Pastor buys AR-15 at raffle so he could destroy it

[ARSpade]

To repeat, if you are against a law and see it as unjust but want someone to be charged by it simply because they were originally for the law, you are being dishonest.

It’s not dishonest. It’s simply wanting and expecting people to be held up to the standards they themselves uphold. Which is a fairly biblically sound position to take.

 

[BellsMom]

I would join one in a heartbeat. If, say 100,000 or so armed citizens would march on Washington, surround the White House and demand that President Obama step down I would be right there with them.

So if you’re bringing guns to back up your “demand” can I assume you’re ready to use them? Who exactly will you be shooting first if President Obama tells you go sit and spin? Random passers by? Maybe the police sent in to clear the area? And when someone pops off a shot and all hell breaks loose, I wonder how many people will support your efforts to remove the president from office then.

Statements like this are the reason I find most outspoken gun advocates to be bullies who enjoy intimidating other people.

 

[Padres1969]

I would join one in a heartbeat. If, say 100,000 or so armed citizens would march on Washington, surround the White House and demand that President Obama step down I would be right there with them.

Of course your 100,000 would likely be wiped out by local/federal law enforcement and the national guard in short order. And those not killed would rightly be put on trial for treason for attempting a coup in short order. We have a way to remove a president from office built into our constitution and that is not it.

Of course it’s a moot point. You’d never get 100,000 people to march armed on the white house. Nor would such a group even get anywhere near the White House between the afore mentioned law enforcement, military, and other Americans stepped in and turned your mob away.

 

[Usige]

That’s because the NRA seriously hampers any attempts at national gun control.

Yep, one of the reasons me (and several priest and deacons I know) are card carrying members of the NRA.

If you don’t like the second ammendment then lobby your congressional delegation to introduce an ammendment to repeal it. If they can get 2/3 of Congress to approve, then lobby for 38 states to willingly give up a right enumerated in the bill of rights.

If you love the European landscape then move there. You will have a better chance of immigrating then you will of the proposal to ever make it out of congress, let alone standing on the throats of more than 100 million Americans.

The 2nd amendment was enumerated specifically to fight a tyrannical government and I don’t think a gun grab will go down quietly. If you want to start the second American Civil War then I can’t think of a better way to do it.

 

[zz912]

It was affiliated with southern Democrats from about 1870 into the early 20th century. Not in the least relevant to anything that has happened in the last 90 years. But I understand it is a talking point used by the far right to divert attention to the racism in their ranks.

But but but 150 years ago… but but but Robert Byrd… but but but Abraham Lincoln…

Robert Byrd was in office until he died in 2010. Exactly how is that 150 years ago? Seems like 6 years to me.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Yep, one of the reasons me (and several priest and deacons I know) are card carrying members of the NRA.

If you don’t like the second ammendment then lobby your congressional delegation to introduce an ammendment to repeal it. If they can get 2/3 of Congress to approve, then lobby for 38 states to willingly give up a right enumerated in the bill of rights.

If you love the European landscape then move there. You will have a better chance of immigrating then you will of the proposal to ever make it out of congress, let alone standing on the throats of more than 100 million Americans.

The 2nd amendment was enumerated specifically to fight a tyrannical government and I don’t think a gun grab will go down quietly. If you want to start the second American Civil War then I can’t think of a better way to do it.

I do live in Europe. I quite like our system of having a referendum and asking the people whether or not the constitution should change.

You could say the same thing about abortion. It will possibly never be fully eradicated from the USA; that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t advocate for that. It’s OK to state that you believe that an outdated law should be eradicated, even if you know that it’s an issue that will never get the backing it needs because of your particular system of government.

If the second amendment is specifically designed to fight a tyrannical government, then it is completely redundant in this day and age, in Western society. The citizens would never be able to fight the military, even in the extremely unlikely scenario of their being a tyrannical government in the first place.

Anyone that would be willing to fight in a war to defend their right to own a gun has no business owning a gun.

 

[Usige]

I do live in Europe. I quite like our system of having a referendum and asking the people whether or not the constitution should change.

You could say the same thing about abortion. It will possibly never be fully eradicated from the USA; that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t advocate for that. It’s OK to state that you believe that an outdated law should be eradicated, even if you know that it’s an issue that will never get the backing it needs because of your particular system of government.

If the second amendment is specifically designed to fight a tyrannical government, then it is completely redundant in this day and age, in Western society. The citizens would never be able to fight the military, even in the extremely unlikely scenario of their being a tyrannical government in the first place.

Anyone that would be willing to fight in a war to defend their right to own a gun has no business owning a gun.

We simply disgree. Anyone that freely let’s their freedoms taken away are already slaves to an unjust system. Perhaps Europeans simply have no issues bowing to anyone that snaps their fingers, but most Americans will not.

If it came to it I can almost guarantee that the US militaries would refuse to act on a large scale revolt. Most of the military is drawn from the very same states that would be resisting. Most military personnel grew up shooting the same guns you object to and would simply refuse an unjust order. The US Constitution is setup where the large urban states (California, Massachusetts, New York, et cetera) cannot simply strip the rural states of rights. You might not like it, but not its your country.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

We simply disgree. Anyone that freely let’s their freedoms taken away are already slaves to an unjust system. Perhaps Europeans simply have no issues bowing to anyone that snaps their fingers, but most Americans will not.

If it came to it I can almost guarantee that the US militaries would refuse to act on a large scale revolt. Most of the military is drawn from the very same states that would be resisting. Most military personnel grew up shooting the same guns you object to and would simply refuse an unjust order. The US Constitution is setup where the large urban states (California, Massachusetts, New York, et cetera) cannot simply strip the rural states of rights. You might not like it, but not its your country.

I’m fully aware of the difficulties involved in repealing the 2nd amendment and a “gun grab” would not work. But there are ways of slowly bringing about change over the course of a generation.

To be honest, I don’t understand the view that owning a gun is associated with “freedom”. Laws exist for the benefit of society and reducing gun deaths would certainly do that. You don’t have the freedom to break the speed limit, even if you are a great driver and there is no-one else on the road, because the average driver should not be driving at that speed.

I’ve always seen it as fear rather than freedom. That people in the USA are afraid of what will happen if they give up their guns.

 

[ucfengr]

I’m fully aware of the difficulties involved in repealing the 2nd amendment and a “gun grab” would not work. But there are ways of slowly bringing about change over the course of a generation.

To be honest, I don’t understand the view that owning a gun is associated with “freedom”. Laws exist for the benefit of society and reducing gun deaths would certainly do that. You don’t have the freedom to break the speed limit, even if you are a great driver and there is no-one else on the road, because the average driver should not be driving at that speed.

I’ve always seen it as fear rather than freedom. That people in the USA are afraid of what will happen if they give up their guns.

Suppose we don’t want change? That we don’t view the ownership of firearms as inherently wrong? My simply owning a firearm or several doesn’t hurt you or anybody else. What makes you hold that your opinion is the morally superior one?

 

[Brendan]

To be honest, I don’t understand the view that owning a gun is associated with “freedom”. Laws exist for the benefit of society and reducing gun deaths would certainly do that…

That premise relies on the assumption that gun control would do that. There is no actual statistical correlation to that, let alone proven causality.

Norway for example, has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe, but one of the lowest gun death rates… Contrast that to the Netherlands, which has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership, yet has nearly the worst rate of murder rate in Western Europe.

And we can also talk about Russia, which has a murder rate 4 times that of the US, but where private gun ownership is banned.

So your premise is flawed right from the start.

 

[lmachine]

TNorway for example, has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe, but one of the lowest gun death rates…

Norway has high ownership rates but there are strict controls on the purposes you can have a gun, education requirements, annual licensing requirements, and regulations about how guns are stored. If we adopted similar gun controls to Norway that would be a good first step to reducing gun deaths.

And we can also talk about Russia, which has a murder rate 4 times that of the US, but where private gun ownership is banned.

Private gun ownership is not banned in Russia.

 

[otjm]

This is an AR-15. It is absurd for anywhere.

And some people do “know better than other folk”.

I fail to see what is absurd in any way. It does the same thing other rifles do - it shoots a bullet. As far as being a semi-automatic, we had those back in 1885, or 130 years ago.

As to “knowing better”, it is not about “knowing”. It is about emoting, which the liberals are particularly good at. The whole anti-gun issue is driven not by reality, not by knowledge, but by the emotions, most particularly that of fear. And that fear is driven by a lack of knowledge.

 

[otjm]

I’ve always seen it as fear rather than freedom. That people in the USA are afraid of what will happen if they give up their guns.

And that in large part is based on we over here have seen going on over there.

And while you may like the country you live in, with major control of weapons, lets not forget that Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership per population, in the world.

 

[Paganus]

I’ve always seen it as fear rather than freedom. That people in the USA are afraid of what will happen if they give up their guns.

People in the USA are descended largely from peasants who were once oppressed by aristocrats who refused us the right to bear arms, or to hunt wild game, or to own land, or to speak our opinions freely, or to worship as we wished regardless of the persuasion of our current overlord. Here we have the freedoms that were once reserved to our masters.

If we give up our right to self-defense, we would be returning to a historical position of servitude. Some latter day plutocrats are spending a lot of money on propaganda trying to convince us that this would be a good idea for us and we would be much happier since the property of our government would be fed, housed, clothed and protected at government expense.

I would rather be hanged.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m saying (over and over) that if he broke the law he should be fined, as opposed to jail, since he is not a danger to anyone but still allegedly broke the law. What everybody else here (it seems) is saying is that they disagree with the law but they should put him in jail for breaking it because he was supposedly for the law. That is dishonest and is vengeance, which is not acceptable. If I disagree with a law I don’t want anybody to be arrested or charged for it. To repeat, if you are against a law and see it as unjust but want someone to be charged by it simply because they were originally for the law, you are being dishonest.

He is a danger to those at his church. He spent $3,000 of money they supplied to get a basic AR-15. No one should pay that much for a basic AR-15. To take money others worked hard to supply and be so irresponsible with it is criminal. Adding that factor to the issue makes the case for harsh punishment even better. It may be hard or impossible to find him at fault for so carelessly wasting money, but he’s clearly guilty under this other law. The justice system works like that all the time.

It is not at all dishonest to want supporters of unjust laws to be made to pay the steepest penalty when they violate those laws. It is the most common sense way to cure people of bad intentions. He was probably near a school at some point with his gun and thus in violation of federal law. I hope he gets rung up on that as well. Just bringing charges against him might not be enough to cure him of a desire to impose restrictions on morally neutral activity.

 

[exnihilo]

If the second amendment is specifically designed to fight a tyrannical government, then it is completely redundant in this day and age, in Western society. The citizens would never be able to fight the military, even in the extremely unlikely scenario of their being a tyrannical government in the first place.

I don’t know why you think tyrannical governments are rare. I’d say they are the norm. Europe has had many almost everyone would agree are tyrannical just in living memory. Also Western Society, Christendom, is collapsing. It is more important than ever before to be able to defend yourself and your family.

I’ve always seen it as fear rather than freedom. That people in the USA are afraid of what will happen if they give up their guns.

Of course I’m afraid. I’m also afraid of having my first amendment rights further infringed. Being afraid of losing a right is a natural consequence of rights being good.

 

[Brendan]

Norway has high ownership rates but there are strict controls on the purposes you can have a gun, education requirements, annual licensing requirements, and regulations about how guns are stored. If we adopted similar gun controls to Norway that would be a good first step to reducing gun deaths.

Private gun ownership is not banned in Russia.

Yes, it is possible for a private person in Russia to legally acquire a firearm, but the restrictions are similar to that of Norway.

Yet they have a murder rate 4 times that of the US.

So there is not even any correlation of gun control laws and gun deaths, let alone causality.

 

[Suudy]

As to “knowing better”, it is not about “knowing”. It is about emoting, which the liberals are particularly good at. The whole anti-gun issue is driven not by reality, not by knowledge, but by the emotions, most particularly that of fear.

Exactly my point in my earlier posts. I post facts about crimes related to the AR-15, and the only response has been an emotional one. The left likes to claim it is the “party of science,” yet when it comes to issues such as guns, it becomes the party of emotion.

And that fear is driven by a lack of knowledge.

I don’t know where I heard this quote, and I’m not even sure it is an actual quote. But is a sentiment I think conveys this point well.
What man does not understand, he fears. And what man fears, he tends to destroy.
This seems especially apt, given the OP. This pastor doesn’t understand firearms, so he fears them. And through his fear, he seeks to destroy them.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Gun control works.

What evidence can you show to back that up? A recent study by the University of Chicago showed that very few criminals attain their guns legally.

townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/09/06/criminals-pretty-much-avoid-buying-guns-legally-says-university-of-chicago-study-n2048561

As has been repeated numerous times, Gun Control laws don’t work because criminals don’t care about gun laws any more than they care about other laws.

Think about this: All kinds of weapons are prohibited in prisons, yet inmates still manage to kill each other by improvising and making their own weapons from whatever materials they can find.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

How about if they just made the guns. How would gun control prohibit that. It’s not exactly rocket science. A revolver is close to 200 year old technology. The materials (steel) can be obtained at any junkyard, and the tools at any good hardware store.

What he said.

Here is an improvised hand-held shotgun made from a mousetrap and a piece of PVC pipe. Crude, but it works. How would anti-gun legislation stop this sort of thing?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23384&stc=1&d=1470931227