Free Republic

Here's the way I think of it:

According to the Book of Concord, the office of the papacy is the Anti-Christ. At the time of the Reformation, the Pope had his fingers in all the pies in the world, doling out land to rulers, deposing rulers, and the like. Setting up a secular empire is not what the Church is supposed to be doing; hence, the supposed "Vicar of Christ" was acting in an un-Christ-like manner. That is more or less the definition of the Anti-Christ according to 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

The abuses have been greatly diminished since the Reformation. However, today the Pope still has the power to speak ex cathedra and establish new doctrines, which is still "oppos[ing] and exalt[ing] himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). In this sense, the office of the Pope is still the Anti-Christ.

However, I see a distinction between the office and the man. The man in the office can behave in a way more fitting of the medieval popes who "lived it up" or in a way fitting of a spiritual leader. If the man's life and words are a poor example, I'm not going to pay him all that much attention; he's living up to the office of Anti-Christ. However, if the man's life and words are a good example, then I don't see a problem with appreciating the good he has done. I still wouldn't call him "my bishop," though.

Long story short, as long as the Pope can establish new doctrines on a whim, the Office of Pope is the Anti-Christ; the man doesn't necessarily have to be. I'm not sure how doctrinally-correct that is, but there you go.

I live in the state, and in my experience Kansans know their way around guns. Those that are inclined to carry will practice proper gun safety, and those that don’t like guns will probably not even own one.

What do you mean? Open carry is already legal in Kansas without a permit. Concealed carry would simply be following suit.

Are you saying you don’t want concealed carry to be legal?

The make, model, action, caliber... none of that is important to this story. The key here is that it sounds like she was in the process of fitting her firearm in its holster and it was loaded. There’s a reason you’re not supposed to test out a new holster with a loaded gun.

There was probably also some poor muzzle discipline and trigger discipline involved, as well.

People have tried multiple times to design an AR that will take 7.62x39 ammo, but most of them don’t work well for various reasons. I think most of the time the issue is the shape of the cartridge: it doesn’t work well in standard AR magazines, and the AK magazines don’t work properly in standard AR lowers.

So if the US is on the hook for 22% of the ATT budget and is going to pay exactly 0% of the ATT budget, what does that say about the future of the ATT? The money has to come from somewhere, and it ain’t comin’ from us! Without money, the thing has a shot a falling apart within a year.

Regardless, from the facts presented in the article the shooting was justified.

Black gun- from a distance it looked like an actual firearm. Many BB guns and airsoft guns look extremely realistic. If you are expecting a firearm and see a BB gun, you might not give it a second glance. It’s not like the kid had a BB gun with Power Rangers on it or something!

Disobeyed command- the officer saw the boy pick up the gun and put it in his waistband. The officer told the boy to put his hands on his head. The boy did not do so and instead presented the gun. That it was not an actual firearm is irrelevant; the officer had reason to believe it was an actual fully-functional firearm and posed a danger to him and those around him. Nothing else really matters.

Could we find out some time in the future that there were other extenuating circumstances which should have made the officer believe that the boy was not holding a real gun? Yes. Could we find out that the boy wasn’t holding it properly or was holding it out to give it to the officer? Yes. Could those things change this from being a justified use of force to unjustified use of force? Yes. But right now it looks like the officer was justified.

Oh, the author is stupid, all right, but not because we live in a society with so many guns. He's stupid because he would go up to the home of someone who is probably a criminal without any backup except his wife and her phone to demand that his property be returned. If I were doing something so mindnumbingly stupid, I would not feel safe if I did not have a firearm on my person! And it certainly wouldn't have a trigger lock!

Are there seriously FReepers who would support an undercover Demokrat over Pat Roberts in Kansas??? I get that Roberts is old, but from what I know (only lived in Kansas a year), he’s about as conservative as they come. In contrast, the “Independent” candidate is a Dem who “left the party” (*wink wink*) in a pathetic attempt to deceive the good Kansas voters.

I’m absolutely voting for Roberts.

Huh. Someone accidentally added 5 extra words to this bill: “to the FBI and DEA.” Why? Why does someone need to start doing all the stuff that the BATFE has been doing? Virtually nothing the BATFE has ever done has been legal or constitutional; why do we need to have a different agency committing illegal and unconstitutional acts? The few things the BATFE was doing that were actually legal already cross over into the FBI’s jurisdiction, so there’s no reason to drag the FBI down into the muck by putting the rest of the ATF’s baggage on them.

So they don’t plan to advertise this new policy, they’re not putting up “Defenseless Victim Zone” signs, they’re following local law, and they’re barring their employees from enforcing this new policy. Essentially it’s status quo ante.

I’m confused. Does this actually qualify it as being an anti-gun restaurant? I’m curious because I’ve gone to Panera a couple times in the last month, and always with at least one concealed “friend.”

Not necessarily. If the “unarmed” person has a measurable advantage (size, fitness level, health, etc.) over the armed person, then it may be considered a “clean shoot” if it happens at close-quarters. For example, in the Zimmerman case, Trayvon Martin was younger and stronger than George Zimmerman, giving him an enormous advantage in a close-quarters fight.

I’m not saying that the same thing applies in this situation; I would expect a police officer to have plenty of means at his disposal for subduing an unarmed teenager without resorting to deadly force. I’m just saying that it’s not a clear-cut as “unarmed = murder.”

How can this lead to Constitutional Carry in itself? The only statement about concealed weapons is "this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." In other words, the right to keep and bear arms applies in the home or when assisting law enforcement, not when out running errands.

Am I missing something?

Does Illinois allow defensive uses of a firearm in defense of another? In Kansas I can act to defend another who is in grave danger of bodily harm--it's the same as if I were the one in danger.

Here's an article from Massad Ayoob I just saw about the incident in question. Apparently the investigators took the citizen's side.

That was a shockingly non-anti-gun article from the Chicago Tribune. I was expecting something along the lines of “we can hold back the tide! Drink more Kool Aid!” Instead, he pointed out some of the benefits of concealed carry.

On problem I had was with his characterization of a concealed carrier shooting a fleeing armed robber as a “misuse.” I don’tknow the original story, but it sounds like he was justified from the article. If he hadn’t then the robber could have gotten away and harmed more people. That a cop had to take cover could suggest that the concealed carrier wasn’t aware of his surroundings, but it could also just mean the cop wasn’t aware of the concealed carrier. I’m pretty sure that in general cops don’t get too upset when citizens help them out.

Heck, New Jersey barely recognizes its own permits!

Of course, without knowing the story it’s premature to lump this particular single mother into that category. There are more ways to become a single mother than just not getting married first.

On the one hand, one of the first things you learn in a CCW class (or at least in the class I took) was that as a CCW holder you are responsible for knowing the laws in whatever states you live in or travel to. So she should have checked on the Fascist State of New Jersey's gun laws before going there (assuming this was a planned trip and not a case of missing an exit). In that sense it is her fault that this happened.

On the other hand, the fact that New Jersey does not recognize the permits of its neighbor states is (frankly) stupid--right up there with the REST of their draconian gun laws! Just from my own experience, Kansas had reciprocity agreements with all of its neighbors even before it chose last year to honor all CCWs. That kind of "gun law" just makes sense. If you want to push for "sensible gun laws," that is the first place to start, quickly followed by national CCW reciprocity.

But are the Moms and Mayors going to do that? Of course not.

At the same time, these proposals are targeting some of the causes of violence instead of just calling for more useless gun control. I was actually surprised that not a single one of their proposals had anything to do with guns.

Will these measures solve the problem? No. Is there more they could do? Absolutely. They could provide firearms training to citizens to allow them to protect themselves. They could bring in the non-profit organization (the name escapes me) that's been providing free training and free shotguns to inner city women in Texas. Any of those things would help the people to protect themselves from the violence around them. But their proposals might help.

Ping