• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A reminder to be careful with loaded weapons

follker

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
25
Location
Lakewood, Washington, USA
imported post

I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish. I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

J
 

1970camaroRS

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Mill Creek, Washington, USA
imported post

follker wrote:
I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish.  I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

J

I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated. However, you will find there are a few high schools that still have trap and target shooting as an after school activity. I know because my brother, the Dean of Students and Burlington Edison High School teaches it.

One the other point, yes...wtf? Where can you possibly live that warrants no need for a gun what-so-ever? I'm in Mill Creek, the place most think of as the best place to raise a family in pacific northwest short of maybe Bellingham. I have still had people that don't belong in the area wander around my neighborhood at 4 in the morning. Hell, I even had a tweaker delay my wife's ambulance ride because he was being chased by a 'man with a gun'...in friggin' MILL CREEK! Of course the cops never found the 'gunman' since he never existed, but still...even in the safest of communities, anything is possible. Ask the craigslist murderers about that...
 

follker

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
25
Location
Lakewood, Washington, USA
imported post

The bible study comment was tongue firmly in cheek...it just sounded funny to me as I typed it......but yeah your right.....you didnt have to go get all 'federalist papers' on me though........geez....:lol:


J
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

I know this man's ex-wife (she has remarried, long ago) and his son. Whether is was stupid, idiotic, moronic, preventable....well, the list goes on and on. The result is the same, a fine young man (the son) woke up Tuesday morning without a father.

It couldn't have come at a worse time for him (the son) who is trying to raise money to go to Nationals for wrestling (free style).

Remember, every time one of these things happens, there is always some one left behind that has to keep on keeping on....
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

I get entirely frustrated when people make comments such as to stay out of bad neighborhoods, avoid bad parts of town and everyone knows where they are.

To be fair, I grew up in the undeveloped part of Clark County near Vancouver. I grew up in a middle to upper middle class white family. I still live in a nice middle class neighborhood.

BUT,

When those things are said they are racist, bigoted and elitist. I read into those type of comments that everyone can just move to Bellevue and avoid the huge variety of ethnic neighborhoods that exist. White liberals write those type of narrow, bigoted comments.

Furthermore, they neglect one critical piece of thinking. If you are a criminal and you want to steal a large screen tv, nice computers, good jewelry, etc., where are you going to break into a home? The inner city or a nice neighborhood?

The reason poor neighborhoods have crime is drug related, not because nice things are kept there and then stolen.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
I get entirely frustrated when people make comments such as to stay out of bad neighborhoods, avoid bad parts of town and everyone knows where they are.
It's a pretty well known psychological response. Blame the victim for being in a bad neighborhood, dressing like a hussy, whatever. Doing so makes the blamer feel like they have more control over their own lives, as if someone else who had something bad happen to them did something wrong to deserve it.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

1970camaroRS wrote:
follker wrote:
I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated.
Sorry but you have that exactly backwards. It's the freedom from religion crowd that wouldcausethe establishment clauseto swallow the free exercise clause and that is not what the Founders intended. Refusing to allow any form of religious expression, be it bible study or moments of silence or wearing of religious symbols violates free exercise and is itself a form of religious indoctrination insecularism. Permitting free exercise does not equal establishment. I can't put it any better than this:

"The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?"
Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough

Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand. You see, the same people who want to restrict free exercise when it comes to religion areon a mission to restrict it when it comes to firearms. We can't allow either effort to go unchallenged.
 

USMC1911

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
190
Location
Vancouver, Washington, USA
imported post

Why do ppl not understand that the BG'sgo to the good neighborhoods to do their dirty deeds, because that is where all the "good" stuff is ! :banghead:
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Lammo wrote:
1970camaroRS wrote:
follker wrote:
I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated.
Sorry but you have that exactly backwards. It's the freedom from religion crowd that wouldcausethe establishment clauseto swallow the free exercise clause and that is not what the Founders intended. Refusing to allow any form of religious expression, be it bible study or moments of silence or wearing of religious symbols violates free exercise and is itself a form of religious indoctrination insecularism. Permitting free exercise does not equal establishment. I can't put it any better than this:

"The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?"
Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough

Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand. You see, the same people who want to restrict free exercise when it comes to religion areon a mission to restrict it when it comes to firearms. We can't allow either effort to go unchallenged.
Thats the way I was taught too. It was not originallyabout afreedom to not be religous, It was about a freedom to choose which religeon you wanted to be. To be able to worship God how you wanted.
 

1970camaroRS

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Mill Creek, Washington, USA
imported post

follker wrote:
The bible study comment was tongue firmly in cheek...it just sounded funny to me as I typed it......but yeah your right.....you didnt have to go get all 'federalist papers' on me though........geez....:lol:


J
Sorry, got all fired up for a good debate!
 

1970camaroRS

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Mill Creek, Washington, USA
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
Lammo wrote:
1970camaroRS wrote:
follker wrote:
I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated.
Sorry but you have that exactly backwards. It's the freedom from religion crowd that wouldcausethe establishment clauseto swallow the free exercise clause and that is not what the Founders intended. Refusing to allow any form of religious expression, be it bible study or moments of silence or wearing of religious symbols violates free exercise and is itself a form of religious indoctrination insecularism. Permitting free exercise does not equal establishment. I can't put it any better than this:

"The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?"
Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough

Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand. You see, the same people who want to restrict free exercise when it comes to religion areon a mission to restrict it when it comes to firearms. We can't allow either effort to go unchallenged.
Thats the way I was taught too. It was not originallyabout afreedom to not be religous, It was about a freedom to choose which religeon you wanted to be. To be able to worship God how you wanted.
Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand.


Ah yes, but you see, we're sitting on the same side of the fence, just with different perspectives.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

The term freedom from religion does not mean you have the right to be secular, it means you have the right to NOT have the state tell you which religion you are supposed to practice, nor require it of you. At the time the state told it's people what, when and how to worship.

Now the state has no business or power saying one way or the other. As it should be. Does this mean you can have prayer in school? No, it just can't be sanctioned or required of the students. Does it mean we have to remove references to 'God' from money or government buildings? Maybe. As the state should not promote one religion over the other and promoting God, even a generic one, leaves out those who don't believe in God. Should we stop celebrating Christmas? No, as we also celebrate or make allowances to celebrate ALL religous or non-religous holidays.

... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

People are free to worship outloud, in public/government lands in any form they desire. Roadside memorials are not promoted by the state, they are private, legal and welcomed. I do have to agree 100% that anyone who thinks they can completely erase religion from the public square doesn't understand the difference between the State promoting religion and the people exercising their many rights to speak and worship how they see fit. Also, there isn't an ammendment that says you are free to never see religion in your life. Cause that would kind of clash with the 1st.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

1970camaroRS wrote:
This story was on KOMO today. An anti-gun troll is in the comments and gets pounded by some well thought out responses. All he can counter with is, "You are a frightened gun owner!" and, "I live my life better than you so I don't need a gun." What a maroon!
http://www.komonews.com/news/94133739.html

Man accidentally killed while moving rifles
By KOMO Staff

A 43-year-old man was killed Monday afternoon when he was accidentally shot while moving rifles at his home near Onalaska.



Story Updated: May 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM PDT


ONALASKA, Wash. -- A 43-year-old man was killed Monday afternoon when he was accidentally shot while moving rifles.

Lewis County sheriff Commander Steve Aust said the man was moving several rifles out of a gun safe when a bolt from one of the guns caught the trigger of a .22-caliber rifle and fired the weapon.

The round hit the man in the abdomen, and a contractor who was working at the victim's house at the time called 911.

Medics rushed to the house in the 100 block of Hogue Road north of Onalaska, but the man died before he was able to be airlifted to a hospital.

The victim's name has not been released, but Aust said the man was a second-grade teacher at Onalaska Elementary School.
A good reminder about safety. Awfully weird accident.

Guy had too many guns...couldn't handle them all.

RIP.
 

Nimh

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
17
Location
Marysville, WA
imported post

Some of those comments are painful to read. So many seem happy a man is dead, even if by accident, just to somehow prove their point that something may be dangerous. Likely the same trolls that are elated when a motorcyclists goes down after seeing an aggressive rider on their commute earlier in the week. That's quite a group there.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

1970camaroRS wrote:
follker wrote:
I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish. I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

J

I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion.
They clearly say that? You might want to question whomever told you that and read it for yourself. I hate these libtard rumors, go troll elsewhere.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

Way off the original topic, but here are some founding fathers thoughts on religion:

James Madison:
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."[/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty",[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238
[/font][align=left]


[/align][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]
[/font][align=left][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."[/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785[/font]



[/align][align=left]John Adams

[/align][align=left][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"[/font]
[/align] [font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] -letter to Thomas Jefferson[/font]

[align=left][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."[/font] (No source attributed)

Thomas Jefferson
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] .[/font]
[/align]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."[/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] - to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814[/font]


[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."[/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] - to Baron von Humboldt, 1813[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."[/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814[/font]



There are a host of others, but the concept that the Founders were Christian is, to some, a stretch. There were several notable Deists (Jefferson and Franklin) who were instrumental in writing the foundation documents of our nation. In fact, if we read the ORIGINAL texts of the Declaration of Independence, there were a lot more issues than slavery that Jefferson had to fix.

Anyway....back to the original post...
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"].[/font]
 

1970camaroRS

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Mill Creek, Washington, USA
imported post

kito109654 wrote:
1970camaroRS wrote:
follker wrote:
I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish. I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

J

I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion.
They clearly say that? You might want to question whomever told you that and read it for yourself. I hate these libtard rumors, go troll elsewhere.
Yes, they say that. As per the above quotes and the Federalist Papers, written by the founding fathers to explain the Constitution...that's where we get the notion that the well regulatedmilitia is indeed the people. I suggest you read it as I have. In fact, I have a well worn copy I can send to you with many underlined passages from my personal reading of it. I am up for open debate, unlike you. I won't run around and call people names because I don't like their opinions or positions on issues. And I sir, am definately not a troll...although I may be shaped like one. (Those that have met me know what I'm saying)
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
Top