Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CCW instructors generally recommend that you carry whenever it’s legal to do so. And you should practice draw from concealment often, as well as put in your range time.
 
pnewton said:
Then I would reply, what about those that believe they need bazookas.
Click to expand...
And we’d reply that a letter was sent by sailors to James Madison asking about whether or not their ships could have cannons, the most advanced weapon of the times, to which he gave an undisputed YES in the spirit of the 2A.

The reason why most people don’t bazookas, jets or nukes (these are mostly strawman arguments) is the spirit of the 2A isn’t to see who can have the biggest bomb, but for a person to LIVE in security. You’re not going to have much of a high quality life if you have to worry about maintaining an $800 million dollar aircraft or secure a nuke that could end up in the hands of hate preachers or Antifa. So a lot of this is outsourced through our long proud tradition in the civilized world known as specialization.

So your argument is historically ignorant and too linear, which is what happens you side with liberals.
pnewton said:
I do not believe gun restriction takes away the ability for self-defense.
Click to expand...
It most certainly does.
 
I carried a 1911 in a tactical fanny pack for a while. Now I carry a Taurus 605. Only 5 shots. Carry a speedoader, might get another.
If I need more than that…I’m in a pitched battle, not a self defense situation.
 
Last edited:
So by that rationale, you don’t need a bump stock.

We - the military - don’t have them.
 
Exactly, they only exist because real select fire has been made next to impossible to achieve legally.

Give us that back, and I’ll support banning bump stocks 😃 lol
 
While this is getting into the ridiculous and quite expensive, out of principle I would say sure, go for it. Simply owning these weapon doesn’t hurt anyone, it only becomes an issue if you use them on innocent people.

However, There is room for argument when you start talking about strictly offensive crew served weapons, although it’s still a grey area. It’s kind of a moot point though, since you have to be pretty wealthy to buy such weapons and when you’re that rich there are ways around existing laws.

I’ll also add that people who want to inflict mass damage don’t care about laws and will find a way. There are numerous examples of domestic and international terrorists being quite creative. The Oklahoma bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing are two I can think of off the top of my head.
 
upant said:
this is emotion not reality. 2 dozen people in a matter of seconds? which u.s. legal gun can do this?
Click to expand...
I think 50-60 rounds in 30 seconds is a “matter of seconds.” Do you think it is a superhuman feat to pull a trigger every second or half-second two dozen times in a row?

How many people killed in what time frame would you say is unacceptably high, such that it would not be “emotional” to find it excessive?

Speaking of emotional excess, how many attackers do you believe a typical citizen needs to be able to hit in what time frame in order to be fully capable of defending himself? You know, so that he could fairly be considered “armed”?

Is that the same number?
 
Last edited:
Sounds reasonable, but I wouldn’t want to force others to that standard. I carry a 6+1 pocket pistol most of the time, and feel OK with that.
There are pretty good arguments for more ammo though.
 
Because people that appreciate liberty don’t typically try and force others to conform to their own standard.
 
Last edited:
Sure. I’m retired US Army Special Forces (Green Beret), and have 12 years of contract security experience after that. Even though I’m pretty knowledgeable on the subject, I’m not arrogant or naive enough to think I can know each and every person’s particular needs.
If I were to give my opinion though, I would say you should consider being armed to at least the extent of potential attackers in your area. Your choice though.
 
It’s not for you to determine what’s cost effective for someone else. If one of the goals of the 2A is to check government overreach, then private citizens should be able to own things like fighter aircraft, tanks, and subs armed with nuclear missiles in order to have parity with the state. That’s perfectly consistent with your logic and theory surrounding the 2A. At least acknowledge the logical implications of your worldview.

Also, holy ****, who cares what James Madison wrote to some sailors 200+ years ago? The founders weren’t deities. They can be and were wrong about some stuff.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Letting them ban certain accessories sets precedent. Today it’s bump stocks.
Click to expand...
I disagree. A bump stock turns a rifle into a machine gun, something we’ve already agreed is prohibited to the general citizen. If it was recognized as such by the BTAF, there would be no need for special legislation.
 
Last edited:
We’ve been compromising on gun legislation for 84 years. I’m done.

I will oppose any and all further legislation or regulation and fight for the repeal of existing ones.
Theo520 said:
If it was recognized as such by the BTAF, there would be no need for special legislation.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t though. Because the BATF was (surprisingly) right in their ruling.

Full auto is defined as being able to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. That doesn’t change with a bump stock.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Full auto is defined as being able to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. That doesn’t change with a bump stock.
Click to expand...
Have you used a bump stock?

I’ve only seen them on Youtube, and the guy physically activated/pulled the trigger once with his muscle and it emptied the magazine.

I can respect that you may not want full autos banned, but not that a semi with a bump stock performs effectively as a traditional full auto.
 
Last edited:
In a situation, say with a maniac type active shooter, I would first seek cover. And I would fire only if close enough and with minimal risk of hitting an innocent. I know my limitations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top