Gun Legislation

[O Really]

LAX: Just another white, male, Christian RWNJ with an AR-15. Nothing new to see here, move along.

Mr.B would likely take issue with the "Christian" part.

[Cannonpointer]

Perhaps they humiliated his elderly mom with a gropefest and a naked picture, while letting several Wahabbists board without a peep - all for fear of being accused of "profling." Who can say?

The Israelis profile, but that's alright. Calling THEM on it would be anti-Semitic. And we can't have that.

Boy, it's a hard world, this world of political correctness. I'm a racist if I profile. I'm a racist if I badmouth Israelis for profiling. I'm a racist if I disagree with Vrede on just about anything. I'd be in a corner scared to move, if being called a racist by a racist made me flinch.

Happily for me, it doesn't. And I don't give two shits for a dead tsa agent, either. Just wasn't his day - or WAS, depending on your meaning...

[Cannonpointer]

Interesting. I used the word humiliated, you used the word humiliated.

Derivative, much, Nancy?

[Mr.B]

"LAX: Just another white, male, Christian RWNJ with an AR-15. Nothing new to see here, move along."

"Mr.B would likely take issue with the "Christian" part."

No use in taking an issue. Christians have to have thick hides; we're long used to being called RWNJ's by liberals/Democrats.
It's old, but they have to get their jollies somehow, so we overlook it, pat 'em on the head and talk nice to 'em...a little patronizing goes a long way.

[O Really]

Nice response, Mr.B, but the "Christian" part wasn't a figment of liberal imagination. The report stated that he had attended a Catholic high school, leading to a reasonable assumption, though no guarantee, that he was Christian. I simply thought you wouldn't find his shoot 'em up act to be very Christian, no matter where he went to school, and maybe didn't get credit for being Christian if he's Catholic.

BTW, from this liberal/Democrat, I know not all Christians are RWNJ's - even most. But you gotta admit most of the RWNJ's are Christians or at least in self-identification. I guess you might call them a CINA?

[Mr.B]

Catholics are supposedly Christians, but their way of worship and liberal thinking are far removed from Baptist thinking. That doesn't mean that there are no Baptist nutjobs. The media is lightning fast when it is discovered that a criminal had any inklings to a Christian background.

In the 80's & 90's, I used to do service work at Mars Hill college, which was then a Baptist college. Some of the language I heard some of the students using would make a seasoned sailor blush. Attending a Christian school doesn't automatically mean he was, in fact, a Christian.

I give up. What's a CINA?

[O Really]

Christian In Name Only, of course. Didn't mean to end with "A"

[Ombudsman]

The guy was a self righteous gun nut. Sure sounds like a xtian.

[O Really]

"Gun nut"? Surely not...from all reports, he had legal firearms, legal magazines, legally acquired, with no disqualifications according to current law. He was fershure one of the "good guys" darling of the NRA, exercising his Second Amendment rights - at least until he fired his first shot at the TSA guy.

[rstrong]

Nice response, Mr.B, but the "Christian" part wasn't a figment of liberal imagination. The report stated that he had attended a Catholic high school, leading to a reasonable assumption, though no guarantee, that he was Christian. I simply thought you wouldn't find his shoot 'em up act to be very Christian, no matter where he went to school, and maybe didn't get credit for being Christian if he's Catholic.

BTW, from this liberal/Democrat, I know not all Christians are RWNJ's - even most. But you gotta admit most of the RWNJ's are Christians or at least in self-identification. I guess you might call them a CINA?

I can't help but notice that the current liberal/Democrat President is a devout Christian.

And that his Catholic school was labeled a "madrassa" by RWNJs, in turn used by RWNJs to spread Muslim and anti-Christian fear mongering against him.

And that even his going to church in Chicago was used by RWNJs on Fox News and elsewhere to claim not only racism, but an anti-Christian attitude.

Republican-aligned Liberty University - Romney made speeches there in the 2012 campaign - banned the university's College Democrats club because Democrats can't be Christian. (Liberty University's status as an accredited university is the best argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster being an accredited religion.)

The statement "Christians have to have thick hides; we're long used to being called RWNJ's by liberals/Democrats" is a dishonest way for RWNJs to claim "God is on our side." A way to deny that their opponents are just as likely to be Christian. They want a theocracy - with their particular interpretation of Christianity - an interpretation that includes their particular politics. With no place for a black-dominated church or Catholics, let alone Muslims and others. And certainly no place for those who want religious freedom through a level playing field.

If you believe that "Christians are used to being called RWNJ's by liberals/Democrats", it's not because you're a Christian. It's because you're a RWNJ.

[Mr.B]

"Christian In Name Only, of course. Didn't mean to end with "A"

Oh well...that explains it. If you had said "CINO" to begin with, I might have.....well.....nahh!

[rstrong]

On the other hand:

Burglar surprised to discover the lady he's robbing is an armed ax-throwing champ

"Robyn Irvine of Hemet, CA caught a burglar trying to steal her jewelry while she slept with her cat, and she snatched up her favorite ax and brandished it at him until he ran off. She says she chose not to throw it at him, though she's pretty sure that she could have paralyzed him if she'd chosen."

Police caught the man and recovered her stuff.

See, THIS is the kind of story that would make me proud to be an American.

[Roland Deschain]

On the other hand:

Burglar surprised to discover the lady he's robbing is an armed ax-throwing champ

"Robyn Irvine of Hemet, CA caught a burglar trying to steal her jewelry while she slept with her cat, and she snatched up her favorite ax and brandished it at him until he ran off. She says she chose not to throw it at him, though she's pretty sure that she could have paralyzed him if she'd chosen."

Police caught the man and recovered her stuff.

See, THIS is the kind of story that would make me proud to be an American.

And an attitude like that is why we are glad your spineless panty waist is NOT an American.

[rstrong]

And an attitude like that is why we are glad your spineless panty waist is NOT an American.

The homeowner was well-armed, well-trained, and effective. She acted with reason and intelligence. The police obviously were effective too.

That you believe anyone who thinks this is admirable is a "spineless panty waist", sums up everything we know about you.

Try not to drool on your keyboard.

[rstrong]

...and I have no doubt that Roland Deschain would shoot or whatever someone in the back.

Agreed.

(As an aside, this affront has taken me aback.)

[O Really]

This is a good example of why a lot of gun, ummm, "enthusiasts" are idiots. They think "stand your ground" means "fire at will" (or whatever his name is). If somebody breaks into your house, you're entitled to believe you are in some danger and can shoot the intruder - but - big but, you can't shoot him if he's running away. At that time, the danger you were in, or allowed to presume you were in, has gone away. At that point, you are the pursuer. Stand Your Ground, as well as the more rational self-defense laws, support your right to use lethal force to protect yourself and others around you from physical danger. They don't give you a right to use lethal force to prevent property theft or damage. The woman in the story made not only a reasonable decision, but the decision that was legally correct. Given what she did, she can go on with her life, uninterrupted. Had she chunked the axe into the escaping guy's back, she would have likely been charged with something and at least suffered significant inconvenience even if found not guilty.

[O Really]

I can't remember but isn't within your home nearly automatic SYG?

Yes, but not without limit. It's still less messy for the defender to let a running guy run.

[Roland Deschain]

I can't remember but isn't within your home nearly automatic SYG?

It is called "castle doctrine" and while it could be compared to SYG it is really kind of different. SYG means you do not have to retreat from a situation to avoid bodily harm. Castle doctrine basically means that you have the right to use deadly force against someone entering or in your your home/temporary residence (motel room, camper, etc) or vehicle.

[Roland Deschain]

Thanks, that's what I meant - the ultimate effect, not the name it goes by.

I'd say that castle doctrine and SYG are vastly different circumstances and the ultimate effects really cannot be compared equally within the context of the two.

[Roland Deschain]

Poor thing, you're so wrapped up in your pedantry that you completely lost track of the points - my disagreement with O Really's contention that "she would have likely been charged with something" if she'd thrown the ax and the appreciation I expressed to you for clarifying the terms.

As usual, the issue is irrelevant, Roland Deschain fails on comprehension and common sense.

I didn't lose track.....I never followed it to start with. I answered what I thought was a legitimate question and then commented on your "ultimate effects" reply. Why do you have such a incessant need to appear superior to any who post here? Is your existence that pitiful, your self esteem that low....seriously just WHY must you always be such an asshole.