Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder

[mpok1519]

Your freedoms? Why would I care about YOUR freedoms? Why do your personal opinions affect the way I live my life?

Because the way you "live your life" by owning weaponized Ebola is an endangerment to my freedoms and my and everyone else's way of life.

 

[mpok1519]

If that's what you need to believe so as to live in your own little world.

People can find the recipe to make pipe bombs online. Do you actually think criminals go to gun shops and buy their wares?

So because a criminal has the illegal ability to construct lethal explosives you should be legally able to?

No, that's delusional.

 

[mpok1519]

Lilly, the person you're trying to talk to speaks of weaponized ebola and calls other people paranoid

I simply asked if people should be allowed to own any weapon, and the biological weapon was given as an example.

Apparently, some here feel as if they have a right to own such a biological weapon. Which is what I am challenging.

Which can bring other discussion to the table. What limits should we apply to weapon ownership?

 

[seeking Christ]

Because the way you "live your life" by owning weaponized Ebola

Don't forget to go calling everyone else paranoid!

 

[seeking Christ]

I simply asked if people should be allowed to own any weapon, and the biblical weapon was given as an example.

Please show me where the Bible mentions ebola. Thanks

Which can bring other discussion to the table. What limits should we apply to weapon ownership?

Since this is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, it isn't on the table at all. Arms. Now if you'd like to help clarify the difference between arms and ordinance, that could be helpful.

 

[quilbilly]

The body is an amazing thing. I have scars from both shrapnel and projectiles in my face. My body, the last time the government looked to record scars they shrugged shoulders and just noted "many" I have walked though fire-zones, I have taken bullets, blades, everything for a nation I love. I have holes I can't hide, the checkout girl at the grocery sees them. When I think what it would take to stop me . . . . well a single shot never got it and I have bludgeoned a man or two to death with the "assault rifle" he might have liked to kill me with. I ain't no average guy though. I can walk through a rain of lead and make my enemy's widows weap. It isn't because they never hit me. I have blood on lead the docs have pulled out. Point being, citizens should never be regulated by law to have less protection, duller knives, slower guns. ... . . it contrasts starkly with the Constitution & anyone advocating More gun control should be extracted from politics and placed firmly in the career of "da ya wan fries wi'd dat" because clearly that is the whole and sum of their ability to listen and reason. That is kind, really they should be culled from the herd as unfit.

I think I sawe you on a poster. "Tho I walk thru the valley od death I shall fear no evil--cause I'm the meanest SOB in the valley"
Just kidding GI. Thank you for your service

 

[mpok1519]

Don't forget to go calling everyone else paranoid!

If someone wants to own any weapon[weaponized Ebola for example], simply because another owns that same weapon, that is paranoia.

 

[mpok1519]

Please show me where the Bible mentions ebola. Thanks

I do apologize if you couldn't deduce from the rest of the post's content and context that the word was a typo. Biological weapon.

Since this is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, it isn't on the table at all. Arms. Now if you'd like to help clarify the difference between arms and ordinance, that could be helpful.

What clarification? "Arm" as defined by the dictionary is "weapon". Did the draftees of the document even clarify what types of weapons they considered arms?

No. They didn't.

So who gets to decide that since our founding fathers were too short on time to specify what the heck they actually meant with considering to possible future circumstance?

But until then, I don't like the idea that someone can own sixty cal machine guns. And if they do, I prefer they be put away for a very long time.

 

[marshlewis]

Please show me where the Bible mentions ebola. Thanks



Since this is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, it isn't on the table at all. Arms. Now if you'd like to help clarify the difference between arms and ordinance, that could be helpful.

what would bullets be classified as. obviously not arms and not quite ordinance. what about a round shot for a cannon. what about a RPG.
What about a 30mm autocannon. what about large guns like a 75mm or 120mm, do they count as artillery even if there not.
what is the difference between armaments and arms and handguns.

maybe we could classify arms as sport rifles available to licenced individuals with the appropriate checks and safety measures like a gun safe.

 

[seeking Christ]

What clarification? "Arm" as defined by the dictionary is "weapon". Did the draftees of the document even clarify what types of weapons they considered arms?

No. They didn't.

So who gets to decide that since our founding fathers were too short on time to specify what the heck they actually meant with considering to possible future circumstance?

But until then, I don't like the idea that someone can own sixty cal machine guns. And if they do, I prefer they be put away for a very long time.

If you actually think our Founding Fathers left one square inch of anything that they didn't spell out their opinion of AT LENGTH, then I think you should be denied citizenship and forfeit your right to vote.

On second thought maybe that is a little extreme, but the fact is they made their opinions VERY clear, and left nothing at all to the imagination. If you can;t be bothered to find out what they thought that's fine, but that our SCOTUS isn't interested either, is treasonous. And yet things have certainly changed such that their ideas serve as nothing more than a framework, leaving details to be filled in by each generation.

RPG, firearm or ordinance? Like fully automatics, this seems to be a no man's land in between the two. Can be owned, but with more scrutiny. Not such a bad thing ...

 

[pgp_protector]

what would bullets be classified as. obviously not arms and not quite ordinance. what about a round shot for a cannon. what about a RPG.
What about a 30mm autocannon. what about large guns like a 75mm or 120mm, do they count as artillery even if there not.
what is the difference between armaments and arms and handguns.

maybe we could classify arms as sport rifles available to licenced individuals with the appropriate checks and safety measures like a gun safe.

Don't forget you can also get plans & howtos for Rail Guns, Gauss Guns & Coil Guns online now, To to mention 1,000 Watt Lasers for sale

 

[seeking Christ]

what would bullets be classified as. obviously not arms and not quite ordinance.

Arms, obviously.

What about a 30mm autocannon. what about large guns like a 75mm or 120mm, do they count as artillery even if there not.
what is the difference between armaments and arms and handguns.

Can you walk with it? Is it designed to be operated that way? If so, it seems to me that's an "arm." Handguns certainly are

maybe we could classify arms as sport rifles available to licenced individuals with the appropriate checks and safety measures like a gun safe.

That's a negative

 

[marshlewis]

Arms, obviously.



Can you walk with it? Is it designed to be operated that way? If so, it seems to me that's an "arm." Handguns certainly are



That's a negative

how do you define arms then. i bet i can spot a loophole probably many.

 

[seeking Christ]

how do you define arms then. i bet i can spot a loophole probably many.

I've been asking that same thing. In all these millions of gun threads, I've only seen 2 statements that even speak to the issue. How do you define it?

 

[Schneiderman]

Knocking on the door and ringing the doorbell does not indicate that he was making sure nobody was home. He could just as likely have been hoping that the woman did answer the door, so he could overpower her there and save himself the trouble of breaking and entering. Also, if she did naively open the door without checking who was there first, she probably wouldn't have been armed when she did so.

I have been involved in a scenario in which a person with ill intent attempted to lure me into opening a door for him. Given that he was seeking a victim, I can only imagine that he desired to inflict bodily harm. Luckily, this particular door was a steel security door with a deadbolt to a building with one entrance and no windows, so he didn't have much chance of breaking in once I denied him entry.

It's good to see guns being used positively for a change. Clearly, having a gun saved this woman and her children from something much worse, and had she not had the weapon, I certainly think this story would have had a far sadder ending than an injured perpetrator.

"For a change"?

Nearly every study on the subject indicates a likelihood that, in the US, firearms are used more to prevent and stop crimes than in the perpetration of crime. And that doesn't count for all the positive use of firearms that is not crime related at all, which accounts for somewhere around 99% of firearm use in general...

 

[Schneiderman]

If you actually think our Founding Fathers left one square inch of anything that they didn't spell out their opinion of AT LENGTH, then I think you should be denied citizenship and forfeit your right to vote.

On second thought maybe that is a little extreme, but the fact is they made their opinions VERY clear, and left nothing at all to the imagination. If you can;t be bothered to find out what they thought that's fine, but that our SCOTUS isn't interested either, is treasonous. And yet things have certainly changed such that their ideas serve as nothing more than a framework, leaving details to be filled in by each generation.

RPG, firearm or ordinance? Like fully automatics, this seems to be a no man's land in between the two. Can be owned, but with more scrutiny. Not such a bad thing ...

I have likened arguing with mpok to playing tug of war with a small dog. If you would like to discover all of his very interesting ideas regarding weapons, policy, and other fun subjects here are a few threads you might enjoy:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7675203/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7582948-5/

I particularly like this one, where mpok admits that he does not believe the law applies to him while simulataneously calling for laws designed to impose his will on others:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7520940/

 

[marshlewis]

I've been asking that same thing. In all these millions of gun threads, I've only seen 2 statements that even speak to the issue. How do you define it?

you felt confident enough to disqualify 'ordinance' with the exception of RPG's.

i would define arms as any object or system that by design or intention is used as a weapon.

 

[Schneiderman]

you felt confident enough to disqualify 'ordinance' with the exception of RPG's.

i would define arms as any object or system that by design or intention is used as a weapon.

Would you define "gay" as referring to homosexuality?

Would you apply that same definition to a document written in 1789?

 

[marshlewis]

Would you define "gay" as referring to homosexuality?

Would you apply that same definition to a document written in 1789?

elaborate please.

 

[Schneiderman]

elaborate please.

Words mean things. When you use a word in a sentence, you are conveying the meaning of that word, as you understand it, at the time that you write it.

The word "Arms" had a particular meaning when it was used in the Bill of Rights, and when the Bill of Rights was debated and when it was ratified.

The gradual adaptation of the word "arms" over time to include pretty much any weapon, including nuclear weapons, does not reflect what the word meant when it was used in the Bill of Rights.

By arguing that the word "Arms" in the 2nd amendment can include forms of weaponry that would have fallen under the heading of "Ordinance" at the time the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, you are also making an argument that any document using the word "gay" written in the same period would be referring to homosexuality. That is historically incorrect, and illogical.