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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Expatreprocedit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lmachine said:
So by this logic you believe America would be safer if there were no restrictions on gun ownership?
Click to expand...
I, for one, believe that. I see no reason why a person should not be allowed to own a tank if they can afford it.
 
Alex_H said:
So, what is your solution for stopping mass shootings?
Click to expand...
Rather than prohibiting guns, require every able-bodied adult to carry one at all times. Fine or imprison them if they fail to do so. And if they encounter a situation that requires the use of a gun to stop a threat and they fail to act, they would be charged with being an accessory to the crime. Or at the very least, negligence.
 
Alex_H said:
I was reading about a bill that passed the Tennessee state legislature that opened up state parks to people carrying guns. One senator, tried to amend the bill to include the capitol building in that, meaning that the capitol would no longer be gun free. That amendment was quickly voted down by all of the pro-second amendment senators.

Wouldn’t you agree that this is hypocritical?
Click to expand...
It would seem that way, but I don’t know the full story behind it to comment further.
 
lmachine said:
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.
Click to expand...
And, it should be noted, a car does not have to be in an accident to kill someone. It starts killing the moment the engine is started by contributing to the pollution of the atmosphere and the air we breathe which in turn can cause any number of respiratory diseases. 😃
 
jesucated said:
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.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you are welcome to exclude yourself from following any further discussion in this thread.
 
Well, no matter how you try to spin it, the Americans won and the Brits lost. 😃
 
J_Peterson said:
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! 👍
Click to expand...
For the record, I am not advocating the assassination of anyone either. However, I would not rule out an armed insurrection and the use of force to remove the current administration and most left-leaning government officials from power; indeed if there were sufficient numbers that I thought could bring about success I would most likely participate in such an action.

Bear in mind though that in 1776, the Americans would have not ruled out killing King George III if it had been possible, so who knows what could happen…
 
Usagi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, if a certain Democratic candidate (whom I shall not name) gets elected we can expect more of the same thing we’ve seen in current administration. And in my opinion, the President is guilty of a number of crimes but the “provisions” haven’t done squat about it.
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.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I’m afraid we are getting to the point of last resort. 😦
 
Monkey1976 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The only thing accomplished was patting himself on his back. Using the funds others contributed to the church.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
A true man of God

wtkr.com/2016/07/29/pastor-spends-3000-to-win-gun-raffle-plans-to-destroy-weapon/
Click to expand...
In regards to rifle deaths, a comparable number of people are killed each year by blunt objects. But if this “priest” had destroyed a hammer or a baseball bat, he would rightly be seen as delusional. As others have stated, this is non-Christian, SECULAR virtue-signaling; a way for him to feel good about himself. He’s delusional.

But really I don’t expect much more from the Episcopalians. They promote homosexuality, contraception, and a host of satanic vales, so why not march lock-step with the World when it comes to promoting the cause of the day?
 
Lost_Sheep said:
For the record, I am not advocating the assassination of anyone either. However, I would not rule out an armed insurrection and the use of force to remove the current administration and most left-leaning government officials from power; indeed if there were sufficient numbers that I thought could bring about success I would most likely participate in such an action.

Bear in mind though that in 1776, the Americans would have not ruled out killing King George III if it had been possible, so who knows what could happen…
Click to expand...
Its stuff like this that gives gun owners a bad name.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Rather than prohibiting guns, require every able-bodied adult to carry one at all times. Fine or imprison them if they fail to do so. And if they encounter a situation that requires the use of a gun to stop a threat and they fail to act, they would be charged with being an accessory to the crime. Or at the very least, negligence.
Click to expand...
Do you think about what you are saying before you put it out there for the internet to see? These are all terrible ideas. You are giving gun advocates a bad reputation. I am 1000% in favor of gun ownership but this is asinine. I don’t want a law requiring me to carry at all times, it would be much better to have laws allowing me to carry if is so choose. Fining me or jailing me because I chose not to carry at some specific time? absolutely not!!! Again, the way to go is allowing people to carry IF they choose. Charging people as accessory to a crime or negligence because I did not intervene? What a dumb idea, not even the police are required by law to do that. If I happened to walk into a store with my kids while an armed robbery was in progress, I would not expect to be charged with being an accessory to that crime if I chose to get my kids to safety instead of intervening. I want laws that will allow me to protect myself and my family, not criminalize me for protecting my family safety over that of a stranger. If people don’t like guns they can choose not to own or carry them. Advocating to force them to do something against their will is just more big government attitude and something I will not support.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
In regards to rifle deaths, a comparable number of people are killed each year by blunt objects.
Click to expand...
Less than 3% of illegal homicides in the U.S. are committed with rifles. Statistically, banning rifles, including semiautomatic ones, would make little difference in bringing down the homicide rate.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Less than 3% of illegal homicides in the U.S. are committed with rifles. Statistically, banning rifles, including semiautomatic ones, would make little difference in bringing down the homicide rate.
Click to expand...
Then let’s start by banning handguns and move forward from there.
 
lmachine said:
Then let’s start by banning handguns and move forward from there.
Click to expand...
And how exactly would you propose to do this? Even if were possible to suddenly stop the legal sale of handguns, there are still more than 400 million handguns in the United States. Most are owned by law-abiding citizens who do not pose a threat to anyone.

Approximately 94% of all illegal homicides committed with a gun are committed with an illegally-obtained handgun. Banning the legal sale of handguns would have no effect on this.

Any attempt to “gather up” all the handguns in the United States would be futile. For one thing, it would be unrealistic to expect that every legal handgun owner is going to happily surrender their handguns. And even if they did, that would be the easy part. The guns in circulation among the criminal community would be nearly impossible to track down and confiscate. The manpower and the cost to undertake such a task would be enormous, not to mention the personal risk to the people doing the confiscating.

Sorry. Not gonna happen.
 
Getting back to the original point of this thread, the pastor may or may not have violated a gun law by giving the AR-15 to someone else for safe keeping. That’s for the local courts to decide.

As for him wanting to destroy the firearm, the AR-15 is his property and it is prerogative to destroy it if he so chooses; it’s a free country.

But it is highly unlikely that destroying this one firearm is going to make any difference in the national homicide statistics and what he is doing is nothing more than showboating. It might garner some admiration from at anti-gun crowd but that’s it.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Banning the legal sale of handguns would have no effect on this.
Click to expand...
As I’ve posted, “illegally obtained” very often means “purchased at or stolen from a gun store in southern state and resold in state with tougher gun laws”. Banning handgun sales would reduce the supply of weapons to criminals.
The guns in circulation among the criminal community would be nearly impossible to track down and confiscate.
Click to expand...
With no new supply the number of guns in circulation would decrease over time. They would be more expensive to purchase and therefore not used as casually.
 
lmachine said:
As I’ve posted, “illegally obtained” very often means “purchased at or stolen from a gun store in southern state and resold in state with tougher gun laws”. Banning handgun sales would reduce the supply of weapons to criminals.

With no new supply the number of guns in circulation would decrease over time. They would be more expensive to purchase and therefore not used as casually.
Click to expand...
This is academic theory that is literally impossible in the real world, that leaves me and my family more vulnerable. You can go live in la-la land, but don’t force me to join you.

Can we stop replying to this thread? I have to relive the pain from the innocent and untimely destruction of this poor AR 15.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top