Clinging to Guns and Religion
 

Obama caught a ration of shit for criticizing the type of rednecks who cling to their guns or religion. It seems he was right on the mark.

NEWFOUNDLAND, Pa. — Crown-wearing worshippers clutching AR-15 rifles drank holy wine and exchanged or renewed wedding vows in a commitment ceremony at a Pennsylvania church on Wednesday, prompting a nearby school to cancel classes.

With state police and a smattering of protesters standing watch outside the church, brides clad in white and grooms in dark suits brought dozens of unloaded AR-15s into World Peace and Unification Sanctuary for a religious event that doubled as an advertisement for the Second Amendment.

The church, which has a worldwide following, believes the AR-15 symbolizes the “rod of iron” in the book of Revelation, and encouraged couples to bring the weapons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uns/383815002/

That so-called church is run by the son of Sun Myung Moon, of the 'Moonie' Church fame.

The same clowns who started the Washington Times, the gawd-awful wingnut alternative to real journalism in the DC area.

Yeah......

Jesus Christ, the gun-toting redneck?

What a bunch of shitheads.

Pretty sure if Jesus toted a gun there would be no Christianity.

Gun owners would do well to understand how many decades right and left media have been using us as pawns. The narrowness of the debate is a material source of noise, aka profit, for media companies.

The issue became real for me when I had to disagree with a best friend on Facebook. He reposted some propaganda that shed good light on the memory of playing cowboys and indians. In his defense I imagine that he remembered the play like I did. I imagined playing cowboys and indians from a maintenance or Boy Scout perspective where preserving the tool, in this case the gun, is important to winning. The gun must be at the ready. It must be prepared.

My friend posted that after I had debated with you guys for a few years and began to understand how fast the news works, particularly through political cartoons. Knowing that I had changed my position on any enduring value of the childhood game of cowboys and indians I tried to summarize my position against my best friend in one sentence. In a cartoon of words. It went something like this:

What if Crocodile Dundee was about an Aussie shooting Aboriginals? Would that be a story that you would want to carry on?

Writing that question of disagreement against an armed best friend was among the most difficult writing experiments that I have ever performed.

I disagree that the media has made pawns out of gun owners. Nice talking point.... but the gun nuts (not responsible gun owners, but the fanatical gun nuts) are the ones who have taken this issue and made everyone crazy over it leaving common sense behind.

Websearch Dana Loesch to see how the NRA provokes the gun nuts/ 2nd Amendment religion faction.

Well, she is one of those gun nuts. What else would you expect from her.

Barbara,

What is your definition of common sense?

A few years ago I read a book titled "Media Effects Research, A Basic Overview" by Glenn G. Sparks. In a nutshell the book describes cause and effect relationships between media and their audience's reactions. That book taught me the power of media and introduced me to the debate that common sense may be more of a democratic and scientific popularity than a philosophical approach.

Where does your appreciation for common sense lie?

Common sense, man!

I see gun owners who are capable responsible diligent ...... BUT THEN ALSO see the less then, the ones who leave a loaded pistol ready to go, on the bed stand, in the drawer right where the little one can get to easily!


Just go to a gun range and pay attention. It does not take to long to notice the less then'ers who think guns are fun. Toys to play with for fun. Paying little heed to the safety of others..


Go ahead and think everyone is as safety conscious as you who owns and operates. But in reality, try, yes, looking to the lesser of the user operator is the norm.


Barney

Common sense is a low standard of responsible, prudent behavior, that can be expected of an average person in a given culture. It is common sense that this low standard is praiseworthy because it is very often not met. Just about everyone has the knowledge and talent to achieve it, but intent is the problem. Bad intent is very common, and can mess up 'responsible and prudent' completely.

Common Sense is clear fact based thought.

ebacon, there is no doubt that the media influences people. When it come to guns, the gun fanatics use every method, including the media, to influence legislators, retail sellers, private citizens, and any group they can reach

One of the problems is, the anti-gun fanatics do the same thing.

Example, the confusion about the term "assault weapon".

All the mass murderers don't seem a bit confused by their efficacy in perpetrating their crimes.

Repeating NRA talking points?

Wiki: Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

Now please define anti-gun fanatic. :rolleyes:

Agreed.
Should be defined as "high capacity rapid fire tactical firearms", and heavily regulated as the hazardous responsibility they present.

JJ, can you tell me specifically, what "rights" you believe the 2nd amendment, as written in full, grants individuals minus the militia connection?

Just saw this thread. Don't go to church much, do ya? If you did you'd know that many a call from many a pulpit, including last Sunday in my church, called for action on restriction of guns.

Depends on the church, quite a few wanted a venal self-identified unapologetic pussygrabbing profligate liar in the Oval.

Just a quick search of some of a few churches around my 10 20.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26guns.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...eaway/5967533/



https://youtu.be/0b2fvZk82YI

https://youtu.be/Rg0k2O5re18

BTW this Pastor killed himself over allegations of sexual assault.
https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...ead/950666001/



Barney

Since he doesn't appear to know, I'll tell you again. Self defense and being able to fight a tyrant who is taking over our nation, which Trump clearly isn't. These two rights remain until the Supremes sing otherwise.

Interesting, until now I didn't perceive you as a gun worshipping redneck. But since you just implied being one who am I to argue. :cool:

Scalia iirc said, the 2nd permits home defense with a handgun. Nothing else, afaik.

The tyranny bit is a false assumption, absent from the Second in word and intent. Armed insurrection against Federal authority is not a Constitunally granted protected right.

Trump is at least a would be tyrant as POTUS by demeanor.
His removal would be arguably justifiable by any rational judgement of ethical behavior.

The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.

Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.

If that was the intent, it would have been part of the wording. It's just not there.

In other words, you don't believe we have the right to own arms. I know we do because the intent of the second goes beyond the need to arm a militia.

Potentially, everyone does under the second, including the village idiot and the county homicidal maniac by assumption.

Do we "need" a Constitutional amendment to own and operate motor vehicles. No, yet we aren't demanding onesuch, or need it to lawfully do so.

Pretty sure convicted murderers and other know miscreants don't have the right to bear arms in any state and the 2nd doesn't prohibit this and other constitutional legislative restrictions on firearm ownership.

Uh no.

[IMG][/IMG]

Please find a smaller picture and repost, Mike.

Interesting. Until now I didn't know you clung to absurd stereotypes.

To which stereotype am I clinging? Before answering you might reread the excerpt finnbow quoted in the OP which is the basis of my riff on your reply to his post.

Wrong.

The second amendment has nothing to do with either self-defense or hunting. It contemplates an armed populace to enable said populace to form militias, for, it is assumed, defense of liberty against enemies foreign or domestic. The assumption is faulty, and the amendment is nothing but trouble. But we're stuck with it.

The well-regulated part, to my mind, allows any level of sensible gun control for cause, if the political will is there, as long as militias not under federal control can still operate. Persons patently unfit for militia service could be denied the right to bear arms.

Pray tell us then. Or are you saying you actually don't know as oppossed to appearing not to?

"Infringement"? Who decides? The NRA?

Our legislatures and courts determine when an individual's right to bear arms is restricted.

So, legislating infringement is permissible.