Obama plans curbs on guns

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not about who’s an extremist to me. It’s about the fact that ordinary people do NOT need high-powered assault rifles. It’s beyond ridiculous. People who hunt, need a weapon for self-defense, or target shooting do NOT need high-powered assault rifles.

Most hunting weapons are very high powered. A standard 30-06 deer rifle has a stronger load than the WWII M-1 Garand American soldiers used. When one hunts something like a deer or an elk, it HAS to be a strong load.

But to a person like me, who only shoots “varmints”, (I don’t like venison) an AR-15 with its much smaller load is just about right.

 

[Seamus_L]

Citizen soldiers played a major role however Concord, Breeds Hill, Bennington, etc, and author David Hackett-Fischer believes it was militia units ambushing British foraging parties in New Jersey that really began the turning of the tide.

 

[Theo520]

It’s not about who’s an extremist to me. It’s about the fact that ordinary people do NOT need high-powered assault rifles. It’s beyond ridiculous. People who hunt, need a weapon for self-defense, or target shooting do NOT need high-powered assault rifles.

Now, I’m going out to see about my nuclear warhead, which falls under the category of “arms” and the constitution gives me the right to own one to protect myself against North Korea. Well, under the constitution, I don’t even need a reason.

The AR15 (223) is not considered a "high-powered assault rifle" by any knowledgeable expert. If anything, the military considers it under powered and true battle rifles start at 308 caliber and above (std deer rifle). The primary military advantage of the 223 is that you can carry more ammunition, that’s it.

Re nuclear, resorting to hyperbole is nothing more than a deflection.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, sure. Also the professionally-trained (by Prussians) Continental Army, and Spanish and French naval and ground forces. . .

It’s kind of a myth that a bunch of citizen-soldiers defeated the great British military machine.

The Continental Army was composed of citizen soldiers. They weren’t professionals. And actually, sometimes the militia comported themselves quite well against British regulars.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The AR15 (223) is not considered a "high-powered assault rifle" by any knowledgeable expert. If anything, the military considers it under powered and true battle rifles start at 308 caliber and above (std deer rifle). The primary military advantage of the 223 is that you can carry more ammunition, that’s it.

For a “varmint hunter” like me, the main advantages of an AR-15 with .223 ammunition are weight and ease of handling.

 

[Gorgias]

"Lily Bernans:

the Swiss Army … do NOT keep their guns at home.

Maybe some people in the Swiss Army keep their weapons at home, but the ones I knew for ten years did not.

Thanks for your honesty and willingness to admit that your assertions were mistaken, and are not representative of the truth.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It is quite rare for any American to own a “high-powered assault rifle” (for which no definition is given). Assuming an assault rifle is automatic, they are not easy or inexpensive to obtain.

An AR-15, for example, is no different, other than cosmetically, than a modern hunting rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not a military rifle.

Jon

It’s the civilian equivalent to the military’s M-16. What’s the difference? Actually, I know the difference, so never mind.

I just do not understand Americans total fascination with gun ownership. One would think we were living in the middle of a war zone or simply loved violence to the extreme.

When I lived in Switzerland, they decided to have a show similar to “America’s Most Wanted.” It took Switzerland, Austria, and Germany - the German speaking world - to put together one episode. The US has more material than it could use in twenty lifetimes.

Well, I have to see about my nuclear warhead - my right to bear arms - and get ready for school tomorrow. I’m teaching Moral Theology tomorrow, and it does not permit me to own “arms” so I’d better get it out of the way tonight.

 

[Seamus_L]

A better question then, What on earth do American citizens need firearms that can hold 30 round clips for ? is, Why do police departments need massive armored military vehicles ?

 

[JonNC]

It’s the civilian equivalent to the military’s M-16. What’s the difference? Actually, I know the difference, so never mind.

When I lived in Switzerland, they decided to have a show similar to “America’s Most Wanted.” It took Switzerland, Austria, and Germany - the German speaking world - to put together one episode. The US has more material than it could use in twenty lifetimes.

Did you read the link I provided? The M-16 is fully automatic. An AR-15 is semi-automatic, like most other modern hunting rifles. Semi-automatic means one pull of the trigger for each round. Automatic means one pull of the trigger for numerous rounds. Putting a soldier on the front lines with an AR-15, regardless of caliber, would effectively be murder.

I just do not understand Americans total fascination with gun ownership. One would think we were living in the middle of a war zone or simply loved violence to the extreme.

Read the history of the American republic. Read about the Battle of Lexington and Concord. Read what the American founders wrote about individual rights. Read about what the progressive (fascist and communist ) tyrants of the last century always did first, in order to maintain their tyranny. They disarmed the populace.

It isn’t a fascination with gun ownership (though there’s nothing wrong with that). It is a fascination with individual liberty.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Lily Bernans;13552527]It’s the civilian equivalent to the military’s M-16. What’s the difference? Actually, I know the difference, so never mind.

If you know the difference, why do you continue to refer to rifles that are not automatic as “high-powered assault rifles” when you know they are not?

Jon

 

[Gorgias]

I’m teaching Moral Theology tomorrow, and it does not permit me to own “arms” so I’d better get it out of the way tonight.

Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you. You have the right to self-defense.

Instead of spending your money on a nuclear warhead, perhaps you might put it to better use by buying a copy of the Summa (or a good commentary on it).

 

[JonNC]

A better question then, What on earth do American citizens need firearms that can hold 30 round clips for ? is, Why do police departments need massive armored military vehicles ?

If my wife is faced with an intruder, I want her to have as many rounds as a weapon will hold in order to make sure she is not harmed.
If tyranny stands in our collective doorways, I want to have as many rounds as possible to win back liberty.

Jon

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you. You have the right to self-defense.

Instead of spending your money on a nuclear warhead, perhaps you might put it to better use by buying a copy of the Summa (or a good commentary on it).

I’m not married, so I have the money for both and more.

I’ve read the ENTIRE Summa. In fact, I teach from it. I own the whole thing. Have been reading it since my teens and I’m thirty-two now.

Didn’t Christ say to “turn the other cheek?” Did he defend himself? No. I refer you to Lonergan’s “Law of the Cross.” We do not defeat evil with an even greater evil. Evil can only be defeated with love. This was Christ’s great lesson, although Lonergan goes into much, much more detail. It’s very interesting despite one’s view on gun control and more interesting than debating gun control because with guns que sera, sera. It’s out of our hands.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If my wife is faced with an intruder, I want her to have as many rounds as a weapon will hold in order to make sure she is not harmed.
If tyranny stands in our collective doorways, I want to have as many rounds as possible to win back liberty.

Jon

Teach her to shoot to kill then because if she only wounds, or hesitates, chances are, he will kill her, with his bare hands if necessary.

Not that I wish anyone dead. I don’t. And I hope your wife never has to use a gun, for any reason. Hope her safety is never compromised.

 

[JonNC]

Teach her to shoot to kill then because if she only wounds, or hesitates, chances are, he will kill her, with his bare hands if necessary.

Not that I wish anyone dead. I don’t. And I hope your wife never has to use a gun, for any reason. Hope her safety is never compromised.

Those extra rounds help to ensure that, if she’s scared and misses the first round, or the second, or more that she can pull off lots of rounds, particularly if she’s faced with more than one intruder.

Or, she can wait three to five minutes for law enforcement to arrive.

Jon

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve read the ENTIRE Summa. In fact, I teach from it. I own the whole thing.

Psst… you’re not the only one.

I’m surprised, then, how you missed II-II.64.7, “Is it lawful to kill a man in self-defense?”

Didn’t Christ say to “turn the other cheek?”

He did. It was a teaching against retaliation, not one that disallowed self-defense. Recall that Christ also said, “if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

Did he defend himself? No. I refer you to Lonergan’s “Law of the Cross.” We do not defeat evil with an even greater evil.

You haven’t read Thomas, then, or at least not as closely as you believe you have.

He asserts that self-defense (intended only to defend oneself effectively, without the explicit intent to kill) is not an evil, but is ‘blameless.’

 

[Theo520]

Those extra rounds help to ensure that, if she’s scared and misses the first round, or the second, or more that she can pull off lots of rounds, particularly if she’s faced with more than one intruder.

Or, she can wait three to five minutes for law enforcement to arrive.

Jon

And what if there are 2-3 intruders in your house instead of just one? Having a 12+ round magazine is better.

A 3-5min response time is quite good.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Psst… you’re not the only one.

I’m surprised, then, how you missed II-II.64.7, “Is it lawful to kill a man in self-defense?”

He did. It was a teaching against retaliation, not one that disallowed self-defense. Recall that Christ also said, “if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

You haven’t read Thomas, then, or at least not as closely as you believe you have.

He asserts that self-defense (intended only to defend oneself effectively, without the explicit intent to kill) is not an evil, but is ‘blameless.’

I respect Aquinas greatly, he was a towering intellect, however, I love and respect Christ more.

I see you’ve not read Lonergan, at least not the “Law of the Cross.” That’s not unusual unless one is an upper-level theology student.

But this is about gun control, not reading recommendations.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Those extra rounds help to ensure that, if she’s scared and misses the first round, or the second, or more that she can pull off lots of rounds, particularly if she’s faced with more than one intruder.

Or, she can wait three to five minutes for law enforcement to arrive.

Jon

The problem with those extra rounds is that people usually only get one chance. If they don’t put their assailant down with the first shot, he usually puts them down. That’s why I said she should immediately shoot to kill.

 

[Theo520]

The problem with those extra rounds is that people usually only get one chance. If they don’t put there assailant down with the first shot, he usually puts them down. That’s why I said she should immediately shoot to kill.

LOL, do you have any source to back this up, that you only get a chance for one shot?

While one round may be enough, being a quick shooter is not recommended.
You should watch the bar scene in Unforgiven, he explains why your strategy doesn’t work.