Hisway #fundie

Hisway #fundie rr-bb.com

They took God out of the schools and pure evil has entered. Cling to our Lord and Savior and your guns to protect you and yours. The wrath of God will come to those nations that reject him. Everyone is saying they don't understand how this could happen. Remove God and evil takes over. Am I sounding radical? I am crying and praying like all of you. It's hard to even think straight right now!!!!

65 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Cling to our Lord and Savior and your guns to protect you and yours."

If you have Jesus--omnipotent ruler of all that was or ever will be--to protect you, then why do you need guns? Is that a lack of faith you're displaying?

"The wrath of God will come to those nations that reject him."

Soon. Real soon. I'm sure of it.

Probably right after the Rapture, which I'm told will also be "soon".

"Everyone is saying they don't understand how this could happen. Remove God and evil takes over. Am I sounding radical?"

Radical. Delusional. Same thing for you guys.

"I am crying and praying like all of you. It's hard to even think straight right now!!!!"

You should be used to that.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Cling to our Lord and Savior and your guns"

Romans 13:1-5, bitches.

"The wrath of God will come to those nations that reject him. Everyone is saying they don't understand how this could happen."

'Could'? As opposed too... will?! Careful, your subconscious Atheism is showing, little Raptard. Remember: Nancy Lanza - mother of Sandy Hook shooting atrocity perpetrator Adam (who'd been turned down for a gun permit) - was a 'Prepper'; also a Christian.

"Everyone is saying they don't understand how this could happen."

See above. Then you tell me.

"Remove God and evil takes over."

Czech Republic. According to polls & surveys conducted by the EU, it's the least religious country in Europe.. Your call.

"Am I sounding radical?"

Not so's you'd notice. (*snerk*)

"I am crying and praying like all of you. It's hard to even think straight right now!!!!"

image

Here's a chaise longue for you to do your best Joan Crawford impressions; back of hand to head, and all that jazz (here's a wire hanger too). When you've done, give it back to Rarity, who is Equestria's biggest Drama Queen.

Save us the histrionics, He-sway(s both ways). Speaking as someone who helped campaign to have guns banned here in the UK, post-Dunblane atrocity, give me one good fucking reason why I should sympathise over your 'need' to have a security blankie/penis extension called a gun? Even if the 2nd Amendment was repealed in the US, why should I give a fuck for you lot?!

Moral: So you gun-fucking fundies think your '2nd Amendment "rights"' are infinitely more important than the lives of children?! And there's me thinking that you lot were pro-Life...?! Nope, no double standards on your part, nosiree...! [/mega-sarcasm]

@xyz

"We have gun control here in Canada and guess what? We rarely have massacres like the USA does.

Gun control works."

Ban guns completely, and the result...? Our police have a Zero Tolerance policy against carrying knives in public. Even before then, never mind Dunblane, I'd never so much as been mugged. And the only gunfire I'd seen/heard was on the TV/cinema screen. So, especially post-Dunblane...!

Japan has even more hyper-draconian gun laws than the UK. Your call, NRA.

old comment by Anon

@Anon-e-moose:
Bullshit does banning guns work, and the reason it doesn't work is contained in your post: "Our police have a Zero Tolerance policy against carrying knives in public".
Why exactly is knife crime an issue in the UK at present? I can tell you, because the underlying social issues have never been dealt with.
I live in the UK and I entirely support gun rights, I have a far better position to comment on this issue, because I am actually trained to use guns, I spent seven years in the military.
I can with complete confidence say that mentally healthy individuals who are given the correct training in the use of firearms, whether that is in the line of duty or personal (and yes, I did know plenty of people with private firearms licenses who were also in the military) will not pose any danger to the public beyond the danger any individual can theoretically pose to another.
I'm rather tired of the "guns are the root of all evil" crowd, you are frankly hysterical, and the best justification you can come up with is the fact that one can cause more damage with a gun than another type of weapon, you all conveniently ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun crime is not mass shootings, and you have no evidence whatsoever that the same death toll (at the mass shootings) could not have been achieved with a knife.
You give very little attention to the real problem (insufficient vetting of those who own firearms) and claim that the weapon is the problem, not the person who has chosen to use a weapon to take innocent life.
This is an idiotic argument and is rooted in a personal fear of guns that I find infantile and contemptible.

old comment by Warren McIntosh

@#1484684

Goodness your arguments are stupid. Firstly, we have a problem with knives in this country because that's about the most dangerous thing most mad/bad idiots can get their hands on. secondly, its not the sane stable people anyone worries about. Concentrate on this - any law you make must be judged between what the WORST of society will do with it, against the bennifit to the rest of society. In this case worst is school massacres and many many more guns getting into criminal hands due to illegal sales and thefts, against the bennifit of some people getting to follow their perfectly legitimate hobby with more (more because of course there are plenty of gun clubs in the UK) freedom (I enjoy guns too, so i do understand). Hmmm, difficult decision, said no-one ever. Thirdly, if you think you can kill the same number of people with a knife or axe or even a hunting rifle than you can with a high-powered semi-automatic military rifle with a quick-change high-capacity magazine. i.e. a weapon DESIGNED for killing people, then I call bullshit on you ever being in the military.

Oh, and your moronic delusion about 10 round mags in the US is laughable. Please confirm for everyone that you actually believe you couldn't get a 30 round magazine with little or no effort. And again, if you really had been in the military, you would know that semi-auto is far more effective, accurate and deadly in most situations than full auto.

old comment by Anon

@Warren McIntosh:

Oh this is rich, I do three tours to Afghanistan to serve my country and my reward is being patronised by a cunt like you? Get bent, you don't deserve my service, or anybody else's for that matter.

To address the issue at hand, if you think that weapon choice makes a difference to anything but the time taken to kill when attacking unarmed and untrained civilians then you are quite frankly a moron.
Secondly, your point about the availability of 30-rd mags is irrelevant, they are not legally permitted, does the fact that it is possible to illegally obtain flick knives in the UK render the legislation banning them worthless? We are talking about legally held weapons, idiot, not illegal ones, your inability to separate the two is probably a large part of why you want to take away the freedom of others to negate your fear of big scary guns. enforcement of existing legislation is something that should already be happening, inability to enforce existing laws does not justify making new laws.

As a final point (you really show your ignorance here) semi-automatic is the preferred fire mode in most situations, as it allows for accurate and controlled fire at the normal distance an infantry engagement begins, once troops close to grenade-throwing range they switch to full-auto because recoil and ammo conservation are no longer an issue, and to ensure that enemy engaged at close range are not able to pose a threat.

Suffice to say, you have no idea what you're talking about.

@Anon-e-moose:
"Millions of children's lives take priority over the so-called 'rights' of a few. Here endeth the lesson."

Millions of children's lives? Really? I love how other people's rights are "so-called 'rights'" when it's not something that affects you. Will you be saying the same thing when something you enjoy is banned because of a public campaign based on little knowledge and even less evidence?

old comment by Adrian

"They took God out of the schools and pure evil has entered."

Well, considering your Gawd got a teenage girl pregnant (plus as her deity he abused his position of trust/authority, and it is uncler if he even cared about consent), I'd see no problem with banning the (documented) sex offender from school property.

"It's hard to even think straight right now!!!!"

Insert sarcastic "right now?" here.

Now that this is out of the way, a word of advice, dear: being able to empathize with others is a very good thing, but if something that happened to perfect strangers, however horrible it may be, leaves you incapacitated with grief, you're doing it wrong/overdoing it. I'd consider seeing a shrink about this, if I were you (which thankfully I am not)

old comment by Anon

@dp:
"the time taken to kill is of critical importance here, innit?"
I'm not sure what you mean, what I'm saying is that when attacking unarmed and untrained civilians (and especially children) the choice of weapon makes very little difference, it may take a little longer to kill some of the victims, but the perpetrator in this case could have achieved the same basic result (plus or minus a few deaths) by using any weapon from an M249 to a pitchfork.
This is always the same with school shootings, the guns are not the important factor, what is important is that a lunatic has taken a weapon into that place and killed those people unlawfully.
While the whiny anti-gun crowd are bitching about "guns are teh debbil!" the social issues are not being addressed, and any attempt to improve legislation to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics will be resisted at every turn by those who wish to retain their right to own guns, as they (correctly) perceive that it is just another attempt by the anti-gun crowd to get guns slowly banned via the back door.

old comment by smartz

I don't know if this has been said, but it needs to be:

[citation needed]

Also, I am surprised you can "think straight" to begin with.

Also, to Mr. Anon:
I think you miss the point of this thread. We are trying to bash the moron that made the stupid statement of the day, not other posters. But if you aren't going to play nice, one of us can quote you as a "fundie" and will have plenty of counter-arguments for you to handle. Personally, I believe that guns, something that is designed only to kill, has no use for the common citizen, and should be limited to security personnel and hunters. People who own guns currently should take a mental aptitude test to keep their weapons, and have their ammunition taken away. Anyone else who will own a gun out in public should be arrested because there is simply no need for it. If you are one of those people who carry a weapon in public, are you looking for a fight, or to act hero? If so, get over yourself, because in reality you are deluded and no one is going after you, you paranoid ass. At least knives can be used for something proper and if a dangerous person has one, he needs to be up close to use and can only attack a person at a time, unlike a fucking automatic rifle. Also, he can be neutralized by the police or someone stronger than him, or by multiple people. A gun doesn't have to take strength into account; that is why this pitiable sick man used a gun to take on a school with several adults in it.

old comment by smartz

@Anon
Fine, I guess we are gonna play hardball.

The Constitution states "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".

Are you part of a "well regulated Militia" like the police? Or are you "necessary to the security" of the State, like the POLICE? And how do you define "Arms"? Arms can mean any weapon, it doesn't have to be a gun. This "right to bear arms" by the common citizen is nothing but a selfish desire to keep a gun for the sake of protecting yourself, not the state from a tyrannical government. You do have the right to defend yourself, like any sane person, but why do you need to have a gun? Is it because the "bad guys" had guns? Well, if guns were controlled in the first place, then a person like this shooter wouldn't have had access to his mother's gun collection. I also know that the "bad guys" don't get guns legally all the time, but we would be able to track down the sales of guns, like we can now. All I see is you complaining about "taking away freedom" but I can't take away something that has to be given by the government to start with. If our country wasn't founded in a time of war and unrest, do you think that the 2nd Amendment would have been in there? No, because the "right" to own Arms would have been moot.
(cont.)

old comment by smartz

(pt. 2)
We know that the person who had the weapon should be considered as important as the weapon, and this is a valid statement. We should have better background checks on who we give weapons to and who they are related to with any history of mental illness. However, that doesn't erase the fact that a crazy person owning a knife is infinitely more desirable than a crazy person owning an automatic machine gun. And honestly, I don't trust a healthy person with a gun because you don't have to be crazy to get crazy ideas because even people get jealous, angry, and volatile and want to vent their anger. The time it took this man to kill 26 people was within 30 MINUTES. Don't tell me any other person, no matter how fast or strong they are, with a knife can do that much damage.

You say you have a better opinion because you were in the military, but guess what genius, not everyone is a military trained brat like you. So instead of expecting everyone to agree with you because you are the so called AUTHORITY, think again because we aren't you and we can't be like you, nor can we think like you.

old comment by smartz

@Anon

You missed the point again. I don't care if you are from the UK or from Mars, the gun laws WE are talking about are in the United States, so keep up or shut up. As for that comment about "automatic machine guns" I was trying to differentiate between that and semi-automatics, but I guess that doesn't matter. In either case, the guns I was talking about was firing several bullets in rapid succession, which has no place in proper society. Thirdly, I do have an interest in guns because as a Forensic Scientist I have to study and understand the slight microscopic differences between ammunition by their primer gunpowder and gunpowder residue, as well as the impressions made by a gun's firing pin and barrel. That doesn't change the fact that we should have a control over these weapons because it seems people who have them these days tend to have a desire to use them on other people, like the unarmed teens in Florida who were shot for either being suspicious or playing loud music. The "healthy" people thought that these kids were going to kill them, which they weren't considering the circumstances of each case, and according to this stupid "Stand your ground" law they have there, have a justifiable defense to shoot them. It seems it takes the killing of 20 little children to open the eyes of a country, so what the hell is wrong with you? The only thing I am "pandering" to is common sense that guns are dangerous and have no part in a civilian society. If you want a fucking gun, you better work for the military, police or hunt your food because otherwise its not needed for your "defense". You can protect your home with better security system or a fucking WALL, anything would be better than a gun.

old comment by Ann

@smartz:

Why are you trying to point out the difference between full-automatic and semi-automatic weapons when nobody in the US can legally purchase a full-automatic weapon for civilian ownership? Surely that's a needless distinction?
Except it isn't, is it? It's the usual attempt to misinform by deliberately using the wrong terminology, a "machine gun" is a very different thing from a semi-automatic rifle, a machinegun is used for sustained suppressive fire roles, and as a result has a large magazine capacity (usually a disintegrating link system) and a heavy-duty barrel with quick-change capability, fires in full-automatic only, and is very frequently employed from an integrated bipod.
By comparison, the types of weapons available in the US are military assault rifles restricted to semi-automatic by mechanical means and with magazines no larger than 10 rounds.
If you are studying forensics then you must have a working knowledge of firearms, so you were aware of everything I just wrote.
This means that you were deliberately misleading in your first and second posts by using the terms "automatic rifle" and "machine gun".
I bet you're quick to call out people for "lying for jesus", aren't you? Well lying for your particular pet rent-a-cause is just as contemptible.

As for the US constitution part, I'm not talking specifically about the US, US gun law needs tightening up to prevent loonies getting their hands on them, obviously. I'm arguing that people everywhere should be able to possess guns (providing they are mentally healthy and not a convicted criminal) just because they fucking want to, it's none of your business! You don't get to decide that other people can't own a certain type of object just because you are afraid of that object.

Hisway #fundie rr-bb.com

65 comments

Confused?