Church To Hold Open Carry Gun Service
The New Bethel Church in Louisville is having what it’s calling an “open carry service” in late June. Parishioners will be encouraged to carry unloaded guns and enter a raffle to win a free gun while listening to patriotic songs and listening to talks by owners of gun stores and firing ranges. The event is being promoted with a poster showing a gun and red lettering that resembles dripping blood.
[Pastor Tom] Pagano said the poster wasn’t intended to glorify bloodshed and that the lettering was just “a fontthat somebody developed.”
The Rev. Jerry Cappel, president of the Kentuckiana Interfaith Community, makes a great point saying that in a church service “with one who explicitly called us to put down the sword and pick up the cross and love our enemies and turn the other cheek, it just makes no sense.”
Pagano says the event was prompted by concerns that President Obama will restrict gun rights.
These people should really stop calling themselves Christians. this is just ridiculous. Imagine what Jesus would do!! He freaked out about money-changers in the Temple. Now GUNS???
June 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
The picture is funny. The gun is the wrong kind( M16,AR15).223/5.56 type. He should be armed with no less than an AK 47 and he would look more realistic in full towel.
It appears to be full photoshop.
Richard Banville Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
“It appears to be full photoshop.”
Gee, what was your first clue?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Truly bizarre. I guess it is there right, more power to them. But in my opinion this just makes both gun owners and Christians look like wackos.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
And yes I know that the vast majority of both (gun owners and Christians) are not wackos.
average james Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Agreed.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
WWJD ??? ????
Seriously
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
He wouldn’t want someone taking away their free will for sure.
average james Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Yes, I agree.
I do not think he would approve of that.
Do you think he would approve of armed resistance ? Would he approve if it was not a life threatening infringement ?
I just want to know what the whole God and guns crew is motivated by.
It can’t be Christ and his kingdom first.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Motivated by earthly pursuits, not heavenly goals. Of course what do I know, I am an agnostic at best.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
What are the whole anti-God anti-guns crew motivated by?
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
ooo, oo, I know this one!
Respect for life!
average james Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Ya know,
These folks are obviously on the extreme end of things. This does not imply complicity on your part Bliss.
It’s a shame really that Christians will be stereotyped as a result of the extreme fringe. Myself included.
Kinda like the Muslims get the wack stereotype.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Never said that I was anti God or anti guns. Actually own a gun, and just because I am not sure if I believe in God does not mean I am against him.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
AJ
While many might see them as extreme, they are probably regular folks who are tired of being mocked (kinda like some posters do on this board daily) and don’t want to be told they don’t have the right to bear arms.
I would imagine a hundred years ago or so it was commonplace to carry to church. Especially out west. Do you think God judged those people any differently than he judges anyone?
craig7120 Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
and don’t want to be told they don’t have the right to bear arms.
that quoute is noted.
craig7120 Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
quote is hard to spell when eating a hotdog
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
That quote is noted?
average james Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Bliss,
A hundred years ago or so was a completly different world.
You wouldn’t have a say about anything.
You wouldn’t have a vote.
Wyatt Earp would have confiscated their guns at the city limt.
EricG Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
He would ….
Well you know I’m not supposed to do this….
But Jesus would take their guns away from them. For good. He would melt them down and commit ‘theft’ by taking all the weapons they had from them, not just the ones in the church.
Then he would ask them to promise before God to never handle a weapon of any sort ever again.
….
Fact is that Christianity is not an appealing religion to many Americans. They practice out of tradition and rote practice.
They have no interest in The Word. No interest in hearing The Call. They just want to follow around someone who ‘looks’ holy and be in the crowd.
Fact is, the ‘crowd’ doesn’t have an Christians in it. Just a lot of people saying his name.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Truly sick. Talk about “clinging to their guns and bibles”. There ya go.
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
hey, yeah, we can say that now that the elections over, can’t we?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Truly sick. Talk about “clinging” to preconceived notions about people who think differently than you do. Right, Epiphany?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Truly sick. Talk about American citizens engaging in activities whereby they invoke their constitutional rights. Right, Epiphany?
michael Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Nobody is questioning their right to engage in whatever looney political protest they want. But that’s all this is, a political protest. It really has nothing to do with Jesus or his teachings.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
blissful: you mean like the “free will” to murder, commit adultery and steal? Sure they have the free will to do whatever the hell they want, but that doesn’t mean God, or Jesus, approves.
*****
WWJD?
He would be there with a whip knocking those guns out of people’s hands and overturning the pews. Oh yes He would.
Desecration is what this is.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
You know that God disapproves of people carrying guns into church? Wow.
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
seriously. Have you ever even read the New Testament?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Hey sky
Would Jesus overturn a gurney with a woman on it about to have an abortion? I mean, since you brought up murder and all.
Carrying a gun doesn’t equal murder by the way.
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
funny how it always comes back to abortion…
Remember the “man without sin cast the first stone” story? I definitely think that is how Jesus would react to the woman on the gurney.
He seems to have a different reaction to what He considers mass disrespect to God/His house, and personal situations.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Sky
God’s house is our body. Our body is a temple. I am pretty sure he would have an issue with destroying a life he placed in his temple.
If he would react with his “cast the first stone” story to the woman on the gurney about to abort one of his creations I am sure he would have the same answer for you when judging others.
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Judging… look, I’m not judging Christians who choose to have guns. This story is about a pastor encouraging people to bring their guns to church.
I really truly believe that would outrage Jesus, the Prince of Peace. I think he would say, as he so clearly did in the aforementioned situation, that His house is a house of prayer. That is my specific issue here.
And I don’t dispute that He would discourage abortion.
And I’m not stoning anyone.
TDro319 Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“God’s house is our body. Our body is a temple. I am pretty sure he would have an issue with destroying a life he placed in his temple”
There ya go, Sky. It’s okay to kill someone AFTER they’re born, because they’re no longer “in the temple”.
Daddio Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Our body is a temple. The house of God is a place where Christians worship God. God’s house is called the Kingdom of Heaven.
Every human is considered a temple. To destroy that temple while in the womb is a grave sin in the eyes of God. To murder that temple outside the womb is a grave sin in the eyes of God. If that temple is destroyed while war fighting for a just cause, such as fighting evil, it is not sinful in God’s eyes.
TDro319 Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
” If that temple is destroyed while war fighting for a just cause, such as fighting evil, it is not sinful in God’s eyes.”
Oh that’s RICH!!! It’s okay to kill your fellow man as long as the reason is just!
Do you mean like a crusade? Bush once referred to the Iraq war as a crusade.
And just who decides what constitutes a “just” war? Bush? Cheney? Give me a break!!
June 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
You think He doesn’t?
Wow.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Sky
I am sure you are one of the liberals who mocked Bush for saying God spoke to him. Now you claim to know what God would say or do?
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Well, I base my opinion on His past statements.
And as far as God speaking to Bush… well, I don’t think it’s the same God, let’s put it that way.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Uh huh. So you are the end all when it comes to conversations with God?
Now tell me….which commandment says though shalt not carry a gun?
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
remember when i asked if you had read the NEW testament? no commandments there, oh except to love God and your brother… which probably doesn’t include KILLING them… which is what guns are used for… killing.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Sky,
Can a car be used for killing? What about knives? swords? poison? Anything can be used as a weapon.
Have you read the new testament??? That whole revelation thing is kinda rough. Did you make it that far?
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:24)
Paul taught that it is okay for properly elected authority to use force to keep order.
John the Baptist NEVER told the soldiers they should quit their jobs.
Jesus taught that a king should have the proper resources to win a war, not just capitulate.
Just to name a few.
What did he say to Peter when he cut off the soldiers ear?
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
oh, yeah, remember how he put the ear BACK?
Paul actually said fear God, honor the King, not “properly elected authority”
john the Baptist… I don’t even know how to respond to that one.
Jesus said nothing about kings and wars, I think you made that up.
Look, I think we have very different interpretations here.
Anyway, mine are right ;)
Kregg Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Sky said: And as far as God speaking to Bush… well, I don’t think it’s the same God, let’s put it that way.
K: You may be right. Allah may been speaking to BO…
June 4th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Live by the gun, die by the gun.
RDM Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Live by the gun, die by the gun.
I like that CRH3E.
I really don’t think Jesus ever saw or heard of a gun. Maybe he was against round smooth flat river rocks?
Every man should carry two guns or knives. One every body knows about; used freely and openly, plus one nobody else knows about.
If your scared of guns, say for Home defense, then how about a fire extinguisher. ‘ Squirt ‘em with the white foam, then hit ‘em with the red can’. Tools of the trade come in many forms.
crh3e Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Your reply assumes my message was antigun but it wasn’t. Guns are not a bad thing in and of themselves. Jesus told Peter, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword” upon being arrested in the garden of Gethsemane. His message to Peter was if you want to live by the “sword” i.e. the rules of this world go ahead, you’ll “die” by the same thing. “Die” in this passage can mean more than one thing. I believe he was urging Peter to put the sword up and live by the “son.” That way Peter wouldn’t “die” but in fact would live forever in the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus preached and tought about. Peace
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
well said…
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Live by cholesterol, die by cholesterol. Live by cigarettes, die by cigarettes.
crh3e Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
You fail to differentiate between “bad” and “good” cholesterol.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I think Jesus would tell the woman who has developed kidney failure and serious heart problems from lupus erythematosis, OR the one who developed an aggressive cancer or has suffered fetal demise, that she should buck up, and take her chances…..then he would shoot up the clinic with his AK 47.
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
oh, right. sorry, what was I thinking? ;)
OldLefty Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I know for a fact in the Catholic hospital where my mother, myself and my husband were on staff, no one would do a D&E. they would at the university hospital.
There is preeclampsia with kidney failure, and one woman who went to tiller was carrying a fetus with PUV, that by the time the severity was diagnosed she was 27 weeks and , termination was no longer an option in New York State.
Kansas law permits late-term abortions when two independent doctors agree that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed by giving birth.
I think that what Tiller did was more involved than the bumper stickers or talk radio indicated.
I’m glad I have never been on either end to have to judge, and I’m sorry that you are so quick to pass judgment.
There are probably only three clinics because nobody wants the death threats.
One might ask why after your GW Bush, and your conservative court and republican congress is it still legal, if it’s so horrible and just for convenience?
Good night.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Old
Do catholics generally believe in birth control, much less abortion?? ANd how many years ago was that? 20 or more?
If by PUV you mean posterior urethral valve disorder, there are treatments for that….not sure why you think that is a medical necessity for an abortion??
I think you mean there CAN be kidney failure with preeclampsia, but it doesn’t always occur.
As far as preeclampsia goes: it depends on when it is diagnosed, but just to make you feel better from the mayo clinic:
“Most women with preeclampsia deliver healthy babies. The more severe your preeclampsia and the earlier it occurs in your pregnancy, however, the greater the risks for you and your baby. Preeclampsia may require induced labor and delivery by Caesarian section.”
There might only be 3 clinics because most doctors find it grossly reprehensible to take the life of an unborn child that is totally viable.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Old
that is a tired, simple, totally left- I mean far left answer. You are putting anti-abortion people like me in the same category as someone who shoots a person?? Well, then I should put you in the same category as the underground bombers or the guy who shot reagan…right??
If the fetus is dead there is no termination of life. You will not admit that MOST abortions are NOT medically necessary. period. They are for convenience of the woman.
Emergency c-sections are done everyday in this country for medical emergencies. Babies that weigh less than 16oz. are viable with our technology. So stop using that as an excuse for most abortions. K?
OldLefty Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Not “K”.
blissfulconservative,
I’m not the one who brought abortion into the guns in church debate.
Even when the fetus is dead, many hospitals are afraid to do D&E, and tell the woman to wait, or go to a clinic like Dr Teller’s.
The point is YOU have NO idea what are the reasons for later term abortions, so stop using your moral superiority as an excuse to pass judgment on others whom you don’t know.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
OLD LEFTY,
YOU have NO idea what are the reasons for later term abortions
Actually, I do have a pretty good idea:
Apparently 80% of all late-term/partial birth abortions are elective…meaning no medical reason for procuring the abortion.
Let me know if you want me to give you the link…or if you’d prefer to do the homework yourself.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
hey Old I have been present when the fetus has passed and the procedure is done. I have never seen a woman transferred from a hospital to a clinic for a surgical procedure like that. There would be too much risk involved in transferring a woman already admitted to a hospital from the hospital to an outlying clinic. I have never heard them tell the woman to “wait”. Infection can set up. Know someone personally who miscarried at 4 months…guess where she went?? THE HOSPITAL.
Yes I do have an idea why they are done. Read the literature before you post your opinion as fact. most abortions are for convenience, not medical purposes.
You explain to me WHY only 3 clinics offered what tiller did? Why doesn’t EVERY dr. offer the procedure? Doesn’t take a lot of brain cells to figure that one out.
You darn right I brought it in, based on what someone else posted.
average james Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Actually Bliss,
You brought it up.
June 4th 2009 8:33 pm.
Sarah Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
You will not admit that MOST abortions are NOT medically necessary. period. They are for convenience of the woman.
Actually, that’s probably true, but “convenience” is a pretty callous, discompassionate and naive characterization. It’s also probably not just for “the woman” (who all anti-abortionists like to tar and feather, as if she got HERSELF pregnant). She might have other children to feed and care for, and the guy who got her pregnant might be a total deadbeat.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Sarah said: Actually, that’s probably true, but “convenience” is a pretty callous, discompassionate and naive characterization.
K: So, lets just call elective abortion ‘expedient’ which the dictionary defines as – “a means of attaining an end, esp. one that is convenient but considered improper or immoral”.
S: It’s also probably not just for “the woman” (who all anti-abortionists like to tar and feather, as if she got HERSELF pregnant).
K: It takes two to tango, and men are just as responsible for their actions – and the results – as are women.
S: She might have other children to feed and care for,
K: Watch out, we’re getting back to the convenience thing which the dictionary defines as – ” a thing that contributes to an easy and effortless way of life…”
S: and the guy who got her pregnant might be a total deadbeat.
K: Why would a woman spread her legs for a guy who is a total deadbeat, ESPECIALLY with the known risk that she might get pregnant? This I don’t understand…
Sarah Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Kregg, unfortunately, it’s none of our business why a woman would engage in sexual relations with a deadbeat, even though it’s a good question, certainly. But it’s a question along the lines of, why do people engage in sex without contraceptives, if they don’t want kids.
The horse is out of the barn, so to speak. He was dumb enough to impregnate her, she was dumb enough to get pregnant (we’re only referring to abortion-as-birth-control instances here).
If we want to say, clinically, most abortions are “convenient” or “expedient,” it’s a way to describe it detachedly so that no sympathy or compassion is extended for the woman getting one.
It’s more than the callous-sounding “convenience” that drives a woman to make what’s often a heart-wrenching decision.
Fox News says “Most are under 25 years old and unmarried. Women who are separated from their husbands and poor women are more likely to choose abortion than other women.”
She’s in an inconvenient spot, whatever she does. The man, however, is only inconvenienced if she has the kid and presses him for support, paying lawyers thousands of dollars for limited success.
If she has other kids, they’ll probably be inconvenienced by having to share limited parenting and food, clothing and shelter resources.
Taxpayers loudly scream about being inconvenienced by tax dollars spent on welfare programs.
It’s all a sad situation, to be sure, but again– if more anti-abortion people pooled their resources to adopt so many of these children who “escaped” abortion, they might have a better shot of making it illegal again.
Although, if it didn’t happen during the Bush administration, I’m not sure what it would take.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Sarah said: Kregg, unfortunately, it’s none of our business why a woman would engage in sexual relations with a deadbeat, even though it’s a good question, certainly. But it’s a question along the lines of, why do people engage in sex without contraceptives, if they don’t want kids.
K: Sarah, at some point it HAS to become ‘our business’ if a certain segment of the population is going to continue to do inhumane things to their unborn fetuses – whether out of stupidity, ignorance, indifference or any other reason – because these things affect us collectively as a society.
S: If we want to say, clinically, most abortions are “convenient” or “expedient,” it’s a way to describe it detachedly so that no sympathy or compassion is extended for the woman getting one.
K: I don’t know anyone on this board that could not sympathize with a woman in this position and all would probably show a great deal of empathy and compassion for a person in this situation but that does not reduce the need for we as a society to establish limits to what we accept as reasonable behavior – and the killing of the unborn has got to be right at the bottom of reasonableness.
OldLefty Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I’m sorry, but I have my own sources, especially when half of my family are doctors or nurses.
The number of late term abortions are 1.4%, they are illegal except for the life or health of the mother and many actually wanted the baby…..I don’t think it is anyone else’s business.
And elective just means not an emergency….can be done next week, the case of cancer or a dead fetus, or oncoming infection, or ancephaly.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
OLD LEFTY,
I can’t believe the extent to which you’d justify the termination of a late-term fetus.
1.4%???? I’d LOVE to see that study.
Here’s one that I’ve found:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, “420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks.” These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said “a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy,” compared to 71% who responded “did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation,” 48% who said “found it hard to make arrangements,” and 33% who said “was afraid to tell her partner or parents.” The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems.
I showed you mine…now show me yours
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“Half my family are doctors and nurses” when I post I actually post based on studies, etc. Not just my personal opinion. Your family of doctors and nurses could be as liberal as you and base their numbers on opinion for all I know.
You don’t think it’s anyone’s business WHY a woman abortsa baby late term? And once again…if a woman can hang out and go to an abortion clinic how often is it a “medical” emergency?
What kind of infection? Lots of women get infections when pregnant and they don’t have an abortion. They get meds.
A hospital cannot diagnose a woman like that, release her when she needs a procedure, send her somewhere else at her convenience. Do you realize the liability with that? they aren’t admitted,diagnosed, dismissed and keep your fingers crossed that she doesn’t walk around for two weeks and then go septic.
OldLefty Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
JaredfromTexas,
This is old, it’s been on wiki since forever.
So 22% of those in the 4th month. How many did not have access to care or were raped by Daddy, which prevented them from getting there early?
So YOU have the right to be the one to pass judgment?
Would you rather the girls die, because for whatever reason many are desparate.
You don’t want to help pay for them , you don’t want gays to adopt them….
Remember these are not “late term” which are NOT legal except for the life or health of the mother
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
OLD LEFTY,
So YOU have the right to be the one to pass judgment?
No more so than you think you do.
By the way…how much time/money/effort do you offer for those who cannot afford for themselves?
I’m still waiting on your “studies”.
OldLefty Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 7:48 am
My final word on the subject, as I become less and less conv1nced that there is really more concern for the embryo or fetus as there is a need to feel holier than thou, (especially with men).
blissfulconservative ,said,
“when I post I actually post based on studies, etc. Not just my personal opinion. Your family of doctors and nurses could be as liberal as you and base their numbers on opinion for all I know.”
………………………………………..
EVERYBODY says that. Why should anybody think that YOUR posts are based on anything other than personal opinion?
Again, Kansas’ post-viability abortion restriction provides that no abortion may be performed after viability unless the attending physician and another financially and legally independent physician determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve the woman’s life or continuation of the pregnancy would cause a “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” of the woman. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-6703(a) (Enacted 1992; Last Amended 1998).
So many rare conditions, (including incest), like, twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome with Maternal Mirror Syndrome, In the case of intrauterine fetal death, there is Severe shoulder dystocia, uterine dehiscence, (where there is already scarring from previous C section, endomyometritis, development of DIC…..
From OBG Management:
Complaining of decreased fetal movement and cramping, a 36-year-old gravida with a prior cesarean presented to a hospital with a fever. A sonogram revealed fetal demise. Labor induction was scheduled for 5 days later, and the patient was sent home.
Two days later, the woman returned to the hospital with pain and bleeding, but was sent home and instructed to return for the scheduled induction. That same night, however, she once again presented, demanding the fetus be delivered. Blood tests revealed a white blood cell count of 9,900 with 88.7% neutrophils.
All this is very rare, but I will not be the one to judge for others.
As for JaredfromTexas…”So YOU have the right to be the one to pass judgment?”
The point is, I am NOT passing judgment: I am leaving it up to the families and the doctors.
Sarah Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Actually, Jared, Fox News’ abortion statistics state:
“Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks’ gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks’ gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks’ gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.”
June 4th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Religious extremism + guns = epic disaster
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Who says they are religous extremists???
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
me
June 4th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Which Gospel states that you have a right to carry a gun?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I think the entire Bible talks about free will Lily. Which gospel says you DON’T have the right to carry a gun? Remember, we aren’t a theocracy and government isn’t supposed to get involved with churches….that whole separation thing.
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Yet you are trying to force government and church together.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
How?
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Right to bear arms (government) in a church (religion). Just the way I see it, is all.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Lily
We live in a country where our right to bear arms is guaranteed. Our right to religous freedom is also guaranteed. If I want to go to church (freedom) and carry a weapon (freedom) what business is it of yours OR the governments?
If the government RESTRICTED what you could carry to church the government would be interferring with the ability of ones to practice their religion and their right to bear arms freely.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I don’t think Jesus would have an issue with a bunch of people exercising their constitutional rights to gather peacefully while exercising another constitutional right to bear arms, while exercising yet another constitutional right to free speech.
Perhaps you left-wingers would like to explain how you think these people shouldn’t be afforded these rights?
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Anybody here say they don’t have the right? Just because we state our opinion about not liking it does not mean we want to take away there right to do it. There right to mix guns and church, my right to say it is a bizarre mix that troubles me.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
You have the right to say it’s weird, you aren’t saying they don’t have the right to do it. Some want to take their right away.
Just look at Lily’s post for example. Course there are others who want to ban guns across the board.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Fair enough
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
PLACE,
Why does people exercising their constitutional rights “trouble” you. If anything…we should be applauding these people for feeling free to exercise their rights.
Instead of calling it troubling…why not call it an amazing display of the citizenry?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
You worded it better than I did. I really have the feeling that many on the left want to head toward fascism and totalitarianism.
Um Cara Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Instead of calling it troubling…why not call it an amazing display of the citizenry?
Oh, it’s amazing all right.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I find it troubling because,
Religion has a tendency to bring out the extremes in peoples emotions and reactions in some cases.
Guns can bring about the extreme results from peoples reactions. I don’t know anything about this church, they may be being taught the love your neighbor as yourself and the turn the other cheek parts of the Bible. But they may be being taught the parts of the Bible that motivate people to violent actions.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
You worded it better than I did. I really have the feeling that many on the left want to head toward fascism and totalitarianism.
Bliss,
There are people on both the left and the right that lean towards fascism and totalitarianism, just different flavors of them. These ideas are not limited to either side of the political spectrum and are equaly as scary either way.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
PLACE,
Religion has a tendency to bring out the extremes in peoples emotions and reactions in some cases
You could say the same about gangsta rap and violent video games…couldn’t you?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
You could also say the same about people who hate religion.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Yes you could. Troubling as well. Do not want to take away peoples right to either of them either though.
placefield Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I have no religion but I don’t hate it. To people who hate religion, that kind of becomes there own religion in a way.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Agreed. I think the answer…to both…are tighter distribution (type/amount)restrictions.
average james Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:02 am
That which is lawful is not necessarily good.
Jared and Bliss,
Would you have a problem with an abortion sevice at a Wicca ceremony ??
They are both constitutionally backed rights.
Would you call them extreme or wacked ?
I would.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“The Rev. Jerry Cappel, president of the Kentuckiana Interfaith Community, makes a great point saying that in a church service “with one who explicitly called us to put down the sword and pick up the cross and love our enemies and turn the other cheek, it just makes no sense.”
Why do gun totin’ Bible thumpin’ Christains disrespect Rev. Cappel?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Why do you care? Do you go to that church?
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Why do you care what I post? Don’t I have a right to say it, even if the Bible doesn’t tell me I do? Or is it only “Pastor Tom” who can tell me what I’m allowed to do?
This has to be the funniest topic Alan has ever posted.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
nah…the funniest is the one he did on that guy in the parking lot with his blow-up dolls…
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Why do you care what I post or what other people do in their own church? You didn’t answer me. How am I trying to force government and religion together?
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
You may be right insofar as the blog post itself. But the comments are this one are priceless. My sides are hurting.
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Blissful, I noticed you didn’t answer the question I asked you yesterday in the NH/gay marriage thread.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
What question?
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Read your posts under my first comment.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
You have a lot of nerve. You ask me if I have a gender identity problem? where do you get off? Is that what you resort to when you get called for an assinine comment you make? You resort to a personal slander?
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I asked a question. I certainly didn’t accuse you. You kept saying yesterday that we didn’t know you. I’m trying to get an idea where you’re coming from.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
You had no reason to ask me that whatsoever Lily. You were inferring something that I consider to be a personal slander.
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Some of the comments you’ve made prompted the question. But how is anyone supposed to get to know you if we can’t ask questions?
And really, you shouldn’t take it as slander. People do have identity problems and they shouldn’t be stigmatized for it.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
You are full of it. I have never made a comment that would lead you to believe that I have a gender identity problem. Every post I have ever made is true to my core beliefs….which include the belief that homosexuality is a sin.
Try your tactics with someone else.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
LILY,
Your perceived disrespect notwithstanding…these people have the RIGHT to do what they’re doing.
To the left-wing zealots who are harping about “those wacky christians” – You have the right to your opinion as do these people have the right to bear arms.
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Why is what “Pastor Tom” says more important than what Rev. Cappel says?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
It isn’t…it’s just that you chose to quote Cappel, and then asked where the disrespect came from.
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
But you don’t agree with Cappel, and apparently most Christians on this site don’t either. I’m curious as to why that is?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I never said I don’t agree with Cappel. I’m just saying that we cannot limit rights ad hominum when we feel there’s a perceived conflict of interest.
i.e. Christianity and guns
craig7120 Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Jared brother that remark to Lily about disrespect is somewhat bothersome. You and I have had discussions, nothing I would say disrespectful right?
But calling another poster under another title is somewhat disrespectful wouldnt you say? others do the same and this poster has said more than once they didnt like it.
For instance Ive called Trees (tap) he said he prefers Trees and I obliged. Can you and the others uphold the respectful issue? since you used the respectful card.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
CRAIG,
Perhaps you misunderstood.
I didn’t call LILY anything other than her screenname.
Scroll up to the top of this thread and you’ll see that LILY said: “Why do gun totin’ Bible thumpin’ Christains disrespect Rev. Cappel?”
This is where my comment about her perceived disrespect came from.
Honest mistake, I’m sure. But I’m sure you’ll be a bit more careful in the future.
craig7120 Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Oh I understand completely Jared. You cant call someone disrespectful and not practice it. ur forgiven.
craig7120 Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
well u can but it makes you look bad… but carry on
craig7120 Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Jared let me clarify, Lily is not the poster that you have given a ‘lil’ pet name.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
OOOHHHH…You must mean little ERIC, right?
Yes, I call him “little”. Not to say he’s a little person…but his constant elementary diatribe showcases how “little” he thinks of his political opponents; how “little’ thought he puts into his tirades; how “little” effort he uses to engage in a mature discussion…
If there were ever a deserving moniker…this is it.
I’ve said this a couple of times…there are two of him. One is the jacka$$ who seems to think they more infantile comment he makes the more credibility he’ll gain…then there’s the other who engages in constructive dialogue. I call the former “little ERIC”…I call the latter “ERIC”.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
CRAIG,
Read the post before you reply. I never said anyone was being disrepectful.
YOU are forgiven.
craig7120 Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
LOL dude im just saying, u seem like a cool dude who likes to engage. And personally it makes ‘lil’ difference on how you cast your stones but I had to call ya on the disrespectful statement.
Be safe in one of my fav. states in the Union.
Craig
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
CRAIG,
I’m still at a loss as to the disrespectful statement that you continue to refer to.
Copy and paste it in your next post for me.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
In order to increase the gun fun at the church they could also have a target shoot. Post pictures of gays, pro-choice folks, and any liberal and practice shooting these destroyers of the christian faith. Jesus would approve.
Lily Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
And waterboarding! Don’t forget that.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
UPDATE: White sheets and pointy hats will be passed out at the door. Nooses and knives are optional.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
MONTANA,
Yet another breathtaking example of your infantile thought process. Congratulations on perpetuating your imbicilic ideology.
Montana Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
You’re welcome. Makes me feel good that I am being recognized for my clever wit. You’all have a good day now ya hear.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Did I miss something?
average james Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:08 am
The white sheets and pointy hats crew would only be practicing their constitutional rights.
What’s the problem Jared ?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
JAMES,
No problem with the gathering of people…not at all. My problem was MONTANA implying that these people are part of the KKK. Obviously a cheap and elementary dig at Christians.
That’s the problem.
It’s pretty sad when I have to justify my comments as retort while not one of you libs will stand up and tell MONTANA he can take his racist/ignorant diatribe and take a hike. Sad indeed.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
You all know where I stand.. LOL knock yourselves out over this issue.
I will add I dont see a difference between what the christians want and the taliban has already accomplished. If they want to carry a gun in a church who cares. Now if they start recruiting by gun point I will take a stand.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
CRAIG,
Now if they start recruiting by gun point I will take a stand
Then I’ll expect you’ll be up in arms with the store owner in NY who converted a man to islam at gunpoint. Watch the video…it’s all there.
craig7120 Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Wad up Jared,
Yeah I guess my point wasnt clear, my bad. The taliban already does this, recruit by gun point. Now again if the xtians start using this method of enrollment there is gonna be a problem. Some would like to see the U.S. become a xtian theocracy, would you?
See I support our second admendment. Also supported the SC ruling not to long ago regarding the right of individuals.
Now back to the point of xtains wanting to carry weapons/guns inside their church, go ahead but I can see a problem developing. When does a church stop being a house of worship and just some social club? That tax exempt status might be in jeopardy. But hey thats how Ive viewed religion for sometime a club (literally n figuratively).
Kregg Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Craig said: But hey thats how Ive viewed religion for sometime a club (literally n figuratively).
K: Unfortunately some treat church as a country club for saints when it is supposed to be a hospital for sinners…
June 4th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
This whole dustup is an unfortunate misunderstanding.
The Bible-thumpers didn’t mean to throw an “open carry” church service.
They meant to throw an “open container” church service. Beer + a sermon. Now, that’s MY kind of church.
sky Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
oh. well. I take it all back then. ;)
June 4th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Pastor Ken looks like a man who likes his beer.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
If you don’t like the law on abortion, try to change the law, or move to Texas and secede from the union, or just go away and die because you’re committing mass murder of the mind by rehashing all these ancient arguments that were discredited back before your so-called “bible” was even written.
Jesus with guns. That’s Christianity like bin Laden practices Islam. It’s bull crap for the brain dead.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:06 am
This should have happened years ago!
June 5th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Thanks for a wonderful post. When I wrote about this today I couldn’t find the poster, so I edited my post to include a link back here. After seeing the letters actually dripping blood, it’s clear what kind of guy we’re dealing with. Besides on the video, he said the guns are mainly for “sport” and only as a last resort for “self defense.” I guess that’s a lame attempt to appease those who ask what would Jesus think.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:05 am
I am reading through the aove threads and am questioning “Where are the people who actually know Jesus are?” Yike!
First, this idea of an “open carry service” is pure foolishness and idolatry. The idol being gun ownership and the fear of losing it. Is that church’s focus on the worship of God, Almighty or is it on guns?
The Scriptures plainly teach that God does not share His glory with another and find such idolatry detestable. In this case, the idol being worshipped is gun ownership.
How would Jesus respond to this nonsense? It is very likely Jesus would trash the place and firmly rebuke these people for such behaviors. Take a good look at what Jesus did to the moneychangers in John and Matthews. It is also in Luke, I think.
Do we have a right to defend ourselves and to have a gun? Yes, we do have such a right and it is God given. For the atheists, it is sometimes called a natural right. However, it is not supposed to be elevated to the status of idol worship!
Now for the foolish talk of Jesus and a pregnant woman who is suffering terribly and has to face the ugly choice of abortion. Here is what Jesus would actually do. He would would have compassion for the pregnant woman and just heal her.
average james Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Barry,
Thanx for the sane Christian conservative post.
I was begining to lose heart. I want to believe that the conservatives(at least on this site) would see this for what is. This is so completely off. To rally people around God and then tie God to gun ownership, as in He approves, is truly bizarre.
I believe this what is implied in “Thou shalt not use the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.—JC
God’s house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of gun rights activists.—AJ
June 5th, 2009 at 7:52 am
you had such a good post going Barry…
I have no idea what you mean by that last sentence, but if you are suggesting what I think you are saying, I have no idea where you would get that impression.
babies are not diseases.
BarryB Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:24 am
I was talking about women suffering from cancer or some other such things and pregnant too. It is issues that would force a woman to possibly choose abortion.
I know babies aren’t disease.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
June 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Why is Jesus always portrayed as a white guy? And for that matter, Santa Claus???
placefield Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I believe Saint Nicholas was German or Dutch so that answers that question. As for Jesus, the image he is portrayed as was invented in Europe during the middle ages. Isn’t very historically accurate though is it?
BarryB Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:22 am
As for Santa Claus, I think it has more to do with where Nicholas, the toymaker came from. I think he originally lived in Europe.
Yes folks, there really was a Saint Nicholas who was behind the legend of Santa Claus.
There was another gy who was the Archbishop in Turkey, I have no idea about him.
BarryB Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Oops, I meant “guy” and not “gy”.
Sarah Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Nope, St. Nick wasn’t a white guy. He was Turkish. And he resurrected little kids who had been slain and thrown in a pickle barrel.
He also provided the dowries for three daughters of a destitute man, dropping three bags of gold down their chimney, or some-such.
That’s why pawnbrokers have the three balls as their logo, and why St. Nick’s their patron saint.
Just call me Cliff Claven.
placefield Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Interesting, good to know. Did he morph into the Santa Claus legend in Europe though?
BarryB Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I am not familiar with images of Jesus, from the 1800s or earlier. However, I’d say it has something to do with what seen in the movies and such. The Robert Powell movie is a good example. I had originally pictured Jesus with reddish brown hair and blue eyes and looking kind of white. Didn’t know or take into account basic facts of life in a desert region.
Another reason may well have to do with self identification. I’ve been to some black churches. I notice some artworks showing Jesus as an African. I’m sure some Hispanic churches has Jesus looking somewhat Hispanic.
We simply want Jesus to look somewhat like ourselves; as this makes it easier to believe that our Great High Priest can indeed identify with us.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:29 am
If you go to a black church he is black, if you go to a caucasian church he is caucasian. Muslims don’t have images of what they think God (which is also Jesus in human form) looks like but if they did he would probably look just like they do.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:56 am
This is really nothing more or nothing less than a political rally.
average james Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Exactly,
A political rally, with God’s approval(supposedly).
A radical departure from the church’s purpose, and an a blatant missuse of a place of worship.
TDro319 Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I don’t go to church so I really don’t care. But I say let them bring the ammo along with the weapons. If they want to have a shoot-out, let them keep it in the church and not outside.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
A recent email someone sent to me. Have NOT checked it’s veracity…
“You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump
outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and
nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
whispers. At least two people have broken
into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down
beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then
inch toward the door and open it. In the
darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a
crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it
as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and
fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the
floor. One writhes and screams while the
second man crawls to the front door and
lurches outside. As you pick up the
telephone to call police, you know you’re
in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed
years before, and the few that are privately
owned are so stringently regulated as to
make them useless. Yours was never
registered. Police arrive and inform you
that the second burglar has died. They
arrest you for First Degree Murder and
Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you
talk to your attorney, he tells you not to
worry: authorities will probably plea the
case down to manslaughter.
What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.
“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as
if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and
you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead
story in the local newspaper. Somehow,
you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante
while the two men you shot are represented
as choirboys. Their friends and relatives
can’t find an unkind word to say about
them. Buried deep down in the article,
authorities acknowledge that both “victims”
have been arrested numerous times. But
the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable
Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The
thieves have been transformed from career
criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the
international media. The surviving burglar
has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing
to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media
publishes reports that your home has been
burglarized several times in the past and
that you’ve been critical of local police for
their lack of effort in apprehending the
suspects. After the last break-in, you told
your neighbor that you would be prepared
next time.. The District Attorney uses this
to allege that you were lying in wait for
the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The
charges haven’t been reduced, as your
lawyer had so confidently predicted. When
you take the stand, your anger at the
injustice of it all works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a
mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long
for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth,
Norfolk , England , killed one burglar
and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he
was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one’s
own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This
seemingly reasonable law forbade selling
pistols to minors or felons and established
that handgun sales were to be made only
to those who had a license. The Firearms
Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include
not only handguns but all firearms except
shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967
outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the
registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation
began in earnest after the Hungerford mass
shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally
disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle,
walked down the streets shooting everyone
he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people
were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized
by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded
even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of
all privately owned handguns was the
objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic
weapon to murder 16 children and a
teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed
all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse,
criminals. Now the press had a real kook
with which to beat up law-abiding gun
owners. Day after day, week after week,
the media gave up all pretense of objectivity
and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,
sealed the fate of the few sidearms still
owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British
government incrementally took away most
gun rights, the notion that a citizen had
the right to armed self-defense came to be
seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to
grant gun licenses to people who were
threatened, claiming that self-defense was
no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or
rapists were charged while the real criminals
were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police
spokesman was quoted as saying, “We
cannot have people take the law into their
own hands..”
All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed
numerous times, and several elderly people
were severely injured in beatings by young
thugs who had no fear of the consequences..
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had
seen most of his collection trashed or stolen
by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens
who owned handguns were given three
months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people
obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were
visited by police and threatened with
ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t
comply. Police later bragged that they’d
taken nearly 200,000 handguns from
private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had
handguns? The guns had been registered
and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR
FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
“..It does not require a majority to prevail,
but rather an irate, tireless minority keen
to set brush fires in people’s minds..”
–Samuel Adams
Lily Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Do not interpret this as if I’m claiming it’s not true (I definitely am not), but why would you post it without checking it’s validity?
That being said, there’s additional piece of information:
“On 28 July 2003, Martin was released after serving a total of three years of his five year sentence, the maximum period for which he could be held following good behaviour.”
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Lily said: but why would you post it without checking it’s validity?
K: Because I didn’t want to raise the standards of the board unnecessarily…
Sarah Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Ah… Cheap shot. You struck a nerve, Lil.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Sarah said: Ah… Cheap shot. You struck a nerve, Lil.
K: Naw, I just didn’t want to spoil the comic genius of the punchline with a smiley face. Actually, I didn’t want to take the time to fact check it. My bad, but the point was pertinent. Sorry Lily – you’re right… ;-)
Sarah Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Everyone always gives their smiley faces noses. I choose to create mine nose-less. It saves a lot of time. That, and skipping fact-checking (bah– who needs it?!).
:)
Lily Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
One of my pet peeves is to see people forward e-mail to everyone on their list without fact checking. I see it every day, and I’ve gotten to the point where I automatically DISbelieve what’s in the e-mail until I can verify its truth. With good reason, as it stands at about 2% true, 98% false. Yet people continue to forward these, and sometimes the same people receive it 2, 3, 4 times. By that time, most believe it must be true cause they’ve read it 2,3, and 4 times.
TDro319 Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Who’s taking away your gun, Kregg. I say you can keep it – as long as you don’t live by me.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
TD said: Who’s taking away your gun, Kregg. I say you can keep it – as long as you don’t live by me.
K: I”m the safest neighbor you could have, TD…
TDro319 Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Not if you’re holding a killing machine, Kregg.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I drive one everyday. However, in my hands its simply a transportation device. The same with guns…
Sarah Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Your kids ride an AK-47 to school?
Or are you talking about a vehicle, which was designed for the singular purpose of transporting people and things (as opposed to a gun, which is designed for the singular purpose of killing people, or scaring people with the threat that they will be killed).
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Sarah said: Your kids ride an AK-47 to school?
K: Yup… its rough out here.
S: Or are you talking about a vehicle, which was designed for the singular purpose of transporting people and things (as opposed to a gun, which is designed for the singular purpose of killing people, or scaring people with the threat that they will be killed).
K: Oh, so NOT true. Racing, car shows, RVing, etc. disprove that the sole purpose of a car is singular utility. Same with guns…
flap Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Tylenol was designed for pain relief and anti-inflammation but take a bottle and you’re DEAD. There are all sorts of ways to create death around us. Guns just help us fight against other idiots with guns.
If I could design a world with no guns, I would. Since there are guns, we gotta make sure there are lots of them and everybody has them. Sad but true.
I personally own several rocket launchers and RPGs. You know, just in case a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman overstays his welcome.
RDM Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I am the .22 your momma warned you about.
TDro319 Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“Your kids ride an AK-47 to school?”
Now Sara. It’s very important that everybody carry a loaded firearm with them especially if they’re driving. I mean, if someone cuts you off on the freeway, you wanna take him out right then and there before you have a chance to cool down.
TDro319 Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
K: “Oh, so NOT true. Racing, car shows, RVing, etc. disprove that the sole purpose of a car is singular utility. Same with guns…”
So what else would you use a gun for?
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
TD said: So what else would you use a gun for?
K: Plinking, hunting, target shooting, contests involving same.
RDM Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Kregg…from a friend of mine. Haven’t checked it out but it’s interesting.
GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————————————-
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armeniams, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————————————-
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————————————–
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————————————–
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————————————–
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————————————-
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It’s been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new laws to surrender firearms. Cost to destroy, more than 500 million dollars. First year results are now in: homicides are up 3.2%, assaults are up 8.6%, armed robberies are up 44%( yes, 44%). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300%.
It appears while law abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ’subjects’.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I”ve seen the Australian figures verified. England is another country becoming embarrassed by their gun grab as their armed crime figures are going up also. I wonder why those Australian dudes didn’t turn in their guns – don’t they know its illegal NOT to…?
Kregg Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
The Eric said: My stance is that guns are evil. And that people who use guns with anger in their hearts are more evil than that.
K: Guns cannot BE evil. They are inanimate objects with no emotions and no moral stance. PEOPLE can be evil. And, you are right – people with ‘anger in their hearts are more evil” than those who with no anger. You appear to be one of the most angry people on this board…
EricG Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“GUN HISTORY”
I don’t doubt your facts. I doubt your motives.
I don’t think taking guns away from people is the answer. That’s not my stance.
My stance is that guns are evil. And that people who use guns with anger in their hearts are more evil than that.
Taking away the guns is not the answer.
The answer is changing the view of guns in American society. The Republican Party has long made itself a place for violent gun nuts to call home and if thy only would take a stance of ‘guns are dangerous and should be handled carefully by both individuals and states’ or something like that then I would have a far more positive view of Republicans and Pro-Gun lobbies.
The idea that guns deliver freedom is just plain sick, like saying death brings about freedom.
If that was true then I guess Iraq would be swimming in freedom right now.
Kregg Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
The Eric said: My stance is that guns are evil. And that people who use guns with anger in their hearts are more evil than that.
K: Guns cannot BE evil. They are inanimate objects with no emotions and no moral stance. PEOPLE can be evil. And, you are right – people with ‘anger in their hearts are more evil” than those who with no anger. You appear to be one of the most angry people on this board…
EricG Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR
FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.”
So you know the minds of those men do you?
That’s interesting.
And even you’re right about everything then it still comes to why would any sick and twisted American want to bring a gun into a House of God.
Unless of course you worship death and killing.
Place ammunition on the altar and pray to that and then maybe right wingers would make some kind of sense.
Place a dollar bill, a bullet and a picture of Ronald Reagan and you’ve got the right wing altar of 2009 right there.
It’s sick. If even one major conservative / Republican was anything but sick in the head then this kind of violent promoting would be met with righteous resistance and denoucing.
As it stands Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, YOU, etc. all stand and clep for the death of a nation in gunfire and bloodshed.
I will blame you right wingers when someone next gets killed in the name of God. Your fault.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
The Eric said: And even you’re right about everything then it still comes to why would any sick and twisted American want to bring a gun into a House of God.
K: Well, Eric, Dr. Tiller might have benefited from one…
EricG Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
And the question becomes then:
What right winger would support Tiller’s right to defend himself as Tiller took the life of his killer instead of the opposite?
I think none.
I think right wingers, all of them, defend their own at any cost and refuse to champion for anyone who doesn’t fit into their vision of a perfect person.
If Tiller had taken that sick-o out and that was the news story … then right wingers would probably be calling for his head.
I am calling for a quick and speedy prosecution of this accused murderer and I hope that sick, violent psycho will spend the rest of his life in a tiny little cell.
—–
Right wingers think guns are the solution.
Guns are the problem. The need to ‘cling’ to guns is simple. People are so afraid and cowardly they don’t want to live like a real man and swear off disgusting tools of death but instead want to live like little paranoid freaks who are waiting to shoot someone for something everyday of their lives.
Some people are just gun owners. They don’t go insane about their firearms and happily submit to searches of their property due to their firearm ownership and understand what it means to be responsible with their anger and their guns at the same time.
Too many want their guns no matter what, no matter what dangers exist they HAVE TO have their guns. This is not American. People must recognize these devices are dangerous and must be regulated in the extreme if you are going to have them in a modern society.
Kregg Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
The Eric said: What right winger would support Tiller’s right to defend himself as Tiller took the life of his killer instead of the opposite? I think none.
K: Eric, this illustrates your colossal ignorance about conservatives. I’ll bet EVERY Con on this board would respect his right to defend himself regardless of what he does for a living. Hopefully, when you grow up, you’ll begin to understand the concept of living by truths bigger than you – living by principle. Cons live by principle. One of those principles is the right to self defense by gun. Here’s hoping that you will one day join us…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Pagano says the event was prompted by unfounded concerns that President Obama will restrict gun rights.
Fixed that for you, Alan.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
What gat would Jesus pack?
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
10,000 angels…
average james Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Legions of angels.
EricG Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
None,
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Guns are just industrialized swords with little blades that move out from the front of them too tiny and fast to see.
Jesus was and is anti-gun.
Ask him yourself.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Well … more right wingers who hate Jesus and want to change their churches into hate schools for mindless violence against Americans.
Can we just call these people domestic terrorists and be done with it.
That’s what the Pro-Life groups have proven they support.
That’s probably what these people support as well.
They are not just confused or deluded, they are violent and dangerous to the public.
If I happen to speak of Jesus around them … they want to shoot me with those guns.
People get very frighteneed when they hear from someone who actually read the Bible and thought about it the same amount of time as the guy preaching but I’m just as normal as can be. And I don’t buy these excuses to be violent and walk with devils.
It’s disgusting and sinful.
They know it, deep down. So do all but the most crazed of the right wingers. They know their Lord is frowning at them for giving in to viciousness and heartlessness.
Kregg Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
The Eric intones: Can we just call these people domestic terrorists and be done with it?
K: Why not, you haven’t needed facts for any of your other recommendations – why start now?
EricG Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Well, the facts are not there so I am not serious about just grabbing people up because they ‘look’ crazy and violent.
But my point remains. When will Americans get real about this stuff.
I mean stockpiling ammunition and guns … so these sick people can come and shoot my family and shoot innocent people in their rage over whatever they think is ‘evil.’
Unlike most people, maybe yourself included, I don’t turn away from reality when I don’t like what I see. And I don’t like what I see in the right wing and in so-called conservative circles in regards to views on firearms and how to view them.
I don’t hear chit, I mean NOTHING, from the right wing or from Mr. Kregg as to how to handle a bunch of gun-crazies from going insane and shooting up a protest or killing the next ‘liberal puke’ they happen upon.
This is dead serious. The Republican Party and Conservative Movement have far too long ignored their violent and disturbed minority of ‘Christians’ who love murder and love violence more than they love peace and love Christ.
sky Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
*applause*
SO well put, eric.
Clearly many “right-wing radicals” have no idea of who Jesus really is/was, or his teachings.
But he did say: “strait is the gate, narrow is the way, and FEW there be that find it”. If there’s a big movement… it’s probably the wrong one, I’ve always found.
Most people want to find excuses to believe what they already believe anyway,instead of searching for Truth, and to that end many have hijacked Christianity at this point, in the name of torture and etc.
But it’s not like it hasn’t happened before, so many people have “taken Jesus’ name in vain” as they commit horrible atrocities, supposedly for his sake.
EricG Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
It is hard to hear for many right wing Americans but the solid fact remains that only one political party is misusing Jesus as an agent of intolerance and hate and the other has a more realistic view of Christ. Not to say either party is in league with Christ, not even close on either side, but simply that one side uses fundamentalist Christianity to define themselves and the other uses the freedom of religion to define themselves.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
is anyone else having problems with this particular thread…I can only comment leaving at the bottom, the reply button isn’t working on this thread for me.
For Barry up above. Sorry, I misread your post, your clarification makes sense…so great post…no caveat.
June 6th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Yes Guido, I am having the same problem.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Pastor Tom Pagano, sounds like a pistol-whipping, beer- swilling, choir boy! What a guy…what a church!
June 7th, 2009 at 7:49 pm