Very quiet day for our gun toting rats

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Expected to hear more from our gun toting rats about the knoxville shooting.

I"m sure that if the church going folks had only brought guns to church things would have turned out differently.

[oregonpackfan]

Unfortunately, the country has a few, isolated crazies like this guy with guns. who suddenly release their violent craziness on innocent people.

[Kiwon]

I hate stories like this.

The guy wrote that he was hoping to be killed by the police. In other words he wanted to commit suicide but didn't have the guts to turn his shotgun on himself.

He's just another coward whose life will end in prison after the taxpayers have paid for his incarceration for 20 years.

If someone wants to kill himself then he should have the courage to just do it without harming the innocent. These husbands who wipe out their families and then kill themselves in a murder-suicide are the worst examples.

Everybody loses in the end.

[Freak Out]

I will admit that I have read very little about the shooting but saw a short headline about how the guy "just wanted to kill liberals". Has Texas and the rest of the Circle been accounted for?

[texaspackerbacker]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

[falco]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

if only tim russert was left, he could have shot him

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

if only tim russert was left, he could have shot him

Sigh. THe good ones always get away.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Yep...as you said..."kook".."one of us."

Like shootin fish in a barrell.

[th87]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

[Kiwon]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

Hey, this is fun.

Let me try.

William Ayers: Admitted, unrepentant terrorist; Long-time, personal acquaintance of Barack Obama

Barack Obama:

1. Probable POTUS.
2. Long-time, personal acquaintance of William Ayers.
3. Refuses to denounce William Ayers as a terrorist.

ergo, the probable POTUS Barack Obama is a supporter of terrorism.

http://img.blogads.com/586318890/img.gif

[Kiwon]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

So 9-11 was a criminal act and should be tried in civilian courts but a church shooting was a terrorist attack and should be tried by what, a military tribunal? Does the Knoxville guy get sent to Gitmo too?

So the unemployed guy gets to enjoy the tropical weather and eat glazed chicken and receive the same standard of medical care that the guards receive. Probably he’ll gain the average 20 pounds that the Gitmo detainees usually do.

[th87]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

Hey, this is fun.

Let me try.

William Ayers: Admitted, unrepentant terrorist; Long-time, personal acquaintance of Barack Obama

Barack Obama:

1. Probable POTUS.
2. Long-time, personal acquaintance of William Ayers.
3. Refuses to denounce William Ayers as a terrorist.

ergo, the probable POTUS Barack Obama is a supporter of terrorism.

http://img.blogads.com/586318890/img.gif

Don't remember Obama stopping short of justifying Ayers' acts and silently applauding his actions. An A for effort though.

[th87]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

So 9-11 was a criminal act and should be tried in civilian courts but a church shooting was a terrorist attack and should be tried by what, a military tribunal? Does the Knoxville guy get sent to Gitmo too?

So the unemployed guy gets to enjoy the tropical weather and eat glazed chicken and receive the same standard of medical care that the guards receive. Probably he’ll gain the average 20 pounds that the Gitmo detainees usually do.

Focus, kid. Don't know where you get all this irrelevance from. Team-Republican arguments are pretty much useless here.

Punishments are irrelevant in this example. The bottom line is that this guy committed an act of terrorism against Americans by definition, and Al Qaeda commits acts of terrorism against Americans by definition.

Both are bad people, but I find it strange that Tex "almost" justifies this violence on innocent Americans.

This is to question whether Tex's thought process is just as bad as those of terrorist sympathizers, simply because they both callously disregard the loss of innocent human life.

Of course, I can see what's coming: "These aren't equal acts, because Al Qaeda inflicts harm on truth, justice, and the American way, and this guy believes in truth, justice, and the American way."

And to this I'd reply: The killing of innocents is unjustified. Period. All killing of innocents is wrong (your gears are no doubt turning to bring in some pro-life argument, but I am pro-life under most circumstances). If it fits under the definition of terrorism, it is terrorism.

This isn't about Bush, or Obama, or the Patriot Act, or taxing the rich. This is strictly about the killing of innocent people, which Tex appears to "almost" condone.

[Kiwon]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

Hey, this is fun.

Let me try.

William Ayers: Admitted, unrepentant terrorist; Long-time, personal acquaintance of Barack Obama

Barack Obama:

1. Probable POTUS.
2. Long-time, personal acquaintance of William Ayers.
3. Refuses to denounce William Ayers as a terrorist.

ergo, the probable POTUS Barack Obama is a supporter of terrorism.

http://img.blogads.com/586318890/img.gif

Don't remember Obama stopping short of justifying Ayers' acts and silently applauding his actions. An A for effort though.

Are you sure that your memory isn't faulty?

I'm give myself a "D" because I was really trying, just having fun.

[Kiwon]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

So 9-11 was a criminal act and should be tried in civilian courts but a church shooting was a terrorist attack and should be tried by what, a military tribunal? Does the Knoxville guy get sent to Gitmo too?

So the unemployed guy gets to enjoy the tropical weather and eat glazed chicken and receive the same standard of medical care that the guards receive. Probably he’ll gain the average 20 pounds that the Gitmo detainees usually do.

Focus, kid. Don't know where you get all this irrelevance from. Team-Republican arguments are pretty much useless here.

Punishments are irrelevant in this example. The bottom line is that this guy committed an act of terrorism against Americans by definition, and Al Qaeda commits acts of terrorism against Americans by definition.

Both are bad people, but I find it strange that Tex "almost" justifies this violence on innocent Americans.

This is to question whether Tex's thought process is just as bad as those of terrorist sympathizers, simply because they both callously disregard the loss of innocent human life.

Of course, I can see what's coming: "These aren't equal acts, because Al Qaeda inflicts harm on truth, justice, and the American way, and this guy believes in truth, justice, and the American way."

And to this I'd reply: The killing of innocents is unjustified. Period. All killing of innocents is wrong (your gears are no doubt turning to bring in some pro-life argument, but I am pro-life under most circumstances). If it fits under the definition of terrorism, it is terrorism.

This isn't about Bush, or Obama, or the Patriot Act, or taxing the rich. This is strictly about the killing of innocent people, which Tex appears to "almost" condone.

I get your larger point but you can say it directly without the spurious logic and arbitrary classification of a crime as an act of terrorism.

The man's goal was to have the police do for him what he wouldn't do for himself - ending his life. For an Army veteran who was supposedly huntin' liberals he did a lousy job. Three spent shells and 70 more on the ground? Yeah, a real trained killer.

The man was a hateful nut, a kook.

But the MSM editors can't wait to take his statements about blacks, gays, and liberals and superimpose his views on most people in the South, most people in Tennessee, most people with guns, most people with conservative views, etc. Of course, they miss the quote from the neighbor where he rejects Christianity and the Bible. That's the one part that doesn't fit the standard liberal template. But no matter, that detail can be overlooked because the story itself is too good for them to ignore.

You yourself show your bias by suggesting that conservatives would condone this murder's actions by saying that he "believes in truth, justice, and the American way." Why would you say something like that? Do you personally know someone who thinks this way? I doubt it. You said it so you can make another point that fits within your argument.

Let's hear your take on real terrorism by Muslims the last few days in Iraq, China, and India. bin-Laden says that there were no innocent victims in America on 9-11. Everyone was a legitimate target. Are you ready to condemn the prolific strain of Islam that he is pushing and has attracted a broad following rather than trying to equivocate based upon your own narrow definition of terrorism?

By the way, under what circumstances are you anti-Life?

Speak to Tex directly if you find what he said offensive. I don't think he is too shy to defend his views.

I hope you were sincere in your sentiments over the loss of innocent life. I am familiar with Knoxville and still know many folks there. I can promise you that the first expressions of sympathy and support to that Unitarian Universalist church and its congregation were made by Christians, by the Presbyterian, the Baptist, the Methodist, the Korean, Christian Science, and Greek Orthodox churches that are located very near that church.

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

What happened to the folks at the UU church was a heinous criminal act by a mentally unstable person. Nothing more, nothing less.

[bobblehead]

I have read absolutely nothing of this case, I know nothing other than this thread. That being said:

It wouldn't surprise me if it comes out later this guy was a huge liberal anti gun dude trying to make us all look bad, you know, like hanging a noose on a prefessors door. Obviously no gun advocates right with a lick of common sense would ever do something like this....only a full blown crack pot loon would.

[mraynrand]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

And even if you did care to address his specific topic, there was a recent case in (I believe) CO, where a security guard at a megachurch did in fact have to shoot a guy who was firing in the Chruch and did very likely reduce the number of casualties.

[texaspackerbacker]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

Hey, this is fun.

Let me try.

William Ayers: Admitted, unrepentant terrorist; Long-time, personal acquaintance of Barack Obama

Barack Obama:

1. Probable POTUS.
2. Long-time, personal acquaintance of William Ayers.
3. Refuses to denounce William Ayers as a terrorist.

ergo, the probable POTUS Barack Obama is a supporter of terrorism.

http://img.blogads.com/586318890/img.gif

Don't remember Obama stopping short of justifying Ayers' acts and silently applauding his actions. An A for effort though.

Exactly! Your finely honed perception comes through again, TH87.

My stated position on this "terrorist" is EXACTLY the same as Obama's toward Ayers.

And I ask you lefties, which do you see as worse? A politically affiliated terrorist like Ayers who was and is dedicated to destroying this country? Or a non-affiliated individual terrorist who is dedicated to those he sees as destroying this country? Although I can guess the answer, this is NOT a rhetorical question, as I'd like to hear you commit to seeing the Tennessee kook as either morally equivalent or worse than the America-hater who bombed the Pentagon and NYC Police HQ. Come on, go ahead and answer.

[texaspackerbacker]

Apparently you lefties haven't been keeping up.

It was "one of us" doin' the shootin', and some of ya'all doin' the dyin'.

I'll stop short of saying "justified", but I will say the kook knew how to choose his targets.

Hmm.

ter·ror·ism - n. - 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Knoxville guy:

1. Used violence.
2. To kill liberals (people he disagreed with), i.e. for political purposes.

ergo, Knoxville guy = terrorist.

It is noted that Tex does not issue a condemnation of this terrorist act.

Hey, this is fun.

Let me try.

William Ayers: Admitted, unrepentant terrorist; Long-time, personal acquaintance of Barack Obama

Barack Obama:

1. Probable POTUS.
2. Long-time, personal acquaintance of William Ayers.
3. Refuses to denounce William Ayers as a terrorist.

ergo, the probable POTUS Barack Obama is a supporter of terrorism.

http://img.blogads.com/586318890/img.gif

Don't remember Obama stopping short of justifying Ayers' acts and silently applauding his actions. An A for effort though.

Exactly! Your finely honed perception comes through again, TH87.

My stated position on this "terrorist" is EXACTLY the same as Obama's toward Ayers.

And I ask you lefties, which do you see as worse? A politically affiliated terrorist like Ayers who was and is dedicated to destroying this country? Or a non-affiliated individual terrorist who is dedicated to destroying those he sees as destroying this country? Although I can guess the answer, this is NOT a rhetorical question, as I'd like to hear you commit to seeing the Tennessee kook as either morally equivalent or worse than the America-hater who bombed the Pentagon and NYC Police HQ. Come on, go ahead and answer.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.



Ty is definitely upset about the loss of life..both the victims and the killer himself.

But, Ty knows that if the congregation members were strapped they woulda been safer...as per your logic. There is no safety at church, just as there is no safety in your college or high school. Anywhere there are people there is danger.

Ty can only resolve this conundrum by advocating everyone in america carry a gun. We can't just the criminals and kooks have them.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

And even if you did care to address his specific topic, there was a recent case in (I believe) CO, where a security guard at a megachurch did in fact have to shoot a guy who was firing in the Chruch and did very likely reduce the number of casualties.

Don't remember this..but, sounds true. just think, if every congregation member had a gun..there might have been no casualties.

[mraynrand]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

And even if you did care to address his specific topic, there was a recent case in (I believe) CO, where a security guard at a megachurch did in fact have to shoot a guy who was firing in the Chruch and did very likely reduce the number of casualties.

Don't remember this..but, sounds true. just think, if every congregation member had a gun..there might have been no casualties.

Well, perhaps just one.

[th87]

I get your larger point but you can say it directly without the spurious logic and arbitrary classification of a crime as an act of terrorism.

The man's goal was to have the police do for him what he wouldn't do for himself - ending his life. For an Army veteran who was supposedly huntin' liberals he did a lousy job. Three spent shells and 70 more on the ground? Yeah, a real trained killer.

The man was a hateful nut, a kook.

But the MSM editors can't wait to take his statements about blacks, gays, and liberals and superimpose his views on most people in the South, most people in Tennessee, most people with guns, most people with conservative views, etc. Of course, they miss the quote from the neighbor where he rejects Christianity and the Bible. That's the one part that doesn't fit the standard liberal template. But no matter, that detail can be overlooked because the story itself is too good for them to ignore.

You yourself show your bias by suggesting that conservatives would condone this murder's actions by saying that he "believes in truth, justice, and the American way." Why would you say something like that? Do you personally know someone who thinks this way? I doubt it. You said it so you can make another point that fits within your argument.

Let's hear your take on real terrorism by Muslims the last few days in Iraq, China, and India. bin-Laden says that there were no innocent victims in America on 9-11. Everyone was a legitimate target. Are you ready to condemn the prolific strain of Islam that he is pushing and has attracted a broad following rather than trying to equivocate based upon your own narrow definition of terrorism?

By the way, under what circumstances are you anti-Life?

Speak to Tex directly if you find what he said offensive. I don't think he is too shy to defend his views.

I hope you were sincere in your sentiments over the loss of innocent life. I am familiar with Knoxville and still know many folks there. I can promise you that the first expressions of sympathy and support to that Unitarian Universalist church and its congregation were made by Christians, by the Presbyterian, the Baptist, the Methodist, the Korean, Christian Science, and Greek Orthodox churches that are located very near that church.

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

What happened to the folks at the UU church was a heinous criminal act by a mentally unstable person. Nothing more, nothing less.

Crime perpetrated on innocent people to represent a mindset or an agenda, by definition, can be classified as terrorism. Hate crimes fit under that umbrella, strictly speaking. Recent events, however, have made the word equate to the radical faux-Muslims only. The truth is, it would apply to everyone using violence to represent an agenda.

I wasn't speaking for conservatives as a whole on that prediction. I was predicting Tex's response only, who has historically taken similar positions, who applauded Russert's death, and who has told liberal posters that they deserve what turned out to be Russert's fate. I've been sparring with him for years, and was speaking for him only.

The violence in Iraq, India, etc. is terrorism too. On a much larger scale. Of course I condemn that strain of faux-Islam that OBL's pushing. Without hesitation. Why would you think otherwise? Because I have liberal viewpoints?

I'd be pro-choice on pregnancies caused by rape, and where the woman is in danger.

I'm certain there was sympathy from the other churches in Knoxville. Southerners are among the nicest and most decent people you'll ever meet. I had the pleasure of living in South Carolina and being able to spend a lot of time traveling in the South. Great people.

I don't know what Ty's motivation was, so I will not speak for him.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think there is any inconsistency in my positions. I'm pro-life in the anti-abortion sense, but only in a lukewarm way. And I am opposed to "terrorists" gunning down people in a Unitarian Church (damn near an oxymoron there) because they think the members are harming the country by promoting homosexuality and a bunch of other abominable viewpoints--but only lukewarm opposition there too. My original comment was that I stop short of saying it was justified. At the same time, just like the guy who shot his lawn mower, I can certainly understand and even sympathize with his motivation. The only similarity to my unsympathetic comments about Russert is that he, like at least the policy makers of this Unitarian Church, if not each and every member, was actively pushing causes and candidates which are blatantly harmful to America--something I consider unforgiveable, and something which IMO, justifies a lack of sympathy for their demise.

If that offends any of you libs, all I can say is tough shit. If that offends conservatives or otherwise good normal Americans, well, I just hope you get equally offended or more by all the sick anti-American shit being pushed by leftists on all levels.

[bobblehead]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

And even if you did care to address his specific topic, there was a recent case in (I believe) CO, where a security guard at a megachurch did in fact have to shoot a guy who was firing in the Chruch and did very likely reduce the number of casualties.

Don't remember this..but, sounds true. just think, if every congregation member had a gun..there might have been no casualties.

Strangely you are being sarcastic, yet I for the first time agree with every word you write.

I can assure you with no doubt in my mind that if i were in that church with my usual concealed weapon, people would have been safer. Now if ALL guns were illegal and he showed up with a machete, I doubt i would have gotten involved.

PS, if you were a 70 year old lady living alone would you rather no one had guns, or everyone had them??

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

And even if you did care to address his specific topic, there was a recent case in (I believe) CO, where a security guard at a megachurch did in fact have to shoot a guy who was firing in the Chruch and did very likely reduce the number of casualties.

Don't remember this..but, sounds true. just think, if every congregation member had a gun..there might have been no casualties.

Strangely you are being sarcastic, yet I for the first time agree with every word you write.

I can assure you with no doubt in my mind that if i were in that church with my usual concealed weapon, people would have been safer. Now if ALL guns were illegal and he showed up with a machete, I doubt i would have gotten involved.

PS, if you were a 70 year old lady living alone would you rather no one had guns, or everyone had them??

What a wonderful world to live in...everyone in church with a gun. :oops:

70 year old: No one. Plenty of other options...taser, etc.

[bobblehead]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

And even if you did care to address his specific topic, there was a recent case in (I believe) CO, where a security guard at a megachurch did in fact have to shoot a guy who was firing in the Chruch and did very likely reduce the number of casualties.

Don't remember this..but, sounds true. just think, if every congregation member had a gun..there might have been no casualties.

Strangely you are being sarcastic, yet I for the first time agree with every word you write.

I can assure you with no doubt in my mind that if i were in that church with my usual concealed weapon, people would have been safer. Now if ALL guns were illegal and he showed up with a machete, I doubt i would have gotten involved.

PS, if you were a 70 year old lady living alone would you rather no one had guns, or everyone had them??

What a wonderful world to live in...everyone in church with a gun. :oops:

70 year old: No one. Plenty of other options...taser, etc.

Ever been tased (don't lie, chics carry those now).

I have, not by a chic, but in a demonstration to prove how effective they are. I hit the ground, yanked it loose and got up and almost slugged the salesman. He was quite pissed, as was I. I had intended on buying one for my wife....which is why I stupidly agreed to be tased..bro..I admit it sucked ass, but it did not in any way incapacitate me for more than about 3 seconds. It is also not effective if 2 people break into my house.

I know you are about to point out your "ect" but it doesn't matter, nothing says safe old lady like a gun.

edit: I don't see a problem with everyone in church with a gun. It is not unprecedented. Hell, its not even a problem that I can see. Concealed gun while one worships...problem?? Other than you think it would be wierd?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Do you think Tyrone Bigguns is grieving the loss of innocent life in starting this thread? Hardly. He wanted to start an argument going about guns. People don't bring guns to church at 11 am on a Sunday because there is no threat. The argument he was trying to bait people into is ridiculous and posters ignored it.

And even if you did care to address his specific topic, there was a recent case in (I believe) CO, where a security guard at a megachurch did in fact have to shoot a guy who was firing in the Chruch and did very likely reduce the number of casualties.

Don't remember this..but, sounds true. just think, if every congregation member had a gun..there might have been no casualties.

Strangely you are being sarcastic, yet I for the first time agree with every word you write.

I can assure you with no doubt in my mind that if i were in that church with my usual concealed weapon, people would have been safer. Now if ALL guns were illegal and he showed up with a machete, I doubt i would have gotten involved.

PS, if you were a 70 year old lady living alone would you rather no one had guns, or everyone had them??

What a wonderful world to live in...everyone in church with a gun. :oops:

70 year old: No one. Plenty of other options...taser, etc.

Ever been tased (don't lie, chics carry those now).

I have, not by a chic, but in a demonstration to prove how effective they are. I hit the ground, yanked it loose and got up and almost slugged the salesman. He was quite pissed, as was I. I had intended on buying one for my wife....which is why I stupidly agreed to be tased..bro..I admit it sucked ass, but it did not in any way incapacitate me for more than about 3 seconds. It is also not effective if 2 people break into my house.

I know you are about to point out your "ect" but it doesn't matter, nothing says safe old lady like a gun.

edit: I don't see a problem with everyone in church with a gun. It is not unprecedented. Hell, its not even a problem that I can see. Concealed gun while one worships...problem?? Other than you think it would be wierd?

Tased: No. BUt, your experience is different than from the police who use them...maybe your voltage was lower. They have killed people with them.

Safe: Um, nothing says safe like old ladies living in safe communities or not alone.

Church: The fact that you don't see a problem with bringing a weapon into the house of the lord speaks volumes about you..and society. Doubt jesus would be on board with that.

Yes, i see a problem with it. Explain to me how we went from the old west where you checked your gun before entering a town to today, where it is a loss of freedom?

[bobblehead]

I told you, I'm an agnostic. I don't really go to church, but if I did, bringing in a concealed weapon doesn't seem like an issue. Coming in shooting...little more of an issue. See ty, I am not one to bow to social ideals, I think things thru and come up with a logical end. Carrying my concealed weapon into church isn't an issue as far as I can tell other than to offend the senses of someone who hasn't thought the issue thru. Perhaps I am wrong and you can enlighten me, but I haven't found a reason why this should be taboo.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I told you, I'm an agnostic. I don't really go to church, but if I did, bringing in a concealed weapon doesn't seem like an issue. Coming in shooting...little more of an issue. See ty, I am not one to bow to social ideals, I think things thru and come up with a logical end. Carrying my concealed weapon into church isn't an issue as far as I can tell other than to offend the senses of someone who hasn't thought the issue thru. Perhaps I am wrong and you can enlighten me, but I haven't found a reason why this should be taboo.

I see you didn't answer my west question.

Church: Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world.


1. You don't bring a weapon to church for the same type of reason that you wear your finest.

2. Peter was told by Jesus to specifically go and buy one (weapon and that, for the purpose of fulfilling prophecy - NOT to use, if you'll recall), indicating that the disciples did NOT carry weaponry as a rule. When they went out into the dangerous highways, they were specifically told what to take and a sword was not in that list.

3. Christians aren't suppose to return violence with violence

4. Safety and liability issues.

5. Religious leaders for some reason are against having weapons in church..i think you and i might defer to them.


BTW, you do know that the LDS forbids them in Utah?

[bobblehead]

The best I can do to answer the question of the west is that was a very different time and a very lawless era. I doesn't really equate to a current situation that I can think of. However to think that I would say it was right to make people forfeit their guns at the edge of town isn't necessarily accurate. I didn't live then, I can only read history books and speculate, so i won't try and give you a rock solid answer. I can guess that in a lawless time if you didn't surrender your gun you would be shot down by "law enforcement" and the courts weren't too busy with getting involved. How did we go from owning slaves to where we are today...times change, mostly for the better.

As far as what it says about me and bringing a gun into church...nothing really. I don't go into churches. If the pastor said "we don't want you packin in church" I would stay out...I do respect their rights. Same as if you invited me over but told me no weapon allowed, I have a choice, your way or stay home. I'm not saying I would defy the church, I'm saying I don't get the issue. And I stand by my assertion, those people would have been better off if several of them were packing when the guy with the gun came in.

You say christians aren't supposed to return violence with violence, but I will never get that....its like saying dont' stand up to a bully...guess what, eventually you have to. Like for instance when a guy comes into a church guns a blazin...I think you would have a hard time finding a christian who is against downing him to save lives. Its just not realistic. I'm sure there are shades of grey, like capital punishment after the fact, but violence in defense...hard to be against that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Lawless: More than today?

Violence: Jesus said turn the other cheek.

[texaspackerbacker]

Are you a believer of EVERYTHING Jesus said, Tyrone? Or only a select few things that seem to support your viewpoint?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Are you a believer of EVERYTHING Jesus said, Tyrone? Or only a select few things that seem to support your viewpoint?

It isn't my view. Nice try though.

[bobblehead]

Lawless: More than today?

Violence: Jesus said turn the other cheek.

Yes, more lawless than today, hands down, like shootouts in the street over a poker game. Like gangs of cattle rustlers riding across the country stealing cattle.

You do understand I'm not a christian and don't care what jesus said right?? I said I would respect a pastor who said he didn't want me to carry in church...by not going in. You can quote jesus all you want but I thought I made my point pretty clearly, let me cut and paste.

You say christians aren't supposed to return violence with violence, but I will never get that....its like saying dont' stand up to a bully...guess what, eventually you have to. Like for instance when a guy comes into a church guns a blazin...I think you would have a hard time finding a christian who is against downing him to save lives. Its just not realistic. I'm sure there are shades of grey, like capital punishment after the fact, but violence in defense...hard to be against that.

There i said it again. Don't throw jesus' words at me when I have already said I disagree, I'm not a christian, and quoting jesus trying to make a point makes you look foolish. If I quoted don hollly as an arguement against your point of view would it mean a damn thing??