Why Everyone Needs An AR-15

ViaCrucis · Apr 28, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I absolutely believe that a stranger’s death is acceptable since he’s the one that caused the situation where I was forced to defend myself and my family to begin with. I’m supposed to feel sorry for my attacker? Yeah maybe after he’s dead but not while he’s trying to kill me or my family. And why would you say that the attackers death was “needless” if he’s the one attacking?

Do you believe this mindset is Christian?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Apr 28, 2024

HARK! said:
I thought that I made this clear to you already. In most cases simply showing the weapon causes the criminal to flee, without shots being fired.

Let's go back to elementary school. There are twelve men, and there are two swords, how many of those men can at any given time carry a sword?

-CryptoLutheran

dogs4thewin · Apr 28, 2024

ViaCrucis said:
Do you believe this mindset is Christian?

-CryptoLutheran

Christ never said allow someone to attack you for no reason and roll over and take it now if you are attacked for HIS sake that is different, but Christ never ONCE said allow someone to harm you or others just because they are crazy and want what you have or want to use violence for NO reason.

BNR32FAN · Apr 28, 2024

PloverWing said:
Yes, it probably does. The gun owner who keeps guns with the intent to use them on other human beings in everyday life is utterly baffling to me. Further, sometimes in these threads I sense a contempt for the value of human beings who aren't in one's family, as though they're less than human. That's why my mind went there.

But I will admit to the possibility of strong prejudice on this.

You mean a “contempt for the value of human beings” who are attacking them and their family? Well for heavens sake the next time there’s another lunatic going around murdering innocent people let’s not resort to unkind acts of violence or unfriendly behavior, instead let’s invite them over for a pizza party and we can all have cake & ice cream and maybe play pin the tail on the donkey and Pictionary together while we all wear matching T shirts with rainbows, butterflies, and unicorns on them while singing kumbaya together.

dogs4thewin · Apr 28, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
You mean a “contempt for the value of human beings” who are attacking them and their family? Well for heavens sake the next time there’s another lunatic going around murdering innocent people let’s not resort to unkind acts of violence or unfriendly behavior, instead let’s invite them over for a pizza party and we can all have cake & ice cream and maybe play pin the tail on the donkey and Pictionary together while we all wear matching T shirts with rainbows, butterflies, and unicorns on them while singing kumbaya together.

violence is all some people understand. Now if someone is doing things like that and peacefully goes into custody I do NOT support the death penalty after the fact, but that is for another day another thread.

BNR32FAN · Apr 28, 2024

dogs4thewin said:
that was my point you are far more likely to be killed by a handgun than you are by an AR or any assault weapon. I was not trying to use real numbers only trying to show that in terms of just body count handguns take FAR more lives, and yet fairly few people are for banning them.

Yes I saw that I just wanted to point out that the ratio is a lot lower.

BNR32FAN · Apr 28, 2024

dogs4thewin said:
violence is all some people understand. Now if someone is doing things like that and peacefully goes into custody I do NOT support the death penalty after the fact, but that is for another day another thread.

Yeah my point is why should I value a person’s life who is trying to take my life or my family’s life or any other innocent person’s life for that matter when It’s the attacker who created the situation? Whose life has more value, the person who’s trying to kill innocent people or the innocent people because either way you have to choose between one or the other. I just couldn’t understand the ridiculously flawed logic of the person who posted that reply. In their exaggeration of the facts and reasoning behind self defense and protecting the innocent they completely failed to take into consideration the lives of the people being attacked.

PloverWing · Apr 28, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
You mean a “contempt for the value of human beings” who are attacking them and their family? Well for heavens sake the next time there’s another lunatic going around murdering innocent people let’s not resort to unkind acts of violence or unfriendly behavior, instead let’s invite them over for a pizza party and we can all have cake & ice cream and maybe play pin the tail on the donkey and Pictionary together while we all wear matching T shirts with rainbows, butterflies, and unicorns on them while singing kumbaya together.

BNR32FAN said:
Yeah my point is why should I value a person’s life who is trying to take my life or my family’s life or any other innocent person’s life for that matter when It’s the attacker who created the situation? Whose life has more value, the person who’s trying to kill innocent people or the innocent people because either way you have to choose between one or the other. I just couldn’t understand the ridiculously flawed logic of the person who posted that reply. In their exaggeration of the facts and reasoning behind self defense and protecting the innocent they completely failed to take into consideration the lives of the people being attacked.

The reason I have to value the attacker's life is that Jesus told me to, in Matthew 5:38-48.

I understand that self-defense is morally complex. The intended victim's life has value too, obviously. There are various arguments one can make; for example, that it's not possible to follow Jesus' teachings perfectly in a fallen world, or that sometimes we have to do evil to prevent greater evil, or that Jesus was addressing a different situation, etc. But whatever choice we end up making in extreme situations, it's clear to me from the Sermon on the Mount that we have to value our enemy's life.

dogs4thewin · Apr 28, 2024

PloverWing said:
The reason I have to value the attacker's life is that Jesus told me to, in Matthew 5:38-48.

I understand that self-defense is morally complex. The intended victim's life has value too, obviously. There are various arguments one can make; for example, that it's not possible to follow Jesus' teachings perfectly in a fallen world, or that sometimes we have to do evil to prevent greater evil, or that Jesus was addressing a different situation, etc. But whatever choice we end up making in extreme situations, it's clear to me from the Sermon on the Mount that we have to value our enemy's life.

You can have value for both lives while the VICTIM has greater value in the moment. For example, it is usually considered unlawful to shoot someone once they are no longer a threat. This means that if you shoot someone and say you injure them you cannot just take a kill shot if they are lying on the ground causing no threat. At that point if it is a situation with the police they usually must render aid to the suspect; likewise civilians hould attempt to render aid and still get both police and medics out at the scene.

Aldebaran · Apr 28, 2024

HARK! said:
This report came out 5 days ago:

Supreme Court Ruling To End All "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Bans Nationwide Put In Motion!

Oh yeah, but I meant that I can hardly wait for the conclusion. It seems like the SCOTUS likes to make their rulings, but them keep them secret for a long time.

RDKirk · Apr 28, 2024

ViaCrucis said:
Let's go back to elementary school. There are twelve men, and there are two swords, how many of those men can at any given time carry a sword?

-CryptoLutheran

Well, goodness, I only have two cheeks, but I'll bet there are lots of bad guys who won't mind slapping both of them.

Hazelelponi · Apr 28, 2024

JosephZ said:
Senator Feinstein was talking about assault style weapons only, not all guns.

The main problem might be her definition of an "assault style weapon"?

I do believe she made the dumbest comments ever made list, but I'm just going from memory and could be mistaken.

JosephZ · Apr 28, 2024

Hazelelponi said:
The main problem might be her definition of an "assault style weapon"?

The definition of an assault weapon at the time she made that statement was:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, hand grip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.42kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
A fixed magazine capacity over 5 rounds
Detachable magazine

A bill Senator Feinstein sponsored in 2021 defined an assault rifle as:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that— has the capacity to utilize a magazine that is not a fixed magazine; and
does have any 1 of the following:

A pistol grip.
A forward grip.
A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
A grenade launcher.
A barrel shroud.
A threaded barrel.

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm but not convert the semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.

Aldebaran · Apr 28, 2024

JosephZ said:
The definition of an assault weapon at the time she made that statement was:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Bayonet mount

Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, hand grip, or suppressor

Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator

A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.42kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

A fixed magazine capacity over 5 rounds

Detachable magazine

A bill Senator Feinstein sponsored in 2021 defined an assault rifle as:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that— has the capacity to utilize a magazine that is not a fixed magazine; and
does have any 1 of the following:

A pistol grip.

A forward grip.

A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.

A grenade launcher.

A barrel shroud.

A threaded barrel.

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm but not convert the semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.

Weird definitions.
That's how they decided how to determine which firearms an American can own.
No wonder people are concerned about losing their rights. Legislation to restrict them are based on semantics.

Hazelelponi · Apr 28, 2024

Aldebaran said:
Weird definitions.
That's how they decided how to determine which firearms an American can own.
No wonder people are concerned about losing their rights. Legislation to restrict them are based on semantics.

One of my favorite memes on guns is this:

America on gun control ^^^ it's like making guns into sporks (I think that's what they are called)....

BNR32FAN · Apr 29, 2024

ViaCrucis said:
Do you believe this mindset is Christian?

-CryptoLutheran

Absolutely.

BNR32FAN · Apr 29, 2024

PloverWing said:
The reason I have to value the attacker's life is that Jesus told me to, in Matthew 5:38-48.

I understand that self-defense is morally complex. The intended victim's life has value too, obviously. There are various arguments one can make; for example, that it's not possible to follow Jesus' teachings perfectly in a fallen world, or that sometimes we have to do evil to prevent greater evil, or that Jesus was addressing a different situation, etc. But whatever choice we end up making in extreme situations, it's clear to me from the Sermon on the Mount that we have to value our enemy's life.

I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said here and if I have to use my gun to protect me and my family I would absolutely make it perfectly clear to the attacker that I have a gun and will use it if they approach us. I never take my gun with me when I go somewhere. I did in the past when I was working for Amazon and Uber eats because you can get sent into bad neighborhoods at night but I stopped doing that kind of work 2 years ago. My pistol is for home protection and if someone comes into my home and I’m able to get my gun my tactic is to stay put and tell the intruder that I have a gun and I will shoot and that the police are on the way. I have no intention of trying to hunt the person down because you can easily get shot coming around a corner. I would stay put and hold my position until the police arrive and if the person comes to me knowing I have a gun then whatever happens is on him because he’s the one who made that choice. I don’t care about protecting my possessions, I would never shoot anyone for taking my stuff. My only concern is for my safety and the safety of my family. I have no intention of ever standing before The Lord and explaining to Him why I shot someone over a tv or a stereo. That’s to me is not an acceptable reason to shoot someone.

BNR32FAN · Apr 29, 2024

dogs4thewin said:
Christ never said allow someone to attack you for no reason and roll over and take it now if you are attacked for HIS sake that is different, but Christ never ONCE said allow someone to harm you or others just because they are crazy and want what you have orwant to use violence for NO reason.

What we see over and over and over in the scriptures is God showing favor to those who killed to protect themselves and their families. Abraham, a righteous man, went and attacked people who took his nephew and his family hostage. The Jews were constantly blessed in battle when they defended their territory from invaders. David killed thousands of people in the defense of Israel and had favor in God’s sight. The only time God was ever angry about someone killing another person is when it wasn’t justified.

dogs4thewin · Apr 29, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said here and if I have to use my gun to protect me and my family I would absolutely make it perfectly clear to the attacker that I have a gun and will use it if they approach us. I never take my gun with me when I go somewhere. I did in the past when I was working for Amazon and Uber eats because you can get sent into bad neighborhoods at night but I stopped doing that kind of work 2 years ago. My pistol is for home protection and if someone comes into my home and I’m able to get my gun my tactic is to stay put and tell the intruder that I have a gun and I will shoot and that the police are on the way. I have no intention of trying to hunt the person down because you can easily get shot coming around a corner. I would stay put and hold my position until the police arrive and if the person comes to me knowing I have a gun then whatever happens is on him because he’s the one who made that choice. I don’t care about protecting my possessions, I would never shoot anyone for taking my stuff. My only concern is for my safety and the safety of my family. I have no intention of ever standing before The Lord and explaining to Him why I shot someone over a tv or a stereo. That’s to me is not an acceptable reason to shoot someone.

That would I would think at least in my view depend on whether or not that was all they wanted which sometimes is hard to know. Sometimes people will take your stuff and still kill you. Now it is generally unacceptable to shoot someone if it is CLEAR that property is all they are after.

As to carrying guns other places I would if I could ( my motor skills and eye sight mean I have NO business with a firearm I know quite a few people who carry or have carried ( one is deceased) She is the reason for the black in my signature so Aunt M's death had NOTHING to do with guns or violence. I also releaze that not everyone is comfortable carrying in public and there are MILLIONS of people who only have one at home.

BNR32FAN · Apr 29, 2024

dogs4thewin said:
That would I would think at least in my view depend on whether or not that was all they wanted which sometimes is hard to know. Sometimes people will take your stuff and still kill you. Now it is generally unacceptable to shoot someone if it is CLEAR that property is all they are after.

As to carrying guns other places I would if I could ( my motor skills and eye sight mean I have NO business with a firearm I know quite a few people who carry or have carried ( one is deceased) She is the reason for the black in my signature so Aunt M's death had NOTHING to do with guns or violence. I also releaze that not everyone is comfortable carrying in public and there are MILLIONS of people who only have one at home.

The person coming around a blind corner is at a disadvantage against someone posted waiting for someone to come around that corner. Thats why I’d holler to the person that I have a gun and sit and stay posted waiting for anyone to come around the corner while I wait for the police to arrive. I think in most cases a burglar is going to leave once they’ve been discovered and they know the police are on the way. Anyone who doesn’t is most likely mentally unstable or high on drugs.

Why Everyone Needs An AR-15

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

dog lover

He’s a Way of life

dog lover

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Episcopalian

dog lover

NCC-1701-A

Supreme Court Ruling To End All "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Bans Nationwide Put In Motion!​

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

:sighing:

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

:sighing:

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

dog lover

He’s a Way of life

Similar threads

Supreme Court Ruling To End All "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Bans Nationwide Put In Motion!