Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Ayatollah Buggeri

Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition!

Recommended Posts

Fox News (obviously):

gun_service.jpg

Ron Stafford had a hunch that this past Sunday's church service would be different, but he certainly didn’t think he’d take home an AR-15. Stafford, 42, of upstate Schenectady, N.Y., won the assault rifle during a pre-announced raffle at the March 23 service at Grace Baptist Church in Troy, where pastor John Koletas preaches that the constitutional right to bear arms shall not be abridged.

On Monday, Stafford was on his way to pick up the gun -- valued up to $1,200 -- after a federal background check.

"I’ll plead the Fifth on that,” Stafford joked when asked if the AR-15 was his first gun. “I’m on my way to pick it up right now, and to meet the pastor.”

Stafford, who works in sales, said he went to the service “on a whim” and didn’t expect to be selected. Three other people were initially picked, but Stafford walked away with the gun because they had already left the service, which drew roughly 150 congregants.

“Actually, I went on a whim; I wanted to see what this was all about,” he told FoxNews.com. “I found out about it about a month ago and I wanted to exercise my God-given right.”

Koletas, who could not be reached for comment, reportedly received death threats due to the giveaway, but won’t be deterred – he’ll actually be giving away another free AR-15 during a service late Monday.

“My peace I give unto you,” reads a flier promoting the event, quoting the Gospel of St. John. “Qualified attendees will receive a legally-modified AR-15 … All giveaways are absolutely free to enter (attendance required).”

All winning applicants will be subject to a federal background check, must be age 18 or older and provide a valid driver’s license. The church also reserves the right to deny anyone of “questionable character,” according to the flier.

“We have the Constitution to protect us,” Koletas told parishioners during the service, according to the Albany Times-Union. “But we have our liberty to protect ourselves.”

Koletas declined to elaborate on details of the alleged death threats he received and indicated he had not contacted authorities.

“I don’t need the police to protect myself,” he told the newspaper.

A large portion of the church’s budget was used to purchase the gun and to promote the event, said Koletas, who declined to give specifics.

Bob Gray, a retired pastor from Texas, spoke during Sunday’s service and is scheduled to appear again on Monday. Republican Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin also attended Sunday’s event, WNYT.com reports.

“Yes, it is unusual,” McLaughin told congregants. “Is it illegal? Absolutely not. And it’s not unethical either. And the people have every right to support the Second Amendment. I hope everybody does.”

Gray raised some eyebrows during the service when he told the crowd — some 75 of whom registered for the drawing — that he had a concealed weapon amid the pews.

“And listen up, reporters,” Gray said, according to the Times-Union. “It’s not registered.”

Some churches in Kentucky have also been using guns to attract new members. Earlier this month, churches in Paducah — where three students were killed during a school shooting in 1997 — hosted “Second Amendment Celebrations.” At Lone Oak First Baptist Church, roughly 1,300 people crammed into the church hall for a steak dinner and pep talk by gun expert Chuck McAlister, who was hired by Kentucky’s Southern Baptists to grow membership. Twenty-five guns were raffled off during the dinner and winners were required to pass a background check.

"I brought a gun with me tonight," McAlister told the group, according to NPR.org. "I know that's very controversial."

FoxNews.com's Joshua Rhett Miller contributed to this report

Quite apart from the inadvisability from egging on would be George Zimmermans such as this idiot, does he not realise that the right to which he refers was given by a secular process (the Second Amendment to the US Constitution), not God? And that furthermore, that the separation of religion and state is one of the constitutional cornerstones of his country, and why the pastor who preached the sermon he listened to didn't have to have it approved by the government first?

Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What section of the bible states you have the right to bare arms?

Tucked away in US translations of St Paul's Second Amendment to the Thessalonians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely a no-no in the Quran

Well that's Muhammad Ali, Amir Khan and Chris Eubank all off to Muslim hell then - they all bared their arms in front of millions once they got in the ring and took them snazzy dressing-gowns off...

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's Muhammad Ali, Amir Khan and Chris Eubank all off to Muslim hell then - they all bared their arms in front of millions once they got in the ring and took them snazzy dressing-gowns off...

XYY

Aanly blurks were watchen, mon! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News (obviously):

gun_service.jpg

[/i]

Quite apart from the inadvisability from egging on would be George Zimmermans such as this idiot, does he not realise that the right to which he refers was given by a secular process (the Second Amendment to the US Constitution), not God? And that furthermore, that the separation of religion and state is one of the constitutional cornerstones of his country, and why the pastor who preached the sermon he listened to didn't have to have it approved by the government first?

Yikes.

actually if bother to read OUR bill of rights(which was issued by royal edict and not parliamentary amendment..and it is not allowed to be amended either,)...WE still have the right to bear arms too.

only a couple of hundred years of smallprint and legalistic technobabble have convinced you to the contrary.

likewise teflon tony will also find out shortly that capital punishment for treason is STILL on the statute books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What section of the bible states you have the right to bare arms?

most of it actually.

..those who become sheep will be governed by wolves.

self defence is ABSOLUTELY MANDATED in the good book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aanly blurks were watchen, mon! :blink:

Mrs XYY's nee blurk man, and she loves ta watch arl the boxin' like.

And she sez - and I quote - divent ye come back with any Hayley insinuations Pin-boy, or ah'll cum roond and bitch-slap ya, yer cheeky shandy-drinken suthan bastad...!

Ah dee luv that wumman t' bits...

:)

EDIT: correction of Geordie phonetics

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you're here XYY, I was in Newcastle on Saturday for the Palace match. Got a bit pissed on the bus so as I had an hour to kill I wondered in to town to try to get a pint. Wondered into an innocuous looking pub in a shopping centre at about 1.30pm, only to find a full on party going on, loud music, and most impressively, strippers on the bar!

So is that just a match day thing, or is that just what Geordies do at 1.30 on a Saturday afternoon? I was most impressed TBH :lol: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you're here XYY, I was in Newcastle on Saturday for the Palace match. Got a bit pissed on the bus so as I had an hour to kill I wondered in to town to try to get a pint. Wondered into an innocuous looking pub in a shopping centre at about 1.30pm, only to find a full on party going on, loud music, and most impressively, strippers on the bar!

So is that just a match day thing, or is that just what Geordies do at 1.30 on a Saturday afternoon? I was most impressed TBH :lol: .

Ain't referred to as the party capital of the world for nowt ya knaw...

:)

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on the podcast at the link.

High School civics does not provide a sufficient basis for understanding the Constitution. "Exhibit A" being the Second Amendment. Whereas modern American myth treats the Second Amendment as if it were written to guarantee the right of freedom loving men to defend their homes and sacred honor, in reality it was meant to guarantee slave-holders their use of "slave patrols," e.g., the "militia," to keep down those debased by servitude so as to be divested of two fifths of their humanity. Carl T. Bogus explores the contradiction in a must-read, seminal article, "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment" (U.C. Davis Law Review, 1998), which, like so much else to do with convergences between slavery and the founding, has not gotten quite the attention it deserves. Here, Carl graciously revisited his article with me in light of our current debates over gun control. Total runtime thirty two minutes. Ālea iacta est.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2013/02/slavery_and_the_second_amendme.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually if bother to read OUR bill of rights(which was issued by royal edict and not parliamentary amendment..and it is not allowed to be amended either,)...WE still have the right to bear arms too.

only a couple of hundred years of smallprint and legalistic technobabble have convinced you to the contrary.

likewise teflon tony will also find out shortly that capital punishment for treason is STILL on the statute books.

Oracle, this is rubbish. The Bill of Rights was an Act of Parliament. and its provisions were drawn up in that embarrassing period when one monarch (James II) had been gotten rid of and a way was being sought to legally put others (William and Mary) on the Throne.

And I challenge you to show me where in the Bill of Rights it says anything about Englishmen having the right to keep guns. There is a provision against standing armies, but this is not the same as being allowed to keep a colt 45 under your pillow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite apart from the inadvisability from egging on would be George Zimmermans such as this idiot, does he not realise that the right to which he refers was given by a secular process (the Second Amendment to the US Constitution), not God? And that furthermore, that the separation of religion and state is one of the constitutional cornerstones of his country, and why the pastor who preached the sermon he listened to didn't have to have it approved by the government first?

Yikes.

The US far right does have some pretty confused ideas. Elevating the constitution to the status of a religious document and (with zero sense of irony) regarding the bible and constitution as parts of a whole seems to be a part of it.

They also have a profound sense of victimhood, even when their ideas are politically dominant. So arming themselves to protect against the terrible onslaught of gays, liberals, intellectuals, atheists and climate scientists must seem logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US far right does have some pretty confused ideas. Elevating the constitution to the status of a religious document and (with zero sense of irony) regarding the bible and constitution as parts of a whole seems to be a part of it.

The irony is that the only reason they have the religious freedom they have is thanks to the constitutional separation between religious organisations and the institutions of government. Why do you think the Church of England is effectively an extension of the Labour Party? Because it is constitutionally a part of the political establishment, and therefore needs for its survival to take part in its political activity on a similar basis to all the other parts.

If an American pastor delivers a sermon arguing that global warming might not be man-made, that heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of a healthy society or any other politically incorrect message, the government cannot stop him: he is accountable only to God and the congregation that pays his salary. A C of E vicar who does likewise is accountable to bishops who are appointed essentially by government ministers.

They also have a profound sense of victimhood, even when their ideas are politically dominant. So arming themselves to protect against the terrible onslaught of gays, liberals, intellectuals, atheists and climate scientists must seem logical.

To be fair, I think they also have a substantive point in that the current administration is trying to erode the Second Amendment to the point of being functionally meaningless by stealth, using the Tuscon and Sandy Hook incidents as a pretext to do so. In the more left-leaning states now, regulation of the private ownership of firearms is now more restricted than in many European countries. Bullying tactics are also used, e.g. aggressive tax investigations are being ordered on firearm ownership advocacy groups, and New York's airports will reguarly search the checked luggage of transit passengers (i.e. those flying between two separate states and just changing planes in NY) for firearms, and arrest and jail the owners of any they find who do not have the relevant NY permits.

My problem with Obama is that like Blair, his instinct is to do things by stealth and circumventing democratic accountability mechanisms wherever possible (hence his infamous "I have a pen and a telephone" speech), rather than to hold an honest and open debate on rewording or repealing the Second Amendment.

As for the Second Amendment itself, the Fox News tendency do tend to misunderstand what it's about. The full text is (my emphasis):

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.

At the time it was written, its authors were well aware that their country had no centrally organised armed forces that were large enough to stand any realistic chance of repelling a foreign invasion. The point of that amendment, therefore, was to allow and encourage farmer Jedediah and his 17 kids living in a wooden shack on the coast of Maine to have the means to take pot shots at any British warship that might appear off the coast, if King George were to be silly enough to send them back again.

Two and a half centuries later, it still has some relevance. My sister in law and her family live in Baker, CA, which is 60 miles away from the nearest permanently staffed police station. The fact that many of the residents there were refused gun permits because of a minor criminal record for shoplifting as a child 50 years ago, the police didn't like the look of their references, their homes were judged not to be secure enough to store guns in (the regulations for this are tough: for example, single pane windows in your home = no gun permit), etc. etc., is a constant source of worry. Armed burglaries happen there at the rate of one or two a month, largely because the town is isolated, in the middle of nowhere but right next to a big motorway, and so the burglars can be 50 miles away and in another state before the police even know that the crime has happened.

But for a church to campaign for people living in the middle of New York to be carrying fully automatic machine guns around is pure stupidity, and playing straight into Obama's hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oracle, this is rubbish. The Bill of Rights was an Act of Parliament. and its provisions were drawn up in that embarrassing period when one monarch (James II) had been gotten rid of and a way was being sought to legally put others (William and Mary) on the Throne.

And I challenge you to show me where in the Bill of Rights it says anything about Englishmen having the right to keep guns. There is a provision against standing armies, but this is not the same as being allowed to keep a colt 45 under your pillow.

read it.My link

not only does it make provision against standing armies by certain "absolutist monarchs and clerics", but it also infers that those of the realm have a basic right to protect themselves against such...that means weapons,not harsh language.

when those getting ideas above their station do not listen to petitions(yes right of petition is a basic mandate too, then we the people DO have the right of economic sanction..ie non payment of illegal levies, and finally to use force if necessary ).

..and actually this cuts both ways...as part of the laws governing parliamentary representation, if the elected delegates are not doing their job(or clandestinely working for other entities outside their remit), then they are breaking the law...like committing a criminal offence under the law of the land., it can also be applied to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who I detest more:

1. The US GOP and neocons.

2. Putin and his cabal.

3. Blair and Brown.

4. Salmond and Farage.

5. Muslim fundamentalists.

I'm sick of the lot of em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read it.My link

not only does it make provision against standing armies by certain "absolutist monarchs and clerics", but it also infers that those of the realm have a basic right to protect themselves against such...that means weapons,not harsh language.

when those getting ideas above their station do not listen to petitions(yes right of petition is a basic mandate too, then we the people DO have the right of economic sanction..ie non payment of illegal levies, and finally to use force if necessary ).

..and actually this cuts both ways...as part of the laws governing parliamentary representation, if the elected delegates are not doing their job(or clandestinely working for other entities outside their remit), then they are breaking the law...like committing a criminal offence under the law of the land., it can also be applied to them.

You've conceded my point that this was an Act of Parliament, not the unilateral action of a monarch, so I'll focus on the guns issue.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

This so-called right is restricted.

1. You have no right to bear arms if you are not a Protestant, and I strongly suspect, not an Anglican.

2. The right to bear arms is dependent upon it being suitable to your conditions - i.e. does not apply if you are a poor peasant or wretch outside the plutocratic class, and

3. Can be negated by law - so if Parliament bans gun ownership by way of a statute, as it has done, so-called 'right' is vitiated.

But reading the whole Bill of Rights is interesting. Its wording - the complaint bit - reads like a modern conspiracy theory. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that the only reason they have the religious freedom they have is thanks to the constitutional separation between religious organisations and the institutions of government. Why do you think the Church of England is effectively an extension of the Labour Party?

I don't think that, given that it seems to be a figment of your imagination. Are you saying that the UK doesn't have religious freedom?

If an American pastor delivers a sermon arguing that global warming might not be man-made, that heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of a healthy society or any other politically incorrect message, the government cannot stop him: he is accountable only to God and the congregation that pays his salary. A C of E vicar who does likewise is accountable to bishops who are appointed essentially by government ministers.

Denying global warming is lying, not being politically incorrect. In any case, there are plants to non-state churches in the UK.

To be fair, I think they also have a substantive point in that the current administration is trying to erode the Second Amendment to the point of being functionally meaningless by stealth, using the Tuscon and Sandy Hook incidents as a pretext to do so. In the more left-leaning states now, regulation of the private ownership of firearms is now more restricted than in many European countries.

When you say 'Many European Countries', let me guess: Switzerland?

Bullying tactics are also used, e.g. aggressive tax investigations are being ordered on firearm ownership advocacy groups, and New York's airports will reguarly search the checked luggage of transit passengers (i.e. those flying between two separate states and just changing planes in NY) for firearms, and arrest and jail the owners of any they find who do not have the relevant NY permits..

Hmmm. So what you are saying is that firearm owners are being victimized because the authorities are enforcing the laws of the land.

Two and a half centuries later, it still has some relevance. My sister in law and her family live in Baker, CA, which is 60 miles away from the nearest permanently staffed police station. The fact that many of the residents there were refused gun permits because of a minor criminal record for shoplifting as a child 50 years ago, the police didn't like the look of their references, their homes were judged not to be secure enough to store guns in (the regulations for this are tough: for example, single pane windows in your home = no gun permit), etc. etc., is a constant source of worry. Armed burglaries happen there at the rate of one or two a month, largely because the town is isolated, in the middle of nowhere but right next to a big motorway, and so the burglars can be 50 miles away and in another state before the police even know that the crime has happened.

Well, let's see.

Given a threat of armed burglarary, what do you do as a priority? You could buy a gun, and keep it loaded and easily available; and if, for instance, you hear strange noises downstairs at night, get up, bleary eyed, and charge downstairs waving a loaded gun. I for one can't see anything going wrong in that scenario. Certainly not with having a 6 year old and an 8 year old. You could, of course, keep your gun unloaded and locked up, but that's not a lot of help in this scenario.

Or you could instead invest the money in making it very difficult to break in in the first place. Which would mean things like double glazed windows (saves air conditioning money as well), proper multi point locking doors and windows, restricting access to the rear of the property; the kind of think I do automatically on the grounds that I grew up in a less than salubrious area. In the case you outline, it's a no brainier - any criminals organised enough to drive 50 miles to commit a crime is going to be organised enough to look for easy entry, and as far as possible an empty house as well, because whereas the police don't generally bother too much investigating burglary, they do get interested if you shoot people.

And, of course, firing a gun to deter people who are trying to break in might actually work. So the requirement that you actually secure your property before tooling up sounds like common sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think the Church of England is effectively an extension of the Labour Party?

Say what????

The CoE is headed by the queen, so you are saying the queen works for the Labour Party? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.