Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[Pup7]

I totally agree with you. Why do we always have to know everything?

But you know, we’d likely be “convicting” the assailant and “violating his rights”, as if what he’s done is even marginally okay.

Sorry, but

When something is heinous, it is heinous.

When someone is practically on video with the weapon in hand pulling the trigger, or is caught red handed, or CLEARLY did it with 200 witnesses, he or she is guilty. Not “alleged”. Also bugs me.

 

[PetraG]

My personal answer is that I do not care if nukes were legal for the reasons outlined above. I would rather error on the side of freedom, given the poor record that the state has.

Nuclear weapons could easily be forbidden on the grounds that they are not stable ammunition. They are radioactive, by definition are perilously close to critical mass, and if accidentally discharged could easily cause extensive and long-lasting environmental contamination. The government could bar them just on the grounds that they are made of inherently dangerous materials.

 

[PetraG]

I totally agree with you. Why do we always have to know everything?

But you know, we’d likely be “convicting” the assailant and “violating his rights”, as if what he’s done is even marginally okay.

Sorry, but

When something is heinous, it is heinous.

When someone is practically on video with the weapon in hand pulling the trigger, or is caught red handed, or CLEARLY did it with 200 witnesses, he or she is guilty. Not “alleged”. Also bugs me.

As often as not, sadly, the assailant is dead when the attack is over. He is beyond caring. The ones who care are the ones who imagine doing the same thing. Their fantasy might be different if the person they want to emumlate is not seen as a powerful monster but as a small and tragic figure whose name ought to be forgotten as soon as possible. Saying that the family ought to be able to remember the person for the good things they did rather than one last sad act that was the shameful act of a tragically small person would be a mercy both on the family and on the families of those who contemplate following suit.

 

[Pup7]

I’m of course talking about episodes in which the shooter walks away in cuffs. Not sure what the split on that is (dead by their own hand/that of the police or living to be arrested and jailed).

The Amish set an amazing example in the wake of the Nickel Mines shooting. That one also seems to somehow get left off of the litany of incidents in the press.

 

[bassmansteiny]

Spyridon, with all respect and love I am not sure how you can say that when more mass shootings are done with a handgun. Not saying we need to ban hand guns. Any gun or object for that matter can be a, media created term, “Assault Style Weapon (aka assault weapon)”. I was raised around guns, pro 2nd Amendment. Have family members who served in every Amercian war since WW2. Including my brother who was in the last Iraq war.

I believe law abiding citizens have the right to own an AR 15, AK47, long rifle, handgun or ect. I believe felons who have not committed a violent crime, served their time and proven that they are a law abiding citizen should have a path to get their Constitutional rights back, including the 2nd Amendment.

The AR 15, AK47 we can own are semi autos, not the same as the military.

This is just my opinion/belief on the subject
Happy belated Birthday Cruciferi!!

Needless to say, I voted yes.

 

[PetraG]

I’m of course talking about episodes in which the shooter walks away in cuffs. Not sure what the split on that is (dead by their own hand/that of the police or living to be arrested and jailed).

Even the ones who aren’t lead away dead do not imagine that they’re not going to be convicted. I think in their fantasies they only think about (a) vengeance and (b) becoming famous and noticed.

These seemed to be the crimes of individuals whose lives seemed hopeless and meaningless to them. Somehow, they think that staging an ambush will fix what is wrong with their lives. I cannot imagine why they think this, except that they want fame, vengeance and suicide all wrapped into one package.

The Amish set an amazing example in the wake of the Nickel Mines shooting. That one also seems to somehow get left off of the litany of incidents in the press.

I am not sure what you mean? The West Nickel Mines shooting is mentioned often.

 

[Pup7]

I hear Charleston, Columbine, Virginia Tech, of course Sandy Hook, and even Fort Hood more than that one.

That’s just one person’s observation.

 

[PetraG]

I hear Charleston, Columbine, Virginia Tech, of course Sandy Hook, and even Fort Hood more than that one.

That’s just one person’s observation.

Do you think it is because of his choice of weapon or because the families of the victims were so forgiving and concerned for his family? It is the response of the families of the victims in this case that usually marks this attack from others.

It seems as if I hardly hear about Columbine or Kip Kinkel any more. I think Kinkel, the Umpqua Shooting and the Clackamas Town Center shooting naturally made a bigger impression in Oregon, though. Columbine may not fit some narratives because it was not carried out by a lone gunman, but by two friends who used (as memory serves) not just firearms but also brought bombs and knives.

 

[Pup7]

Do you think it is because of his choice of weapon or because the families of the victims were so forgiving and concerned for his family? It is the response of the families of the victims in this case that usually marks this attack from others.

My honest opinion?

They were Amish and not part of secular society. The shooter was also clearly off his rocker, and it’s bad press for the case of mental illness vs the zeal currently gripping the nation for gun control simply because “GUNS KILL AND THEY ARE BAD”. They’re non-news to a lot of people, and they can’t continuously interview the victims because of course they’ve returned to their way of life, and it’s not the same as ours. They’re not writing books or giving interviews. There’s no substance left there for the press to keep going back to (I have a super low opinion of the press).

Columbine may not fit some narratives because it was not carried out by a lone gunman, but by two friends who used (as memory serves) not just firearms but also brought bombs and knives.

Maybe - but the knives were never used and the bombs all failed due to their ineptitude with the medium.

I think it’s mentioned less because of that and more because of the awful videos they left behind that clearly point out they both had mental health problems - and for another reason you mentioned: neither of these that we’ve brought up used an AR-15, which is (and you’ll pardon the expression) in the crosshairs of the left wing anti-gun nuts (they’re as bad as the right wing nuts for different reasons) as evil incarnate.

That’s also likely why VT - while I do hear about it - gets cast by the wayside: he used legally obtained handguns.

It’s probably time more than anything else. And like you said, an agenda.

 

[PetraG]

Columbine is particularly chilling, actually. The FBI, in the end, characterized it as a hotheaded but depressed suicidal kid and a kid who was a psychopath acting out of a cold contempt for everyone around him. They acted together, but with very different motives:

At Last We Know Why the Columbine Killers Did It

Most Americans have reached one of two wrong conclusions.

slate.com

What is chilling is that they believe that while one might have been helped by getting counseling, the other might have easily grown up to be a serial killer or serial terrorist. (Yes, they think he might have grown up into something even worse.)

So–we both have more depressed teens and young people than ever, it is estimated we have the highest prevalence of sociopaths and psychopaths of anywhere in the world, and they have access to more means of doing more damage in more different ways than young people have had at any time in history. If a young person doesn’t have access to a gun, there is always the internet, which offers free courses in bomb-making as just an example.

Where to start?

 

[Pup7]

Columbine is particularly chilling, actually. The FBI, in the end, characterized it as a hotheaded but depressed suicidal kid and a kid who was a psychopath acting out of a cold contempt for everyone around him.

I’ve read several articles about them. You’re so right - there was more than we all knew about at the time.

Had Columbine not happened, something else would’ve at their hands for certain. I don’t doubt that for one second.

Where to start?

That, I think, is the $64,000 question.

I have no idea, and like most of us, I wish I did. But arbitrarily banning a weapon isn’t the answer. Especially since it doesn’t kill the most people, it’s just getting the most press.

 

[PetraG]

That, I think, is the $64,000 question.

I have no idea, and like most of us, I wish I did. But arbitrarily banning a weapon isn’t the answer. Especially since it doesn’t kill the most people, it’s just getting the most press.

I think we’d better think of something, because the “We Have to Do Something” crowd is going to be out with the tar and feathers and looking for heads to put onto pikes. I say that tongue-in-cheek, but I think our body politic could use a unified theory.

Wanted to clarify I was laughing at the image of all of us marching for the right to own a pressure cooker - please don’t take that wrong!!! )

I just meant to show that the desire to make the world entirely safe could go to ridiculous lengths…and yes, I was trying to paint a picture that was both funny and very true. If you think guns are sacred, try touching the pressure cookers. (Or the sewing machines, LOL… you could find out how lethal a knitting needle can be!)

People focus on guns because guns are obviously designed and manufactured specifically to deliver lethal rounds. True enough, it isn’t a nutty thought on the face of it, but the vast majority of those who are gun enthusiasts for a lifetime have the desire that they never kill anyone with their firearm as their number one hope. In truth, protecting life is the constant thought of any competent gun enthusiast…bullets do not know who they are hitting.

Yes, people who want to kill someone will of course consider using a gun. That is what guns are designed to do. The thing is that they are designed to be a way to deliver a lethal round while staying protected from lethal rounds yourself or when it is tough to get near to your target. (Aside: they also make it possible to leave most of your target in edible condition.)

Firearms are not designed to be the number one most foolproof way to kill someone else under all circumstanes. I do not want to enumerate any of the more effective means of mass attack, let alone one-on-one murder, but there are more foolproof ways to exterminate a crowd, if the only goal is mass homicide and killing yourself by accident is not a concern.

(I think distraught amateurs with a desire to make a single-handed grandiose statement also overestimate how easy it is to deliver a lethal wound with a gun and over-romanticize the image of the “gunman” compared to other attackers, to be blunt.)

 

[TheOldColonel]

The 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution, when it speaks of a “well regulated militia” makes clear that the right to bear arms is not not unlimited in scope. Yet, the freedom spoken of in this amendment enjoys the favor of law as to be safeguarded against infringement. Then, it would seems the amendment is designed to place limits on both those who would abuse the right and those who would deny the right. This being so obvious, why then the need to launch into such hyperbole on your part?

 

[Pup7]

I just meant to show that the desire to make the world entirely safe could go to ridiculous lengths…and yes, I was trying to paint a picture that was both funny and very true. If you think guns are sacred, try touching the pressure cookers. (Or the sewing machines, LOL… you could find out how lethal a knitting needle can be!)

I got the joke, but then got to thinking about my response. Given how some folks are, I just wanted to be sure some didn’t think I found the Boston Marathon bombing amusing.

You know how that works.

 

[PetraG]

They were Amish and not part of secular society.

As in: You surely don’t expect the rest of us to be like that, do you?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Because some people believe that any limitation at all is violative of the Amendment. I’m merely showing the logical result of following that train of thought to it’s conclusion. A half-baked Modest Proposal, as it were.

Once we get people to agree that the right is not unlimited, then we can have a meaningful discussion about where to draw the line. But first we need to get them to acknowledge the legitimacy of drawing a line at all.

 

[Theo520]

And nothing is wrong with a 2 inch group at 100 yrds, for a chest shot.

 

[PetraG]

Because some people believe that any limitation at all is violative of the Amendment. I’m merely showing the logical result of following that train of thought to it’s conclusion. A half-baked Modest Proposal, as it were.

Once we get people to agree that the right is not unlimited, then we can have a meaningful discussion about where to draw the line. But first we need to get them to acknowledge the legitimacy of drawing a line at all.

I don’t think that is an issue with the vast majority of gun enthusiasts. When was the last time the NRA organized a march on Washington or a Supreme Court appeal to gain the just right to own machine guns?

 

[Pup7]

I agree…but it might be because the NRA backed the passing of the Firearm’s Owners Protection Act.

 

[upant]

Once we get people to agree that the right is not unlimited, then we can have a meaningful discussion about where to draw the line. But first we need to get them to acknowledge the legitimacy of drawing a line at a

do you know what the gun control players on the national scene with the big money want? they have been quite clear through the years. they will push an incremental ban until they have a total ban. read the original writings before they became politically correct. the reason many gunnies believe in “not one inch” is because they have been around for the long haul and know the score.

The 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution, when it speaks of a “well regulated militia” makes clear that the right to bear arms is not not unlimited in scope.

huh?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it says the right of the people to keep bear arms shall not be infringed. it doesn’t place any limits on the right. it also doesn’t say the right of the militia to keep and bear. it is the right of the people. it doesn’t say only non-military weapons