shooting

[TCassidy]

What is that makes some people's palms get sweaty and their mouth frouth when registration of guns is mentioned? I don't own a gun nor have I ever needed one. If I did I would have no objection to my state or Federal Government knowing about my ownership of it. Also I would like to see anyone convicted of a crime using a firearm recieve mandatory life sentencing or Death Penalty.

Gun registration was how Adolph Hitler kept the people in check. The first thing the Brown Shirts did was go house to house confiscating all the guns. The rest is history.

Also, this country is unique in that it has written into its constitution the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Forcing people to register their guns may seem innocuous until we compare your suggestion to the first amendment.

Are you willing to register all newspapers, tv stations, radio stations, and internet sites you get your news from and only read/watch/listen to the ones you have registered under penalty of law?

Are you willing to register all churches, pastors, creeds, confessions, hymns, etc., and agree to only attend/listen/believe/sing those you have registered under penalty of law?

This is an important issue when it comes to our freedom. Think about it.

 

[SolaSaint]

This is all very difficult for me. I'm a very strong conservative and I find myself wanting to get rid of assault weapons. I own several guns, but none are automatic weapons that could be used to kill in mass. Do we really need these kind of weapons in the hands of civilians? Do you need an AK47 for protection?

The difficult part is what you all have been saying "the public will be unable to have these type of guns but the crooks and killers will get them". However, globally don't we outlaw nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't all countries be allowed to own these? It is because we know of the evil intentions of countries like Iran and N. Korea. So why can't we do the same on a national level with weapons capable of killing masses? Just thinking here, please reply in love.

I think the key is accountability, when someone is caught with a banned weapon, we throw the book at them.

 

[TCassidy]

This is all very difficult for me. I'm a very strong conservative and I find myself wanting to get rid of assault weapons. I own several guns, but none are automatic weapons that could be used to kill in mass. Do we really need these kind of weapons in the hands of civilians? Do you need an AK47 for protection?

One more time. Automatic firearms are ALREADY ILLEGAL. None of the firearms used in this incident were automatic. None. An AK-47 is NOT an automatic rifle.

The difficult part is what you all have been saying "the public will be unable to have these type of guns but the crooks and killers will get them". However, globally don't we outlaw nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't all countries be allowed to own these? It is because we know of the evil intentions of countries like Iran and N. Korea. So why can't we do the same on a national level with weapons capable of killing masses? Just thinking here, please reply in love.

Please! Learn the difference between an automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm. You are making yourself look ignorant and uninformed!

I think the key is accountability, when someone is caught with a banned weapon, we throw the book at them.

Except none of the firearms used were "banned."

The young man stole them. Stealing is illegal, but it didn't stop him.
He killed his mother. Killing is illegal, but that didn't stop him.

Do you really think another law would stop him? The whole point of being a criminal is that you ignore the law!

 

[righteousdude2]

Don't Mean to Change the Subject, BUT....

The young man stole them. Stealing is illegal, but it didn't stop him. He killed his mother. Killing is illegal, but that didn't stop him....The whole point of being a criminal is that you ignore the law!

...you have a great point! And those [Asians, Hispanics, Europeans] who are in this country [illegally] are NO less criminal than Lanza. Breaking a law, regardless of the law they broke, is still criminal.

If the president and Congress bypass the illegality of illegal immigration, then they are going to be seen as hypocrites should they ban guns in America.

One law, is no less important than another law. People are still being hurt and killed by those here illegally [like drunk, unlicensed illegals driving on our streets, a growing number of molestations and rapes by illegals, robbery, gangs, drugs, etc.]!

Let's not get caught up baninning guns, while we ready the nation to accept AMNESTY. Neither of these criminal acts are above the law...

Now, back to the subject at hand. Sorry for the commercial break to step up on my person dias.

 

[mont974x4]

Gun registration was how Adolph Hitler kept the people in check. The first thing the Brown Shirts did was go house to house confiscating all the guns. The rest is history.

Also, this country is unique in that it has written into its constitution the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Forcing people to register their guns may seem innocuous until we compare your suggestion to the first amendment.

Are you willing to register all newspapers, tv stations, radio stations, and internet sites you get your news from and only read/watch/listen to the ones you have registered under penalty of law?

Are you willing to register all churches, pastors, creeds, confessions, hymns, etc., and agree to only attend/listen/believe/sing those you have registered under penalty of law?

This is an important issue when it comes to our freedom. Think about it.

True. Those who oppose registration do so because of the lessons of history.

Thankfully there is a large movement among troops and law enforcement that has already clearly stated that they will not disarm law abiding citizens should a ban be forced on us.

Taken from their site:
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/

 

[SolaSaint]

One more time. Automatic firearms are ALREADY ILLEGAL. None of the firearms used in this incident were automatic. None. An AK-47 is NOT an automatic rifle.
Please! Learn the difference between an automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm. You are making yourself look ignorant and uninformed!

Except none of the firearms used were "banned."

The young man stole them. Stealing is illegal, but it didn't stop him.
He killed his mother. Killing is illegal, but that didn't stop him.

Do you really think another law would stop him? The whole point of being a criminal is that you ignore the law!

I am ignorant and uniformed..thanks for clearing that up. I keep hearing the lefties call for a ban on assault weapons. That is what I get for listening to MSNBC.

 

[TCassidy]

I keep hearing the lefties call for a ban on assault weapons.

So ask one of them, "What do you mean by "assault weapon." Then sit back and watch them fall into utter confusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

 

[General Mung Beans]

What is that makes some people's palms get sweaty and their mouth frouth when registration of guns is mentioned? I don't own a gun nor have I ever needed one. If I did I would have no objection to my state or Federal Government knowing about my ownership of it. Also I would like to see anyone convicted of a crime using a firearm recieve mandatory life sentencing or Death Penalty.

Why would the same crime committed with a firearm be worse than if it was otherwise?

 

[Berean]

Why would the same crime committed with a firearm be worse than if it was otherwise?

It would be hard to kill 28 people with an ax handle in one sitting.

 

[Don]

Please allow me to make a personal observation: I take a slightly different viewpoint about the Second Amendment. Owning a gun is not like driving; we all agree about the difference between a right and a privilege. But if you look at the wording of the Second Amendment, and think about the mindset of why these authors would include a clause to ensure that there was a well-regulated militia, one could make the case that the "right" to keep and bear arms is actually a responsibility. A mechanism was placed in our Amendments to prevent an oppressive regime at that time; with the wording recognizing that such protection is needed at ALL times to secure the blessings of liberty.

We aren't supposed to rely on the government for our protection; the government is supposed to rely on us. And ultimately, we're supposed to be able to protect ourselves from the government. This is a responsibility, not just a right.

 

[TCassidy]

It would be hard to kill 28 people with an ax handle in one sitting.

How about a molotov cocktail?

 

[TCassidy]

Don, hear hear! Well said.

 

[Revmitchell]

It would be hard to kill 28 people with an ax handle in one sitting.

Yes because an ax handle is the only other weapon a killer would have to choose from.

 

[Oldtimer]

Please allow me to make a personal observation: I take a slightly different viewpoint about the Second Amendment. Owning a gun is not like driving; we all agree about the difference between a right and a privilege. But if you look at the wording of the Second Amendment, and think about the mindset of why these authors would include a clause to ensure that there was a well-regulated militia, one could make the case that the "right" to keep and bear arms is actually a responsibility. A mechanism was placed in our Amendments to prevent an oppressive regime at that time; with the wording recognizing that such protection is needed at ALL times to secure the blessings of liberty.

We aren't supposed to rely on the government for our protection; the government is supposed to rely on us. And ultimately, we're supposed to be able to protect ourselves from the government. This is a responsibility, not just a right.

Well said. :thumbsup:

Individual responsibility, independence, and self-reliance are 3 terms rarely heard, today, in this "collective" society. Even our president believes in "collective salvation". A society, for the most part it seems, with hands outstretched to the government to provide all things to all people. All people, who approach on bended knee, that is.

How many today prefer to depend on the federal government rather than taking personal responsibility for anything? Thus "selling" their rights to avoid the accountability that comes with personal responsibility.

 

[Berean]

Gun registration was how Adolph Hitler kept the people in check. The first thing the Brown Shirts did was go house to house confiscating all the guns. The rest is history.

I have heard this for years but have never been able to find a record of this from any reliable History Source. Where did you get this?

 

[SolaSaint]

I have to ask, What would Jesus have us do? I see a lot of reasonable commentary with very good points referring to our constitutional rights as citizens, but as Christians, we must follow what Jesus would have us do.

 

[TCassidy]

I have to ask, What would Jesus have us do? I see a lot of reasonable commentary with very good points referring to our constitutional rights as citizens, but as Christians, we must follow what Jesus would have us do.

Jesus wants us to protect ourselves and others using deadly force if necessary.

Luke 22:36 Then he told them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one.

 

[SolaSaint]

Jesus wants us to protect ourselves and others using deadly force if necessary.

Luke 22:36 Then he told them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one.

Then a few verses later He told Peter to put his sword away. I'm not sure if these verses are a command from Jesus to arm a population? I will do a further study on this before I say anymore. God bless.:thumbs:

 

[TCassidy]

Then a few verses later He told Peter to put his sword away. I'm not sure if these verses are a command from Jesus to arm a population? I will do a further study on this before I say anymore. God bless.:thumbs:

Peter attempted a misuse of his sword. He arrogantly assumed he could protect the Lord of Glory, and that the Lord of Glory was incapable of protecting Himself.

But the command was for protection of self and others. And nobody suggested it meant to arm a population. It is talking about the responsibility of individuals to protect themselves and others from violence.

The Lord never intended their use offensively, only defensively. It seems pretty simple to me. The Lord would no longer be physically present and the disciples would now have to be responsible for their own defense. Jesus suggested the common weapon of the day to be used in their defense of self and others. Nothing has changed. Our defense is our own responsibility. Not the police. Not the government. Us.

 

[righteousdude2]

No Answer in Sight!

AIC - I agree. I just can't fathom a classroom full of 6 year olds being obliterated. These are babies, for heaven's sake!!!

Unfortunately, this wasn't the first time in world history that a group of kindergarten kids were massacred.

— March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland [notice, this was not in America, but rather a gun free country], and then kills himself.

It doesn't make it right, but it seems to be something that evil people have no problem doing! Look at the middle East, every day, terrorist bomb schools and mosques, and market places, killing innocent young lives.

It breaks my heart, like it breaks yours. I wish there was an answer, but, there doesn't seem to be one available short of cleansing the world of evil, which we have to leave up to God.