Revolvers for Everyone!

[chriso]

Perhaps those laws were a recent (and futile) response to higher gun violence in those states.

Actually its been my impression that they’ve been in effect for quite some time now, but be that as it may (I knowI’ve been reading of the complaints about the overly restrictive burden placed upon law abiding citizens for many years now), most certainly the states and cities with the more supportive stances for private, legal ownership (the states and cities with the lower crime rates) have long held their policies supporting their law abiding citizenship in their rights to keep and bear arms.

 

[chriso]

I’ve got my eye on a nice hand gun which looks very simmilar to the one I carried on active duty. I am checking it out to see if it is a fair price. I figure if I buy it then some gang banger can not.** Too bad gun stores are not allowed to profile**.

Aint that the truth!!!

 

[gamewell45]

Thanks for that view. It seems we do have (maybe) some things we can agree upon after all. I’d venture to guess we both view the armed commission of crimes to be a huge and important issue, but dissagree as to weather restricting my right to arm myself legally will in fact impact the issue to the degree you believe it will. And, possibly dissagree regarding my view that tougher enforcement may have an even greater impact on the bottom line than your preferred method of handgun restriction across the board.

( dont know if I’ve stated that all totally acurately, but I think its pretty close? Maybe we can renew the rational discussion based upon that groundwork?

Thanks again, Chris

I’m not opposed to having rational discussion based on your groundwork. PM me if you would?

 

[Lycorth]

A higher grade license required for owning handguns or semi-automatic rifles, and use of is restricted. The fees and additional cost of storage lockers etc. make doing so very expensive. Nobody is allowed to carry firearms in public for the purpose of self-defence.

Let’s read some more:

“To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.”

"To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms"

“Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessoires such as sound suppressors (“silencers”) is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the **possession of a specific gun locker.” **

In reality the Swiss do have some quite strict controls.

So, what is your point? That there should be laws regulating what people can do with their firearms? No one is opposing that.

My point is that merely having lots of firearms owned by law-abiding civilians does not and never has contributed to criminal gun violence, and that therefore, banning firearms from civilian ownership is not the answer, be it handguns or rifles or shotguns.

There is oftentimes an assumption made that those of us who oppose foolish and dangerous gun control laws oppose any laws whatsoever regarding firearms ownership and purchase. That is not so and never has been. Firearms bans are generally what are opposed outright, not logical laws (and law enforcement).

 

[cynic]

So, what is your point? That there should be laws regulating what people can do with their firearms? No one is opposing that.

My point is that merely having lots of firearms owned by law-abiding civilians does not and never has contributed to criminal gun violence, and that therefore, banning firearms from civilian ownership is not the answer, be it handguns or rifles or shotguns.

There is oftentimes an assumption made that those of us who oppose foolish and dangerous gun control laws oppose any laws whatsoever regarding firearms ownership and purchase. That is not so and never has been. Firearms bans are generally what are opposed outright, not logical laws (and law enforcement).

Gun control usually takes the form of licensing for the user and gun registration, not outright bans.

 

[royal_archer]

Aint that the truth!!!

well, too late. it was sold before I got back.

 

[royal_archer]

There is oftentimes an assumption made that those of us who oppose foolish and dangerous gun control laws oppose any laws whatsoever regarding firearms ownership and purchase. That is not so and never has been. Firearms bans are generally what are opposed outright, not logical laws (and law enforcement).

That and laws that appear to be set ups for a gun confiscation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The commandment we have been given by Our Divine Lord and Savior is to turn the other cheek.

As I said earlier, we need to keep the teachings of our Lord in proper perspective. Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.

You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways. As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death. A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

Try it with someone. Have a friend pretend to slap you and you immediately step forward offering the other cheek. Look at what will happen based on the positions that both of you are in. Your friend will have three choices: (1) He can take a step back and slap you again with the open hand but that will cause him to lose face because a non-Roman made him back up. (2) He can strike you with the back of the hand but that will be viewed as a challenge to fight because he hit you with his knuckles freeing you to retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny. (3) Or, he can walk away making his point with only one slap instead of slapping you repeatedly as often happened.

Jesus taught his followers a practical way to avoid being slapped around by the Romans as was frequently the case if you study the history from that area.

Before anyone disagrees with this, I present the following for your consideration. Scripture tells us that Jesus was ALWAYS in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father in ALL things. If the Father instructed people to give measure for measure (as in your “eye for an eye” example) and Jesus instructed differently, then He would NOT have been in perfect agreement with His Father, would He?

“Measure for measure” and “turning the other cheek” are two different teachings and are in disagreement with each other UNLESS there is something overlooked in that teaching. What is overlooked is what I presented above.

 

[chriso]

well, too late. it was sold before I got back.

Well… does that help us out any in determining if it was a fair price or not?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Hey everyone, do you feel safer as more and more people are bringing loaded guns and assault weapons into Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks, restaurants and Catholic Churches.

First off, nobody is bringing assault weapons into Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks, restaurants and Catholic Churches! Secondly, I do feel safer knowing that places are filled with armed civilians as there is less chance that a criminal will attempt to do something illegal because all guns will be turned on him.

If you go to my Church, you can be sure that I will be armed. So will our Monsignor – even while saying Mass.

And do you like this idea of selling guns to anyone with no background checks, no ID’s, and no registration? This is what these gun manufacturers and gun dealers want. This is their hidden agenda. They want the criminals to have the right to buy guns and assault weapons not only at gun shows but also at places such as your local Dunkin Donut, without any ID, and no background check, and no registration. This is so because as more and more criminals are able to buy guns on the gray market without registering them, people will justifiably become fearful and go out and become a client of the gun manufacturer by purchasing their own gun out of fear for their safety. Thus we see a spiral of more profit for these gun manufacturers in motion.

You have NO idea what you are talking about. I sell guns for a living. Do you have any idea how many sales I deny without even doing a background check? Plenty! I would venture to say that I deny more sales than the background check and if/when they complain, the owners have backed me EVERY single time. Most (not all, even one of the Apostles was bad, but “most”) gun dealers / salesmen are honorable people who do not want to see their guns in the wrong hands.

I’m not going to go into details and give away inside information for folks to defeat the system but based on years of experience there are certain things that we look out for and if we observe them, it makes us doubt the legality of the sale and WE do not proceed with it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’ve got my eye on a nice hand gun which looks very simmilar to the one I carried on active duty. I am checking it out to see if it is a fair price. I figure if I buy it then some gang banger can not. Too bad gun stores are not allowed to profile.

Sure we are. The law clearly states (it says so in writing on the bottom of page five) that if we have doubt with regards to the legality of the sale, even if the buyer meets all of the requirements, we are prohibited from making the sale. We do not need to have proof, we just need to have doubt and based on that reasonable doubt, I have refused to make many sales.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Poor cat. I suppose you want to go and shoot that now too?

In all seriousness, people can not be trusted with having a permanent weapon by their side whether you coin them “peaceful” or not is irrelevant. Surely such a backward progression can only lead to increased violence in the world? What happened to make love not war? What happened to logic??

And before you mock the “love not war” comment, perhaps you should consider looking at fact - Here in the UK we have Gun control. Please tell me how many School Shootings have we had over the years?? And we certainly do not ignore criminal violence either, but Gun Crimes are low because they are not advocated as a sensible means of protection to the people in the first place. This is where you are going wrong.

Subsequently I do very much beg to differ with your logic. We are proof that not fixating on ownership of weapons, is the best way. You should try rethinking your ideals.

Ps,

See what I’ve written above. Violence only begets violence.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old. Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?

 

[cynic]

. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old.

Unfortunately violent criminals don’t play fair. The bad guys don’t wear black hats and challenge victims to fisticuffs or a gunfight. You’ll likely be struck in the back of the head while anawares.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Unfortunately violent criminals don’t play fair. The bad guys don’t wear black hats and challenge victims to fisticuffs or a gunfight. You’ll likely be struck in the back of the head while anawares.

This is true. A gun will not help in situations where you do not have an opportunity to use it but that will not be true in all cases and in those case, a gun WILL be helpful.

 

[chriso]

Unfortunately violent criminals don’t play fair. The bad guys don’t wear black hats and challenge victims to fisticuffs or a gunfight. You’ll likely be struck in the back of the head while anawares.

And one of the major reasons (IMHO) why infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms will have little or no effect on these very criminals you describe… for they wont play fair, and wont abide by any rule to turn in or register their guns… or knives, or cars, and so on, and so on…

 

[Lycorth]

Gun control usually takes the form of licensing for the user and gun registration, not outright bans.

Most people here who are advocating “gun control” want to see one or more types of firearms banned outright. Sophia86 above is a gun control advocate and is in favor of total firearms bans. gamewell is a gun control advocate and in favor of total handgun bans.

I have never met a left-leaning gun control advocate who isn’t for some type of across-the-board total ban on some type of firearm. “Gun control” usually implies “gun bans” to them.

As I said earlier, we need to keep the teachings of our Lord in proper perspective. Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.

You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways. As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death. A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

Try it with someone. Have a friend pretend to slap you and you immediately step forward offering the other cheek. Look at what will happen based on the positions that both of you are in. Your friend will have three choices: (1) He can take a step back and slap you again with the open hand but that will cause him to lose face because a non-Roman made him back up. (2) He can strike you with the back of the hand but that will be viewed as a challenge to fight because he hit you with his knuckles freeing you to retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny. (3) Or, he can walk away making his point with only one slap instead of slapping you repeatedly as often happened.

Jesus taught his followers a practical way to avoid being slapped around by the Romans as was frequently the case if you study the history from that area.

Before anyone disagrees with this, I present the following for your consideration. Scripture tells us that Jesus was ALWAYS in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father in ALL things. If the Father instructed people to give measure for measure (as in your “eye for an eye” example) and Jesus instructed differently, then He would NOT have been in perfect agreement with His Father, would He?

“Measure for measure” and “turning the other cheek” are two different teachings and are in disagreement with each other UNLESS there is something overlooked in that teaching. What is overlooked is what I presented above.

Thank you for an insightful and historically-accurate perspective.

Gun control fanatics often twist the words of Jesus to advocate disarmament. What they fail to realize is that Christ lived in a vastly different world than we do. He gave instructions to His followers based on, among other things, the world in which they lived. Anything Christ said only applies to the people to whom He said it unless God through the Church tells us otherwise. This is why the Bible is not for personal interpretation; most people can’t read the Bible and separate it from life in the 21st century - it’s far too easy to take anything and everything in Scripture out of context and make it seem to say what we want it to say. This is why the Protestant revolution was a disaster for Christendom; the Bible was taken away from the only God-given source of safe interpretation, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately violent criminals don’t play fair. The bad guys don’t wear black hats and challenge victims to fisticuffs or a gunfight. You’ll likely be struck in the back of the head while anawares.

Why on earth don’t gun control fanatics wish to see this? Criminals are criminals precisely because they do not play fair, abide by the law, or make their intentions clear. Gun bans will be ignored, circumvented, and overcome, and the innocent will be legally disarmed and vulnerable.

Over my dead body, first.

 

[rpp]

As I said earlier, we need to keep the teachings of our Lord in proper perspective. Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.

You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways. As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death. A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

Try it with someone. Have a friend pretend to slap you and you immediately step forward offering the other cheek. Look at what will happen based on the positions that both of you are in. Your friend will have three choices: (1) He can take a step back and slap you again with the open hand but that will cause him to lose face because a non-Roman made him back up. (2) He can strike you with the back of the hand but that will be viewed as a challenge to fight because he hit you with his knuckles freeing you to retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny. (3) Or, he can walk away making his point with only one slap instead of slapping you repeatedly as often happened.

Jesus taught his followers a practical way to avoid being slapped around by the Romans as was frequently the case if you study the history from that area.

Before anyone disagrees with this, I present the following for your consideration. Scripture tells us that Jesus was ALWAYS in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father in ALL things. If the Father instructed people to give measure for measure (as in your “eye for an eye” example) and Jesus instructed differently, then He would NOT have been in perfect agreement with His Father, would He?

“Measure for measure” and “turning the other cheek” are two different teachings and are in disagreement with each other UNLESS there is something overlooked in that teaching. What is overlooked is what I presented above.

Nicely put. Thank you for that thoughtful exegesis.

Banning any type of weapon make them more attractive to those who are not inclined to abide by the laws meant to protect property and persons. The more popular or culturally ingrained, the more appealing it will be. For example, the use of firearms, even in the interminable civil wars in Japan, was never fully adopted until after Admiral Perry opened up that country. The weapon of choice was the sword. After WWII, personal ownership of the most popular (and lethal) swords was banned. Only ceremonial swords were permitted. Yet, when I lived there in 1999-2000, there were several cases where people went postal and killed multiple people (one case I recall seven people were killed and nearly 20 injured). Did they use a gun? No, they used an illegal samurai sword.

Personally, I think an across the board ban on handguns while claiming that people can defend themselves using a rifle or shotgun either demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about guns. For example, rifles have high muzzle velocity and are far more likely to penetrate a target and exit it with enough velocity to seriously endanger whatever is behind the target or inflict a serious, even fatal, wound on another person. Next, in close quarters, the longer barrel of a rifle gets in the way and if the attackers is three arm lengths away, they can effectively prevent the defender from getting off a shot by grabbing the barrel.

If handguns were not really useful, why do soldiers carry them into combat?

 

[Milt]

I guess they could teach “Shooter’s Ed,” like Driver’s Ed. A fool with a car can kill many more people than an idiot with a gun. Most of the time, anyway.

-Tina “Support Your 2nd Amendment Rights” G

Actually we had courses, after normal school hours, in firearm and hunting safety.

It was a good refresher course since we had already passed a much tougher one given by our dad.

 

[royal_archer]

Well… does that help us out any in determining if it was a fair price or not?

evidently it was too fair.

 

[royal_archer]

Sure we are. The law clearly states (it says so in writing on the bottom of page five) that if we have doubt with regards to the legality of the sale, even if the buyer meets all of the requirements, we are prohibited from making the sale. We do not need to have proof, we just need to have doubt and based on that reasonable doubt, I have refused to make many sales.

Your not afraid of being accused of violating “civil rights” or being accused of discriminating?

I wish more would exercise that discression. When going in to buy said hand gun, I saw a couple of questionable critters buying hollow points.