Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?


You might want to look up definitions when making your anti-gun lists.

Fully automatic Weapons & Machine guns?
Fully automatic weapons are low caliber machine guns, effectively one in the same. Not owned nor available to your average citizen.

x2 sniper rifles?
Was it repeated for emphasis?
Do you know what they are?
Virtually all hunting rifles fit the definition.

They save your hearing but they don’t silence the sound like in the movies. They are readily available to criminals yet rarely used.

Armor piercing rounds?
They really aren’t an issue, why are you worried about them? Can you name a single example where the police were shot with one via a handgun? Most rifles are already armor piercing.


Indeed. Some states have even tougher controls yet.


I did look up definitions, however I also thought it would be prudent to ask here so I can hold a properly informed opinion on the topic.

No, an editing error on my part.


Interesting. So the debate is then centered around making more restrictions than there already are, such as an outright ban on certain firearms?

Does one need a firearm license at all?


It’s complicated because there are gun control laws at the federal, state, county and sometimes city levels. The debate is just about heaping more gun controls on US citizens – controls that have PROVEN not to work.

Here in California we have a mountain of gun-control laws. Even more than the anti-gun camp is currently demanding on the federal level. There is also tons of hard data that show that gun controls do not work.

We need a license here in CA to carry concealed firearms and safety permits to purchase any firearm.


Sorry for being snippy.

Any full metal jacket target round is like an armor piercing round, it has increased penetration. Police vests are normally rated to stop handgun ammunition but not rifles. Only military vests are standard at stopping rifle calibers.

None of the items you mentioned have a high association with criminal use.


What do you mean exactly?

When I was a small child it seemed that most households here in suburban California had a gun cabinet somewhere in the house that contained at least a few firearms. Children were introduced to firearms often a part of hunting, part of organized target shooting or just simply for the pleasure of plinking with friends and family.

We were introduced to gun safety training early on. We were taught to understand guns and to respect them.

Now much of that culture is gone. Kids are taught to fear and hate guns. They receive no safety training.

Along the way LOADS of gun control measures have been put in place – mostly since 1989, and they certainly haven’t made things any safer. If anything they have made things more dangerous.

So what exactly change in perception are you seeking?


Duisenberg - Ah, yes, the dreaded “armour piercing round.” Somewhere in my collection, I have Winchester “Black Talon” in 9x19mm, .45ACP, and .44Magnum. And, I have the “less evil” Winchester Ranger SXT in 9x19mm, and Winchester Platinum Tip in .41Magnum and .44Magnum. Remember the big bunch of B.S. about the “Black Talon” line?

And, the 62grain LAP 5.56 round? Can’t think of too many situations where that was used. Is my Lithuanian GGG 62grain LAP less evil than my IWI 62grain LAP because it doesn’t have the green tip?

Other dishonorable mentions include the FN 5.7. Can’t think of anybody who’s gone on a shooting spree with that round. Some people use that as a carry round, but why? Yeesh.

One of the nastiest “armour piercing” rounds is the humble .22LR. Tiny enough to get through thinner parts of the weave. To low in power to actually exit the body, so it rattles around inside until it expends its energy. I’m guessing that the newer 20grain .17HMR FMJ rounds would probably give a “soft” vest fits.

Melchior - Just about any scoped rifle would fit the bill of a “sniper rifle.” Can hit a chest sized metal plate at 300 yards with iron sights on an M1A, so perhaps even a rifle with just iron sights would work. If you get a good quality rifle, decent scope, and good ammo, you should be doing pretty well at putting stuff in tight groupings with some practice.
Suppressors, that reminds me, I should see if I can get a couple ordered before paranoia winds up with them off of the market.


Absolutely! “Cop killer bullets!” In fact fairly recently we went out to the range and a friend had a few boxes of BT that he was going to shoot up. I said, no, no, full boxes can actually be sold as collector’s items. He didn’t care so I traded him on the spot for some “less lethal” (LOL!) rounds.


I don’t shoot my Black Talon. It stays at home. Too valuable to shoot.

Also, not so great bullet technology. I’ll take a Federal HST or a Barnes all copper round any day over a Black Talon or Ranger SXT.

My standard carry these days is a Sig P938 with Cor-Bon DPX 9mm+P’s (previous generation with real Barnes bullet). I could carry the progeny of Black Talons, but why?


A number of experts suggest that one choose a fairly “mainstream” round for self-defense purposed (without giving up efficacy of course.) Imagine actually having to use your firearm to defend yourself. If it went to court – either criminally or civilly, the other side would be slobbering about “cop killer bullets.”

My everyday is a Glock 29 with Hornady XTP ammo.


LeafbyNiggle . . .


Now on to the content. You say LilyM’s “same logic” argument is flawed because the second amendment makes it illegal to pass laws that ban guns generally. However, implicit in LilyM’s proposal might be . . .

I’d just let LilyM speak for herself LeafbyNiggle.


But then again, I’d just let the law-abiding citizens make their OWN decisions TOO about their Constitutional Rights . . . ALL of them.


The fact that you had to rely on the second amendment to dispute the analogy shows that without the second amendment, that particular argument against banning guns evaporates.


If you are accusing me of relying on the Constitution (in this case, the Second Amendment) . . . . then all that I can say is “thank you.”

(I am happily guilty of relying on the Constitution)


That doesn’t control anything.


I think this is the first time I heard the words of Jesus referred to as “nonsense.” It has always amazed me how people become so hardened in their political opinions that even quoting Scripture is challenged.

In the context in which Jesus made this remark, Peter was not wanting to take up the profession of war, but was using a sword in legitimate self-defense, “stand your ground,” so to speak and just wanted to be left alone. While this does not apply to gun ownership per se, it most definitely applies to the mentality of dependence on guns for protection here, as well as the rather gung ho right to violence in self-defense.


While I understand the attraction to collection, it is not something we have an inherent right to. Even with a right to bear arms, there is no inherent right to own anything and everything, even for the purpose of “collecting.” A person interested in biology cannot own and collect deadly pathogens, or a person interested in physics can not collect all radioactive isotopes.

I say that because I get the impression some think that being a collector matters. It doesn’t. If something should not be owned privately, it should not be owned privately.


Fine. Then your argument is reduced to a purely legalistic one. Whereas LilyM’s argument was about the basic rightness or wrongness of restricting guns, which is a much more broadly applicable discussion.


Liberals always KNOW what YOU or somebody else needs BETTER than YOU. THEY can figure out for YOU what’s best for YOU.

Here we have LeafbyNiggle earlier saying IF LilyM meant this or that.

Now LeafbyNiggle assumes it and continues to speak for LillyM.



Whereas LilyM’s argument was about the basic rightness or wrongness of restricting guns, which is a much more broadly applicable discussion.

I just want the readers of this thread to understand . . . . THIS is their mindset.

This is how liberals think. THEY always KNOW what’s better for YOU than YOU. And due to a variety of reasons I’ll try not to get into here, they frequently extend this to the “nanny state”.

  • We see LillyM universalizing HER experiences and applying it to YOUR Constitutional Rights (“I have lived in some rough neighborhoods in my time and have exercised common sense safety precautions and survived without packing.” LilyM assumes because SHE did fine, the gal who has an ex-boyfriend ignoring a restraining order will do fine too. Its always all about “me”.)

  • We see LeafbyNiggle tell me what LillyM is thinking.

  • We see LeafbyNiggle telling you people how if YOU surrender YOUR Constitutional Rights a little more, things will really improve in society.

  • We even see LeafbyNiggle telling ME how to craft MY posts (NOT on a “Site Feedback” post-question, which would be fine, but here on thread concerning Constitutional Rights).


Cathoholic, first just a bit of procedure forum advice. When you engage in a discussion with someone . . .

This is the elitist attitude on display.

Think about this hunger liberals have to mind everybody else’s business and assume illicit control, as you deliberate possibly surrendering your rights or not to such thinkers.

As I said elsewhere. If this keeps up, someday they will be legislating the size of a soft drink you are allowed to order. Woops. They already ARE! (in some places)


This will have much more to do with pnewton’s claim than LilyM (but it will take a bit to get there) . . . .

LilyM said:


I believe Jesus meant it when he said ‘he who lives by the sword will die by the sword.’


I replied to LilyM that she was mis-applying that to gun owners and ASSUMING just because they have or support free individuals to have firearms that they are automatically “living by the sword”.

(By the way, you can be a Second Amendment advocate and NOT EVEN OWN GUNS but often the liberals don’t want to consider that because it self-defeats another of their political positions. I’ve met NRA people who don’t own a gun for example.)

Here is the salient portion with bold added.

Here is what I told LilyM.

This is non-sense LilyM.
Constitutional advocates don’t want to “live by the sword” any more than Government officials.


Just for the record here, nobody here is advocating “living by the sword.” Nobody. Nobody.

Here is pnewton’s response in post 397.


I think this is the first time I heard the words of Jesus referred to as “nonsense.”


Here is what pnewton perhaps WISHED I would have said . . .


Gun owners all want to “live by the sword” so Jesus’ words are wrong.


Pnewton’s “Biblical analysis” is yet another reason you don’t want such shaky thinking controlling YOUR rights.

Nobody here is advocating “living by the sword” pnewton.

I stand by the words of Jesus AND I stand by my words here too.


Understand it? I have no idea what “THIS” is. “Here…?” “Now…?”

Maybe a little logistical advice was in order, and not just “elitist.”


If I erred, how? Jesus was speaking of using a sword for self-defense at that time, not becoming a professional soldier.

I am more concerned with shaky temperament than I am shake thinking.

The topic here is common sense gun control. I do not think anyone is promoting abandoning the Second Amendment, thought that is a civil law, not a moral one, and prohibiting gun ownership.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.