Church - A place for quiet reflection ...

[finnbow]

... or packing heat?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z2

I guess this provides yet another reason to avoid going to church.

[merrylander]

That man is insane, plain and simply insane.

[d-ray657]

The man plays to his base. It is a very base base.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JonL]

His premise: "Cuccinelli indicates that the 'right of self-defense lies at the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.'"

seems to be at odds with the Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which seems (despite the NRA) to quite clearly link the carrying of firearms to the protection of the State and not the Self.

[flacaltenn]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which seems (despite the NRA) to quite clearly link the carrying of firearms to the protection of the State and not the Self

I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...

The problem with that analogy is that Kindles are not lethal weapons.

It's interesting that you use the terms "anti 2nd Amendment." It might be more accurate to describe such folks a narrow interpreters of the 2nd Amendment.

Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...

Irrelevant. The first amendment does not share the squirrelly sentence structure with a dangling antecedent like the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unreasonable interpretation to assert that the 2nd Amendment has to do with militias, not the individual right to bear arms (regardless of your own personal views of the issue). BTW, I'm a life long gun owner and hunter, but not a 2nd Amendment absolutist.

[BlueStreak]

Church?

Must be part of the rights desperate desire to make their ideology appear Christ-like.

WWJD? Why pack heat in the Lords House of course. Never know when a brotha might have to jump up and bust a cap in a choir boys ass. Catch an acolyte skimming change out of the offering plate? Ventilate the little f**ers head during communion.......that s**t will never happen again. Hells yeah, dat lil' punk won't nevah disrespect the tithe up in this tip, eveh agin! That's what Glockmaster JC would do!

Seriously, what makes anyone think they would need to sport iron in the pew?

Really.

Dave

[JJIII]

I'm not going to take sides with either faction here but this may explain why someone would want to protect themselves, even in a house of worship. The gulf between a group that believes one thing and another group that believes the opposite is growing ever wider. Who's to say that what we see in this video would not escalate in bodily harm to the people praying at some point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0oMKGFTyk

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by JJIII

I'm not going to take sides with either faction here but this may explain why someone would want to protect themselves, even in a house of worship. The gulf between a group that believes one thing and another group that believes the opposite is growing ever wider. Who's to say that what we see in this video would not escalate in bodily harm to the people praying at some point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0oMKGFTyk

Were the Christians pushing for a confrontation? I can't think of any other reason for them to hold a well organised prayer meeting on the steps of a Church in an area that they knew would attract people opposed to what they were doing. It's an age old practice no matter what the cause. Film it in such a way that the protesters look in the wrong. Prime time TV shows an innocent boy saying his prayers while being spat on by a protestor. Free publicity; all it costs is the price of a blank video tape. Hell, they might even make a profit from broadcast rights.