assault weapon ban again

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

well I guess that's possible, but in the past when public hangings, stonings, being burned at the stake actually happened, from all accounts it was a deterrent.

Watching a guy get hung isn't much of a blaze of glory, its not a firework show like a firing squad, or even climatic like a beheading, but rather unimpressive quiet and usually the guy swinging will soil him self. Rather undignified.

To address your first point, the data may have been a result of correlation and causation. I haven't seen any research on it, nor do I really feel like doing it.

As for your second point, typically a public hanging is a solemn event. But, I doubt a hanging in Time Square with Pay-Per-View could provide such an environment.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

well I guess that's possible, but in the past when public hangings, stonings, being burned at the stake actually happened, from all accounts it was a deterrent.

Watching a guy get hung isn't much of a blaze of glory, its not a firework show like a firing squad, or even climatic like a beheading, but rather unimpressive quiet and usually the guy swinging will soil him self. Rather undignified.

From what I've read, pirates weren't too crazy about getting hung - they tied their hands, but not their feet, so they did a 'jig' for the spectators. Afterward, their corpses were publicly displayed, rotting until they were nothing but bones. An embarrassing, ignonimous finish, but not sure it was a deterrent to anything other than getting caught.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Runscott

but not sure it was a deterrent to anything other than getting caught.

very true - and the title of the pay par view events "Everyone Gets caught"

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

Along these lines - I have had some ideas for many years now to punish the most heinous criminals. (IMO) child moseltors, people who have killed kids. These people should not go to jail and live off our tax dollars.

There should be public hangings, held in Times squair (NYC) that is also on PayPer View. This will not only rid the offender from ever doing it again, but also save money in our tax dollars not housing and feeding them forever AND with the pay per view raise ALOT of funds to lower my taxes. Damn we may even pay off out national debt in a few years.

I know with all the liberals this would never happen but I still think its a great idea.

No need for gas chambers, injections, electric chairs or even firing squads all that costs money. A rope can be re-used over and over.

Think about the deterrent this would be as well, lol

Between 1892 and 1951 (although the numbers are believed to be much higher) 4,370 people were reportedly lynched in the U.S.. 1,293 were white and 3,437 were black or Asian.

The word "lynch" was coined after a Virginia planter named Charles Lynch, who summarily lynched (executed) a number of loyalists to the British during the American Revolution.

It was common back then to torture and execute suspected felons by hanging without due process of the law. While I have no sympathy for child molesters or rapists or child killers, I do believe every American is entitled to due process.

As far as the original topic at hand, I am glad for the most part the second amendment remains intact. They are trying very hard to dismantle the constitution piece by piece, now trying very hard to justify spying on all Americans behind everyone's backs, knowing damn well it's a violation of the fourth amendment. Time to repeal the "Patriot Act" and void the NDAA. This garbage needs to end ASAP.

Sincerely, Clayton

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Between 1892 and 1951 (although the numbers are believed to be much higher) 4,370 people were reportedly lynched in the U.S.. 1,293 were white and 3,437 were black or Asian.

The word "lynch" was coined after a Virginia planter named Charles Lynch, who summarily lynched (executed) a number of loyalists to the British during the American Revolution.

It was common back then to torture and execute suspected felons by hanging without due process of the law. While I have no sympathy for child molesters or rapists or child killers, I do believe every American is entitled to due process.

As far as the original topic at hand, I am glad for the most part the second amendment remains intact. They are trying very hard to dismantle the constitution piece by piece, now trying very hard to justify spying on all Americans behind everyone's backs, knowing damn well it's a violation of the fourth amendment. Time to repeal the "Patriot Act" and void the NDAA. This garbage needs to end ASAP.

Sincerely, Clayton

agree 100%, due process - but when found guilty of a hanous crime - the state should pull out a rope and get a deal with HBO.

[Mark17]

And not let the guy spend 20 years on appeal, watching TV and eating 3 meals a day, sleeping in a warm bed, etc. Give him his trial. Allow a year or maybe two to prepare one appeal. If still found guilty, put him down.

If a veterinarian can put a pet down in a matter of moments, then use the same method to get rid of these murderers. There doesn't need to be a show, with heads popping off, or 100,000 volts sparking off the guy, or soiled pants.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true.

Then you just got proven wrong yesterday in Pennsylvania.

When someone wants to hurt/kill others, they will use any means they can.

[Runscott]

Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

Well, let me put it back in your court. How many examples does it take to prove a point?

And if that toddler is annoying you too much, go tell your teacher. If that don't work, change daycares.

[Runscott]

David, it's still in your court. You made a blanket statement, based on a single incident, in response to Tony. I happen to agree with him, but I understand the guns argument. I began avoiding these discussions when a poster stated that he wanted to carry guns around in order to protect himself and others. I'm really okay with the police department - not perfect, but better than Net54 members trying to do the job.

Unfortunately, the toddlers were at the coffee shop where I go to work and do research, and there aren't many alternatives out here.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

22 children's lives were saved because a gun was not accessible to one mentally unstable kid.

Jason, you're absolutely right...and if he would have had a gun, it could have been even higher than 22.

But the point I was trying to make though is that even when guns aren't accessible, mentally ill people will still find others ways to mass harm or kill people - knives, bombs, driving a car into a crowd, poison Kool-Aid, etc.

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.

I'd agree with this.

There's a rush towards the knee jerk reaction to punish. That's what our society seems to demand (Myself included fairly often)

But the ability to deal with any underlying mental aspects even if they're known in advance is either totally missing or done in such an all or nothing way that it's unworkable.
Someone with a problem can't be forced to get help or to maintain that help. At least until they cross a certain line. And the alternative looks bad too if the people involved are clueless. Like the school that forced a kid who was fidgeting with a pencil into a 5 hour mental and physical evaluation after another kid who had been picking on him claimed he was making gun motions with the pencil - Coerced consent with no due process looks pretty ugly.

And there's no sensible provision for temporary circumstances. If someone in a bad situation says or is accused of saying the wrong thing, a restraining order is issued (probably appropriately) And that then precludes gun ownership permanently in many places. leading to the obligatory confiscations "voluntary" or otherwise. Likely prolonging the anger and making it more severe in the short term.
I can't help but think that many of those people will be just fine in some period of time. Their anger fades and the risk just isn't there. But the effects of that one mistake are for life.
An ability to temporarily remove someone's guns until a particularly bad stretch of their life has passed would be more work, and more difficult, but perhaps more fair in the long term.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.

I don't think it's right or just. But that's the initial instinctive reaction of many people.

Somehow it's not that hard for me to comprehend someone doing something horrific. History is full of evidence that it's not only possible but sadly likely.
What is hard is figuring out what's reasonable to do. it's a hard choice to let someone slide on it because they weren't right mentally. As a Montana judge supposedly said when denying an insanity defense - something like yes, normal people don't usually kill other people. (naive for a judge, I'd think he'd at least have heard of people doing that for hire )
But it's also hard to justify a serious punishment for someone who probably had no idea what they were actually doing.

The flip side is people who do something like that with a plan or to hide another crime, or just because they don't give a _ about anyone but themselves (Like locking kids in a car in 100+ weather to spend an hour or two in a bar) .........yes, fast and severe punishment.

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.

+1

Unfortunately, this is an area where society hasn't evolved.

As far as gun control, I think the Ministry of Propaganda, along with political driven agendas, have used a few terrible incidents to attempt to convince the masses that this (mentally ill people going on rampages with guns) is a common place thing. You have far more intentional gang shootings by people who know what they are doing and are not mentally ill. Why don't they use this platform? Because then you have to talk about the failed war on drugs, poverty, the prison industrial complex, decaying infrastructure in the inner cities, no jobs, bad economy, national debt, etc. It's much easier to divert the attention to the mentally ill, cherry pick a couple of tragedies, and push the "gun control" agenda that way.

If the two issues were separated- you would not hear much talk about the mentally ill, sadly.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Cardboard Junkie]

"......a few terrible incidents..." = Sleeper Agents!

[drcy]

Most shooters are male. Second biggest statistical connection to gun violence is most probably alcohol.

So pro gun people who are men who like to drink alcohol should be careful about using statistics and demographics to decide who should be allowed to own guns.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

It's always good to see spirited debate on politics. Let me add my 2 cents.

I believe that a lot of gun violence is attributable to untreated mental health conditions. Providing adequate screening and treatment for mental health would be damn near impossible, especially given the current stigma attached to treatment. The simpler response is to have a knee jerk reaction and take away guns.

[vintage954]

Pro 2A here as well. ALso, a collector

[jhs5120]

.

[Runscott]

I wonder if there will be signs in bars, like in the old west, telling patrons they have to give their guns to the bartender when they enter. I guess the process would be that the patron leaves the house with his gun, ready to protect all of us from bad guys, stops for a drink as many of us do, but ends up drunk. Goes to the next bar and gets told to give up his gun...or doesn't show it until he needs to start protecting people.

Great plan.

Do the churches have to post signs above their entrances, saying 'No Guns Allowed?"

[Runscott]

David - I don't mind getting hammered for my last post. I was raised Republican, with guns everywhere and I'm a diehard Libertarian. Plus, I get a huge (deleted) when I think about buying another gun, which is imminent.

I just don't get this new Georgia law. Probably the fact that I lived in Texas for 35 years and North Georgia for 11, and hung out in pool halls for most of my adult life, has tainted my thoughts regarding guns in the hands of many of my friends, or even worse - the ones who weren't my friends.

(Barry - why is it so natural to type "the ones that" when it's correct to type "the ones who" ?)

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I just don't get this new Georgia law.

Scott, Remember a few months ago when the IRS was targeting people for their political AND religious beliefs? That's not some right-wing conspiracy theory, that's a fact. It was a pretty big scandal. Also remember a couple of years ago when the gov't purchased an estimated 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (many of which were hollow point) - including the Social Security Admin, IRS, Dept of Educ, etc.? Just another hard fact. So if the IRS is targeting people for their religious beliefs and given that they have thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, you really question why one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun to church? You need to move back to Texas, you've been gone too long.

Edited to add: If you can give me a valid reason why the IRS would target people for their political and religious beliefs, and also give me a valid reason why the IRS needs hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, maybe you can change my mind.

[Runscott]

I don't understand how the IRS screw-up you mention has anything to do with the new Georgia law or anything going on in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't understand how the IRS screw-up you mention has anything to do with the new Georgia law or anything going on in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

I'll connect the dots.

Can we at least agree the following 4 statements/questions are true:
The IRS has hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, right?
The IRS was targeting people based on their religious views, right?
More specific, they were targeting particular churches, right?
People go to church to express their religious views and worship as they choose, right?

So, if the IRS (who is heavily armed) was targeting people based on their religious views and people go to church to express their religious views, don't people have a right to carry a gun into church to feel safe against a group that was targeting them based on their beliefs? The new Georgia law allows people to carry a gun into church. After all, why do people carry guns? To feel safe.

Sound far-fetched to you? Maybe it is, IDK, then again, ask Cliven Bundy. A similar situation could happen in Texas with 90,000 acres near the Red River. Americans are finally standing up.

[Runscott]

I connected your dots and did not get a recognizable picture. But I see what you are going for - people in church who can't focus on the sermon because they have their finger on the safety and are constantly watching the door for armed IRS agents.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

Now that I have a logical explanation for armed churchgoers, please give your thoughts on why we need drunken armed rednecks in bars where you already have plenty of fights between people who previously left their guns in the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I connected your dots and did not get a recognizable picture. But I see what you are going for - people in church who can't focus on the sermon because they have their finger on the safety and are constantly watching the door for armed IRS agents.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Funny stuff, Scott.

But seriously, whether you agree with the Georiga law or not, you're going to see a lot of new gun laws in the near future that you're probably not going to agree with. Here's a new one in Indiana that allows residents to shoot police that overstep their bounds...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Now that I have a logical explanation for armed churchgoers, please give your thoughts on why we need drunken armed rednecks in bars where you already have plenty of fights between people who previously left their guns in the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

You asked me a question. I answered it and also asked you a question. Before asking me another question, how about answering the question I asked you?

Here it is again? Why does the Internal Revenue Service need hundreds of thousdands of rounds of hollow point ammo? Come on, humor me.

[Runscott]

I think my disagreement with many on this topic, is really a matter of 'how much is needed based on likely scenarios?' I guess you could argue that if the IRS thinks people in the church might be armed, then they are less likely to attack in force during a service; however, would they ever do that, even if guns were not allowed? Anyone who was really in fear of such an event would have a gun anyway, and if their particular church had been publicly targeted by the IRS, even moreso. The new law just sets up bad possibilities for those who would not otherwise carry.

The armed drunks in the bar scenario is just plain scary - my preferred watering holes were the hole-in-the-wall North Georgia bars where if you weren't a local, you needed to be alert, and pool halls where we just plain out had fist-fights. Guns would have been a really horrible unknown factor in such places. My APA team had four legitimate alcoholics on it, and two other guys who were looking for fights even when sober and whose SAT scores couldn't have gotten them into mail-in colleges in the Caribbean. I'm certain both would (will) bring guns to the pool hall, just in case someone who they might get in a fight with brought one.

Look for the name 'Jamie' in the Marietta obits - he should get there within the year.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You asked me a question. I answered it and also asked you a question. Before asking me another question, how about answering the question I asked you?

Here it is again? Why does the Internal Revenue Service need hundreds of thousdands of rounds of hollow point ammo? Come on, humor me.

To be fair, you never answered my question about guns in bars. You did respond to my question about churches, but that wasn't near the concern for me as the bars.

David, I have no idea why the IRS would need ANY ammo, but I doubt it's for a planned attack on a church.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Funny stuff, Scott.

But seriously, whether you agree with the Georiga law or not, you're going to see a lot of new gun laws in the near future that you're probably not going to agree with. Here's a new one in Indiana that allows residents to shoot police that overstep their bounds...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/

The fact is that we rarely see ANY laws that are perfect - there is so much bartering, etc, among lawmakers that you quite often end up with a law that is so bastardized that it would have been preferable to both sides not to have even enacted the law. That common practice for law-making could have dire circumstances when applied to gun control.

But the real proof will be in looking back at the results of the new law, perhaps 5-10 years from now. Hell, maybe the IRS will get scared and blow up their ammo caches. If our government could indeed be rendered useless and incapable of attacking anyone, much less its own citizens...what would all those guys in Idaho do?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Scott, you scoff at the idea that a gov't agency could not raid a church as if it's never happened before. I can think of two right off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Runscott

David, I have no idea why the IRS would need ANY ammo, but I doubt it's for a planned attack on a church.

As much as I try to come up with one, I can't think of a valid reason why the IRS needs that much ammo either. What about the Department of Education? Have any idea why they would need thousands of rounds of ammo? What about NOAA? The United States Post Office? Come on, Scott, surely they have some reason, right? Maybe it was just all on sale. Yeah, that's it. Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory. It's a fact that all these agencies (as well as others) purchased 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (much of which was hollow point). Surely there is a reason???

Edited to add: No, I can't think of a valid reason why a bar patron needs to have a gun in their possession.

[Runscott]

David,

I understand the appeal of arguing with a straw man, but no need to do it with me - I don't attribute facts to right-wing conspiracy theories; in fact, when a group of people come up with a view that I think is nutz or paranoid, unless it affects others in a negative way, I generally ignore them, realizing that there could be some mental issues going on that are hurting them a great deal than me - no need to make it worse for them.

I think I agreed with you in print, that none of these groups you mention need stores of ammo, but if not, let's make sure you understand that we are in agreement on that point. I'm also in agreement that we should have the right to protect ourselves with arms, for whatever reason we choose, be it a fear of the government or a fear of crazies with guns. But if that right infringes on the rights of others, and endangers them, I think we have to reconsider it. Thus my thoughts about guns in bars.

Regarding the churches, I was thinking of real churches - I don't want to guess which ones you are actually referring to, as that would be putting words in your mouth. Give examples and I will respond. For instance, I wasn't thinking of the Waco situation as involving a church, although technically they did have a church in their compound.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Scott, you scoff at the idea that a gov't agency could not raid a church as if it's never happened before. I can think of two right off the top of my head.

As much as I try to come up with one, I can't think of a valid reason why the IRS needs that much ammo either. What about the Department of Education? Have any idea why they would need thousands of rounds of ammo? What about NOAA? The United States Post Office? Come on, Scott, surely they have some reason, right? Maybe it was just all on sale. Yeah, that's it. Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory. It's a fact that all these agencies (as well as others) purchased 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (much of which was hollow point). Surely there is a reason???

Edited to add: No, I can't think of a valid reason why a bar patron needs to have a gun in their possession.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Give examples and I will respond.

Scott, do you really want to go down this road with me about subjects you are totally ignorant of? Let's play.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/ne...me-5207288.php

Respond

[Runscott]

Out of respect, I asked for examples. Your response was to insult me. That's fine as it's the internet, but I'm done. You definitely know more about this than I do - I have no problem acknowledging that. We are looking at this from two totally different perspectives and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Out of respect, I asked for examples. Your response was to insult me. That's fine as it's the internet, but I'm done. You definitely know more about this than I do - I have no problem acknowledging that. We are looking at this from two totally different perspectives and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

My response was an insult to you? You called me out by name (post #174) and I answered your questions. Granted, it was just my opinion, but I still answered your questions. Then, when I asked you questions, you wouldn't even answer. I didn't ask you to back up your answer with fact, I just wanted your opinion. Surely you have one?

I apologize if you felt my response was an insult. I deleted my response because I didn't want to argue about it anymore. But, since you obviously read it, I'll go back and add my response back word for word exactly as it was written.

[Runscott]

David, best to end this. Obviously some miscommunication and I'm sure we both can find non-argumentative discussions.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Agreed.

[jhs5120]

.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I tried to understand the back-and-forth above, but I must be operating at a different wave length.

I do not believe it is rational to carry a gun into a church to protect yourself against the IRS. If you would like to carry a gun into a church then that is your right (if you are abiding by the applicable carrying laws), but I would hope you have a better reason than to feel safe against the IRS.

Sometimes when I fill out TurboTax I'll keep my gun on the desk just so the computer doesn't get any funny ideas.

I couldn't understand it either, which is why I suggested we stop discussing with each other. David is a great guy, but I should have learned by now to not talk about gun control with him. This was totally my bad.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I tried to understand the back-and-forth above, but I must be operating at a different wave length.

I do not believe it is rational to carry a gun into a church to protect yourself against the IRS. If you would like to carry a gun into a church then that is your right (if you are abiding by the applicable carrying laws), but I would hope you have a better reason than to feel safe against the IRS.

Sometimes when I fill out TurboTax I'll keep my gun on the desk just so the computer doesn't get any funny ideas.

It's pretty simple, really. Scott asked me why one would need to carry a gun into church. My answer was based on speculation, just my opinion. Is it possible for the IRS to raid a church? Certainly, it's happened before - very recently in fact (see link). Is it probable? No, it's not. I don't think my little 80 member Baptist church is going to be raided. Do I carry a gun to church? No, I don't. Would I if it were legal? No, I wouldn't.

Now on the other hand, when I asked Scott to answer my question which required him to speculate, he couldn't do it. Scott's a great guy as well, but when the questions got tough, he took his ball and went home, not wanting to play anymore.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Okay, I understand that the IRS can raid a church, and there are several reasonable reasons to do so, but that does not explain why you would want to carry a firearm into said church.
If I was minding my own business on a Sunday morning at mass and the FBI came in to arrest my priest - I'm not going to open fire on them, would you? Probably not. Would anyone? I hope not. Just because the IRS may raid a church does not explain why someone would want to arm themselves in one. I'm sure there are plenty of better reasons.

Just an opinion.

Re-read my last post. I wouldn't carry a gun into church whether is was legal or not. Scott asked me a question as to why somebody would want to and I speculated as to why. Are there other reasons as well? Sure. But that came to mind because that raid happened recently just down the interstate from me, about an hour's drive.

Edited to add: You can't understand why one would want to carry a gun into church. I can't understand why the IRS needs thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo. Which makes less sense, the IRS needing that much ammo or carrying a gun into church?

[jhs5120]

.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Now, I've been to a range (and I'm assuming you have to).

Since you've been to a range, answer me this question. All 174,000 rounds they purchased were jacketed hollow points. Tell me, when you go to a range, do you shoot hollow points or do you shoot the cheap stuff? Hollow points are made for one reason and one reason only. Come on!

[jhs5120]

.