Win an AR-15 Assault Rifle for Going to Church!

Thanks Scalia. This is what happens when gun nuts are allowed out. The FACT is, this kind of thing happens everyday in America. What does NOT happen everyday is that someone’s life is saved as the result of individual hand gun ownership (Alan Korwin thinks it happens at least 547 times per day).

Church Lures Teenagers With Assault Rifle Giveaway.

RAW STORY – Published: Saturday July 12, 2008

An Oklahoma church canceled plans for a gun giveaway Friday at its annual youth conference, a local news station reported.

The church’s youth pastor, Bob Ross, said the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle was a means of luring young people as far away as Canada, according to Oklahoma City’s KOCO Channel 5 News.

“I don’t want people thinking ‘My goodness, we’re putting a weapon in the hand of somebody that doesn’t respect it who are then going to go out and kill,’” said Ross. “That’s not at all what we’re trying to do.”

The gun giveaway is a part of the event’s shooting competition. A gun was given away at last year’s conference and this year, Windsor Hills Baptist used the giveaway in the marketing of the event on its Web site (see above picture).

The pastor said the cancellation of the giveaway was due to the instructor of the shooting competition — and a pastor of the church — having injured his foot and being unable to attend.

The cancellation occurred after coverage of the controversy by local news stations.

A day before this story broke, a 12-year-old John White was accidentally shot in the head and killed in Oklahoma County by a 14-year-old friend who had easy access to his grandfather’s loaded weapons, local news stations reported.

“We would still have John with us today if people had taken more care, if they had used gun locks or gun safes,” says Kim Proc, John White’s great aunt.

Proc says officials told them they confiscated at least seven loaded guns from the home where White was that day, all owned by the 14-year-old’s grandfather, Channel 52 KSBI-TV reported.

John White’s family is determined to make sure his death impacts the way guns are kept in homes by changing the law.

  1. #1 by Ken on July 13, 2008 - 5:15 pm

    Cliff

    They are not “gun nuts” they are simply people exercising their Constitutional and God given right to bear arms. You don’t call people who exercise their First Amendment rights “speech nuts”, or “Assembly nuts”, or “Press nuts”, likewise you shouldn’t look down on people who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

  2. #2 by Albert O. on July 13, 2008 - 6:22 pm

    Ken:

    You have no idea what an idiot you make yourself out to be when you state that God gave Americans the right to bear arms. The Constitution may provide that right, but God? Sorry, dude, but I hate it when supposed technically trained folks make themselves look as stupid as you do when you make that statement.

  3. #3 by marshall on July 13, 2008 - 6:45 pm

    Hey Cliff, they gave away a Dodge Charger up at the Cache valley Cruise In also…

    There are plenty of us “gun nuts” on the left too…

  4. #4 by Bob S. on July 13, 2008 - 7:08 pm

    Albert,

    When you say things like this:

    The Constitution may provide that right

    You have no idea what an idiot you make yourself out to be. The Constitution does not “provide rights” !! NONE, not one right is provided by the Constitution.

    The Constitution limits the states and federal governments ability to interfere with the rights that we have. We have those rights regardless of the Constitution.

    Call them God given or inherent rights it doesn’t matter. we possess them by our nature.

  5. #5 by Albert O. on July 13, 2008 - 7:48 pm

    Bob:

    Getting a little tired of beating your wife today?

    You know precisely what I am saying!! Stop sounding like a gun-crazed idiot!!

  6. #6 by jdberger on July 13, 2008 - 9:48 pm

    Albert, if you really know precisely what you’r saying – how about saying it.

    Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that the Constitution DOES give people rights? Eh?

    Look, Albert, you may not believe in god. Great. Whatever – but the commonly held idea is that the Constitution enumerates Rights endowed by the Creator, ie. “natural rights”. These are rights that folks have by virtue of being born, Albert.

    I KNOW, by virtue of your work on behalf of Guantanamo prisoners, that you believe that people have natural rights…

    Unless, of course, you’re just a Bush hating mercenary that’s willing to do anything to destroy the current administration…that’s not the case, is it, Albert?

  7. #7 by Larry Bergan on July 13, 2008 - 11:44 pm

    Time out Bob S and jd!

    Don’t you think it’s a little weird that a church is giving away ASSAULT RIFLES to teenagers!

    I’m on the fence about handguns. I really don’t think about it that much, but for crap sakes, have things gone so badly in America that assault rifles are prizes at church gatherings. I live in gun crazy Utah, but even here, I think this would be condemned as lunacy.

    Forget the constitution talk. Is this crazy or not?

  8. #8 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 1:09 am

    jd:

    An entirely reasonable interpretation of the constitution is that it “provides” rights by denying the government the ability to intrude upon those rights. That is what I was saying – and you know it and Bob knows it. Don’t forget, my fearful gun toting friend, that the founding fathers were far from religious zealots such as those who deem it always necessary to inject God into the constitution. Now get over yourself, sheesh!

  9. #9 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 4:05 am

    Larry,

    Let’s start with a definition of an “Assault Rifle”.

    What do you think an assault rifle is?

    Let’s get some basic terms defined in common, then I’ll tell you whether or not it is crazy, deal?

  10. #10 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 4:11 am

    Albert,

    It is not a perfectly reasonable interpretation. The Constitution does not provide a right by denying the government the privilege of trampling on it.

    Isn’t that one of the main arguments on the blog, that the government can’t and shouldn’t be monitoring people email, phone calls via FISA?

    You are right that the founders weren’t zealots, they were simple men of many different faiths, and a couple of no faith, but they did recognize the Creator.

    Why is it that we must recognize your right NOT to believe in God, but you won’t give us the same freedom to believe?

    Just because we say “God-given” rights and you say inherent or natural rights, what practical difference does it make?

    Maybe it’s time for you to get over yourself, sheesh?

  11. #11 by Cliff Lyon on July 14, 2008 - 7:21 am

    Ijust had a vision of Bob giving seal hunting advice to an Ekimo with JD standing behind him sayin’, “Yeah, right on Bob, Smores ARE the best bait.”

  12. #12 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 7:40 am

    Cliff,

    I think your vision has more to do with what you are smoking, drinking or general mental state then anything to do with JD and I.

    By the way, are you going to continue to ignore the Heller Decision by the Supreme Court or can we expect a post on your “credentialed, degreed opinion ” of it?

  13. #13 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 8:05 am

    Bob:

    Shell game, again? I see you drifted off point to cry foul on the God thing.

  14. #14 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 8:25 am

    Technically, an AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle. However, it looks exactly like an M-16, which is– and that’s why the AR-15 was included in the recently-expired assault weapons ban.

    I don’t think an AR-15 is very useful for hunting, because the 5.56 mm round is designed to tumble when it hits flesh, causing more damage than a larger-caliber round that drills a clean hole. This rifle is for killing people.

    The conventional Christian view of God, for those new to the subject, is that He is against killing people (Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill”).

  15. #15 by Who is watching the watchers on July 14, 2008 - 10:03 am

    Fantasies are a wonderful thing Cliff, however, good little licensed Canadians kill seals, and the vast majority are simply bludgeoned to death.

    Actually Richard the gun was designed for causing major wounds that require medical attention, removing at least 3 people from the battlefield in the need to remove the wounded. It is also extremely light in comparison, allowing a soldier to carry piles of ammunition into any battlefield. If it kills you that is an obvious result of any firearm. The stainless Ruger .223 semi-auto is a far better gun, 650 dollars at Wal-mart.

    Currently more people are killed with .22 LR than any other gun/round in the United States. All guns kill, they are made for that, unapologetically.

    As for the God thing, we can see that organized religion of any variety really doesn’t have any serious objection to killing people. Has God been talking to you personally lately Richard? If not, how do you know what it thinks?

    We die, no matter what, God created us, in the mind of believers, we die, so by in large God kills his creations from what I have read, directly and indirectly, (through a faulty bio-package). A Supreme unerring being, or planned obsolescence? Either way, he has his own agenda for controlling human motivations, and we aren’t privvy, if it exists at all.

  16. #16 by jdberger on July 14, 2008 - 11:16 am

    Richard – again, you don’t know what the heck you are talking about. That bit about the 5.56 round tumbling is pure hooey and myth.

    The 5.56 round is based (almost identical) to the .223 Remington (in fact, pretty much interchangeable). Do a quick google search for rifles in .223 Remington. Tell me how many, from how many manufacturers, in hunting configurations you find.

    Also, for a hunting round, you don’t want to “drill a clean hole”. You want to smash bones, disrupt organs and shock nervous and circulatory systems. You do that by inflicting massive hydrostatic shock. For thin skinned animals, that means using an expanding bullet, one that DOES NOT “drill a clean hole”.

    Care to retract your sage statement?

    It appears that you know as much about ammunition and ballistics as you know about NBC warfare.

  17. #17 by jdberger on July 14, 2008 - 11:19 am

    The conventional Christian view of God, for those new to the subject, is that He is against killing people (Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill”).

    Ummm…..no. That’s the myopic view. The correct translation is “Thou shalt not MURDER”. Perhaps you missed the parts of Exodus, after the Commandments were delivered where the Hebrews were encouraged to resettle Canaan by force.

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 11:30 am

    jdberger– The tumbling of the 5.56 mm round is due to the muzzle velocity of the AR-15/M-16: 2,800 feet (853 meters) per second. Look it up.

    As for hunting with assault rifles, here’s hunting expert Jim Zumbo (formerly of Outdoor Life magazine):

    “I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

    “I call them ‘assault’ rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles.

    “Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our ‘sporting firearms.’”

    Zumbo was of course fired after daring to go against the gun lobby’s position on this issue, even though he apologized profusely.

  19. #19 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 11:44 am

    jd:

    I love it when one of the God Guys cites the Old Testament for some principle that we should presumptively all know and be aware – e.g., your assertion that what the commandment really means is not to murder, as opposed to not to kill; but when I cite the Old Testament for some other principle – e.g., a man should be able to marry a woman he rapes – I am chastised for resort to the Old Testament rather than the New.

    You go boy, and perhaps you’ll reach God Guy status sooner than you think!

  20. #20 by jdberger on July 14, 2008 - 12:02 pm

    Albert, I’ve no idea what you are talking about.

    Richard, the muzzle velocity of a bullet has nothing to do with the likelyhood of the bullet tumbling on impact. Your MV ratings aren’t exactly on the money, either. Current MV of the SS109 round (green tip) is 3100 ft/sec.

    Did you do a google search like I suggested?

    Finally, Mr. Zumbo realized that his statement was completely stupid and recanted. In fact, shortly thereafter, he went on a hunting trip with Larry’s favorite Ted Nugent and used an AR-15 style rifle.

    Face it, Richard. You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Zip.

  21. #21 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 12:05 pm

    jdberger– Not so fast. Your claim is: “That bit about the 5.56 round tumbling is pure hooey and myth.” Care to back that up with facts?

    Sure, they made Zumbo recant his statement. His career was threatened. That doesn’t mean he was wrong!

  22. #22 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 12:25 pm

    Richard,

    Let’s bring this back to a less technical discussion, okay? I am not an expert on muzzle velocities or anything, but most hunting calibers and loads (amount of gunpowder and weight of slug) have higher muzzle velocity. So is that the problem that the AR-15 platform is deadlier then hunting rifles?

    Actually the AR-15, let’s call it a Utility rifle, has only minor, mostly cosmetic features that separate it apart from an average hunting rifle. Magazines sometimes have higher capacity, but not always. Most hunting rifles have something to protect the hand from the heat of the barrel (barrel shroud). Utility rifles have actually lower velocities and smaller caliber sizes then hunting rifles, but not always.
    In short, it’s only the cosmetic and accessory features that separate out the two. I’m not an expert on this, but I hope you get the general gist.

    Would people have been upset that a church was giving away a hunting rifle, I don’t think they would have been upset as much. It’s the perception of “evil black rifle” that is the problem, would you agree?

    So why would a church want to give away a rifle such as the AR-15?
    For one, it’s the basic platform of the rifles the US military uses. Shouldn’t we encourage people to learn how to use and operate the basic infantry rifle? Maybe that whole “militia” thing in the 2nd amendment could be a factor. The AR-15 would definitely be a “weapon in common use” and any teen looking to join the military would appreciate having a little head start.

    A second reason, that style rifle is the most commonly used law enforcement rifle. Again, law and order is a good thing right? For a teen considering a law enforcement career knowing how to operate the basic rifle would be a plus.

    Thirdly, there are many sporting events based on proficiency with a rifle. Practical shooting events often have just a rifle or multiple firearm stages that require proficiency with rifle, shotgun and handguns. Surely encouraging safe, supervised recreational use of firearms isn’t a bad thing, is it?

    Fourth, it is an acceptable hunting platform. It is not the preferred platform, but it is something that people do use.

    So why are people having an outbreak of soiled panty syndrome over a legitimate rifle give away? It’s not likely that the winner will use it in a drive by anymore then someone who won a car will go out and mow down a crowd of people on the sidewalk?

  23. #23 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 12:33 pm

    Hey Cliff,

    I missed this the first time around, but I think it deserves some attention. You remember that whole

    This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.

    Care to provide a support and evidence for your claim that:

    What does NOT happen everyday is that someone’s life is saved as the result of individual hand gun ownership

    To claim something doesn’t happen every day is a pretty strong statement, let’s see the evidence.

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 12:36 pm

    Bob– IMHO if a gun show raffled off an AR-15 that wouldn’t raise any eyebrows. However, there’s that Sixth Commandment thing coupled with the fact this is a rifle specifically designed to kill people that makes me wonder if churches ought to be promoting ownership of assault rifles.

    BTW, I don’t care if the Ten Commandments have been re-translated. If I were to believe in God, the God I would believe in would not be a lawyer who made distinctions without a difference.

  25. #25 by jdberger on July 14, 2008 - 12:42 pm

    An AR is also a tack-driver. There’s a reason why lots of folks use them in HP competion.

    Richard, you made the assertion. You back it up. Since it’s pretty obvious that my knowledge exceeds yours on the technical aspects of the M16 family of rifles – please show me where you found that

    5.56 mm round is designed to tumble when it hits flesh, causing more damage than a larger-caliber round that drills a clean hole. This rifle is for killing people.

    Oh – also notice that you first make a claim about the round, then one about the rifle. So, is it the ammunition designed to kill people or is the RIFLE designed to kill people? And which 5.56 round are you talking about, Richard? M855? M193? Mk262? Maybe something with a s0ft point? How about a hollow point?

    Rifle or cartridge, Richard?

    Or maybe there’s some variable about twist rates, eh? Waddya think, Richard? What twist rate should be used to stabilize a 55gr bullet? 62? 77?

    If you want to learn, pick up The Black Rifle by Stevens. It is a good start. If you would prefer to play internet commando know-it-all – go ahead. Just know that no one is going to take you seriously.

  26. #26 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 12:44 pm

    jd:

    Last I recall, Exodus is the second book of the Old Testament, you know, the one you referred to in your comment above.

    I guess you have some work to do after all before you can become a Real God Guy!

  27. #27 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 12:58 pm

    The education of jdberger continues. The M-16/AR-15 is a rifle designed to kill people. Also, the 5.56 mm round is designed to tumble on impact.

    To be sure, in combat the M-16 rifle (and now the M-4 carbine) are not good for all situations and the 5.56 mm rounds have problems too. For example, in Vietnam the bullets got deflected by bamboo.

    I don’t take jdberger seriously because I was trained on the M-16 in the Army. Not my favorite weapon, but I qualified expert with it.

  28. #28 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 1:07 pm

    Richard,

    The 6th commandment has been mis-translated or better to say has not been translated as accurately as possible. I’ll cite an atheistic source just so I’m not accused of basis

    Thus, many translate the original Hebrew word ratsach as “murder” instead of “kill.” This may be reasonable, but the fact that popular lists of the Ten Commandments continue to use “kill” is a problem because if everyone agrees that “murder” is more accurate, then the popular lists — including those often used for government displays — are simply wrong and misleading. In fact, many Jews regard the mistranslation of the text as “kill” to be immoral in and of itself, both because it falsifies the words of God and because there are times when one has an obligation to kill.

    How much does the word “murder” help us? Well, it allows us to ignore the killing of plants and animals and focus just on the killing of human beings, which is useful. Unfortunately, not all killing of human beings is wrong. People kill in war, they kill as punishment for crimes, they kill because of accidents, etc. Are these killings prohibited by the Sixth Commandment?

    It is important and not a lawyer subject because the bible lists many reasons where is it acceptable to kill. Accurately translating it resolves the apparent contradictions between a God that says “do not kill” then a little later states that a person should lose his life for killing someone else.

    Sometimes the translation choices that people make are small and have a insignificant impact, others can change the meaning entirely. I think this one changes the meaning entirely.

    You keep saying the rifle is specifically designed to kill people, that’s not the design; that was the original function – two separate aspects of the rifle.
    The design incorporates the cycling speed, magazine capacity, caliber, etc; those design features are intended to fulfill a particular function. The design has been found to be good at other functions; target shooting in particular.
    Do we limit the use of items only to their original function? Clothes then should only protect us from the elements and have no fashion components? No. Neither should a firearm.

    Again, so it’s okay to give away firearms but just not at a church function? Why, even Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword if they didn’t have one.

  29. #29 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 1:14 pm

    Bob S.– While I respect the hair-splitting skills of Talmudic scholars, I want God to make clear, unambiguous moral statements. And why not? God exists only in our imaginations, so I can imagine a God that doesn’t play word games!

    You are free to imagine a religion where everybody is supposed to carry swords (or guns, once they were invented). But it’s not the religion I was taught as a young man.

    Speaking of word games, I could use an AR-15 for a doorstop but that doesn’t change the fact it was originally designed for use by Air Force sentries and is known everywhere as an assault rifle.

  30. #30 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 1:35 pm

    Richard,

    It is your opinion that God only exists in imagination. You can have that opinion, but it’s not God playing word games, but man translating. A major difference.

    I don’t know what religion you were taught as a youth, but shouldn’t we continue to learn and go. I know some people on this board exhibit juvenile behavior but I’ve have not seen that out of you. I too was taught “thou shalt not kill” as a youth, but part of my spiritual journey to learn if there are word games going on and who is playing them.

    You are right it doesn’t change the design, but it does change the function. Today, we have a wide variety of choices in the sports and the equipment for those sports. Many sports equipment had different original functions and designs but they grew to encompass more of a sporting role; hockey stick, cricket & baseball bats were hunting implements, so was a boomerang. So what? It’s not how they are used today, why should the AR-15 platform be any different? Can a baseball be used to kill as well as play a game, yes. Just like the rifle can be used in competition or in killing.

    So again, why the soil panty syndrome about a church giving away a rifle? Bars give away cars and no one claims they are encouraging drinking and driving.

  31. #31 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 1:46 pm

    Bob S.– This wasn’t my post, I’m just commenting. I’m not all that concerned, I never even heard of this story before Cliff posted it. However, it’s interesting to see the over-the-top reaction from you and jdberger. I wonder if gun ownership is actually your religion. Finding reasons in the Bible to kill people is kind of weird, don’t you think?

  32. #32 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 2:01 pm

    Richard,

    Over the top? I didn’t realize that I was posting over the top things like:

    You have no idea what an idiot you make yourself out to be when you state that God gave Americans the right to bear arms. The Constitution may provide that right, but God? Sorry, dude, but I hate it when supposed technically trained folks make themselves look as stupid as you do when you make that statement.

    Or

    Getting a little tired of beating your wife today?

    You know precisely what I am saying!! Stop sounding like a gun-crazed idiot!!

    or

    Ijust had a vision of Bob giving seal hunting advice to an Ekimo with JD standing behind him sayin’, “Yeah, right on Bob, Smores ARE the best bait.

    I thought I was engaging in reasonable discussion, hoping to further the understanding between different people. Please let me know what you find over the top about what I’ve said.

    Finding reasons in the Bible to kill people isn’t what I was doing. I was pointing out where the Bible said it was reasonable to kill people. So much of the pacifistic movement is tied to the claim “thou shall not kill” that it is reasonable to understand when it is acceptable or not to kill. It is also very important, to me at least, to make sense of something that appeared contradictory. God gave the reasons to kill, I just listed one or two, but people claimed the 6th commandment forbade us from killing. That didn’t make sense under the traditional translation of the word.

    Is it a little weird to actually study the thing that I claim to believe in? If it is, count me as weird.

  33. #33 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 2:16 pm

    Bob S.– Perhaps “over-the-top” was the wrong characterization. It’s not your rhetoric but the reaction Cliff got by posting this. T0 me, it seems hardly worth arguing about. Of course it’s dumb for a supposedly Christian church to promote gun violence. Where is the controversy? Well, with Ken, jdberger and Bob S. on the case, there is a controversy.

    I’m not interested in mocking other people’s beliefs, but really how can there be an opinion in favor of churches handing out assault rifles? Honestly, I’m incredulous.

    What about Iraq? I’ve posted lots of news and views about Iraq that fall outside the mainstream political and media conception of what’s going on there. Seldom have I triggered much of a debate. I suppose some people like going on about the Culture War more than actual, shooting wars.

    I did get a kick out of being called an “internet commando know-it-all.” My wife says I’m an “armchair lieutenant.” I’m not sure which is a better description.

  34. #34 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 2:29 pm

    Richard,

    This is why I’m posting about this. You call it gun violence and it simply is an inaccurate representation. Cliff posted this to get the wilder folks on the blog started in my opinion and it worked.

    There is plenty of controversy all over the internet. This is not the only place I’ve seen it. I haven’t even talked about the reporting bias; linking a church giveaway with an accidental death. How often do you see a car give away and drunk driving linked in the same article? Or how about a vacation give away linked with drug or drinking overdoses. But it’s perfectly okay to link a rifle give away, and that is simply all this is a RIFLE give away, to an accidental death.

    It’s okay for Albert to go over the top, but not for us “gun nuts” to address the misconceptions and mis-leading information.

    Half the discussion hasn’t been about firearms, but about the meaning of a word in the bible….and I’m accused of being over the top. You are right it’s a mis-characterization. All I’m asking for in that, is a little honesty and both sides being called out.

    First you admit that the AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle, then you call it one. Which is it?
    Is it acceptable to hunt for food?
    Is it acceptable to practice marksmanship for a future military career?
    Is it acceptable to practice marksmanship for a future law enforcement career?
    Heck, is it acceptable to learn marksmanship for the discipline and control that results from learning? (Same reason many people learn un-armed martial arts)

    There can be a favorable opinion in bring people to God, if it is done through legitimate and biblically based reasons. Giving away a firearm is also simply giving away a means to defend ones’ self, surely that’s allowed in the bible?

  35. #35 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 2:44 pm

    Bob S.– You’re right, Cliff called you out and now you’re trying to defend the indefensible. And asking silly questions.

    I said the AR-15 is technically not an assault rifle, but it was covered under the assault weapons ban and that makes it an assault weapon in the minds of most people. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

    Who hunts for food? Supermarket prices are quite reasonable compared to the cost of hunting.

    I’m not against marksmanship or the military. Maybe a Christian church ought to be. Yes, I’m mixing guns and theology too!

    Law enforcement really ought to work more on alternatives to firearms. The police should be setting an example of how to arrest people peaceably. Instead, we have tragic incidents of “suicide by cop” when crazy people try to get the cops to shoot them.

    Marksmanship for its own sake, punching holes in paper. Sounds boring, but why not?

  36. #36 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 2:49 pm

    Giving away a firearm is also simply giving away a means to defend ones’ self, surely that’s allowed in the bible?

    See, Bob, this is the position that sends folks over the top. We are speaking modern day circumstances, and you are fixated on interpreting the Old Testament.

    If defending one’s self is the criteria, the church could just as easily have given away a scholarship to college. Correct? The fact that you practically stumble over yourself to justify the action of this particular church’s planned giveaway, rather than simply admit that the idea was boneheaded and stupid from the get go, brings to the fore the response you receive to your position.

    Indeed, while you accuse Cliff of stirring the pot of emotions by posting this particular post, you almost have to wonder just what the heck was going through the minds of the leaders of this church when they conceived this planned giveaway.

    You ask a plethora of rhetorical questions. Well, here’s one for you: was it boneheaded and stupid for a church to plan to give away an AR-15 to a teenager? Yes or No. We’re talking about a church, Bob, a house of God, a place of worship, a place of peace.

  37. #37 by jdberger on July 14, 2008 - 3:24 pm

    Oh Richard – you stated that the 5.56 round was DESIGNED to tumble upon impact. It wasn’t.
    You still haven’t proved your point. All you posted was that spitzer type bullets will “yaw” (not tumble) upon impact. They weren’t designed to do that. They just do. The tumble is a product of physics.In fact, ALL spitzer bullets will do that. When the bullet hits, the front stops, but momentum keeps the rear in motion. Up, down or sideways offers the least resistance, so the bullet begins to spin, much as a car does when it hits something stationary at high speed. all full metal jacketed bullets tumble, be they 7.62, 5.56, or .38.

    What you’re probably confused about is that the AF when they first adopted the M16, the twist rate was 1/14 which wasn’t fast enough to stabilize the bullets, so the bullets would yaw in flight (think a poorly thrown football) and would often keyhole in the targets. Twist rates were eventually bumped up to 1/9, which stablizes the 55gr, 62gr and 77gr SMK rounds.

    At no time, did the military attempt to make the bullet more unstable at impact. If they had, they would have left a void at the nose of the bullet.

    Albert – I still don’t know what the heck you are talking about regarding the Old Testament.

  38. #38 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 3:30 pm

    jd:

    Go back to sleep!

  39. #39 by jdberger on July 14, 2008 - 3:31 pm

    I don’t take jdberger seriously because I was trained on the M-16 in the Army. Not my favorite weapon, but I qualified expert with it.

    Expert, eh! Congratulations, Richard.

    But can you take one apart and rebuild one from scratch? Can you diagnose feeding and ejection problems? How about issues with the gas system? Can you do a trigger job on one? Can you load your own ammunition? Rebarrel one? Can you headspace a new barrel extension?

    I can…..

  40. #40 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 3:39 pm

    jdberger– Wow, you know how to build an M-16 from scratch but you don’t know that hollow-point bullets are banned for military use.

  41. #41 by jdberger on July 14, 2008 - 3:56 pm

    Richard, SOFT POINT and EXPANDING bullets are banned from military use. Hollow point bullets like the 77gr Sierra Match King OTM are not because they do not expand as part of their design.

    Here’s the opinion from the JAG:

    “The purpose of the 7.62mm “open-tip” MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. Like most 5.56mm and 7.62mm military ball bullets, it may fragment upon striking its target, although the probability of its fragmentation is not as great as some military ball bullets currently in use by some nations. Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United State Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. The military necessity for its use– its ability to offer maximum accuracy at very long ranges–is complemented by the high degree of discriminate fire it offers in the hands of a trained sniper. It not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat.”

    NB: The Jag is talking about the 168gr 7.62 SMK OTM – but the same thing applies to the 77 gr SMK.

    And yes – from scratch – anything that doesn’t require a mill or investment casting.

  42. #42 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 3:59 pm

    Albert,

    It is not “boneheaded” or “stupid” for a church to give away a rifle to a teenager. Teenagers eligible to vote, join the military, run for public office, drive without restrictions, marry, make contracts, parent children; nope I do not think that it was irresponsible or against the tenets of the church to do the giveaway.

    You own firearms, how many innocent children or adults have you killed with them ? I’m betting none. Just like the teen that might have won the give away, the rifle would have gone to a responsible owner.

    I can’t see many gang bangers, drug pushers, would be armed robbers saying “Let’s go to this church’s shooting competition to try to win an AR-15″.

    Are you saying that religions should not defend themselves? That the Jews living in Isreal should just let themselves be murdered? Or how about the Christians living in Arab countries, should they not defend their lives? Self defense was just one of the uses of the rifle. Shooting is an Olympic sport, shouldn’t a church support the pursuit of excellence in sports?

    How about the church’s that give away cars? Cars are used when someone drives drunk. Is it boneheaded and stupid for a church to give away a car, afterall someone might use it to drive drunk, use it as a get away vehicle in a robbery?

    I’ll end with this:

    He who wants peace must prepare for war. – Claudius

  43. #43 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 4:02 pm

    Cliff,

    Notice you started the ball rolling but haven’t jumped in with your usual comments.

    Cat got your tongue or still smarting from the Heller Decision?

  44. #44 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 4:12 pm

    Bob:

    You are sure getting a workout today – I have read more hand-waving gobbledygook from you today than in all the days combined you have been contributing to 1U.

    That you refuse to consider for even a second that a church plan to give an AR-15 to a teenager (or to anyone for that matter) properly raises an eyebrow or two paints you as being as unyielding and unreasonable in your zealotry as you criticize others for being.

    Congratulations, and good luck!

  45. #45 by Spanktress on July 14, 2008 - 4:16 pm

    Hey Bobby boy,

    What you need is a good spanking from me. Something to get your mind out of the gutter.

    You are starting to sound like a broken record. Frankly, you’ve become quite a bore to tell you the truth.

    Perhaps a good spanking might jar your obsession loose and make room for another thought.

  46. #46 by Larry Bergan on July 14, 2008 - 4:29 pm

    OK, forget about the religious angle here for a minute.

    We’re talking about hunting a deer with a gun that shoots 800 rounds a minute. Who would be idiotic enough to even think that was a sport…

    Oh, OK, I forgot about Ted Nugent, jdberger and Bob S!

    Then again on one of their first comment sections here at OneUtah, jdberger said he hunted deer with a handgun.

    This is a laughing out load comment section today and has made my day! I finally get it. Bob and jd sell guns for a living and stay close to the NRA to enhance their businesses.

    Come on now, don’t lie guys!

  47. #47 by Larry Bergan on July 14, 2008 - 4:33 pm

    CAT SCRATCH FEVER

    NAH, NAH, NAH

    CAT SCRATCH FEVER

    NAH, NAH, NAH, NAHHHH

  48. #48 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 4:37 pm

    Larry:

    Haha! You said “laughing out ‘load'” and not “loud.”

    I guess you really did read through all of today’s commentary.

  49. #49 by Who is watching the watchers on July 14, 2008 - 5:37 pm

    Pete shot a deer with his 8 3/8 inch barreled .357 magnum revolver.

    150 ft., animal was stone dead upon impact.

    He and his family ate it.

  50. #50 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 5:44 pm

    Albert,

    You are failing your mind reading act again. You claim that :

    That you refuse to consider for even a second that a church plan to give
    an AR-15 to a teenager (or to anyone for that matter) properly raises an eyebrow or two

    You also fail basic logic and debate, I did consider that it might be improper and formulated arguments against that position.

    I find it hilarious that the simple mention of a firearm giveaway has some bleating like a sheep. The fact that a church gives away a tool is what this boils down to, nothing more, nothing less.

    You never answered, is it wrong for a church to give away a car? Steak knives?

    Spanktress, Thanks for the offer but I’ll pass. If I require any distractions, my wife is more then able to provide it. No outside assistance is needed.

  51. #51 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 6:05 pm

    Bob:

    Your common sense just went out the window. No more, no less.

    What I am finding through this discussion is while you profess to have respect for religious communities, you have no respect for them whatsoever. For you to go anywhere but an NRA sponsored goat fuck and suggest that it is peachy-keen for a church to give away an AR-15 for the purpose of enticing youth to join (or for any other reason) is to have gone so far overboard in your 2nd Amend. zeal that you no longer make sense.

    I understand completely the argument you are trying to make. Sure, a church can give away whatever it wants. Just like the government can tax you for whatever it wants, and can regulate the sale and use of firearms as compelling interests require.

    And if a church wants to give away an AR-15 to some kid, well they have every right to do so. Fine, I concede that point. Are you happy? You can stop beating your wife now.

    Next post, please. I am tired of arguing with sheer lunacy on this subject.

  52. #52 by Bob S. on July 14, 2008 - 6:09 pm

    Albert,

    I am tired of arguing with sheer lunacy on this subject.

    My reply is “Physician, heal thyself”

  53. #53 by Who is watching the watchers on July 14, 2008 - 6:14 pm

    “I’m a Doctor Jim, not a miracle worker”! Bones McCoy.

  54. #54 by Richard Warnick on July 14, 2008 - 6:46 pm

    jdberger, I refer you to the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, “On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body.”

    The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

  55. #55 by Who is watching the watchers on July 14, 2008 - 7:07 pm

    Jesus, and so are cluster munitions illegal but we use them all day as does Israel, anyone see the result of a 2000 pounder in a residential neighborhood?

    The world is hardly concerned with the consequences of a bullets effect on the human body. It isn’t prozac or a suppository. It’s supposed to kill! The bloodier the better. Anyone remember Shock and Awe?

    Fer cryin’ out loud, let’s not argue the irrelevant.

    Besides the damn statement says ABSTAIN, not CEASE!

  56. #56 by Pearl on July 14, 2008 - 11:13 pm

    Oh my heck!

    Are there some gun head freaks with a taint of Jesus on this site or what! Where did you find these nutcakes, Cliff??

    Guess I need to be stoppin’ by more often to help the sane ones here, because these freaks are hard core! Ain’t nothin’ worse than gun heads with a dose of Jesus!

  57. #57 by Larry Bergan on July 15, 2008 - 1:21 am

    Thanks pearl!

    Quick, toss me a keyboard, I lost one somewhere in the milieu! Richard is doin’ his darndest, but I’m afraid logic just isn’t enough to win this gory battle!

    WHOA!

    Lookout! Who is watching the watchers just about inhabited my body again!

  58. #58 by Who is watching the watchers on July 15, 2008 - 7:49 am

    Considering that most religions compel the fearful to come to their churches with images of fire and brimstone, devils skewering sinners with pitchforks, vats of excrement in which sinners are immersed, and an eternity of pain and suffering at the hands of Gods’ Angel Creation gone bad, Satan….what’s the big deal to get some kids through the door by offering them a chance to win a gun?

  59. #59 by jdberger on July 15, 2008 - 9:59 am

    Richard. Your citation of the Hague Convention is accurate.

    Re-read my post and get back to me.

    jdberger Says:

    July 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
    Richard, SOFT POINT and EXPANDING bullets are banned from military use. Hollow point bullets like the 77gr Sierra Match King OTM are not because they do not expand as part of their design.

    Here’s the opinion from the JAG:

    “The purpose of the 7.62mm “open-tip” MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. Like most 5.56mm and 7.62mm military ball bullets, it may fragment upon striking its target, although the probability of its fragmentation is not as great as some military ball bullets currently in use by some nations. Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United State Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. The military necessity for its use– its ability to offer maximum accuracy at very long ranges–is complemented by the high degree of discriminate fire it offers in the hands of a trained sniper. It not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat.”

  60. #60 by Bob S. on July 15, 2008 - 10:03 am

    JD,

    Who do you think is posting as Pearl, Cliff or Albert?

    # Pearl Says:
    July 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

    Oh my heck!

    Are there some gun head freaks with a taint of Jesus on this site or what! Where did you find these nutcakes, Cliff??

    Guess I need to be stoppin’ by more often to help the sane ones here, because these freaks are hard core! Ain’t nothin’ worse than gun heads with a dose of Jesus!

    I’m betting on Cliff.

  61. #61 by jdberger on July 15, 2008 - 10:11 am

    Albert/Pearl:

    Resorting to ad hominem attacks and gratuitous profane speech just illustrates the paucity of your argument.

    Larry – in most states, .223 is inadequate for deer sized game. Further, the AR15 is not a machinegun. It does not fire 800 rounds per minute.

    Also, Larry, handgun hunting is pretty popular. A little basic research would have turned up that fact.

    Here – on page 39 of the Utah Big Game Guidebook:

    Handguns
    R657-5-10
    You may use a handgun to take big game animals, but the handgun must be a minimum of .24 caliber and must fire a centerfire cartridge with an expanding bullet.
    If you’re hunting deer or pronghorn, the handgun must develop at least 500 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. If you’re hunting elk, moose, bison, bighorn sheep or Rocky Mountain goat, the handgun must develop at least 500 foot-pounds of energy at 100 yards.

  62. #62 by jdberger on July 15, 2008 - 10:13 am

    gun head freaks

    is an Albert-ism.

    Don’t you like the way they have to use all these aliases to increase their numbers?

  63. #63 by Albert O. on July 15, 2008 - 11:01 am

    Sorry, jd, but I cannot claim credit for this use.

    I guess your positions come across as freakish to others, too.

  64. #64 by Bob S. on July 15, 2008 - 11:13 am

    Hey Albert,

    Just for my reference sake, could you tell me which alias you normally use?

    I would like to create a list to help keep things straight.

  65. #65 by Albert O. on July 15, 2008 - 1:12 pm

    Bob:

    My alias is Albert O. Surely, you could have figured that out by now.

  66. #66 by Bob S. on July 15, 2008 - 1:29 pm

    Albert,

    My apologies, I meant to type “aliases”.

    I may be confusing you with Larry or one of the other regular posters who admitted to using multiple aliases. If I am, my apologies.

    Getting handle on who is using multiple aliases is all I’m trying to do.

  67. #67 by Larry Bergan on July 15, 2008 - 1:59 pm

    Albert O:

    Come clean. You’re not helping out the reality based community here.

  68. #68 by jdberger on July 16, 2008 - 10:26 am

    That’s true. As nuts as I think Richard and Larry are, at least they are consistent when they post and use the same name. Albert has admitted in the past to using multiple aliases – at least on other boards to sow confusion.

  69. #69 by Albert O. on July 16, 2008 - 10:46 am

    Albert has admitted in the past to using multiple aliases – at least on other boards to sow confusion.

    jd:

    Yes and no. I have used multiple aliases on the ksl.com website, as you correctly point out; but not, as you state, to sow confusion. Rather, I use the multiple aliases because of the frequency of being banned, generally for either: (i) criticizing the Mormon church or (ii) criticizing Mittard Romney. Each time I am banned, I have to generate a new alias before being allowed back on; which, by the way, is extremely typical of right-wing blogs – e.g., the Real Gun Guys blog.

    The moderators at ksl get their jesus jammies tied in a knot pretty quickly and, as best I can tell, enjoy exercising the authority bestowed upon them to ban folks having opinions not entirely inline with their own or with their church.

    There is no need for me to employ this kind of strategy at 1U.

  70. #70 by Guy the implores you to be realistic on April 19, 2011 - 12:16 pm

    What DOES NOT happen everyday is someone being protected because of gun control either. Realisticly when an assailant attacks me with a weapon or breaks into my home I will be safe due to the fact that I carry a handgun. You who do not will be a victim. COMMON SENSE tells us that I have a greater chance at survival than the man who doesn’t have a gun in his home or on his person. What does happen more often that not is someone who carry’s a handgun that they practice with regularly does save their own life as well as possibly other lives whereas, those who don’t do not get saved unless by CHANCE somone is around to help them. The government and the police will not always be around to hold your hand and save you. Gun control is about as effective as being lost in a snow storm with a sweater, sure there is a little protection but the bad element is still gonna kill you. Grow up, be self sufficient, learn to protect yourself and your family and wake up to reality. Fact is criminals will still get guns even if you ban them one way or another. Making us with no protection 10x more likely to be a victim.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: