RepublicanMan
member
But what you are failing to realize is that there's a very high probability that stuff like that doesn't happen here because we are allowed to own firearms.
What is the "love" with weopons?
- Thread starter Loud Dogg
- Start date
- Status
But what you are failing to realize is that there's a very high probability that stuff like that doesn't happen here because we are allowed to own firearms.
Carbon_15
Member
You say that you hate guns, but I think you mean that you hate violence...and to that you will find very little oposition amongst gun owners. To assume that banning guns will impact the level of violence in America is flawed logic. The most violent and murderous times in the worlds history included NO FIREARMS. Infact, your Germanic barbarian ancesters were pretty good at hacking people to bits with various non-gun weapons.
Including wiping out an entire Roman legion (no small feat) due to their own stupidity (commander-wise), very good German tactics and a large number of wild hairy Germans using good unit tactics and large amounts of sharp, pointy and edged weapons.
Guns would have made it a bit quicker and a bit less messy but affected the outcome very little.
And as to Biblical teachings, yes, you are allowed to defend yourself. No, you are not allowed to be a murderer or mass murderer, self defense does not follow this definition.
And remember what Jesus himself said before sending the disciples out on their own in Luke, I believe chapter 24. "If you do not have a sword, sell your tunic and buy one" and the disciples said "Here, Lord, we have two" and he replied "That is enough".
Obviously he meant "I'm not going to be around in person to take care of you all the time, be prepared to defend yourselves if you have to".
Disagree with us all you like but don't try and disarm us because you feel like being an unarmed victim. Talk to us in about 10 years...
Guns would have made it a bit quicker and a bit less messy but affected the outcome very little.
And as to Biblical teachings, yes, you are allowed to defend yourself. No, you are not allowed to be a murderer or mass murderer, self defense does not follow this definition.
And remember what Jesus himself said before sending the disciples out on their own in Luke, I believe chapter 24. "If you do not have a sword, sell your tunic and buy one" and the disciples said "Here, Lord, we have two" and he replied "That is enough".
Obviously he meant "I'm not going to be around in person to take care of you all the time, be prepared to defend yourselves if you have to".
Disagree with us all you like but don't try and disarm us because you feel like being an unarmed victim. Talk to us in about 10 years...
gggman
Member
Loud Dogg, I would like to ask you a question.
I like to go for a walk every morning when I get up at 5:00 AM. I walk two miles, and I live in a remote area in the country. If I were accosted by a pack of coyotes, would I, in you're opinion, be justified in using a handgun to defend myself? According to your hero, Michael Moore, I would not. I would be forced to cower in my home and buy a treadmill.
What about my sister, who works until midnight in the city. If she were attacked by a gang of street thugs while walking to her car, with the intent of gang raping her, would she be justified in using a handgun to defend herself?
No, you say? She didn't go there with the intent to kill anyone. If someone dies as a result of her defending her right to go safely home after work, that wasn't her choice. That was the choice of the thugs who attacked her.
I feel sorry for your future wife and children, because in my opinion, you not only have a legal right to defend them from harm, you have a moral obligation to do so. If someone that you love is ever attacked, and you do nothing to defend them, I wonder if you will be able to live with the choice you made. You may be stuck wallowing in your greif for the rest of your life, instead of using your legal rights to stop a senseless attack.:banghead:
I like to go for a walk every morning when I get up at 5:00 AM. I walk two miles, and I live in a remote area in the country. If I were accosted by a pack of coyotes, would I, in you're opinion, be justified in using a handgun to defend myself? According to your hero, Michael Moore, I would not. I would be forced to cower in my home and buy a treadmill.
What about my sister, who works until midnight in the city. If she were attacked by a gang of street thugs while walking to her car, with the intent of gang raping her, would she be justified in using a handgun to defend herself?
No, you say? She didn't go there with the intent to kill anyone. If someone dies as a result of her defending her right to go safely home after work, that wasn't her choice. That was the choice of the thugs who attacked her.
I feel sorry for your future wife and children, because in my opinion, you not only have a legal right to defend them from harm, you have a moral obligation to do so. If someone that you love is ever attacked, and you do nothing to defend them, I wonder if you will be able to live with the choice you made. You may be stuck wallowing in your greif for the rest of your life, instead of using your legal rights to stop a senseless attack.:banghead:
Carlos
Member
God does not say you have to be a sacrificial lamb, LoudDogg. God gave you the ability to make choices to protect yourself and your family. Lots of evil in today's world.
Personally, I'd pull the trigger to rid the world of a dirtbag, and I truly believe God would smile at my decision to defend myself and my family.
Now, again, the offer stands. If you ever want to shoot a pistol or rifle to see what it's all about, PM me and I'll meet you and your dad at either The Dump (Estacada area) or my local pistol range in Portland. The latter might be more convenient for all.
Good thread everybody.
bogie
Member
Several times, I've seen the comment "guns kill people."
Guns propel a small heavy object at great speed. The person who points the gun and pulls the trigger is the killer. And often they'd use clubs, knives, or other implements...
One other thing to keep in mind for those abroad: The United States is not nearly as exciting as our television shows would lead one to believe. But we've got some not-nice folks, as is the case with pretty much every other country... I'd have to assume that the Vatican has pretty much all nice folks, and I'd probably also assume that Lichtenstein is pretty much okay, but if you've only got a hundredth of one percent of nasties, when you look at numbers of over 200 million folks, you've got a lot of nasties.
China must be interesting...
Guns propel a small heavy object at great speed. The person who points the gun and pulls the trigger is the killer. And often they'd use clubs, knives, or other implements...
One other thing to keep in mind for those abroad: The United States is not nearly as exciting as our television shows would lead one to believe. But we've got some not-nice folks, as is the case with pretty much every other country... I'd have to assume that the Vatican has pretty much all nice folks, and I'd probably also assume that Lichtenstein is pretty much okay, but if you've only got a hundredth of one percent of nasties, when you look at numbers of over 200 million folks, you've got a lot of nasties.
China must be interesting...
Another Lutheran here (Wisconsin Synod)...
I don't ever remember learning that in the Catechism. Matter of fact, instead of finishing the Lutheran Seminary in Mequon after my vicar year, I joined the Air Force. And when I talk to one of my best friends whom I would have graduated with, who is now a Lutheran pastor with two congregations of his own, I always bring the subject up about my being a B-52H bomber jock during Desert Storm. The bottom line is, the synod has no moral objections to Lutheran members dropping ordnance on our enemies in the prosecution of war. And self-defense poses no real objections, either.
(That was probably way too much information for my fellow THR members, who already thought they had G-98 figured out...
)
I don't ever remember learning that in the Catechism. Matter of fact, instead of finishing the Lutheran Seminary in Mequon after my vicar year, I joined the Air Force. And when I talk to one of my best friends whom I would have graduated with, who is now a Lutheran pastor with two congregations of his own, I always bring the subject up about my being a B-52H bomber jock during Desert Storm. The bottom line is, the synod has no moral objections to Lutheran members dropping ordnance on our enemies in the prosecution of war. And self-defense poses no real objections, either.
(That was probably way too much information for my fellow THR members, who already thought they had G-98 figured out...
)Here's something to think about, LoudDogg:
10 years from now, you and your pretty young wife and your beautiful young daughter are sitting at home enjoying a leisurely afternoon. A drug-crazed, psychotic ex-con decides to break into your house (they call it "Home Invasion" now). He repeatedly rapes your wife while forcing you to watch, then kills her and your daughter before finally killing you. You have no guns, because you don't like them, and even if you did you would not have used one because of your aforementioned religious beliefs.
Your souls ascend to heaven, where you're greeted by God. What do you think God would say to you? Would He be happy to see you and your wife and young daughter? Would He be glad that you allowed them to die? Or would He be angry because He gave you the tools and the strength to preserve the lives of the three of you and you did nothing?
God does not impose His will upon us. He gave us our OWN free will so that He wouldn't have to. Don't hide behind God.
10 years from now, you and your pretty young wife and your beautiful young daughter are sitting at home enjoying a leisurely afternoon. A drug-crazed, psychotic ex-con decides to break into your house (they call it "Home Invasion" now). He repeatedly rapes your wife while forcing you to watch, then kills her and your daughter before finally killing you. You have no guns, because you don't like them, and even if you did you would not have used one because of your aforementioned religious beliefs.
Your souls ascend to heaven, where you're greeted by God. What do you think God would say to you? Would He be happy to see you and your wife and young daughter? Would He be glad that you allowed them to die? Or would He be angry because He gave you the tools and the strength to preserve the lives of the three of you and you did nothing?
God does not impose His will upon us. He gave us our OWN free will so that He wouldn't have to. Don't hide behind God.
Mute
Member
I should know better but...
Welcom to THR Louddogg.
From the Christian point of view, pacifism is not Christian doctrine in any way, shape or form. God has made us stewards here on earth, and that stewardship includes responsiblities for the people around us as well as the material things. Purposely choosing not to protect these people based on the false idea that pacifism is biblical is a failure of stewardship on the grandest scale. Might I suggest your read the following Essay on Pacifism and decide for yourself if God will greet you as a good and faithful servant when you come before his judgement and you have chosen, in your life, not to protect the people God has put into your care. Good luck on your research.
Welcom to THR Louddogg.
From the Christian point of view, pacifism is not Christian doctrine in any way, shape or form. God has made us stewards here on earth, and that stewardship includes responsiblities for the people around us as well as the material things. Purposely choosing not to protect these people based on the false idea that pacifism is biblical is a failure of stewardship on the grandest scale. Might I suggest your read the following Essay on Pacifism and decide for yourself if God will greet you as a good and faithful servant when you come before his judgement and you have chosen, in your life, not to protect the people God has put into your care. Good luck on your research.
Skofnung
Member
First, let me say this, the following comments are not intended to hurt your feelings:
I will NEVER be able to understand the mindset that you exhibit. I do not use the word never lightly. To be quite honest, I find such a mindset highly repugnant. I can not fathon a man (or a woman for that matter) that would sit idly by and let his/her kin be harmed.
In addition to this, I will NEVER be able to understand the mind of a person that will give up the right of self defense. Violence exists, whether you like it or not. It is not pretty, it is not nice, but it is here to stay. Whether you believe in Special Creation or you believe in Evolution, it is a proven FACT that human on human violence has existed pretty much from the start. This trend shows no sign of slowing down. Thus, I choose to arm myself so that I can resist. Guns are but a portion of my battery. A proper mindset is the most important thing.
You are young. When I was your age, ten whole years ago, I had the same mindset (in this realm) that I do today. Granted, I was raised by shootists (who were individualists to boot), but given some of the life experiences I have had from birth to age 25, had I been raised by turn the other cheek hippies, I would probably have still turned to my current philosophy.
Mr. Moore is a funny man. That does not make him a good man, nor does it make him a good journalist. You like him because you like what he says. That is fine, but that does not make what he says right.
Just remember that a goodly portion of Germany liked what another entertaining fellow had to say 70 years ago. Look how that turned out.
I will NEVER be able to understand the mindset that you exhibit. I do not use the word never lightly. To be quite honest, I find such a mindset highly repugnant. I can not fathon a man (or a woman for that matter) that would sit idly by and let his/her kin be harmed.
In addition to this, I will NEVER be able to understand the mind of a person that will give up the right of self defense. Violence exists, whether you like it or not. It is not pretty, it is not nice, but it is here to stay. Whether you believe in Special Creation or you believe in Evolution, it is a proven FACT that human on human violence has existed pretty much from the start. This trend shows no sign of slowing down. Thus, I choose to arm myself so that I can resist. Guns are but a portion of my battery. A proper mindset is the most important thing.
You are young. When I was your age, ten whole years ago, I had the same mindset (in this realm) that I do today. Granted, I was raised by shootists (who were individualists to boot), but given some of the life experiences I have had from birth to age 25, had I been raised by turn the other cheek hippies, I would probably have still turned to my current philosophy.
Mr. Moore is a funny man. That does not make him a good man, nor does it make him a good journalist. You like him because you like what he says. That is fine, but that does not make what he says right.
Just remember that a goodly portion of Germany liked what another entertaining fellow had to say 70 years ago. Look how that turned out.
artherd
member
Loud Dogg- I doubt you could suppress your instincts to do right and protect yourself and your loved ones. We didn't survive as a species for so many millions of years by rolling over and dieing.
Do you realize how selfish your statement above is? You would allow, through your failure to act, your family to be slaughtered, so you may go to heaven?
I'm a Lutheran as well. I would never hurt anyone, except if they were going to hurt or kill myself or those I love.
I take responsability for both my ACTIONS, and my FAILURES TO ACT. You cannot have one withought the other.
Kaylee
Member
IMO, the so-called man who won't raise a finger to defend his family is a coward however he rationalizes it as principle, and he doesn't deserve his family or his place in polite society.
-K
"come back with your shield or on it"
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Love?
Brother, if ya have to ask, you wouldn't understand the answer.
Hook up with a couple of "gunnies" and go shoot a few pistols and revolvers It might help.
Hunting has not one thing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't
state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods.
Cheers!
Tuner
Brother, if ya have to ask, you wouldn't understand the answer.
Hook up with a couple of "gunnies" and go shoot a few pistols and revolvers It might help.
Hunting has not one thing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't
state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods.
Cheers!
Tuner
Hello again, Loud Dogg.
You said you were 15, didn't you?
When I was your age (I'm 25 now), I thought pretty much the same as you, and for many of the same reasons: "Guns are designed to kill"; "killing is wrong"; "turn the other cheek"; etc. In fact, I often argued on message boards in favour of gun control.
About 3 of 4 years ago, for various reasons, I started to change my mind, and eventually concluded - like you seem to now - that guns are not moraly different to cars (a tool that can be useful or vital, but is dangerous if misused), and should be licensed as cars are.
(That was before I came to The High Road, and realised that even that was too restrictive )
I don't necessarily expect to be able to change your mind overnight, but I'll tell you a few more of the things that made me change my mind.
Firstly, I live in a very safe town in a (relatively) safe country, the UK. I do not need a gun, and it is very unlikely I will in the forseable future. However, I came to realise that other people have vastly different circumstances.
Some live in areas far from help (police or otherwise), where there may be dangerous animal, or dangerous humans. I might not need a gun, but there certainly are those who do. Many people of this forum need or have needed one.
Now, some people do need guns, some don't. But who has the right, legally or moraly to say who is allowed one? Who has the right to deny another person the ability to defend themselves, just because "someone" somewhere may misuse a defensive weapon? I eventually realised that the answer is "no-one".
Secondly, there are crime statistics. My country, with strict gun laws, has little gun crime. The USA, with much freer gun laws, has lots of gun crime. Proof that easy availability of guns causes gun crime?
But Switzerland has lots of guns. In fact, almost every houshold, by law, contains a proper, fully-automatic, military assault rifle. (Not one of the tame versions restricted by the US "assault weapon ban"). But they don't have much gun crime.
Jamaica, someone else mentioned, and Mexico both have very strict gun laws. And lots of gun crime. At the very least, this suggests gun laws don't stop gun crime (or at best turn gun-murderers into axe/knife/club/rope murderers).
And although I said the UK had relatively low gun crime, it is increasing. I heard a police spokesman on the radio yesterday saying it had increased 40% in the last two years, and is expected to rise further. In fact, UK gun crime has risen significantly since 1997, when all handguns were banned. Most of this gun crime is related to drugs gangs. I.e. nothing to do with the sort of law-abiding citizen who obeys gun laws, and everything to do with people who's life and livelyhood revolves around smuggling things into the country that they are not supposed to have.
(There is a third major reason, but its rather long to describe, and a bit grim, so I'll leave you to think on what I've said. I'll post the rest later).
You said you were 15, didn't you?
When I was your age (I'm 25 now), I thought pretty much the same as you, and for many of the same reasons: "Guns are designed to kill"; "killing is wrong"; "turn the other cheek"; etc. In fact, I often argued on message boards in favour of gun control.
About 3 of 4 years ago, for various reasons, I started to change my mind, and eventually concluded - like you seem to now - that guns are not moraly different to cars (a tool that can be useful or vital, but is dangerous if misused), and should be licensed as cars are.
(That was before I came to The High Road, and realised that even that was too restrictive
)I don't necessarily expect to be able to change your mind overnight, but I'll tell you a few more of the things that made me change my mind.
Firstly, I live in a very safe town in a (relatively) safe country, the UK. I do not need a gun, and it is very unlikely I will in the forseable future. However, I came to realise that other people have vastly different circumstances.
Some live in areas far from help (police or otherwise), where there may be dangerous animal, or dangerous humans. I might not need a gun, but there certainly are those who do. Many people of this forum need or have needed one.
Now, some people do need guns, some don't. But who has the right, legally or moraly to say who is allowed one? Who has the right to deny another person the ability to defend themselves, just because "someone" somewhere may misuse a defensive weapon? I eventually realised that the answer is "no-one".
Secondly, there are crime statistics. My country, with strict gun laws, has little gun crime. The USA, with much freer gun laws, has lots of gun crime. Proof that easy availability of guns causes gun crime?
But Switzerland has lots of guns. In fact, almost every houshold, by law, contains a proper, fully-automatic, military assault rifle. (Not one of the tame versions restricted by the US "assault weapon ban"). But they don't have much gun crime.
Jamaica, someone else mentioned, and Mexico both have very strict gun laws. And lots of gun crime. At the very least, this suggests gun laws don't stop gun crime (or at best turn gun-murderers into axe/knife/club/rope murderers).
And although I said the UK had relatively low gun crime, it is increasing. I heard a police spokesman on the radio yesterday saying it had increased 40% in the last two years, and is expected to rise further. In fact, UK gun crime has risen significantly since 1997, when all handguns were banned. Most of this gun crime is related to drugs gangs. I.e. nothing to do with the sort of law-abiding citizen who obeys gun laws, and everything to do with people who's life and livelyhood revolves around smuggling things into the country that they are not supposed to have.
(There is a third major reason, but its rather long to describe, and a bit grim, so I'll leave you to think on what I've said. I'll post the rest later).
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The Purpose
Howdy again...
Went back and re-read your post and came across the part about...
"Handguns are only designed for killing"...or somethin' of that nature.
Wrong! handguns are by conceptually defensive tools, designed to
keep somebody from killing YOU. They are seriously underpowered,
and their main advantage is that they're portable. You don't have to
go get the pistol. It's right there on your belt.
Rifles, on the other hand, are conceptually offensive tools, designed for
attack, ideally from a distance and from behind cover. If you KNOW that there's going to be trouble, you go and get your rifle. If you're not expecting trouble, but want to be armed in the event an unforseen emergency, you carry your pistol.
Again...The pistol's purpose is to stop an unexpected fight that somebody else starts.
The sporting use of rifles is a spinoff of the original purpose of the rifle,
but it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, any more
than pistol matches have anything in common with the original intent of
the pistol. Simply put...The pistol is a weapon that we carry when carrying
a rifle isn't possible or convenient.
Hope this helps clear it up for ya lad. I also hope that you'll take the time
to explore the recreational use of firearms. It's an enjoyable endeavor.
Tuner
Howdy again...
Went back and re-read your post and came across the part about...
"Handguns are only designed for killing"...or somethin' of that nature.
Wrong! handguns are by conceptually defensive tools, designed to
keep somebody from killing YOU. They are seriously underpowered,
and their main advantage is that they're portable. You don't have to
go get the pistol. It's right there on your belt.
Rifles, on the other hand, are conceptually offensive tools, designed for
attack, ideally from a distance and from behind cover. If you KNOW that there's going to be trouble, you go and get your rifle. If you're not expecting trouble, but want to be armed in the event an unforseen emergency, you carry your pistol.
Again...The pistol's purpose is to stop an unexpected fight that somebody else starts.
The sporting use of rifles is a spinoff of the original purpose of the rifle,
but it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, any more
than pistol matches have anything in common with the original intent of
the pistol. Simply put...The pistol is a weapon that we carry when carrying
a rifle isn't possible or convenient.
Hope this helps clear it up for ya lad. I also hope that you'll take the time
to explore the recreational use of firearms. It's an enjoyable endeavor.
Tuner
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Another claim of moral superiority based on cowardice. Not impressed.
Thumper
Member
Wow. Your poor family...
Harold Mayo
Member
Hey, LoudDogg...?
You're from Germany?
You didn't grow up with many Jewish kids, did you...?
I wonder why that is....?
Perhaps it's because the government of your homeland once ensured that certain classes/races/religions within it's borders were unarmed and then killed those people when they were unarmed and could put up less of a fight.
The pattern repeats itself throughout history. Most genocides begin with a disarming of the populace.
Anyway, LD, if all of the people here trying to educate you aren't making a dent, just wait until you get a little life experience under your belt. It'll make all the difference.
:banghead: 
You're from Germany?
You didn't grow up with many Jewish kids, did you...?
I wonder why that is....?
Perhaps it's because the government of your homeland once ensured that certain classes/races/religions within it's borders were unarmed and then killed those people when they were unarmed and could put up less of a fight.
The pattern repeats itself throughout history. Most genocides begin with a disarming of the populace.
Anyway, LD, if all of the people here trying to educate you aren't making a dent, just wait until you get a little life experience under your belt. It'll make all the difference.
:banghead: Harold Mayo
Member
Oh, yeah...
Take a look at a GREAT gun-lovin', freedom-lovin' site... www.flashbunny.org
AND...
If you want to hold Germany up as an example of great gun laws and low crime rate, do this little exercise:
Compare the murder rates of the US and Germany in the 20th century. Don't just take the numbers of murders that were officially counted as murders by the police but also take the numbers from the aforementioned genocide. Even if you adjust the numbers so that you get a ratio because of a difference in population, you'll see that the murder rate of Germany is FAR higher than that of the United States.
Take a look at a GREAT gun-lovin', freedom-lovin' site... www.flashbunny.org
AND...
If you want to hold Germany up as an example of great gun laws and low crime rate, do this little exercise:
Compare the murder rates of the US and Germany in the 20th century. Don't just take the numbers of murders that were officially counted as murders by the police but also take the numbers from the aforementioned genocide. Even if you adjust the numbers so that you get a ratio because of a difference in population, you'll see that the murder rate of Germany is FAR higher than that of the United States.
BluesBear
member
But will you get 72 virgins?
- Status
