Sharp as a Marble - In case of Reasoned Discourse

<< Quote of the day | Home | Well, that's turning into major suckage >>

A blog entry on the church that held an open carry session. I left my comment, but it's moderated so it may not show up. So I'm putting it here where the NYT cannot control it. I am responding to commenters and not the article itself

Charles, what defines a weapon? I was trained in the military to use my fists to fight with, should those be removed? The pew bibles can be made into projectiles. The pencils the visitors sign in with are sharp and could stab. A candelabra makes a mighty fine club in a pinch.

It's not the inanimate object, it is the person wielding it. If you have no ill intent, then every object is just that, inanimate.

Not everyone believes in your God. Not everyone respects the sanctuary. What madmen do in their insanity is not a reason to fear the sane and law abiding.

The bible is FULL of wars that God chose sides on. Chris brought up just one example, but I'll give you another - If someone was attacking your child, would you just sit there and let it happen without lifting a finger? Does being in church change that equation?

DC - I'm one of those logical, intelligent people you seek, however my views are not the ones you probably wish to see so you will more than likely dismiss me.

My points to you are based on the same thing I said above - An inanimate object has no moral compass of its own and requires a human to do anything.

What's wrong with a .50BMG? Can you find ANY crimes committed with a $5000+ rifle and $5+ per round ammunition? Do you realize that a 12 gauge shotgun using slugs is a .729 Caliber weapon? Since fully automatic firearms are legal to own, can you find more than one crime committed with a fully auto?

More crimes are committed with 9mm and .380 handguns than anything. Both the 9 and .380 are vastly underpowered cartridges and due to their proliferation, 80% of gunshot victims survive in the US (a lot comes from advances in medical procedures, the other because... well, the 9mm sucks at doing that much damage). So, high powered firearms aren't the problem. It's the criminals. Keep the violent ones in jail, and most of our problems go away.

I carry to church most of the time. If I am wrong for doing so, God himself will judge me. So far, I've managed to not blow away a deacon for being too slow with the offering plate. I don't see the problem.

posted @ 6/28/2009 8:52:36 AM

Comments

ExurbanKevin says:

on 6/28/2009 12:54:05 PM

I carry to church most of the time as well (and in fact am posting this from my iPhone during Sunday School). Given the YWAM shootings and recent shooting in Alabama, you'd think that churches would welcome CCW holders in the pews.

Bob S. says:

on 6/28/2009 2:20:51 PM

I also carry in church and know of at least one other person who does...besides the plains clothes detective we hire as part of our security plan.

I lived just blocks away from the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth at the time of the shooting there. That was before the law was changed to allow churches to decide to allow CHL or not.

Imagine that....churches deciding what they want to do in their house of worship.

It is not uncommon for many people to carry in church and I only know of one accident. A elderly gentleman in Dallas dropped a .22 pistol and when he tried to catch it he caught the trigger. One person injured.

Linoge says:

on 6/28/2009 5:50:01 PM

Oddly enough (at least, assuming you only have a superficial knowledge of the Christian religion), Jesus approved of self-defense, even beyond the famous Luke 22: 36-38 quote.

And, after all of the shootings that have taken place in churches here in TN, you can bloody well bet I am carrying if I am in a church...

UBU52 says:

on 6/29/2009 5:23:35 AM

I realize you were posting on the liberal NYT website and that probably made you nervous since liberals in general seem to make you nervous, but how could you make a mistake like this?

You wrote: "Since fully automatic firearms are legal to own, can you find more than one crime committed with a fully auto?"

Duh, what about the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre? What about all the bank robberies in the early 20s and 30s before the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed? It wasn't one crime that forced passage of the bill -- it was a series of crimes.

Oh! But duh, you meant "after the 1934 National Firearms Act" was passed! But you didn't say that! You implied that there was never a crime committed in the history of all time where automatic weapons were "legal."

Also, since I am what you guys call an "anti," I find it ridiculous that this preacher invited his audience to wear what are essentially paperweights to church. He sure got a lot of publicity out of it but it was dumb. Next I expect to see an ad from Walmart asking you to "bring your unloaded weapon to Walmart to shop" because Walmart likes the free publicity too. Who wouldn't?

Linoge says:

on 6/29/2009 6:32:09 AM

So much for "post[ing] elsewhere". An individual of his/her word, UBU52 is not...

Robb Allen says:

on 6/29/2009 7:52:21 AM

Not that I expect UBU to read through my archives, but she'd probably be surprised that I consider it a publicity stunt too. Granted, it may be in accordance with local law, I don't know. The point is valid though that an unloaded weapon is pretty much, as you say, a paperweight.

As for the 1934 act, yes, I did not specify that. I have a 3" box to type in and cannot relay every single last detail down to the atomic structure of lead to ensure we're talking on the same page. As humans, we have the distinct ability to fill in the gaps of conversation with knowledge - even you did it with your comment. So, if even someone like you can do it, I didn't really require to put that information in.

Back to the actual point, though - find modern crimes committed with fully automatics. Hint, there ARE some. In the military, fully auto is only generally a viable firing technique when the gun is mounted or able to be used from a rather fixed position. Hand held automatics tend to miss, and miss big. The amount of training necessary to put rounds on target with a full-auto is generally more than thugs are willing to expend time and money on.

Is this the point you are wishing to argue, or are you just trolling here, looking to argue for no reason at all?

Your bigotry is showing, however, with your 'liberals scare you' meme. I don't particularly care for homosexuality as a personal preference, yet I vote consistently against any law that violates their rights and would stand proud beside them to defend those rights. I don't care for drugs nor the impact they have on people's lives, yet I cannot stand the prohibition this country wages on people's right to ingest what they see fit. And I would never try to force the intricacies of my morals on anyone else because I realize that my moral code differs from others'.

You can't get much more liberal than that.

You, on the other hand, via your comments here, seem quite intolerant of lifestyles that don't conform to the way you think others should live their lives. I'm not telling you that there should be a law requiring you to own a firearm or to even like them. You prefer to deny people that ability. What kind of twisting of logic do you go through to consider that a liberal position.

And Linoge, I don't mind if she (and UBU, I assume she because of your email address, if I am incorrect then by all means correct me) posts here. Unlike other places where comments are moderated (*cough* progressive sites *cough*) or differing views erased, I'll let illogical and bigoted comments stand since I have no fear of their content and in fact, can use them as a teaching moment.

mike w. says:

on 6/29/2009 12:02:05 PM

You, on the other hand, via your comments here, seem quite intolerant of lifestyles that don't conform to the way you think others should live their lives.

Funny how the contemporary "liberal" resembles an authoritarian statist isn't it? They're no different than the authoritarian neo-cons they love to hate, just a different set of beliefs, and a different subset of the population they wish to force those beliefs upon.

It'd be nice if liberals had any concept of what the term "liberal" (in the classical liberal context) actually means.

Linoge says:

on 6/29/2009 4:16:42 PM

Oh, do not misunderstand, Robb - I only hoped she would post somewhere else just to help the signal-to-noise ratio. I am all for hoplophobic bigots exposing their intolerance and idiocy for all the world to see, but sometimes it is just painful to watch ;).

As for my above comment, I just love it when people say that they will never post on a certain website again... and then post on that very same website the very next day. Hypocrisy deserves to be called out wherever it may be.

UBU52 says:

on 6/30/2009 3:13:29 AM

Ahem. As a woman, I'm entitled to change my mind at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. That's a woman's perogative. (Your wives and girlfriends should have explained this to you a long time ago.)

I'm quite liberal. I simply don't agree with the liberal CCW laws that some states have. I don't want those laws brought over to my city. I want gun control. I want the only people to have guns to be those people who know how to control both the guns and the bullets. Is that too much to ask for?

Linoge says:

on 6/30/2009 6:36:29 AM

Uh, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, UBU52, but anyone is entitled to change their minds whenever they feel like it, however they feel like it, for whatever reason they feel like. However, that entitlement does not make your hypocrisy any less... hypocritical. Of course, so-called "liberals" have been saying one thing and doing another for about 5 decades now, so I guess such behavior has finally reached the point of social acceptance.

As for you purportedly being "quite liberal", let us take a look at the definition of that word: broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; having political or social views favoring reform and progress; tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition; a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. So far, in your postings here, you have more that adequately demonstrated your narrow-mindedness, desire for regressing personal freedoms, intolerance, and a desire to infringe upon certain civil liberties simply because you happen to disagree with them (for whatever reason).

That, UBU52, is the very antithesis of "liberal".

Linoge says:

on 6/30/2009 6:46:23 AM

(Hm. Not sure why that posted. There was more...)

Self-defense is a naturally-granted civil liberty inherent to all humans everywhere. Our country's protection of that civil right (among other rights) is codified in the Second Amendment, which was supposed to prevent the government from attempting to infringe on / abridge / control that civil right. Your stance is decidedly against that civil right, and for greater governmental control - that stance is far from being "liberal".

As for concealed carry legislation and permits, I trust you are aware that concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than their civilian counterparts? In Florida, CCW-holders were 300 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and a Texas study found that CCW holders were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense." It seems to me that CCW holders do know how to control both the guns and the bullets... as do the vast majority of firearm owners in our country - after all, 99.9% of legal firearm owners did not commit a crime yesterday.

Here in TN, I have to undergo a background check to prove that I have never committed a felony punishable by a term exceeding one year, have never been convicted of domestic violence, have never been convicted of stalking, am not currently under indictment, am not currently the subject of an order of protection, have not had a DUI in the past 5 years or two DUIs in the past 10, have not been treated for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years, have never been adjucated as mentally defective, have never been discharged form the military under dishonorable conditions, have never renounced my citizenship, and have never received social security benefits due to alcohol or drug dependence or mental disability. Florida was much the same way when I applied for my permit there, and most other states are likewise similar.

And that is "liberal"? What state, exactly, do you live in? Unless it is Vermont or Alaska, you really have no understanding of the topic of which you are speaking.

Which, really, is nothing new...

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links