Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[Vonsalza]

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

There is no one-size fits all solution. But looking at the other first-world nations that don’t struggle with gun violence in the same way we do, one of the differences is indeed the laws on the books.

I think an expensive permit for semi-autos is a good answer. $1000 and you can have two per. Want more, buy another.

Or something like that.

Have all the bolt, lever and wheel guns ya want…

 

[Naga]

I support the Second Amendment. This means I support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending against threats to a free state. This threat could be a home invasion, a school shooting, a foreign invasion, or any other violation of human rights.

It is said that anyone who says something followed by the word “but” doesn’t actually mean what they just said. Even so, I support the Second Amendment. This means that I also support the right of illegal aliens to own arms, because they are people and have rights just as I do. I support the right of felons just released from prison to own arms for the same reason. If a person can’t be trusted to own arms, they should be in the custody of an entity able to prevent them from harming others, be that a parent, a legal guardian, or a prison.

 

[upant]

30 seconds is a “matter of seconds.”

30 seconds isn’t a matter of seconds: it is a half minute.
an eternity compared to a matter of seconds.

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?

1 person killed is too many. we don’t need to exaggerate the damage or loss of life. it just shuts down the discussion.

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”?

the first one attacking you and the time frame would be just faster than the perp.
you would, of course, move on to the next if there are multiple attackers.

 

[Escabrosa]

I think a person’s arrogant or naive if they think they can determine what everyone else needs.

No one’s saying you have to own a gun. You’ll probably be fine if you never own one. The US is a pretty safe place, with a few exceptions.

 

[Escabrosa]

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

 

[PetraG]

30 seconds isn’t a matter of seconds: it is a half minute.

an eternity compared to a matter of seconds.

When it comes to the number of people being killed in an ambush in some time frame, it is splitting hairs to say 30 seconds is not a “matter of seconds”!!

I don’t think that objecting to the number of people that can be massacred by a relative amateur is “exaggerating damage or loss of life.” I think, rather, that it is recognizing the damage and loss of life.

How many people outside of the Constitution’s “well-regulated militia” use high-capacity weapons to defend rather than attack? I think there is a reason that the Founders put the “well-regulated” language into that sentence. When are there ever ten or twenty attackers? And why do we keep seeing teens and young adults showing up at school and shooting the students?

What is this nation coming to?!? If you don’t think that this kind of ambush attack isn’t going to bring great pressure to limit gun rights of every kind because so many gun advocates keep rationalizing why they need to squeeze off so many rounds in such a short time as a matter of “self-defense,” you are kidding yourself. These high-capacity weapons and their defenders are going to set off a “gun temperance” movement. When that happens, there had better not be tears that no one saw it coming.

 

[Pup7]

Also a Federal law. The fact that they’ve been overprescribed isn’t truly relevant to what my point was. They are controlled substances because taken incorrectly they can kill you.

If aspirin were discovered today, it would also be a controlled substance, because of its potential for abuse.

In this context, “potential for abuse” doesn’t mean drug users, it means people using them incorrectly. Aspirin can kill, and with little effort for a lot of people. So can narcs.

Back to the thread.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The Marines actually are switching out the M249 SAW for the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle by Heckler & Koch. I personally like it. It is shorter, lighter, and easier to clean since it is a piston system.

My one concern is how Marine fireteams will fare against a military with more lmgs and medium mgs.

 

[starshiptrooper]

“Well-regulated” at the time meant that the militia was skilled in the use of their weaponry. It did not imply laws. See DC v Heller for more information on this topic.

I favor high capacity weaponry because nobody ever regretted bringing too much ammo to a gun fight.

 

[PetraG]

“Well-regulated” at the time meant that the militia was skilled in the use of their weaponry. It did not imply laws. See DC v Heller for more information on this topic.

I favor high capacity weaponry because nobody ever regretted bringing too much ammo to a gun fight.

It meant what? What source of legal scholarship do you have in defense of that assertion?

 

[starshiptrooper]

I just gave you the name of the relevant Supreme Court decision.

 

[Escabrosa]

“But looking at the other first-world nations that don’t struggle with gun violence in the same way we do, one of the differences is indeed the laws on the books.”

Why do folks use just “first world nations”? This implies that there are other factors besides the severity of gun laws that contribute to crimes involving a gun. When you compare the US with countries like Brazil, or Mexico, or Russia, you’ll see that there is no correlation between increased gun laws and violent crimes involving a gun, namely homicide.
Compare states within the US and there is no correlation either. Vermont and New Hampshire typically have some of the lowest homicide rates and both are Constitution Carry states with very loose gun laws. Many states with the highest homicide rates have stricter gun laws.

 

[PetraG]

I just gave you the name of the relevant Supreme Court decision.

I’m here to warn you that there was a day when no one thought is was possible for a grassroots effort to forbid alcohol, either.

There is nothing in the Constitution that can’t change if the populace gets upset enough. We’ve had secession and we’ve had Prohibition. Maybe these things don’t last forever, but they are very serious matters while they do. If there is a tide of opinion that gun rights leave the populace too vulnerable to ambush by mass murderers, watch out.

 

[upant]

I think there is a reason that the Founders put the “well-regulated” l

WARNING – strong language near the end of the video, if that offends you please do not watch this video

How many people outside of the Constitution’s “well-regulated militia” use high-capacity weapons to defend rather than attack?

it is popular among the law-abiding for a reason.

What is this nation coming to?!? If you don’t think that this kind of ambush attack isn’t going to bring great pressure to limit gun rights of every kind because so many gun advocates keep rationalizing why they need to squeeze off so many rounds in such a short time as a matter of “self-defense,” you are kidding yourself. These high-capacity weapons and their defenders are going to set off a “gun temperance” movement. When that happens, there had better not be tears that no one saw it coming.

you need to read the founding gun control leaders statements. it has always been about a complete ban. that just didn’t sell, so they decide to take small steps until their ban is achieved. i have posted their statements prior.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Just remember the violence that Prohibition caused. It also unfairly made criminals out of thousands of Americans.

There will be people like myself who would disobey such a law because we believe it to be an unjust interference with the rights of free men.

 

[PetraG]

I did not say Prohibition was a good idea.

I am saying that it seems to me that the rash of ambush massacres that have been taking place, especially at schools, are likely to lead the populace to rash and decisive action.

 

[Pup7]

I had never seen that Penn and Teller clip. That was brilliant.

I thought it was going a different way, to be honest, what with the mention of assault rifles.

I am saying that it seems to me that the rash of ambush massacres that have been taking place, especially at schools, are likely to lead the populace to rash and decisive action.

That is probably accurate.

 

[starshiptrooper]

That is why I own guns, to protect myself from the rash and decisive actions of the mob.

This is an excellent example of the media blowing things out of proportion. More people are killed on average by melee weapons than semiautomatic rifles. Mass shootings are a tiny percentage of homicides involving firearms.

 

[MarcusTulliusCiero]

I don’t own a gun myself. Not because of any moral/ethical objections, it’s just not a passion of mine. I do find the way some people fetishize gun ownership to be disturbing though. I believe in the second amendment, but at the same time guns aren’t instruments for our amusement. They should be respected as the powerful weapons they are, not fixated upon as if they were toys.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Amen, soldier. Amen.