NRA vs. ACLU

[melensdad]

however, i’m also very interested in going to a shooting range sometime. i have a 16-month old child and my wife would never allow me to purchase a gun and keep it in the house (even if i thought it was a good idea, which i’m not at all convinced of) – any suggestions?

From the perspective of a guy who grew up in a non-gun owning house, who married a girl who grew up in a non-gun owning house, what I would suggest is that you talk to some of your friends or relatives who are gun owners and ACTIVE shooters. There are plenty of gun owners who do not actively shoot, and plenty that do actively shoot. Find a friend who actually shoots. Ask him if he could take you out to the range. If you are lucky, his spouse will also be a shooter and the 4 of you can go out to the range and make a day of it. If there is a public outdoor range at a nearby wildlife area, state park, fish & game area, etc, that would be nice because you can take a picnic basket and have an outing.

Ask for some lower power guns to be shot/shown. My personal experience with women is they don’t tolerate recoil as well as men. If your friend(s) have “22LR” pistols and rifles, those are ideal. That is what my 12 year old daughter shoots (actually she also shoots 9mm pistols but finds the recoil too heavy). The nice thing about the 22LR guns is that there is virtually no recoil and they are not as loud as any other gun. They are still plenty loud so you want to wear ear & eye protection.

If you can’t get your wife to go with, then do the above without her, but ask your friend for a range of guns (if he has them) and start with the lower powered guns first.

We got into guns via the 12 gauge shotgun. Both my wife and I started to shoot together informally with shotguns, just trying to hit “clay pigeons” that we threw into the air (with a small mechanical thrower). We graduated up to shooting with a group of friends. Then we started to frequent “TRAP RANGES” in our area for informal trap shooting. Some places are very friendly, others are full of very serious competitors and are not as friendly to newbie shooters who miss a lot. We eventually enjoyed it so much that we started to reload our own ammunition to save costs (we were shooting CASES, not boxes, of “light target loaded” ammunition each month). It got to the point that when we were ready to move out of our house, we actually bought enough land where we can now go out our back door and safely shoot on our property.

Now, 12 years later, we live on the same property but shoot far less. Still, we have fun when we do shoot, it just seems like we have other things to do now that ate away the shooting time we used to share. Our daughter has been asking to learn how to shoot for several years, this year she got to shoot her first guns. She started with a “Semi-Automatic” rifle that had 30-round “High Capacity” magazines and she loves it. . . some might call that rifle an “assault weapon” but the reality is it is just a very common little 22 caliber rifle that is identical to tens of thousands of other kids learn to shoot with. Its amazing to me what our anti-gun legislators claim.

 

[Black_Jaque]

however, i’m also very interested in going to a shooting range sometime. i have a 16-month old child and my wife would never allow me to purchase a gun and keep it in the house (even if i thought it was a good idea, which i’m not at all convinced of) – any suggestions?

To be an effective father, you have to take calculated risks in which the benefit outweighs the risk. I’ve been taking my children to the shooting range with me since they were in diapers. They learn the safety rules.

The benefits of teaching your children to enjoy firearms safely greatly outweighs the risk of your child ever getting involved in a firearm accident.

Show me a dad who teaches his children at a young age how to handle dangerous things safely, and I’ll show you a healthy father-child relationship and a well disciplined child. Show me a dad who never let his child near his dangerous tools/toys and I’ll show you a fat kid who knows nothing but video games.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Melensdad,

Load that .22 up with some hollow point bullets and have your daughter plink at popcans filled with water. Or eggs. Or if you don’t like the hollow point ammo she can blast charcoal brickettes. Those targets have a little more reaction than paper. Something a little more gratifying when a target explodes into a fountain of water or a cloud of dust.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To be an effective father, you have to take calculated risks in which the benefit outweighs the risk. I’ve been taking my children to the shooting range with me since they were in diapers. They learn the safety rules.

The benefits of teaching your children to enjoy firearms safely greatly outweighs the risk of your child ever getting involved in a firearm accident.

Show me a dad who teaches his children at a young age how to handle dangerous things safely, and I’ll show you a healthy father-child relationship and a well disciplined child. Show me a dad who never let his child near his dangerous tools/toys and I’ll show you a fat kid who knows nothing but video games.

Here in the Ozarks, it’s almost mandatory to publish pictures of the kids on their first hunt, and during hunting season we have a whole page in our weekly paper devoted to beaming little 8- or 9- year old girls and boys with their first deer, turkey and so on.

 

[melensdad]

Melensdad,

Load that .22 up with some hollow point bullets and have your daughter plink at popcans filled with water. Or eggs. Or if you don’t like the hollow point ammo she can blast charcoal brickettes. Those targets have a little more reaction than paper. Something a little more gratifying when a target explodes into a fountain of water or a cloud of dust.

I told here we could blow up “Milk Jugs” with a 9mm or 45ACP with HPs, but she is not really able to handle those calibers yet. I had not thought about the pop cans, but I just bought a ‘brick’ of CCI 22lr non-hp ammo. I think I may pick up some charcoal to “dust” when hit.

I also ordered me a father’s day present for myself. Its a “resetting” bullseye target system. I figured that if she hit the steel plates and saw them move/lock out of the way it would give her a bit more challenge, if you hit the final bullseye in a series of 6, it drops the first five back down into position ready for shooting again. The advertisement said it was capable of taking up to 40 S&W impacts, so it should be good for the 9mm too.
Black Jaque:

Show me a dad who teaches his children at a young age how to handle dangerous things safely, and I’ll show you a healthy father-child relationship and a well disciplined child. Show me a dad who never let his child near his dangerous tools/toys and I’ll show you a fat kid who knows nothing but video games.

Absolutely, take the mystery out and teach the responsibility when they are young. We had loaded guns in our house since my child was born. No problems.

I think it helps children to learn responsibility and safety. It also teaches them something that many adults do not know, it teaches them that a gun is a tool just like a hammer or a baseball bat. It cannot do something on its own, and it takes skill to use it, lots of practice to be proficient, and it is not something that needs to be a scary thing. It demands respect and care, it can be part your fun and a great family experience too.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Watching a milk jug get hit with a 9mm JHP will certainly instill some respect for the weapon.

Both Federal and Remington sell .22 bricks with hollowpointed bullets so you need not break the bank to get HPs.

When I think about it, it’s much more scary to think of all the bleach bottles and gas cans that sit in laundry rooms and garages waiting for children to get into them. Guns are quite easily rendered “safe” simply by unloading and storing ammo separately. Removing the bolts, or putting a lock on 'em.

 

[abu_kamoon]

When I hear of some spokesman for the Church attacking our Second Amendment Rights, I can only attribute it to be an illustration of his lack of faith. The Catholic Church has always taught that self defense is morally justifiable. When some Church official takes issue with our right to keep and bear arms, he is taking a stand against the historical teaching of the Catholic Church.

It is incumbent on us to make an issue of this. Should we sit back and allow his office to give dignity to his erroneous statement? Certainly not! The same applies to any Church spokesman who promotes or legitimizes abortion or homosexuality. If they go against historical Church teaching, we have an obligation to expose them.

ابو كمون

 

[tomarin]

When I hear of some spokesman for the Church attacking our Second Amendment Rights, I can only attribute it to be an illustration of his lack of faith. … The same applies to any Church spokesman who promotes or legitimizes abortion or homosexuality.

mr. abu,

if you’re going to use such inflammatory language, could you please cite exactly which church officials you’re talking about and the context in which they spoke or wrote? i don’t know of any bishops or priests promoting any of the things you accuse them of (although i can imagine such rogue or dissident priests or bishops arise from time to time). but then again maybe i need to get out more.

when i read comments like these that seem to advocate leading a rebellion against the catholic church hierarchy it makes me queasy to my stomach, i’m sure you understand why.

pax christi,

tomarin

 

[melensdad]

i don’t know of any bishops or priests promoting any of the things you accuse them of (although i can imagine such rogue or dissident priests or bishops arise from time to time). but then again maybe i need to get out more.

Have you been reading any of the Fr Pfleger threads?

He defies Cardinal George. He invites Muslims to speak during mass. He invites pro-abortion political candidates to speak during mass.

 

[tomarin]

Have you been reading any of the Fr Pfleger threads?
He defies Cardinal George

sorry, i did read about him and i chalked him up to be one errant activist priest.

i get a little defensive when i read posts that seem to question church leadership on a broader scale than the occasional rogue priest or bishop – it confuses me. he probably just meant father pfleger or someone of that ilk.

i actually agree that there’s no reason for the church to be anti-second amendment. as catholics we are to abhor violence but we are allowed to defend ourselves and our loved ones (as we would defend any vulnerable person from people trying to do them physical harm, i hope).

pax christi,

tomarin

 

[abu_kamoon]

To clarify my position, several of the other posters have cited examples of priests and bishops who are attacking the Civil Rights of American citizens, specifically the Second Amendment.

Since the Catholic Church has always defended the right of self defense, the clergymen are in rebellion to traditional Catholic teaching. They are voicing THEIR opinions, which are in conflict with what the Church has said for hundreds of years.

My point is that they are using the dignity of their office to promote their personal agenda, not what the Church teaches. Do you think that it is prudent to sit on the sidelines and watch?

ابو كمون

 

[tomarin]

Do you think that it is prudent to sit on the sidelines and watch?

no, although correcting the bishops in question in a spirit of charity is probably in order. equating them with left-wing dissident clergymen advocating abortion and gay rights is a bit over the top and inflammatory, in my opinion.

to be honest, i don’t know what those documents posted earlier were supposed to be and they were posted without any context given to whether they were intended to be morally binding or just a guide. in my heart of hearts i don’t believe the catholic church wants to ban weapons for the reasons you point out in your post (appropriate violence for self defense is permissible).

 

[abu_kamoon]

tomarin, what you say sounds reasonable to me,

ابو كمون

 

[Black_Jaque]

Tomarin,

How about this statement found on the USCCB website under it was written in 2005.

In Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, the bishops reiterated their support for legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons. “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.” During the last Congress (2003-2004), Cardinal McCarrick wrote to the White House, as well as to members of the House and Senate asking them to support the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban.

That Assault Weapons Ban was a silly piece of legislation. Even the anti-gun people knew it was silly.

 

[abu_kamoon]

The idea that our public servants have the authority to limit Rights guaranteed to the American people in the US Constitution is worse that silly. If Congress can declare certain small arms as “assault weapons”, they can put that title on any firearm.

The idea is to first attack rifles that resemble military weapons. The military weapons are selective fire (capable of full automatic fire), whereas the civilian variants are semi-automatic. Once a particular group of weapons has been demonized, it is a simple matter to expand the list.

Incidentally, the Second Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights in order that the American people could enjoy recreational shooting. The Second Amendment was included because the Founders realized that the most dangerous force to freedom would be our own government. They did everything they could think of to prevent this.

They designed a government with separation of powers. Only Congress could declare war. Look at what the Executive branch does today! They limited the power of Congress to powers specified in the Constitution. Can anyone show me where education, energy or foreign aid (welfare to other nations) is mentioned in the Constitution? The Constitution gave Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. It did not give Congress the power to create a central bank that prints inflationary debt notes.

People who think that gun control is a good idea should reconsider. Who do you think would do the controlling? Do you trust these people?

I rest my case.

ابو كمون

 

[tomarin]

Tomarin,
How about this statement found on the USCCB website under it was written in 2005.

just because they support gun control measures in the name of preventing violence doesn’t mean you can’t respectfully disagree and remain a catholic in good standing. rightly or wrongly, they probably associate guns with violent criminals and not law-abiding citizens.

i’m not a big partisan either way on the issue of gun control but after reading this thread and doing some research on my own i have come over to the gun rights side because 1 – it’s in the constitution and 2 – it would be part of British common law anyway for citizens (well, subjects) to defend their homes and property, so it’s part of our heritage anyway.

gun owners aren’t the irresponsible or revenge-fantasy preoccupied kooks that the mainstream media make them out to be. they appear to be responsible, hard-working people who enjoy shooting and think that gun ownership is an important right that defines american identity. who am i to quibble with them?

in order to square the USCCB document with the catechism of the catholic church, which obviously has the greater weight, i think we have to conclude that the bishops wrote what they wrote in good faith out of concern for gun violence but did not intend it as anything more than an opinion for you to consider. just as pope jp ii’s warning about the war in iraq was intended not as a statement of doctrine but as the opinion of a man of conscience.

 

[melensdad]

in order to square the USCCB document with the catechism of the catholic church, which obviously has the greater weight, i think we have to conclude that the bishops wrote what they wrote in good faith out of concern for gun violence but did not intend it as anything more than an opinion for you to consider. just as pope jp ii’s warning about the war in iraq was intended not as a statement of doctrine but as the opinion of a man of conscience.

From the research I have done, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, at least the USCCB speaking/writing as a group, are strongly anti-gun. In fact you can go to their website and see several documents they have written that appear to nearly mimic some of the words and phrases of the Brady Campaign website to ban guns.

I’ve seen other institutionalized Catholic writing against gun ownership such as the Diocese of Joliet’s newspaper, which is very one sided and biased in favor of gun control/gun bans. It ONLY quotes anti-gun speakers, ONLY anti-gun literature, ONLY anti-gun studies, websites, etc.

Then there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and even the wording there leaves something to be desired. There clearly is support for self defense, but far less clear is any support for self defense with a firearm. I know some others here disagree with me and say it absolutely supports the individual use of a firearm (and I hope those people are correct) but based on my interpretation of the wording, it provides for the use of firearms by authorized people who are entrusted to care for the safety of others, but is even less clear who is authorized to protect others (is a father authorized to protect his wife and children?). Some people see the wording as very clear support for the use of the most efficient means of defense, I see it a little muddier, but still offering at least tacit support.

 

[abu_kamoon]

in order to square the USCCB document with the catechism of the catholic church, which
obviously has the greater weight, i think we have to conclude that the bishops wrote what
they wrote in good faith out of concern for gun violence but did not intend it as anything
more than an opinion for you to consider. just as pope jp ii’s warning about the war in
iraq was intended not as a statement of doctrine but as the opinion of a man of
conscience.

Good faith is not an excuse for irresponsible statements on the part of endividuals who enjoy great authority. If yu or I make a rash statement, most people will just assume that we went of half-cocked. When bishops issue a statement in concert, the implication is that these learned men are speaking words of wisdom.

Certainly, we are all opposed to violence. To blame firearms for their misuse is not a sign of logical thinker. Rather than go into what is not the cause of the mindless violence we see today, let’s look at what has changed.

If you go back fifty years, there were almost no gun laws. Firearms were not viewed with suspicion. And there was comparitively little crime.

So why the increase in violence? Well, if you watch some of the movies and TV programs from fifty years ago, you will notice a big difference. The movies and TV programs did not glorify violence. The message was that crime does not pay. Is this what we see today?

People are sheep, and kids are the biggest sheep. When movies make crime and violence look exciting, when criminals and gang members are made out to be heroes, a lot of kids are going to start emulating them. How come we knew this fifty years ago?

We have mainstream media leading us to hell. Where are the bishops? Why aren’t they railing against them? For forty years, the recording industry has been promoting drugs to young people. Today, rap is promoting violence, racism, gangs, drugs, and every other evil.

Firearms are NOT evil. They can, and are misused by the criminal element. But much more often, they are used to prevent a crime, to save a person’s life. According to the FBI, a firearm is used over a million times a year to prevent a crime. Are the bishops opposed to this? Let’s put them on the spot.

ابو كمون

 

[melensdad]

Good faith is not an excuse for irresponsible statements . . .

Certainly, we are all opposed to violence. To blame firearms for their misuse is not a sign of logical thinker. . .

If you go back fifty years, there were almost no gun laws. Firearms were not viewed with suspicion. And there was comparitively little crime.

So why the increase in violence? . . .

We have mainstream media leading us to hell. . .

Firearms are NOT evil. They can, and are misused by the criminal element. But much more often, they are used to prevent a crime, to save a person’s life. According to the FBI, a firearm is used over a million times a year to prevent a crime. Are the bishops opposed to this? Let’s put them on the spot.

WHAT YOU SAID

 

[Black_Jaque]

We have mainstream media leading us to hell. Where are the bishops? Why aren’t they railing against them? For forty years, the recording industry has been promoting drugs to young people. Today, rap is promoting violence, racism, gangs, drugs, and every other evil.

Interesting. You can also log onto the USCCB and read movie reviews. Read their review of Brokeback Mountain. Have a barf bag handy though. While they don’t out-and-out condone it - they seem to handle it with kid gloves.

So why the increase in violence? Well, if you watch some of the movies and TV programs from fifty years ago, you will notice a big difference. The movies and TV programs did not glorify violence. The message was that crime does not pay. Is this what we see today?

I remember my Dad forbid us to watch the Dukes of Hazard. His reasoning was because it made the police look like idiots and glorified disobedience.