Roundup

Are You Packing Heat? Your Local Newspaper May be Planning to Out You – Big Journalism — Go see it just for the funny posters.  Hat tip: Jeff

Courtesy of Ironic Surrealism, this picture has the best response to those who want to restrict 2nd Amendment rights.  That will point the bad guys away from your house as well.

Christians sentenced to 25 years in jail for touching the Koran without washing their hands first

Wow – Obama offering judgeships in exchange for healthcare votes! — how ethical.

Perhaps they learned from the bribes of Senators “you don’t even have to get us drunk first”Landrieu and Nelson that outright cash money bribery back-fires a bit and are trying different tactics for Congressman. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch — your brother’s!

This is sad — two young black males murdered for sharing the Gospel

A blizzard of lies from Al Gore and Another American Media Failure — the embarrassment and lies continue.  Other countries are exposing the truth, but not the U.S. MSM.

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Neil, those two brothers of the faith is so sad and happens everywhere. However, I can see bias in MSM for not posting this at all. If it was 2 homosexuals or an abortionist the news media will be all over it.

    Like

    1. You are right, Mercedes. We’d have plays, movies, protests, Nancy Grace marathons and more if it was someone in those groups. I try to post things here that you generally won’t find on the MSM.

      Sent from my iPhone

      Like

    2. Great points. Very sad story.

      Media bias is so commonplace. Take the unabomber. An environwhacko through and through, but the MSM would never refer to him as an environmentalist because of the damage they felt that would do to the environmental movement. So they dubbed him an anti-technologist. As if he were Amish or something.

      Like

    3. Really Mercedes? Preachers are getting murdered everywhere? It’s an awfully sad case, but how does the fact that they were preaching make this more of a news story than the hundreds of other murders that happened on the same day? Maybe if you weren’t fighting to keep a gun in the hands of everyone, this wouldn’t happen so much.

      What do you want? The story was in the papers, and the fact that the men were preachers was mentioned in every story I could find.

      Like

      1. It might be a strawman if it weren’t completely relevant to the story. You fight for the right to have guns all over the place, and then want to pretend that the amount of guns on the streets has nothing to do with people getting shot.

        Like

      2. Ryan, you defend your straw man with further straw men.

        The right to bear arms is part of our constitution. You can characterize it all you’d like, but the fact is I have the right to own and use my weapons until such time I do something to lose that right.

        If the government would just enforce the laws already on the books their would be less crime. Regardless, I shouldn’t lose my right because of the actions of others.

        I know in your country they go door to door and confiscate them. But hey, Sidney Crosby scored the gold medal clinching goal in OT so who cares if you are allowed to protect yourself or not……

        Like

      3. Actually we have more guns per capita than you do. I know plenty of people with guns in their homes, and I really don’t have a problem with that. We just don’t think you should be allowed to have one walking down the street.

        But hey, Sidney Crosby scored the gold medal clinching goal in OT

        I’m glad you concede our winter sport superiority. I may not have a gun in my house, but if you break in, you will quickly find yourself eating a hockey stick or two – and that’s just if my wife gets to you first.

        Like

      4. Of course, if the guy breaking in has a gun

        Yeah, I get it, but playing the “make sure you have the biggest gun” game is just not what I’m about. There will always be people that can hurt you if they want to.

        Like

      5. The strawman is that you think we want “guns all over the place”. Naw, that’s not a strawman, it’s outright bullshit. Never has there been such a demand. Possessing a gun for self-protection, and the right to walk the streets carrying one in a concealed manner, has always been a right of law-abiding citizens, not “everyone”. And both your wife AND you with a hockey stick are no match for a guy at close range with a gun. But you have a chance with a gun of your own.

        Yet, we in no way intend that people like you must be forced to have or carry a gun. It is your choice if you wish to take that chance. For myself, I don’t know if I’d want to spend the money on a gun and then more on ammo to practice along with the time necessary to train. But if my neighborhood took a turn for the worse, it would be my duty as a husband and a father to do all I can to insure the safety of my family and I’d make the sacrifice. Locking them in the house behind barred windows just doesn’t do it for me and I’m sure they’d dislike it as well.

        Like

      6. The strawman is that you think we want “guns all over the place

        You, and many others are stating that if law-abiding citizens have guns, they are, and society as a whole is, more safe. The theory that a critical mass of guns will deter crime kind of depends on guns being all over the place.

        The statistics in states that either begin allow concealed carry, or discontinue it seem to support your idea that it reduces crime. I’m just not entirely comfortable with that method of deterring crime. I also don’t like parents buying their kids huge SUVs when they learn to drive, since they are more likely to survive an accident.

        It is so incredibly unlikely that I will meet someone with the motivation or desire to kill or injure me or my family that I choose not to carry a weapon. Perhaps my decision would be different if I lived in a more dangerous city. It’s not that I hate guns – I’m actually an experienced shooter.

        Like

      7. t is so incredibly unlikely that my house will catch fire yet I have fire insurance. t is so incredibly unlikely that I will get ill yet I have health care insurance. It is so incredibly unlikely that I will die in an accident yet I have accidental life insurance.

        If we could only count on the ideal………

        Like

      8. Stop replying to me unless you have something to contribute. I gave you my reasons, and as a person who apparently believes in personal liberty, you should accept my decision.

        We cannot insure against everything. Do you carry an automatic weapon in case your assailant has body armour? I don’t want to have a gun in my pocket, and I’d rather not worry about one being in yours. I may trust that you don’t intend to hurt me, but I don’t know how well you can aim a firearm either.

        Never once have I seen you admit that someone other than you could have a valid argument. The people who wrote the constitution did not have handguns in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

        Like

      9. I am not telling you to get a gun. That is your liberty. I just think your reasons for choosing not to are flawed.

        Don’t worry, I have plenty for both of us! 🙂

        Like

      10. P.S. The men that penned the constitution didn”t have porn in mind when they wrote the 1st amendment either. I’d like you thoughts on whether or not the 1st amendment protects pornography or not?

        Like

      11. Concealed carry does not mean you have to carry one. Repealing any gun law does not mean you have to own one.

        The idea behind repealing gun laws does not rely on guns being anywhere. What repealing gun laws does, particularly those that prohibit concealed carry, is that it reduces the confidence scumbags have of there being no resistance to their scumbag ways. They would have no idea just who is or isn’t carrying a weapon. You may be aware that they used to call handguns “the great equalizer” and scumbags count on a decided lack of equality in force. The reality is that NO ONE need carry guns in areas where carrying them is Constitutionally protected and still the dynamic will exist (at least until the scumbags figure out no one really is carrying). But that’s the main advantage of protecting the right to bear arms. No one can take advantage of law abiding citizens in ways that infringing on that right allows.

        Like

      12. Ryan, did I hurt your feelings in the previous conversation we had about homosexuals hijacking the civil rights movement for their own political gain because as of late you been all over me like bees over nectar? Guns as Lonewolf mentions is a straw man. Would it have satisfied you if the black men were stabbed instead? Your whole logic is screwed.

        Like

      13. No, my feelings are not hurt. I’m all over your comment because you stated that this is “happening all the time”. You are stating that Christians are being killed for their faith in this manner, and that is not substantiated in any way. It’s not even substantiated in this case. If it is then this should be prosecuted as a hate crime.

        Guns is not a straw man. I believe that the presence of a gun contributed to the deaths of these men. There are good arguments for and against this, but I will not apologize for stating my relevant opinion.

        Like

      14. I used to agree completely with that. I did not like hate crime designation at first. But after some thought, I believe that the motivation for the crime is important, and killing someone for the simple reason that they are different is, in my opinion, is actually slightly worse. Should the sentence be different? Maybe not, but I think the motivations should be noted.

        The fact that you brought this case forward because the men killed were Christian shows that you are sensitive to the motivations behind the crime.

        Like

      15. Well of course, but not for the distinction of being a more severe crime. The killers should probably get the death penalty, which libs oppose. So with any “hate” murders I’m already willing to have more severe punishments. Not sure why the gay groups want the designation. Oh wait – I do know – to advance the falsity of civil rights for sexual preferences.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      16. I agree, the crime is not more severe. I like the designation because it can be used to help alleviate the problem that may be at the root of the hate. If we see that a distinct group are being murdered often in this way, we can try harder to teach our children to love and respect their fellow citizens, and offer our support to that community to let them know we do not condone such acts.

        Nice shot at gay people at the end. Was that really necessary? I know you won’t do anything to hurt anyone, but those without your restraint and possibly without your mental wherewithal take those comments to heart, use them to breed hatred against others, and sometimes, act on that hatred.

        Like

      17. I made a carefully reasoned and completely accurate point. Do not confuse the average gay person with the gay lobby.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      18. So I opposed you are for the illegalization of drinking alcohol? Since it is so prevalent (one of your arguments against guns) and it’s presence contributes to the deaths of so many.

        I would be interested in your thoughts on this issue since beer seems to be so important to Canadians.

        Also, I’d like to point out, that alcohol consumption is not a guaranteed right in the constitution (if the U.S. nor Canada).

        The floor is yours………

        Like

      19. Guns being prevalent was not an argument I made. There are just as many guns in Canada. We just don’t bring them to the mall.

        The primary purpose of alcohol is not “ending a life”, so it’s a pretty bad comparison. As far as laws go, I think the laws prohibiting alcohol consumption in places like cars are synonymous with the laws that would prohibit carrying a gun in your car.

        I think consuming an alcoholic beverage in a responsible way is fine, and I think that using a gun for hunting, sport, or protecting yourself is also fine. The laws really are not that different – it’s the culture that is different. There are very very few scenarios where deadly force is required to protect yourself, and almost none of those occur in public. Using simple statistics, there is a far better chance that a gun in your possession will be used for a murder (perhaps of you or your family member) than in an act of self defence.

        Like

      20. You really need to visit Texas. It isn’t quite as wild as people thing. It isn’t like we all goto the Mall with holsters on.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      21. I know – it’s a bit of hyperbole, like the beer comments about Canada. I’ve been to Texas, and I would go again in a heartbeat. You must admit though, that in some parts of your country, the odds are that most people are armed.

        I should note here that I had a chance to meet a ton of your athletes, media, and tourists while volunteering at the Olympics, and they were absolutely the best of all the people I met. Not to say that I expected less – they were just over and above what I could have hoped for. I even wrote NBC a letter.

        Like

      22. You volunteered at the Olympics??!! My girls will be jealous. One wants to learn more languages so she can interpret there someday.

        Let me know if you’d like to do a guest-post on your experience. I think we’d enjoy your perspective and stori

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      23. I worked at the venue for figure skating and short track speed-skating and had an awesome time. I’d be happy to contribute a story about it, but it is possible that I would hide within it subliminal evolution propaganda, so – up to you 🙂

        Like

      24. Ha! I’m willing to take that chance. Just send it at your convenience and I’ll post it.

        Short track and figure skating? Now they’ll be doubly envious. We had fun watching short track.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      25. Well at least you admit you are inconsistent! 🙂

        And your last sentence is bogus. Studies have shown that that to not be the case. The stats you site don’t include non-shooting self-defense which happens in 99% of the cases that a gun is used for self-defense. Just the presences of a gun in a law-abiding citizens possession prevents more crimes than are committed with guns.

        Those cases are not tracked though, so the stat you cite is very suspect.

        Like

      26. Inconsistent? Whatever.

        You have a good point about non-shooting self defence. That needs to be considered. I think there are other ways to achieve something similar though. Cell phone video cameras have come a long way. Using a service like Qik on the iPhone, I can stream live video that is stored on a website immediately, and can be used to deter crime. Perhaps not as well as a gun, but with fewer adverse consequences. Just a thought.

        Like

      27. The presence of guns in states with concealed carry has reduced crime.

        I will say, however, that I did not notice any admission that these guys were killed for preaching per se, thought something in their preaching may have been the catalyst. But if it was, I would argue against hate crime laws just the same. Hate crime laws are BS absolutely.

        Like

  2. I still cant get over the line from the Palm Beach post “two men who made the mistake of preaching religion”.

    Man thats straight low down. The writer was Jewish.

    Like

    1. Honestly, I don’t think that was the intent of the writer. You hear that all the time in similar stories. Lines like “Man makes mistake of knocking on the wrong door” are commonplace and are not meant to imply blame.

      You guys spend so much time breeding anger when a benign explanation is most likely.

      Like

      1. who said they were angry? It was an observation relevant to the story and writer. But somehow you squeezed out “breeding anger”.

        Credibility: ZERO

        Like

      2. I think that’s a good point. It could have been a literary flourish to say “mistake of preaching”. As in, “There only crime? They were preaching the Gospel.” as in, there was no legitimate reason to murder them.

        Like

  3. The interesting about the death of these two men is that Fox news actually have an article about it and not CNN, the suppose diverse network. Many black people label Fox as a racist network but there are one of the big news network to at least have a small article on it. CNN has nothing on it. I pray for those brothers’ families and everyone around the world that is martyred for the faith. This makes me understand that this is no game. There are principalities going on warfare and would I be ready to defend and spread the gospel.

    Like

  4. About the first article, I was planning on a post at my blog based on an anti-concealed carry argument made by a looney lib columnist in our local Daily Herald. Three parties from Chicago have gone to the US Supreme Court to overturn Chicago’s draconian anti-2nd Amendment laws. One cannot purchase or own a handgun in the city of Chicago.

    Anyway, I might link to the Breitbart piece because it does appeal to something I’ve long felt about the current climate regarding gun ownership. That would be, that fundamentally, I don’t agree with the notion that I have to tell ANYONE that I own or carry a gun, including government authorities. Governments are one of the things the 2nd protects us from, so why would I want them to know I have any? This article shows what a reprehensible newspaper is capable of. What makes anyone think that some politician might use such lists in order to find out who would be a problem if he wanted to enact legislation that he knew many people opposed? Convicted criminals have their criminal records on file. A computer check would determine if someone stopped say, for a traffic violation, has a criminal record and any firearms found would be prosecutable just for the possession of them. There’s no reason anyone should have to jump through ANY hoops to own a gun, since criminals won’t go through those hoops anyway.

    Would this be practical in reality? Doubtful we could ever find out. All we can do is speculate. But that’s my personal opinion. I do not fear law-abiding people. I cannot tell who is or who isn’t (if I don’t know them personally), but it is the American way to assume innocence. Carrying a gun protects me against misjudgement of strangers.

    In the meantime, changes in the law are essential to stop morons like this news guy from infringing on the privacy rights of law abiding gun owners. A good class action suit seems in order.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s