Rob Morse writes [via ammoland.com]

The Presbyters of Pittsburgh of the Presbyterian Church, USA, have demanded that the Pennsylvania legislature ban all “assault weapons”, .50 cal sniper rifles, and armor-piercing handgun ammo. They base this action on the Orlando nightclub slaughter of last year.

They suggest a political remedy for a problem that is, alas, a personal problem of heart, mind, and value systems. The presbyters (elders) call for a ban of Modern Sporting Rifles the correct term for the semi-auto rifles they call “assault rifles”. Their demand is flawed from the outset.  Let me list the ways.-

No crime (to my knowledge) has ever been committed with a .50 caliber rifle since the civil war.
Armor-piercing handgun ammo has been banned in most states for decades.

“Assault rifles” have been used in so few crimes that the Federal Assault Rifle ban of 1994 failed to be renewed by in 2004 by Congress because there was no evidence that crimes with these rifles had been reduced in the previous ten years. In fact, the instances of them being used in crimes were so low that nation-wide criminal use of “assault weapons”  amounted to about one-half of one percent of all firearms used in crimes.

These rifles which the uninformed say were “solely designed to kill people”, were actually designed to WOUND on the battlefield rather than kill. The death rates from being shot with these modern sporting rifles are about the same as death by handguns. Only one in four people shot with a modern sporting rifle will die.

Long guns are seldom used in violent crime. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that each year, more people are murdered with hands, fists and feet than ALL rifles and shotguns combined
This demand by the Presbytery fails on many levels. The facts about firearms and crime are only the first.

The Presbyterian Church, USA is the liberal wing of the Presbyterian Church in America. They are liberal in both their politics and their interpretation of Scripture. Their leadership doesn’t hold the Bible to be the accurate and complete Word of God.

Many of their “spiritual positions” over the years reject the Bible in favor of liberal and Marxist orthodoxy, as shown by their demand in this same lobbying statement of the exercise of “social justice” by the legislature. Social justice is merely a code phrase that means that government should favor some groups over others based on Marxist orthodoxy. It is the direct opposite of the Constitutional model of “equal justice for all”.

I disagree with their politics, but share their outrage over the horrible rampage murder in an Orlando nightclub.  I also differ in what I view as a solution. I’ve worked in law enforcement and in our legal system for years.

I suggest the Pennsylvania presbytery focus on the individual who committed this massacre. The murderer was a Muslim who, because of his religious beliefs, hated gays. The murderer believed Allah would bless him for slaughtering as many homosexuals as possible. The Muslim murderer passed many FBI background checks.

The presbytery proposes we disarm the victims in the face of this deliberate evil.  I don’t see that as a solution at all.

The Presbyters point is fundamentally flawed by their focus on the instruments of crime rather than the murderous intent of the criminals involved. I studied criminals as a prosecutor. I also studied the Bible.  If the Bible teaches anything from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible shows us our individual responsibility for our actions and their consequences.

The false pacifism behind their demands is not supported by the Bible. In my book, A Time To Kill: The Myth of Christian Pacifism, I demonstrate that God not only allows, but commands, that we defend the innocent with all legal force.

Moreover, Jesus never taught pacifism. I explain the biblical phrases “turn the other cheek” and “live by the sword, die by the sword” in their full biblical contexts.  There are many other instances where Jesus endorses physical defense of home and property.

Jesus tells us murder begins in the heart. Matt. 5:21-22; 1 Jn. 3:15.  So does our redemption.  Perhaps if Modernist churches returned to preaching Biblical standards instead of promoting the latest sociological studies, then our culture would rediscover personal responsibility. The consequences are good for everyone.

Instead, outfits like the Presbyterian Church, USA, blame “society” for people’s sins, faults and crimes. They ignore the Biblical call for self examination, confession of sin, and repentance.  The results are all too clear.

There is no more graphic example of our moral decay than the recent videoed kidnap and 48-hour torture of a a mentally disabled teen for political purposes. This atrocity was done by supposedly “normal” young adults from Chicago! The Bible says there is a specific place for such people. Lev. 19:14; Matt. 18:6; Matt. 25: 31-46.

This moral decay and vicious conduct is what the Pittsburgh Presbyters should be addressing, instead of the non-issue of “assault rifles.” Cain didn’t use a weapon to kill Abel. It takes a mind and a will to commit crime, and the Bible tells us how to discipline both.

This is how we achieve the slaughterhouse of Chicago and the crime-ridden, largely vacant lot called Detroit. In January of 1960 the last Republican mayor of Detroit left office. On that day, Detroit had the highest per-capita standard of living in the  country with the highest per-capita standard of living in the world. From 1960 to the year 2000, greed and hubris by auto makers, unions, and corrupt politicians had destroyed the city.

Biblical standards were dumped, and liberal standards replaced them. Crime ran rampant and the vital middle class ran in fear. Entitlement and liberal standards became the watchword, while honesty and responsibility were cast aside.  Detroit and Chicago show us the logical end of liberalism.

In his attempt to create Heaven on Earth, man forgets God and creates Hell.

In 1960, everyone had a chance to make a good life in Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles. Liberal policies then turned our cities into killing fields. Today they face the real problems of alienation caused by the welfare state, the destruction of the family, the resulting rampant crime, the failure of the culture to value education, and the drug culture. Businesses fled, unemployment climbed, abortion rates soared and frustration grew as each generation respected life less and cynicism abounded.

Those are the real problems we need to address. The solution comes from our churches as much as the ballot box. DeTocqueville said, “America is great because she is good.” Churches need to return to the Bible and teach the value of life and individual responsibility. Promoting gun control is only a political distraction from our real problems.

80 Responses to Pittsburgh Presbyterian Church: Ban “Assault Weapons”, .50 cal. “Sniper Rifles, and “Armor-Piercing” Handgun Ammo

  1. “These rifles which the uninformed say were “solely designed to kill people”, were actually designed to WOUND on the battlefield rather than kill.”

    I suspect that this is utter hogwash. Can anyone please point to one statement from any of the designers, or from the military that requisitioned the design, wherein it says that they would prefer that the weapon wound and not kill?

    Yes there were many problems with the initial 5.56, in that the ammo originally issued just didn’t work on skinny little malnourished opponents. That has been rectified. But even so, I would find it astonishing that the RFP would have specified that the rifle was “designed to wound” only.

    • And we sure don’t train the troops to shoot to wound… they are taught to shoot for center mass. It is far too hard to hit a moving target in a specific part of the body. Fine for snipers but not for the regular troops.

      • Sure we do. At least in the 89-94 version of the Air Force.
        “Shoot to wound but aim center mass”
        I smirked every time I heard that.

    • Actually, it’s a common logistics exercise… The 5.56×45 round was designed to render the enemy combatant combat ineffective while maximizing the impact on the enemy logistics support structure. In more immediate terms… killing an enemy combatant takes one enemy combatant out of the fight. Severely wounding an enemy combatant takes two to three enemy combatants out of the fight as one or two of them will be assisting the casualty.

      • Commonly repeated, never proven. (That I’ve seen).

        Has any leading general said such a thing is US military policy? If so, I’m unaware.

        And has anyone shown anywhere where the request for proposal for the 5.56 was that it was to be “less lethal” than the 7.62? If so, I haven’t seen it.

        • EDIT: by “never proven”, I’m not saying that that theory is incorrect. I’m saying that as far as I know, it has never been proven that that is actual US Military policy (or doctrine or whatever you’d want to call it), and I’m saying that as far as I know, that theory has never been shown to be the driving factor for creating a less-lethal rifle.

        • Back in the 60s, when I was in Army training, this was actually taught; kill a soldier, you remove one man from the battlefield.
          Would a soldier, you remove three: the one wounded, and two others to remove him from the battlefield.
          I seriously doubt I was the only one taught this.

        • I was taught the same thing in the 1990’s, with the addendum that every wounded enemy soldier is an additional burden on the enemy’s supplies of food and medicine, as well as being a detriment to their morale.

      • Except that Hajis don’t really care if the man next to them dies, and they don’t have much in the way of logistics either, its there, just not much.

        • You should be asking “before the war was over”, since they were fighting a very long walk from home. A GI gets wounded and it’s helicopters and jet aircraft getting him help at hundreds of miles per hour. NVA walks to a hospital in North Vietnam, or is carried, removing several other individuals from the fight.

          I don’t believe this was a design factor, but it was a recognized effect very soon after these guns were issued to South Vietnam soldiers, and assisted in the decision to issue them to US Army as well.

    • The full-power cartridges of the early smokeless days through the first part of the 20th Century were designed to kill cavalry horses outright at long range. Intermediate cartridges are designed to be “good enough” to kill a human but still balance light weight, low recoil, and rapid suppression fire capability, and in most cases they’re still good enough to use on a whitetail (with proper shot placement and bullet selection). The “it’s just designed to wound” thing is just as stupid as the libbies’ “if you hunt with assault weapons there won’t be any meat left” thing. If you are grievously wounded from any gunshot you are going to die if you haven’t already. The things that really matter are shot placement, penetration, expansion, fragmentation, and yawing, and a 5.7 to the head will almost certainly kill you while a .30-06 to the foot probably won’t. Also “hydrostatic shock” and “energy dumps” are just as much a lie as “stoppin powah.”

  2. Fair enough. I respond by demanding the PA legislature ban the prespeterian church on baseless grounds, conjecture, and opinion.

    Thinking neither of us will get what we want, but know if you try to ban my guns I sure as hell will try to have your “club” shut down.

    • The Presbyters may need a 72 hour mental health check. They do not believe the bible contains the complete word of God. The implication, clearly, is that there are some missing bits, and that the Presbyters are in contact with God, receiving the missing pieces of God’s word to mankind.

      Sure. OK. I have one rule: If someone says they’re conversing with God, I want to be in the room to hear it. This is the theological version of “No video? It didn’t happen”

  3. they fell sooo far from true and correct apologetics and biblical doctrine.. this cannot be considered a “christian” church.

  4. I spent 21+ years defending their rights to practice their religion. They should stand up for my rights to the same degree.

  5. Military fully automatic rifles are designed for the battle field. However semiauto replicas are designed to be accurate paper punchers and for use in hunting game. Not killing humans.

    • They’re designed to put holes in things, no more and no less. A military rifle includes auto and/or burst options for suppressive fire, so that you can keep an enemy pinned down while your buddies either surround their flank or blast them with artillery.

      It’s totally true that the vast majority of people who own ARs, AKs and the like only ever use them for peaceful purposes, but if someone threatens my life or my loved ones, they’ll be getting the exact same holes in their body that 5.56 and 7.62×39 rounds can put on paper or in a hog, and dollars to donuts it’ll kill them just fine.

    • Here’s what I tell people who tell me that guns have only one purpose: to kill.
      If their car did its only purpose as seldom as guns kill, they’d be really, really pissed.
      For something that’s supposedly built for the sole purpose of killing, it is horribly inefficient.

  6. Well my heretic and apostate point’s been taken. I’ll bet they approve of murdering innocent unborn babies too. And gay “marriage”,Hillary and so-called Palestinians…really EZ ain’t it?

  7. Not big into religion christian or o4her wise in 20 plus years in the military have seen more people killec over religion tnan for any other reason. All three of my children own and know how to defend them selves.

  8. Two things.

    First, my offensive opinion, don’t take this personally if you’re the God fearing type.

    I’m hardly surprised that a bunch of people who base their entire lives on selling others a story about an invisible man who lives in the sky, a story for which they can’t muster a shred of actual evidence, don’t base their publicly stated opinions on firearms in reality. How is anyone shocked by this?

    Secondly, “These rifles which the uninformed say were “solely designed to kill people”, were actually designed to WOUND on the battlefield rather than kill.”

    There is scant evidence, if any, to back up this claim and I don’t know why it won’t just die.

    When the government put out it’s spec sheet on what it wanted in a new rifle, the request that lead to the adoption of the M16, they specifically mentioned lethality not the ability to wound or incapacitate without killing. When the rifle was field tested in Vietnam, contrary to popular internet myth, it was well liked and said to be extremely effective jungle carbine. Issues arose with issuing it to general troops because of some well known nonsense about not issuing cleaning kits but when it was tested by US advisers it came with the kit and was reported on favorably as a weapon that effectively killed the enemy. These guys did however report some problems with the bullet being deflected by glass or heavy jungle foliage. The requested tweaks to ammo made it even more effective and the advisers’ reviews were nothing short of rave.

    The non-issuance of cleaning kits was government bullshit that was never advised by Stoner or Armalite. It may have been claimed by Colt that the rifle was self-cleaning but I have never seen actual evidence that such claims are true. This issue was further complicated by use of improper propellants in the 5.56 cartridge. DuPont couldn’t make the stuff the bullet was spec’ed for in high enough amounts so Olin WC 846 powder was used instead. This produced the desired muzzle velocity but fouled the rifle much more rapidly than the IMR 4475 the cartridge was meant to use. Long story short: the government was advised against issuing the rifle without a cleaning kit by the rifle’s creator and those who developed it. They argued that a cleaning kit needed to be provided with the rifle. The government decided not to do this, possibly because Colt lied to them or possibly just because and then compounded the problem by using improper propellant (for which they can be forgiven since they couldn’t get enough of the stuff they actually needed).

    Anyway, following the initial reports from advisers in the field the DoD issued orders that enemy combatants killed with the rifle should be photographed in ways that detailed exactly how well the rifle and the round it fired functioned. The photographs that came back from the advisers were classified well into the 1980’s specifically because the government felt the wounds the rifle produced we so horrific that the public couldn’t handle seeing them and that such pictures might cause an outcry against the new 5.56 cartridge as being too effective at killing and therefore inhumane.

    • Invisible man who lives in the sky is not my particular interpretation of God, but i can see how one would perceive it as such. To me, it’s more about Good vs Evil, as ‘personified’ by God vs the Devil, and manifested in many forms, including the actions of people, love and hate, and even in physical reality including science (particularly when you get to the quantum level where reality stops making sense in the way that we perceive it). But i can see how the ‘dogma’ and literal interpretations of religious history could create skepticism, but i would guess that in some sense you may perceive and believe in the same common tenets of goodness that are really at the heart of the major religions. Anyway, just fwiw. I’ve had this same ‘man in the sky’ conversation with my closest friends, so i do understand how that can be the common perception and a block to seeing beyond the stories to what’s at the heart of it all. People like ISIS who would teach 7 year old children to carve heads off and burn people alive are one manifestation of evil for example. Those who would sacrifice their lives to defend that person, or rescue that child, are one manifestation of good. And it’s not all black and white. We all have choices every day that make us who we are along that continuum and most of us are somewhere in between. Ahh hell, you get my point already. Peace out

      • I’m not going to get into a deep philosophical conversation about my personal interpretation of the universe.

        But I will say that I don’t have a problem with people who are religious. My problem is with the guy at the front of the church who talks to those religious people. If folks want to play the literary interpretation game they can do it with Moby Dick or one of the classics.

        The Bible, should you choose to believe what’s in that book, is in a written form for a reason: so that you can read it. The last thing you need is some other person telling you what you should think about the text based on their own assumptions and biases. You can read the book yourself and come to your own conclusions about it’s content.

        That guy up there on Sunday has no better understanding of God than you do because, quite simply, he can’t. He is, at best, a shill. A well meaning shill but still a shill. At worst he’s the swindler himself. He’s the guy I have the problem with, mainly for his hubris.

        • You’re reasoning implies there isn’t a need for teachers. After all it’s only a book right? Why do we send kids to school then? If they can read the book just as well as the guy or gal up front what is the point of school? Just asking.

        • that’s why i wish i was catholic. so the pope could interpret those writings for me. it’s pretty confusing stuff. and math is hard.
          for now, golden rule works.

        • Brice:

          No offense, but my reasoning doesn’t imply anything. You inferred something. It’s totally legit for you to do so but, since you asked, I will tell you why I disagree with your inference.

          There is a difference between education and instruction. I’ll skip the language lesson the two words and simply say that what we call “teaching” is mainly instruction. Education is something that can be somewhat guided but it’s a personal thing.

          Before education can begin a certain level of instruction is necessary. To put this in gun terms: the basic handling of a gun in terms of both safety and function is something you are instructed on how to do. Maybe it’s by a video these days or a gun safety booklet or the instruction manual. Maybe it’s by a DI or your parent/guardian/other relation. It doesn’t matter. You are instructed in how that firearm functions.

          But no one can actually teach you how to shoot it. You have do put in the work and figure that out for yourself. You can get ongoing instruction (training of some type) but 99% of learning to shoot is you figuring out what works for you to put bullets where you want them with trigger time. You’re educating yourself on how to shoot. If someone could instruct you on how to shoot then would learn to hit a target at 1500 yards by watching a video.

          Even further, you can apply what you already have been instructed on to figure out other things about guns you’ve never seen before. Say a Mosin-Nagant. Imagine you haven’t seen one before. Where’s the safety? Well, you know what the trigger is, the bolt, the magazine floor plate, sights, barrel, stock etc. By process of elimination you can come to the educated guess that the knob on the back of the bolt is the safety. Examination of the device will reveal to you how it works. You’ve now educated yourself on how the safety on a Mosin-Nagant functions by building off your previous instruction with other firearms but you did it without instruction on that particular firearm. (Hopefully you did it safely by using your prior knowledge to make sure that Mosin was empty before you you started dickin’ around with it looking for the safety.)

          Now, the entire point of a book is that you are instructed in how to read before you get the book. Once you know how to read you may read any book you wish in any of the various languages in which you are capable of reading. From those you may educate yourself by taking the information therein and applying it based on your experiences and what else you know on the topic or tangentially related topics. You can find related books and read those to broaden and deepen your understanding.

          So no, IMHO, you don’t need some guy to stand in front of you on Sunday and tell you about this or that. You don’t need him to get to know God as you perceive Him/Her/Whatever. In fact, if anything, IMHO that guy is standing between you and a deeper understanding. Like the guy blathering on about how to shoot, he’s not making you better. He’s wasting time you could be using on the range doing the practical rather than hearing his opinion on the theoretical.

        • “That guy up there on Sunday has no better understanding of God than you do because, quite simply, he can’t.”

          he certainly may have a different understanding, one from which you may benefit.
          he’s making a living, so shilling for the continued existence of his income. what he may provide for a congregation contains many intangibles, not the least of which is no more complex than food for thought.
          and with strength in numbers more good can be accomplished.
          or need everyone be entirely independant?

        • Strych9…you ain’t the brightest bulb in the box.

          God, in the form of Jesus, didn’t write the bible you know. Who did? The disciples. Who were the disciples after the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Teachers…Pastors essentially. So even reading the bible alone to absorb the Word of God means you are reading what another teacher/pastor wrote.

          Similarly watching a video or reading a book to learn how to shoot well requires you trust a teacher to do so. Since you can’t have produced either written word or video yourself, because you presumably don’t know, someone else (a teacher) has to have done so. Even knowing the 4 rules of gun safety required a teacher (Cooper) to have taught you them.

          There are bad teachers and pastors (think of your local give me money for salvation TV personality or James Yeager) and good teachers and pastors. Find a good one and stick with them.

          And your writing style makes you out to be a lecturing asshole full of pomposity. Your few friends must hate it when you speak. I sincerely hope you don’t have a wife or children that must listen to your bombastically denigrating lecturing often.

        • Speaking of someone who is not the sharpest tool in the shed, the FIRST writings in what is now known as the bible were penned 300 years after the death of Christ (New Testament, I should say). Which disciples are you suggesting lived beyond 300 years old? Or do you have evidence ever learned to read and write?

        • To BigMcsomething or other…

          I’d post the meme but the words are sufficient enough…That phrase doesn’t mean what you think it means. A dictionary is in the mail.

          To Larry…

          I’m pretty sure the Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, that Paul wrote many of the Pauline Letters, and (surprise) James wrote James.

      • “i would guess that in some sense you may perceive and believe in the same common tenets of goodness that are really at the heart of the major religions.”

        In my case, absolutely correct (I will not attempt to speak for others, which should make clear that I don’t believe in religion). With the condition, of course, that we remove Islam from that list of “major religions”, though it is followed by billions. The tenets you speak if are common sense. The idea that there is an all-powerful consciousness peering over my shoulder every moment is patently ridiculous, completely laughable, and clearly a lie.

      • “he certainly may have a different understanding, one from which you may benefit.”

        A fair point depending on your viewpoint. Personally. I don’t see the point in listening to someone talk about something neither of us can possibly even begin to understand. YMMV.

        My problem with organized religion is the religion it’s the whole organizational thing about it.

        Sheepdog:

        “God, in the form of Jesus, didn’t write the bible you know.”

        Wow, my mind was just like…. totally blown. People wrote the Bible? People who were contemporaneous with, or came after Jesus!? Wait, are you saying that it wasn’t written by spirits or something BEFORE Jesus, because that’s like totally what I figured happened. All this time I thought it was precognitive phantasms! Stop the damn presses, we’ve got new information that changes everything! Sheepdog just rocked my whole worldview! [OK, none of that’s actually true but hey, thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious.]

        “Similarly watching a video or reading a book to learn how to shoot well requires you trust a teacher to do so.”

        Seriously? You just said this? There is no book or video that can teach you to shoot well. You learn to do that yourself by shooting. Show me the person out there that watched a YouTube video and was suddenly a Grandmaster level shooter? There ain’t one.

        “Even knowing the 4 rules of gun safety required a teacher (Cooper) to have taught you them.”

        Did you miss my bit about instruction vs. education and how one necessarily precedes the other or do you have Alzheimer’s? I covered this pretty darn thoroughly.

        “And your writing style makes you out to be a lecturing asshole full of pomposity. Your few friends must hate it when you speak. I sincerely hope you don’t have a wife or children that must listen to your bombastically denigrating lecturing often.”

        Awww your big words hurt my wittle feelz. How can I possibly go on?

        I was asked a question and I provided the answer. You weren’t part of the conversation. As such, you’re a Johnny-Come-Lately with an apparent case of butthurt because I said things you don’t want to hear. At no point in your little diatribe have you come close to even raising a serious question about a single point I’ve made. Instead you blather on about things that are either so obvious as to not require being mentioned, make shit up or ramble about things I’ve already covered as if I haven’t covered them and your ramblings are some great revelation.

        Go do something useful like eat some more crayons and paste. Maybe you should invest some time in praying real hard for Jesus to come down with some Preparation H for you.

        • Staph9…

          And result! You spent way too much time on that response. Or maybe since normal humans can’t stand to be around you have all the time in the world. I don’t know.

          I won’t in detail break down your superfluous lecturing, lacking as it was in substance, but will only point out that you are misguided on the difference between education and instruction. One requires both to properly understand the word of God, as Proverbs says,

          The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7

          Oh and I apologize for my lateness to the response to this thread, or as you termed it, my “Johnny-come-lately” status. Only so much time to spend on here what with my beautiful wife, great kids, bountiful friends, and meaningful responsibilities am blessed with. I guess if you don’t have those then nothing gets in the way of posting on here 24/7.

    • strych9,

      I extend my sincere appreciation for your genuine and constructive comments. (No snark or sarcasm from me, I really mean that.)

      I have no intention of lecturing you or engaging in a debate. I will simply leave you with two thoughts.
      (1) You are probably well aware of two timeless questions that every person, tribe, and nation always have and always will ponder: Where did everything come from? What is the meaning of it all? The only a way that a person could answer those questions authoritatively is if they were all knowing and had irrefutable video evidence of creation. Needless to say, no such person and no such video exists. Therefore, we are left to our own devices to answer those questions. Or are we? If there is a timeless, all knowing, all powerful, holy, and loving Creator God who created everything and provides the meaning to everything, it makes sense that He would share the big picture with us to satisfy those questions. Jews and Christians will tell you that God inspired the people who recorded the answers to those questions in the Bible. Why not consider the Bible and attendant claims while considering other possible explanations as well?
      (2) You are correct that anyone with decent reading skills can read the Bible themselves in their own language and learn the most basic points without a pastor. However, everyone will miss the astounding depth and wisdom of the Bible without someone teaching the history and culture/mindset of both the writers and their intended recipients. That is the true and extremely relevant job of pastors and priests. Remember, not everyone can take a few years out of their life to learn the history, geography, language, and culture of the people who wrote the Bible.

      • “it makes sense that He would share the big picture with us to satisfy those questions”

        EXACTLY correct! So, tell me, why has that not happened? Like, why has not such an all-powerful creature addressed the entire world, say, every 100 years or so, to answer their questions about the meaning of life? The only reason I can even imagine is that there is no such creature. Since there is absolutely no evidence of such existence, this amount of evidence against such existence is plenty for me.

        • Larry, faith is belief in something not seen. It is an easy thing to be told the sky is blue when you can see and confirm it with your eyes. That requires no strength. Believing in God when you have not physically seen him requires a strong, faithful person.

          God is in no need of those who lack the strength and faith to believe in him when they cannot physically see him. The good news is that you can grow your strength and faith to the point where he has use for you.

        • Why doesn’t he come back every 100yrs?
          Because he doesn’t need to, he left the damn instruction manual behind. It’s not his responsibility to get people to read the directions.

  9. “He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'” –Luke 22:36

    “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, ‘I am strong!'” –Joel 3:10

    • “Most states? Try all of them. LEOPA is a federal law written by our “friends” at the NRA (Thanks NRA!)”

      Armor piercing ammo that will fit in a handgun is banned federally. Specifically, such ammo that will defeat body armor worn by LEOs. And is larger than .22 caliber. And fits other very specific criteria.
      Pretty much any rifle bullet will defeat personal body armor.

  10. I am the co-author of this article(credited at the bottom of the “Ammoland” piece). My statement about the intention to wound comes from a book in the late 70’s early 80’s(I can’t recall its title) on modern militaries and their equipment. While there is no evidence I know of of wounding being a factor in the invention of the 7.62×39, it is certainly a feature of the round.
    As for the 5.56, I drew that from a 1992(?)study by Martin Fackler, head of the US Army wound ballistics lab. During his lifetime, he was considered the world’s foremost authority on the wounding/killing effects of bullets. This particular study examined lethality rates from mass killer shootings among handguns, 5.56 and 7.62×39 rifles, and shotguns. The study spanned 1970-1990 mass killings world wide. It showed that when handguns were used, the death rate was 24%, the military rounds’ lethality was 26%, shotgun lethality was 76%.
    When one examines the dead vs. wounded rate where semi-auto 5.56 or 7.62×39 have been used in US mass killings, the death rate is almost always around 25% of those shot. (unless the killer, because of victim passivity is allowed to take head shots).
    So while the “wound the enemy” theory may or may not have been a valid consideration at the time of their conception, that’s the way it works out in the real world of mass shootings of unarmed, unarmored citizens. Therefore I consider it is a valid point against the gun-grabbers false assertion that these two rounds “are designed solely to kill people”.

    • Well that’s why I have a shotgun loaded with slugs and oobuck for home defense. 76% is cool with me. No witnesses works…

  11. A lot of problems come from the unholy alliance of lazy churches and big government. Too lazy to counsel and provide aid, so of course we must have the drug war, gun laws and welfare. God forbid the church do its job of loving and taking care of people like Jesus did. Unfortunately Jesus would not be granted entrance to many of our churches today. He spends too much time with heathens and makes demands of those who claim his name.

  12. These presbyters sound like leftist social justice warriors using their pulpit to advance Marxist causes on purely emotional grounds. My hope is that the IRS will soon get serious about busting the tax-free status of churches (or synagogues or mosques)that use their bully pulpit to preach politics instead of trying to save souls. If they want to take political positions, let them pay taxes just like other political parties. Stuff like this is why the main-stream Christian denominations are withering away.

  13. I have to laugh. Pittsburgh was built primarily by a bunch of Scots and Scots-Irish immigrant Presbyterians, tough bastards who could count money and would pay a penny over wages due. Carnegie comes to mind. And Thomas Mellon. And others.

    If this current crowd had been in charge the industrial might of the US, as harsh as it was in the early years, would never have blossomed. There are so many today whose outlook on life and actual habits have evolved subsisting on the profits of a system they themselves did little to foster.

    • I’m a member of one of the oldest Presbyterian Congregations in PA, although I have to say, I haven’t been to worship much in the last few years. It predates the French and Indian War, which at the time of that uprising, the church was on the frontier and the pastor kept a rifle at the ready in the pulpit. A lot has changed since then. There are still Presbyterian congregations that have maintained sanity, but above that level, such as this Presbytery, the leadership is increasingly SJW whackjobs that are driving the more conservative voices out, leading to the current death spiral the denomination is now in.

  14. Pittsburgh and Philly are the dueling assholes of PA. The majority of the state is conservative and I know this because I have worked all over it. I live in hour east of Pittsburgh and I don’t travel there unless I have to. The mayor is a major liberal douchebag who imposes new taxes every five seconds and is a big fan of BLM. I can’t wait to head South.

  15. I’d say that I’m surprised, but adults who still believe in an invisible friend with magical powers clearly aren’t the best and brightest.

    • Am I correct in understanding your statement that those with religious beliefs are lesser in both capability (best) and intelligence (brightest)? Even at face value, your statement is witless, insulting, profoundly obtuse, and particularly difficult to lend credence to when its entire premise is based in sophistry. Try not to needlessly insult and alienate your fellow 2A supporters simply because you may prefer humanism – I’m sure most of the deists here will support your inexorable right to worship yourself of your own volition, or anything else you so choose.

  16. Gun violence is a term the willfully ignorant use to ascribe agency to inanimate objects in lieu of the responsible party – as in a person or persons. Inanimate objects possess neither intent or resolve, and are wholly incapable of unassisted brutality. All weapons, purpose built or improvised, may be instruments of violence, but the inference that a weapon itself is the transgressor is an insurmountable absurdity.

    Did Itzhak Perlman or David Oistrakh ever actually perform, or was the violin the musician, rather than the instrument? Did Glenn Gould or Martha Argerich every actually perform, or was the piano the musician, rather than the instrument? Pledging fealty to the “Gun Violence” fictive is a purpose built flight from objective thought, and is particularly egregious in the case of the a church doing so. Why?
    Violence finds its very life in the natural bent of rebellion and self-interest fundamental in every member of humankind, and by redefining the problem with Postmodern chicanery, the result is a fractious, distorted, spurious adaptation of the Gospel. Churches like this have imbibed of the world and its values so long, that they disfigure the very foundation of the Gospel, and place the responsibility for violence on a THING rather than an INDIVIDUAL.

    Rather than cultivating the discernment to address the culture, they reformulated the message to submit to the culture – if you’re not responsible for the transgression, then somehow, you’re not accountable for it either. They have effectively eliminated the entire biblical position on personal responsibility, and implemented a contrived, synthetic doctrine. From this, we get evil guns, rather than evil people. In their eyes, Cain is innocent, Abel deserved it, and the rock did it.

  17. More “Christians” Against Civil Rights.

    I assume they aren’t using tax deductible religious organization donations to promote their politics, for that might invalidate the itemized deductions of many parishioners…

  18. I’m fine with all the teachings and lessons of the bible so long as we can all agree that god is made up and the bible was written by people.

  19. Why do people assume that because a group of people claim to be a church, show up once a week to sing a few hymns, and pretend they are good people that they actually believe and follow the word of Christ? I suspect that the people of Pittsburgh Presbyterian Church are the usual hypocritical fakes. I have been to churches where people actually believe and care, and I have been to churches who put on a show. I am sure the Pittsburgh Presbyterian Church is the latter. If it was the former, and they were publicly supporting the 2nd amendment, the IRS would be pulling their non-profit status.

  20. It’s disheartening to see the comments directly insulting the religious beliefs held by fellow People of the Gun in an attempt to bolster the veracity of an argument against the ill conceived position of this church.

    The anti-gunners lump guns and gun owners into one inaccurately defined and unmerited assemblage (primarily built of ad hominem insults), and yet, we have people howling about that tactic while employing the exact same obtuse behavior toward fellow 2A supporters.

    The position of this church is not shared by all people who partake of Judeo-Christian religious tenets, but religion appears to be the threshold for relegating fellow 2A supporters to the trash heap of adversaries.

  21. GOD AND GUNS
    THE ARMED LUTHERAN
    BLACK MAN WITH A GUN, w/REV KEN BLANCHARD
    All three of these gun podcasts disagree with the Presbyterian church.

  22. Guys, gals, why get into a urination contest over an esoteric point? The main problem is that we have a body of an organized religion hell-bent on disarming not only its adherents, but everyone else – except the members of another organized religion whose basic tenets encourage its adherents to lie, cheat, enslave and/or kill anyone who refuses to convert to that religion. My only hope is that these two groups meet quickly so we don’t have to listen very long to the Presbyrs’ nonsense. Perhaps the survivors will sing a different tune – or the call to prayers…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *