Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[Vonsalza]

With all due respect, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

If I took a picture of my office window you’d see the Appalachian mountains I grew up in, friend.

I guess the game wardens in the states that confiscate AR-15 “deer rifles” don’t know what they;re talking about either, eh?

To all you AR15 deer hunters out there - get a rifle that throws a round heavy enough to humanely, reliably drop the animal.

Go do some actual shooting with people who know what they’re doing. AR’s a extremely accurate rifles, and are just as capable as any “real” hunting rifle.

I own a few ARs. Love my Colt.

Not as accurate as my bolt guns. Sorry kid.

Now is a tight and expensive AR as accurate as a loose, crappy bolt gun? Yeah. But those tight ARs aren’t to be found for under $1k. And I bet 90% of the rednecks that deer hunt with ARs are using $500 S&Ws, Rems and other cheapo, discount ARs. Those are not precision rifles.

I’ve dropped 3 deer with three shots at roughly 75 yards (legal, there’s no limit on does in my state). It’s not that hard.They’re dead when they hit the ground.

I don’t doubt it. What we don’t tell folks about are the screw-ups where we neck shot the deer with a weak round and it got away and suffered for half a day before it died.

Get a real deer gun, dude. States have banned AR deer hunting for a reason. A good reason. Even if you don’t wanna see it.

They’re not “sporting rifles”.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I’ve said my peace, good day.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[anon10271182]

RIght! The gang bangers just hold it sideways and spray. Not likely to see them in a Weaver stance…or any other.

 

[pnewton]

The reason why most people don’t bazookas, jets or nukes (these are mostly strawman arguments)

It would only be a straw man if I was arguing against them as if these were an issue. Rather, they demonstrate that there is a line somewhere that society can legitimate draw as to what is available to the general public for self-defense.

Personally, I will believe this issue is all about self-defense when home security systems out-number gun owners. Maybe they do. But few gun owners I know take even the most basic protection measures other than being able to kill another person. Such a stance is fine for those who do not value life, but not so great for Christians.

 

[pnewton]

No. I was referring the belief that we have in our Republic that the will of the people should be the rule of law. It was not a technical description. I know our democracy is representative.

Ah, but as a Republic, even the will of the people, up until it becomes a very large majority, cannot justify anything contrary to the Constitution, and can only change it with that overwhelming majority. So in the end, that is why we must have some arbitrator of when democracy must be limited by individual rights. This line will partly be defined soon in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting.

 

[TheOldColonel]

When was a new, federal gun regulation ever decided upon by direct, democratic vote? Is it not rather a small group of elected officials who decide such matters? Are not these same elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution?

 

[Theo520]

Right, the bump stock uses recoil energy to enable auto fire, this is the basic principle used in many auto rifles before gas energy was engineered to perform the same task.

That it uses a slightly different technique to utilize recoil energy doesn’t change that fires in full auto until you remove your depressed finger from the trigger assembly.

 

[Vonsalza]

Right, the bump stock uses recoil energy to enable auto fire, this is the basic principle used in many auto rifles before gas energy was engineered to perform the same task.

That it uses a slightly different technique to utilize recoil energy doesn’t change that fires in full auto until you remove your depressed finger from the trigger assembly.

I think the dullards that try to defend bump stocks do so primarily on the basis that the shooter themselves constitute part of the automatic action.

The fact that it still intentionally creates a fully automatic system means that they’re likely a violation of the soft ban on automatic weapons. It’s so obvious that not even the NRA is really trying to defend them.

You know it’s bad when…

 

[TheOldColonel]

In my opinion, no civilian should ever own a select fire capable weapon or a bump stock. Doing so far exceeds what is required for reasonable self defense.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s not for you to determine what’s cost effective for someone else

Which is why we have the free market. So about helping us (for a change) keeping governments grubby little hands off of it?

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.

This is what is wrong with the left today.

 

[PetraG]

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.

Since there are 5-6 million weapons in this country that can deliver lethal rounds very quickly, I think you may be suggesting that I am “arrogant or naive” if I don’t resign myself to a civilian arms race.

It doesn’t really matter what I think, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of we already have a civilians arms race. I’m not reading the general voting public as ready to accept that premise, and they are getting less tolerant with every K-12 mass shooting.

 

[PetraG]

In my opinion, no civilian should ever own a select fire capable weapon or a bump stock. Doing so far exceeds what is required for reasonable self defense.

I would restrict these to what could be by some stretch of the imagination described as a “well-regulated militia.” Citizens who won’t submit to a well-regulated militia need to accept that their firepower is going to be limited so the rest of the populace doesn’t have to carry a well-ordered militia with them everywhere they go.

I do think the Founders particularly wanted to avoid having all of the military expertise restricted to only those militia under the authority of the federal government. I think they wanted to spread the risk around.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I agree with you 100%. No one needs a full-auto or a bump stock. I’ve only seen videos of bump stocks, but they are clearly an attempt to make a weapon full-auto. They also appear quite dangerous to the user and everyone nearby as they operate by decreasing the user’s grip on the weapon. That flies in the face of any concept of gun safety or responsible ownership. If someone wants a full-auto experience, then let them legally rent such a weapon under strict supervision of a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer who is legally allowed to instruct them at a firing range.

 

[upant]

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.

do you think a law will stop a person not legally eligible to buy a gun from getting a gun? they just have to pick their seller: just like they do now. however, it usually isn’t at the gun show

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

i don’t believe they can because they don’t address the root cause. it also ignores the reality that the black market will provide whatever the government bans. look at cigarettes in new york. the government excessively taxed them and now there is a thriving black market for untaxed ones.

This isn’t about punishing law abiding good guys with guns (such as myself).

yes, it is.

 

[Pup7]

I’ve only seen videos of bump stocks, but they are clearly an attempt to make a weapon full-auto

That’s exactly what they are. To me they’re a legalized illegal weapon.

No one needs a grenade launcher, either - that’s why civilians can’t buy one. Same principle.

We can’t buy narcotics over the counter because of their potential for abuse. To me it’s pretty much the same principle.

 

[Vonsalza]

i don’t believe they can because they don’t address the root cause. it also ignores the reality that the black market will provide whatever the government bans. look at cigarettes in new york. the government excessively taxed them and now there is a thriving black market for untaxed ones.

Absolutely but the costs are extortionist.

Only those with cash get to splash - which makes them less available.

That’s still a win. Totally.

 

[Vonsalza]

TheOldColonel:

I’ve only seen videos of bump stocks, but they are clearly an attempt to make a weapon full-auto

That’s exactly what they are. To me they’re a legalized illegal weapon.

No one needs a grenade launcher, either - that’s why civilians can’t buy one. Same principle.

We can’t buy narcotics over the counter because of their potential for abuse. To me it’s pretty much the same principle.

Careful with all that logic! You’ll upset the NRA sucklings around here…

 

[Pup7]

I believe in the second amendment.

But I also believe in some restraint.

And some logic.

 

[Vonsalza]

I believe in the second amendment.

But I also believe in some restraint.

And some logic.

Me too. I my Colt LE6920 (an AR-15)

But I think it should be a LOT harder for me to get her than it was.

 

[Pup7]

I do agree. It’s too easy. But I don’t know what the answer is because increased laws won’t fix the problem.