Pastor Michael Pfleger, anti-gun extremist, promoted sideways in Chicago.

[SteveW]

The anti-gun extremist, Pastor Michael Pfleger of Chicago, will evidently get promoted "sideways" by the Archbishop, becoming "co-pastor" where he was once pastor. He will now assist in some sort of anti-gun activities for the Catholic church. The move was supported by Mayor Rahm.

http://www.kvue.com/home/Northwest-Austin-man-charged-with-murder-after-early-morning-shooting-138689909.html

In the past, Pfleger has organized confrontational demonstrations against the only gun shop in the Chicago area, and according to some, threatened the gun dealer by saying "we will find you and snuff you out..." From Wikipedia:

"'He's the owner of Chuck's. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out… you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out.' Pfleger later claimed his use of the phrase 'snuff you out' was misinterpreted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pfleger

[Angry Dragon]

1. The catholics are coming for your guns............

[bongbong]

2. Guns, schmuns

I want full tactical nuclear capability, and the 2nd Amendment guarantees it.

[gejohnston]

3. It says arms not ordnance

so, no it does not. But if you have more money than the Kochs and can hire the techs and buy the stuff...................

Crew serviced weapons are ordnance.

[bongbong]

7. Yawn, ultra yawn in fact

> It says arms not ordnance

It also explicitly says "well-regulated militia", where 'well-regulated' means "well-trained" according to the meanings of the day.

Yawn



> Crew serviced weapons are ordnance.

One guy can carry a bazooka; the Germans had this technology in 1945. There are also handheld "briefcase" nukes.

Yawn. I've heard all the pro-gun "arguments".

[gejohnston]

9. and I am yet to here

a rational one anti gun arguments.
A bazooka is still crew serviced, it takes two to operate.

Nukes? do you have several million to piss away?

[bongbong]

11. zzzzzzz

> A bazooka is still crew serviced, it takes two to operate.

For a gun-lover, you are woefully uninformed. I'll use wiki to help you in your education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust

It weighed 7 pounds. Hope you can handle that on your own.

> Nukes? do you have several million to piss away?

We're not talking cost, we're talking legality & availability.

I'm yawning so much now I'm asleep.

[gejohnston]

12. plan on taking out tanks?

Bunkers? They probably are legal under NFA, being tightly regulated as destructive devices. They still are not the same as small arms. Neither device is readily available. Nice Non Sequitur though, I'll give it points for creativity. Reasoned and logical argument, no.

However, the bazooka had its drawbacks. Being large, cumbersome and rather fragile, it needed a dedicated and trained two-man team to be used efficiently. Hard-pressed on all fronts, Germany developed one man alternative to the bazooka type weapons: the Panzerfaust family of weapons. These one-shot launchers were relatively cheap to manufacture and needed no specialized training; they were so simple to use that they were regularly issued to Volkssturm regiments. They proved remarkably efficient against any tanks they were used against during World War II. Noticeably, they were not rocket launchers but recoilless rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW

Since we are not talking about portable rocket launchers, recoiless rifles, or nukes I suggest you sleep tight and come back when you are awake and wearing your critical thinking cap.

[bongbong]

13. LOL

You can try to change the subject, but I've proven my point, as well as proving your earlier posts to be uniformed messes of non-facts.

Have a nice day!

[gejohnston]

14. how did I change the subject?

you have proven nothing and really said nothing of any relevance. You have a nice day too.

[bongbong]

15. I'll spell it out for you

I hate to point out the obvious, but your post #3 made some erroneous "point" about "crew serviced" or some other Talking Point that, I guess, was supposed to rebut my post #2. I then proved you wrong.

I hope you continue to grow in your knowledge of logic & debate!

[gejohnston]

21. not a talking point

and you proved nothing wrong, a bazooka took two people to operate, you were talking about a recoiless rifle. None of what you said was remotely relevent.

I hope you catch a clue on logic and debate not to mention the subject at hand

[bongbong]

23. Wrong again

YOU brought up "crew-serviced". If you call a German bazooka a "recoiless rifle", it doesn't make it one. It was/is a super deadly weapon, could be handled by one man, and is illegal without a special license in the USA. Why doesn't the NRA say we all need those things?

I guess the debate skills of the gun-folks here on DU are a little weak.

[gejohnston]

24. learn what

weapons actually are before ranting. The rockets themselves are NFA items, not the launcher.
No one cares about them. Unless you are shooting tanks or bunkers, they are quite useless. I doubt anyone would buy them even if NFA were repealed. Either way, they are not individual small arms therefore irrelevant to this issue.

Our debate skills are quite strong, your knowledge is nonexistent.

[bongbong]

25. asdf

> Unless you are shooting tanks or bunkers, they are quite useless

Same could be said for guns. I can use a Panzerfaust to defend myself. What if a gang banger shows up at my house in a car, and rams it to get in? A gun is useless to stop that*, but a Panzerfaust would be perfect.

Why doesn't the NRA stand up for our rights to individual arms to protect ourselves?

> Either way, they are not individual small arms therefore irrelevant to this issue.

7 pounds isn't small arms? They're indiviual, small arms. Unless your arms are too small to hold up 7 pounds.

Game, set, match. Give it up.

* If you wanna get all "gun-techy" on me about some powerful gun that can stop cars, then I'll just say the gang banger is using an armored bulldzer like that gun-nut who went on a rampage out west a few years ago. A Panzerfaust would've stopped him in about one second.

[gejohnston]

28. because no one cares

and this is not tennis. If you want one bad enough, find one for sale and register it as a destructive device.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

IIRC, gang bangers mostly kill each other, so don't muscle on someone else's territory and pay your bills to your wholesaler.

[bongbong]

32. asdf

> If you want one bad enough, find one for sale and register it as a destructive device

But that's an infringement on my "2nd Amendment Rights" as defined by the NRA. Where are the NRA to "protect me"? The crooks are better armed, I want better arms!

> gang bangers mostly kill each other, so don't muscle on someone else's territory and pay your bills to your wholesaler.

So substitute anybody else, like the gun-nut I mentioned before who made an armored bulldozer to destroy a town.


Debate is clearly not your forte.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. "But that's an infringement on my "2nd Amendment Rights" as defined by the NRA." Prove it.

You've been loudly and repeatedly telling us about what the NRA defines and what it protects, yet you're notably link-challenged.
So why don't you go ahead and show us that the NRA really is against the regulation of destructive devices?

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Because they're destructive devices and not firearms?

A distinction encoded into law since 1934. By the way, I wasn't aware that the NRA says we "need" anything, save our rights under the Second Amendment.
If you have evidence otherwise from them, please post it...

[bongbong]

27. 2nd amendment

> Because they're destructive devices and not firearms?

A rose by any other name. Semantics don't change the facts.


The 2nd Amendment is about a well-regulated militia. For what well-regualted means, see Federalist Paper #29.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with unrestricted weapon ownership.

[gejohnston]

29. since the NRA supported and wrote half

of the NFA, it really does not matter. The US has always restricted weapon ownership, just not to the level of your liking.
Facts can't alter your nonsense argument.

[bongbong]

31. wrong again

> The US has always restricted weapon ownership, just not to the level of your liking.

Another mistake/lie by you The USA did not regulate arms until well after the Civil War.

Don't talk about "facts" when you have none.

[gejohnston]

33. need to do more research

especially in the south. I did not say anything about state level.

[gejohnston]

34. that is what the law says

and that is the technical term.

well regulated meant well equipped, since no SCOTUS ever agreed with your collective rights theory your opinion does not mean shit.
The NRA never supported unrestricted, so that is kind of a straw man.

Who was this guy with the armored bulldozer?
Your debating ability is greatly over exaggerated. Learn some history on the subject while you are at it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Just a bit of associational fallacy. The factose intolerant love to trot that one out.

And speaking of factose intolerance:
Have you noticed that amongst all the shouting and handwaving there hasn't been a single link to, or quote from any NRA site or press release?
Just another NRA hater reluctant to back up their claims with concrete evidence...

[Callisto32]

22. Jee whiz...

yet you refuted none.

[TheWraith]

16. Just like the first amendment guarantees ritual sacrifice for religious purposes.

Except, it doesn't.

[bongbong]

18. "Well armed"

To be well-armed these days needs a lot more than the muskets that the writers of the 2nd Amendment were referring to.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. And???

[bongbong]

19. And

I want my nukes! If the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted by the NRA, gives you the right to own weapons the writers of the 2nd Amendment could only fantasize about, why stop at guns?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. well then

Go for it, friend.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Hey buddy...

I'm confused. How does the Austin, TX link figure into the Pfleger extremist stuff?

[SteveW]

8. It doesn't. My computer is so buggered, this has happened repeatedly. Sorry.

I sometimes despair of posting anything. Austin is full of computer companies and geeks, but no decent computer mechanic. One of these days I'll get back my: graphs, pictures, smiley icons, clear sentences (not type-overs), post responses which don't require intermediate commands, my actual identity for the last five years, etc., etc.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Sounds like...

...some virus/malware. Be careful and good luck.

[SteveW]

35. I've got a list of update errors that would fill a Miami phone book...

and it gets longer and longer despite repeated repairs. This on a Windows Home edition!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. How old is your hard drive? n/t

[gejohnston]

38. some say "once you go Mac, you never go back"

or Linux in my case.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. I'm afraid I'm...

...just a techno sheep in this regard. My work uses M/S and I just follow to maintain compatibility.

[rl6214]

30. He's an embarrassment to the Catholic church.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. He's an embarrassment to...

...anyone who's not a slave.