# The Bible And Gun Control



## ANT (Sep 23, 2005)

I found this article yesterday. I haven't read it yet, but plan to do so soon. I thought some of you guys might be interested in looking at this.


http://www.gunowners.org/sk0801.htm


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 23, 2005)

Anything Pratt says is golden. I have heard him lecture on Biblical Defensive Acts and the Tyrannical State. Good stuff.

Listen to Dr Bahnsen Lay the Hammer Down on a Liberal Minister about Gun Ownership


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

this writer makes the fundamental mistake of equating gun control to gun prohibition. The two are not synonymous.

Likewise the writer confuses an intra societal concept of gun control with an inter societal concept. Controlling guns within ones society does not equate to the dumbing down of national defense, since national defense is an inter societal concept which behoves us to have a powerful army which we do.

The writer uses the inter societal concept of Israel's war with the Phillistines and the Canaanites to justify going against all gun controls. Facts
1. Israel did not have an organize army for its external enemies. These armies were ad hoc combination of mercenaries and young men.

2. Israel did not have an internal control via a police force.

But regardless of the above mistakes that the writer makes, the article points to an ever yearning need by Americans to use the Bible to justify their political positions on issues that the Bible is mostly silent on.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> this writer makes the fundamental mistake of equating gun control to gun prohibition. The two are not synonymous.



Of course, you have to control guns before you prohibit them. Can't get to step B without Step A first.

Only a government that is afraid of its citizens wants to disarm them.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Slippery_
> ...


You assume that the goal of gun control is to ultimately prohibit them. I think on the contrary gun control is like the FCC and the SEC. These organizations control the excesses of the Media Industry and the Corporate world least they go astray a la Bernie Ebers and Worldcom and Enron, as well as Howard Stern.

In a society where depression and anxiety, adultery, divorce and stress is on the rise, I think it is wise of the government to have a comprehensive and stringent gun control policy.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 23, 2005)

"Got a gun, 'fact I got two / That's okay man, cause I love God..." 

I kid you not, but the above is a line from a Pearl Jam song that was playing on my computer as I opened up the board. It satirizes the good ol' boy, southern white Christian with a gun type of mentality, i.e., "It's my God given right, and I love God, I'll get two!"

I am affraid that Christians are often overly flippent on the issue and may give offense by their celebration of gun rights. Hunting is well and good and necessary, but self defense is a grim matter that requires some seriousness which often goes by the wayside. 

All that said, I fully support the right of private citizens to bear arms. I think the article was more of a rebuttal to those who think that Christianity and the Bible teaches that we should be pacifists and never carry arms or hurt anybody for any reason. It is a duty of a father to protect his family from those who might hurt them, and in our day and age, there is surely justification for owning one. 

Government control is a stickier issue though. Nobody wants the government to have all the power, but I wonder if in the era of modern war, if revolution by the people is really even a threat to the government here in america. We're not in the civil war era anymore, much less the revolutionary era. The prospect of modern terrorism is a problem though...

I tend to think that public policy on gun control is more motivated by the reactionary pragmaticism by which our society makes decisions. "Oh no, kids are getting guns and hurting people! What's the fastest easiest way to stop kids with guns from hurting people? We can't discipline them, we'll have to take away the gun, and everyone else's too." 

To an extent, our society has lost the right to bear arms because, like spoiled children, we are not responsible enough to use them rightly. Of course, once you take away the guns of upright citizens, the only people with guns are of course the cops and the criminals...


----------



## gwine (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I fail to see where the government has controlled the excesses of the Media Industry or the corporate world, and I fail to see the connection between gun control and societal problems. Perhaps you could explain how our government, which shows itself to be quite inept at so many things, would be able to rise to the challenge (and I am not referring to just our present leadership.)

For the record, the only gun I have is a .410 shotgun my mother used to hunt porcupines 65 years ago. Never been fired by me. I am my own gun control.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> I fail to see where the government has controlled the excesses of the Media Industry or the corporate world, and I fail to see the connection between gun control and societal problems. Perhaps you could explain how our government, which shows itself to be quite inept at so many things, would be able to rise to the challenge (and I am not referring to just our present leadership.)
> ...


When one compares American television to European Television, I say the FCC has been doing a good job. But its all relative of course. Our rating system, and fines given to pottied mouth talk show hosts such as Howard Stern are well worth it, if it curbs the excesses in the least. In addition when those baron capitalists pilfer the coffers of corporations while ignorantly having people purchasing their overpriced stocks etc, I say in the least when the government catches one of them, its all good. I am not saying that it is wrong to have a talk show or run a corporation, but its abuse of these entities that behoves the government to regulate them.

This is the same way I see gun control. Every man has a right to self defense, but having an M16 Automatic with Splinter bullets under your bed in case of a thief and a rapist entering into your house is over board. Let us keep in mind, that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill humans. Killing a human is a grave responsibility, and it should not be triffled with under fascist simplistic reasonings of, "Right to bare Arms". Fact is, only the responsible should be given that Right. If we have criteria to run for president, senate, mayor, being lawyers, doctors etc, how much more important should their be for ownership of a gun, of which the very purpose of the gun is to kill another human being.

Hunting is in another category. Its a good hobby etc, but this hobby because it incorporates the usage of weaponry that can be used to kill humans at the outburst of anger, must be held in high esteem of which only the responsible should be give this right. But even so, I see no reason why an AK47 or an M16 is needed to hunt a deer. Probably a grizzly or a mountain lion, but a deer. That's too excessive. I think its the invention of such weaponry for regular citizens is what the Bible calls, "Invention of wicked devices".

And I have shot a rifle many times. The M59, and I did do some target practice with a pellet rifle.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

The southern boy's idea _gun control_ is a steady hand and a good aim!
:bigsmile:

Pass the ammunition!!


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> The southern boy's idea _gun control_ is a steady hand and a good aim!
> :bigsmile:
> 
> Pass the ammunition!!


 remember you need to have your Diesel sunglasses to look like Sylvester Stallone in Cobra. :bigsmile:


----------



## crhoades (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> "Got a gun, 'fact I got two / That's okay man, cause I love God..."
> 
> I kid you not, but the above is a line from a Pearl Jam song that was playing on my computer as I opened up the board. It satirizes the good ol' boy, southern white Christian with a gun type of mentality, i.e., "It's my God given right, and I love God, I'll get two!"



"Glorified version of a pellet gun..." Sorry - gotta post this. Pearl Jam is my favorite band of all time. Nice to see someone else who appreciates them. What is your favorite album/show? The whole reason I study apologetics is for when I finally meet Eddie Vedder and will be able to witness to him. (okay, not the whole reason...)


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by gwine_
> ...



Basically,
All you are giving is pragmatic reasons for gun control. What does the Scripture say? and yes, I will be using OT case laws where God commands his people to use lethal force to protect their families. Furthermore, Common law and the Constitution is on my side. But I have a test right now. When I get home I may post in full. In fact, i debated several humanists on this subject earlier this year. I might post that debate.

There is no reason why we sholdn't have heavy artillery. We must be fullly armed to make the government hesistant about impeding on our rights--and in making this case I will be upholding the rule of law. Meaning, the government is the one breaking the law and my resistance to it (proper precondintions given) is a form of godly social restoration.


----------



## gwine (Sep 23, 2005)

> Let us keep in mind, that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill humans.



That is not true, as your reference to hunting shows.



> Basically,
> All you are giving is pragmatic reasons for gun control.







> In a society where depression and anxiety, adultery, divorce and stress is on the rise, I think it is wise of the government to have a comprehensive and stringent gun control policy.



I am still waiting for you to explain how depression, anxiety, adultery, divorce and stress being on the rise necessitates a government gun control policy.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> Basically,
> ...



I am not denying your right to use lethal force against an attacker of your family. What I am concerned about is the absence of a control mechanism to regulate the ownership of a device of which this device is designed for the killing of persons. The killing of persons I believe in a grave responsibility and should not be viewed as simplistic. It is because of such reasoning that we have prohibited the usage of alcohol by people under the age of 21 as well as only issuing drivers license from the age of 16 and upwards eventhough an 11 year old child can do it.

In addition.
1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Guns simply help the process to be expeditious and efficient. It is because of the over efficiency of heavy artillery in killing people that I believe it serves the best interest of a society to prohibit weaponry of a certain calibre to be amongst the population. I believe certain weaponry should only be used by the military. As I said, I am yet to see why an M16 with splinter bullets need to be under a person's bed instead of a simple pistol. This is a case of overkill vs kill. Gun control I believe if implemented properly, can do away or at least mitigate overkill.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for you to explain how depression, anxiety, adultery, divorce and stress being on the rise necessitates a government gun control policy.


e.g a couple years back, a male and a female police officers were involved in a sexual relationship. The man dumped the woman, and the woman of course was suffering through major dejection and jealousy as a consequence of the break up. She simply killed her ex lover. All I am saying is, that I prefer a state with gun control as opposed to no controll.

Another example. A man was divorced from his wife, and on the day his wife was remarrying, he went and slaughtered almost the whole house.

As I said, guns don't kill people, guns simply make the killing of people much more efficient, of which this efficiency includes murder as well as justified killings.

Take your pick, imagine a man losing his job, his whole personal life is falling a part, and you got into a fender bender with him or cut him off. He snaps and goes bizerk on the freeway, with a gun in his hand. Automatic gun as opposed to a pistol. That would really be a news story the next day wouldn't it.

There was a time when only Samson could have killed a 1000 men, nowadays anyone with an automatic high powered weaponry can compete. This is why I am for gun control.


----------



## gwine (Sep 23, 2005)

Perhaps a better solution would be consistent and just penalties for crimes committed using guns. Arbitrarily banning a certain class of guns is akin to banning a certain breed of dogs because in either case they can, and often are, used to bad ends.

I understand and symphasize with where you are coming from, but the idea of government control concerns me.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

Hi, I am not cushy with gov't control either, but its their job to rule, albeit ethically in the best interest of the citizens. We've all seen was abuse of this power leads to, but its their divine right to rule over the citizens.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 23, 2005)

> Controlling guns within ones society does not equate to the dumbing down of national defense, since national defense is an inter societal concept which behoves us to have a powerful army which we do.



Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (chief architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor) strongly disagreeed. In a meeting of high-level officers, the question came up from many of them saying essentially: "Why not just invade the United States and get it over with?"

Yamamoto replied that the problem was not with the US military, but with the 50 million lunatics on our mainland who own and practice with their own private, military-style weaponry. Thus his famous line "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Gun control and restriction is most certainly a national security issue. 



> There was a time when only Samson could have killed a 1000 men, nowadays anyone with an automatic high powered weaponry can compete. This is why I am for gun control.



And where do such mass killings ALWAYS take place? In gun-free zones like schools. I was actually just thinking about this in my poli-sci class this morning (mainly cuz I was bored). . . . if an armed criminal came in and wanted to exectue every single person in that class, he could accomplish his task quite easily. Why? Because everyone in there was unarmed.

But yet, if that criminal entered that classroom fully knowledgeable that every single one of his intended victims was armed to the teeth - would he still go through with his plan? Only the most deranged psycho would. His death is ensured. Not only that, but the psycho's killing would have been stopped much sooner than otherwise, even if such a man attempted that murder.

When everyone is armed, everyone is safe. 



> Another example. A man was divorced from his wife, and on the day his wife was remarrying, he went and slaughtered almost the whole house.



Not to portray unlimited gun access as a magic bullet (pun intended), but think of it this way. If every member of his neighborhood, along with his wife and children-of-age, carried a concealed weapon - would he have slaughtered them? Criminals, or those bent on violence, will ALWAYS have access to the guns for their crimes, regardless of government regulation. The only question for gun control is whether the victim is allowed to have a fighting chance.

And as Jacob and others have said, this is all a very pragmatic argument. While I certainly believe the practical side favors completely unregulated arms for all citizens, the question is moral and scriptural first and foremost.

I believe that civil government can only act on those powers specifically granted to it by Scripture. Its jurisdiction in the affairs of men consists solely of what scripture grants to it. Does scripture ever once give civil government the authority to rightly regulate or control the weapons that its citizens own in any way whatsoever? Your answer must be affirmative, with a clear exposition of where that governmental right is found, in order for the case for gun control to have any Christian merit at all.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 23, 2005)

The only example that correlates to gun control in the Bible that I have found is 1 Sam. 13.19: "Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears." This, I believe, is meant to be an illustration of tyrannical government not godly government.


----------



## Augusta (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> The writer uses the inter societal concept of Israel's war with the Phillistines and the Canaanites to justify going against all gun controls. Facts
> 1. Israel did not have an organize army for its external enemies. These armies were ad hoc combination of mercenaries and young men.
> 
> 2. Israel did not have an internal control via a police force.




I disagree with these two points. During David's reign he had a standing army. They were called his "mighty men." The kings after him also had standing armies. Joshua may not have had a ready army but those after Israel was established did.

They may not have had a police force but they had "laws" and you were taking to the judges if you were accused by 2 or 3 witnesses. Then they used the umim and thummim to see if you were lying. They had a justice system in Israel.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Hi, I am not cushy with gov't control either, but its their job to rule, albeit ethically in the best interest of the citizens. We've all seen was abuse of this power leads to, but its their divine right to rule over the citizens.



By what standard does a government rule ethically? Divine right? That is a pagan notion with a vengeance. What if a government requires me to do contrary to the will of God? Is it then their divine right? Can they be resisted? 

Earlier you said that you are not denying me my right to protect my family, but you are making it much more difficult.

Also, subsitute "knives" or "swords" or "molotov cocktails" or "nunchuks" for guns and we still have crime. This is bottom line humanism you are proposing: you see the problems in society and deny (implicitly) the responsibility of the criminal. Therefore, let's punish the victim.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> 
> 
> Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (chief architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor) strongly disagreeed. In a meeting of high-level officers, the question came up from many of them saying essentially: "Why not just invade the United States and get it over with?"
> ...


As I said, nowhere do I endorse gun prohibition. With my opinions, Yamamoto would still be of the same opinion. Besides Yamamoto has not lived to see the day where guerilla warfare i.e terrorism is the war of choice for the underprivileged. Kamakazee pilots without aeroplanes.

Fact is, it is reasonable and responsible to have a society where purchasing guns is not on the same level as purchasing a big mac. And I find nowhere in scripture where wisdom is denounced. The Book of Dueteronomy is filled with practical aspects of law i.e the necessity of two witnesses before a death sentence can be given, a minimum of 39 strokes per flogging, no gleaning all the grapes from the vineyard and leaving some back for the poor. Marrying a dead brother's wife and raising up a seed unto him, whereever there is rape the man must pay the victim's father a certain sum, and must marry the victim, to preserve her from the disgrace of being a publicly unwed and a non virgin. I can go on and on as to practicality. But practicality is only a sin where expediency triumphs the transcendental moral laws of God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> ...



What?!? Case laws? Valid? Are you a theonomist?

Ii am not denying the need for wisdom. I am denying that our modern-day bureacracy is wise.

You are taking the true wisdom found in the Law of God, reading into it a centralized form of government, and then saying that all centralized governments are wise, which is certaily not the case.

[Edited on 9--23-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Personally, I think _Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms_ should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency.



:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

I could produce some full-blown treatise on gun rights, but I digress... Besides, we have talked about this before in some insightful threads beforehand...
(1) (2)

It's not _fascist_ to bear arms, it is fascist to monopolize force in the hands of the state or an elite. The Nazis and Fascists under Mussolini's regime were big proponents of gun control. 

I have seen a movement in some states (my state included) to affirm hunting as a right in their respective constitutions, but we should all recognize that the founding fathers wanted a well-armed citizenry not because grizzly bears and mountain lions threatened their homes, but because the people themselves were viewed as the safest depository of power. As cynical as this statement sounds, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Who said that? Mao-Tse Tung, communist premier, and he is not my gun rights advocate, as he sought to monopolize the use of force in the hands of his communist party-state. 

The self-defense value and the deterrant to tyranny is the most compelling reason for widespread firearms ownership amongst lawful citizenry -- not hunting deers, and shooting squirrels. Personally, I think _Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms_ should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency.

As Jesus says in Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."


----------



## gwine (Sep 23, 2005)

In Firefox whenever you want to see an update of the page you click on view, *reload*. :bigsmile:

http://www.thoseshirts.com/diversitybk.html


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Slippery_
> ...



I meant to say a Government "Ought" to rule ethically. Whether they actually do is a topic for the Jerry Springer Show. Daniel in his speech to Nebuchadrezzar clearly said that it was, "God who gave Him the Kingdom". The same can be said in regards to Cyrus the Persian. Paul in Romans clearly stated that God ordains all Governments, and whoever resists them, resists God.

But God ordaining a government that does not always rule ethically is no basis for armed rebellion. Heck, even the most honorable rule is laced with inconsistencies and oppression, but as Luther said in his commentary on the Pslams, "Government is for the cattling of swine"

ps. Nunchuks and Knives are so passe. But I think an M16 or an Uzzie would be overdoing it a tad bit. besides nunchucks and knives would make killings inefficient 

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> . Personally, I think _Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms_ should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency.


 : Alcohol, Tabacco, Firearms and Lottery Tickets


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> In Firefox whenever you want to see an update of the page you click on view, *reload*. :bigsmile:
> 
> http://www.thoseshirts.com/diversitybk.html


 : Reload hehehehe good one. now those are guns I fully endorse. nice shinny beautiful things aren't they. reminds me of that Tu Pac song, "Me and my girlfriend". Which was a song about his gun of course, only to the careful listener.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 22, 2005)

The argument that certain guns are "overkill" or "overboard" is fallacious and void.

Simply put, if I come to that awful moment when I must decide to take someone's life, then I better have something that can get it done. Make no mistake - I will not shoot until I absolutely am forced to, but when I do, it will not be to "disarm" or "maim," but to kill. An attacker who has forced me to defend my own life, or the lives of those around me, has given up the right to his own life.

Furthermore, the stories of "M-16's" (which are military only weapons...the civilian rifle that looks similar is called an AR-15), or AK-47's are simply incorrect.

The AR-15 shoots a .223 cartridge. This round is also frequently used in varminting rifles, for shooting prairie dogs and similar sized game. The AR available to civilians is NOT fully automatic - it fires just one shot at a time.

The AK-47 shoots a 7.62x39mm cartridge. This round approximates the power of a .30-30 round (used in the classic Winchester 94 lever action...just like your grandad used to hunt deer). It is less powerful than the .30-06, which is currently the most popular round used in deer rifles. Like the AR-15, the AK-47 that's available to civilians is NOT fully automatic, firing just one shot at a time.

"Splinter bullets" is a term made up by gun-control advocates. There is such a thing as frangible ammunition, but except for a few unique situations (like in a house or apartment where overpenetration might be an issue), it is not recommended because it is NOT AS EFFECTIVE as regular hollowpoint ammunition at interrupting the nervous and cardiovascular system.

Please, if you are going to make these claims about guns, bring the facts with you.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Anything Pratt says is golden. I have heard him lecture on Biblical Defensive Acts and the Tyrannical State. Good stuff.
> 
> Listen to Dr Bahnsen Lay the Hammer Down on a Liberal Minister about Gun Ownership



I wrote a review of this debate for Contra Mundum some years ago.

http://contra-mundum.org/cm/reviews/ta_guncontrol.pdf


----------



## ANT (Nov 23, 2005)

I just picked up a Berretta 3032 Tomcat (Stainless) yesterday at my favorite local gun shop. This is a nice little piece. It will be easier for me to conceal than my SA/XD 9 that I have been carrying.

If I ever do have to use a firearm for self defense, I think that it will be better for me (from a jury's perspective) that I am using something with stopping power and not just desroying power.

In my concealed weapons class (8 to 9 hours taught by Major Norman D. Belson ... This is the best class you can take in FL.) He teaches you that the 3 things you should say after you have shot somebody in self defence is ....

*1. - I was in fear of my life
2. - I was only trying to stop them
3. - I want to speak with my attorney now*

Then ... Stay quiet and quit talking.

What you decide to do in the 2 to 3 seconds it takes you to make up your mind and pull the trigger in self defence, you have to remember that a jury is going to determine your actions for who knows how long ... weeks or months. And you do not know what presuppositions every person in the jury is walking in with. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the eyes of the law it is better for you if you are seen as just trying to stop an attacker, rather than going for a death shot to kill the scumbag. But, I realize that every case is not the same. Sometimes it is necesarry to end a persons life in order to stop them. Unfortunately .... It is going to be the judge and jury that decides that outcome.

Just my


----------



## ANT (Nov 23, 2005)

If anyone want's info on Major Norman D. Belson and the classes he offers. Here is a link to his web page ...

http://www.staysafestreets.com/


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 23, 2005)

Hey ANT! My pistol of choice is a SA XD-9 subcompact...it's a great pistol, but a little chunky for carry. I don't have a CCW permit yet, so it suits all my needs. When I get my permit, I'll probably look for something that doesn't print quite as much on my frame (5'10", 155lbs).

Any reason you chose the Tomcat over, say, a Keltec?

If you ever come up to Jackson, let me know - we'll head out to the range where I shoot.


----------



## ANT (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Hey ANT! My pistol of choice is a SA XD-9 subcompact...it's a great pistol, but a little chunky for carry. I don't have a CCW permit yet, so it suits all my needs. When I get my permit, I'll probably look for something that doesn't print quite as much on my frame (5'10", 155lbs).
> 
> Any reason you chose the Tomcat over, say, a Keltec?
> ...




Yeah, I really like my SA/XD 9 - Sub Compact! What a great gun! I love shooting it.

I just really like the TomCat. I have always heard that Keltec isn't a gun to buy if you want something to last a long time. At the local gun range, they told me that they are good for about 10,000 rounds and then start to wear out. They are great for self defense (personal protection.) Just not a gun that you want to use weekly to keep your skills up with at the range.

I'll look you up if I get up that way.


----------



## cupotea (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> 
> if an armed criminal came in and wanted to exectue every single person in that class, he could accomplish his task quite easily. Why? Because everyone in there was unarmed.
> 
> But yet, if that criminal entered that classroom fully knowledgeable that every single one of his intended victims was armed to the teeth - would he still go through with his plan? Only the most deranged psycho would.



So you're saying that an armed criminal who walks into a classroom intending to execute every single student there _isn't_ a deranged psycho?!


----------



## SRoper (Nov 25, 2005)

"Like the AR-15, the AK-47 that's available to civilians is NOT fully automatic, firing just one shot at a time."

You mean commonly available to civilians. In many states, civilians can buy fully automatic M-16s and other machine guns made before 1986. They cost about ten times as much as they should because there are so few available, and you have to buy a $200 tax stamp.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 26, 2005)

Partially correct. More importantly than the $200 tax itself, is the 3 month background check, fingerprinting, and photographing. Simply put, the cost in time and money is prohibitive for most people. Moreover, those who would intend to use such Class III items in a crime are not likely to bother obtaining them in a legal manner. 

In the $3000-5000 range you can buy a Mac. For $5000-8000 you can buy an Uzi or maybe a Sterling. In the $10,000 range (and above) you can buy M-16's, MP-5's, Thompson's, etc.

In any case, the point is: these weapons are so cost prohibitive that at this point they are generally owned by gun enthusiasts, for the fun of owning unique pieces that are fun to shoot (often at "Full-Auto" get-togethers), not the average American looking for a way to protect his family.

Pacifism denies that the image of God still remains in man. That's my problem with it. I will not stand idly by and allow evil to bring destruction to my family and friends.



> _Originally posted by SRoper_You mean commonly available to civilians. In many states, civilians can buy fully automatic M-16s and other machine guns made before 1986. They cost about ten times as much as they should because there are so few available, and you have to buy a $200 tax stamp.


----------



## Puritanhead1981 (Nov 27, 2005)

Just my 2 cents but I have got to go with Jacob and others on this I live about 50/50 in WI and AZ I plan on getting my CWP in AZ soon and will do the same in WI when they fix the laws. I use either a wheelchair or cane (about 85/15) gun could very well save my life


----------

