RobertNashville

My experience tells me otherwise as does dozens of tests I've seen as does about 50 years of shooting shotguns including doing some of my own (admittedly "unscientific") tests - we'll just have to disagree.  ;)   5.56 HD ammo may penetrate more than no 6 shot as I've never used no 6 for HD but I don't want convincing; I want something that I can be sure will stop the threat and do so at as great a distance as possible.   When you add in other benefits of a AR. Easier to aim Easier to shoot Less recoil MUCH more capacity Easier and faster to reload to name some of them.   Again, I'm not dissing the venerable shotgun as a HD weapon but I think the usefulness of the AR platform (or something similar in my case) becomes clear; especially if one already has one (meaning no real need to go out and by a SG specifically for HD).   My apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread...signing off now. :)

5.56 for the reasons cited above

It's my understanding (I have seen no official figures to back it up) that over the past decade or so, many LE agencies have switched from a shotgun to an AR/5.56 platform when entering a home/clearing a home in a tactical situation.  Part of the reason is that with the proper ammo, the 5.56 is far less prone to over-penetration than a shotgun and MUCH less prone to over-penetration than almost any handgun round (I have seen many videos of tests using a typical home setup with dry wall, etc and loads starting with .32 pistol round up through the 5.56 rifle round).  Other advantages is that for most people, ans AR is more accurate, easier to shoot, less recoil and if you get a good hit, is pretty devastating to the recipient.   As far as I can tell, the only real drawback to using an AR is jury perception.  I was a bit shocked to learn in our seminar this past December (thank you Chip Cain) that studies have been done that clearly shows that juries tend to "dislike" ARs in SD shootings; apparently the perception that the AR is too mean. :)  So...if you ever do have to defend yourself and us an AR to do it and are charged, it might be a bit of a problem.  I'm not sure, however, that such a possibility is sufficient reason to not use an AR if you have one. ;)   I'm not taking anything away from the shotgun for HD purposes, and in fact I have on dedicated to that very purpose, but I would suggest that it's not the only great choice out there. Plus, as was pointed out, if you already have an AR there is little reason to "need" to go out and get a shotgun for HD..

Sorry to disappoint you Mike...I suppose we could start a "concealed vs open carry" thread if you want. :) ROTFLMAO

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  :hat:    I do think, however, that his isolationist view went beyond just not being willing to stop the genocide going on in Germany.  According to some who knew him best, Paul truly believes the United States didn't have any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. According to once source "he expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such".   Whether it was just the Jews he didn't care about or whether he really would have gladly let Hitler take Europe, this is one of those areas that I could and never will agree on with Paul...he was dead on when it came to fiscal policy but when it came to foreign policy I think he was a nutcase.

I see, so what you are saying is that not acting to save 6 million people and the millions more who almost certaintly would have perished Is supposed to be a better position?

I'm not so sure...he did say on the record, I believe that he would not have sent troops to fight the Nazis. Now whether he ultimately would or would not have had he been President at the time we can only conjecture but that's what he said.

I'm all for not interfering when it's appropriate but if you think our enemies are suddenly not going to be enemies any more because we stay home you are extremely short-sighted.   This non-participation in WW2 and the insinuation that the U.S. would somehow be better off and receive fewer attacks, etc. if we just mind our own business sounds like the kind of swill that Ron Paul has been trying to sell for years - such a foreign policy was crazy and dangerous then and it still is.

And, since he did not prevail, I cannot prove what the future would have held for the U.S. if Hitler had prevailed.   In any case, it's not my responsibility to "enlighten you" and even if it were, an internet forum is not the place to do it.   I don't mean to miss-characterize your meaning but your statements in this thread seem to endorse the U.S. pursuing a policy of non-intervention no matter the circumstances which I find rather short-sighted.

I don't see how this is true and/or how it applies here.   Certainly, it's true of some homosexuals want "the church" to change its stance on gays (marriage, clergy, etc.) but I don't believe that there is any large conspiracy going on to make that happen.  I'm not even sure it would matter if there was; after all, pick any 20 churches and you'll likely find 8 to 10 different opinions about homosexuals; , sometimes even within the same denomination!   I also don't see how this issue with the BSA has anything to do with getting into the church - first because the two largest Christian sects (LDS and Cathlotics) have already stated they don't have a problem with the change. Second, not all BSA groups are sponsored by/meet in a church. Finally, I don't see how a church continuing or not continuing a relationship with the BSA impacts the doctrine of the church???   Respectfully; I think a lot of people look at the fringe element of the homosexual community and assume what they see is true for the whole. Making that assumption is no more accurate than judging a Tea Party gathering based on the most radical fringe who show up or judging all "Christian churches" by looking only at the reprehensible acts of Westboro Baptist.

  If you actually want to learn, don't try to take a shortcut by depending on someone else to enlighten you - there is a plethora of information available covering all aspects of WW2, what led up to it and what happened following it as there is concerning other pivotal moments in our nation's history such as the first civil war (usually called the Revolutionary War), the years following our earning independence and the drafting of our founding documents, the War of 1812, the second civil war, and WW1. All are worthy of your time studying them.

I wasn't judging whether it was or wasn't an aberrant occurrence; I would suggest that is is or at the very least; it effects a small percentage of the population.   I was simply responding to the question/statement made by knewcomb.

I would suggest that the psychological impact of the two a-bombs probably had more influence on ending the war in the Pacific than the actual physical damage; great as it was.  Anyway, what one plane and one bomb could do to a city had to have been pretty sobering effect if it was your country/people on the receiving end of that kind of destructive power.

I'm not trying to provoke anything; I'm simply stating what I believe should be obvious which is that had Hitler not been stopped the millions of Jews he did massacre would have been just a drop in the bucket to what he would have done to the Jews and every other non-Aryan race.   I am not at all confident that the allies, U.S. included, could not have been defeated...about six months more breathing room at what became the end of the war to give them time to bring to bear some of the new weapons they were getting ready (such as a more powerful supersonic V2 and jet aircraft) and I believe you would or at least could have seen a very different outcome to the war.  Whether by luck or divine providence, the U.S. developed the bomb first and the German's offensive in December of 1944 was stopped because of some amazing things (Patton disengaging from one major front and moving his whole army in 48 hours to counter the German offensive being for one; not to mention some extremely brave men in Bastogne).  Even the U.S. developing the A-bomb first might not have been enough to save us since I'm not sure we could have developed enough or been willing to use them enough to have actually stopped the Axis powers.   Thankfully, we are free to discuss the possibilities rather than, perhaps, living in a different outcome.

I have to combat this very thing at home...I have at least one firearm in every room and I always keep them in the exact same place so that I don't have to "remember" when they are should I need one of them in a hurry...the only time they leave their "usual place" is when kids/guests are coming over or I'm leaving for a couple or more days (at which case they go back in the safe).

Just to be clear; are you equating "lust" with simple sexual attraction?  To me there is a significant difference between the two.   When I see a beautiful woman I have what I consider to be a very normal and largely instinctual/involuntary attraction to her sexually...that does not mean I'm fantasizing about having sex with her which I suggest is the difference between simple sexual "attraction" and sexual "lust/desire".   If a homosexual man sees a handsome man and has a sexual attraction, which for that homosexual man is a perfectly normal reaction; has he committed the sin of lust or is he, like the heterosexual man, just having a typical and largely instinctive/involuntary reaction?   I suggest that while "lust" is a sin, simple sexual attraction, whether opposite sex or same sex, is not a sin...it's what each person does WITH that attraction that really matters.

Well...I guess it just really sucks that you weren't born much earlier so you could have prevented all that.   :rolleyes: 

If you truly think that Hitler was no threat to the U.S. then I suggest you spend some time studying history.   As to your generation, well...you've done nothing I can see that can be considered wonderful and noble and in fact, all the things you cited as being the fault of the WW2 generation has happened in spades while your generation has been around.   If the entire WW2 generation is to be held responsible for legislation passed during their lives and their service to country during our country's gravest threat thrown aside as unimportant or unnecessary then any service to country during your generation's tenure is even less important and your entire generation should then be held responsible for all the trash legislation passed during your tenure.

Is it really so extraordinary that someone could be born with an innate attraction to the same sex?   If you are straight were you not "born that way"; with an innate attraction to the opposite sex?   Science may or may not ever uncover a genetic marker for homosexuality but I see no reason why it cannot exist.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)   1 Timothy 1:8-10 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)   The English language is woefully lacking in many way when compared to languages like Hebrew and Greek...I wonder, have you looked at the original language for words translated as "desires"? ;)   Anyway; if mere thoughts are sin, could anyone ever be saved?  I would suggest that if sexual desires = sin then Jesus could not have been without sin (and therefore not the Lamb of God and the perfect payment for our sin)!  It must be that way because EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US has desires that run afoul of God's laws.  Since these desires are always with us we would have to be considered to be n a constant state of sin and unrepentant (indeed I don't think it would even be possible to repent).   Likewise, Jesus, as a man, had the exact same desires in his heart as well (or he wasn't really a man at all)...if "desires" = "sin" then Jesus sinned.   Christians, and I am one, believe that Jesus never engaged in any sexual act during his life and that he was never married but one cannot ignore the natural desires that all of us feel; the natural sexual attraction of a heterosexual man for a woman.  What I'm suggesting is that if Jesus was "fully God AND fully human" he would have to have had the same sexual desires we all do. The Bible tells us that Jesus sympathizes with our weaknesses because He was in all points (not just some) tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). If he was tempted in all points then he was surely tempted sexually and the only way a person can be tempted sexually is if he has sexual desires in the first place.   Oh well...I'm done with this topic...I know that no one is going to change their mind. I left the Christian forums some time ago because I found that most folks didn't really want to delve into issues like this, they just believed what they believed.  That's okay but not very conducive to real discussion!   I will leave with this thought, however; actually, a question I asked earlier in the thread which is "how can a Christian ever minister the love of Christ to someone if that Christian truly believes that a person simply being attracted to the same sex is in sin, even without acting on the attraction?  If the same sex attraction is sin then can a homosexual ever be saved??? I wold think not but if that's the case it would seem to me the God made a mistake somewhere along the line and really sad for anyone who truly was born gay.     P.S. While I don't agree with your interpretation of the passages you posted; I do appreciate you taking the time to offer them.

I suspect that the millions of jews who would have been slaughtered had Hitler prevailed would not agree; not to mention every other "non-Aryan" race. 

Actually, if you refer to Catholic teaching and the scriptures I think you'll find that lust is more than simple desire.   If resting on what the Bible actually says rather than what some pastor once said about something is "splitting hairs" then so be it.

For some strange reason I suspect that even if 10 people here with divinity degrees contradicted your belief it wouldn't really matter. ;)

All I'm asking for is the scripture to back up the assertions that some are making; the assertion being that merely being a homosexual (which actually only truly means that the person is attracted to the same sex).   If the Bible really says that the mere attraction to the same sex is a "sin" then it shouldn't be that difficult to point out the scriptures that say so should it?

I put this in the same category as they guy who recently lost his carry piece on a ride at Disney World...none of us are immune from something like this but it's still 100% negligence on the part of the firearm owner.