One week ago, a gunman armed with a Ruger AR-15 shot at Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church, then entered and began killing parishioners. One week ago, an armed American grabbed his AR-15 and shot the spree killer bedevilling the small west Texas town. To mark this gruesome milestone, the anti-gun rights mainstream media is focusing on the first part of that horrific equation and trying its best to ignore the latter. It’s not easy . . .
Simple logic says if there’d been armed members at the Sutherland Springs church they could’ve stopped or at least limited the killer’s deadly rampage. Which is why churches, synagogues and temples around the country are reevaluating their security arrangements, many [finally] adding defensive firearms to the mix.
Which is also why the anti-gun-rights mainstream media is scrambling to find writers who can make a case — some kind of case — against armed worshippers.
As one the leading lights of the civilian disarmament industrial complex, The Washington Post no doubt felt compelled to turn to opinion writer (as opposed to?) Colbert I. King (above) to explain why houses of worship should be “gun free zones.”
Mr. King’s polemic acknowledges “the role of the armed neighbor who returned fire before first responders got to the scene.” But asks “As we contemplate God in our spiritual journey, must we also now pray for the capacity to shoot back?”
Sure! Why not?
Set aside for the moment the risk of armed church members confusing congregants they don’t recognize with an assailant, or the danger of friendly fire, or protectors who accidentally mishandle their lethal weapons.
Consider what we are giving in to. Some may call it reality. How about resignation? To think: gunning up and hunkering down in a house of God.
Got it. Reality sucks. Resigning yourself to reality can be a painful process. You have to abandon the preconceptions and prejudices that obscured your ability to see things as they really are, as opposed how you thought they were, or wish them to be. The red pill is a bitter pill to swallow. But there it is. And Mr. King only makes a head feint in that direction.
Gun violence is our problem. And we, holed up in our sanctuaries, seem to be losing heart as we resort to building arsenals in our churches and homes.
We know better. To return peace to our houses of worship and communities, we need to start by fixing our gun laws. We need to restrict access to those deadly weapons, keeping them out of the wrong hands — domestic-violence offenders, people with histories of violent behavior and the like.
We can’t set ourselves apart, hunkering down behind church walls. We need to keep faith that things can be made better, that there are ways — legislatively, medically, communally — to prevent the violence that takes a toll on our lives, done in the spirit of loving our neighbors as ourselves.
If we can’t do that, if we don’t want to try that, really, what’s the point?
What’s the point of what? Life? Tooling-up before you take a knee for your deity? If that’s the question, self-preservation and the preservation of innocent life is the answer.
It’s an answer that gun control advocates can’t counter, except to throw up their hands and say “has it really come to this?” They singularly fail/refuse to understand that lethal threats to religious groups were, are and always be with us — no matter what laws man passes.
“For every 10 or 11 g un removal ca ses, one suicide was averted — an estimated 72 averted suicides.”
How in the hell do they know how many suicides were ‘averted’? My guess is they’re just assuming that everyone who was stripped of their 2A rights would have committed suicide had their gu ns not been confiscated. And that would mean that about 10% committed suicide anyway.
So, how many of you armchair Three Percenters actually doing something constructive? Are you members of the NRA, GOA, JFPO, or the 2nd Amendment Foundations? Have contacted your representatives? Have contributed Monday or time to fight this and other legislations? Have you educate other gun owners about the threats they face from the gun grabbers?
Or have you just been blowing smoke on the Internet?
Please, don’t give me the standard B.S. that the NRA is not a real gun-rights organization, not “true” to the cause in some stupid way. If this bill turns out to be a real threat, which is not assured, then the NRA will be doing the heavy lifting in Washignton to kill it.
Never, ever, not be a member of the NRA. For all their faults, there would not be much of a gun culture left if not for the NRA.
I don’t know how to not sound insulting, but would you consider yourself a member of “the swamp”? Someone who supports the idea of sustaining a failing political party that has no real principles beyond, “we are not as bad as they are”? Someone who would encourage endorsing and voting for the non-conservative Republican establishment-type politicians, because if we don’t, the Republicans will cease to exist as a party?
The call to fund non-effective “gun rights” organizations seems a little like an “establishment Republican” telling us to keep voting for them because survival of the party is more important than actually having and exercising core principles.
When you really think about it, the only reason NRA exists is because the entrenched politicians are essentially proponents of a disarmed populace, and originally NRA was an obstacle. The current prime directive of the NRA is “survive, at any cost”. It is what happens to a group who have lost their guiding light. And now, there are a number of “gun rights” organizations that are more effective in court than the NRA. Organizations with goals beyond being an organization.
WWJD: As He admonished His disciples, “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”
Luke 22:36.
The implication, of course is it is more important to protect yourself from evil men than foul weather.
Ego, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and “rugged individualism” inherent in pretty much all male gun owners are, aside from money and time, the top 3 reasons why they do not seek formal training.
I have no doubt most here can and would perform well in a “garden variety” DGU. However, one thing most here probably don’t realize is that the things you learn in a formal training class can be admissible as discovery evidence in a trial. The “jury of your peers” will be all things accept: gun owners, crime victims, NRA members, TTAG readers, Deathwish or Dirty Harry fans etc. etc. Your formal training can be used to educate the jury. Your attorney could even subpoena your instructor to testify as an expert witness, in addition to the training you’ve received, and jury’s love to hear from “experts”.
This really has a very simple answer that kills their anti gun argument.
The church is a house of God, all are welcome there no mater what? Doors open to all worshipers?
But you have locks on the doors?
So not all persons can be trusted not to harm or steal from God’s house? Even though you can come in when the priest is there?
Please read this very relavent comment from Christian, Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com. He is a humble man with great, biblical insight! Feel free to pass this along.
Christian Men & Guns
By Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com
I have been asked on occasion how I can justify carrying a gun and being a Christian at the same time. This is always posed by someone who is trying to trip me up. It can either be a devout Christian asking the question, or a Hedonistic heathen; it doesn’t matter. There are those who believe, or choose to believe, that a Christian must be absolutely passive in all things. I am not just referring to those Christians who ride a horse and buggy. I have been asked about my views on self defense by Christians of most every denomination. Some are genuinely seeking an answer. Others just want to chastise me for not being as “faithful” as themselves.
Many will accept every modern worldly convenience, but scoff at the idea of trying to protect oneself or the life of another. Their attitude seems to be that “God will protect us”. They do have a valid point. God will protect us from the evils of this world, if he so chooses. I would rather have God on my side than a battery of Sidewinder missiles. Indeed, our God can protect us. However, that attitude would lead one to believe that he could walk through Harlem wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit campaigning for George Wallace, and that “God will protect us”. God could get you through that, but Jesus said that we should not tempt God. I tend to agree with his assessment.
In the saddlebag of my motorcycle, I have a tiny cross with the inscription “Faith Moves Mountains”, but I also ride in the mountains of East Tennessee and the western United States, and I make sure that my brakes are in good working order. I could just trust God to catch me, but again, that could be construed as tempting God. God gave us brakes on our motorcycles, and that is sufficient.
God can indeed protect us. He can keep us safe on the highways, and he can also keep us safe from those who would intentionally do us harm. I am not speaking of politicians here, but of the evil that is in the souls of some human beings. Be certain in this; there is true evil in this world, and it sometimes manifests itself in the form of a low life predator. Being a Christian, it is difficult to believe that people, made of the same composition of flesh, bone, and blood as ourselves, could be truly evil. We have a Heavenly Father who has filled us with basic goodness, but Jesus said that there are those “who are of the synagogue of Satan”.
No sane individual would hesitate to defend himself from a rabid dog or a poisonous snake, but are the two-legged vipers of this world any better than an animal? An animal does that which comes naturally to him. Children of Satan do that which comes naturally to them: that being evil.
Can God protect us from those who would do us harm? Absolutely. However, just as he has given us brakes to save us from the mountain, he has also given to us the tools necessary to defend ourselves, and those whom God has given to us. As Christian men, God not only allows us to protect our families, but he expects us to protect those whom he has placed in our care. This may seem contrary to the mandate for us to “turn the other cheek”, and I too have pondered over this. It takes great strength to turn the other cheek as Jesus intended. That is not a commandment to be weak. Jesus did not operate from a position of weakness. In fact, nothing ever happened to him that he did not allow.
God has entrusted us with the care of our brothers, whether those “brothers” be the children that he has given to us, or our wives, or our friends. We could set our children outside in the cold and trust that God would keep them warm. We could abandon them and trust that God will keep them fed. We could let them loose on the city streets or send them off for a week at Neverland, and trust that no sick, evil freak would abuse them. As Christians, we do not do these things to our children. God expects us to clothe them, feed them, and protect them from the evil that is inherent in this world. He gave to us the ability to buy clothes, grow food, build a fire, and to fight off those who would do us harm. In the time that Jesus walked the Earth in the form of man, the short sword was the state-of-the-art weapon. He told his followers that the time of living carefree was over, and that the time had come for those without a sword to “sell his garment and buy one”.
Today, we have better than a sword. We have more modern weapons at our disposal, and so does our enemy. Keeping a good rifle to defend one’s homestead and a reliable handgun to ward off evil that finds you when you least expect it is not only prudent, but expected. A Christian man is not mean, hateful, spiteful, or quick to anger. Neither is he weak. God never told us to let the evil in this world run over us like a train. He never toyld us to stand by idly as those whom he trusted to us are abused or killed. A Christian man who packs a gun does not look for trouble, and avoids it if at all possible. However, evil can seek you out.
A well-armed man operates from a position of strength. He is less likely to have to fight than an unarmed man. The predators in this world look for easy prey. God did not put his people on this Earth to be prey for the sons of Satan. God expects us to stand up for what is right, and he gives us the tools with which to do so. When you defend the life of one of God’s children, you are defending good against evil. Use your good sense and God’s word to avoid trouble. If necessary, use the gun at your side to stand against it.
The “passive Christian” schtick was invented to make them more compliant to tyrants. At one time of survival necessity, but now mostly for political & fundraising reasons. “Give us money instead of doing something about your problems”
“Lord, grant us a world where assault weapons are no longer needed”
“Do we want to accept a world where we bring weapons to our place of worship?”
“Whatever caused this unavoidable tragedy”
“Was it life imitating art in our movies and video games?”
-Presbyterian sermon this morning at the local church I decided to check out (I will be looking elsewhere next weekend, it seems)
Nothing more dangerous than a naiive Christian; so quick to sacrifice anything and everyone, of course themselves but more importantly others, all for no purpose (by which I mean a meaningful outcome for those sinners left behind that they purport to care for so much).
Even Jesus allowed his apostles to carry a weapon. How else can one explain how Peter happened to have a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane? (John 18:10) How we use that sword is the moral issue.
The road to Emmaus had many thieves. Christianity would never have spread without self protection.
“Question of the Day: Why Do Mass Shootings Get So Much Attention?”
1) They’re horrific events…
2) They further the liberal agenda and narrative…
I can respect someone who is truly passive and non violent, i.e. someone who walks the talk 168 hours a week, not someone who thinks the 1-2 hours a week in a church makes you special. A church after all has been defined tongue in cheek as a room full of admitted sinners.
My church prohibits open carry on their property, except LEO. I tend to agree with that, OC may be legal but there are some places it does not fit well. I know many conceal carry, some as part of organized “watchmen”, some as just ordinary pew warmers. Never an issue and I feel safer even if I am not carrying. It is actually amazing how few gun issues are in society once you remove alcohol and drugs from the mix.
The sign could read “Shavers are not powered by jello.” and make just as much sense.
Clearly you are using the wrong shaver!
Must be some God Awful Jello. Try Dark Cherry, mixed fruit, Whipped cream. The “elixir of the gods”.
Ak pistol (ok only a pistol by definition) that takes the exact same ammo and magazine as your ak rifle just kind of seems like a gotta have it no brainier.
The Fallacy of Misleading Vividness.
I would not expect a white liberal DC paper to do a front page story on the history of The Deacons For Defense and Justice, black christian men with guns, in the 1960s.
The white liberal press prefers to talk about the white communist influenced Black Panther Party for self-defense.
CC is welcome at my church. If it isn’t at your church go elsewhere…
Two things;
1. Laws do not prevent bad behavior they only establish punishment for same.
2. Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.
That is all.
I don’t blame the Marine Joe Plenzer and others for following quitting the NRA which is full of crap! I am a Cold War vet I came in 1984. I never heard of the NRA then in 1988 when I came off active duty these morons send me their junk mail! I read it then I deftly throw this garbage in the garbage can. The NRA are totally out of flipping control. I am glad more vets are standing up to them. It’s not about protecting America like the lie they spread to the masses fomented by Wayne lapier and his ilk it’s about money and the gun companies puting money in its pocket and making money off of all the gun deaths and tragedies because of their nonsensical propaganda! The President needs to stand up against them before it is too late instead of them playing him like a puppet!!!
Bottom line is money.
Let’s start by what you think the MSM is selling. They don’t sell news or programming, they sell advertising. Essentially, they sell US, the viewers to the advertisers. If a particular program has more of US viewing, the more they can get for selling OUR time. WE are the product being sold.
The NFL may be beginning to catch on…
My comment is addressed to the author of the article
Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Because I don’t panic. Is it sad? yeah .
Would repeal of 2 nd Ammendment be effective? Nope, don’t think so since humans have been killing each other since human beings have been in this earth!
Just a matter of what tool is chosen for murder
Colbert King does a beautiful job illustrating how the Progressive mind works on altruism, fantasy, and emotion:
“Consider what we are giving in to. Some may call it reality. How about resignation? To think: gunning up and hunkering down in a house of God.”
Altruism says that we should not have to be armed in church. Therefore, we are going to deride anyone who suggests that we should be armed in church.
—
“To return peace to our houses of worship and communities, we need to start by fixing our gun laws. We need to restrict access to those deadly weapons, keeping them out of the wrong hands …”
Fantasy says that laws will fix our problems, that we can actually stop bad people from accessing firearms, and that we can return to peace.
—
“We need to keep faith that things can be made better … in the spirit of loving our neighbors as ourselves.”
And finally emotion says that we will all FEEL better with LOVE.
Sorry to be “that guy” but if that’s true that these people “expect the unexpected” and are all about being prepared, why wasn’t anybody in that church in rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ Texas armed?
He told the Daily Caller he wants to ban “assault weapons”. Phuck him.
“Ohio Governor John Kasich: BBQ Pork Eating Surrender Monkey”
Spineless RINO…
You’re just now figuring out that Kasich is a RINO? Where were you the entire year of 2016?
I’ll listen to Kasich after he has a bath, a shampoo and a blow dry. Because he always looks like he needs them.
Knew him in ’79-’81 in Ohio Young Republicans. He was conservative then. But he jumped off that boat decades ago. Anathema to me since 94.
We’ve already done what Ohio just said. The problem is these people will never be satisfied. If we sit down again and compromise once again we will be giving up our rights until we have none left to give. These people act as if we haven’t already compromised on gun control and “common sense” gun laws. These people will never stop taking so we have to stop feeding them.
In order for a compromise to work, everyone has to be unhappy.
Source: Am lawyer, much compromise. Such wow.
Whole thing gets a BS flag. Sometimes people in the media just write about firearms for content, the other times they do it because they’re bored. My Bingo card was not full, but hit the round-robin on “hit send”.
People that get paid to write for a living pump out a lot of bs, on purpose.
Only once have I had issues filling out that form and it was at a Cabela’s after a 16 hour shift, trying to remember which address was on the I’d I gave the guy.
… but I’m mad NOW!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we_D3X1Jliw
Maybe journalists should be required to fill out a form every time they publish something. Nothing special, just personal information and several questions, like whether they were ever convicted of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Is it just me or does anyone else see it as really creepy when folks use kids, especially their own kids, as political props?
Strictly speaking, limitations on shotguns are not intended to protects ducks from being killed. They’re intended to preserve the availability of ducks so that all hunters get to kill some ducks. That is, it doesn’t save a duck’s life; it just passes the duck’s death off to the next killer. Part of the value that ducks deliver to society requires that they die. The limitation, thus, is geared toward preservation of a natural resource, which is a valuable purpose.
Now, I don’t know where this lady is from or what she’s used to, but where I come from, our goal is zero killings of children. Zero. We even have laws against it. The issue of magazine capacity is not an issue at all, because the public policy question of killing children begins and ends with “No.” The value that children yield society requires that they live.
These ammunition limits in hunting are for conservation purposes, where shooting is already allowed for hunting’s purpose od harvesting game. Firearms for self-defense purposes are tailored to a different purpose: lawful defense against violent criminals, invaders, and oppressors. All that magazine restrictions in that arena would accomplish is the preservation and propagation of violent attackers. What valuable purpose does that serve?
‘The United States’ astronomically high rates of firearm violence…’ – compared to who? Our neighbor to the south maybe?
‘Other common explanations, like the social fissures created by our racial diversity, have been debunked by researchers, too.’ – Well that’s good to know. Here I thought the mostly black neighborhoods in Chicago had a higher violent crime rate than the rural, predominantly white mid-west.
‘The only explanation left — an explanation borne out by a number of careful studies — is the sheer size of the American arsenal.’ – Someone remind me, how many guns are there in Mexico?
‘They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms…’ – Try it if you really want to see what ‘blood in the streets’ looks like.
No wonder people dismiss these ‘studies’ out of hand.
I Do Plan On Adding a Vortex Viper Red-Dot Sight Placed On a 45 Degree Angle To Be Able To Engage Close-Up Targets While Also Relying On Whatever 1.25×4 Scope I Decide On…