Baptist church in assault rifle giveaway

Originally posted by Backwoods

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Erm, depends on who you ask. The Protestants make it murder, the Catholics make it kill. Hebrew is a semetic language, and like all semetic languages, is a bit rubbish when it comes to specifics.

As Christ preached peace and love and general floweryness, it's probably "kill". But you justify taking a human life any way you want too.

Anyone that gives me the option of my life or theirs is beyond that kind of morality. In that kind of a situation the kind of moral high horse can and will get you killed. If you honestly believe that there is never a reason to defend yourself with force that is fine for you. But being insulting to others because you are convinced you are right does not make you look superior.

Oh, I'm sorry, you misunderstand. I don't particularly have an opinion here, I wanted to clear up the murder/kill issue.

To change it from the original Greek translation of "kill" to "murder" on semantics (based on the argument that God isn't shy on slaughter in the Bible) expresses a desire to have the sanctioned ability to terminate life, despite the fact Christian doctrine expressly forbids it. Christ actually chastises his own disciples for making a violent defence of him when the Romans come to take him away for crucifixion.

I recall reading an article that detailed how, during the crusades, the Church had problems reconciling the idea of holy war with itself, as the doctrine pretty much forbids it, and this was the start of the "murder" philosophy, rather than "kill". Unfortunately, this was some time ago, and I have no idea where the source is now.

What I'm saying is, you can't be a Christian and think it's okay to take life, no matter how you dress it up and what semantic interpretation you use. If it's come to trying to bend the rules to make it fit, you'll find you're only lying to yourself.

As a non-religious type, I still think it's wrong to take life, but I'm not saying I would never do it, given the correct circumstances.

And I wasn't being insulting, I was being snidey.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Oh, I'm sorry, you misunderstand. I don't particularly have an opinion here, I wanted to clear up the murder/kill issue.

Whoops my bad.

Originally posted by C.C.BenjaminTo change it from the original Greek translation of "kill" to "murder" on semantics (based on the argument that God isn't shy on slaughter in the Bible) expresses a desire to have the sanctioned ability to terminate life, despite the fact Christian doctrine expressly forbids it. Christ actually chastises his own disciples for making a violent defence of him when the Romans come to take him away for crucifixion.

I recall reading an article that detailed how, during the crusades, the Church had problems reconciling the idea of holy war with itself, as the doctrine pretty much forbids it, and this was the start of the "murder" philosophy, rather than "kill". Unfortunately, this was some time ago, and I have no idea where the source is now.

What I'm saying is, you can't be a Christian and think it's okay to take life, no matter how you dress it up and what semantic interpretation you use. If it's come to trying to bend the rules to make it fit, you'll find you're only lying to yourself. As a non-religious type, I still think it's wrong to take life, but I'm not saying I would never do it, given the correct circumstances.

Himmm I know a guy on another board .......... Get back to you on that part.

Originally posted by C.C.BenjaminAnd I wasn't being insulting, I was being snidey.

Semantics

For the record I could care less about the fact that a church is giving away a glorified .22 in a raffle. For some reason it strikes me as funny. But I am not Christan. And firearms don't frighten me (not implying that they do to you more thinking of the people that go oh it black it must be an evil gun) so
no big thing.

Originally posted by johnsky
The Air force often lets people ride along with the pilot during flybys at air shows for a minor fee. Kids would LOVE that.

If you are referring to the Thunderbirds no they don't
You see they fly F-16s and they are all single seat planes.
See thunderbirds.airforce.com...
Even if for some reason a demonstration team flew two seaters there is no way they would let anyone in them during a show. That is bloody dangerous flying. Even just making a pass in review has risks. you are low to the ground so you have little or no time to correct if something goes wrong.
Can you say lawsuit?

Originally posted by johnskyThey couldn't think of anything better than an assault rifle to lure kids?

A It is not a assault rifle. Each time you pull the trigger you get one round.
Burst fire two to three rounds with one squeeze of the trigger then you have an assault rifle.

B It is a hopped up .22 and likely the kid will spend time with a role model to learn how to shoot it. That is a good thing.

That's somehow better than them playing baseball or something instead? Can you not spend time with a role model without partaking in weapons-based activities in the US?

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
That's somehow better than them playing baseball or something instead? Can you not spend time with a role model without partaking in weapons-based activities in the US?

No it is no better and no worse then basketball.
What is the big deal? My 11year old owns 4 rifles.
A single shot .22
A semi auto .22
A single shot .410 shotgun
A semi auto .40 carbine

He got the single shot .22 at 5 years of age.
When he went a year with out a safety violation at the range he got the semi auto. He has to excerise more discipline and control at the range the most teenagers seem to have. We play computer games hunt read talk wrestle and other things. So what exactly is wrong with teaching a child to safely handle firearms? You are acting like it is some kind of unwholesome activity.
Children that don't react to firearms like collage freshman do to beer, are far less likely to get killed by someone else's kids. And the ability to concentrate and focus and the discipline of breath control will translate to many areas in life.

You honestly can't see how having lethal weapons around the place could be a bad thing? Are you not being a bit obtuse about this?

I do agree with most of what you are saying - kids need adult supervision, they need to be taught responsibility, etc - but I'm afraid I do find the idea of teaching kids to use weapons an unwholesome activity.

The problem is, when that discipline lapses, even for a fraction of a second, someone could be killed because of it. Isn't it better to simply remove the weapon of war from your home, so an accidental shooting simply couldn't happen?

Originally posted by johnsky
An assault rifle? Isn't that a bit excessive? I thought the message these religions were trying to preach was one of peace... not "piece".
How are you supposed to deliver a message of peace when your giving away something that's intended to do just the opposite. It's an assault rifle, it's designed for warfare.

Yup, it's designed for warfare. And like many others nowadays, these Christians have figured out that they are in a war whether they like it or not. All citizens need to arm themselves.

I never had toy guns when I was a kid. When I was 5 my dad bought me a high powered pellet rifle, which I target shot with and popped rabbits & prarie dogs with until my 6th birthday when I took hunter's safety and was given my first true gun, a 30-30 rifle which I used to shoot my first deer the next season. My point here is that I was raised to NEVER view firearms as anything but a tool. They weren't toys, they weren't testicular enhancements, and they weren't liquid courage, they were tools... tools to put food on the table, tools to defend my family, myself, and my property, and tools to defend my rights if the day ever arose when needed. The same facts hold true with my feelings towards firearms today, except they have now become indespensible tools.

All the propaganda against them and all the misguided demonization of firearms is complete garbage. It is another example of the world overreacting to the symptoms while completely failing to treat the disease. We've got kids shooting kids? overreact to the symptom: BLAME GUNS! DAMN THE GUNS!! BURN THE GUNS!!! BAN THE GUNS!!!! Real solution to the problem: Return to the process of actually raising our kids in a stable home. Fathers quit being pussies and running for the hills when family life gets tough! Stay and actually be your kids' dad, teaching them and instilling some values into them. Take your kids hunting, take them fishing, go to scout meetings and hunter's safety classes with them and support them in learning what firearms are really for and how important it is for them to always remember our history as a nation of trailblazers and survivalists. Break the Hollywood cliche image of the old west being nothing but gunslingers and criminals and show them that was but a small fraction of the old west and our firearm herritage. For every gunslinger we had dozens of Buffalo Bills and Daniel Boones, men who did defend themselves and their country with firearms, but who also used them to do so much more.

Possibly the most important of all, eliminate the ridiculous "zero tollerance" policies against fighting schools have instituted over the past decade... Young boys are not "civilized" members of society, nor should they be expected to be (obviously within reason). You may have noticed that all of these school shootings started right around the same time as the zero tollerance policies began. This isn't a coincidence, nor is it a case that the shootings necessitated the policies as the schools would have us believe. These shootings were a direct result of teen boys who in the past would have finally taken enough bullying and pulled a Ralphie from A Christmas Story and knocked the crap out the bully not having that option available to them anymore. Between testosterone, looking and feeling gawky and clumsy, and just the general stresses of experiencing becoming a man, teen boys MUST have the abillity and option to throw it down on each other when pushed to the limit or else disiaster will occur as all that rage is pent up and finally explodes like St Helens. The incredible thing about that is that more often than not, a few days after a fist fight between two boys, you'll see them actually playing together as if nothing had ever happened.

Do these things, return to the good old days, and issues like a church giving away a rifle to a kid won't be an issue anymore.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Ya know Burdman, I don't always agree with what you have to say, in fact a lot of times I disagre, but this is one time where you are definately, positively, without a doubt, right on the money. Don't band guns, ban bad parenting. Parents are to blame a lot for kids not respecting guns. My children will grow up to respect firearms. The day they decide they are toys is the day i'll hand them a .44 and point at a target. When they wind up on their butt, they will understand all I had taught them about respect. Too many peopl don't want to take the time to teach our youth anything anymore other than roll over and do as youa re told.


[edit on 8/14/2008 by Finn1916]

THOSE ARE MY PEOPLE!!

God made all men. Samuel Colt made them equal. Amen and Amen


I am so sick and tired of anti gun people trying to blame firearms, firearms manufacturers, gun store owners and clerks when there is a crime committed with firearms or somebody is accidentally shot. Here is a novel idea. BLAME THE CRIMINAL WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME!

People commit gun grime because the punishment is not yet severe enough to deter them from the crime. What is needed is a Federal law that gives the death penalty for anyone who commits a felony with a firearm in their possession. This would be carried out within 12 months of receiving the sentence to ensure swift justice for the families of the crime victims to have closure and get on with their lives. We can let out of jail all the poor people who have only been convicted of marijuana possession to make more room for all the morons who commit gun crimes and save some money.

Parents who are responsible for children having access to a loaded firearm should give up all their kids to the state and be forcibly sterilized.

[edit on 8-14-2008 by groingrinder]

The Major will surprise some of you by being a bit put off by this give away. The Major is astounded that only an AR-15 sans ammunition and competency training is the object of desire for said youth conference. The Major thinks a thousand rounds of 62gr ball ammunition and several hours of range instruction to ensure proficiency in the use and maintenance of the AR-15 is obligatory.

While the Major is not Baptist, the Major does recognize the value of a strong relationship with God, especially while under fire in foxholes. The Major will give his ecumenical endorsement to this unique enticement should those responsible provide the aforementioned enhancements.

As for those that seem to turn to warm Jello every time someone enjoys the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, drop and give the Major fifty.

Dismissed.

In the mid-west, a rifle of any caliber or type will probably bring in more money to the church than something else of the same value. This church seems to believe in the 2nd amendment and that shooting sports aren't the great evil that the coasts politicians do so ,no harm no foul. They have my vote and also my money if I lived a bit closer. My black rifle murders more paper than any other in my club. Its sooooo evil!!!!!

Zindo

reply to post by Major Discrepancy


I'm starting to understand the Major more and more and appreciate the Major's additions to these threads. Furthermore, I agree with the Major and also think some form of range training should go along with this giveaway. If I can speak freely, I also find the Major to be quite witty.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
That's somehow better than them playing baseball or something instead? Can you not spend time with a role model without partaking in weapons-based activities in the US?

Originally posted by Backwoods
We play computer games hunt read talk wrestle and other things. So what exactly is wrong with teaching a child to safely handle firearms? You are acting like it is some kind of unwholesome activity.
Children that don't react to firearms like collage freshman do to beer, are far less likely to get killed by someone else's kids. And the ability to concentrate and focus and the discipline of breath control will translate to many areas in life.

Originally posted by C.C.BenjaminYou honestly can't see how having lethal weapons around the place could be a bad thing? Are you not being a bit obtuse about this?

Your opinions color your perceptions. Having firearms around the house is be no more dangerous then having basketballs. When not in use firearms are secured in gun safes. The ammo is locked in containers.
My son understands what firearms can do. Yes it is possible to make a 11year old understand in his or her heart how dangerous a firearm can be.
And he knows full well that handling them with out me giving permission
and being there will result in him losing his firearms (assuming that he could get them out of the safes in the first place).

Originally posted by C.C.BenjaminI do agree with most of what you are saying - kids need adult supervision, they need to be taught responsibility, etc - but I'm afraid I do find the idea of teaching kids to use weapons an unwholesome activity.

That is fine for you and yours. It is different for me and mine. I am not going to attempt to change you opinion on it. Just pointing out that it is no more my right to say that you are wrong then yours to say I am.

Originally posted by C.C.BenjaminThe problem is, when that discipline lapses, even for a fraction of a second, someone could be killed because of it. Isn't it better to simply remove the weapon of war from your home, so an accidental shooting simply couldn't happen?

heh As I pointed out above a 5 year old can go a year with out a single safety mistake on a range. Your belief that a lapse in safety is inevitable is incorrect. Range safety procedures are multiply redundant. So as long as everyone is practicing them no even your lapse is not going to result in a injury. And a firearm is not as you are now (rather dramatically)putting it a weapon of war. Anymore then clubs or knifes are. You likely have a kitchen drawer full of them. Knifes have been as much weapons of war for a great deal longer then firearms have. And I would be quite wiling to bet that they have killed more people then firearms have. And after teaching children to stay away from them if even that I bet most people never give it a single thought. If you are used to something like knives you don't even think about them do you? To boil it down you are more likely to be killed by a doctor then a firearm.
External link
Firearms are tools nothing more. Any tool can be misused.
Just about anything can be dangerous.



[edit on 14-8-2008 by Backwoods]

I'm quite impressed how you have actually convinced yourself a gun is in the same catageory as a stapler, or can-opener. You can claim the firearm isn't a weapon of war, but that's exactly what it is, and what it was developed for. Repeated denial does not remove culpability, it is merely repeated denial.

You will only continue to falsely justify your position, despite the number of gun deaths, accidental or no, that occur in America and you won't even vaguely consider that without all the guns around, these deaths wouldn't happen. I've lost track of the amount of times I see a news story where a kid has gotten into his father's guns, pratted around for his mates and shot either one of them or himself.

This discussion is therefore pointless, and I bid you a good day.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


You only show up on threads like this to tell us how evil our thinking process is anyway. I'm sure you won't be missed by many here. Adios Amigo.

Zindo

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
I'm quite impressed how you have actually convinced yourself a gun is in the same catageory as a stapler, or can-opener. You can claim the firearm isn't a weapon of war, but that's exactly what it is, and what it was developed for. Repeated denial does not remove culpability, it is merely repeated denial.

You will only continue to falsely justify your position, despite the number of gun deaths, accidental or no, that occur in America and you won't even vaguely consider that without all the guns around, these deaths wouldn't happen. I've lost track of the amount of times I see a news story where a kid has gotten into his father's guns, pratted around for his mates and shot either one of them or himself.

This discussion is therefore pointless, and I bid you a good day.

Emotional outburst content 6 of 10
Useful content 0/10
Typical emotional outburst when losing an discussion. FAIL
What you are trying to claim is that a single shot .22 is a weapon of war.
If you were referring to my firearms then weapons of war would be appropriate. But my son does not shoot .30 and larger firearms mainly due to recoil issues. So yes I refuse to accept your emotional and inaccurate terms. And I will not allow you invent a problem with them in this discussion.
Your attempting to dramatize the (cues dramatic music) "Weapons of War"
is emotional histrionics and nothing more.

Well going back to the topic, I have To say that the Baptist Church gives the Old say of God and country a whole new meaning of God country and Guns

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin

 

You only show up on threads like this to tell us how evil our thinking process is anyway. I'm sure you won't be missed by many here. Adios Amigo.

Zindo

It amuses me greatly how I am accused of using "shock" words, and yet you guys use words like "evil". I never said evil, I simply postulated that if there are no guns, there can be no gun-related deaths, and that having weapons in the home automatically puts them into a child's mind.

I'm not leaving, just announcing my withdrawl from this debate, as it is a waste of time. I do believe you see weapons in the wrong light, generally, though.

If you cannot accept a reasoned debate on the issue without taking offence, perhaps you should avoid threads in which you know I'll show up?

Originally posted by Backwoods
Emotional outburst content 6 of 10
Useful content 0/10
Typical emotional outburst when losing an discussion. FAIL
What you are trying to claim is that a single shot .22 is a weapon of war.
If you were referring to my firearms then weapons of war would be appropriate. But my son does not shoot .30 and larger firearms mainly due to recoil issues. So yes I refuse to accept your emotional and inaccurate terms. And I will not allow you invent a problem with them in this discussion.
Your attempting to dramatize the (cues dramatic music) "Weapons of War"
is emotional histrionics and nothing more.

It's very ironic that you're post shows a great deal more of an emotional outburst than mine.

To claim a "fail" in an argument requires your opponent's position to be crushed by your own incisive points. Simply saying "FAIL!" in red capital letters, along with your arbitrary rating system of my posts (what point was that meant to prove?) makes it obvious that your argument cannot hold water, and so you've resorted to "i'm right 'cause I said so!". This isn't good debating technique, in fact, you're whole post seems to be downright childish.

I don't see any emotional outburst at all in my post. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but the lack of exclaimation marks is, to me at least, an indicator that I wasn't putting my points across in an aggressive or stressful way.

Your problem with what I put is that you don't actually have a solid ground to go against what I'm saying. There's simply no way of justifying an armed population any more. I can see from your last post that you literally have nothing to say to me that logically contradicts what I have posted.

But as I said, you'll not accept this, because denial is a powerful force. I could speculate on the psychological reasons for it, but as I only have your posts to go on, I doubt I'd have the full picture.

The emotional "outbursts" you so accuse me of are actually your own. As a cheating husband will see his guilt in the smallest actions of his partner, you are assigning your own emotional state onto me. Again, simply repeating "your emotional post" won't make it an emotional post, but it does show that's the sort of person you wish to argue against; one that is a reflection of you.

I realise I said I was going to leave this debate, but your flawed logic and attempts at slandering my debating technique were just too tempting, as you have put forwards no arguments that could logically contradict my own and still hold on to your original position on the subject. As this has shown, you have now had to attack me personally on the issue.

But you'll insist this is another "emotional outburst", despite the lack of exclaimation marks and my putting "YOU LOSE SUCKER!" or words to that effect.



[edit on 14-8-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
What I'm saying is, you can't be a Christian and think it's okay to take life, no matter how you dress it up and what semantic interpretation you use. If it's come to trying to bend the rules to make it fit, you'll find you're only lying to yourself. As a non-religious type, I still think it's wrong to take life, but I'm not saying I would never do it, given the correct circumstances.

Now as to this point
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church... emphasis mine
Quote:
Legitimate Defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
And from St Thomas Aquinas, from On Murder, the Summa Theologica... It is primarily about capital punishment, but the philosophical and moral arguments are the same as for self defense... actually, capital punishment can be viewed as societal self defense...

As far as any killing
I answer that, There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is. Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect, even as in the process of generation nature proceeds from imperfection to perfection. Hence it is that just as in the generation of a man there is first a living thing, then an animal, and lastly a man, so too things, like the plants, which merely have life, are all alike for animals, and all animals are for man. Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states (Aristotle, Politics, I.3).

Now the most necessary use would seem to consist in the fact that animals use plants, and men use animals, for food, and this cannot be done unless these be deprived of life: wherefore it is lawful both to take life from plants for the use of animals, and from animals for the use of men. On fact this is in keeping with the commandment of God Himself: for it is written (Gen. 1:29,30): “Behold I have given you every herb . . . and all trees . . . to be your meat, and to all beasts of the earth”: and again (Gen. 9:3): “Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat to you.”
Reply to Objection 1. According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man. Hence, as Augustine says (City of God, I.20), “by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use.”

I am pulling my information from someone that is getting his masters in divinity. I had to do heavy duty trimming here do to size limitations. So if it seems choppy the fault is mine not his.