The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

[Harvey_Mozolak]

for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need. 

[scott9]

for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need.

Automatic weapons are already banned (for those manufactured after 1986) and highly, highly regulated for automatic weapons manufactured before then.  That one can just walk in and purchase an automatic weapon is a myth that just won't die.  Here's an article that will help you understand the distinctions in the gun control debate as to what current law already says regarding automatic weapons.  I've yet to hear someone argue for changing it or making automatic weapons easier to purchase.

Which is to say, that if an assault weapon is an automatic weapon per your description -- good news.  It is already illegal to own (outside of a small, very tightly regulated subset of people).

[David Garner]

for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need.

99% of the problem with these discussions is people just don't know what they don't know.  To wit, Dr. Yakimow is correct:

Automatic weapons are already banned (for those manufactured after 1986) and highly, highly regulated for automatic weapons manufactured before then.  That one can just walk in and purchase an automatic weapon is a myth that just won't die.  Here's an article that will help you understand the distinctions in the gun control debate as to what current law already says regarding automatic weapons.  I've yet to hear someone argue for changing it or making automatic weapons easier to purchase.

For the record, police don't usually have those either.  They use self-loaders.  With the possible exception of SWAT teams.

Now, the semi-automatic version of these rifles are used frequently in patrol cars.  That is because they are light, modular, have low recoil, do not penetrate as much as even a shotgun with buckshot, accept implements such as forend lights and a wide variety of glass, and are generally great for defensive use.  I'm a little surprised to see you list "night sights" among your list of frightening things, though, Pastor Mozolak.  Every pistol in my house has those, and I'm not exactly sure why they are a bad idea.  Not to be rude, but I don't think you're sure either.

Suppressors are already controlled in the exact same way as automatic weapons, which is to say, it's very, very difficult to get one.  I'm honestly not sure how easy it is to get a grenade launcher, but I'd wager it's awfully difficult to get grenades, so if someone wants a glorified potato cannon on the front of their rifle for some reason, I'm also not sure I'm really opposed to that.

[Harvey_Mozolak]

I do not think ordinary folks ought to have guns.  OK.  Certainly not troves of them.  And while you may be perfectly correct in what you say... I am going to guess that those who collect bunches of them have calibers other features that they do not need to kill a fox on the farm. 

[David Garner]

I do not think ordinary folks ought to have guns.  OK.  Certainly not troves of them.  And while you may be perfectly correct in what you say... I am going to guess that those who collect bunches of them have calibers other features that they do not need to kill a fox on the farm.

The first rule of discussing issues when you don't know what you're talking about is stop.  If you don't like guns, that's your prerogative.  Just saying "I don't like guns and I don't think anyone should own them" is good enough.  I mean, I disagree, but I won't quarrel with you for disagreeing.  But trying to justify it with nonsense doesn't help things at all.

For example, if I had to kill a fox on a farm, an AR-15 would be among the most ideal weapons to use for that purpose. There is a reason people out west call them "ranch rifles."

[Steven Tibbetts]

Surely people here have heard that the militarization of police forces with combat and assault gear has been a matter of some concern.

That's putting it mildly, Charles.

[Harvey_Mozolak]

I am sorry to have tread in the territory of your expertise on all things to do with weapons, their kinds and calibers and nuances. But your expertise does not make you any more an expert on who should have them and how they are used, and that is your opinion. 

[David Garner]

I am sorry to have tread in the territory of your expertise on all things to do with weapons, their kinds and calibers and nuances. But your expertise does not make you any more an expert on who should have them and how they are used, and that is your opinion.

Nor you any more of one, but that's neither here nor there.  I can support my opinions with facts.  I would encourage you to consider attempting the same.  Because honestly, you come across as someone just grasping at straws for reasons why you don't like guns.  It needs no justification, and yet you attempt to justify.

You don't like guns. That's fine.  They aren't for everyone.  But people who do know what they're talking about on the subject tend to get annoyed being lectured to by people who don't.  As I said, it would be better to just say "I don't like guns and I'd like to see them all banned" and be done with it.

[Pilgrim]

for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need.

FYI, down here we are being overrun with feral hogs. AK-47s equipped with night vision scopes are extremely helpful in curtailing a significant environmental threat, since the hogs are generally nocturnal. I understand your perspective and am not unsympathetic, but where your feet happen to be planted (your cultural environment) has a lot to say about what you say and when your feet are planted elsewhere, perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do. Shades of a scene from "Smokey and the Bandit"!!!

[Harvey_Mozolak]

many people have guns, often many, and they really value them...  and I don't think I have ever said that I am in any way shape or form an expert on guns or their equipment...  I am, as much as anyone, an expert on the human sinful nature and that forms my low opinion of guns....  if I protest too much, seems like others from the other side do, at least, equally ....     

[Dave Likeness]

Some of us had fathers and uncles who fought in WWII.   My father was in a tank division
under General Patch.  General George Patton was over the entire tank operation.

When my father came home from the war, he had seen the devastation that war can bring.
Yet he never talked about it. He never taught me how to hunt or fish.  Instead, he encouraged
me to play sports like he did in grade school and high school.

My point is that I followed my father's example.  I never owned a gun or ever shot one.
By example he demonstrated that I did not need a gun.  For Christmas during my senior
year in high school he gave me a new set of golf clubs.  For the rest of my life I played golf
with my father, but I never hunted with him.  Some of us become what our fathers were.

[James S. Rustad]

James Rustad:
You've made it clear over the years that you believe guns are bad. 
Me:
No, I do not believe that guns are universally bad. I just set upStream that I do not disapprove of hunting or target shooting sports. I have cheered on my grandson as he shot with his high school team.
James Rustad:
About the only change I've seen from you is a hardening of your position.
Me:
Actually, I think it has softened a bit. I sort of, only sort of understand why people enjoy target shooting with high power weapons. I think it's silly but...

James Rustad:
Your portrayal of gun owners does not fit with those I've met.  But as long as you attempt to portray us as knuckle-dragging, violence-loving, war-like brutes, the more you set yourself up to lose.
Me:
Where have I ever done that? Show me. I have said here that I think some enthusiasts are Romanced by the "gun culture," And like enthusiasts of many things, are a bit too much in love with their weapons. And frankly, I think some people who believe they have guns for "protection," are kidding themselves. I'm not sure the guns would really give them protection.

James Rustad:
Keep it up.  Meanwhile, those of us who own guns will keep behaving as the normal, peace-loving, law-abiding people we are.  Those who might initially buy your portrayal of us will eventually realize that you have led them into deception.  That bodes ill for the success of your arguments.
Me:
I'm not looking for "success" in any argument. I do not believe I will win over anyone here to my way of thinking. But I do feel obliged to let people know how some of us Christians look at the gun issue.

Hmmm...  Quite a fisking there.  I'll restrict myself to just two points.

Repeal the second amendment. It has served its purpose.
Sporting or not, outlaw "those kind" of weapons.
Break the political power of the NRA.
Find sensible ways to protect hunters.

Repealing the second amendment seems pretty hard to me, as does your apparent belief that hunting is the only acceptable purpose for guns.

Harvey, I appreciate he concern. I deleted many comments over many days from Charles and others in this thread. The others wanted to talk about guns. Charles wanted to ridicule them for it, so the comments I deleted had nothing to do with the topic or any topic but were just sarcastic insults and complaints about the sarcastic insults. I don't care about guns and wasn't checking the thread except to deal with complaints about Charles. So I told Charles to quit posting on gun threads, which he continued to do anyway because that's just the kind of guy he is. So I started deleting his comments on gun threads. I know that you and many others share Charles' general view of guns, yet somehow none of you manage to get into incessant little petty spats with everyone else the way Charles does. He ruins more threads than pretty much everyone else put together. He thinks he is treated differently because of his views, but that is observably false. He is treated differently, though, by being allowed to keep posting at all when others with his track record of disruptive posting have long been banned from the forum entirely. He started his own thread on guns, which is fine; that means he doesn't have to post on other gun threads and people who don't want to deal with him can ignore his thread on the subject.

I don't think you've changed much, if at all since then, in the level of invective that you level at gun owners.

On the other hand, I continually disagree with Brian on this subject, but he never makes me disgusted in the way you do.  It's you, not your positions.

[David Garner]

I'm a hunter. If it please the crown, I'd prefer to speak for myself instead of leaving it to Pastor Austin to defend my rights. Because I'm going to bet he's not a hunter, and therefore isn't a very good authority on how to best protect us. The desire of the modern left to tell us peons what's best for us is Why Trump Won (TM).

[Dan Fienen]

I have long thought that the Left is both more optimistic and more pessimistic than I am. More optimistic in that they believe that they can really create a good approximation of heaven on earth if only allowed to arrange things. And more pessimistic in that they also believe that nothing good can happen unless they are in charge. People simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs but need the Leff to rule everything.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I have long thought that the Left is both more optimistic and more pessimistic than I am. More optimistic in that they believe that they can really create a good approximation of heaven on earth if only allowed to arrange things. And more pessimistic in that they also believe that nothing good can happen unless they are in charge. People simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs but need the Leff to rule everything.

Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Our government steps in when a corporation gets too big and powerful (a monopoly) to divide it into smaller, less powerful corporations. White collar crimes are usually about a powerful person finding ways to get himself more money through questionable means. Some VA administrators lied on their forms so that they received the bonuses for the number of patients served in the proper manner of time. Their concern was their bonus, not better patient care.