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

[lmachine]

What’s your plan to deal with an even deadlier tool: One designed solely for the purpose of propelling a human faster than nature ever intended, and responsible for over 32,000 deaths in 2014 - nearly 3 times as many as those killed by guns?

First, you should probably specify auto deaths are three times as many as gun homicides. Roughly equivalent numbers of people are killed by guns and in car crashes annually.

We as a nation take automobile deaths seriously and fund car and road safety research in an attempt to reduce those deaths. We should take the equivalent in magnitude problem of gun deaths equally seriously and study ways to prevent them instead of blocking federal funding for gun safety research.

 

[vz71]

Wayne LaPierre said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

That is one person.
You used a plural.
So who else were you referring to?

And more directly the point - how can you maintain credibility when generalizing those that hold a differing opinion in such manner.

 

[Michael68]

First, you should probably specify auto deaths are three times as many as gun homicides. Roughly equivalent numbers of people are killed by guns and in car crashes annually.

We as a nation take automobile deaths seriously and fund car and road safety research in an attempt to reduce those deaths. We should take the equivalent in magnitude problem of gun deaths equally seriously and study ways to prevent them instead of blocking federal funding for gun safety research.

My gun safety works fine. No need for a study, just a lil oil

 

[Lost_Sheep]

If you believe that gun control truly is unconstitutional, then it infringes on the rights of criminals, mentally ill people and minors if they are denied access to firearms.

Well, criminals and the mentally ill also have a Constitutional right to be free of a tyrannical government. The Constitution does not explicitly exclude them. And criminals and the mentally ill also have a right to personal self defense.

And it says nothing about the style of weapon that you have a right to bear. I’m sure the founding fathers were not thinking of semis at the time.

Oh, please stop with the “The Second Amendment only applies to muskets” argument. Muskets, at the time, were used by both civilians and the military so for all practical purposes civilians did have military-grade firearms back then. They had military type firearms then, they should have them now.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So if you’re bringing guns to back up your “demand” can I assume you’re ready to use them?

By all means. It is my (our) Constitutional right.

We would shoot any armed person who is shooting back at us; they would be considered the enemy. We certainly would not shoot innocent passers-by.

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.

Oh, I think you might be surprised. There is a great Silent Majority out there who are just as fed up with the status quo as us more vocal ones.

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

Who are we bullying? We are not bullying anyone. If anything we are try to protect people from a government that has been overstepping its bounds for years.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

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.

Don’t be too sure about any of that. The British never thought it could happen to them either and the American colonials surprised them.

And keep in mind that the government should not necessarily expect undying loyalty from the police and the National Guard either. After all, who are the police and the National Guard? They are ordinary folks like you and me. They have families. They have mortgages. They hate paying excessive taxes and live paycheck to paycheck like everyone else. They are sick of immigrants coming to American and expecting us to change our way of life to suit them.

Do you really think that they, or at least many of them, aren’t going to switch sides?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

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.

The United States military is the most powerful fighting force in the world. It has the best weapons, the best trained people, the best communications, the best intelligence, the best of everything needed to fight a war. But the American military has a weak spot: It is no good at fighting insurgencies. Fallujah was not exactly our finest hour. We are losing the war in Afghanistan for the same reason. Even back in Viet Nam, we lost because we were basically fighting insurgencies (they called it “guerrilla warfare” back then, but it was the same thing.)

If the people were to rebel against the government, they would fight an insurgency style asymmetrical war against it. For example, the people don’t have missiles to shoot down government gunship helicopters. So instead, they go about killing the pilots when they are on the ground. They kill the mechanics who service them. They blow up the fuel trucks on the way to the air base.

Every elected official would become a target. As you slowly destroy an organized chain of command the government’s ability to continue fighting diminishes.

Bear in mind also, that these would not necessarily always be common ordinary citizens fighting either. There are plenty of trained ex-military people who are fed up with the status quo too. They’d be fighting as well.

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

I cannot possibly reply to that comment without getting myself banned so I won’t. So may I suggest you just continue to go about your perfect Utopian life in Europe and let is American handle our own affairs.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Do you think our Church would condone shooting Obama?

I don’t know. But our Church is not in charge of America. And generally speaking, the Church supports the idea of people being able to live free of oppression so if you look at in in terms of a just war rather than an assassination, I think the Church would be on board with it.

 

[jesucated]

This thread has become absolutely horrifying. The open discussion of armed insurrection (however “hypothetical” any one on here might claim) is both shocking and sickening. A pastor makes a gesture for peace, and it devolves into “we could storm the White House and no one would stop us” rhetoric. Unbelievable.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

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

Don’t tell me this comment means the government…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Wayne LaPierre said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

I don’t know if he said that or not, but it’s not the only way. Most gun (or weapon owners) or martial artists would prefer to not have to use their stuff on anyone. Even in the USA frontier days of the Wild West, many places were fairly calm because of the presence of guns.

The idea for personal security is more of a deterrent because the average police time in some USA cities can be over 30 minutes.

When it comes to crime and terrorism, that may be perceived as an eternity.

 

[otjm]

So, what is your solution for stopping mass shootings?

Better and faster treatment of mental health issues. Better awareness of mental health issues which can result in a murderous rampage. Review of the rules concerning commitments for mental health issues, and necessary changes. Review of HIPPA and related rules governing the privacy of mental health information to determine if those rules are preventing others (relatives, friends, officials, and others who may be in a position to monitor behavior and intervene, or seek intervention). Ability for individuals (e.g teachers, pastors, school counselors, coaches, etc. ) to intervene or seek intervention without the threat of reprisal law suits (e.g. Good Samaritan rules). Access to mental health information with the requirement that it be entered into databases for record checks when purchasing a gun, and funding to drive that data entry.

Within the last few months, several bills were entered in Congress regarding gun laws. Two (if not three) were solidly backed by the NRA. Harry Reid lead the Democratic coalition in defeating those bills, and one Democratic pundit indicated that they (the Democrats) were going to attempt to use this incident in the coming election - the only conclusions being that the Democrats are not interested in effective prevention of these tragedies, but rather in the eventual overturn of the 2nd Amendment and the two Supreme Court cases; and that the Democrats intended to spin the issue in their favor and use it against the Republicans.

Not one gun law proposal - with the exception of outright confiscation - would have altered any of the “mass killings”, with the possible exception of the killings in the Baptist church. There was information concerning the shooter’s background that was known, but not entered in the data base.

And the states with the strictest gun laws - including Illinois and California also have the highest murder and shooting rates. If the gun laws on the books were effective, logically they should have no more than average rates, and arguably some of the lowest rates. But nobody promoting more gun laws ever seems to slow down and address that issue.

And in Chicago, there has been an almost complete vacuum in reference to Federal prosecution of gun laws - never mind the number of cases which would justify trials.

Sandy Hook was terrible, and we can all agree on that. His mother, who knew of his mental problems, provided the guns. But to date, for 2016, in Chicago alone, there have been 2,191 shot and wounded; and 397 shot and killed, or a total of 2,588 shootings. Why is the press not keeping this on front page news, and national television news reporters not reporting it nightly?

Because the news would rather not address the issue of the disparity between the shootings and some of the most strict laws in the US. Even the liberal press can’t spin this one.

 

[otjm]

Where do you think gang members get guns?

From studies conducted of inmates in prisons: "Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member.

Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders."

That last paragraph refers at least in part to Federal law, which is “observed by its absence”, for example, in the Chicago area. In less than 8 months in Chicago, that amounts to 2,588 shootings.

 

[otjm]

hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

The studies quoted there are so full of holes it is pathetic. They rely on information gathered by police. If no crime is committed, there is nothing to report.

And lest you don’t understand that, I will give you two from my own: one of my brothers and his wife were downtown Portland one evening and were accosted by two individuals who were very aggressive in their approach. He put up his had for them to stop - they didn’t, and as they were closing in on him he swept his hand back clearing his jacket, to draw. They saw this and immediately turned and moved off at a rapid walk.

The second was from a firend of mine at my parish. He was in California making sales calls and had left his hotel late one evening to get dinner. He was accosted by an individual who from appearance and demeanor appeared to mean harm. He made the same motion and the individual immediately fled. He was unarmed at the time (he does not have a permit to carry in California, which, because he is an Oregon resident, would be impossible to obtain, or next to impossible). The mere appearance of drawing a weapon in each case resolved the issue.

The collection of reports simply ignores the reality of what happens on the street and in homes.

Someone unknown to you appears at your door banging away on it and you shout out that you are armed; they leave. that never gets reported to the police, so is not a “legitimate statistic” to those reports.

But then, the CDC is a bunch of idiots who don’t know enough to come in out of the rain let alone how to do research, and those reports created by people with an agenda are to be believed.

um hmmm…

 

[otjm]

And a :tiphat: to France.

 

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

No posts since Aug 13… Finally we got the moment of silence I requested for this innocent AR-15 that had an untimely demise.

 

[J_Peterson]

This thread has become absolutely horrifying. The open discussion of armed insurrection (however “hypothetical” any one on here might claim) is both shocking and sickening. A pastor makes a gesture for peace, and it devolves into “we could storm the White House and no one would stop us” rhetoric. Unbelievable.

Yeah, since I’ve contributed to this thread I feel I should point out that I am in no way in favor of shooting President Obama. While not perfect, I like him and even if I didn’t, I don’t want him shot. In fact, I don’t want anybody to be shot ever. To the feds reading this, you are doing good work!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Without French aid, Yorktown certainly would not have been possible, and undoubtedly there are many other examples.

But ultimately I think the Brits would have been defeated. It just might have taken longer and been more episodic. The colonials had a whole continent just west of them and a high birth rate, and if most continued to desire independence from Britain, it would have eventually succeeded. One recalls the trans-Appalachian episodes as suggestive that the whole thing would have eventually become too expensive in terms of money and soldiery to the Brits.

But back to the topic. This pastor did nothing to actually reduce the number of guns in any meaningful way. The real question is whether the symbolism of his act made destroying a valuable thing worthwhile. It does not seem so to me.

 

[Monkey1976]

This pastor did nothing to actually reduce the number of guns in any meaningful way. The real question is whether the symbolism of his act made destroying a valuable thing worthwhile. It does not seem so to me.

Nothing but high-profile virtue signaling. If he’s going to blow his trumpet when he does good, he could at least learn to play it well.

 

[Usagi]

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.

Dude, he’s gone in less than a year. And the campaign for the next election is proceeding apace, even if the choice of candidates is exceptionally poor. If we needed to get rid of a President in a hurry because of actual criminal behavior, there are provisions for handling that too.

Armed revolution is the last resort when you don’t have protections like that or when they break down, not something to pull out when you just don’t like the current guy.