Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[upant]

From someone in a country where you just can’t get a gun (and thankfully, gun control works really well here),

what country would that be?

But for concealed carry, unless you’re Shaquille O’Neal, a full size 1911 is near impossible and utterly absurd.

a fanny pack would let you carry it easily.

Two swords would not have been nearly enough for such a big group, if he had been talking about everyone literally arming themselves.

they would individually need protection if they were going about alone. in a self-defense situation, two swords for the group may be plenty. it would not be enough if they were the aggressors.

As St. Paul put it, they instead prepared for the battle against evil:

they lived in two worlds, the spiritual realm, and this earthly realm.

To be fair, none of my friends who have actually been in firefights have ever told me they used their M4’s in anything but semi auto.

that is not the question, would they take a semi only to war?

Gun show loophole… in many parts of the country people selling or transferring firearms do not need to complete a background check at gun shows.

please specify where this is legal. i am not talking about private sales. all businesses require a background check.

Peer to peer transfer… any time a gun changes hands from one to another. Things like lending, gifting, loaning, etc. Not things like recreational uses where the owner is present.

some states have proposed vague laws and you wouldn’t legally be able to give your weapon to your spouse to use. one state had to amend their law to allow lending. the devil is in the details.

If you are law abiding, these minor inconveniences and delays will never prevent you from owning a firearm.

these are feelgood laws that will not stop the perp from getting a gun.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think not.

 

[upant]

Those who want to own firearms capable of mowing down two dozen people in a matter of seconds are–

this is emotion not reality. 2 dozen people in a matter of seconds? which u.s. legal gun can do this?

 

[Escabrosa]

I don’t see how you can recognize a person’s right to defend themselves if you vote away their ability to do so. Rights aren’t something that can be voted on.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Banning bump stocks won’t do anything. I can make a belt buckle into a bump stock.

A lot of this is just virtue-signaling. The criminals will still get guns and nearly every single mass shooting has happened in gun-free zones.

 

[Pup7]

Can’t say I find that impressive. And so what? Do that if they were banned and you’d be violating the law. Way to prove the poster’s point who said most gun owners aren’t law abiding.

What do you really need a bump stock for? What’s it’s point?

It’s one thing you’ll ever hear me say should be banned. You don’t need one. No one does.

They banned full automatic weapons. I can convert an AR-15 into full auto in about three moves. And I’d be violating Federal law if I did it. So I don’t.

 

[SuperLuigi]

First of all, I noticed how you skipped over my defense of you. It’s always nice to come on CAF and have someone just start ripping on you for no good reason with no sense of appreciation.

Can’t say I find that impressive. And so what?

So it renders the ban inert and it becomes just a virtue-signal----especially for gun supporters who are looking for some way to appease the banners.

Do that if they were banned and you’d be violating the law.

Remind me again…what makes a person a criminal?

They banned full automatic weapons. I can convert an AR-15 into full auto in about three moves. And I’d be violating Federal law if I did it. So I don’t.

Doesn’t mean other people won’t.

 

[Pup7]

Remind me again…what makes a person a criminal?

Breaking the law, my friend. Converting a weapon to behave as though it’s an automatic outside what is legal is a law violation. You can laugh out loud all you want, but it’s still a crime.

The fact that you actually don’t hear about AR’s being converted - especially for mass shootings - tells me people either don’t think of it or just for some reason don’t do it. Incredible, but true.

First of all, I noticed how you skipped over my defense of you. It’s always nice to come on CAF and have someone just start ripping on you for no good reason with no sense of appreciation.

I disagree with your post. I don’t know what defense you’re mentioning because I clearly and honestly haven’t seen it. But if I disagree with something else you say, I get to say so. I disagree with bump stocks, you started a response with a cute comment and smart emojis, and I responded.

This irritated me:

Banning bump stocks won’t do anything. I can make a belt buckle into a bump stock.

And my response was so what? I can convert an AR to a full auto. Amazing no one does it. Could be because it’s a Federal offense.

And banning bump stocks does do something: it stops people from being able to buy them.

 

[pnewton]

I do not believe gun restriction takes away the ability for self-defense. So you may say, that it is up to each person. Then I would reply, what about those that believe they need bazookas. Above is a picture with 30 people as an argument for large capacity magazines, as if a gang of 30 people will rob your house. The right to self-defense is also not a right to a guarantee of safety. That to is simply no the way life is.

No, the right to self-defense is never the right to unlimited power. It is unrealistic to think that the right to self-defense means a right to any and all weaponry in the world. That is not the way society works.

 

[Escabrosa]

And because a lot of people “do not believe gun restriction takes away the ability for self-defense”, others are prevented from having any means of self defense, guns or otherwise.

I remember a story I read a couple of years ago where a 17 year old Danish girl used pepper spray to fend of a man who had knocked her to the ground and was trying to undress her. Thank God she was successful. She was later told by the police that she would be prosecuted for using the pepper spray because it’s illegal in Denmark.

Some folks are never happy with taking away just a little of your rights.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

as if a gang of 30 people will rob your house.

That picture was from a communist revolution. The bodies at the bottom were people they had killed. The 30 people were commies, hence the the meme.

And yeah the idea of 30 people breaking into a home is a bit outlandish, multiple people breaking in isn’t. And seeing as it generally takes 3-5 rounds per target having 30 against 3 people isn’t insane

Oklahoma man killed three teen home intruders using AR-15 rifle

A 23-year-old Oklahoma man used a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle to shoot and kill three intruders who broke into his home Monday afternoon in a suburb of Tulsa.

www.nbcnews.com

Here’s another time AR’s and 30 round mags look attractive

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

No? This was some clumsy gerbil voodoo, my friend. I’m not saying everyone who has guns or knows how to shoot is a George Zimmerman wannabe. I have a couple guns. I’m pretty good with a pistol if I do say so myself. I just don’t make guns the emotional centerpiece of my universe. My guns have about as much emotional/symbolic resonance for me as my carbon monoxide detector. It’s just a tool.

I mentioned gun ranges and gun shows because anyone who has been to either has met multiple guys (they’re almost always doughy middle-age guys) for whom guns are literally the most important thing in their life. It’s the only political issue they care about, their car is peppered in bumper stickers, and they make super cheesy highflown statements about the tree of liberty or whatever at every opportunity. I’m talking about those toolbags. Not saying that describes literally every gun owner

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

What do you really need a bump stock for? What’s it’s point?

Letting them ban certain accessories sets precedent. Today it’s bump stocks.

20 years from now “These telescopic lenses mounted on high power sniper rifles enable a terrorist to shoot accurately for hundreds of yards from concealed locations. These are a public risk that needs to be banned”

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I can convert an AR to a full auto. Amazing no one does it.

It takes a pretty high level machining capability to properly mill out the material drill the extra holes, etc. The old myth of filing down a pin or two is just that, a myth.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

I can convert an AR to a full auto. Amazing no one does it.

It takes a pretty high level machining capability to properly mill out the material drill the extra holes, etc. The old myth of filing down a pin or two is just that, a myth.

The point remains it can be done. It doesn’t get done that often. Plenty of gunsmiths around.

As for banning accessories, I maintain a bump stock is unnecessary. They banned full autos and the world didn’t come to an end. There’s a difference in a scope and a thing that turns a weapon into essentially a full auto. I hear what you’re saying, but I can’t see the point or actual utility of a bump stock for anyone.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

but I can’t see the point or actual utility of a bump stock for anyone.

Neither can I. I think they’re ridiculous gimmicks, especially for what they cost.

I still don’t think they should be banned.

I also don’t think anything that’s really full auto should be subject to anymore hoops to jump through than any other gun.

 

[Pup7]

On that we will disagree. I can’t see the point of a civilian having a fully automatic weapon any more than I can see a Formula One car being declared street legal. I’ve fired them (an M60 is cool, and the rifle I used to carry as a K9 handler was a fully automatic GUU - we carried rifles if we were out on the flightline and not sidearms), and I can’t see the reasoning for them to be out in general circulation.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I personally believe the right of a free citizen should enable them to be as well armed in modern context as one was when the constitution was written. On par with a standard soldier of the day.

I.e. light infantry in the 18th century - musket, powder, projectiles, etc.

Current - whatever the modern light infantry carries. In the current context that would be an M4, 30 round mags, grenades, etc. The whole idea behind the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be as well armed as the government they’d be fighting.

I will draw the line at crew served weapons, because one man can’t “bear” a mortar in the sense of bearing arms. Those would be acquired in the event of a civil war by defectors liberating materiel from the government.

It’s the final check on government power.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

please specify where this [gun show loophole] is legal. i am not talking about private sales. all businesses require a background check.

Private sales at gun shows are precisely the problem. Those who would not pass a background check can show up to gun shows, locate private sellers, and purchase firearms. As a private seller at a gun show you likely don’t know a single thing about the people you are selling to. There is nothing to stand between that ineligible buyer and that gun other than a “bad feeling” a private seller might have. Honestly, this is a problem period whether it’s a gun show or not.

A solution to this problem is easier to achieve at a gun show than anywhere else: require instant background checks for all gun show sales. If you are law abiding, you pass the check and purchase your firearm.

some states have proposed vague laws [for peer to peer transfer] and you wouldn’t legally be able to give your weapon to your spouse to use. one state had to amend their law to allow lending. the devil is in the details.

This is a problem, which is why I propose a system by which private owners can “vouch” for people they transfer their firearms to. By vouching for them you say that they are eligible gun owners, and you take on the liability if that is not true. Under such a scheme, you could lend to trusted family member and friends, but you might not want to be liable for people you don’t know.

these are feelgood laws that will not stop the perp from getting a gun.

On their own, they may not be particularly impactful, but taken together with other gun control revisions, they can have an impact.

Look, I am a gun owner. I have a CHL. I am pro 2a. This isn’t about punishing law abiding good guys with guns (such as myself). However, I think we need to make a more concerted effort to ensure guns are possessed by eligible people. The stronger our gun control laws are, the easier it will be to hold accountable those who side step the law. That increase in accountability is what will make a difference.

Will it be inconvenient? Yes. Will it prevent someone law abiding from owning a gun? No.