16

Federal Gun Laws Killed 9 in Charleston Church

Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 11 months ago to Government
42 comments | Share | Flag

"No one should have to die because the government decided they were not to be trusted with the means to defend their own lives."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So that's how the Islamics get around the anti-suicide ban in the Mohammed's best seller. I would have called it straight up murder. Interesting. I think the phrase that clouds perception is ...they chose to martyr themselves - or be executed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand the distinction in legal structure.
    But when facing a gunman, the trapped unarmed victim faces the same risk of death whether the right to carry was removed by a localized gun-free zone, by a City Ordinance, a US State law, a US Fed law, or (perish the thought) some future global law system growing out of the UN monster.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dansail 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Martyrdom is not suicide. Martyrdom is death of an individual at the hands of another, against the will of that individual. A suicide is at the will of the individual. Living in NYC and/or the District of Columbia is not suicide, but it is putting oneself in danger if they feel the world is right in those 'gun free' zones.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 11 months ago
    Gun restrictions might as well be accompanied by engraved invitations to any loony who has a desire to kill people.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
    Side question. Isn't martyrdom another name for suicide? Since all suicides have a purpose even if only to the individual. Or in some parts of the world including New York City and Washington DC it could be considered a form of murder with a built in simultaneous form of capital punishment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 11 months ago
    I view a "gun free zone" such as where that slaughter in a South Carolina to be nothing but a potential death trap for a shooter with issues.
    I avoid such places as much as I physically can.
    A so-called "gun free zone" should always require armed security of some sort.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Be that as it may, Christianity has a long history of martyrdom, starting with its namesake.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 8 years, 11 months ago
    This government is all about control. It hates allowing us citizens having freedom: freedom from regulations, free to purchase guns, free to buy a big gas guzzler of a vehicle, free to pursue our lives as we want to. Their antidote to every problem is more control, never understand the root cause, because control is really what they want.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobMorse 8 years, 11 months ago
    The original topic was about state mandated "gun free zones". Some congregations willingly make themselves gun free zones. What is it about Christianity that draws pastors to think being a disarmed victim is a virtue?

    Are they testing themselves before god? Are they thinking “God will protect us if we're worthy?” This magical thinking is getting congregations killed around the world.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There should be. The right not granted to the federal court was granted to the State Governments in many if not all fifty cases. Giving up or having the right and means of self defense revoked implies the State is 100% responsible and when having failed - culpable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 11 months ago
    "Gun laws" have nothing to do with anyone's safety except those who are taking control. The fact that a church, school, or other organization complies is what they want so future "crises" will justify more "gun laws." Compliance with stupidity and evil leads only to tragedy for innocent people.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Federal law? State law?
    ...no difference to the citizens not allowed to defend themselves
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once the feds made the move on schools it was open season on other common meeting places, although I see the point that schools are govt supported and churches are not. Govt meddlers gone mad, as usual.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agree about the Dark Center. But again, even your second link doesn't apply here: it is about schools; the Charleston incident was a church. And our Federal government was not the first to impose gun control laws.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 11 months ago
    Agree in general. But I think it was a state law, not Federal.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo