The Gun Thread

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
shittim

shittim

Senior Member
#2,822
Dec 16, 2016
13,812
7,788
113
#2,822
While you're on, are you seeing ANY 30 carbine for sale?
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,825
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,825
mailmandan said:
Strict gun bill on Oregon ballot will cause 'greater risk of violence,' harmful to public safety, critics warn

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/st...k-violence-harmful-public-safety-critics-warn
Click to expand...
Gun permits are a thing for a reason.
Allowing just any Yahoo to run around armed is not a good idea.
Remember Omar Mateen, the FBI knew he was a terrorist and he was able to purchase an AR-15 with no problem in murder 80 Americans.
Vetting processes exist for a reason. People who should not be legally armed include, people with violent priors, people who have ties to terrorist organizations, people whose eyesight is so bad they can't even see the target. I am all for law abiding citizens being able to legally arm themselves but putting guns in the wrong hands is a liability
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,826
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,826
Genipher said:
Irritated with my state of Oregon right now. There is a measure on our ballet, Measure 114, that wants to force us to have a permit to buy guns. Not only that, but a person who wants to buy a gun would have to take classes in shooting before buying a gun...but they aren't provided a gun for said classes. How does a person take such a required class if they can't buy a gun and aren't provided one? Not to mention it will be difficult to find a place that provides the classes as they aren't widely available. Basically sounds like they're trying to make it impossible to be a gun owner.
If it passes (and with how liberal the state is, I imagine it will. sigh) it will be going against federal law and, hopefully, be taken to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Gun permits are a thing for a reason. For the reasons I described above
 
Genipher

Genipher

Well-known member
#2,827
Jan 6, 2019
2,285
1,688
113
#2,827
Dude653 said:
Gun permits are a thing for a reason. For the reasons I described above
Click to expand...
Gun permits fly in the face of the law which says bearing arms, "Shall not be infringed."
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As an aside, we go through background checks (still an infringement, I would say, but gotta do it so...). Those background checks are supposed to stop the yahoos from running around armed. A permit, especially what Oregon is proposing, will only make it nigh on impossible for the good guys to arm themselves while those loonies run around terrorizing people.
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,828
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,828
Genipher said:
Gun permits fly in the face of the law which says bearing arms, "Shall not be infringed."
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As an aside, we go through background checks (still an infringement, I would say, but gotta do it so...). Those background checks are supposed to stop the yahoos from running around armed. A permit, especially what Oregon is proposing, will only make it nigh on impossible for the good guys to arm themselves while those loonies run around terrorizing people.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's a good idea for violent criminals to be armed? Because that's what happens if you get rid of permit laws.
Also supreme Court gets to decide what is or isn't constitutional so the second amendment doesn't mean guns can't be regulated... it says well regulated right there in the amendment
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,829
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,829
Another thing to take into consideration is that an untrained person with a gun is potentially just as dangerous as the criminal. I would rather not take a stray bullet because some guy who has no idea what he's doing with a gun couldn't hit his Target
 
Genipher

Genipher

Well-known member
#2,830
Jan 6, 2019
2,285
1,688
113
#2,830
Dude653 said:
Do you think it's a good idea for violent criminals to be armed? Because that's what happens if you get rid of permit laws.
Also supreme Court gets to decide what is or isn't constitutional so the second amendment doesn't mean guns can't be regulated... it says well regulated right there in the amendment
Click to expand...
I think if more "good guys" were armed and trained to actually defend themselves the violent criminals would be less likely to try anything.
Oregon has never had permit laws (except for conceal carry). We have background checks and if anything, that should be enough. We don't need a permit when we're legally allowed to own a gun via the constitution.
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,831
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,831
Genipher said:
I think if more "good guys" were armed and trained to actually defend themselves the violent criminals would be less likely to try anything.
Oregon has never had permit laws (except for conceal carry). We have background checks and if anything, that should be enough. We don't need a permit when we're legally allowed to own a gun via the constitution.
Click to expand...
Yeah it says well regulated right there in the amendment meaning gun laws can be regulated
 
Genipher

Genipher

Well-known member
#2,832
Jan 6, 2019
2,285
1,688
113
#2,832
Dude653 said:
Yeah it says well regulated right there in the amendment meaning gun laws can be regulated
Click to expand...
You are willfully ignorant on this matter and twisting the meaning of the consitution. Obviously nothing I can say will get through to you so I'm going to decline any further conversation with you on the matter.
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#2,833
#2,833
Dude653 said:
Gun permits are a thing for a reason.
Allowing just any Yahoo to run around armed is not a good idea.
Remember Omar Mateen, the FBI knew he was a terrorist and he was able to purchase an AR-15 with no problem in murder 80 Americans.
Vetting processes exist for a reason. People who should not be legally armed include, people with violent priors, people who have ties to terrorist organizations, people whose eyesight is so bad they can't even see the target. I am all for law abiding citizens being able to legally arm themselves but putting guns in the wrong hands is a liability
Click to expand...
So the FBI knew he was a terrorist and did nothing about him being here. So they allowed him to obtain a weapon and reek havoc. Seems this is the fault of our very own govco. This only proves govco is too irresponsible and untrustworthy to manage the task. Which is no surprise.
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,834
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,834
Genipher said:
You are willfully ignorant on this matter and twisting the meaning of the consitution. Obviously nothing I can say will get through to you so I'm going to decline any further conversation with you on the matter.
Click to expand...
You sound like a two-year-old putting his fingers in his ears and screaming I'm not listening
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,835
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,835
Again.. it says WELL REGULATED for a reason.
People think the government can't regulate firearms but by that logic we should let a two year old walk around armed.
 
hornetguy

hornetguy

Senior Member
#2,836
Jan 18, 2016
7,117
1,747
113
#2,836
Dude653 said:
Again.. it says WELL REGULATED for a reason.
People think the government can't regulate firearms but by that logic we should let a two year old walk around armed.
Click to expand...
First off... read the Second. It says a well regulated militia.... meaning the militia is to be regulated, not the guns. In order to do that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Reading is fundamental.
 
hornetguy

hornetguy

Senior Member
#2,837
Jan 18, 2016
7,117
1,747
113
#2,837
Dude653 said:
Do you think it's a good idea for violent criminals to be armed?
Click to expand...
Do you think that violent criminals are going to follow the law? What kind of Pollyanna world would THAT be in?
 
hornetguy

hornetguy

Senior Member
#2,838
Jan 18, 2016
7,117
1,747
113
#2,838
Dude653 said:
Another thing to take into consideration is that an untrained person with a gun is potentially just as dangerous as the criminal.
Click to expand...
Now that, I partially agree with.
An untrained law abiding citizen is not going to go out to commit crimes. The only danger is if he attempts to use his firearm to stop a crime and ends up shooting the wrong person. But simply owning the gun does not make him a danger.
A criminal, by DEFINITION, is a danger, and they do not obey any gun laws that are passed.
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#2,839
Mar 19, 2011
12,689
1,103
113
#2,839
hornetguy said:
Do you think that violent criminals are going to follow the law? What kind of Pollyanna world would THAT be in?
Click to expand...
Okay then let's just get rid of all laws since laws are pointless. That would be a really good idea.. but anyway like I said above and my comments, I think a training course should be required to legally carry because I don't want some untrained idiot popping off rounds in Walmart parking lot hitting people with stray bullets because he can't hit his Target.. same reason it's a bad idea to give someone a driver's license if he hasn't demonstrated that he is capable of safely driving a car
 
hornetguy

hornetguy

Senior Member
#2,840
Jan 18, 2016
7,117
1,747
113
#2,840
Dude653 said:
Okay then let's just get rid of all laws since laws are pointless.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree, to a point. Let's throw out laws that punish citizens that obey laws in the first place. Criminals, by definition, do NOT obey laws, therefore, laws that are intended to keep criminals from getting guns are pointless. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Dude653 said:
I think a training course should be required to legally carry because I don't want some untrained idiot popping off rounds in Walmart parking lot hitting people with stray bullets because he can't hit his Target..
Click to expand...
I agree with this, as well. Carrying a firearm in public demands more responsibility. However, training alone is not a "fix-all" . It is estimated that in actual police shootouts, the "miss the target" rate is somewhere around 60-70%. That is with (supposedly) highly trained police.

Saying that someone has to have a certain level of training to simply purchase a firearm are over-restrictive, and incidentally, un-Constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.