Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Do you have any problem with this photo?

Rate this topic


E Morales
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
2 hours ago, SureWord said:

Wrong. 

 

Well, I would prefer making my hamburger with a proper machine, not an automatic assault rifle. 

A sword is not an assault rifle. The only intended use of an assault rifle is to kill people, innocent and otherwise. A sword has many uses other than killing people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, E Morales said:

Weapons are not for everyone, especially if you are afraid to use it. Safety and training is first, and I do support permit to have one.

No one should have an assault rifle. Hunting rifles and shotguns are another matter. Assault weapons should not be legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

No one should have an assault rifle. Hunting rifles and shotguns are another matter. Assault weapons should not be legal.

If these rifles were all removed from the owners and thieves started using shot guns or hand guns. Would you want theses taken away also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Handguns seem to be the weapon of choice for committing a gun-related crimes. In Chicago in 2017 more than 90 percent of crime gun recoveries were handguns.

Looks like it's that way across the US.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

"Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 145 different handguns being used in 97 incidents between 1982 and May 2021."

As usual, our government is not looking at the gun that kills the most lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
9 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Well, I would prefer making my hamburger with a proper machine, not an automatic assault rifle. 

A sword is not an assault rifle. The only intended use of an assault rifle is to kill people, innocent and otherwise. A sword has many uses other than killing people. 

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. Assault is an action, not a piece of equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The second amendment is not for hunting weapons, it is in place as a means of controlling an oppressive government. The second amendment is the reason we are still a free nation. One valid reason to own a weapon like this is self defense, which we have a God given right to. Would you feel better going up against a criminal intruder with your sword if he were wielding a gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. Assault is an action, not a piece of equipment.

And there is equipment designed to be used in the action of an assault. No private citizen needs assault equipment. 

11 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The second amendment is not for hunting weapons', it is in place as a means of controlling an oppressive government. The second amendment is the reason we are still a free nation. One valid reason to own a weapon like this is self defense, which we have a God given right to. Would you fee better going up against a criminal intruder with your sword if he were wielding a gun?

Pure myth. We had no professional standing army at that time. Now if you are a strict constitutionalist, and conservatives claim they are, then it is constitutional to own a flint-lock rifle, but not a modern assault weapon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I can assault you with a banana peel so I guess that makes it an assault weapon.

The AR-15 was created as a sporting rifle in the 1956. According to the US military for a gun to be considered an assault weapon it has to have fully automatic capabilities which the gun that girl is holding does not. 

As Pastor Matt said most crimes are committed with handguns. I would say there's even more crimes committed with a shotgun than an AR-15 because they are more readily accessible and cheaper to obtained.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

It was completely legal for an early American to own a canon, which would have been considered an "assault" weapon in todays standards. The second amendment is in place as a means of controlling an oppressive government.

Plus like the stats show. Hand guns kill more people that other guns combined in the US. So why go after automatic guns when those are the least used in killings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Pure myth. We had no professional standing army at that time.

 

Fact Check time:

The history of the United States Army began in 1775.

Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted (ratified) in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

britney spears no GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
35 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

 

Fact Check time:

The history of the United States Army began in 1775.

Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted (ratified) in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

 

Abusive photo.

I guess you did not know that the Continental Congress did not believe a standing army, such as you suggest, were inconsistent with the principles of republican government and dangerous to the liberities of a free people. The Continental Congress passed legislation disbanding the Continental Army following the Revolutionary War. A few soldiers were kept on to provide security for the munitions at West Point and Fort Pitt. Four manned militias of 700 men were established to provide security for potential threats from the English and Native Americans.

Thus, if you take the constitution literally only those 700 men could legally keep arms for protection of the state, not everyone. Thus this show the modern myth of the 2nd amendment providing security from the state is false. The 2nd amendment was or the militia only. 

 

 
 
 
Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, PastorMatt said:

Fact checking is abusive, got it. 

YES, as you pointed out and helped prove my point (Thank you) there was a standing Army, but very small. Didn't know that we were going by size. 

Hardly an army. Guards is more like it. 

Notice that the Continental Congress considered a standing army a danger to freedom. 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
14 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

And there is equipment designed to be used in the action of an assault. No private citizen needs assault equipment. 

Pure myth. We had no professional standing army at that time. Now if you are a strict constitutionalist, and conservatives claim they are, then it is constitutional to own a flint-lock rifle, but not a modern assault weapon. 

The Minute Men were private citizens, or militia if you will; try to tell them they didn't need the most modern, efficient weapons of their time.

The whole idea of any conflict is to overpower the oppressor, not try to match him or comply with politically correctness because someone like you "thinks" no one should be able to protect themselves or their country.

If my home and family is set upon by outlaw thugs, it is the thugs that are in the wrong and lawbreakers, (or are you sympathetic with them?) not me for defending my family by any means at hand.

You should have to live in the real world Bill, if you personally experienced something of this nature your tune would change in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The Minute Men were private citizens, or militia if you will; try to tell them they didn't need to most modern, efficient weapons of their time.

The whole idea of any conflict is to overpower the oppressor, not try to match him or comply with politically correctness because someone like you "thinks" no one should be able to protect themselves or their country.

If my home and family is set upon by outlaw thugs, it is the thugs that are in the wrong and lawbreakers, (or are you sympathetic with them?) not me for defending my family by any means at hand.

You should have to live in the real world Bill, if you personally experienced something of this nature your tune would change in a heartbeat.

My guess is, Jim, that I have been in more of the world than you and have been in places unarmed that I doubt you would go. This may not be true, but I expect it is true. I say you would not go because if you feel you need to be armed here than I seriously doubt you'd go to places I have been traveling alone. God has taken me to some very interesting places ... unarmed and not afraid. 

19 hours ago, E Morales said:

I believe one reason that America has not been forced invasion, is because of the strong arm forces we have and that it’s citizens are well armed.

Get Some Sorry Not Sorry GIF by Lionsgate Home Entertainment

And two oceans have also helped defend us.

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 14 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...