? Do you imagine that Papa Francisco keeps an assault rifle under his bed ? Do you think he would affirm your supposed right to stock pile guns and ammunition ? Does Pope Francis think that being Anti Abortion mixes with Pro Gun philosophy ?? “This Girl” whoever she is, calling for whatever it takes to change gun laws, is sounding a LOT like Pope Francis’ saying that one should do anything they can to stop abortions.
 
If Catholics are to represent the morality of their faith, doesn’t it make sense to consider what Pope Francis would do/say about America’s Gun Situation ? Do you imagine that Papa Francisco keeps an assault rifle under his bed ? Do you think he would affirm your supposed right to stock pile guns and ammunition ? Does Pope Francis think that being Anti Abortion mixes with Pro Gun philosophy ?? “This Girl” whoever she is, calling for whatever it takes to change gun laws, is sounding a LOT like Pope Francis’ saying that one should do anything they can to stop abortions.
Abortion necessarily involves a murder- gun ownership does not. Gun ownership is not intrinsically sinful. Quit trying to shame people for exercising their rights. Treating every gun owner (which I am not) as a potential murderer isn’t moral in the least.
 
Because sometimes you have to go to extremes so that a person can grasp that even they wouldn’t want a lunatic to have legal access to a mini-gun.
No. You’re going to extremes because you can’t make your case otherwise (not that you can make it now, but 🤷‍♂️). None of these mass killings have been at the hands of someone wielding a “mini-gun” or “rocket launcher”. You are way off-base.

I find it ironic that you said, “It depends on the degree of potential harm it can do to members of the public.”, when this entire thread you’ve been talking nonstop about weapons that statistically pose zero threat to anyone in a developed country. If you were consistent, you would have been discussing only those weapons which have actually been used to carry out mass murders. Instead- and I repeat myself- you have done nothing but discuss weapons that the average US citizen can’t get their hands on, or otherwise haven’t been used to carry out any attacks.

“Rocket launchers” and “mini-guns” currently pose no potential harm to people in developed countries precisely because they either can’t be legally obtained, or they take years of background checks and permits just to get the weapon itself- the ammunition is another story. More hoops to jump through for ammo, and you can only buy a limited quantity. And- I repeat myself a final time- because they haven’t been used to carry out any attacks.
 
Last edited:
Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’
weapons of military utility are protected, read what the founders intended, an armed citizenry trained in the use of arms for the purpose of self defense or as a last resort (when all peaceful means are exhausted ) to resist a tyrannical gov.t like it or not that’s the original intent
 
I don’t like it when celebrities use their fame this way because they are using power the average person does not have.

Their voice should be no louder than ours. I don’t care if they are right wing or left wing celebrities… the idea that think they can use their celebrity to influence the country sounds a lot like oligarchy to me.

We the people were given the power, and for rich business tycoons and rich celebrities to command more political influence than the average man was already scary when they simply gave money… but if they can start altering votes with their influence democracy is dead.
 
I’m sorry, but the hypocrisy is truly mind boggling. All the crying and gnashing of teeth over these very sad school killings, but not a word said if these VERY SAME children had been killed by abortion 18 or 19 years earlier. Why are these children in their teenage stage of human development more valuable than these very same children would be in their pre-born stage of human development? A human isn’t fully developed until the approx. age of 21-25. Killing children at any stage in their human development is wrong, you can’t have it both ways. Doctors kill more babies each day than guns do.
 
Well, its not difficult to see that damage control is important. We don’t want certain weapons to be in the hands of lunatics, and since we don’t know who the lunatics are we need gun regulation. Gun regulation is a legitimate and reasonable way of reducing the harm that could potentially be done by a weapon. If a lunatic goes into a school with a hand gun, a larger number of people have a higher chance of survival than if they go in with an AR-15

But you don’t seem to care about that because clearly owning an AR-15 is more important to you than reducing the number of victims that would come to harm because of that weapon.



But i apoligise. Because i cannot truly determine if you care or not and perhaps that’s not a fair thing to say. Perhaps you do care but you just cannot comprehend why gun control is more important.
First: I don’t own guns and most likely never will.

However, there are at least two issues with your argument.
  1. if AR-15s are banned, crazy lunatics will find other ways to commit mass murder. That 19 year old wanted to go into that school and kill people. If he didn’t have an AR-15 he would have figured another way… perhaps with a homemade bomb, machete, chainsaw, etc.
Point is, you can legislate against sickos like this because mass murders will always find weapons to commit mass murder.
  1. the reason AR-15s are legal, and should be, is because the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t for hunting. The purpose is to allow the people repel invasion and (though local and/or state govts) the ability to over throw the govt by force if necessary.
We the people were granted the power. We have the power to change the govt by our vote. However, if a tyranical govt refuses to leave power after vote of the people, the people have the right to use their second amendment to organize a militia against the govt.

Such a militia can only be effective if they are able to at least conduct gorilla warfare against an illegal govt. Weapons like AR-15s would be necessary in such a militia.

While I pray such a thing never happens, that’s was the real reason the founders gave us the 2nd amendment and why it’s placed at the top. Because Bill of Rights were ordered in order of importantance to the Founders.

In closing, I think what we really need to do have more security. Just like when towns in the Old West would require people to check their weapons at the gate during a town festival, we need ways to protect our schools.

After all, if we can protect almost every office building in NYC, DC, LA, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, SanFran, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc; then we should be able to have secure schools. The fact that we (as a nation) care more about protecting adults at work than children at school is sad. After 9/11, we clamped down on our city office buildings to protect them from terrorists, but we left our kids as a soft target. And trust me, this 19 year old murder is a terrorist- a domestic terrorist.

Let’s get to the real root of the problem and cure our society from people wanting to commit mass murder in the first place.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
I haven’t heard any anti-Catholic comments from him.
40.png
Spyridon:
The LV massacre, TX church massacre, FL school massacre.

What do all three have in common?
They were gun free zones and a direct consequence of gun control.

Using the logic of some in the gun control crowd, this would mean the shootings are the fault of gun control advocates.
The Florida shooter did NOT pick the place because it was a gun-free zone, he picked the place because he had beef with the people there. And because he had a legally acquired weapon with which he could quickly and easily - due to the nature of the weapon - take out a bunch of people before, if worst came to worst, being taken out himself.
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry, but the hypocrisy is truly mind boggling. All the crying and gnashing of teeth over these very sad school killings, but not a word said if these VERY SAME children had been killed by abortion 18 or 19 years earlier. Why are these children in their teenage stage of human development more valuable than these very same children would be in their pre-born stage of human development? A human isn’t fully developed until the approx. age of 21-25. Killing children at any stage in their human development is wrong, you can’t have it both ways. Doctors kill more babies each day than guns do.
There are plenty of people who deplore the senseless loss of life in both situations. I realise you’re not directing it at every person calling for gun control, but it’s not an either/or situation.
 
If there’s confusion as to the best course of action, which in this case is evinced by the wide variety of thoughts, it is logical for Catholics to turn to the Pope for guidance. I didn’t use the term " shame " , nor the term “sinful” , nor did I accuse all gun owners of being a potential murderer. If, upon imagining what Pope Francis’ reaction would be to an individual’s gun stance, that said individual should feel guilt, that is not my doing.
 
if AR-15s are banned, crazy lunatics will find other ways to commit mass murder. That 19 year old wanted to go into that school and kill people. If he didn’t have an AR-15 he would have figured another way… perhaps with a homemade bomb, machete, chainsaw, etc.
Accept in the case of a bomb, this is not easily attainable for a 19 year old. and chainsaws and machetes while legally attainable would not have caused as much damage as the AR-15. The chances of survival is evidently increased. Obviously.
 
No. You’re going to extremes because you can’t make your case otherwise (not that you can make it now, but 🤷‍♂️). None of these mass killings have been at the hands of someone wielding a “mini-gun” or “rocket launcher”. You are way off-base.
You seem to be ignoring what I’m saying. Are you not against the general public easily attaining a mini-gun or a rocket launcher? if so why? Is it not because the damage it would cause is unacceptable in the wrong hands and you would like to reduce the potential for that damage?

Well guess what! People feel the same way about AR-15 in the wrong hands. The damage it causes is unacceptable for a legally attainable weapon.

The fact that i have to go to extremes just to get you to admit that you are for gun control just shows how difficult and unreasonable you are.
 
Last edited:
But it doesn’t stop all of them from getting drunk or from smoking. Just as it wouldn’t stop teens from getting a firearm.
 
So we can’t stop all of them means there’s no point in stopping some of them?

I don’t follow that logic.
 
What’s the point in any laws at all then?

The fact that people break laws does not mean they should not be made.
 
I’m an NRA-certified Expert Marksman, and I was very much on the “don’t touch my guns!” side of the fence not too long ago. I changed my mind because I took a long, hard look at my own “side’s” arguments, and found that they really didn’t hold up.
I’m in the exaxt same boat, except I’m a US Military-certified expert marksman.

As much as I love my rucksack, my bayonet, and my M-16 and getting on down with em - I no longer care to see so many civilians armed with AR-15’s.

Stop the madness.

No more “thoughts and prayers.”

We need legislation.
 
Last edited:
Let the liberal news outlets continue to ignore the innocent lives being

lost prior to birth while they slowly strip our liberties away.
Are you serious? Do you have the slightest idea what the topic is. Not everything in the world is abortion. There is no either/ or here. Statements like this are why the Republicans are unfairly criticized for being pro-birth, not pro-life. These kids also deserve our pro-life support. Their lives matter as much as the unborn. The right of big boys to their big toys should not supersede that.
 
As for banning styles of weapons. It is not the fact that it was an AR-15 clone that it was used rather an individual with one did it. The kid could have just as well used an regular semi-auto hunting rifle. Keep in mind semi-auto rifles have been around for almost a hundred years if not already.
If he had used something like a three-round automatic hunting rifle, his assault would have been significantly hampered, and the consequences from there are unknowable.

I see no reason to stop hunting. That said, if hunting is limited or even stopped to save human life, then that is the moral thing. If I thought it was needed to reduce this violence, I would ban not only hunting, but football, soccer, or tiddly-winks. Why am I having to explain to supposedly pro-life people that protecting any sport or hobby, any economic venture, or any appeal to the current law, are not an arguments that can even dim the pro-life argument?

Finally, for those that over-use the word “liberal,” there are few things I consider more ignorant than using labels as arguments, except maybe bumper-stickers and memes. Such things do not “provoke thought,” but encourage the ignorant. Too long when these tragedies occur this tactic is used to end discussion. With the students from Parkland, I call garbage.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top