S
she_he
Guest
Well here in our country its against the constitution to take away our firearms, so if they can change that they can change democracy…
John
- Status
S
she_he
Guest
Basically the gun you seem to be talking about would be a colt AR-15 which is the “civillian” model of the colt M-16, its incapable without some serious machine work of firing in an automatic mode.
Most of what they seem to classify “assault weapons”
are based on many things and caliber of the weapon is not one of them, its more to do with do they have a bayonet post,a large capacity magazine,flame arrestor plus many others.
and some are simply classified as an assault weapon because they do not meet a given safety factor.a case in example would be with the SKS a russian built SKS is considered Legal to buy,sell and with the right permits Import, A few things need to be changed on them such as the Bayonet must be removed on all weapons imported after a certain date, the cleaning kit that is installed in the spring loaded cover in the butt plate, also the cleaning rod that mounts under the bayonet has to also be removed, there may be other issues that i am not aware of also. now a Chinese SKS has many more restrictions, most of them have serious safety issues and last i knew they were not allowed to be imported still but its been a few years. both weapons fire a 7.62x39 round ( 30 caliber) the bullet weight is a standard 123 grain which has a avg velocity of 2460 feet per second.
considering one of the most popular deer rifles which is also one of the “weaker” of the 30 caliber rifles a 30-30 which shoots a 150 or 170 grain bullet for an avg the 170 grain bullet has a avg velocity depending on brand of ammo of 2250 feet per second and the 150 grain at 2420 fps which sounds as if the 30-30 is weaker which it is not at 100 yards the 30-30 over powers the 7.62 not only in velocity but in foot pounds of energy which it starts out with a much higher foot pounds of energy, remember this is what is commonly called a youths deer rifle and I can factually say i have killed deer with both those calibers of rifle the sks was at 40 yards and the 30-30 i have killed deer consistently at 220 yards.
I have not ever tried nor needed to try anything further with a 30-30
also what a lot of people do not understand is bullet types, most military ammo is full metal jacket where as a “hunting round” is a soft point or a round nose, the end of the bullet on a hunting round is a lead compound that is designed to mushroom on Impact of the animals skin this delivers the foot pounds of energy that not only knocks the animal down but causes the severe shock to kill
to say it in plain terms take something the size of your lil finger shoot it and when it hits it causes a “hole” the size of a tennis ball
a Military round is NOT designed to mushroom,in a human there is lil to no expansion so there is no “real” enlargement of the “hit area”
shoot a military round into a watermelon at 100 yards and also use a hunting round at same distance, the hunting round will cause the watermelon to usually explode where as the military round basically drills a hole in it…
I would much rather be hit by 5 military rounds than one hunting round I would have a better chance of survival…
that being said the military round is a lot more likely to Penetrate something hard, such as concrete metal, or very thick wood.
each has its usefullness but the true military round is not designed to “kill” its designed to “wound” as it takes 2 to 3 people out of the fight. the injured and one or two to carry that person to medical attention.they also are good for ruining heavy gunning or transportation materials. BUT relize military rounds still kill.
I hope this clears up a few things or questions some people may have, also I have never heard of a “bullet proof vest” that will stop a true rifle round of any caliber from a direct hit they are more for shrapnel and ricochet protection.Handguns can be stopped with vests depending on caliber,bullet type etc
John
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
If they are coming to forcibly disarm me, then it is most definately a case of ‘Self Defense’. The government would have had to throw our Constitution out the window to take such an action. They would no longer be within their legal or moral right, and I would be morally obligated to defend my family & property. Believe me, if it ever gets to that point, they won’t just let you go after taking your weapons…they’ll take you away as well.Ah, so much for “Self Defence” then.
I mean, if all they’re after is your guns, and not personal harm, or harm to loved ones, not there to steal your belongings… Just your weapon(s).
What if it’s a neighbourhood watch? Or the police?
http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/dredscott.sized.jpg
From www.a-human-right.com
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
Did you know that the Nazi ‘Storm Troopers’ started as a ‘neighborhood watch’ style organization? What do you think that the Hitler Junge were? And the Police? Those are the ones MOST LIKELY to try to illegaly seize my firearms.
You make me laugh!
http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/MP40symbolism.sized.jpg
R
radio-cipher
Guest
I am a thirty year old woman, I have been married for three months. I am an artist, I went to a very liberal, quite anti-religion college (Vassar) and have spent the last ten years making conceptual artworks and playing in bands in the underground music scene in San Francisco and Great Britain - basically not someone that one would expect to be a member of the NRA. However I INSIST on having at least one gun in the home, preferably more, and made sure to find myself a good Catholic husband who felt the same way. We are looking forward to having a nice big family and living out in the country somewhere, by the grace of God if He so wills. We will use our guns to hunt for meat to supplement the vegetable we’ll grow, because I want my children to eat healthy food not contaminated by the hormones and pesticides and God-Knows-What that goes into our foods these days. I want my children to understand nature and life and death, I want them to learn about death in a way so that they will understand it’s reality and hence respect LIFE more. I want them to feed the chickens and sheep that we’ll be slaughtering for our food (and don’t tell me that this is traumatic for kids, I grew up on a farm, and my sister has a farm now, and her children have no discomfort about slaughter-time.)
Furthermore, I’d like to contribute a little as possible to the sorts of large industrial farming that treat animals inhumanely, and add to the unhealthiness of our planet. I buy organic, grass-fed, free range as often as possible, regardless of the costs, and I have always been far from wealthy. Since I plan to be a stay-at-home mom I expect my future family will not have much in the way of luxury money either. Another good reason to hunt.
Finally, my father fought in the Polish underground resistance in WWII. At the same time my young mother, who had been born in the Ukraine during the 1933 famine orchestrated by the Stalinist government, was living Germany. I understand the reality of the need for people to protect not only ourselves from evil, but the need for us to protect the weak and defenseless as well. That’s the thing that gets me about pacifism…what’s a pacifist going to do when the POLICE decide to rape their next-door neighbor’s child? We are very blessed and very lucky when we have decent and good authorities/government but we still need to be vigilant. The tide can sometimes turn very quickly.
So yes, I am a wife who was involved in the decision to bring guns into the home.
-Lara
T
thistle
Guest
I’m curious about practicality of having a gun in the house.
If you are asleep and someone gets into your house what is the chance of you being aware of that person in the house and attacking you never mind trying to get to wherever you keep the gun.
What if its during the day and you are going about your daily business at home and someone gets in. Unless you walk around with a gun strapped to your hip what use is the gun to you.
Last, for a gun to be useful it would have to be immediately ready to fire (bullets in the gun and safety off and in a handy place) which is dangerous if there are kids in the house.
If you are asleep and someone gets into your house what is the chance of you being aware of that person in the house and attacking you never mind trying to get to wherever you keep the gun.
What if its during the day and you are going about your daily business at home and someone gets in. Unless you walk around with a gun strapped to your hip what use is the gun to you.
Last, for a gun to be useful it would have to be immediately ready to fire (bullets in the gun and safety off and in a handy place) which is dangerous if there are kids in the house.
S
she_he
Guest
When i lived in the Detroit area we had several Breakins, Getting the gun loading it and making sure the rack from that shotgun was VERY VERY loud was never a problem and from the noise it made as I slammed the action forward I never had to shoot anyone just yelled you heard that action close it is loaded and will be fired at first sight of you was enough to hear the door slam shut as they ran for cover.If you are used to the gun and your own home the gun can be grabbed from a closet and fully loaded in less than 15 seconds, Dogs no matter of size are great alarms and give you that time you need…
I am not a promoter of keeping a loaded gun in the home that has children,and I do not believe in trigger locks because lock tumblers freeze up and murphys law says it will when you really need it to open…
as for daytime use well you still know the house better than they do and thats also the reason to have many firearms and not just one, one for every room and a few extras lol.
Where i live now i occasionally strap a 44mag or a 357 mag to my hip but i dont worry about muggers etc its more wild dogs and bear, the dogs i will shoot the bear i simply scare away with a fired round into the ground…
John
R
radio-cipher
Guest
It is not impractical. Certainly scenarios such as the one you have suggested COULD POSSIBLY occur. But this sort of rumination is like so many of the “what if’s” posted earlier. What if there are secret subliminal messages sent out through television brainwashing us into using our own fingers to poke our eyes out?
I’m deliberatle using an absurd example to make my point that just because something is possible, doesn’t mean it is PROBABLE.
As far as someone sneaking into the home while we are sleeping, yes I suppose that could possibly happen if they killed our dogs first, very quietly (my husband is a light sleeper.) We can never be assured that we are completely and totally safe from harm. This is true of gun users as well as those who refrain from gun usage. I would not rely too heavily on gun-ownership to protect me from unpredictable occurances such as this. However, the fact that a gun cannot protect you from EVERY possible harm, does not mean that it therefore becomes useless.
With small children in the house, my husband and I would probably keep our guns unloaded and locked up when not in use until the kids are old enough to handle them responsibly. This is how it’s been done in my sister’s house and in the home I grew up in.
I hope nobody ever sneaks in and murders us in the night, but it could conceivably happen to any of us, with or without guns.
Is it so difficult for you to imagine having the need to protect oneself and others from danger (both physical and spiritual) that the risks (which statistics consistantly show are minimal) outweigh the benefits of having firearms?
I understand your fear for the safety of children in the case of accidents, but I wonder if your fear comes from a lack of familiarity? To myself it is very very frightening to have such a sense of trust in the authorities that one would want only the police/military to have firearms. Especially as a Catholic. In some times and some places people are lucky, in other times and places they are not, and people come into power who have evil goals. It is a passive populace that falls into the trap of Stalinist regimes. Concentration camps get built despite the basic inherent kindliness of most people. Laws get passed enforcing forced sterilizations and children get taken away from good parents by bad authorities. These kinds of things have happened all throughout history and will continue to happen.
I’m writing this from Scotland and it’s very late here, or early in the morning rather, and I’m getting a bit hazy round the edges…but anyway…
Our personal family guns will be mainly for hunting and farm use. As we’ll be living in America most likely, I don’t anticipate that it will be very probable we’ll need them for self-defense, however I cannot predict the future, especially as long as America keeps getting more and more secular and materialistic and apathetic.
In this day and age perhaps it is ridiculous to think that guns might help protect us against totalitarian authorities, if it ever came to that…but in my opinion it would be better than no defense at all, especially in a community with like-minded neighbors who will stand up for themselves and each other together.
My personal fears have less to do with mechanical tools and more to do with being told I am not allowed to home-school my own children, or told I MUST teach them about sexual matters that are inapropriate for their age. They have to do with not being able to obtain food that will nourish my family and keep them healthy. My fears have to do with mandatory psychological testing for all school-age children being administered by atheistic psychologists who consider religion to be fanatically delusional, who might recommend that my children would be better off in state care than with religious parents. My fears have to do with being taxed for having a nice view, or being told that I do not have the right to travel where I will in this world that God gave us, to leave a city or country where I no longer agree with it’s laws. Just because we do not have to worry about these things just yet does not mean that others don’t have to worry about them, or that our own situation mighten’t change.
I’m sorry that this reply is vastly in excess of what was required by the quote, but as I mentioned, I’m very tired. Off to bed.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Black Jaque:
Historically, the Church has been in support of self-defense and RKBA. The self defense belief of the church is theologically based, and that means that there is no changing it. If the USCCB is taking an anti-gun position, that is a 180-degree change in doctrine and would be the opposite of what once was taught. Therefore, it would be false. If it is false, one has no requirement to follow a false belief. In fact, one cannot in good conscience follow a false belief.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I doubt your fellow country men felt the same way at the start of WWII when your country wasn’t able to arm it’s soldiers with guns & ammo and most military historians agree that if private American citizens didn’t ship their privately owned guns and ammo to England, England would have fallen to the Nazis.
England disarmed itself back them and instead of learning a lesson from history, is now repeating those mistakes.
Yes, definitely!
May I remind you that the bible is filled with examples of God calling for the killing of “innocent animals”. Are you saying that God was telling the people to do something that was barbaric?
Let’s not forget that Jesus and the Apostles ate animals – fish, lamb, etc.; and those animals didn’t just turn over and die. They were killed so that they could be eaten. Was it wrong for Jesus and the Apostles to eat innocent animals that were killed? If it wasn’t wrong for them, then it can not be wrong for us when we perform the same actions.
It doesn’t make them morally wrong either.
That is not true. In the United States the communities that have less restricts on gun ownership also have lower violent crime rates because the criminal is afraid that their intended victim MIGHT be armed. Where as, communities which have more restrictive gun laws, have a higher violent crime rate because criminals know that their intended victim is less likely to be armed.
Actually, it is your beliefs which are against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
CCC 2264-2265 tell us that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from harm. By being a pacifist, we FAIL to perform that GRAVE duty. Thus, pacifism is heretical and immoral according to Catholic Church teachings.
And what are you going to do about the criminals who don’t obey this ban on guns and obtain then through illegal channels in the same manner that they obtain illegal drugs? I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live in a world where bad guys are armed and good guys are helpless victims.
My birthday and Christmas presents from the Mrs …
http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/guns/f168.jpg
TOP: 13-round Sig P229 SAS. BOTTOM: 8-round Sig P239 SAS
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Because a gun offers a means of self-defense in the same fashion that a sword did during Christ’s time. And what did Jesus say about owning a sword? That he who does not have one should sell their very coat so that they could go out and buy a sword.
A gun is an inanimate object. It can be neither right or wrong.
In America, it is ESTIMATED that guns are used BY CIVILLIANS about 2 million times a year for defenseive purposes.
No, but he told us in the CCC that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves from harm.
No, it is not but in most cases, it is the most effective means of self defense.
She won’t be feeling anything if she has no means of self defense and he kills her. She CAN get over seeing his bleeding body lying on the floor but it’ll be much harder for her to get over being dead if he kills her.
He’s less likely to shoot her if she is shooting at him because he will be seeking cover. Of course, if she doesn’t have a gun, then she’s a sitting duck and there is nothing to prevent him from shooting her.
If you are close enough to hit him in the stomach, he is close enough to block your attack and hit you back especially if he is bigger & stronger than you. With a gun you can be clear across the room and out if his reach and still be able to defend yourself.
Unless you were armed with a gun. In which case, you could take on someone twice your size and strength and still be able to effectively defend yourself.
Nor should we give up our life without a fight. Our life is a gift from God and only He has a right to take it. The CCC, which is the norm for Catholic living, teaches us that we should make ever effort to preserve life.
All of that can be overcome with proper training.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Read Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27 where Jesus, Himself, instructed His followers to protect themselves when He encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense). Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a handgun is today.
And if a criminal refuses to use rubber bullets and illegal obtains real bullets, what are you going to do then?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
By some estimates, guns are used about 2 million times a year for DEFENSIVE purposes.
In this case, you opinion is NOT supported by facts.
How about a loved one? Is it okay if a loved one is killed because you refused to have an effective means of self defense? And if you or a loved one is harmed or killed, how have you fulfilled the GRAVE duty that CCC 2264-2265 says that we all have to protect ourselves and others from harm?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
my agatha:
That is incorrect. The bible tells us that Jesus taught in parabels but when He spoke to the twelve, He explained everything to them. In the passage where Jesus is talking about buying a sword, the Apostles come and show Jesus the swords that they have and He says that those are sufficient. If Jesus was talking about the “spiritual kind”, then the Great Teacher would have explained it to them at that point instead of saying that the REAL swords that they presented to Him were enough.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
And go against the teachings of the Vatican and the lessons of the bible?
Every country that has banned gun onwership (England, Austrailia, etc.), has seen a sharp increase in violent crime – this is confirmed by the country’s own government. You wish your country was like that? You think having violent crime sharply increasing is a “whole lot better”?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
First off, nobody is going to get into my house while I’m asleep without me knowing about it. I’ve got a 120 pound Retriever who is an excellent watchdog. I live out in the country and he alerts me to anyone coming near the house with loud barking. Secondly, I have an alarm system where every entry point (including windows) are wired. The alarm system has a battery back-up which automaticlly kicks in, in the event of a power failure.
Anybody comes into my house, I’m going to know about it!
Two points. First off, I do carry at least one firearm on my person in either a pocket or holster. Secondly, I have a loaded firearm with an attached flashlight stored in just about every room of the house …
http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/guns/f128.jpg
… So even if I am not carrying a gun, I have very quick access to one.
As I said, I have a loaded firearm in just about every room in the house. I have small children and I do not consider it to be dangerous in the least bit. Each gun is stored in a V-Line strongbox. It has a combination lock and it is bolted down out of plain sight. Kids can’t get to it but I can have my hands on a loaded firearm in a manner of seconds.
Z
Zerith
Guest
No, on the contrary, it is you who makes me laugh. So you know the origin of the Hitler Youth? Apparently a “Neighbourhood Watch”, then, is it?Did you know that the Nazi ‘Storm Troopers’ started as a ‘neighborhood watch’ style organization? What do you think that the Hitler Junge were? And the Police? Those are the ones MOST LIKELY to try to illegaly seize my firearms.
You make me laugh!
No it was not, it was set up by Hitler, as a recruitment organisation for his party, and later, the SS. It was politically motivated, alongside a policy of violence. In later years it became compulsory.
As for neighbourhood watch, don’t bend history for your own purpose, these were violent people, who’d love to have the American gun laws, like the KKK, a racist organisation, free to access to weaponry. Of course, I know what you’ll say, their “Victims” should buy their own weapons to defend themselves… Yes, more violence will solve the problem.
But hey, if the Hitler Youth come into power in America, you’ll have nothing to worry about, I’ll give you that much.
But, you still do have a nazi-esque group, who can access weaponry whenever they want.
As for changing the constitution:
In my explination of democracy in Ireland, by vote, we can change our constitution - Are you, then, telling me, you can either: Not change your Consitution by vote - Making it less democratic, or saying that, by allowing the public to vote on the constitution is altering democracy?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
The United States is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. From the day that it was founded, it has been a democratic Republic. There are significant differences between a democracy and a democratic republic.
Zerith:
Reality has shown over and over again that more guns equals LESS violence. May I suggest the book “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws” by John R. Lott, Jr. He started out trying to prove the horrors of gun ownership but the more he researched the matter, the more his own research showed that the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh their liabilities.
- Status