Bute wrote:
No need to guess. I know that you do not have the answer to the questions your team's rhetoric keep begging. Keep peddling ...

I guess we can't let you have a gun, Bute. I, without knowing you, have prejudged that you're dangerous and we can't trust you. Now I feel safer.

Kat wrote:
Have the even thought of the liability of sexual assualt...rape...etc. This is a horrible idea and no suprise California leads the way.

Brian wrote:
Not at all, boy. Actually, it is pretty dishonest of you boy to move the goal posts.
You were talking about "mass murder" in church. Now you are shifting ground and engaging in ad hominem on the basis of not committing crimes at all. Calling
No, I have never come across a mass murder in church in my lifetime. That is not naïvety, but historical fact, boy.

Brian wrote:
In most countries that can be reasonably assumed.

SteveR wrote:
Yet packing a 38 during the Lords prayer is just fine?

joe lee wrote:
This incident, as others, raises the question of what churches should do differently, if anything. On the one hand, who wants to be carrying a weapon to church? On the other, who wants their families and the children to be at the complete whim of a madman?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Mike of N.Y., it is not the 2nd Amendment that protect the right to have guns, but the 14th which was designed so Blacks could arm themselves to protect themselves against Whites

Rufus wrote:
“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.�
? Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Palin wrote:
Correct, in order to show the futility and stupidity of your comment.

Palin wrote:
It is also illegal for teachers to bugger children but that never stopped it happening. Try again.