Show of Hands

Typo , it was 20 years ago

Jesus doesn’t carry. He would have Archangels slaughter for him.

Suppressed ... shall we ask the money changers in the temple?

So they should have been wearing Kevlar.

There is only one state with a higher % of its citizens carrying a gun at all times than Texas. So if ‘they’ were not armed; then what difference would it make to speculate what might have been if the had been. Guns are not the problem. Just like more guns are not the solution.

So making Kevlar mandatory makes sense. You’re always ready.

Exactly

Wow, you're really upset over my pointing out that your grammar and spelling is poor, huh?

Polster ... wrong yet again. I suggested that you reconsider picking on grammar and you refused to back down. You show yet again that you can dish it, but you can’t take it.

How am I “not taking it?”

And I bet you chew tobacco in the pews, too.

No, I don't use tobacco. I care about the people around me. I don't expect anything bad to happen, but I'm ready if something does happen. You're no safer at a church than you are anywhere else. In fact, lately, churches have started to become more of a target lately, it would appear. I can't think of any good reason *not* to carry.

Hence the “macho”.

It’s ridiculous to carry a gun to church.

I don’t think it would have helped is all I’m saying and people shouldn’t have to go to church armed.

I agree.

Polster & MrsCW ... neither of you can know that a gun carrying parishioner wouldn’t have helped in this case. A parishioner in the last congregation that was carrying a gun certainly prevented more death in that case.

Think I don’t disagree. I don’t think a church full of parishioners all firing on one another is a wise thing.

I wish we could live in a country where the NRA didn’t pay our politicians to delay necessary action to keep us safer.

I’m not anti 2a or anti gun ownership so we part ways there, pol. However, I think that knee jerk reactions aren’t helpful when we don’t even have all the info. In Vegas, they had a hard time gathering intel because multiple people had guns out in self defense after Paddock began firing. It slowed down the process and made for a potentially dangerous situation.

And it has just been reported that a citizen returned fire. It is not known if it was a church goer or a bystander but he chased the shooter until he met his death. It is unsure if he shot himself or if the citizen shot him.

Polster & MrsCW ... so once again we learn that the knee jerk of leftists is leads to conclusions that are totally wrong.

We are now learning that the murderer was tracked down by a concerned citizen with a gun. While it’s not clear if the citizen killed the murderer or whether the coward killed himself, what we do know is that it was not the police or even the police pursuit that ended the rampage. We know that it was a good guy with a gun that interfered with a madman’s carnage.

It must sting, even for hardened leftists, to be this wrong this often. Have a swell evening.

I’m not a leftist. But I see your back to your prick ways.

And yet this never would have happened if the NRA didn’t buy our politicians off.

MrsCW ... the truth doesn’t care about your feelings or your silly predictions. You were wrong about this case, as is par for your course!

Polster ... there you go again making silly statements that you can’t defend. Are you suggesting that the only reason we have the right to bear arms is because of the NRA?

No, I’m suggesting that this massacre would not have happened if the NRA didn’t pay our politicians to oppose gun control measures, which would prevent crazy people from purchasing guns.

Which gun control measure would've stopped it?

Making it illegal to sell guns to mentally ill people.

You think someone with a mental illness can't get a gun?

I think we should make it as difficult as possible.

If I’m not mistaken, this guy had a dishonorable discharge so he should have never been able to obtain them. So did he have them illegally? If so, mental health checks wouldn’t have helped.

He was not dishonorably discharged. The New York Times lied about that and were forced to issue a correction.

Let me investigate.

Bad conduct discharge

If he had a felony conviction, he is not allowed to own a firearm. Was his courmartial for abuse a felony conviction? If so, he was unable to legally own guns.

Polster, the point always gets back to the very real fact that even felons can get guns. No amount of gun control can stop that.

While it pains me, I agree, Scotty.

The truth can be painful sometimes

Yeah, a minister whipping out a pistol is totally not weird at all...

It’s not lol

Experienced gun owners don’t brandish their sidearms. Take a gun safety course.

You seriously believe that it isn’t weird to go to church armed?

Is it weird to carry pepper spray to church? That’s a weapon too.

Nope. It’s totally fine.

Pepper spray doesn’t kill people.

Agreed.

It’s a still a weapon pollster.

What about pocket knives?

Terrorists kill people with cars, too. Should we stop driving to church, too?

Most terrorists and mass shooters are males.
Maybe men should stop going to church. It’s just too weird.

If you can identify a legitimate reason, besides self-defense, to carry a gun into a church service, I’ll give you a cookie.

Dylan roof was white and shot up a church.

Stop going to church Milk, it’s too weird.

The second amendment does not require me to provide a reason to carry a weapon.

Self defense is pretty much the only reason to carry a weapon, or drive. Ever heard of defensive driving?

People drive to get from point A to point B. They don’t drive defensively for the sake of driving defensively.

Now you’re telling people why to drive? 🤦‍♂️

But you gotta defend yourself from the other drivers while getting there. You gotta defend yourself while you drive, hence defensive driving.

I agree, but the primary reason why people drive is to get from point A to point B. Defensive driving is just one way to accomplish that goal.

Exactly, you have to drive defensible or else the other cars driving offensively are gonna wreck you because you didn’t drive defensively and then the driver is going to be stressed because he probably can’t afford a new car.

But again, the primary reason why people drive is to get where they're going.

And the primary reason people carry guns is to protect themselves. This event should demonstrate that nowhere is safe, and so nowhere should be gun free.

Carrying a gun in church for self-defense is not as weird as being slaughtered by a nut or terrorist without having the means to stop it.

That’s why there should be a law that nuts cannot have access to guns, but the NRA won’t allow that.

Tell me how to enforce that, or how to predict future insanity.

I don’t know the answers to those questions. I think gun buyback programs nationwide would do a lot of good, though.

Gun buy backs? There are an estimated 500 million guns in the US. Unrealistic, whether voluntary or mandatory. Voluntary won't make a dent. Mandatory would likely spark massive disobedience or civil war.

First of all, the number of guns already out there is closer to 300 million. Second, voluntary buybacks have been at least somewhat successful in the past, so it’s reasonable to believe that they will be at least somewhat successful in the future.

There are some old laws where you had to carry a gun to church because Indians would trap people in and burn the church down with them in it.

I just heard on the news two former government officials, one a retired ATF agent (obviously an expert), say there are an estimated 500 million firearms in the US. The ATF person also said further gun legislation is pointless considering the number of firearms "out there". Under a voluntary buyback program, only those unlikely to commit crimes would participate. Mandatory...not going to happen in the US unless we fall into tyranny. If a tyranny, we would have far more problems than we have now...

Just a quick search referenced an old Massachusetts law, “All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.” www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts

How do you know that only those unlikely to commit crimes would participate?

Because I have common sense.

I don’t believe in common sense. I believe in data. Come back when you have some of that.

Polster ... that’s the most honest thing you’ve ever said ... you “don’t believe in common sense”! That’s SO true!!! One of your fatal flaws is that you have no common sense!

Having common sense doesn’t matter. If your “common sense” isn’t backed up by evidence and data, then it’s completely irrelevant.