Friday, October 2, 2015

My Answer

Some nut points a gun at me and asks if I'm a Christian?
My answer should be BOOM!
Hey. I got an idea. Arm Christians!
Stop disarming citizens.
The answer should be BOOM!

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


  1. Guy points a gun at you and asks if you're a Christian?

    You either answer no or you're dead.

    But clearly if you perceive the gun slaughter in America as a problem the answer is more guns.
    This fetishizing is intensely sad.

    1. duck, are you moslem vermin? Now have the guts to answer honestly.

    2. Ducky, your oft-repeated meme is specious. You and your compatriots endlessly trot out "more guns"....without any accompanying metrics. Tell me who is advocating for "more guns"...versus the rest of us who want the keep and purchase the median number of firearms as it currently stands.

      You can do better than simply repeating the script.

    3. First reaction from the gun fetishists is to squawk that the campus was a "gun free" zone and advocate for concealed carry on campus.

      Translates to more guns to me.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. And incorrect. Maybe that's the first reaction you thought you saw.....but I highly doubt that you hang in the company of gun owners. Your translator is broken...and your argument is still specious. Allowing for campus carry does not equate to an increase in the number of guns.

    6. Well. I frankly hope it does. Or the perception that it does.
      In the hands of responsible citizens.

  2. While my post is rather facetious in that there is no easy answer, the only time the answer is no is when that is the truth. To a Christian, to deny Christ is sporitual death.
    I don't fetishize guns. I pay some attention (not enough) to their cleaning to maintain their value and function.
    Clearly, if a number of citizens in that gun free zone had been armed, the toll would not have been as high.
    You seem to want these evil perpetrators to have a more targwt rich environment.
    Because they WILL have guns. Bad guys often disregard gun laws.

    1. Clearly? How so? As it was the perp was rather methodical.

      If some jackie pulls out a piece and starts firing why are you assuming that more rounds wouldn't have been discharged with a higher casualty rate.
      The issue is pretty knotty and difficult. It is made difficult by the knee jerk reactions on both sides. However, I find the right more dangerous since it means more guns.

      Oh as an aside. A Shia would be permitted to deny being Shi'a in this situation. That is the meaning of taqiyya not what you commonly ascribe.

    2. "If some jackie pulls out a piece"
      Your comment made no sense to me until I realized you weren't speaking of the original bad guy, but a responder or as more commonly referred to "victim".
      I believe that if more rounds were fired they would be at the bad guy limiting his opportunity to create more victims.
      I am an optimist, and you, a pessimist.

      And why the reference to Shia?

  3. Ed, Clearly you can't prove a negative by asserting that high speed projectiles of lead fired in the direction of the killer gunman wouldn't lead to more deaths than no bullets fired at the gunman for 20 minutes until police arrived. brilliant.

    1. Eggs ackly.
      God forbid that in killing the bad guy, a bullet doesn't pass through him, harming the person behind him, commonly referred to as "the next guy to be shot, anyway" stopping further victims from being killed.