• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA executive suggests slain Charleston pastor to blame for gun deaths

Let's put both Bible versus into perspective.

In Matthew 26:52, Christ was essentially saying that anyone who takes up a weapon for vengeance will eventually die from such a hate-filled act. Or in short, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

In Luke 22:36, Christ was instructing his disciples to prepare themselves for the eventual persecution they would soon come to face. And thus, he gave them permission to buy weapons (swords) to defend themselves against the coming aggression IF they chose to do so. And as you know, none did.

LaMidRighter,

I understand what you're trying to do and can certainly empathize with your moral struggle on self defense (see his post #301), but what reference to these Bible verses goes to once again confirm is that man will use specific passages of scripture to suit their own purposes. Unless and until you place such verses in their proper context, you risk leading man down a very dark path.

My advice to you: Guard against false witness, my friend.

EDIT: Ask yourself, were the 9 victims at the AME church being persecuted for their religious belief? If your answer is NO (and if you're honest about why Dylann Roof carried out this terrible, horrific, inexcusable act then the only conclusion you can reach is NO), then it wouldn't have made sense for these church members to conceal carry in a place of worship for any reason whatsoever.
I take the context to be simply that Jesus had the ability to condemn violence but also understand that it could be necessary to defend life.
 
I don't keep the clip loaded or in the gun while not in use. So if the person was armed, I probably would not see it coming anyway. If they were not, I feel I would have a better chance of running or defending myself. It is hard to say, I have never had an instance where I feared anyone. No one can truly know. I would hate to shoot someone unarmed

Im saying you cant run, you are in a room with one exit, maybe its the middle of the night and you heard the glass break downstairs. Maybe he's saying he's going to harm you. He will be in your room in under 10 seconds. Your phone is by the door, and even if it was in your hand and you had already dialed, the number is busy-and he's 10 seconds away.

What now? And sadly, this isn't exactly uncommon.
 
that is a silly response. mass shootings are extremely rare-be it churches, schools or movie theaters. Yet they happen enough for Democrats to want to ban semi auto rifles (used in less than 2% of all shootings) "high capacity" (the sign of dishonesty is using that term) magazines etc. If mass shootings are prevalent enough to call for stripping away the constitutional rights of millions then its far more reasonable for people to be armed as insurance against such shootings.

I don't attend church save for funerals or weddings these days. I don't carry all the time-I always have a firearm in my car unless its illegal and the only reason why I have a gun on me now-at home is because the house across the street was the subject of an armed robbery (a very rare occurrence) and the robber has yet to be caught and I often am 100s of yards from my house due to the size of my property.

but you would never ever know I had a gun. and if I was sitting in a pew next to you, you'd never know. So your claiming it would detract from your worship is just plain BOGUS. and that you appear to be afraid of people carrying guns is not my concern. If you are afraid to carry-DO NOT but stop judging those who do

Bogus post nope - made sense - you just disagreed with a logical, well reasoned post.
Yet you are the one crying to bring guns into a Church as it MAY, heavy on the may prevent a shooting.
 
No, but you are a trained professional (cop, I think I saw you post) and it is natural for a cop to have a protection mindset...cops are never off duty nor do they retire. LOL. Can't really compare to your average Joe or gun nut.


Ex-cop. Been Ex for a long time.

My Dad was Church Treasurer. He was never in LE, though he was a WW2 vet. He carried a .38 snubnose to church, with the knowledge and consent of the pastor and Deacon board. So did some of the ushers. This was back when I was a kid, before easy CCW was even widely available in my state.

And please do not use the term gun nut. It is offensive. Most gun owners are not mentally ill.
 
Now all you need to do is show me where I am compromising the safety of others.

By seeking to take away their ability to protect themselves with the guns they would use if they HAD them.

Do I need to link to the testimony of that texas congresswoman who didn't bring her gun into a restaurant because of feel-good gun laws that you support?
She could have stopped the gunman, instead she watched her parents executions.
 
Oh dear. I guess I am a psychopath.


I carry in church, where it is permitted... and frankly whether it is permitted is a factor in whether I attend that church.


(Protip: I'm not a psychopath. I am however aware that churches are not protected by some mystic dome of peace that prevents bad people from targeting them... and just as I am not interested in being at the mercy of thugs and loonies when shopping at Walmart, ditto at church. See Luke 22:36.)

Dome of peace. :lol:

I wonder if that bowl-cut loser in Charleston didn't get the memo.
 
Yes, no doubt everyone else has a Rottweiler just like you. Everyone is just like you.

When you have substantial numbers of the population needing to carry weapons in Church, your society has problems, and it just ain’t guns.
 
No, but you are a trained professional (cop, I think I saw you post) and it is natural for a cop to have a protection mindset...cops are never off duty nor do they retire. LOL. Can't really compare to your average Joe or gun nut.

No doubt Goshin can shoot but so can I. I regularly out shoot my LEO friends.

Why should my safety be compromised?

Could someone else be harmed in me defending myself? Yes. Same for cops.

Is that even more rare than the odds of needing to defend myself? Yes.

The fact is in over 90% of cases just showing a gun will end the attack and in a mass shooting-lets just say there are bigger risks, like the guy walking around shooting people in the face.
 
I take the context to be simply that Jesus had the ability to condemn violence but also understand that it could be necessary to defend life.

Yes, but you have to understand that said defensive posture was for a specific purpose: defense against persecution!

But I digress because I really don't want to hijack the thread and turn the discussion into a religious tit-for-tat. If you want to have that discussion, might I suggest you start a separate thread and invite me to it and then we can have that discussion.

Thanks.
 
When you have substantial numbers of the population needing to carry weapons in Church, your society has problems, and it just ain’t guns.

Do you not believe our society has problems? As a lefty, I wouldn't think it would be hard for you to think of some.
 
Ex-cop. Been Ex for a long time.

My Dad was Church Treasurer. He was never in LE, though he was a WW2 vet. He carried a .38 snubnose to church, with the knowledge and consent of the pastor and Deacon board. So did some of the ushers. This was back when I was a kid, before easy CCW was even widely available in my state.

And please do not use the term gun nut. It is offensive. Most gun owners are not mentally ill.

Many hard line, gun owners are offensive as well....I think I clearly defined my definition of a gun nut. If it doesn't apply to you, then don't take offense.
 
When you have substantial numbers of the population needing to carry weapons in Church, your society has problems, and it just ain’t guns.

Well, because then all you've done is create this national state of paranoia. EVERYONE'S carrying a gun, but you don't know who. And so the moment someone takes a shot EVERYONE draws their weapon ready to "bust a cap" in somebody's ass. Do we really want to be that nation?

Put another way: If you wanted to create a military state, well, there you'd have it. Only instead of it being controlled by law, you'd eventually get anarchy! Why? Because EVERYONE would feel falsely empowered to do whatever they wanted because they have a gun and, as such, they'd view themselves as being quicker on the draw, possessing more bullets than the next guy's gun, or his weapon is more lethal than his opponents. So much can AND WILL go wrong when you start arming the masses most of whom WILL use guns irresponsibly.
 
Last edited:
Let's put both Bible versus into perspective.

In Matthew 26:52, Christ was essentially saying that anyone who takes up a weapon for vengeance will eventually die from such a hate-filled act. Or in short, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

In Luke 22:36, Christ was instructing his disciples to prepare themselves for the eventual persecution they would soon come to face. And thus, he gave them permission to buy weapons (swords) to defend themselves against the coming aggression IF they chose to do so. And as you know, none did.

LaMidRighter,

I understand what you're trying to do and can certainly empathize with your moral struggle on self defense (see his post #301), but what reference to these Bible verses goes to once again confirm is that man will use specific passages of scripture to suit their own purposes. Unless and until you place such verses in their proper context, you risk leading man down a very dark path.

My advice to you: Guard against false witness, my friend.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see Christianity as teaching total-non-violence at all, nor do most denominations. Not really the right venue for that discussion in detail though, so...




EDIT: Ask yourself, were the 9 victims at the AME church being persecuted for their religious belief? If your answer is NO (and if you're honest about why Dylann Roof carried out this terrible, horrific, inexcusable act then the only conclusion you can reach is NO), then it wouldn't have made sense for these church members to conceal carry in a place of worship for any reason whatsoever.



It ALWAYS makes sense to be armed everytime you go out your front door. :D


Seriously. We had a serial killer on my rural road a few years back. Among his first victims were people I know, old friends of my father's. They were out in the yard, unarmed... he stopped and asked about buying hay bales. During the discussion he drew and killed them.

Outlier? Black Swan?

Maybe. When it happens a couple miles up the road to someone you KNOW, you stop giving a damn whether it's a black swan or a purple swan or an outlier or call-it-what-you-will. THEN it becomes ****-that-happened-where-I-live-to-People-I-Know and it's a different ballgame folks.
 
Well, because then all you've done is create this national state of paranoia. EVERYONE'S carrying a gun, but you don't know who. And so the moment someone takes a shot EVERYONE draws their weapon ready to "bust a cap" in somebody's ass. Do we really want to be that nation?

I see that is the way the US has been going for years.
It appears that the NRA, weak politicians, will not take the necessary actions needed and wanted by the vast majority of Americans.
Obama gets slammed talking about anything, really slammed when he spoke on mass murders and gun violence.
And that point ( lack of political leadership) illustrates another issue the US has.
I live in Canada; guns are not an issue here.
 
Many hard line, gun owners are offensive as well....I think I clearly defined my definition of a gun nut. If it doesn't apply to you, then don't take offense.


Ma'am, no offense, but that's like saying "When I say N------, I'm just talking about bad black folks not good ones".

It's still offensive as it imputes mental illness in a general way towards those who exercise their Constitutional rights and are concerned about their safety in an uncertain world, particularly because it is so commonly used in a broad-brush general fashion by those on the other side of the debate.
 
Ex-cop. Been Ex for a long time.

My Dad was Church Treasurer. He was never in LE, though he was a WW2 vet. He carried a .38 snubnose to church, with the knowledge and consent of the pastor and Deacon board. So did some of the ushers. This was back when I was a kid, before easy CCW was even widely available in my state.

And please do not use the term gun nut. It is offensive. Most gun owners are not mentally ill.

But your dad likely had that weapon at church for a very simple reason: To guard against church vandalism.

I can accept that, but that's different from having a gun as a member of your church Parrish just for the sake of having a gun.
 
Well, because then all you've done is create this national state of paranoia. EVERYONE'S carrying a gun, but you don't know who. And so the moment someone takes a shot EVERYONE draws their weapon ready to "bust a cap" in somebody's ass. Do we really want to be that nation?

Put another way: If you wanted to create a military state, well, there you'd have it. Only instead of it being controlled by law, you'd eventually get anarchy! Why? Because EVERYONE would feel falsely empowered to do whatever they wanted because they have a gun and, as such, they'd view themselves as being quicker on the draw, possessing more bullets than the next guy's gun, or his weapon is more lethal than his opponents. So much can AND WILL go wrong when you start arming the masses most of whom WILL use guns irresponsibly.



The same type of argument was used against "shall issue" CCW and failed miserably.

There are tens of millions with CCWs now... some states have millions just in their borders of CCWers among their population.


The predicted mass blood bath hasn't occurred, and available stats say that CCWers are law-abiding, restrained, and shoot the wrong dude less often than police.
 
Well, because then all you've done is create this national state of paranoia. EVERYONE'S carrying a gun, but you don't know who. And so the moment someone takes a shot EVERYONE draws their weapon ready to "bust a cap" in somebody's ass. Do we really want to be that nation?

Put another way: If you wanted to create a military state, well, there you'd have it. Only instead of it being controlled by law, you'd eventually get anarchy! Why? Because EVERYONE would feel falsely empowered to do whatever they wanted because they have a gun and, as such, they'd view themselves as being quicker on the draw, possessing more bullets than the next guy's gun, or his weapon is more lethal than his opponents. So much can AND WILL go wrong when you start arming the masses most of whom WILL use guns irresponsibly.

You are projecting your delusions. This does not happen. Concealed carry owners are quite safe and a net benefit on society. You have probably interacted with plenty and never known it-thats the idea.

Its an almost cartoon-like scenario you have running through your head.
 
But your dad likely had that weapon at church for a very simple reason: To guard against church vandalism.

I can accept that, but that's different from having a gun as a member of your church Parrish just for the sake of having a gun.


It's not just 'for the sake of having a gun'.


It's for defending self, family and fellow members if some looney shows up.... as just happened in Charleston.

It's for protection coming and going and wherever else you might stop coming and going.

It's a serious matter, not simply a whim, for the vast majority of us.

People who get CCWs without being serious about it tend to carry for a few weeks and then stop, because it is a bit of a bother. The ones who carry all the time long term are carrying because they have reasons to believe it is a necessary component of their security.

Like me. :)
 
But your dad likely had that weapon at church for a very simple reason: To guard against church vandalism.

I can accept that, but that's different from having a gun as a member of your church Parrish just for the sake of having a gun.

So wait--if someone carries for a reason of which you approve, this is okay--but not okay if it's for a reason you don't?
 
No doubt Goshin can shoot but so can I. I regularly out shoot my LEO friends.

Why should my safety be compromised?

Could someone else be harmed in me defending myself? Yes. Same for cops.

Is that even more rare than the odds of needing to defend myself? Yes.

The fact is in over 90% of cases just showing a gun will end the attack and in a mass shooting-lets just say there are bigger risks, like the guy walking around shooting people in the face.

I hear what you are saying loud and clear...but you do not live in a society where one side get's their way all the time. We live in a society of all sorts of people with different beliefs about their personal safety. The problem lies, we cannot distinguish the kook from the responsible gun owner and it frightens people. I care about whether I am scary to others who live in society with me. No one has ever said anything about banning guns...they are a big part of our economy and ingrained in our culture. No one even wants them banned. We just need to be able to talk about solutions to problems as they arise without it getting hostile and unreasonable. Organizations like the NRA stir people up and place a barrier between reasonable conversation. When kooks and criminals outnumber the good folks, then I would consider walking around strapped. The "rambo" spirit must stop. It is embarrassing gun owners like me. I could never get my CC because I am subjected to background checks every year and would be ashamed to defend it because I may be lumped into the Ted Nugent or extremist mindset of gun owners. Responsible gun owners are participatory in gun violence solutions, not start immediately screaming "gun grabber" and shut down. These folks are disturbing..
 
Why do people have to agree to gun control measures to be open to solutions? I don't consider placing barriers in front of people to practice their rights reasonable and I see no good reason to agree with it. I don't see why someone must pass some kind of government test to acquire a good from another person in trade, nor do I see why people should have access to less weaponry or pay more for certain goods because people are scared.

And why does the government have to do anything about it again?
 
You are projecting your delusions. This does not happen. Concealed carry owners are quite safe and a net benefit on society. You have probably interacted with plenty and never known it-thats the idea.

Its an almost cartoon-like scenario you have running through your head.

You do have a point...the CC carriers are subjected to thorough back ground checks and have to demonstrate competency. They, for the most part are safe gun owners. They conceal it and don't strut around like wanna be tough guys. A true respectable gun owner will never tell you if they are carrying or not. They don't find it something to brag about.
 
So wait--if someone carries for a reason of which you approve, this is okay--but not okay if it's for a reason you don't?

What did you think this was all about? You're talking to people that would rather have guns banned and are just coming up with solution to settle for less. It's pretty much douchebaggery from top to bottom.
 
Back
Top Bottom