Sunday, June 28, 2009

Sanctuary, my extremity

What is the point of bringing guns to church? Isn't the whole idea of church that it's a place where God will provide and protect you?

In Kentucky, a pastor encouraged his flock to proudly sport their firearms while attending services this week. A gun raffle capped off the day. The pastor said that fears of an Obama planet compelled him to prove that people can carry their weapons and still be decent, law-abiding folk.

Do people really believe that President Obama is going to confiscate guns and/or repeal the Second Amendment? He's never even hinted at it, and most gun-control advocates aren't in favor of it either. Where does this irrational fear come from? Is it from the very real weakening of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments through the Patriot Act? Somehow, I doubt it. I can think of some superficial and prejudicial factors, but I'd rather think those are unfounded as well. But they probably aren't.

That part about being proving decency and law-abiding-ness, though, I can understand. After several recent church shootings and politically motivated killings, the burden's definitely on the gun crowd, particularly the right-leaning gun crowd, to prove that they can be trusted with their guns. Kind of like young kids with small-part-laden toys.

But, really, guns in church? This is why I don't go. Well, that, and the increasingly extremist (and illegal) political rhetoric.

55 comments:

NOLA Progressive said...

I saw this buzz line scrolling on a news channel earlier today. I just don't get it. A gun is designed for one thing only: to take life. Now these are christians cavorting in their bastion of christiandom. The last time I checked, the backbone of the christian moral code was not called the 10 "suggestions" yet they want to glorify guns in their place of worship?

I personally don't have a problem with guns. I own them, possess a concealed weapons permit. I feel no threat from the obama administration to this ability. However, I also don't tell people how to live or what ethos they should follow. Perhaps that's the key difference. Either way it's just more support for the idea of the founders of this country that religion shouldn't steer our political decisions.

TJENKINS said...

He wants to ban gun stores from opening in pretty much any populated area and also wants to ban concealed carry laws. That's why people have this CRAAAAZY idea that he hates guns.

NOLA Progressive said...

It would seem more likely to me that if he hated guns he would be proposing bans on guns in general, not just concealed carry. Also, as a former police officer and concealed carry permit holder currently, where you can carry in most states is so severely limited that a ban wouldn't amount to much. It certainly wouldn't prohibit personal protection weapons or even carry in your vehicle (in almost all states there are caveats already).

Also I don't really consider proposing a restriction that prohibits new gun stores from opening within 5 miles of a school or national park banning them in pretty much all populated areas. Heck one could be opened on my block for that matter under those restrictions, and I live in a populated area.

Also he allowed legislation to pass that had carry laws inside of national parks earmarked to it. I believe that was in the Credit Card reform legislation, but I may be wrong.

TJENKINS said...

"Also I don't really consider proposing a restriction that prohibits new gun stores from opening within 5 miles of a school or national park banning them in pretty much all populated areas. Heck one could be opened on my block for that matter under those restrictions, and I live in a populated area."

Hence the reason for the "pretty much", I didn't say all populated area. I know in my city, which is very gun friendly, if such a law passed about 6 gun stores would have to close or move outside the city limits. But that's par for the course for Obama, he hates businesses and people that are able to survive by not living off the government teet.

herb said...

Here's what happens when liberals are in charge. They conspire and think up ways to throw law-abiding citizens in jail for buying guns

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090628/SPORTS/906280369

Ian McGibboney said...

That editorial reads something TJenkins would write. I couldn't get past the multiple derogative adjectives. Why is it so hard for conservatives to make a point without insulting their opponents?

NOLA Progressive said...

That's the deal really. Why is it necessary to be insulting and rude to one another. I guess one person does and the other retorts and the tone just becomes angry thereforward.

In response to the article. Jenkins were you attempting to imply that Obama was responsible for this legislation, because I saw no evidence of that. Perhaps you were just insinuating this was reminiscent of his general view on the subject? Moving forward the "5 Mile" legislation (sorta sounds like an Eminem movie) is not retroactive as far as I know, so no one would be forced to shut down. Even in this article detailing the frequency restriction on gun purchases, I dont' see anything that is anti-gun.

Also personal sales after the fact make up a huge portion of gun movement. I agree that most law abiding citizens aren't reselling them to "gang bangers", but the intent that someone has in purchasing a weapon is hard to ascertain. How many guns are necessary to be purchased in a month anyway?

The legislation probably won't be all that impactful I agree. More truly effective legislation would be bans altogether on assault weapons, conversion kits, and quick and underresearched background checks. In any instance there is nothing hurting the average gun owner and purchaser here.

TJENKINS said...

"That editorial reads something TJenkins would write. I couldn't get past the multiple derogative adjectives. Why is it so hard for conservatives to make a point without insulting their opponents?"

So says the guy that reads DU, has a DailyKos diary and watches Olbermann and Bill Maher religiously...

herb said...

How many guns are necessary to be purchased in a month anyway?

As many as I can fucking afford with my money, that's how many. It's no business of yours or government to decide how and what I legally spend my money on.

Ian McGibboney said...

NOLA: Good points. Cigarette companies are not allowed near school zones, and neither are child molesters. We have different speed limits during school hours as well. These are reasonable restrictions designed to protect certain areas. Of course, many on the right complain about them, and think we should repeal them and allow guns instead, so at least there's some consistency there.

While people have the right to protect themselves, the prospect of people open-carrying to church strikes me more as a perverted weapons fetish than as a stand for protection.

Teej: There's a difference between the source and the article. That article was extremely amateurish. I try to write things that are not amateurish, no matter where they show up. I have a new rule addressing this coming up.

Herb: I hope you've never received unemployment or a loan for any reason, because that undermines your entire "I am island, hear me roar" attitude.

TJENKINS said...

"Of course, many on the right complain about them, and think we should repeal them and allow guns instead"

Who? or is this another of your famous strawmen?

And before you start moving the goalposts, I want specifics..who wants to repel speed limit laws near schools, cigs near schools and keeping pedos like you away from schools. Who? Names and/or legislation they have put forth.

"I try to write things that are not amateurish"

You fail at that, like most things you try in life I'd imagine.

Ian McGibboney said...

You're painting yourself into a corner, Teej. If I'm right, and people want to repeal school zones and whatnot, then by definition they're making the school areas less safe and/or more vigilantelike.

If I'm wrong, and conservatives really do support the children, then they are hypocritical in supporting those laws on safety grounds but not supporting gun regulations for the same reason.

So I can do the research if you like, but you lose either way.

TJENKINS said...

First off, I have doubts you'll do any research, I don't even think you know how to. You're all strawmen and mixed talking points from liberal blogs. If you can't find it on DailyKos or DU, you haven't been told what your opinion on something should be.

Secondly, you're reasoning is as retarded as the kid you and your sister had. Conservatives don't support gun regulations because of a little thing called the Constitution, perhaps you've heard of it.

Ian McGibboney said...

Here's an idea, since you're so high on specific research and you've been making this accusation since you first hatched:

Why don't you cite some examples of me ripping off ANY other blog? Doesn't have to be your favorite ones - ANY of them. Ever. Knock yourself out.

You sound like a broken record, the only difference being what stupid personal attack du jour you pass off as wit.

herb said...

Herb: I hope you've never received unemployment or a loan for any reason, because that undermines your entire "I am island, hear me roar" attitude.

What does unemployment or loans have to do with me not wanting the government to throw me in jail for legally buying something I have a constitutional right to with my own money?
Did you get confused on which talking point you were supposed to respond with?

TJENKINS said...

I never said you ripped off anyone, but it's obvious your daily opinion is in line with whatever the LIBERAL OUTRAGE OF THE DAY is on most popular liberal web outlets. Like a good little Borg, you just go along with the collective, blithely unaware how painfully unoriginal you are.

But you're off the point. Who wants to repeal those laws you specifically mentioned? I'd really like to know who has no issue with pedos near schools (besides you, obviously).

Ian McGibboney said...

Herb, your "no one has any right..." argument misses the point of this thread. No one is talking about taking away your right to buy weapons as a law-abiding citizen. I referred to the lunacy of bringing guns to church, and NOLA talked about restrictions on selling guns. You pipe in with "no one has any right...," which is the standard anti-government argument. You're making it about you, you, you, which is where my comment comes from. But this issue is not about you; it's about a trigger-happy society that seems to be losing all boundaries regarding reason and sanity.

Teej: Go read my new blog.

herb said...

it's about a trigger-happy society that seems to be losing all boundaries regarding reason and sanity.

Because they want to exercise their right given to them by the founders of this country? I can see why liberals have such problems with things like free speech now.

It always strikes me as funny how liberals can read things like abortion into the constitution when it's not there but when it comes to the right to bear arms, which is clearly spelled out, they act as if it's some kind of myth.

TJENKINS said...

So I take it you're going to let stand your ridiculous strawman Ian?

I guess that explains why you could only find employ at some podunk online newspaper.

Ian McGibboney said...

The Second Amendment allows for protection against threats through a well-regulated militia. Some say that refers to the National Guard, but it's also come to mean the right for an individual to bear arms for the sake of personal protection and gathering.

Guns in church is a fetish. Period. I think it's silly at best, dangerous at worst. There's an old saying, "When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." People who feel the need to carry a gun everywhere in 2009 strike me the same way. It shows a telling defensiveness and mistrust of organized society. I'm not saying you don't have the right to do it, but to suggest that the Founding Fathers intended everyone to carry guns everywhere they went, no matter how absurd, is itself absurd. And I frankly feel sorry for anyone who feels a need to pack heat in church. It must be hell to be that paranoid.

TJENKINS said...

Explain why having a gun in church is "dangerous"?

I really just want to know if that comment stems from your utter hatred of religion, or your undeniable fear of guns. Basically I want to see if you're more bigoted, or paranoid.

Ian McGibboney said...

A gun in any situation increases the chances that someone will be shot and/or killed. Sometimes that risk is justified. But why people want to introduce that threat in a church, or mall or any other public gathering is beyond me. Are those places now so dangerous that we all have to play cop?

Paranoia aside, there's also the whole gun-based church event that sparked this blog in the first place. Why? Doesn't violent force contradict Jesus' teachings? Even if you disagree, what is the point of celebrating guns in church?

TJENKINS said...

Ah, so paranoid it is. Contrary to what you may have been told, guns are generally used for protection. people carry them to protect themselves and their loved ones. I know having loved ones is a foreign concept to you, but it's true, some people value the lives of their family enough to take measures to ensure no harm comes to them. I know pussy little liberals like you think you can talk your way out of every bad situation, but it sometimes doesn't work. Having Mr. Glock handy as a backup helps one feel secure in knowing that when diplomacy fails, hot lead won't.

as for the liberal belief that any religious person that isn't a die hard pacifist is somehow not following god's will obviously hasn't read the bible, it's pretty bloody.

Ian McGibboney said...

Taking a gun to church isn't protecting your family. If it is, maybe you should go to a different church. Maybe one that doesn't completely miss the point of violence in the Bible.

herb said...

You know they checked the guns at this church to ensure they weren't loaded, right? It wasn't about waving around loaded guns in church, it was about promoting safe ownership.

Ian McGibboney said...

I knew they did at a similar ceremony a while back, but I didn't know that about this one.

I actually find that funnier, because the tacit admission there is that the weapons aren't safe when loaded. So much for trusting responsible gun owners and protection and whatnot. So not only does that undermine those arguments, but it also proves once again that people just want to carry guns for its own sake. Funny.

NOLA Progressive said...

Absolutely. Checking to insure that the guns are not loaded shoots the whole "responsible gun owner" idea right in the ass (yes pun intended).

Teej, don't use the Bible as an argument please. A more contradictory text has never been written, and it does nothing to help your argument. However, if religion is your game Thou Shalt Not Kill should supercede just about anything.

Hey Teej. How many times for you have words failed and "hot lead" saved the day for you? Just curious. I'd imagine all the time if this is such a hot issue. I hate to tell you also, that society as a whole absolutely has a right to tell you what restrictions there may be on your "constitutional right". Even the first amendment has limits sir.

I don't know why you don't see that no one of any political ilk would take anything you say seriously, because you are such a perfect idiot in the way you speak to others. Some of the crap you say is repulsive and completely knee jerk reaction. You like many fundamental leaning individuals are angry and scared. You are an angry and scared little boy who needs to yell, and curse at everything. If you couldn't be made about something and have it all just be wrong, you wouldn't know what to do with yourself.

TJENKINS said...

Oh please wise one, tell me what I'm scared about. I'm an ardent believer that knowledge is indeed power, so hit me up with some knowledge about my inner thought process. I'm dying to get some insight from the retard teacher.

NOLA Progressive said...

You are a sad sad little man. Night.

TJENKINS said...

Night, don't let the bed tards bite.

herb said...

Absolutely. Checking to insure that the guns are not loaded shoots the whole "responsible gun owner" idea right in the ass (yes pun intended).

Or it could just mean they wanted to ensure the sanctity of the church. Plus they probably knew if they actually allowed loaded guns in the church people like you and Ian would go crazy, look how crazy you went when you only thought they allowed loaded guns.

You gun grabbers act like any time a gun is present it's the old west where people have a holster on their hip and are ready to shoot people for looking at their lady wrong. It's comical how completely clueless you are.

Ian McGibboney said...

So what is the point then, Herb? What is the point of bringing an unloaded gun to church?

If a loaded gun violates the sanctity of the church, why doesn't an unloaded gun? Are bullets sacrilegious? And why bring an unloaded gun? It's not even just that the unloaded gun proves my point - it's that it also seems to prove some cryptic symbolism that I don't get.

TJENKINS said...

Aren't those questions you should have researched Ian before posting this? I mean you didn't even have the facts of the story straight and now you expect your readers to do the work for you?

No wonder you're nothing better than a copy editor for some barely read online rag.

NOLA Progressive said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
NOLA Progressive said...

When you have to resort to grossly insulting people with disabilities there Teej, it is apparent your discourse skills are extremely lacking, chief.

Religious condemnation not really being my strong suit but...

Also, egregious comments and sentiment such as that should turn into some extremely bad "reap what you sow" type stuff if you truly are a Christian.

NOLA Progressive said...

Herb I am at least somewhat sympathetic to what you are saying here. Like I said, I was municipal law enforcement for several years and do enjoy competitive and recreational target shooting. I don't want to lose the ability to own personal protection weapons any more than you do.

I don't think I am saying anything that is clueless here. I simply believe that the proliferation of firearms in our country is a problem. There are huge amounts of gun related deaths and violent crime perpetrated with guns all the time. I don't think that everyone who owns a gun or even carries one falls into that category either.

My only point is that a completely unregulated gun sales and industry is not beneficial to society. Again this comes down to a personal freedom issue I know. It would seem that you take the stance of the right to be completely unhindered and regulated by the government. I just personally do not. Some regulation (I believe) is a good thing if done properly.

I'm not even saying that this law we were discussing limiting the number of guns purchased per month is a great idea, but I do think some oversight is appropriate.

Either way I can respect your opinion and agree to disagree with you here. Unfortunately the tone of this chain has gotten less than civil, and for that I apologize. I shouldn't allow myself to be baited. It is obviously an issue which is dear to you, and I simply think that some middle ground could be found.

TJENKINS said...

Reading your hate filled blog NOLA, it's obvious you're a religious bigot, but sorry to destroy your carefully crafted world where everyone that dares question you is a "fundie"...but I'm not religious, not even a little. I just have an issue with religious bigots like you acting like your shit doesn't stink.

So how bad of a teacher are that the best you can do is to teach drooling tards how to make macaroni portraits?

Ian McGibboney said...

If you ever had a real point, Teej, you wouldn't have to rag on your distorted caricatures of what NOLA and I do for a living. NOLA makes intelligent, articulate points, and even Herb occasionally chimes in with something constructive. Why can't you?

NOLA Progressive said...

Sir are you capable of opening your mouth without spewing forth vitriolic garbage? Actually I should have referenced typing not talking. Such craven words are rarely expressed in person.

You are a disgusting human being. I believe I said that "if" you were a christian. I have not a clue what your affiliation is other than disseminating insults and hatred. I'm not sure what you see that makes me bigoted. I dislike organized religion and make no bones about it. That hardly a bigot makes. So now what you do as always is find some obscure fact or perceived issue which you think has shock value and attempt to exploit it. Make fun and demean people with disabilities or those who attempt to help them overcome aforementioned. Better yet insult and demean people for what you perceive to be their sexuality. Perhaps you would like to find some terminal cancer patients and deride them. Hey it would be a new scum bag low but I'm sure you can sink to the occasion. So run along boy and play your hand some more at shock jock.

TJENKINS said...

Man, you really got a thing for those mongoloids, don't you?

Did you fail out of real teacher school and that's why you're on tard duty?

TJENKINS said...

Still requesting an answer:

"Who wants to repeal those laws you specifically mentioned? I'd really like to know who has no issue with pedos near schools (besides you, obviously)."

C'mon Ian, you don't want to look "amateurish", back up your words.

Ian McGibboney said...

I don't recall ever saying that anyone wants to repeal those laws as a matter of legislative record. You know damn well what I'm talking about: that gun-free school zones are opposed by some because they claim that a gunman will come in knowing that no one is armed and shoot up the place. It's a very, very common refrain from the gun crowd.

TJENKINS said...

I'll reiterate, since you obviously are unwilling to back up your shit:

"Who wants to repeal those laws you specifically mentioned? I'd really like to know who has no issue with pedos near schools (besides you, obviously)."

I bolded the part I REALLY would like an answer to.

Ian McGibboney said...

Oh, I'm sorry, Teej. I wasn't aware we were talking about child molesters, just guns, which is the whole point of this thread. I said at the beginning of this thread that if no one has trouble with child molesters near schools, then they shouldn't have trouble with other regulations, such as no tobacco advertising or no gun shops near schools. I've said nothing like you accuse me of saying. But why let logic get in the way of just another useless accusation about me hurled from your cowardly anonymity?

I'll reiterate my question again: where have I ever ripped off another blog? Go.

Ian McGibboney said...

Sorry, I meant, "no problem with banning child molesters near schools." Don't want to give you any real ammo when you're so busy making it up yourself, Teej.

TJENKINS said...

"Cigarette companies are not allowed near school zones, and neither are child molesters. We have different speed limits during school hours as well. These are reasonable restrictions designed to protect certain areas. Of course, many on the right complain about them, and think we should repeal them"

So I'll ask again, who "on the right" wants to...

A.) Allow cigarette companies near schools

B.) Allow pedos near schools

C.) Get rid of speed limits near schools.

Answer these questions.

Ian McGibboney said...

I need to prove to you that conservatives are against gun-free zones, are in the pocket of Big Tobacco? Do you follow politics at all? (And by the way, those were the regulations I was referring to conservatives opposing, not pedos near schools. Stop grasping for straws.)

I think the burden should be on you to prove any of your numerous fallacies about liberals and the multiple libelous lies you constantly spew about me and anyone else who has the nerve to make sense on this blog.

TJENKINS said...

So I take you don't have an answer?

I guess I'll just chalk it up to your propensity to spout strawman after strawman when it comes to conservatives.

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, that IS an answer, just not the one you were hoping for, apparently. But such is often the case with loaded questions.

I'd like some evidence from you as well. But I'm not even going to bother anymore. Because we both know you're only about insults above all else.

TJENKINS said...

It's isn't an answer you glorified spell checker. Who on "the right" wants to repel laws that keep pedos away from schools?

You want evidence from me about what?

Ian McGibboney said...

I never said anyone wanted to repeal the laws against pedophiles and sex offenders near schools. I said that gun-free zones and tobacco-ad restrictions are sometimes targets of the right, and maybe I shouldn't have lumped that in with those. I don't see why this particular tangent of a point is such an obsession with you. But I hope that clears that up.

You, on the other hand, have made numerous personal attacks and wild accusations about me and about others in general, both here and on numerous other threads. Unless you want to start backing them up with facts like you're so insistent that I do (and am), then you can get lost.

TJENKINS said...

You never did? I'll highlight the parts of the above paragraph where you, in fact, did:

"Cigarette companies are not allowed near school zones, and neither are child molesters. We have different speed limits during school hours as well. These are reasonable restrictions designed to protect certain areas. Of course, many on the right complain about them, and think we should repeal them"

Oh my bad, I highlighted the WHOLE PARAGRAPH because that WHOLE FUCKING PARAGRAPH culminates in you saying "many on the right" think we should repel those laws. You even used the word "repel". Who are these "many" Ian, who?

Ian McGibboney said...

I might answer that if I felt like you actually cared. But you don't. You've seized upon the one weakness in anything I've said here, something so small as to be nearly pointless, something I've already admitted to saying wrong, and you hammer it to death because it makes your small mind feel like you've accomplished something. You are worthless.

TJENKINS said...

I'm hammering you on it because just a week ago you were adamant you NEVER used strawmen and cried like a beaten whore when I showed you did in the past. So here you are again, using strawmen and I'm just pointing it out. No need to be a whiny bitch.

Ian McGibboney said...

I hate to imagine that you're so pathetic that this is what occupies your time. "Does Ian's extremely tangential aside on a topic fit my broad definition of straw man? Yay! I win!" I don't blame you, considering you have zero intellectual, moral or rhetorical ground when it comes to any topic at hand ever, but it's still grating and serves no purpose. And, frankly, I'm done with it. And you. From now on, I'm going to deal with people with something to say. I regret egging you on to begin with, because that's what makes trolls like you hard. But that's my fault for mistaking you for a man.