The Right to Bear Arms

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LINVS said:
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

—Luke 22:36
Click to expand...
Linvs,

You are correct with exception…he said 2 are enough…
35And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. 36And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword. 37For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment. 38A**nd they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. **
Click to expand...
So, yes, He told them to buy swords…two were all that were needed…you figure out what for.

So if Jesus advocates purchase of AK-47 then two would be enough.👍
 
Why are higher capacity magazines necessary, some people ask. See the following news article:

wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

In this situation, a women at home alone with her children shoots at an intruder 6-times, hitting him 5 and while doing so, emptying her revolver of all ammo, Despite being shot that many times, the man still lived and was mobile enough to be able to run away. According to the reports, he was unaware that she was out of ammunition. Had he not fled at that point, he could have easily continued to attack her or shot her or the children with his own gun.

Self defense is not about whether a person will die a few hours later from their wounds. Rather, it is about instantaneously incapacitating the criminal so that they are incapable of harming you or other innocents. There’s a reason why police officers use standard-capacity handgun magazines., because they know that in some situations, a person shot several times is still dangerous for quite some time. As such, they need to be able to continue to fire should it be necessary.

Ordinary citizens deserve no less.
 
LINVS said:
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

—Luke 22:36
Click to expand...
Jesus seemed a bit ambivalent about that.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 9:3 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 10:10[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Lost_Sheep said:
First, I am curious to know where you heard that. When I was an altar boy 40-some years ago, our priest would go deer hunting quite often.

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia enacted a law that said the head of every household was required to own a gun and ammunition for it. Despite fears of wanton violence and gun battles in the streets, the crime rate dropped by 89% and has been consistently lower than the national average ever since. By contrast, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois enacted a law banning guns that same year, and its crime increased by 16%.

I would strongly encourage you to read this opinion piece. It is chock-full of unbiased common sense:

kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
Click to expand...
It is really scary that people can be required to own guns and the ammunition for them. There are those who have relilgious reasons for not owning guns (I am thinking of Quakers, who are pacifists) and for those people it would be like being required to purchase health insurance which provides contraception and abortion benefits. I choose not to own a gun, but I have no quarrel with those who do. My reasons for not owning a gun are personal and not moral or religious. If I ownned a gun I would be more likely to injure myself than an intruder – I am a klutz.
I also remember well the days when I was suicidal, some 30 years ago; if I had owned a gun Iprobably would have used it on myself and not be writing this post. But most people are not suicidal, nor are they as klutzy as I am. I have as much right NOT to own a gun as people have the right to own one. If that’s not true, we are in deep trouble.
 
GCTSgrad said:
It is really scary that people can be required to own guns and the ammunition for them. There are those who have relilgious reasons for not owning guns (I am thinking of Quakers, who are pacifists) and for those people it would be like being required to purchase health insurance which provides contraception and abortion benefits. I choose not to own a gun, but I have no quarrel with those who do. My reasons for not owning a gun are personal and not moral or religious. If I ownned a gun I would be more likely to injure myself than an intruder – I am a klutz.
I also remember well the days when I was suicidal, some 30 years ago; if I had owned a gun Iprobably would have used it on myself and not be writing this post. But most people are not suicidal, nor are they as klutzy as I am. I have as much right NOT to own a gun as people have the right to own one. If that’s not true, we are in deep trouble.
Click to expand...
I have no issue if the city wished to provide an incentive such as offering training or access to the police firing range or something along those lines, but I agree that forcing people to own purchase and own a gun would be the incorrect way to go.
 
GCTSgrad said:
It is really scary that people can be required to own guns and the ammunition for them. There are those who have relilgious reasons for not owning guns (I am thinking of Quakers, who are pacifists) and for those people it would be like being required to purchase health insurance which provides contraception and abortion benefits.
Click to expand...
Religious rights are not always absolute if the state has a compelling reason. Case in point: Several years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania began requiring farm equipment to have a bright red reflective triangle mounted on the back to identify it as a slow moving vehicle. For some reason, Amish horse-drawn buggies fell under this category. The Amish took the matter to court claiming the display of the red triangle ran contrary to their religious beliefs of not being ostentatious. The court ruled against them saying the state had a compelling interest to ensure the safety of everyone who uses the roads.

In other words, the safety of the population as a whole took precedence over the Amish’s religious belief.

So by the same token, if the state has a compelling interest of keeping crime to a minimum compulsory gun ownership could be the law; religious beliefs notwithstanding.
 
Today there are 283,000,000 registered firearms in America. Plus many have concealed/carry permits. Others carry them without permits. Yet of 66 “mass shootings” no armed civilian ever took out a shooter. What is the solution to all the shootings in America? The NRA has the simple answer: we need more guns.

From AMERICA , Jan 7-14, 2013: “We can control the nature of the weapons and ammunition we allow. We can simply reread the part of the Second Ammendment that acknowledges the collective responsibility to maintain a ‘well-regulated militia’ and ask, after Columbine, after Virginia Tech, after Aurora, and now after Newtown, how well regulated the nation’s self appointed militia appears.”
 
wondrousgnat said:
Today there are 283,000,000 registered firearms in America. Plus many have concealed/carry permits. Others carry them without permits. Yet of 66 “mass shootings” no armed civilian ever took out a shooter.
Click to expand...
So, your claim is that because you believe that a law abiding person carrying a gun has not managed to stop a mass shooting, we should take away guns from those law abiding citizens? Even if your premise was accurate, that would not make any sense.

Regardless, your premise is not accurate. There are many situations where a criminal opened fire in a crowded area but was stopped before the body count was beyond one or two by a legally armed private citizen.

A very recent example:
  • Dec. 11, a gunman shot two people to death at a mall in Clackamas, Ore., then took his own life when he saw a 22-year-old patron with a concealed carry permit draw his weapon. “He was working his own gun,” Nick Meli told KGW Channel 8, describing how he positioned himself behind a pillar when he heard gunfire. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.” The Channel 8 report continues – The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter. “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said. Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision. “I’m not beating myself up 'cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”
Other examples where civilians stopped what could have been a mass shooting due to the circumstances:
  • Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Innocents dead: Two.
  • Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Innocents dead: Three.
  • Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Innocents dead: Two.
  • Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Innocents dead: One.
We can see this in other countries as well:
  • Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng (at a crowded venue in Jerusalem) managed to kill only one victim before being shot by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them.
What is true, is that we have not had a civilian stop a shooting in a “gun free zone”. That is because law abiding citizens respect that law and do not carry in such places. That is why the shooting in Colorado happened at one theater which had such a regulation, instead of the many others closer to his home, which did not.

All of this of course doesn’t even take into consideration the between 1.5 and 3 million times per year that guns are used by law abiding citizens for self-defense purposes. Documentation of those number has been provided multiple times in this thread already.
 
wondrousgnat said:
Today there are 283,000,000 registered firearms in America. Plus many have concealed/carry permits. Others carry them without permits. Yet of 66 “mass shootings” no armed civilian ever took out a shooter. What is the solution to all the shootings in America? The NRA has the simple answer: we need more guns.
Click to expand...
That’s almost one per person. To me, it’s a wonder we don’t have more shootings and cross-fires.
 
wondrousgnat said:
Today there are 283,000,000 registered firearms in America. Plus many have concealed/carry permits. Others carry them without permits. Yet of 66 “mass shootings” no armed civilian ever took out a shooter. What is the solution to all the shootings in America? The NRA has the simple answer: we need more guns.

From AMERICA , Jan 7-14, 2013: “We can control the nature of the weapons and ammunition we allow. We can simply reread the part of the Second Ammendment that acknowledges the collective responsibility to maintain a ‘well-regulated militia’ and ask, after Columbine, after Virginia Tech, after Aurora, and now after Newtown, how well regulated the nation’s self appointed militia appears.”
Click to expand...
6 died in the Sikh temple Wisconsin shooting; 12 died in Columbine High School shooting; 32 died in the Virginia Tech shooting; 5 died in the Lancaster County Pennsalvaniya Amish school shooting; 12 died in the Aurora Colorado shooting; 27 died in the the Newton Connecticut shooting. All areas where concealed permit weapon handguns are banned, all were gun free zones

1997 - 2 people died, Pearl High School, Mississippi. Student shot several people in high school and was heading towards the junior high school and Joel Myrickm the assistant princicipal took a .45 pistol from his car and put it to to the gunman’s head and the shooting spree ended

1998: 1 person died, Edinboro, Pennsylvania. A student sh0t a number of people at a junior high school dance at a resturant and theowner of the resutrant took out his shotgun and stopped the gunman

2001: 2 people died, Santee, California. A student began shooting classmates. Off study policeman and a ‘trained campus supervisor’ pointed his gun at the shooter and held him until the police arrived

2002: 3 people died, Appalachian School of Law. A man shot a professor and a dean and began shooting students. 2 armed students pointed their guns at th gunman as the gunman got more ammunition and a third person tackled the gunman

2008: 2 people died, Winnemucca, Nevada. Ernesto Villagomez shot 2 people in a crowed resturant but a person carrying a concealed carry permit holder shot him dead

2013: 2 people died, Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas. Jesus Manuel Garcia starts shooting in a movie theatre but an off duty armed policeman shot Garcia stopping him from further shooting

2013: 2 people died, Clackamas Town Center, Portland Oregon. A man went into the mall and started shooting. Nick Mali, who who had a concealed gun carry permit, but the mall was gun free zone and he did not notice, pointed his gun at the shooter and the shooter went around a corner and shot himself

Don’t you think more people would have been killed in these incidents if there was not a person with a gun to stop the perpetuator in each of these shootings? Far fewer people were killed in the shootings that took place when the shooter was stopped by a gun holder than the shootings that took place in gun free zones

2012 July there were 7 theatres in Colarado showing The Dark Knight Rises. Only 1 of those 7 had a ban on concealed permit handguns and guess which of those 7 James Holmes targetted? Theatre with the ban on concealed permit weapons which was not the theatre that was closest to where he lives or the theatre with the most seats
 
_Abyssinia said:
Don’t you think more people would have been killed in these incidents if there was not a person with a gun to stop the perpetuator in each of these shootings? Far fewer people were killed in the shootings that took place when the shooter was stopped by a gun holder than the shootings that took place in gun free zones
Click to expand...
Would be even fewer if the perpetrator had no gun to begin with.

Again guns seem to beget guns.
 
ProVobis said:
Would be even fewer if the perpetrator had no gun to begin with.

Again guns seem to beget guns.
Click to expand...
Timothy McVey used a bomb which killed 168 or 169 people

Worst school massacre in American history involved 500 pounds of explosives detonated by Andrew Kehoe which killed 2 teachers, 4 others, 38 children and Kehoe killed his family and wife

Perpetuator could use a bomb or another device which could kill as many if not more than they would with a gun
 
wondrousgnat said:
Today there are 283,000,000 registered firearms in America. Plus many have concealed/carry permits. Others carry them without permits. Yet of 66 “mass shootings” no armed civilian ever took out a shooter. What is the solution to all the shootings in America? The NRA has the simple answer: we need more guns.
Click to expand...
Um, have you not watched the news lately? :confused:
 
I guess the concesus is that we need more guns as the only way to stop shootings.

Anybody want to explain their interpretation of the phrase in the 2nd Ammendment: “well regulated militia?”
 
nitesnake said:
How? Where does church doctrine say anything about gun ownership?

Again, how, and where (specifically) does the the Church teach that?

None of what you’ve written is Church doctrine; none. It’s just your very well written opinion on a political issue. The collective opinions of the USCCB concerning this issue carries the same weight as yours. They are simply political opinions, nothing more.
Click to expand...
The USCCB agrees with me nitesnake.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.

“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer – especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner – and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

That’s followed by a footnote that states: “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use --** handguns should be eliminated from our society**.”

That in turn reiterates a line in the bishops’ 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse, which called “for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top