Guns, Guns, Guns -- Through The Eyes Of A Child
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Mr. Trump, who was for the age restriction on the purchase of AR-15 is no longer for it. He didn't follow through on his proposal. He disappoints the children and their families. Mr. Trump is totally afraid of the NRA, what can I say? CMOdd, I didn't know he made a formal proposal until yesterday.... hmm... More dishonesty from you on the gun debate @C_M_ ?
What are you talking about?
You have been dishonest along with others on this forum ever since the incident. Dishonest about the guns themselves, statistics about shootings, the purpose and message of the NRA and you don't understand the Constitution. You have also vilified anyone who supports gun rights calling us murderers. It's ridiculous.
That being said, the call was made with emotion. I'm sure now that he has sat down, we are removed almost a month from the incident, cooler heads prevail and realize that proposal is unconstitutional.
No, it's NOT unconstitutional. It's a matter of choice and courage, which is in short supplies today. CM
It is unconstitutional. How can it not be? It takes away a Constitutional right that does not have an age limit on it from legal adults.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Mr. Trump, who was for the age restriction on the purchase of AR-15 is no longer for it. He didn't follow through on his proposal. He disappoints the children and their families. Mr. Trump is totally afraid of the NRA, what can I say? CMOdd, I didn't know he made a formal proposal until yesterday.... hmm... More dishonesty from you on the gun debate @C_M_ ?
What are you talking about?
You have been dishonest along with others on this forum ever since the incident. Dishonest about the guns themselves, statistics about shootings, the purpose and message of the NRA and you don't understand the Constitution. You have also vilified anyone who supports gun rights calling us murderers. It's ridiculous.
What? David, I can't agree with your conclusion of my position and expressions. I'm not happy reading this. Have you compiled my contributions on this topic? Did you separate what were facts from my passionate opinions? Did you identify my questions on this topic from my statements? Until then, your statements of a conclusion are suspect and prejudicial at best.
Until next time, let us enjoy the exchanges and leave the conclusions until the end. CM
PS. Thinking out loud: Why is it that women who have abortions and people who support abortion rights are called murders and not gun owners and supporters of the NRA?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have been dishonest along with others on this forum ever since the incident. Dishonest about the guns themselves, statistics about shootings, the purpose and message of the NRA and you don't understand the Constitution. You have also vilified anyone who supports gun rights calling us murderers. It's ridiculous.But you claimed CM had been "dishonest" on a specific matter, David. He posted the fact that the president has now changed his position (from a few weeks ago) on the issue of raising the age of gun ownership. In response to that fact, you posted...
Odd, I didn't know he made a formal proposal until yesterday.... hmm... More dishonesty from you on the gun debate @C_M_ ?
What "dishonesty... on the gun debate" do you claim was in CM's assertion of fact about the president's change of position on age of gun ownership? To my knowledge, CM accurately reported the fact of the matter.
That being said, the call was made with emotion. I'm sure now that he has sat down, we are removed almost a month from the incident, cooler heads prevail and realize that proposal is unconstitutional.
If the president's tweets are to be believed - not a wise strategy, I admit - he has NOT "realize(d) that (the) proposal is unconstitutional." He has decided, rather, to wait for court rulings, to allow states to act, and to assert (falsely) a lack of "political support" for the move....
-
It's strange if the Age Limit proposal on guns is "unconstitutional", why didn't the President informed a member of his own party, Rick Scott, before he signed the Florida Bill? CM
-
PS. Thinking out loud: Why is it that women who have abortions and people who support abortion rights are called murders and not gun owners and supporters of the NRA?
Easy. 2 simple steps to the solution to your question:
- People who intend to kill children and do so are murderers.
- People who are opposed to violence and actively resist it are not murderers.
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Mr. Trump, who was for the age restriction on the purchase of AR-15 is no longer for it. He didn't follow through on his proposal. He disappoints the children and their families. Mr. Trump is totally afraid of the NRA, what can I say? CMOdd, I didn't know he made a formal proposal until yesterday.... hmm... More dishonesty from you on the gun debate @C_M_ ?
What are you talking about?
You have been dishonest along with others on this forum ever since the incident. Dishonest about the guns themselves, statistics about shootings, the purpose and message of the NRA and you don't understand the Constitution. You have also vilified anyone who supports gun rights calling us murderers. It's ridiculous.
What? David, I can't agree with your conclusion of my position and expressions. I'm not happy reading this. Have you compiled my contributions on this topic? Did you separate what were facts from my passionate opinions? Did you identify my questions on this topic from my statements? Until then, your statements of a conclusion are suspect and prejudicial at best.
I don't really care if you are happy, it's the truth. I've called you out repeatedly.
Until next time, let us enjoy the exchanges and leave the conclusions until the end. CM
I will call out lies and dishonesty as they happen thanks.
PS. Thinking out loud: Why is it that women who have abortions and people who support abortion rights are called murders and not gun owners and supporters of the NRA?
Because it is not even close to the same thing. More dishonesty.
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have been dishonest along with others on this forum ever since the incident. Dishonest about the guns themselves, statistics about shootings, the purpose and message of the NRA and you don't understand the Constitution. You have also vilified anyone who supports gun rights calling us murderers. It's ridiculous.But you claimed CM had been "dishonest" on a specific matter, David. He posted the fact that the president has now changed his position (from a few weeks ago) on the issue of raising the age of gun ownership. In response to that fact, you posted...
The President never made a formal proposal.
Odd, I didn't know he made a formal proposal until yesterday.... hmm... More dishonesty from you on the gun debate @C_M_ ?
What "dishonesty... on the gun debate" do you claim was in CM's assertion of fact about the president's change of position on age of gun ownership? To my knowledge, CM accurately reported the fact of the matter.
My claim of dishonesty is the overall postings collectively. Repeatedly him, yourself, and Dave have misled, whether intentionally or not, misrepresented, and vilified anyone and any organization that backs gun control.
That being said, the call was made with emotion. I'm sure now that he has sat down, we are removed almost a month from the incident, cooler heads prevail and realize that proposal is unconstitutional.
If the president's tweets are to be believed - not a wise strategy, I admit - he has NOT "realize(d) that (the) proposal is unconstitutional." He has decided, rather, to wait for court rulings, to allow states to act, and to assert (falsely) a lack of "political support" for the move....
Perhaps
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have been dishonest along with others on this forum ever since the incident. Dishonest about the guns themselves, statistics about shootings, the purpose and message of the NRA and you don't understand the Constitution. You have also vilified anyone who supports gun rights calling us murderers. It's ridiculous.
What? David, I can't agree with your conclusion of my position and expressions. I'm not happy reading this. Have you compiled my contributions on this topic? Did you separate what were facts from my passionate opinions? Did you identify my questions on this topic from my statements? Until then, your statements of a conclusion are suspect and prejudicial at best.
I don't really care if you are happy, it's the truth. I've called you out repeatedly.
David, Calm down! We don't have to be this way. Besides, I didn't ask you if you cared. Other factors have spoken loud and clear some times ago. Can we disagree calmly and respectfully?
Until next time, let us enjoy the exchanges and leave the conclusions until the end. CM
I will call out lies and dishonesty as they happen thanks.
But you claimed CM had been "dishonest" on a specific matter, David. He posted the fact that the president has now changed his position (from a few weeks ago) on the issue of raising the age of gun ownership. In response to that fact, you posted...
The President never made a formal proposal.
Notwithstanding, "formal" or informal proposal, the children of Florida are disappointed.
I hope your Mr. Trump doesn't do this when he goes to North Korea, to sit with Mr. Un. (a.k.a "Rocketman"). Some people find President Trump to be estranged from the truth and facts, even in the presence of others. Somewhere his fabrications and bifurcations are being tracked and compiled. I know not where.
David, let's be mindful that civility and humility can share the same forums and threads. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have been dishonest along with others on this forum ever since the incident. Dishonest about the guns themselves, statistics about shootings, the purpose and message of the NRA and you don't understand the Constitution. You have also vilified anyone who supports gun rights calling us murderers. It's ridiculous.
What? David, I can't agree with your conclusion of my position and expressions. I'm not happy reading this. Have you compiled my contributions on this topic? Did you separate what were facts from my passionate opinions? Did you identify my questions on this topic from my statements? Until then, your statements of a conclusion are suspect and prejudicial at best.
I don't really care if you are happy, it's the truth. I've called you out repeatedly.
David, Calm down! We don't have to be this way. Besides, I didn't ask you if you cared. Other factors have spoken loud and clear some times ago. Can we disagree calmly and respectfully?
Until next time, let us enjoy the exchanges and leave the conclusions until the end. CM
I will call out lies and dishonesty as they happen thanks.
But you claimed CM had been "dishonest" on a specific matter, David. He posted the fact that the president has now changed his position (from a few weeks ago) on the issue of raising the age of gun ownership. In response to that fact, you posted...
The President never made a formal proposal.
Notwithstanding, "formal" or informal proposal, the children of Florida are disappointed.
I hope your Mr. Trump doesn't do this when he goes to North Korea, to sit with Mr. Un. (a.k.a "Rocketman"). Some people find President Trump to be estranged from the truth and facts, even in the presence of others. Somewhere his fabrications and bifurcations are being tracked and compiled. I know not where.
David, let's be mindful that civility and humility can share the same forums and threads. CM
I really don't care that the children are disappointed. Their views are naive and unconstitutional and will lead to civil war. They can't vote for a reason.
I don't see the crazy trump that people like yourself see.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said: But you claimed CM had been "dishonest" on a specific matter, David. He posted the fact that the president has now changed his position (from a few weeks ago) on the issue of raising the age of gun ownership. In response to that fact, you posted...
The President never made a formal proposal.
Whether the president communicated his support for raising the age of gun ownership on some weapons in the form of a "formal proposal" is not relevant to the point CM made. CM made no mention of "formal proposals" in his post when he asserted that the president "was for the age restriction on the purchase of AR-15 (but) is no longer." It was to that claim - one that had nothing to do with "formal" or "informal" proposals - that you responded...
Odd, I didn't know he made a formal proposal until yesterday.... hmm... More dishonesty from you on the gun debate @C_M_ ?
Which leads us back to the question I asked, but you did not answer:
What "dishonesty... on the gun debate" do you claim was in CM's assertion of fact about the president's change of position on age of gun ownership? To my knowledge, CM accurately reported the fact of the matter.
Your response to that question was this...
My claim of dishonesty is the overall postings collectively. Repeatedly him, yourself, and Dave have misled, whether intentionally or not, misrepresented, and vilified anyone and any organization that backs gun control.
Read in context, however, it's clear that your claim of "more dishonesty...on the gun debate" was not about "overall postings collectively." It was specific to CM's assertion that the president had once backed the raising of the gun ownership age on AR-15s (which is correct). So I ask you again, this time in modified form: Which part(s) of CM's claim about the president's position on the age of ownership of AR-15s do you claim was "more dishonesty... about the gun debate"?
Repeatedly him, yourself, and Dave have misled, whether intentionally or not, misrepresented, and vilified anyone and any organization that backs gun control.
On this, I won't try to speak for CM or Dave. Please quote from MY posts where you contend I "misrepresented and vilified anyone and any organization that backs gun control."
Historically, David, when I've asked you to back up your assertions about my posts with quotations from my posts, you've refused to do so. I hope you will not continue that pattern this time.
As in, perhaps the president's tweet says exactly what I said it says, and gives no support for your view that the president changed his position on age of ownership for weapons such as the AR-15 after he "realized" the unconstitutionality of such proposals?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I really don't care that the children are disappointed. Their views are naive and unconstitutional and will lead to civil war. They can't vote for a reason.
Thanks, David, for affirming what I said about your uncaring spirit and for the children of Florida. I know this may not have been easy for you, but ownership of your position enriches all here at CD. However, I hope you would soon get to a point when you do care for them and others. We all have our points of weaknesses.
I don't see the crazy trump that people like yourself see.
I don't recall ever calling Mr. Trump "crazy." This seems to be one of your projection upon me, again. I do think Mr. Trump fits on a continuum between **Unqualified/Inexperienced to Un-traditional/"Crazy as a Fox" (clever). I will leave it to others at this time to say where he is on this continuum. Besides, I have some personal questions about his mental soundness, but I am not qualified to pass judgment with any certainty. You need to consult a mental hygienist, no help from me here.
Let's stay focused here on how to keep the children safe and be sympathetic to their experiences. Be encouraged! CM
-
What if they took our guns? Might be interesting to read here.
-
@GaoLu said:
What if they took our guns? Might be interesting to read here.Thanks, GaoLu.
May I suggest you start a thread on your question? I will consider contributing. CM
-
I was commenting on this thread.
-
@GaoLu said:
I was commenting on this thread.With all due respect, remember the OP? Let the topic see the light of day. Give the topic its own legs. Consider it. CM
-
Thus I posted as I did and invite you to do the same.
Let me also point out people who are actually doing something effectual for our great nation.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2018/03/13/pastors-flood-dc-to-pray-for-lawmakers -
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said: But you claimed CM had been "dishonest" on a specific matter, David. He posted the fact that the president has now changed his position (from a few weeks ago) on the issue of raising the age of gun ownership. In response to that fact, you posted...
The President never made a formal proposal.
Whether the president communicated his support for raising the age of gun ownership on some weapons in the form of a "formal proposal" is not relevant to the point CM made. CM made no mention of "formal proposals" in his post when he asserted that the president "was for the age restriction on the purchase of AR-15 (but) is no longer." It was to that claim - one that had nothing to do with "formal" or "informal" proposals - that you responded...
Actually he did, he said the president took back his proposal.
Odd, I didn't know he made a formal proposal until yesterday.... hmm... More dishonesty from you on the gun debate @C_M_ ?
Which leads us back to the question I asked, but you did not answer:
What "dishonesty... on the gun debate" do you claim was in CM's assertion of fact about the president's change of position on age of gun ownership? To my knowledge, CM accurately reported the fact of the matter.
Your response to that question was this...
My claim of dishonesty is the overall postings collectively. Repeatedly him, yourself, and Dave have misled, whether intentionally or not, misrepresented, and vilified anyone and any organization that backs gun control.
Read in context, however, it's clear that your claim of "more dishonesty...on the gun debate" was not about "overall postings collectively." It was specific to CM's assertion that the president had once backed the raising of the gun ownership age on AR-15s (which is correct). So I ask you again, this time in modified form: Which part(s) of CM's claim about the president's position on the age of ownership of AR-15s do you claim was "more dishonesty... about the gun debate"?
The president never put forth a proposal. So yes, it was dishonest to say he went back on his proposal.
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I really don't care that the children are disappointed. Their views are naive and unconstitutional and will lead to civil war. They can't vote for a reason.
Thanks, David, for affirming what I said about your uncaring spirit and for the children of Florida. I know this may not have been easy for you, but ownership of your position enriches all here at CD. However, I hope you would soon get to a point when you do care for them and others. We all have our points of weaknesses.
Here is more dishonesty. I did not say I don't care about the children of Florida. I said I do not care that they are disappointed on the lack of new gun control from the President. Those are two very different things. I'm tired of your slander. You think that because I am against gun control I have blood on my hands and don't care that kids died. That is disgusting and flat wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself for the misleading statements.
I don't see the crazy trump that people like yourself see.
I don't recall ever calling Mr. Trump "crazy." This seems to be one of your projection upon me, again. I do think Mr. Trump fits on a continuum between **Unqualified/Inexperienced to Un-traditional/"Crazy as a Fox" (clever). I will leave it to others at this time to say where he is on this continuum. Besides, I have some personal questions about his mental soundness, but I am not qualified to pass judgment with any certainty. You need to consult a mental hygienist, no help from me here.
Let's stay focused here on how to keep the children safe and be sympathetic to their experiences. Be encouraged! CM
I am sympathetic to their experiences, but I also know that they are in no position to be making demands. They should be grieving and let cooler heads prevail.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I really don't care that the children are disappointed. Their views are naive and unconstitutional and will lead to civil war. They can't vote for a reason.
Thanks, David, for affirming what I said about your uncaring spirit and for the children of Florida. I know this may not have been easy for you, but ownership of your position enriches all here at CD. However, I hope you would soon get to a point when you do care for them and others. We all have our points of weaknesses.
David, was I mistaken in my believing you were taking ownership of you care the children of Florida and that you have no our points of weaknesses? I'm sorry and sadden.
Here is more dishonesty. I did not say I don't care about the children of Florida. I said I do not care that they are disappointed on the lack of new gun control from the President. Those are two very different things. I'm tired of your slander. You think that because I am against gun control I have blood on my hands and don't care that kids died. That is disgusting and flat wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself for the misleading statements.
David, when and how did we get here, "more dishonesty"...I'm tired of your slander?" To be clear, are you addressing me or Bill?
Perhaps, you read my posts to quickly. It's not my intent to upset. Step back a bit and reflect upon what I said in the context-flow of the conversation.
May I suggest taking a break from this topic (guns) and this section (current events) in CD for a while? This is not an order or a demand. It's just to help you a get a fresh perspective on things. I am concern about the quality of your expressions over the recent time period. We can say more elsewhere if needed. Be at peace. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I really don't care that the children are disappointed. Their views are naive and unconstitutional and will lead to civil war. They can't vote for a reason.
Thanks, David, for affirming what I said about your uncaring spirit and for the children of Florida. I know this may not have been easy for you, but ownership of your position enriches all here at CD. However, I hope you would soon get to a point when you do care for them and others. We all have our points of weaknesses.
David, was I mistaken in my believing you were taking ownership of you care the children of Florida and that you have no our points of weaknesses? I'm sorry and sadden.
Here is more dishonesty. I did not say I don't care about the children of Florida. I said I do not care that they are disappointed on the lack of new gun control from the President. Those are two very different things. I'm tired of your slander. You think that because I am against gun control I have blood on my hands and don't care that kids died. That is disgusting and flat wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself for the misleading statements.
David, when and how did we get here, "more dishonesty"...I'm tired of your slander?" To be clear, are you addressing me or Bill?
Perhaps, you read my posts to quickly. It's not my intent to upset. Step back a bit and reflect upon what I said in the context-flow of the conversation.
May I suggest taking a break from this topic (guns) and this section (current events) in CD for a while? This is not an order or a demand. It's just to help you a get a fresh perspective on things. I am concern about the quality of your expressions over the recent time period. We can say more elsewhere if needed. Be at peace. CM
Oh brother, now you insult me further. You said flat out I don't care about the children, which is a lie. You can't get around the fact that you said that. The problem is, you equate gun rights support with not caring about the children and that is not rational.
I don't need to take a break, my quality of expression is fine and it is ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise. I'm worried about your sanity.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I don't need to take a break, my quality of expression is fine and it is ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise. I'm worried about your sanity.
So be it. CM
PS.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The President never made a formal proposal.I grant that his idea was never in "formal" legislative language; but what percentage of the ideas presidents "propose" ever arrive in legislative language? Are the ideas presidents raise in their State of the Union speeches "proposals"? Most observers would say they are.
Specific to the issue at hand:
When during a televised White House meeting with members of Congress, he asserted that "people aren’t bringing (the issue of age of ownership) up because they’re afraid to bring it up,” when he told Senator Pat Toomey that his bill didn't deal with ownership age because he was "afraid of the NRA," and when he said "you can’t buy a handgun at 18, 19, or 20. You have to wait until you’re 21. You could buy the weapon used in this horrible shooting at 18," you think he WASN'T proposing raising the age?
When the president declared the age of ownership on certain guns should be raised to 21, and that "the NRA will back it and so will Congress," you think he WASN'T proposing a change in the law?
And whether "formal" or not, was this tweet - which the White House declares is a formal presidential communication - a "proposal"?
Whether the president communicated his support for raising the age of gun ownership on some weapons in the form of a "formal proposal" is not relevant to the point CM made. CM made no mention of "formal proposals" in his post when he asserted that the president "was for the age restriction on the purchase of AR-15 (but) is no longer." It was to that claim - one that had nothing to do with "formal" or "informal" proposals - that you responded...
Actually he did, he said the president took back his proposal.
See above.
The president never put forth a proposal. So yes, it was dishonest to say he went back on his proposal.
See above.
-
Some people just love to imagine and paint perceived enemies in the worst possible light. I guess it's just in their hearts to do so. Only Jesus can fix that.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I really don't care that the children are disappointed. Their views are naive and unconstitutional and will lead to civil war. They can't vote for a reason.
Thanks, David, for affirming what I said about your uncaring spirit and for the children of Florida. I know this may not have been easy for you, but ownership of your position enriches all here at CD. However, I hope you would soon get to a point when you do care for them and others. We all have our points of weaknesses.
I am sympathetic to their experiences, but I also know that they are in no position to be making demands. They should be grieving and let cooler heads prevail.
David, your last point, on second thought, is a compelling reason why people under the age 21, SHOULD NOT be able to buy or own an AR-15 Assault Rifle. This is why the Lawsuit of Dick's and the State of Florida makes no practical sense. Anyone below the age who's driven the handle a gun of this power should enlist in the US Army. The Second Amendment you cry. It's the law, but there is more than the law.
David, you need to reconsider your position on guns as a "man of God." For the simple reason, "all that is lawful is not always expedient." Don't support the NRA with your voice or dues. Be on the side of youth survival and living. Have thou nothing to do with instruments that take lives in a massive way.
I appeal to you. Every promotion leads to availability and availability has consequences. Step away from guns and promote Jesus. Please! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I really don't care that the children are disappointed. Their views are naive and unconstitutional and will lead to civil war. They can't vote for a reason.
Thanks, David, for affirming what I said about your uncaring spirit and for the children of Florida. I know this may not have been easy for you, but ownership of your position enriches all here at CD. However, I hope you would soon get to a point when you do care for them and others. We all have our points of weaknesses.
I am sympathetic to their experiences, but I also know that they are in no position to be making demands. They should be grieving and let cooler heads prevail.
David, your last point, on second thought, is a compelling reason why people under the age 21, SHOULD NOT be able to buy or own an AR-15 Assault Rifle. This is why the Lawsuit of Dick's and the State of Florida makes no practical sense. Anyone below the age who's driven the handle a gun of this power should enlist in the US Army. The Second Amendment you cry. It's the law, but there is more than the law.
First of all, it's not an assault rifle. That is not what it is called. It is just an AR-15. Please be correct in your terms. So should we also raise the age to enlist?
David, you need to reconsider your position on guns as a "man of God." For the simple reason, "all that is lawful is not always expedient." Don't support the NRA with your voice or dues. Be on the side of youth survival and living. Have thou nothing to do with instruments that take lives in a massive way.
I'm tired of the argument of me having to change my position as a man of God. It's not reality.
The NRA is on the side of youth surviving and living. Mass shootings are RARE. They hardly ever happen. The youth aren't getting gunned down daily in mass shootings. I know that is contrary to what you believe but that is reality.
I appeal to you. Every promotion leads to availability and availability has consequences. Step away from guns and promote Jesus. Please! CM
I can keep my guns AND promote Jesus.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
David, your last point, on second thought, is a compelling reason why people under the age 21, SHOULD NOT be able to buy or own an AR-15 Assault Rifle. This is why the Lawsuit of Dick's and the State of Florida makes no practical sense. Anyone below the age who's driven the handle a gun of this power should enlist in the US Army. The Second Amendment you cry. It's the law, but there is more than the law.
I appeal to you. Every promotion leads to availability and availability has consequences. Step away from guns and promote Jesus. Please! CM
I can keep my guns AND promote Jesus.
David, solid rock or slippery slope?
- Under whose authority can you keep your guns AND promote Jesus?
- Which was here first, Jesus or guns?
- Jesus, guns, Bible, bullets, preacher, church-- what a combination!
- Are you a pistol-packing Preacher?
- Who's your protector? family, and your church?
- "I can keep my guns AND promote Jesus." If its good for the Preacher it's good for the members.
- Do you encourage your member to join the NRA?
- Do you know the other Amendments to the Constitution?
- What are you and your church doing to promote them?
- Do you want to reconsider your last response, " I can keep my guns AND promote Jesus"?
PS. Thinking out loud: Can a woman have abortion(s) "AND promote Jesus"? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
David, your last point, on second thought, is a compelling reason why people under the age 21, SHOULD NOT be able to buy or own an AR-15 Assault Rifle. This is why the Lawsuit of Dick's and the State of Florida makes no practical sense. Anyone below the age who's driven the handle a gun of this power should enlist in the US Army. The Second Amendment you cry. It's the law, but there is more than the law.
I appeal to you. Every promotion leads to availability and availability has consequences. Step away from guns and promote Jesus. Please! CM
I can keep my guns AND promote Jesus.
David, solid rock or slippery slope?
- Under whose authority can you keep your guns AND promote Jesus?
Biblical Authority
- Which was here first, Jesus or guns?
How is that relevant?
- Jesus, guns, Bible, bullets, preacher, church-- what a combination!
???
- Are you a pistol-packing Preacher?
No, but I am not opposed to it either.
- Who's your protector? family, and your church?
God
- "I can keep my guns AND promote Jesus." If its good for the Preacher it's good for the members.
You aren't making any sense here.
- Do you encourage your member to join the NRA?
I don't get involved in politics in ministry. But I would never discourage them from joining.
- Do you know the other Amendments to the Constitution?
- What does that have to do with anything? 2. Probably better than you do.
- What are you and your church doing to promote them?
To promote what?
- Do you want to reconsider your last response, " I can keep my guns AND promote Jesus"?
Not at all.
PS. Thinking out loud: Can a woman have abortion(s) "AND promote Jesus"? CM
No actually. Abortion goes directly against God's law.
-
In keeping true to the OP, please consider:
THE GUN: SCHOOL IS NO FUN by CM
If a gun (short or long) took the life of a child's loved ones (mother, father, brother or sister), that child is scarred for life; especially, if they were present at the time of the incident.
The mentioning of a gun, the sound, the blood, the tears, the loss, the fears will not be erased by the years. They learn to cope, but for their lost loved ones, to see again, there will always be hope.
To place this child in a classroom with a teacher carrying a gun, the school would be a sad experience, at a minimum. She will do classwork, play, talk, and sing, but she happiest to go home when the bell rings.
On the bus she stares out the window as trees, cars, lamp poles, people and houses pass in a flash; it stops for a train; tomorrow is, "their school again?" As she's let out in the Lane, she greets the remainder of her family; shouting, "I am home again."
Snack, homework, dinner, and bed; she prays all be well before she lays her little head.
All through the night, she sleeps, because grandma said, "there's nothing to be afraid."Prayers, breakfast, hugs, before standing at the head of the Lane. Her mind races ahead to the gun-carrying-teacher in the classroom, in the light dropping rain; "do I have to be there, again?" CM
-
@C_M_ said:
In keeping true to the OP, please consider:THE GUN: SCHOOL IS NO FUN by CM
If a gun (short or long) took the life of a child's loved ones (mother, father, brother or sister), that child is scarred for life; especially, if they were present at the time of the incident.
Of course this is the rare exception, not the rule, the the vast majority of the population.
The mentioning of a gun, the sound, the blood, the tears, the loss, the fears will not be erased by the years. They learn to cope, but for their lost loved ones, to see again, there will always be hope.
See above
To place this child in a classroom with a teacher carrying a gun, the school would be a sad experience, at a minimum. She will do classwork, play, talk, and sing, but she happiest to go home when the bell rings.
Extreme and rare circumstance. You are part of the problem if you make policy based on rare exceptions.
On the bus she stares out the window as trees, cars, lamp poles, people and houses pass in a flash; it stops for a train; tomorrow is, "their school again?" As she's let out in the Lane, she greets the remainder of her family; shouting, "I am home again."
Snack, homework, dinner, and bed; she prays all be well before she lays her little head.
All through the night, she sleeps, because grandma said, "there's nothing to be afraid."Prayers, breakfast, hugs, before standing at the head of the Lane. Her mind races ahead to the gun-carrying-teacher in the classroom, in the light dropping rain; "do I have to be there, again?" CM
Once again, hyperbole, rare exceptions, not based in reality.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
In keeping true to the OP, please consider:THE GUN: SCHOOL IS NO FUN by CM
If a gun (short or long) took the life of a child's loved ones (mother, father, brother or sister), that child is scarred for life; especially, if they were present at the time of the incident.
Of course this is the rare exception, not the rule, the the vast majority of the population.
The mentioning of a gun, the sound, the blood, the tears, the loss, the fears will not be erased by the years. They learn to cope, but for their lost loved ones, to see again, there will always be hope.
See above
To place this child in a classroom with a teacher carrying a gun, the school would be a sad experience, at a minimum. She will do classwork, play, talk, and sing, but she happiest to go home when the bell rings.
Extreme and rare circumstance. You are part of the problem if you make policy based on rare exceptions.
On the bus she stares out the window as trees, cars, lamp poles, people and houses pass in a flash; it stops for a train; tomorrow is, "their school again?" As she's let out in the Lane, she greets the remainder of her family; shouting, "I am home again."
Snack, homework, dinner, and bed; she prays all be well before she lays her little head.
All through the night, she sleeps, because grandma said, "there's nothing to be afraid."Prayers, breakfast, hugs, before standing at the head of the Lane. Her mind races ahead to the gun-carrying-teacher in the classroom, in the light dropping rain; "do I have to be there, again?" CM
Once again, hyperbole, rare exceptions, not based in reality.
Armed teachers are a negative role model. Showing that violence is acceptable. Not good for Christian kids.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
In keeping true to the OP, please consider:THE GUN: SCHOOL IS NO FUN by CM
If a gun (short or long) took the life of a child's loved ones (mother, father, brother or sister), that child is scarred for life; especially, if they were present at the time of the incident.
Of course this is the rare exception, not the rule, the the vast majority of the population.
The mentioning of a gun, the sound, the blood, the tears, the loss, the fears will not be erased by the years. They learn to cope, but for their lost loved ones, to see again, there will always be hope.
See above
To place this child in a classroom with a teacher carrying a gun, the school would be a sad experience, at a minimum. She will do classwork, play, talk, and sing, but she happiest to go home when the bell rings.
Extreme and rare circumstance. You are part of the problem if you make policy based on rare exceptions.
On the bus she stares out the window as trees, cars, lamp poles, people and houses pass in a flash; it stops for a train; tomorrow is, "their school again?" As she's let out in the Lane, she greets the remainder of her family; shouting, "I am home again."
Snack, homework, dinner, and bed; she prays all be well before she lays her little head.
All through the night, she sleeps, because grandma said, "there's nothing to be afraid."Prayers, breakfast, hugs, before standing at the head of the Lane. Her mind races ahead to the gun-carrying-teacher in the classroom, in the light dropping rain; "do I have to be there, again?" CM
Once again, hyperbole, rare exceptions, not based in reality.
Armed teachers are a negative role model. Showing that violence is acceptable. Not good for Christian kids.
Thank you for your opinion.
-
@C_M_
You get good credit for a poetic story well told. Good job.Made me think of a friend--sad case. Fairly prosperous farmer with a nice family, several young kids up to teens. Got depressed. Couldn't snap out of it. Family worried and took all guns out of the house. He had hidden one away. Took his own life, nearly killing his wife in the process.
So sad. Tha pain and ache were nearly unbearable for awhile. Seemed like it would never go away. That was many years ago. Today everyone had moved on. Sure there is an ache there. No one was ruined. The kids grew up, married, are all happy and successful. No serious scars. They have not only coped, but thrived. They have all kinds of hope. All that to say, that your story, well-written as it is, probably occurs now and then, but isn't some kind of universal truth.
