Revolvers for Everyone!

[Monte_RCMS]

This thread is FAST approaching the magic 1000 number of posts.

WHO WOULD HAVE BELIEVED IT!!!

Given the persistent appeal of the subject and constant development in the legal area, perhaps some thought should be given to bringing it back when this particular thread gets turned off at or slightly after the 1000 post number is achieved.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I post on many Forums, not just this one.

Good. Come to . We had many anti-gun folks show up only to eventually become gun owners. As a matter of fact, my co-owner and administrator was once anti-gun. I invite you to stop by and .

 

[Lycorth]

I left the Catholic Church because back in 1965 when I had my oldest daughter out of wedlock and the Priest at my parish refused to bapitize her saying that I probably wouldn’t raise her in the Catholic Church anyway. That was his excuse. Nevermind the fact that my aunt, who was my godmother, and who was a very strict Catholic, was very good friends with that Priest and that my family had felt very strongly against my keeping this child instead of giving her up for adoption. That’s when I left the church. And I had my daughter baptized in the Lutheran church, (with Lutheran godparents) and have been Lutheran ever since. I consider myself a good Christian and I have no regrets.

It’s sad that you let someone else affect your faith like that. You should have simply proven the priest wrong instead of letting a single bad episode incite you to hate a Church and faith you otherwise found perfectly fine.

And these are the best two “Catholic” examples you can put forth for me to model the correct Catholic methods of living?

I hunt and fish with our Bishop, he shoots and owns several firearms. I think I’ll follow his example…

Well-said.

Ghandi approved of the ownership of firearms and King was a Marxist whoremonger. There are better examples for Catholics to follow.

 

[CDNowak]

How can a so-called “Christian” want to walk around carrying a gun? I can see guns for hunting, and for certain jobs, like police officers or security guards. But the average Joe?
All you have to do is ask yourself this; what would Jesus do? what would He say about carrying a gun? I think we all know the answer to that. Need I say any more?

He did tell His disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords (Luke 22:35-38), so the modern day equivalent should do…

 

[TinaG]

 

[chriso]

So Tina,

You still didnt let us know if your question had been answered

 

[Sideline]

He did tell His disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords (Luke 22:35-38), so the modern day equivalent should do…

Perhaps you should read all 3 of those verses.

37 "For I tell you this verse must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”, and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled. 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”

He is saying that they had to go out and get swords so that Jesus would be considered a bandit to fulfil the scripture, and that 2 swords between the 13 of them was enough for them to be bandits. Saying that Christians should own guns because of this is like saying that Christians should go steal cars from the outskirts of cities because Jesus told his followers to go get him a foal (cars are the modern equivalent of foals).

But even ignoring all context, according to this you still only need 2 swords per 12 Christians for Jesus to be counted among bandits. So… only one in six of you needs a gun.

 

[royal_archer]

Perhaps you should read all 3 of those verses.

37 "For I tell you this verse must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”, and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled. 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”

He is saying that they had to go out and get swords so that Jesus would be considered a bandit to fulfil the scripture, and that 2 swords between the 13 of them was enough for them to be bandits. Saying that Christians should own guns because of this is like saying that Christians should go steal cars from the outskirts of cities because Jesus told his followers to go get him a foal (cars are the modern equivalent of foals).

But even ignoring all context, according to this you still only need 2 swords per 12 Christians for Jesus to be counted among bandits. So… only one in six of you needs a gun.

Do you have a reference for that interpretation?

 

[chriso]

So… only one in six of you needs a gun.

Well… I’ve got you covered then! (and five others too apparently!)

I can see it now, trying to decide who gets to be the one in six to own the guns… it’ll probably be like Andrew and James trying to secure the seats to the right and left!!!

 

[chriso]

Perhaps you should read all 3 of those verses.

37 "For I tell you this verse must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”, and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled. 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”

He is saying that they had to go out and get swords so that Jesus would be considered a bandit to fulfil the scripture, and that 2 swords between the 13 of them was enough for them to be bandits. Saying that Christians should own guns because of this is like saying that Christians should go steal cars from the outskirts of cities because Jesus told his followers to go get him a foal (cars are the modern equivalent of foal.

So it was illegal for the apostles to own swords back then? Peter was in violation of the “assult weapons ban”? If this were true, one would think that after Peter cut the infamous ear off, he’d have been taken into custody and his sword taken from him wouldnt it? And the apostles “stole” the foal?.. hmmmmm, I guess I’ll have to do some re-reading to get on the same page as you seem to be… maybe I’ve been reading the wrong bible all these years?

 

[Sideline]

Do you have a reference for that interpretation?

Yes, Luke 22:35-38

Let’s review. Jesus said that the reason they needed to buy swords was to fulfil the scripture that he was counted among the lawless. They said they have 2 swords, and he said it is enough.

Do you have any reference suggesting it should be taken any other way than literally?

 

[Sideline]

So it was illegal for the apostles to own swords back then? Peter was in violation of the “assult weapons ban”? If this were true, one would think that after Peter cut the infamous ear off, he’d have been taken into custody and his sword taken from him wouldnt it? And the apostles “stole” the foal?.. hmmmmm, I guess I’ll have to do some re-reading to get on the same page as you seem to be… maybe I’ve been reading the wrong bible all these years?

Oh, I guess you are right. If it were illegal to strike off someone’s ear, then Peter would have gone into hiding, denied having any involvement with the Jesus and the apostles, and no doubt would eventually have been captured by the Romans and crucified.

Oh wait, didn’t that happen?

 

[royal_archer]

Yes, Luke 22:35-38

Let’s review. Jesus said that the reason they needed to buy swords was to fulfil the scripture that he was counted among the lawless. They said they have 2 swords, and he said it is enough.

Do you have any reference suggesting it should be taken any other way than literally?

Yes, that he knew he was to be taken and killed as a criminal and knew that his appostles would be targeted for their association with him and they needed to be able to defend themselves and their followers.

 

[chriso]

Oh, I guess you are right. If it were illegal to strike off someone’s ear, then Peter would have gone into hiding, denied having any involvement with the Jesus and the apostles, and no doubt would eventually have been captured by the Romans and crucified.

Oh wait, didn’t that happen?

So the Romans actually were looking for Peter, the “assult weapons ban violater”, all that time up until they finally caught him and crucified him for cutting off the servants ear? I somehow never knew they left that small tidbit of information out about his being sentanced to death for carrying a sword… And he went into hiding in the chief priests courtyard and snuck around at the foot of the cross, and met the soldiers at the tomb face to face and sontinued to preach in public up until that day in some kind of disguise such that they never could figure out how he was hiding in their midst all the while? Ok, thanks for straightening me out on that…

 

[Lycorth]

Yes, Luke 22:35-38

Let’s review. Jesus said that the reason they needed to buy swords was to fulfil the scripture that he was counted among the lawless. They said they have 2 swords, and he said it is enough.

Do you have any reference suggesting it should be taken any other way than literally?

A reference? 2000 years of God-guided Church teaching that has never abrogated self-defense nor the carriage of arms for that purpose, and in fact has laid out conditions for their just use. If God wanted to forbid us to carry arms for just reasons, He would have taught us thus.

 

[TheWalsh]

Thank you Lycorth, Let there now be an end to it. Indeed, the Church has never said one cannot bear the means of self-defense. If one has a right, the means cannot be denied. With all due charity, I must say that I am sick and tired of these novel ideas. I mean ideas to strip mankind of God-given rights. Yes, with all rights, come responsibilities. If I mess up, to jail I go. Until then, leave me alone. That goes for the federal government, bigtime. Let’s all say amen, and move on to more fertile fields of discussion. ~TheWalsh

 

[Anna2552]

How can a so-called “Christian” want to walk around carrying a gun? I can see guns for hunting, and for certain jobs, like police officers or security guards. But the average Joe?
All you have to do is ask yourself this; what would Jesus do? what would He say about carrying a gun? I think we all know the answer to that. Need I say any more?

*But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. *

Luke 22:36

 

[o_mlly]

This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G

You’re thinking way too small. While the old wheel guns as a manageable sidearm are virtually jam proof, their fire power would leave you wanting. If we want to arm everyone, in the interest of fairness, I would recommend we all carry Glock 37’s. It packs the punch of Dirty Harry’s revolver with four more rounds (Was that 5 or was it 6? Well, punk, it doesn’t matter anymore!) but won’t require your tailor to alter all your jackets to make space for Harry’s canon.

Of course, we must add to the new “must carry” law a parallel “must not carry” grenade/grenade launcher law.

 

[chriso]

You’re thinking way too small. While the old wheel guns as a manageable sidearm are virtually jam proof, their fire power would leave you wanting. If we want to arm everyone, in the interest of fairness, I would recommend we all carry Glock 37’s. It packs the punch of Dirty Harry’s revolver with four more rounds (Was that 5 or was it 6? Well, punk, it doesn’t matter anymore!) but won’t require your tailor to alter all your jackets to make space for Harry’s canon.

Of course, we must add to the new “must carry” law a parallel “must not carry” grenade/grenade launcher law.

You’ll get my grenade launchers out of my hands when you pry them from my cold, dead, fingers!

 

[Lycorth]

Since the OP was just quoted, I’ve noticed a misunderstanding that needs to be addressed…

**One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. **It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

Actually, us pro-gun folks don’t think that - just the opposite. We acknowledge that man’s sinful nature has rendered us irrational and therefore the potential for mortal danger is higher than it ought to be, particularly when other factors are considered, such as environment, moral bearing, and so on.

A world full of rational beings would not need to be armed for self-defense against other humans, as everyone would behave in a presumably moral fashion. After the Fall, however, this sort of society is impossible to achieve, therefore reality must be considered. The reality is that human beings are anything but rational and as long as murder and violence are a part of the world, we must be ready to defend ourselves and our fellows with equal or (preferably) superior means to those which the violent will employ against us.

The only perpetual bloodbath will occur if the law-abiding and morally-centered are disarmed, leaving only the criminally-oriented armed.