Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Relax. Put on an episode of “Everybody Loves Raymond.” A few laughs will cheer you up, soldier.
 
Code: 
Hello Max,
As I said, I was thinking of thugs getting silencers yo complete a murder and get away easier. In this crazy world of hate and violence, having what we need and stopping what we don’t want is difficult.
Thank you for your discussion. It’s fast shooting guns that kill in a few minutes, that we have to keep out of crazy teens hands. I would hope, an inexperienced teen won’t be calm and be able to change magazines quickly. A magazine w 15 shells would hurt too many but in that moment of reloading, someone can intervene.
I think automatics limited to tetired gets snd Police is s good idea. They were trained w them. They have the mentality to shoot. Not trying to corrrct the situation would be wrong
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
 
Seeksadvice said:
.22LR pistol with a good can is basically like a sneeze, if that. Not any/many rounds of .22LR that can go supersonic out of a regular .22LR pistol. Shot a guy’s Ruger Mk. III with can indoors, and it was quiet. Small town law enforcement out here use either Ruger .22LR or Browning Buckmark .22LR pistols with cans to deal with feral animal issues at times. Is it against ND law… yep. Does anybody care? Nope… Just a handful fewer of feral cats, etc. running around.
Click to expand...
I had no idea you’re manufacturing suppressors at home. Now that’s a spicy meatball!

 
Last edited:
How many criminals are willing to spend $200 dollars on a silencer when a pocketknife is $5 at walmart?
 
None silly! I was seeing silencers used by regular criminals w hand guns. If I didn’t make my vision clear I apologize.
Annie Oakley over and out.
 
It’s not an “extreme approach.” It’s a thought experiment designed to make a point. You do realize I’m not actually advocating private ownership of WMDs, right?
 
upant said:
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
Click to expand...
it is the right of the people

[NOT the right of the militia]
 
Last edited:
I think virtually everyone recognizes the right of self defense. What’s at issue is whether that implies you have absolute free rein to choose the means by which you defend yourself.
 
I’m not saying there is anything inherently bad about rifles. But you have to first acknowledge that society gets some (name removed by moderator)ut on your weaponry. It’s part of living in a society with, you know, laws and stuff. A lot of the pro-gun posters here don’t seem to just be saying “a law banning x type of weapon would be dumb.” They’re saying “the government has no right to regulate weapon ownership at all.” Two very different statements.

If you reject that first principle, then there’s no basis to deny people the right to defend their property with land mines and sarin gas.
 
If I wasn’t preparing to go to seminary, I’d probably try to get a handgun- but I’m imagining that the Church doesn’t allow clerics to own firearms (at least the US Church). Maybe I’m wrong? I like the idea of being able to defend myself and/or take care of unusually large spiders.

I’ve been known to enjoy target shooting on occasion- but I’d usually rather stay home and play video games or something 🤷‍♂️ I’m not the outdoorsman of my family.
 
I expect many Priests have rifles/shotguns and hunt for game and deer, but keeping a pistol for self defense would likely be frowned upon.
 
Last edited:
Thom18 said:
and/or take care of unusually large spiders.
Click to expand...
😆😆😆

Totally reasonable.

I’ve lived in Texas and Saudi Arabia. I’ve seen a few that would require a handgun to exterminate.

(Also some pretty nasty snakes.)

😆😆😆
 
Last edited:
starshiptrooper said:
Not sure you can call that self-defense when you send armed men onto my property. The anti-gunners will draw first blood, not me.

When you send out armed men to impose your worldview, you have no right to call for pacifism on the part of others.
Click to expand...
the bundy ranch comes to mind
tweedlealice said:
I was thinking that it is dangerous b/c bad ppl can get away from the crime easier if their guns have a silencer.

Hunters have been w/o silencers from the dawn of time. Stick cotton in your ears? AHA! You need to listen for Forrest sounds??? The noise of the gun is bothersome to the hunter??

What do you think? Maybe silencers only sold to those w hunting rifles??Silencers concern me.
Click to expand...
silencers do not eliminate the noise it just reduces it. it is still at a level above the normal range. you still need ear protection
BoomBoomMancini said:
They’re saying “the government has no right to regulate weapon ownership at all.” Two very different statements.
Click to expand...
what happens when they regulate the right away? don’t say it can’t happen. look at any heavily gun-controlled area where crime is rampant. the citizen has no ability for self-defense. as an example, how do you defend yourself against the violence in chicago since you can’t carry? do you use your fist against an illegal gun? a knife? the real result is people die and more people die this way.
 
Let’s look at this then. Why does society have a say in what weapons you have? “Laws and stuff” is a pretty vague. There are sound principles against unjustly harming another, but owning a weapon doesn’t imply it will be unjustly used.
 
I mean, what is the basis for having laws generally? Why can society tell me how fast I can drive? Or what chemicals I can have in my house? Or whether I can keep a tiger in my backyard?

It’s all part of a cost benefit analysis that we resolve through the political process. I guess my point is that I don’t see guns as being something that should be immune from this normal weighing of risk versus reward.

My ancillary point being that if you don’t accept that society can regulate private ownership of weapons just as a general premise, you have to accept some pretty insane scenarios like private ownership of biological weapons.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top