Was Lauren Boebert right in saying Christ may have prevented his crucifixion if he owned assault-style weapons?

@MarkPaul sometimes those much maligned cartoons get it spot on:
[media=https://youtu.be/5H8a-exJkpo]

@MarkPaul Murder or wrongful death is not the same as self defense. There is a scripture describing killing an intruder in the night and not being guilty of murder but the same thing in the light of day when there is a way of escape the person would be guilty of murder.

@Roadsterrider Self-defence is different than walking around armed and loaded with a weapon designed for mass destruction. There is a scripture describing exercising self-restraint behaviour and another one about a time for every purpose. Those apply to being prepared for self-defence with the proper tools and mindset.

@MarkPaul There haven't historically been prohibitions on carrying a weapon for defense except in the last 150 years or so. It is a recent thing. Even in this country, few rules were in place before the 1930s. In Luke, Jesus said, "if a man doesn't have a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one." The sword was certainly the most serious weapon of the day, and they were carried about ready for use if necessary. If a person isn't prepared for self-defense, they have no ability to defend themselves.

@Roadsterrider Attempting to compare a sword (today or yesteryear) to an automatic, semi-automatic, or any other kind of weapon expressly designed for mass destruction is absurd even for an anonymous Internet discussion.

And, for the record a slingshot was far more dangerous than a sword then as it still is today.

@MarkPaul The sword was what wars were fought with; it was the military weapon of the day. If you are saying that weapons should not be allowed because newer technologies have made them better, do you feel the same way about smart phones and freedom of speech?

@Roadsterrider I am in no way saying weapons should not be used. Hopefully you are able to read and if you can read you are able to comprehend what you read rather than jump to a conclusion to satisfy your own preconceived notions to fuel an argument of your own design for your own entertainment.

I am saying there is and should be a distinction between a weapon designed for mass destruction in a war-type of environment and one designed for reasonable and responsible self-defense within a civilized society (or one professing to be civilized).

@MarkPaul A weapon of mass destruction is nuclear, biological or chemical. Not a rifle or handgun. There is a distinction. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were WMDs. Even the planes used on the World Trade Center aren't really WMDs. A WMD is capable of killing 1000s of people, not a few. As far as I know, the only people who have WMDs in the US is the US government. There isn't a private citizen in the US with access to WMDs. Are you talking about WMDs or firearms?

@Roadsterrider I am talking about firearms that are weapons designed for a war-like situation. I am making a distinction between a pistol and a machine gun. I am making a distinction between a rifle and a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. I am making a distinction between the type of gun that is typically sold for someone genuinely interested in self-defence in a civilian setting and a weapon designed to tear apart a human body beyond recognition.

@MarkPaul A fully automatic weapon, what the military use, is already illegal unless owned by a class 3 collector who has paid a tax for every such type weapon he or she has. Further to that only fully automatic weapons that can be legally bought, sold or transferred are those manufactured before 1986. So whether you are talking about an AR-15, a 10-22, a 742 Remmington, they all function the same way all semiautomatic rifles do. A shot can be fired with each pull of the trigger. No more than 1 per pull. Some people can use their finger faster then others but no human can even come close to the cyclic rate of fire of a full auto weapon. Service rifle matches are shot with military style rifles, but they still aren't full auto. The AR-15 is a favorite of target shooters. The only thing different between an AR-15 and any other semi auto rifle on the market is plastic handguards and a pistol grip. The 5.56 NATO cartridge the AR is chambered for isn't really suitable for hunting except for varmints like coyotes, prairie don't and such. They are not suitable for larger game. As far as I know, there hasn't been a shooting with a full auto firearm in decades with the exception of a few shootouts between rival gangs, and lately a few stories about the "Glock trigger", that also is already illegal.

@Roadsterrider "There hasn't been a shooting with a full auto firearm in decades [u]with the exception[/u]..." So, there has been a shootout with a full auto firearm. Just say it.

You have veered this conversation so far off the original topic and I have accommodated you. In my opinion Jesus would not support, endorse, or practice what the Boebert woman said.

"F" the NRA.

@MarkPaul You are correct the conversation has veered way off of what Jesus would do. The last full auto firearm used in a shooting that I can recall was the St Valentine's Day massacre back in the 1920s.