Conservative & Lutheran?

Luther073082 said:

I'm moderate conservative on Gun control, because while I support a law abiding citizens right to own most firearms. . . I don't think assault weapons need to be privately owned.

Click to expand...

What do you think defines an asssault weapon? Fully automatic weapons have been outlawed for many years. My Remington 30.06 model 74 deer rifle is a semi-automatic with a clip. An AK-47 only shoots as fast as you pull the trigger just like a semi-automatic shotgun. Don't hate things just for their looks.

ricker said:

What do you think defines an asssault weapon? Fully automatic weapons have been outlawed for many years. My Remington 30.06 model 74 deer rifle is a semi-automatic with a clip. An AK-47 only shoots as fast as you pull the trigger just like a semi-automatic shotgun. Don't hate things just for their looks.

Click to expand...

This is most certainly true.

ricker said:

What do you think defines an asssault weapon? Fully automatic weapons have been outlawed for many years. My Remington 30.06 model 74 deer rifle is a semi-automatic with a clip. An AK-47 only shoots as fast as you pull the trigger just like a semi-automatic shotgun. Don't hate things just for their looks.

Click to expand...

While I agree with the fully automatic outlaws, (many do not). . . I also look at an assault weapon based on the caliber and type of round fired.

Assault weapon rounds are designed specifically for the killing of human beings.

Now if the weapon was redesigned for a less lethal round. . . One perhaps that isn't designed to tumble when entering the body, then maybe they wouldn't bother me.

But it does bother me that the public has access to AR-15's and Kalashnikov's (sp?) of various types, all of which where designed for rounds ment to tumble upon entry, and also often enough to defeat body armor.

Reducing it from fully automatic to semi-automatic doesn't make it any less lethal.

Just because it's designed for something, doesn't mean the average person shouldn't be able to use it for something else.

Pretty much any projectile is lethal. You can die from getting shot from a BB if it's fired at soft tissue (like an eye).

Tumbling in the body can actually cause more damage.

There are some of us that like the big guns just to use merely for (paper) target practice.

Cold medicine is used for treating colds, but people make very addictive drugs with them. It doesn't mean the medicine is bad. I'm sure plenty of people would be upset if cold medicines were taken off the market just so the bad people wouldn't make drugs out of them.

DaRev said:

In regards to women's roles in the Church, I agree that some make too much of it where Scripture is silent. But where Scripture is clear, there can be no argument. God's word trumps any flawed human reason.

Click to expand...

Actually this Sunday during Bible class with the pastor, one of the topics of the sermon and the bible class was the Pharisee's use of human tradition. And our pastor mentioned during the Bible class that there was a small group of LCMS pastors who belived that the country was sinning because it gave women the right to vote in secular elections. And he felt this was a human tradition.

My thought process on it was. . . ok even if you are a person that opposes women's voting in church meetings. . . Shouldn't women voting in secular elections still fall under the doctrine of two kingdoms? Paul never had nor did he ever claim authority over secular matters.

Some other people pointed out something to the effect of "Really? Out of all the things America is doing that is clearly sinful. . . abortions etc. . Their big concern are that women are voting in secular elections"

Luther073082 said:

While I agree with the fully automatic outlaws, (many do not). . . I also look at an assault weapon based on the caliber and type of round fired.

Assault weapon rounds are designed specifically for the killing of human beings.

Now if the weapon was redesigned for a less lethal round. . . One perhaps that isn't designed to tumble when entering the body, then maybe they wouldn't bother me.

But it does bother me that the public has access to AR-15's and Kalashnikov's (sp?) of various types, all of which where designed for rounds ment to tumble upon entry, and also often enough to defeat body armor.

Reducing it from fully automatic to semi-automatic doesn't make it any less lethal.

Click to expand...

You don't have any idea what you're talking about do you?

Bryne said:

I don't think it was the Liberals that wanted to end slavery...at least not liberals like today's liberals. Back then, what was called "Liberal" was actually very similar to modern conservative views.

I would say the same concerning the civil rights movements. The southern Democrats, who held to more liberal views politically, were very much against racial integration. Many who held to politically conservative views supported it.

I don't know enough about letting women vote to say for sure, but I do know that Utah was one of the first states to give women the vote, and it is a VERY conservative state.

Those issues aren't really straight up "liberal" v "conservative" issues.

Click to expand...

You are half right. Today's conservative/liberal political parties are not the same as the past. Today Democrats= Liberal and Republicans=Conservative. It was the nomination of Barry Goldwater in the lat 60's when the parties really began to flip.

The definition of conservative and liberal I posted above are not my definition, but the dictionary's.

Look at who the Democats view as the founder of their party, Thomas Jefferson. He was one of the biggest small government presidents this country has ever seen. They also list Andrew Jackson, who closed the Bank of the United States (similar to what we now call the Federal Reserve). Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was classified as a liberal in that time. It was the conservative southern Democrats that broke away from the US because they believed in state rights. Even the Northern Democrats (Stephan Douglas) did not want to abolish slavery, just contain it.

What I'm trying to get at is, the definitions of liberal and conservative have not changed, but the parties have. And not all liberalism is bad because reform can be good.

And I just want to clarify, while my view of Christianity may be liberal, my view in society and government is conservative. There are only a few social issues which I would say I'm moderate on. The constitution was only written 235 years ago. We know what the founders background intent was.

ricker said:

What do you think defines an asssault weapon? Fully automatic weapons have been outlawed for many years. My Remington 30.06 model 74 deer rifle is a semi-automatic with a clip. An AK-47 only shoots as fast as you pull the trigger just like a semi-automatic shotgun. Don't hate things just for their looks.

Click to expand...

Fully Automatic weapons are legal here in Arizona. They're a class III weapon, so there's a bunch of training you need to go through before you can get the right kind of license to own one, but you can own one.

.


Some PERSONAL thoughts (don't shoot me)....


1. "Conservative" technically means "status quo." A conservative is technically one who is resisting change of the ways and thoughts of NOW.


2. When I find some (especially here) speak of "conservative" it's very unclear what is meant: conservative in WHAT? How we dress? How we work? Our views on guns or movies or pets or heath care or attire or dating or.....? Personally, I tend to think they mean in THEOLOGY - but I'm usually wrong.


3. While I consider myself "conservative" in terms of LUTHERAN theology, and while I'm a registered Republican and in several other ways might be regarded as "conservative" by SOME ("liberal" by OTHERS), I don't consider them related. I can embrace a fellow Lutheran even if such is a Swedish socialist or drives a Mazda Miata, regardless on whether they think 10 year old boys must wear a suit to worship or can wear shorts and a t-shirt. I EVEN can fully embrace as a fellow Lutheran one who voted for Obama!!!!!!! (I know, that's SHOCKING and deeply disturbing to some - some might even consider me to be unlutheran for saying that, lol).


4. I'm even more confused by the term "Confessional." Why does Confessional trump being biblical? And I often find that those who STRESS being "Confessional" (rather than conservative or traditional or biblical), they almost never quote the Confessions, and the "hot issues" seem to be issues to which the Confessions don't speak. I just find that odd (and a bit confusing). Now, IF it meant "here's the Scripture - and here's specifically how our Confessions interpret and apply such" - that would make sense to me, but often there seems to be no connection to Scripture OR specifically how our Confessions apply and interpret such - "confessional" just seems to be the equal of "conservative" and thus my mention of such here.


That's just MY impressions as a fairly new Lutheran....






.

jonathan1971 said:

You don't have any idea what you're talking about do you?

Click to expand...

I don't think he does. Any weapon can be lethal. In Arizona you shoot to immobilize an advancing threat. You shoot until the person attacking you is down. You do not shoot to kill. That is a popular mis-characterization of gun owners. I mean if you sprayed an attacker with mace or pepper spray, and he or she has asthma, guess what, you just used lethal weapon, even though it's sold as "non-lethal".

CJ- apparently you haven't read the confessions, then, have you? confessional IS biblical - period.

Luther073082 said:

While I agree with the fully automatic outlaws, (many do not). . . I also look at an assault weapon based on the caliber and type of round fired.

Assault weapon rounds are designed specifically for the killing of human beings.

Now if the weapon was redesigned for a less lethal round. . . One perhaps that isn't designed to tumble when entering the body, then maybe they wouldn't bother me.

But it does bother me that the public has access to AR-15's and Kalashnikov's (sp?) of various types, all of which where designed for rounds ment to tumble upon entry, and also often enough to defeat body armor.

Reducing it from fully automatic to semi-automatic doesn't make it any less lethal.

Click to expand...

Here in Canada, fully automatic weapons and assualt rifles which can be easily converted to full auto are prohibited, as is anything .50 cal. and larger except for muzzle loading weapons; yes, you can have a black powder cannon. Hand guns are restricted to target practice only, no carrying, no hunting with them; good plan I figure.

I love varmint hunting. I use a Remington in bolt action in .223 (same as nato mil. round, but loaded with hollow points for groundhogs, solid points for fox and wolf (min. damage to the hide).

I used to use a .22-.250; way more powerful than the Mil. cal. with a lot more range. It was a heavy rifle; and I'm getting older.

Point is most rifle calibers are former or current Mil. cals. Some I have owned; .303, 7mm Mauser (still have that, It's my deer rifle) 8mm Mauser, 6.5 X55 mm Mauser.

If you want a sporting rifle that's not a mil. cal., then there are the so called "wild cats", but then they are all based on mil. brass, and usually exceed the performance of the mil. cals.

The good and the bad depends on the use of anything. Anything in the wrong hands can be lethal and destructive.

Zecryphon said:

I don't think he does. Any weapon can be lethal. In Arizona you shoot to immobilize an advancing threat. You shoot until the person attacking you is down. You do not shoot to kill. That is a popular mis-characterization of gun owners. I mean if you sprayed an attacker with mace or pepper spray, and he or she has asthma, guess what, you just used lethal weapon, even though it's sold as "non-lethal".

Click to expand...

I understand the self defense laws believe me. I've gone and looked up the self defense laws in my state. No duty to retreat in any place you may legally be.

My point that an assault rifle round is designed to tumble upon entry, this causes far more damage and makes it target less likely to survive. This is why the military uses these weapons.

I know that any weapon can be lethal, however, the way the projectile is designed as well as the muzzle velocity at which it travels are a strong influencer on how lethal the weapon truely is.

Assault rifle rounds are designed to tumble on impact with a soft target which causes far more damage to the flesh making them considerably more lethal then your average pistol round in the same place in the body. This is why I used the term "less lethal" as the round is not designed to kill people and they would have a stronger chance, all other things being equal of surviving it.

Luther073082 said:

I understand the self defense laws believe me. I've gone and looked up the self defense laws in my state. No duty to retreat in any place you may legally be.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your last statement. Retreat? From what? In my state you can't carry your gun into the obvious establishments, like a bank, or a post office or a casino or any business that has a sign posted saying no firearms allowed, like a gun show. You also can't bring one onto an Indian Reservation, but in some cases it can't be avoided like if you're driving on a section of the road that goes through the reservation or the highway.

Luther073082 said:

My point that an assault rifle round is designed to tumble upon entry, this causes far more damage and makes it target less likely to survive. This is why the military uses these weapons.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by tumble? I'm familiar with the expansion of hollow-point rounds which shreds more tissue and bone and does more internal damage than their full-metal jacket counterparts, which typically will go through a person and that's how you get shoot-through victims, which is why the police and other agencies have gone to hollow-point bullets in their guns, and then there's the frangible rounds, rounds which upon impact fragment and act like a shotgun shell inside the body or if they hit a window or anything else, breakup on impact and stop almost immediately. These are what the Federal air marshals were carrying in their guns when on an airplane. I carry these too in my Glock 23.

I know that any weapon can be lethal, however, the way the projectile is designed as well as the muzzle velocity at which it travels are a strong influencer on how lethal the weapon truely is.

Click to expand...

You really shouldn't get hung up on caliber, because there's really no such thing as the "one shot drop", if you're talking about handguns. Shot placement is far more important than caliber.

Assault rifle rounds are designed to tumble on impact with a soft target which causes far more damage to the flesh making them considerably more lethal then your average pistol round in the same place in the body. This is why I used the term "less lethal" as the round is not designed to kill people and they would have a stronger chance, all other things being equal of surviving it.

Click to expand...

You can kill anybody with any round if you know where to shoot. The round itself is not what determines lethality. It's more the skill of the shooter. Now I say, make all automatic rifles legal, and even the playing field. If someone invades my home with an AK-47 or an Uzi, I should have the same firepower to defend myself with. But since criminals don't follow the law, they can get these weapons and I can't. Well I can it just takes a long time to do so, considering you have to file with the ATF and they can reject your application for any reason at any time and you have to start all over again. I'd love to get my hands on a USAS-12 shotgun. But it's a class III weapon here in Arizona as is a suppressor. Which really doesn't silence a gun like you hear in the movies. LOL

Luther073082 said:

My point that an assault rifle round is designed to tumble upon entry, this causes far more damage and makes it target less likely to survive. This is why the military uses these weapons.

I know that any weapon can be lethal, however, the way the projectile is designed as well as the muzzle velocity at which it travels are a strong influencer on how lethal the weapon truely is.

Assault rifle rounds are designed to tumble on impact with a soft target which causes far more damage to the flesh making them considerably more lethal then your average pistol round in the same place in the body. This is why I used the term "less lethal" as the round is not designed to kill people and they would have a stronger chance, all other things being equal of surviving it.

Click to expand...

Any FMJ bullet with a tapered tip can [probably will] tumble. This is not something inherent in the spooky "assault rifles".

Zecryphon said:

I don't understand your last statement. Retreat? From what? In my state you can't carry your gun into the obvious establishments, like a bank, or a post office or a casino or any business that has a sign posted saying no firearms allowed, like a gun show. You also can't bring one onto an Indian Reservation, but in some cases it can't be avoided like if you're driving on a section of the road that goes through the reservation or the highway.

Click to expand...

I havn't checked as to where you can legally carry your firearm in Indiana. What I was speaking of is the self-defense laws. In some states you have a duty to retreat from a threat and only when you have no reasonable avenue of retreat left are you allowed to defend yourself.

In Indiana if you are in a place that you are legally allowed to be, you have no duty to retreat. In other words you may defend yourself if threatened.

What do you mean by tumble? I'm familiar with the expansion of hollow-point rounds which shreds more tissue and bone and does more internal damage than their full-metal jacket counterparts, which typically will go through a person and that's how you get shoot-through victims, which is why the police and other agencies have gone to hollow-point bullets in their guns, and then there's the frangible rounds, rounds which upon impact fragment and act like a shotgun shell inside the body or if they hit a window or anything else, breakup on impact and stop almost immediately. These are what the Federal air marshals were carrying in their guns when on an airplane. I carry these too in my Glock 23.

Click to expand...

Assault rifle rounds have a center of gravity towards the rear of the bullet so that upon impact of a soft target, the round literally begins to tumble end over end inside of the body causing extra damage.

You really shouldn't get hung up on caliber, because there's really no such thing as the "one shot drop", if you're talking about handguns. Shot placement is far more important than caliber.

Click to expand...

That is true of course. . . a 9mm round to the chest if obviously more lethal then even a 50 cal round to the arm. However the way bullets are designed often influences the likelyhood of someone surviving being shot. A tumbling bullet reduces that likelyhood significantly.

You can kill anybody with any round if you know where to shoot. The round itself is not what determines lethality. It's more the skill of the shooter. Now I say, make all automatic rifles legal, and even the playing field. If someone invades my home with an AK-47 or an Uzi, I should have the same firepower to defend myself with. But since criminals don't follow the law, they can get these weapons and I can't.

Click to expand...

If the weapons are not legal for personal ownership. . . from where are they going to get the weapons? Is the average criminal busting into your house going to have contacts with international arm's dealers in order to get an assault rifle or a sub-machine gun?

They can only aquire them if they steal them, purchase them illegally, or purchase them legally and use them in their first felony. But in order to do any of those, they are going to have to aquire them from somewhere. If no one owns an assault weapon. . . Where do they get it from?

The only source then is an arms dealer. Which your average criminal is no where high enough on the food chain to have contact with those guys.

Any FMJ bullet with a tapered tip can [probably will] tumble. This is not something inherent in the spooky "assault rifles".

Click to expand...

The speed at which the round tumbles is influenced by how far towards the rear its center of gravity is. Assault rifle rounds are designed to have the center of gravity as far towards the rear as possible to cause the greatest possible rate of tumble.

Luther073082 said:

Assault rifle rounds have a center of gravity towards the rear of the bullet so that upon impact of a soft target, the round literally begins to tumble end over end inside of the body causing extra damage.

Click to expand...

Is this damage significantly greater than the damage caused by hollow points or frangible rounds, like MagSafes or Glasers?

That is true of course. . . a 9mm round to the chest if obviously more lethal then even a 50 cal round to the arm. However the way bullets are designed often influences the likelyhood of someone surviving being shot. A tumbling bullet reduces that likelyhood significantly.

Click to expand...

How much more so than the other types of ammo I've mentioned?

If the weapons are not legal for personal ownership. . . from where are they going to get the weapons? Is the average criminal busting into your house going to have contacts with international arm's dealers in order to get an assault rifle or a sub-machine gun?

Click to expand...

Oh gee, I don't know. How about other criminals?

They can only aquire them if they steal them, purchase them illegally, or purchase them legally and use them in their first felony. But in order to do any of those, they are going to have to aquire them from somewhere. If no one owns an assault weapon. . . Where do they get it from?

Click to expand...

See above.

The only source then is an arms dealer. Which your average criminal is no where high enough on the food chain to have contact with those guys.

Click to expand...

Who just like drug dealers want to get their products into the hands of as many people as possible, regardless of where they rank on your personal food chain.

The speed at which the round tumbles is influenced by how far towards the rear its center of gravity is. Assault rifle rounds are designed to have the center of gravity as far towards the rear as possible to cause the greatest possible rate of tumble.

Click to expand...

Good.

As for bullet tumbling, what I said hasn't changed. You are sounding like this is some novel concept that makes what you call "assault rifles" [whatever that is] more dangerous then any other rifle. Designing bullets with a greater chance of tumbling goes back to WW1 bolt action rifles.

Rechtgläubig;58300528 said:

As for bullet tumbling, what I said hasn't changed. You are sounding like this is some novel concept that makes what you call "assault rifles" [whatever that is] more dangerous then any other rifle. Designing bullets with a greater chance of tumbling goes back to WW1 bolt action rifles.

Click to expand...

FMJ bullets will only tumble if they hit something hard like bone. "Sporting" bullets have soft points, they expand and cause a larger wound channel even if they do not hit bone; hollow points expand even more and will explode and fragment if they hit bone, or will do the same in soft tissue if the velocity is high enough. My old .22-.250 would literally vaporize a groundhog at 350-400 yards; with a direct hit, you would be lucky to find a foot, some hair, and maybe a tooth or an eyeball. The expansion/explosive nature of "sporting" ammo is why they have been outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

Granted, the smaller, lighter .223 are more prone to tumbling than the old .30 '06, .303, .308 because their light weight makes it more easy to disrupt their flight path than something heavier. Physics says that mass=stability.

BTW, here in Canada, we are not allowed to use firearms for personal defense.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

BTW, here in Canada, we are not allowed to use firearms for personal defense.

Click to expand...

Which is why I would never want to live there...

No offense, but if someone is trying to kill you, and you shoot him and he dies. . . and then YOU go to jail for murder... Thats not a place where I would ever want to live.

In Indiana I can shoot you just for trying to break into my house.

In the United States for a most part, if you defend yourself from a criminal . . . no matter if the criminal lives or dies. . . it is considered good. In Canada (And much of Europe), apparently a desire to continue to live is criminal when someone else is determined to take it from you.