Gun church

considering the fact that...the internet is open, any information you input is subject to collection by anyone else who cares to do so.

Considering that I wasn't talking about the internet...

Considering the fact that cell phones are open transmittors and receptors of radio frequencies, any time you talk on one, you open yourself up to ANYONE collecting what you have said and heard.

Considering that I'm talking about land lines as well as cell... and that laws had been put in place since the Nixon Administration to prevent eavesdropping.

If your kids were killed by a person, whom the world can't decide is a combatant, or soldier, because they have no borders, and are not addressed in the Geneva convention statutes, would you want them to be set free?

Don't be ridiculous! Would I want a murderer set free?! Let me think about that for a nano secNO!

But wait... how do we know what these detainees did? There's been no trial, no evidence, no eye-witness testimony. Are you willing to toss out centuries of legal precedent? If you think these people are terrorist, show me the evidence! If you think these people are murderers, show me the evidence! And if you can't, then send them back to the country where you found them, safe haven or not.

Who is going to protect you? You? How?

Who is going to protect you Q? Sure, you might be able to deal with the drunken sot in the pub, but what about the gang on the street? What about the person who wakes you up in the middle of the night with a gun to your head?

Protection is a pipe dream. For every scenario that you see yourself whipping out your pistol and disarming the masked bad guy, there's many more where people are taken by surprise, or out-gunned, or so taken with rage, that in an argument they shoot the loved ones they were supposedly meant to protect.

The truth (according to the insurance company) is that vast majority of us will live to ripe old ages, more concerned with our lumbago than midnight prowlers. So I will take my chances, unarmed, counting on the police and fire department, like most citizens. While you, on the other hand, will fight off street gangs single-handedly and douse your house fires with a garden hose as you casually wave-off the fire truck.

The world can have only so many super-heros. I'd hate to wade in on your turf. :rolleyes:
 
BTW...

I could be playing video games, or watching TV, or reading a book, or building a website, or any number of things.

I think the reason that I'm here, and the reason that others are here too, is that we like to engage. We like to debate. We like to argue and converse, to agree and disagree, to find commonality and difference.

This is our game.

So for all of the back and forth that Q (and others) and I take part in, I'm actually quite thankful for and appreciate.

Kisses Q. I couldn't do this without you. What fun! :p
 
So as the OP pointed out, or asked the question, sure, bring your "unloaded" guns to church, here in the US, where one has the right to bear arms, and the government (which is the vote of the people), can not infringe upon that right, nor determine where such arms can or can not be born, with the exception of infringing upon another's "rights" to Life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, as it pertains to the other constitutional rights of all others.

Like my dad said, "rights end at the tip of one's nose", unless one sticks their "knows" where it doesn't belong...

wouldn't want to get everything one "knows" shot off, now would we. Of course not, so we keep our "nose" out of their business.
 
I think this takes the "Right to Bear Arms" too far, I must say that, as an Australian I find the "Right to bear arms" clause in the US Constitution abhorrent. We have no right to carry hand guns. Why would anyone want to take a gun into church unless he did not like the preacher and his sermons and decided to whack him.
 
Let's try and avoid the personal attacks, please, Q. :)
 
I think this takes the "Right to Bear Arms" too far, I must say that, as an Australian I find the "Right to bear arms" clause in the US Constitution abhorrent. We have no right to carry hand guns. Why would anyone want to take a gun into church unless he did not like the preacher and his sermons and decided to whack him.


WOW . abhorrent is such a strong word.
The right to bear arms is a strange one for us to realise, eccles. As an aussie, I thought it strange at first, I mean we live in a free country, right?
WRONG. Its only after visiting the USA, meeting different people from all walks of life, talking to them, seeing the similarites and the differences in our two countries that i have realized just how we (aussies) have been kept on a tight leash.
Bearing arms is just one of the issues, but for the sake of the topic of this forum, i shall keep focused. keep in mind, tho, eccle, it is a right not a requirement. :)
Love the Grey
 
Here's a little something from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...
Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries

During 1950-1993, the overall annual death rate for U.S. children aged less than 15 years declined substantially, primarily reflecting decreases in deaths associated with unintentional injuries, pneumonia, influenza, cancer, and congenital anomalies.

However, during the same period, childhood homicide rates tripled, and suicide rates quadrupled.

In 1994, among children aged 1-4 years, homicide was the fourth leading cause of death; among children aged 5-14 years, homicide was the third leading cause of death, and suicide was the sixth.

To compare patterns and the impact of violent deaths among children in the United States and other industrialized countries, CDC analyzed data on childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death in the United States and 25 other industrialized countries for the most recent year for which data were available in each country.

This report presents the findings of this analysis, which indicate that the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries.

...

The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04).

It's one thing for adults to take on and accept the risk of gun ownership, it's another thing to subject innocent children to the violence that has accompanied it. But it's part of the price children pay for growing up in the "land of the free".
 
my right to bear arms

secamend

I always understood it that the right is there to arm the people as protection against a corrupt government. Because as we can see.. that happens easily enough.

Q, a pastor nearby lost his is 501c3 status for speaking against a certain politican during service.. they can lose exempt status for voicing an opinion.

There are a lot of rights CZ that are being taken away and you can throw former president Bush up in my face as an insult if you like but at least he protected the rights of millions of unborn babies and at least He TRIED to protect this country from terrorism.
 
There are a lot of rights CZ that are being taken away and you can throw former president Bush up in my face as an insult...

G.W. Bush isn't just an insult to you, he's an insult to all Americans and the Constitution that he was sworn to uphold. You talk about a corrupt government, well that administration was the perfect description on one.

a scary thought to me is a generation of pacifists. We would be sitting ducks.

At the mercy of who?
 
Here's a little something from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...
Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries

During 1950-1993, the overall annual death rate for U.S. children aged less than 15 years declined substantially, primarily reflecting decreases in deaths associated with unintentional injuries, pneumonia, influenza, cancer, and congenital anomalies.

However, during the same period, childhood homicide rates tripled, and suicide rates quadrupled.

In 1994, among children aged 1-4 years, homicide was the fourth leading cause of death; among children aged 5-14 years, homicide was the third leading cause of death, and suicide was the sixth.

To compare patterns and the impact of violent deaths among children in the United States and other industrialized countries, CDC analyzed data on childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death in the United States and 25 other industrialized countries for the most recent year for which data were available in each country.

This report presents the findings of this analysis, which indicate that the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries.

...

The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04).
It's one thing for adults to take on and accept the risk of gun ownership, it's another thing to subject innocent children to the violence that has accompanied it. But it's part of the price children pay for growing up in the "land of the free".
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you. (CSNY)

And teach them not to play with guns. This isn't a game of "tag, you're it"...
 
G.W. Bush isn't just an insult to you, he's an insult to all Americans and the Constitution that he was sworn to uphold. You talk about a corrupt government, well that administration was the perfect description on one.



At the mercy of who?


I wouldnt label you and me as the same type of American though.. My type supported former president Bush.. your type didnt. your type probably supports president Obama.. mine doesnt.


At the mercy of the terrorists we should obviously baby and give all types of human rights to as they plan how to take as many of us out as possible. How about Iran's president that calls us the little satan and thinks we should be destroyed with all Jews. How about the next dictator type that thinks North America is a nice piece of land and decides to just take it.
 
I wouldnt label you and me as the same type of American though.. My type supported former president Bush.. your type didnt. your type probably supports president Obama.. mine doesnt.

I'm sorry. These are tough times for you.

At the mercy of the terrorists we should obviously baby and give all types of human rights to as they plan how to take as many of us out as possible. How about Iran's president that calls us the little satan and thinks we should be destroyed with all Jews. How about the next dictator type that thinks North America is a nice piece of land and decides to just take it.

Terrorism wasn't invented on September 11, 2001. How did we deal with it before then? By utilizing our intelligence agencies, the police, the FBI, our courts. You don't catch terrorists by deploying armies. There are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who should be alive today, and yet Osama Bin Laden is still a free man.

An Iranian president calls us little satan? Didn't we already label them one of the Axis of Evil? A dictator might invade America?

So to protect ourselves from being called names and the outside possibility that we'll be invaded by a threat that doesn't even exist, we'll maintain an army that costs over 700 B-B-Billion dollars a year—more than the next 50 nations combined? That's a tried and true American value that I'd love to see come to an end: the obscene spending on weapons of mass destruction to protect us against threats that don't even exist.
 
I'm sorry. These are tough times for you.



Terrorism wasn't invented on September 11, 2001. How did we deal with it before then? By utilizing our intelligence agencies, the police, the FBI, our courts. You don't catch terrorists by deploying armies. There are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who should be alive today, and yet Osama Bin Laden is still a free man.

An Iranian president calls us little satan? Didn't we already label them one of the Axis of Evil? A dictator might invade America?

So to protect ourselves from being called names and the outside possibility that we'll be invaded by a threat that doesn't even exist, we'll maintain an army that costs over 700 B-B-Billion dollars a year—more than the next 50 nations combined? That's a tried and true American value that I'd love to see come to an end: the obscene spending on weapons of mass destruction to protect us against threats that don't even exist.

If we were successful in preventing terrorism then why were foreign people able to hijack our planes and use them as bombs in our very own country.

We DID prevent terrorism by sending armies as much as every complains about the war in Iraq.. Saddam was a VERY bad man that did VERY bad things to first off his very own people. That was justice served. Use your little google technique and find out how many Iraqi's he and his family were responsible for raping plundering and killing.

After that horrendous useless stimulus package I dont even want to hear how much money we spend on our military... thats a complete joke. Even more so.. Russia has by far MORE WMD than WE do. and guess what... they dont LIKE us very much anymore AND they have trade agreements with guess who... the same people who dont like us, IRAN and an old friend CUBA. So you might think you know alot but noone knows everything.

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association

or for unexisting threats read this.

Countries With Weapons of Mass Destruction - Intelligence Threat Assessments

I also know that there are people that live in a bubble of unawareness.. Im not sure if its deliberate or not.
 
Countries With Weapons of Mass Destruction - Intelligence Threat Assessments

I also know that there are people that live in a bubble of unawareness.. Im not sure if its deliberate or not.

I'm with you. I hate to think this was deliberate...
Bush told of hijack warning weeks before 9/11
The Guardian, Friday 9 April 2004 10.51 BST

President Bush was given an intelligence briefing, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States just weeks before the September 11 attacks, it emerged yesterday.
Details of the August 6 briefing in 2001, which warned of terrorist preparations being made for hijackings on American soil, surfaced in testimony given by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to a commission of inquiry studying the September 11 attacks.

The existence of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been publicly known for some time, but Ms Rice's confirmation of its title and some of its contents pushed it centre stage in the explosive political row over whether the al-Qaida attacks could have been prevented.

Talk about people that lived in a bubble of unawareness!
 
I'm with you. I hate to think this was deliberate...
Bush told of hijack warning weeks before 9/11
The Guardian, Friday 9 April 2004 10.51 BST

President Bush was given an intelligence briefing, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States just weeks before the September 11 attacks, it emerged yesterday.
Details of the August 6 briefing in 2001, which warned of terrorist preparations being made for hijackings on American soil, surfaced in testimony given by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to a commission of inquiry studying the September 11 attacks.

The existence of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been publicly known for some time, but Ms Rice's confirmation of its title and some of its contents pushed it centre stage in the explosive political row over whether the al-Qaida attacks could have been prevented.
Talk about people that lived in a bubble of unawareness!

oh please... lets print the WHOLE article.. its a whole different interpretation when you read the whole thing. Seriously, how dumb do you think people are?

Bush told of hijack warning weeks before 9/11

Rice says briefing contained no fresh information

President Bush was given an intelligence briefing, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States just weeks before the September 11 attacks, it emerged yesterday.
Details of the August 6 briefing in 2001, which warned of terrorist preparations being made for hijackings on American soil, surfaced in testimony given by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to a commission of inquiry studying the September 11 attacks.
The existence of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been publicly known for some time, but Ms Rice's confirmation of its title and some of its contents pushed it centre stage in the explosive political row over whether the al-Qaida attacks could have been prevented.
The emotive significance of the briefing - in the form of a memorandum sent to the president summarising potential threats to the US - is all the greater because at the time he received it, Mr Bush was on a month-long "working holiday" at his Texas ranch and spent much of the following days fishing and clearing undergrowth on his land. He did not cut short his vacation or apparently take dramatic steps in response to the briefing.
The president was at the ranch yesterday, watching Ms Rice's performance on television. According to his spokesman he telephoned her from his pickup truck to say she had done "a great job".
In the course of a frequently testy interrogation lasting more than two hours, Ms Rice repeatedly insisted that the content of the August 6 briefing to the president did not live up to its dramatic title. She said it was largely a historical review by the CIA and FBI of previous hijacking plots and contained no fresh information or warnings. There was no "silver bullet" that could have stopped the attacks, she said.
However, Democratic members of the commission ques tioned that interpretation. Bob Kerrey, a former senator, said the PDB informed the president that "the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking".
Ms Rice countered that the FBI had been given the task of looking into the report, airport authorities were informed, and that there was not much more the president and his top officials could have done. She blamed the failure to catch the al-Qaida hijackers before the attack on long-term bureaucratic barriers which prevented the sharing of information between the CIA and FBI.
In exchanges in which the questions were often more revealing than the answers, the commissioners made public a series of stunning findings on the extent of apparent bureaucratic incompetence in the weeks between August 6 and September 11 2001.
"Secretary [Norman] Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea. Yes, the attorney general was briefed, but there was no evidence of any activity by him about this," Jamie Gorelick, a Democratic commissioner, told Ms Rice.
"You indicate in your statement that the FBI tasked its field offices to find out what was going on out there. We have no record of that. The Washington field office international terrorism people say they never heard about the threat, they never heard about the warnings, they were not asked to come to the table and shake those trees. SACs, special agents in charge, around the country - Miami in particular - had no knowledge of this."
The justice department and FBI will come under particular scrutiny in the commission's hearings next week, when the attorney general, John Ashcroft, will be under fire. In his first seven months in office, he cut the FBI's counter-terrorism budget, and did not even list terrorism on his list of justice department priorities on the eve of the al-Qaida attack.
Ms Rice had been singled out by a former White House counter-terrorism "tsar", Richard Clarke, for her failure to focus the president and his team on the threat from al-Qaida in early 2001.
Sitting alone in front of the 10 commissioners, Ms Rice began the day with a prepared statement, read with a shaky voice which gradually grew in confidence. She argued that reports of an increase in intelligence "chatter" about an impending attack in the summer of 2001 had been overstated, and made public examples of vague intercepted comments from terrorist subjects to illustrate her argument: "Unbelievable news in coming weeks" and "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar."
"Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us how," Ms Rice said. She hotly denied the August 6 briefing paper amounted to an urgent warning of an impending attack.
"It is just not the case that the August 6 memorandum did anything but put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on and a few things about what the FBI might be doing," she said. The commission later questioned former President Bill Clinton privately for more than three hours.
 
oh please... lets print the WHOLE article.. its a whole different interpretation when you read the whole thing. Seriously, how dumb do you think people are?

Certainly not to dumb to click on the link I provided back to the article. ;)

Ummm... exactly what part of the whole article exonerates our former bubble-existing president? Perhaps he was too busy trying to catch the "big one" on his month-long vacation to be bothered. And who can blame him? Fishing's an engaging endeavor.
 
well, then cz according to your way of thinking what was the president to do with this information? Oh, I know, give Mr Bin Laden a call and tell him that it would be awfully nice if he could NOT throw his little terror attack on the usa. ?? Well, we certainly wouldnt want to use any force, or hurt anyone would we.?

Because the attacks happened doesnt mean that the usa didnt try to prevent it. The western world had never seen anything like it, and i hope that we never do again.

You complain about Bush and the government etc, but you are a pacifist, so what would you have done?
"STOP IT, I DONT LIKE IT"????
 
well, then cz according to your way of thinking what was the president to do with this information?

I don't know GM... what could the president possibly have done with such information? Oh, that's right... nothing!

I thought it was a timely reminder of the events that led to 9/11 especially since FS wrote in the post just prior about "Intelligence Threat Assessments" and "people that live in a bubble of unawareness."

It was a perfect set up FS. Thanks for lobbing that softball directly over the plate.
 
Back
Top