P
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Militarily, there is.
Arms are the individual weapons. Swords, pistols, rifles, bayonets and yes, even machine guns.
Armaments are large scale tactical weapons ( artillery, shells,) or strategic ( ballistic or guided projectiles nuclear or not)
That is why the Infantry do not have guns.
They have arms, they have weapons, they have firearms. Artillery, Armor and the Navy have guns, the Air Force has bombs and missiles, but none of those are arms. 
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
well i am thinking that these particular people, who are the root cause of your worries, are not criminals. in that they may be children without criminal records but with access to arms.
i am interested in specifics, not generalities.
you can go argue in abstract about rights etc., but it is the specific circumstances of each case in these schools which should guide your response.
if a disturbed child stole his mothers guns, then there is a specific and positive response you can take, but you need to know the exact circumstances of how the arms were accessed.
then you can formulate regulations to counter that particular problem.
going off on a crusade against an imaginary threat on your personal liberty is a waste of time. you should investigate fully and in detail how these arms got into the wrong hands and formulate a response to that particular weakness in the laws or regulations of your state.
it is a case of learning and responding to each school tragedy, not of reacting to some perceived threat to your own civil liberties.
you are responsible for your arms but also as an armed member of society you are responsible for correcting lapses and found weaknesses in your arms regulations.
after each school tragedy you should be able to reduce the chances of the next one occurring by learning and taking positive action yourselves as a community and as a state responsible for its arms regulations.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
David was long before Christ, so how can Christ be responsible for Goliath’s death? We all know that Christ is LOVE, not hate.Do you mean the same Christ who inspired David fire off large caliber projectiles into Goliath’s skull? Is that the Christ you are referring to?
D
dshix
Guest
Heh, but God helped David kill Goliath.
A
Actaeon
Guest
There’s a limit to this statement, however. Any CCW holder will tell you that if you’re being robbed and it’s apparent that giving the guy your wallet will cause him to go away that you should do so (turn the other cheek)… however, I refuse to believe that there is moral superiority in scraping the dead body of a rape victim out of an alleyway because she wasn’t allowed to own a gun…
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Let us keep our minds on Christ and the New Testament. We know that it’s all about LOVE!
A
Actaeon
Guest
Yes. In military parlance, and legal speak, arms refers to personally owned weapons while armament refers to weapons of large scale war owned only by the state and issued to troops for use.
So no, there is no valid argument in saying that “free second amendment rights means everyone should be allowed to buy nuclear bombs”
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Live in LOVE and know that God has a place for you in Heaven even if killed by someone.
D
dshix
Guest
You have this idea that ‘love’ means we should blindly go through life without defending ourselves and actually, like, THINKING about the things around us.
Love is MUCH deeper than that.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Let the police protect us the best they can. That’s their job. Our job is to LOVE, and ‘turn the other cheek’ when necessary.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
That is unfair.
A majority of gun owners are not gun crazy. Way to malign the rest of us through the actions of a few crazies.
Turning the other cheek does not mean we do not have a right to defend ourselves.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I ask “does throwing a hand grenade at your attackers any less moral than shooting them with a 30-rounder?”
and I get the second amendment, which does not give any absolute right to anything, reverberated at me?
I give up.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
What you are suggesting is not love but pacifism.
Regardless, when a rapist comes for me I will defend myself. You can say that I have sinned by defending myself but I will leave that up to the Church not you to define sin.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
The police does not protect. They can only react after the fact. After all they do not have superpower of precognition and will not know when a crime will take place but only when a crime has taken place.
Sure they can investigate after the fact and make arrests, but protect? No.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
In which post did I call it a sin?
A
aicirt
Guest
Are you serious? My kid walked in on a burglary. They fled out the back door. He could have been killed with a knock on the head. My Mom’s house was also robbed.
The woman who was protecting her two toddlers, fired six times at her assaliant who fled and was able to drive away. You are usually dealing with hopped up druggies who are so strung out they’re on overdrive.
A friend who made it through WWII was assaulted by two hoods carrying baseball bats while robbing him in the office of his parking garage. Although he recovered, he was never the same.
By the time the police get there, it’s over.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
You have got to be kidding, right?
There is no way I entrust the protection of my family to anyone, but us.
The police are right at the end of the line.
Sarah x
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
if your kid had a gun and shot the guys running away? or they took his gun and used it. would it not be better to just run away. those guys don’t want you just want stuff to take.
stuff! so what! big deal! stuff!
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Their best is not good enough when the situation is over. To suggest turning the other cheek when dealing with those intent on doing you harm is naive.
- Status