As a Christian and a conservative, that pastor is not preaching the word of God. That is pure hatred. What happened to love the sinner, hate the sin? I too disagree with Obama and his policies, but spewing this crap is not the answer.
Well, now I need a gun. If this COCKSUCKER can carry a gun then I will too. Im gonna take one to Phil roes next town hall. Damn shame, but I'm gonna do it. No longer passive. They asked for they got it. Ok, anybody know where I can get this type of gun??? Our congressman Phil (eat some shit) Roe talks constantly about going to church and being a doctor. I guess this is the kind of shit he learns while he is there. Guns it is......STUPID wins this one !!!!! Before this piece of shit America is
I would take that gun off his shoulder and bash him over the head with it. Because you have to be mentally ill to take a firearm to a presidential rally.
The rifle would probably break, its only a spring loaded stock. Why do you have to be mentally ill, he was making a statement, I would do the same if Bush was back in office, well there is no real difference between both of them.
And if that would happen, you hitting him, than you would be the aggressor and subject to the consequence of intruding on someone elses rights. You should not do that.
Hello from Europe, first of all let me tell you that when you hear that we don't like USA, it's not true, we know that there's a lot of good people in the stats, the people that make your country look so ignorant, arrogant and down right stupid are the people in this video. Europe loves America, it's the GOP that we hate.
No doubt Obama is an evil man, he truly is wicked, his support for murdering babies makes me extremely angry. The pastor though needs to focus on bringing souls to Christ.
If Jesus Christ could read your comment, he'd send you to hell. Why don't you stop hating the poor people and different people and start following real Christians like Mikael Moore for example.
I realize that you leftists absolutely need government control over your lives because you cannot think for yourself. You literally have placed the federal gov't as your god. You know this, I know this, there is no need to bash the other side because we criticize your god.
You don't realize anything, you don't get it. I'm a working man and I don't want wall street doing what ever they want, I want banks to have restrictions and I want my rights to be protected. The GOP defends big companies and make sure they don't lose any money, that's what you don't get, as a working man, if you are a working man, The right wing is the enemy,
they're against unions, free education and they even believe that only people with money deserve to live, the GOP stands against everything a democracy represents. They're payed by major insurance companies and they're against free Health care, mmmhh well that's weird isn't it ? They're payed by major oil industries and they want you ti believe that global worman is a mith, mmhh why's that ? Please try to understand, these people only want one thing, your money and they want it for free.
He was notthe only armed individual there I can promise this, and it is your right ,no your duty to exercise these rights, if you don't laches will apply and you will loose them and once rights are gone they are never returned folks. Stop bickering,learn Constitutional law and American jurisprudence, you better know your rights because if you don't you have none. No more will we fear our govt. infact it should be the other way round,we are the masters, star acting like it, or be a slave.
Yet another example of why we should struggle to take the myths and ignorance out of our world... they are just plain dangerous in the hands of people like Steve Anderson
Geez these people are so predictable. Ok, it's a little weird to carry an M2 into a public meeting with the
prez.... But you could count on these self important people going ballistic over it and "expressing themselves" The guy would prob been beat up if he had been smoking (tobacco)
I do have to wonder though....in all your apparent years of studying how have you never found all the inconsistancies I've come across such as this one?.....Hm Methinks you never actually studied the bible at all.
what's really funny is for the first 100 or more years of America's history, most folks carried rifles or pistols on their hip and nobody thought it was strange or called them wingnuts.
Now if you do it, you are somehow crazy or a radical. There is a book called More Guns Less Crime.
No scholars have translated the scriptures as you indicate, none. I never said NT was written in hebrew. Now you;re a liar too. You are an ignorant litte kid.
oh and the hebrew comment wasnt directed at you obviously....it was directed to nask. Please, try to keep up. I understand it may be hard but if you really want to participate in a discussion you are going to have to demonstrate that you are capable of at least comprehending what you read. Though that might explain why you think the bible is consistant. If you cant even follow a short youtube convo, its a far fetched assumption to think you could follow the bible.
lol....you are labouring under the delusion that its MY translation from hebrew....its not. its the huge group of religious scholars who translated to the king james versiou of the bible, and yes they DO read hebrew and are the experts on the language. So no its not a misquote. LOL pwned due to inadequate study of the bible.
You don't know what translation means apparently. There are no scholares that tranlate the Bible as you do. There are uneducated slugs, like yourself, that make uneducated judgements because they are scared of the truth. No they don't read Hebrew apparently or they'd agree with me. Morons that taught you in high school don't count as "scholars" boy. It's not only a misquote, it's a blatant, intentional lie. I've forgotten more about studying the Bible than you will ever know in your lifetime.
I have a point to make on this....did you know that ad hominem attacks (or making fun of a person in a debate rather than address them) is a sign of fear and panic?
As I scroll through our conv. I see that you are quite prone to it. You should think before you speak as you never know if whats coming will only make you look worse =)
Anyways, no I am no referring to my highschool teachers, I am referring to the theologians who translated the bible to english. (KJV) So no its quite accurate
I dont deny that you THINK you are more educated in the bible, sadly that is a deluded opinion. I would have to ask, why havent you published your own translation of the bible if you are so much more qualified than the 47 scholars (there job) that worked on the KJV? My credibility is theres as I use their work, where as yours is simply your opinion. Sorry but that is only enough to get you thrown out on your ass. You have offered no credible explanation for why the KJV is mistranslated
He is no better that that biggot Jeremiah Wright. I agree with the basis for his argument. We now have an illegitimate governing body made up of idiots, but for a "pastor" to get up and say the things he is saying from the pulpit is ignorant and divisive. Those arguments are for this type of forum. The true pastors of this world would never couch their grievances in such a fashion.
no...they are only wrong from YOUR interpretation of christianity....thats the problem with religion, its completely subjective, and hes no more wrong or right than any other version
He's wrong according to the only perspective that matters; God's. When you know something about Christianity, you might could address it, but at this point, you obviously do not...
lol, I grew up in a strictly christian family. I suspect you are the one who knows absolutely nothing about religion in general (let alone your own)
My point is that every religious sect believes THEIR interpretation is right....your patronizing over them and your tut tuts at their so called "misinterpretations" are easily reversed on you. They claim much the same.
Again, another who disputes what the Bible says, NOT WHAT I SAID. I not only grew up around and in the church, I have studied how to properly interpret the Bible as well. So maybe you'd be so kind as to back up this bull about YOUR misinterpretations. I can back mine up. Where does the Bible support his tone, his comments, where?
Again you dodge a question you can't answer smart guy, WHERE IN THE BIBE DOES IT CONDONE THIS GUYS SERMON. Either answer it or quit pretending you know anything about CHRISTIANITY, NOT RELIGION.
the bible words what it says extremely vaguely. So there is no THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS....thats kinda the point of theology. If the bible was clear, there would be no theology
thats the great weakness of religious text. you can make it say anything you want. You could argue that religious people feel that because obama is pro choice. And because the bible says do not murder....religious people spin abortion to = murder thereby saying the bible says we should kill obama. (after all the bible teaches eye for an eye)
There IS NO WEAKNESS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT. Again, you seem to know very little about which you speak. And again, you dodge my question, BECAUSE you don't understand hat you're taking about. Interpretation does NOT imply weakness. It merely shows that the original anguages do not transate as cleanly as people think. Which means it needs to be CAREFULLY examined and properly translated. As far as the scripture reference you make; read Matt 5:38
oooh did I touch a nerve when I actually provided scripture to back up what I said? lol I suspect you know full well I studied scripture intently. Hell thats the reason I stopped believeing in the first place, I actually read the bible.
There is no "mistranslation" The bible is quite clear in the areas I mentioned. These translations arent even mine they are the king james version (considered to be the most accurate)
Matth:5 38 specifically says eye for an eye but warns not to EXCEED.
1 The bible double talks (accepts or rejects what it in other places it does the opposite
2 It is completely subjective as to which is right as the bible doesnt distinguish between "more accurate" sections
ergo:
The bible is subjective and can just about justify anything you want, notably slavery, racism/prejuidice, revenge killing, human sacrifice, a lieing/misleading god.
I find it hilarious that you claim to have "studied the bible" and know how to interpret it "properly" yet you were completely unaware of the verses I mention which can be used to justify this lunatic in the video.
I suspect you havent read half the bible or you (like me) would have rejected it afterwords because of the immoralities in it.
You haven't mentioned any verses that you haven't managed to molest and take out of context. You haven't mentioned any verses. The one that you quoted, you took out of context and you apparently don't understand the one in Matthew either. I have read the Bible through more than once, and I'm sorry you don't understand what you're reading, but you, my freind are miles off the reservation without a map.
Nowhere from cover to cover does the Bible contradict itself. You don't know or understand what you are reading. Your unbelief is proof that you haven't read anything but instead have gone through and picked out scripture to twist and take out of context to serve your own backward ideologies.
lol matt 5:38 says eye for eye, tooth for a tooth etc. Its saying you punish the person with their "sin" ie the bible condones murder for abortion. Sorry but thats not out of context. thats a literal word for word complete verse, your welcome to view the entire thing. =) cheers.
Matt 5:38 God's purpose here is an expression of mercy. If you bother to read the entire verse He refers to turning th other cheek. This emplores Christians not to stoop to the level of those who hate us or attacj us. It is NOT a guide for personal revenge. The corrosponding passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy were intended as limits on the courts in their administration of punishment.
Therein lies your problem. That's the english translation of the greek for one, you have to take the setting into consideration, for another and you have to take into account the context in which it was said.
But you continue down your foolhardy path, denying what cannot be ignored, slandering those things you don't understand or appreciate. I've done more than I should have in entertaining your infantile blathering thus far. Bye-bye little boy.
lol sorry thats not an argument...saying oh you just dont get it...after I've given you the proof is not going to convince anyone. lol nor is calling logic "infantile blathering" an argument either. Matt 5:38 has nothing to do with mercy Its about how to properly punish people. Thats even what it says its for.
I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact that you've yet to refute. There has been nothing remotely resembling logic in your posts. And you are, of course wrong on the interpretation. bye- bye little boy.....Go argue with some one who believes the bilge you spew
no, does changing your mind count as lying? If your dad told you that you had to kill your favorite, idk, pet, and then when you were just about to he yells out stop! and you stop and he tells you that he just wanted to see if you would obey him like you should, and since you would have he gives you lots of stuff or special treatment, would that be considered lying? God was testing Abraham. Look it up it's in Genesis, it's a foreshadowing of God giving His only son to die for us.
I was actually going to add that God is omnipotent, but I would go over 500 characters. But first of all why would God lie? and second of all God knew what was going to happen. You really need to read the story for yourself, it explains everything. Look it up, or something. Find some Bible study, don't talk to me unless you've already read the entire Bible which I have. I really don't want to get nasty with you, cause that's exactly what God says not to do and then I'd just be another hypocrite.
I have read the bible, I was raised catholic and funny enough...I actually took an interest in the bible and studied it. Thats actually what turned me away from religion. The barbarism in the bible.
The story of abraham goes as such:
God tells abraham to sacrifice his only son (regardless of whether or not he knows whats going to happen...HE LIED HERE)
an angel just in the nick of time stays abraham, saying that god said it was just a test (why would god need to test someone?
you're missing the point and no offense, but catholicism, even though it is considered Christian, is a whole lot different than actual Christianity, they pray to saints and the Bible itself says that Jesus is the only one you pray to, and I still don't see how God lied, read the story of Job, it is very interesting and it might explain a couple things, God tests us everyday
Already read the story of job....several times..shudder bible study was terrible. No offense, but theres no such thing as "real" christianity. thats why there is so many sects. The bible is so vague that it becomes a matter of subjective interpretation....leading inevitably to disagreement.
I dont see how you dont see this......A lie.....a falsehood. An intentionally wrong statement.
God said, abraham I want you to sacrifice your son, with full knowledge (assuming he is god after all) that he didnt really want him to do it. In other words god lied. Look you can take a person to fact or logic, but you cant make them use it. If you cant see that then theres nothing that really can help you. You must lack basic cognitive skills or something.
can't we just have a nice debate without calling eachother childish names? You are the one that doesn't get it, honestly can somebody back me up? cause I'm getting tired of arguing with an ignorant person. It's called testing, I get what you are saying but that is not considered a lie, and even if the Bible was completely false (which it's not) and it was just written by some crazy Hebrews, why would they put in a section where God lies? I would put more but the character count is is going over
and I get what you're saying about "real" Christianity but it's because so many people have taken God's word and perverted it. I'll quote Ghandi, he said something like "I love you Christ, it is your Christians I have a problem with" and that is completely true. So many people think that they can get away with anything cause God will forgive their sins, but that's just stupid. I mean it's true that God will forgive them but God says that faith without works is dead
lastly, they put in the part where god lies because they didnt realize they were making an inconsistancy at the time. In other words, they were human, and made a human mistake. ie the bible being authored by humans will have mistakes.
Did I even need to answer that? I mean come on, you had to already know the answer to that question. This is what I mean by purposefully ignorant. When you ask questions like that its just a stall. Not an honest attempt to find the truth.
I'm not being ignorant. I have studied the Bible for many years and I have done many Bible studies on this particular instance. The Bible was written by man with inspiration from God. Do you believe in heaven or Hell? What do you believe happens to us when we die?
sorry not letting you change the subject. Yes the bible clearly says god told abraham to sacrifice his son, then apparently stayed the execution because it was all a test. ie god intentionally lied. I really dont care if you dedicated every waking moment of your life to the bible. I happen to have a fact, and facts are inarguable.
that is not a fact and what I was going to say when you answered that you did or didn't believe in heaven was that you think something is correct and I have legitimate argument to disprove it. I wasn't trying to change the subject I was asking are you like an agnostic or an atheist? it doesn't matter, I know the Bible is all truth and if you don't believe that, it's your problem, I really wish you would just take a chance on Christianity instead of just assuming that we "go to sleep" when we die
Which would be better, believing that God exists and being wrong when you die, or not believing in God and being wrong and going to hell? Anyways, it says in the Bible God did this as a test. A test is not a falsehood. God knew what was going to happen but God works in mysterious ways. Do you believe in fate? (this relates to the story)
um....you dont seem to realize how logic works....I dont have an obligation to disprove anything. YOU have to provide evidence for it. (heaven/fate)
As a side note, I did give christianity a chance, hell I studied it ferverently and thats why I left.
As for your attempt at pascals wager, you didnt seem to realize that there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of religions, each saying you die if you dont follow THEIR religion, so regardless your still basically going to hell anyways.
Cant we have a debate without you INTENTIONALLY being ignorant to when you are in the wrong? The person in a debate who deserves respect, is the person who follows ettiquette. Being purposefully ignorant is NOT polite debating.
I suspect you dont know the definition of ignorant judging by how you use it.
Secondly, the point is that there is no "REAL god's word" to be perverted in the first place. Who even gets to decide whats the RIGHT translation......You?.
OMG! Rachel Maddow & Contessa Brewer & Keith Olbermann is this the man that you and MSNBC cut his face & hand shots out of? OMG! It is! Weird, I was wondering why you guys were cutting out the face & hands but now it makes sense! Your rhetoric was that it was a bunch of racist redneck right wing wackos that were showing up strictly because Obama is half black [oops you always say black]. Makes sense now that it would've exposed that whole false race card thing to scare folks to not protest. LOL!
He was making fun of the whole rally.....He was trying to make conservatives at the rally feel uncomfortable with the rights that they are fighting for. He is just posing as a conservative he is proving that most of the people at the rally happen to be white, because he stands out so much.
Pretty sure if you have a basic grasp on history, and the principles and beliefs of the founding fathers in their respects towards the 2nd Amendment, you would understand this type of thing is more defined to their beliefs than you'd expect.
I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers didn't want people to flaunt their liberties in such a manner just for the sake of trolling others that live in the real world.
Do you understand that ALL it takes is for one of you nuts to do something stupid for the entire power of the government to come down on you like a ton of bricks?
Actually, go and read some quotes of the founding fathers and see just how adamant they were about the 2nd Amendment, they were pretty God Damn liberal in their prospective towards expressing ones rights and not having any authority infringe upon them. And no, it takes vastly more than for one person to do something stupid for the entire power of the government to come down on an entire group.
By that logic, I should be able to own tanks, biological or nuclear weapons, strategic bombers, etc...
OH, And I should be able to make comments that suggest that I want the president to die and carry said weapons in his presence, even though such talk is sedition, which has always been a crime.
Are you an idiot? You keep comparing small arms, to fucking tools of mass destruction, and since you've done it repeatedly, I can only assume that either, a. You don't have any other argument that's defensible, or b. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about. And as for the second part, why shouldn't you be able to make a comment that suggest you want the President to die? How is it any different that somebody saying they want some random person to die? It's not.
You claim that x item shouldn't be illegal because you have a right to defend yourself and there shouldn't be a law restricting that.
No restriction means no restriction.
By your logic, there's no reason for me to not legally possess and carry a container of antrax or anything else as long as it is openly carried and I don't 'intend' to use it except for self defense.
No, it's not sedition, claiming that you're going to kill the President, would be sedition. And saying you want somebody to die, is not a threat, threatening to kill somebody is a threat. Is that really that hard to distinguish the two? And no, it's not illegal to say that you want somebody, or hope for somebody to die, it's only illegal to threaten that person. If I said, I wish person (a) would did, it's not a threat, if I said I'm going to kill person (a) that's a threat.
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Also, Saying that you want someone to die is a threat. You get locked up for that shit in many sates of the union. You don't have to be specific in order to make a threat.
I have looked at the definition of sedition, the difference is I actually understand how it's defined legally, which you clearly don't. Maybe you should look up the would incite as well? Because inciting people to kill somebody is not the same as, wishing for somebody to die. He didn't sit there and say, everybody, go and kill the President, he wished he were dead. Totally different things.
Seriously, by your standards, do you know how many drug kingpins and mobsters have to be set free?
"Your honor, I never told Jake the Snake kill Louie. I just said I wanted Louie to die and Jake did it all on his own without any instruction from me"
Yes, because obviously, wishing for somebody to die, in an open public place is the same thing, as a criminal mob boss, "telling" somebody he "wished" somebody was dead yeah, clearly those are the same things....right. I suppose you're going to start to talk about intent now, right?
Um..yes it is. Otherwise you don't know if it's actually a threat or not. Somebody making a comment that they want person (a) dead, isn't considered a threat 99.9999% of the time. and that .00001% of the time where it is a threat, it's because they actually act on that threat, in which case, it's an actual case of directing violence towards another person.
And no, saying you want somebody to die, is not a threat. Find me a story where somebody was arrested for saying they wanted to see somebody dead, and I mean just that. Not telling other people to go out and harm somebody, just saying they wished somebody was dead. Because by your imbecilic reasoning wishing death, to say a convicted rapist, is a crime. You clearly, do not understand the difference between a threat, sedition, or hell, anything for that matter.
SAYING that you want another person dead and then taking it as a threat is a crime.
For instance, if I say, "I want to see you die in agony and have your screams lull me to sleep at night." That's a threat. Did I say that *I* was going to kill you? Nope.
Did I say that *I* was going to get someone else to do it? Nope.
Is it a terroristic threat? Yup
Robert Pickett was shot while loading his gun in front of the whitehouse and the Secret Service didn't even know his motive.
Yes, in that case, you're addressing a individual in person. In this case, a person was being addressed to a group not an individual. If you go up to a person and say I want you dead, it may be considered a threat, if your speaking to a friend, and you tell them you hope somebody dies, it's not a threat. You can't possibly not understand the difference. On and about Pickett you are again wrong. He fired two shots, and then turned his firearm and pointed it at the police, he was then shot.
If you publicly say that you want someone dead. it is a threat. Since you are saying it in public, the assumption is that you understand that they may hear or see it.
Pickett didn't fire his weapon, dumbass. I should know, I live near DC and it was all over the news when it happened.
And even further, have you actually seen anybody carry a firearm, openly, close to the president? I mean within a few yards? I haven't. They've been people to do so at events where the people were protesting outside, of where the President was speaking. And if the President is speaking near my home, lets say 1,000 yards away, hell, let's say half a mile away, it's legal for me to sit on my front porch and brandish a loaded weapon if I choose to, and the President can't do anything about it.
That was concealed carry, and done in an illegal fashion. The second things was done over 150 years ago. Again, apparently you don't understand, these people were not in proximity of the President. And it's not about being smart, it's about what's legal. If it's legal for me to carry a firearm outside of where the President is speaking, I don't fucking care if you don't like it, it's legal, and you can fuck yourself over the difference.
By your worldview, he should be able to open-carry the loaded weapon legally. Saying that it was illegal is a moot point on your end because you think it should be legal for him to carry anyway.
Look at you, getting all pissy because I pointed out a clear flaw in your 'logic'
Of course he should be able to open carry, it's already legal, why shouldn't he be allowed to open carry? And it's not just me who thinks he should be able to carry, the LAW states he can, so again I'm right, as I always am. And no, you didn't point out a flaw any anybodies logic, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about in the first place, much less should it be considered that you could point out a flaw an anybodies reasoning. That's just laughable.
You can't open carry in my state (MD). If you want to carry, you have to get a concealed carrying permit, which requires a reason to carry a concealed weapon.
I meant, it's legal where he is. How could you be so stupid as to misinterpret that statement? Oh, and you clearly, don't know what a flaw in reasoning is, as you proved nothing, you didn't prove my reasoning was wrong, bad, or even off-basis. The only thing you proved, was that you don't know what is being discussed.
It doesn't matter if it is legal where he is. the fact of the matter is that legal or not, that is still a loaded weapon within firing range of the president. Your reasoning is wrong because you act as though people shouldn't be alarmed because it is legal there, which is fucking stupid.
What? Of course it matters where it took place, that's the entire fucking crux of that argument. And no, he wasn't within firing range of the President, unless, his bullets can do through glass, metal, wood, and an assortment of other shit. Do you actually think the President was 20 feet away? And the second part of your statement is moronic. You're suggesting my reasoning is wrong, because I've said people shouldn't be alarmed when a person is legally carrying a firearm?
And guess what genius? Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it wrong. Learn the fucking distinction, learn what it means to prove something wrong, and then come back. And no, apparently you don't know what's being discussed.
So now, you're going to say you were talking about Reagan, when you made only one mention of him, like 5 comments ago, and never address a comment in respect to that aspect? And what was illegal carry? In respect to the man who shot Reagan? Really no shit? How long did it take you to realize that? Oh and, no. I've never stated that everybody should be able to carry openly, or you can find the comment where I said exactly that. Maybe you should learn how to fucking read.
I was referring to when I was talking about people carrying guns around the president. The guy I was talking to suggested that, because the carry was illegal, that it was an invalid comparison. but he believes that everyone should carry, so that cancels his argument out.
Ever heard of clarification?
' I've never stated that everybody should be able to carry openly'
Then where do you draw the line? Everyone gets the same rights.
And you have absolutely no clue what sedition is. Nor do you have any fucking clue how it's represented in a legal process. Unless you're in the military, and are openly threating to kill the President, you're chances of being charged with sedition are negligible. For one reason, because it can be difficult to distinguish between were an act of implied sedition would being to trump your first amendment rights. I'd explain this to you in more detail, but it wouldn't do any good.
You still have absolutely no clue what sedition is. Just because you can find a dictionary definition of a word, doesn't translate to understanding the actual meaning. You've proven you don't understand what it means, just because you read it, doesn't mean you understand it. A. You have to prove that this was inciting people to rebel, which is nearly impossible, as he was stating his opinion, and not advocating others to do such. Please, learn what sedition actually is, before you commet.
I already know what sedition is. I'm telling you, if that kook would have took a shot at Obama, the whole lot of them would have been rounded up and charged.
The only thing the government can do, is punish the individual, you can't punish the entire group, especially when 99% of the group probably wasn't involved. Oh and you clearly have no idea what a threat is, as in all of these cases, nobody has been threatened, harmed, or otherwise injured by anybody carrying firearms. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if a stupid fucking liberal tried to start something, because that's about all they are good at; fucking things up.
No it's not. For it to be a threat, he would have actually had to use the weapon against Obama, and seeing as how this guy wasn't even really that close. It also can't be precieved as a threat. The fact that it was a legal action, and a threat, is a illegal action, means he would have had to point the weapon at Obama, or near him, for it to be considered a threat. Otherwise you're saying carrying a firearm around the President is a threat. And you don't know what brandishing a weapon is.
Hey that guy isnt a white hick from rural america. Main stream media will twist it that after the video was shot the man took his make up off and was white as a ghost.
gotta love the video editing with the title " supports right wing militias " guess we know how this author feels about the second amendment, its my personal opinion that people are stepping up to remind obama of their second amendment rights, likely cause he's shown hostility against it when he added his signature to a bill banning handguns and effectively doing away with self defense in Chicago, now some people might see that as a step forward but history proves that bans do more harm than good
U WISHED DEATH FOR OBAMA BUT u DIED BEFORE HIM....THANKS GOD,HE HEARD MY PRAYERS. so if u you are racist go f#ck yourself.... """"""""""GO OBAMA""""""""""""""
I like how he's carrying his AR-15 as if, at any moment, Obama will reveal his true form as - Beelzebub! Then he will brandish his firearm and destroy the foul demon, saving the whole world from that fiend! Yeah, right.
And the pastor who says that it's stupid to pray for your enemies, and then says, "People who [pray for their enemies] should read the Bible!" Apparently, he skimmed Matthew 5:44. God, I love irony.
God? The Bible has to be the most hate ridden book I have ever read. The Old Testament is a good example, the new also full of it. I find it cute how you have your little imaginary friend called god. I am a Marine, and its legal in my home-state of Arizona to do this, I do it all the time. What's wrong, if you believe in states rights then this is no trouble. If this was such a problem Arizona would be crime ridden, but DC, CA, NY, are all crime ridden and have high gun control.
Your statistics have been conveniently placed in 2003, before the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban crap, before the DC gun ban was uplifted, and so on. Sorry, its common sense, the country is in no mood for gun control, thats why Obama dropped it, thats why 2/3 of US state attorneys signed a brief to Obama. But we are talking about gun deaths, not murders in general. I served in the corps,to give to my country, its my right to own firearms. Anti gun policies don't work.
First off, my source for the statistics only lists them for 2003.
SECONDLY, you were saying that DC had high crime BECAUSE they didn't have guns. So, if they had a gun ban, it actually works AGAINST your argument.
THIRDLY, Semi-Automatic rifles were NOT assault weapons under the ban unless it had two of the following: folding stock, Pistol Grip, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher.
Your right, it would help your argument if death soared, but it didn't . Your source us wrong, in my opinion, probably from a biased site, the Centers for Disease control is the best bet.
Yes, the new assault weapons ban, had semi autos rifles without such features, pistols, even pump shotguns. Are you even aware of what a grenade launcher is? If so explain, and why are all of these things in an Assault weapons definition, they have no effect on the bullet fired.
" If so explain, and why are all of these things in an Assault weapons definition, they have no effect on the bullet fired."
They have an affect on the USE of the weapon.
If you have a folding stock, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher on your gun, that shows a clear intent to use the weapon for some serious combat.
You don't need ANY of those things to defend yourself with said weapon. As you say, they have no significant affect on the bullet fired.
What is a grenade launcher and state where it is mounted?
Flash suppressors date back to hunters in the 1900s doing this to keep the flash, condensed, it still shows quite a report, but "suppressed" , not totally silenced.
There has never been a bayonet used in crime, ever. Not is US history has their ever been a recorded case of a bayonet being used.
folding stocks make the gun look nicer, and fit easier to hand. no effect on rate of fire or nothing, its all comfort.
You wish to divert the discussion from the fact that Phoenix Arizona has plenty of crime, to whether or not I know what a grenade launcher is. Nice try.
Wrong, you are not informed, a grenade launcher is the barrel, designed for firing rifle mounted grenades. The M203 has never been on the civilian market, the only thing on the market is the sights for this action.
I'm telling the truth that not one person in US crime history has been killed with a bayonet.
1) You asked what a grenade launcher was, you didn't specify what type you were talking about. If you bothered to READ what I wrote, you'd see that I also listed a RIFLE GRENADE, which is what you just described.
2) OF COURSE the M203 was never released in the consumer market. it is banned. I never said it wasn't banned.
3) Are you suggesting that nobody has ever been killed with a bayonet? It is a simple question.
No you said an example, its okay to admit when you are wrong, it shows strength, its not you, its just the anti gunners lies and exaggerations confused you. I consider myself to be an expert in firearms, so yes I can utilize them to the defense of myself and my family.
As a Christian and a conservative, that pastor is not preaching the word of God. That is pure hatred. What happened to love the sinner, hate the sin? I too disagree with Obama and his policies, but spewing this crap is not the answer.
cbj54 3 months ago
Well, now I need a gun. If this COCKSUCKER can carry a gun then I will too. Im gonna take one to Phil roes next town hall. Damn shame, but I'm gonna do it. No longer passive. They asked for they got it. Ok, anybody know where I can get this type of gun??? Our congressman Phil (eat some shit) Roe talks constantly about going to church and being a doctor. I guess this is the kind of shit he learns while he is there. Guns it is......STUPID wins this one !!!!! Before this piece of shit America is
acchokiefan 4 months ago
"the meek shall inherit the earth"? If you're so meek, then shut up.
davidumpteen 6 months ago
That's the dumbest sermon I've ever heard. God must be shaking His head and sighing.
Digitizeddragon23 1 year ago
that was an awesome sermon
Bcasey11 1 year ago
I would take that gun off his shoulder and bash him over the head with it. Because you have to be mentally ill to take a firearm to a presidential rally.
viper8red 1 year ago
@viper8red
The rifle would probably break, its only a spring loaded stock. Why do you have to be mentally ill, he was making a statement, I would do the same if Bush was back in office, well there is no real difference between both of them.
And if that would happen, you hitting him, than you would be the aggressor and subject to the consequence of intruding on someone elses rights. You should not do that.
FromyColdeadHands 1 year ago
Hello from Europe, first of all let me tell you that when you hear that we don't like USA, it's not true, we know that there's a lot of good people in the stats, the people that make your country look so ignorant, arrogant and down right stupid are the people in this video. Europe loves America, it's the GOP that we hate.
coffee396 1 year ago
Wow that pastor is quite the nutcase hypocrite.
Maphisto86 1 year ago
Crazy man is Crazy... .and has gun!
soulinite 1 year ago
FLOWERS by Romantic Brothers !!!! U must to listen this great track! Exxelent message !!!
About war and stupid politics! Real i-tunes & amazon smash ! Like COWBELL in the DARK :)!
Germtrancsuperman 1 year ago
No doubt Obama is an evil man, he truly is wicked, his support for murdering babies makes me extremely angry. The pastor though needs to focus on bringing souls to Christ.
1776iscoming 1 year ago
If Jesus Christ could read your comment, he'd send you to hell. Why don't you stop hating the poor people and different people and start following real Christians like Mikael Moore for example.
coffee396 1 year ago
@coffee396
You're kidding right?
1776iscoming 1 year ago
No, gop and conservatives are scum and we know that.
coffee396 1 year ago
I realize that you leftists absolutely need government control over your lives because you cannot think for yourself. You literally have placed the federal gov't as your god. You know this, I know this, there is no need to bash the other side because we criticize your god.
1776iscoming 1 year ago
You don't realize anything, you don't get it. I'm a working man and I don't want wall street doing what ever they want, I want banks to have restrictions and I want my rights to be protected. The GOP defends big companies and make sure they don't lose any money, that's what you don't get, as a working man, if you are a working man, The right wing is the enemy,
coffee396 1 year ago
they're against unions, free education and they even believe that only people with money deserve to live, the GOP stands against everything a democracy represents. They're payed by major insurance companies and they're against free Health care, mmmhh well that's weird isn't it ? They're payed by major oil industries and they want you ti believe that global worman is a mith, mmhh why's that ? Please try to understand, these people only want one thing, your money and they want it for free.
coffee396 1 year ago
Those who pack AR-15's and loaded glocks to obama rallies are Patriots !
thablackmarkit 1 year ago 2
Glad that Im Atheist
Hazmat347 1 year ago 2
amen.
chulo4lyfe 1 year ago
its his right to open carry, the swiss have the lowest crime rate out of all countries because everyone owns guns.
DoNotLickBoots 2 years ago
He was notthe only armed individual there I can promise this, and it is your right ,no your duty to exercise these rights, if you don't laches will apply and you will loose them and once rights are gone they are never returned folks. Stop bickering,learn Constitutional law and American jurisprudence, you better know your rights because if you don't you have none. No more will we fear our govt. infact it should be the other way round,we are the masters, star acting like it, or be a slave.
justaman6972 2 years ago
The truth can be a bludgeon, too, to trolls like papa posting 50+ msgs/day :P
TrutherD1 2 years ago 2
Its funny, the only people that I've see that are armed at these politcal Rallys are BLACK AMERICANS..lol To bad MSNBC only showed his legs.
papavalium 2 years ago 2
Yet another example of why we should struggle to take the myths and ignorance out of our world... they are just plain dangerous in the hands of people like Steve Anderson
decibel333 2 years ago
Who the fuck are these pathetic sheep sitting in this artards "church" saying "Thats right"; "yessir" etc etc ... how pathetic.
"If you don't like to hear the truth then get the hell out of my church!" -> goddamn, can't take any dissenting voices, thats gotta be a sign.
decibel333 2 years ago 2
I am a christian, I dont like obama, but this guy needs to be somewhere else....fox news maybe?
belipo 2 years ago
if obamm was a white guy and this guy was a black pastor this would just be another sunday brainwash service
6010rocks 2 years ago
Did he seriously say only men speak in his church?! Hahaha what a jackass.
tiffobuttsmack 2 years ago
Geez these people are so predictable. Ok, it's a little weird to carry an M2 into a public meeting with the
prez.... But you could count on these self important people going ballistic over it and "expressing themselves" The guy would prob been beat up if he had been smoking (tobacco)
Renner8592 2 years ago
Why hasn't this "church's" 501 (c) 3 status been revoked?
tolbertme 2 years ago
oh and the young turks suck farts
ogskeetdizzle 2 years ago
what about the rest of the illuminati pastor steven lol, this guy is whack, does he think obama actually calls the shots, gimme a fucking break
ogskeetdizzle 2 years ago
I do have to wonder though....in all your apparent years of studying how have you never found all the inconsistancies I've come across such as this one?.....Hm Methinks you never actually studied the bible at all.
boorens18 2 years ago
what's really funny is for the first 100 or more years of America's history, most folks carried rifles or pistols on their hip and nobody thought it was strange or called them wingnuts.
Now if you do it, you are somehow crazy or a radical. There is a book called More Guns Less Crime.
I suggest you read it.
rockmanreturns 2 years ago
No scholars have translated the scriptures as you indicate, none. I never said NT was written in hebrew. Now you;re a liar too. You are an ignorant litte kid.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
oh and the hebrew comment wasnt directed at you obviously....it was directed to nask. Please, try to keep up. I understand it may be hard but if you really want to participate in a discussion you are going to have to demonstrate that you are capable of at least comprehending what you read. Though that might explain why you think the bible is consistant. If you cant even follow a short youtube convo, its a far fetched assumption to think you could follow the bible.
boorens18 2 years ago
Misquoting a book you've never actually read doesn't constitute proof.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
lol....you are labouring under the delusion that its MY translation from hebrew....its not. its the huge group of religious scholars who translated to the king james versiou of the bible, and yes they DO read hebrew and are the experts on the language. So no its not a misquote. LOL pwned due to inadequate study of the bible.
boorens18 2 years ago
You don't know what translation means apparently. There are no scholares that tranlate the Bible as you do. There are uneducated slugs, like yourself, that make uneducated judgements because they are scared of the truth. No they don't read Hebrew apparently or they'd agree with me. Morons that taught you in high school don't count as "scholars" boy. It's not only a misquote, it's a blatant, intentional lie. I've forgotten more about studying the Bible than you will ever know in your lifetime.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
I have a point to make on this....did you know that ad hominem attacks (or making fun of a person in a debate rather than address them) is a sign of fear and panic?
As I scroll through our conv. I see that you are quite prone to it. You should think before you speak as you never know if whats coming will only make you look worse =)
Anyways, no I am no referring to my highschool teachers, I am referring to the theologians who translated the bible to english. (KJV) So no its quite accurate
boorens18 2 years ago
I dont deny that you THINK you are more educated in the bible, sadly that is a deluded opinion. I would have to ask, why havent you published your own translation of the bible if you are so much more qualified than the 47 scholars (there job) that worked on the KJV? My credibility is theres as I use their work, where as yours is simply your opinion. Sorry but that is only enough to get you thrown out on your ass. You have offered no credible explanation for why the KJV is mistranslated
boorens18 2 years ago
He is no better that that biggot Jeremiah Wright. I agree with the basis for his argument. We now have an illegitimate governing body made up of idiots, but for a "pastor" to get up and say the things he is saying from the pulpit is ignorant and divisive. Those arguments are for this type of forum. The true pastors of this world would never couch their grievances in such a fashion.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
such a fashion so if he would have said it calm down he would have been wight hahaa. he even say that woman where not allow to talk. rolf
xricky1 2 years ago
This guy does not represent Christianity. The things he is saying and the way he says it is irresponsible and wrong.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
no...they are only wrong from YOUR interpretation of christianity....thats the problem with religion, its completely subjective, and hes no more wrong or right than any other version
boorens18 2 years ago
He's wrong according to the only perspective that matters; God's. When you know something about Christianity, you might could address it, but at this point, you obviously do not...
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
lol, I grew up in a strictly christian family. I suspect you are the one who knows absolutely nothing about religion in general (let alone your own)
My point is that every religious sect believes THEIR interpretation is right....your patronizing over them and your tut tuts at their so called "misinterpretations" are easily reversed on you. They claim much the same.
boorens18 2 years ago
Again, another who disputes what the Bible says, NOT WHAT I SAID. I not only grew up around and in the church, I have studied how to properly interpret the Bible as well. So maybe you'd be so kind as to back up this bull about YOUR misinterpretations. I can back mine up. Where does the Bible support his tone, his comments, where?
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
lol, you are so oblivious its hilarious. I want you too look up the definition of the word "interpret"
Now, once you do that, hopefully you see why your interpretation is no better than anyone elses "misinterpretation"
Sorry but your opinion is nothing special compared to others.
boorens18 2 years ago
Again you dodge a question you can't answer smart guy, WHERE IN THE BIBE DOES IT CONDONE THIS GUYS SERMON. Either answer it or quit pretending you know anything about CHRISTIANITY, NOT RELIGION.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
By the way, it's not my OPINION. IT IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. But keep dodging the question, that looks much more intelligent...
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
the bible words what it says extremely vaguely. So there is no THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS....thats kinda the point of theology. If the bible was clear, there would be no theology
boorens18 2 years ago
thats the great weakness of religious text. you can make it say anything you want. You could argue that religious people feel that because obama is pro choice. And because the bible says do not murder....religious people spin abortion to = murder thereby saying the bible says we should kill obama. (after all the bible teaches eye for an eye)
boorens18 2 years ago
There IS NO WEAKNESS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT. Again, you seem to know very little about which you speak. And again, you dodge my question, BECAUSE you don't understand hat you're taking about. Interpretation does NOT imply weakness. It merely shows that the original anguages do not transate as cleanly as people think. Which means it needs to be CAREFULLY examined and properly translated. As far as the scripture reference you make; read Matt 5:38
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
And if you aren't giong to answer my question, please, bother someone else...
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
oooh did I touch a nerve when I actually provided scripture to back up what I said? lol I suspect you know full well I studied scripture intently. Hell thats the reason I stopped believeing in the first place, I actually read the bible.
There is no "mistranslation" The bible is quite clear in the areas I mentioned. These translations arent even mine they are the king james version (considered to be the most accurate)
Matth:5 38 specifically says eye for an eye but warns not to EXCEED.
boorens18 2 years ago
My argument in simple form:
1 The bible double talks (accepts or rejects what it in other places it does the opposite
2 It is completely subjective as to which is right as the bible doesnt distinguish between "more accurate" sections
ergo:
The bible is subjective and can just about justify anything you want, notably slavery, racism/prejuidice, revenge killing, human sacrifice, a lieing/misleading god.
boorens18 2 years ago
I find it hilarious that you claim to have "studied the bible" and know how to interpret it "properly" yet you were completely unaware of the verses I mention which can be used to justify this lunatic in the video.
I suspect you havent read half the bible or you (like me) would have rejected it afterwords because of the immoralities in it.
boorens18 2 years ago
You haven't mentioned any verses that you haven't managed to molest and take out of context. You haven't mentioned any verses. The one that you quoted, you took out of context and you apparently don't understand the one in Matthew either. I have read the Bible through more than once, and I'm sorry you don't understand what you're reading, but you, my freind are miles off the reservation without a map.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
Nowhere from cover to cover does the Bible contradict itself. You don't know or understand what you are reading. Your unbelief is proof that you haven't read anything but instead have gone through and picked out scripture to twist and take out of context to serve your own backward ideologies.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
lol matt 5:38 says eye for eye, tooth for a tooth etc. Its saying you punish the person with their "sin" ie the bible condones murder for abortion. Sorry but thats not out of context. thats a literal word for word complete verse, your welcome to view the entire thing. =) cheers.
boorens18 2 years ago
another contradiction,
God says that lieing is immoral
god lies to abraham when he tells him he wants him to sacrifice his son (which he later stops) ie god lied to abraham
boorens18 2 years ago
Matt 5:38 God's purpose here is an expression of mercy. If you bother to read the entire verse He refers to turning th other cheek. This emplores Christians not to stoop to the level of those who hate us or attacj us. It is NOT a guide for personal revenge. The corrosponding passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy were intended as limits on the courts in their administration of punishment.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
Therein lies your problem. That's the english translation of the greek for one, you have to take the setting into consideration, for another and you have to take into account the context in which it was said.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
um...no...the story is identical in hebrew. Its no different. god tells abraham to kill his son...and also says lieing is a sin.
boorens18 2 years ago
But you continue down your foolhardy path, denying what cannot be ignored, slandering those things you don't understand or appreciate. I've done more than I should have in entertaining your infantile blathering thus far. Bye-bye little boy.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
lol sorry thats not an argument...saying oh you just dont get it...after I've given you the proof is not going to convince anyone. lol nor is calling logic "infantile blathering" an argument either. Matt 5:38 has nothing to do with mercy Its about how to properly punish people. Thats even what it says its for.
boorens18 2 years ago
I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact that you've yet to refute. There has been nothing remotely resembling logic in your posts. And you are, of course wrong on the interpretation. bye- bye little boy.....Go argue with some one who believes the bilge you spew
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
You have given no proof.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
here it is again....
God says he wants abraham to sacrifice his only son. God then tells him after that he didnt need to
God also says lieing is a sin.
God is apparently without sin
ergo: bible is logically inconsistant
There you go...proof the bible is inconsistant and vague.
boorens18 2 years ago
Another misinterpretation. You don't read hebrew, and you don't understand the Bible.
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
God was testing Abraham to see if he would obey his command, Abraham obeyed, God had seen enough, and Abraham was deemed obedient
BeastLee13 2 years ago
so then yes....god lied to abraham. God purposefully told a falsehood correct?
boorens18 2 years ago
no, does changing your mind count as lying? If your dad told you that you had to kill your favorite, idk, pet, and then when you were just about to he yells out stop! and you stop and he tells you that he just wanted to see if you would obey him like you should, and since you would have he gives you lots of stuff or special treatment, would that be considered lying? God was testing Abraham. Look it up it's in Genesis, it's a foreshadowing of God giving His only son to die for us.
BeastLee13 2 years ago
God cant change his mind fool....hes apparently knows everything no? Including what decisions he'll make. So no either:
A) God lied
B) God doesnt even know himself much less everything else
Pick your favorite.
boorens18 2 years ago
I was actually going to add that God is omnipotent, but I would go over 500 characters. But first of all why would God lie? and second of all God knew what was going to happen. You really need to read the story for yourself, it explains everything. Look it up, or something. Find some Bible study, don't talk to me unless you've already read the entire Bible which I have. I really don't want to get nasty with you, cause that's exactly what God says not to do and then I'd just be another hypocrite.
BeastLee13 2 years ago
I have read the bible, I was raised catholic and funny enough...I actually took an interest in the bible and studied it. Thats actually what turned me away from religion. The barbarism in the bible.
The story of abraham goes as such:
God tells abraham to sacrifice his only son (regardless of whether or not he knows whats going to happen...HE LIED HERE)
an angel just in the nick of time stays abraham, saying that god said it was just a test (why would god need to test someone?
boorens18 2 years ago
you're missing the point and no offense, but catholicism, even though it is considered Christian, is a whole lot different than actual Christianity, they pray to saints and the Bible itself says that Jesus is the only one you pray to, and I still don't see how God lied, read the story of Job, it is very interesting and it might explain a couple things, God tests us everyday
BeastLee13 2 years ago
Already read the story of job....several times..shudder bible study was terrible. No offense, but theres no such thing as "real" christianity. thats why there is so many sects. The bible is so vague that it becomes a matter of subjective interpretation....leading inevitably to disagreement.
boorens18 2 years ago
I dont see how you dont see this......A lie.....a falsehood. An intentionally wrong statement.
God said, abraham I want you to sacrifice your son, with full knowledge (assuming he is god after all) that he didnt really want him to do it. In other words god lied. Look you can take a person to fact or logic, but you cant make them use it. If you cant see that then theres nothing that really can help you. You must lack basic cognitive skills or something.
boorens18 2 years ago
can't we just have a nice debate without calling eachother childish names? You are the one that doesn't get it, honestly can somebody back me up? cause I'm getting tired of arguing with an ignorant person. It's called testing, I get what you are saying but that is not considered a lie, and even if the Bible was completely false (which it's not) and it was just written by some crazy Hebrews, why would they put in a section where God lies? I would put more but the character count is is going over
BeastLee13 2 years ago
and I get what you're saying about "real" Christianity but it's because so many people have taken God's word and perverted it. I'll quote Ghandi, he said something like "I love you Christ, it is your Christians I have a problem with" and that is completely true. So many people think that they can get away with anything cause God will forgive their sins, but that's just stupid. I mean it's true that God will forgive them but God says that faith without works is dead
BeastLee13 2 years ago
lastly, they put in the part where god lies because they didnt realize they were making an inconsistancy at the time. In other words, they were human, and made a human mistake. ie the bible being authored by humans will have mistakes.
Did I even need to answer that? I mean come on, you had to already know the answer to that question. This is what I mean by purposefully ignorant. When you ask questions like that its just a stall. Not an honest attempt to find the truth.
boorens18 2 years ago
I'm not being ignorant. I have studied the Bible for many years and I have done many Bible studies on this particular instance. The Bible was written by man with inspiration from God. Do you believe in heaven or Hell? What do you believe happens to us when we die?
BeastLee13 2 years ago
sorry not letting you change the subject. Yes the bible clearly says god told abraham to sacrifice his son, then apparently stayed the execution because it was all a test. ie god intentionally lied. I really dont care if you dedicated every waking moment of your life to the bible. I happen to have a fact, and facts are inarguable.
so you're either being ignorant or faced with:
A)The bible is wrong, and thus not perfect
B)The christian god lies
C) C god isnt all powerful.
boorens18 2 years ago
that is not a fact and what I was going to say when you answered that you did or didn't believe in heaven was that you think something is correct and I have legitimate argument to disprove it. I wasn't trying to change the subject I was asking are you like an agnostic or an atheist? it doesn't matter, I know the Bible is all truth and if you don't believe that, it's your problem, I really wish you would just take a chance on Christianity instead of just assuming that we "go to sleep" when we die
BeastLee13 2 years ago
Which would be better, believing that God exists and being wrong when you die, or not believing in God and being wrong and going to hell? Anyways, it says in the Bible God did this as a test. A test is not a falsehood. God knew what was going to happen but God works in mysterious ways. Do you believe in fate? (this relates to the story)
BeastLee13 2 years ago
anyways, in summing up....what the hell does it being a test have any bearing whatsoever?
Websters def of lie:
An untrue statement, made with intent to decieve.
did god make an untrue statement? Check
Did god intend to decieve abraham? Check....hell he did decieve him.
Well that about proves it no? You havent even tried to refute it you just said NO IT ISNT!!!! (which isnt an argument by the way)
boorens18 2 years ago
um....you dont seem to realize how logic works....I dont have an obligation to disprove anything. YOU have to provide evidence for it. (heaven/fate)
As a side note, I did give christianity a chance, hell I studied it ferverently and thats why I left.
As for your attempt at pascals wager, you didnt seem to realize that there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of religions, each saying you die if you dont follow THEIR religion, so regardless your still basically going to hell anyways.
boorens18 2 years ago
Cant we have a debate without you INTENTIONALLY being ignorant to when you are in the wrong? The person in a debate who deserves respect, is the person who follows ettiquette. Being purposefully ignorant is NOT polite debating.
I suspect you dont know the definition of ignorant judging by how you use it.
Secondly, the point is that there is no "REAL god's word" to be perverted in the first place. Who even gets to decide whats the RIGHT translation......You?.
boorens18 2 years ago
Comment removed
olivertwisted3 2 years ago
That's not an assault rifle.
icecoldbeerr 2 years ago
OMG! Rachel Maddow & Contessa Brewer & Keith Olbermann is this the man that you and MSNBC cut his face & hand shots out of? OMG! It is! Weird, I was wondering why you guys were cutting out the face & hands but now it makes sense! Your rhetoric was that it was a bunch of racist redneck right wing wackos that were showing up strictly because Obama is half black [oops you always say black]. Makes sense now that it would've exposed that whole false race card thing to scare folks to not protest. LOL!
DonKeyBaums 2 years ago
the one negro there had to try to outdo everyoneby bring an a15 semi-automatic riffle to the event..lol
Scary part is these loonies have an agenda
tom11zz884 2 years ago
Just stop responding to jubeigh13. It's a waste of time.
Taaron313 2 years ago
*the governement is supposed to carry out gods law*
wait what?
nekftw 2 years ago
The title of this video is misleading.
The gun the man had was an AR15, which is a semi-automatic rifle.
An 'Assault Rifle', by U.S. military definition, is a fully automatic firearm that shoots a rifle bullet.
That gun isn't an 'Assault Rifle'.
ExoticSpotting 2 years ago
lmao 5:09 "only men speak in this church"
lesferr 2 years ago
He was making fun of the whole rally.....He was trying to make conservatives at the rally feel uncomfortable with the rights that they are fighting for. He is just posing as a conservative he is proving that most of the people at the rally happen to be white, because he stands out so much.
lesferr 2 years ago
I don't think this is what the founding fathers intended with the right to bear arms...
ISUer1 2 years ago
Pretty sure if you have a basic grasp on history, and the principles and beliefs of the founding fathers in their respects towards the 2nd Amendment, you would understand this type of thing is more defined to their beliefs than you'd expect.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers didn't want people to flaunt their liberties in such a manner just for the sake of trolling others that live in the real world.
Do you understand that ALL it takes is for one of you nuts to do something stupid for the entire power of the government to come down on you like a ton of bricks?
And for what?
Just because you want to be threatening assholes.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Actually, go and read some quotes of the founding fathers and see just how adamant they were about the 2nd Amendment, they were pretty God Damn liberal in their prospective towards expressing ones rights and not having any authority infringe upon them. And no, it takes vastly more than for one person to do something stupid for the entire power of the government to come down on an entire group.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
By that logic, I should be able to own tanks, biological or nuclear weapons, strategic bombers, etc...
OH, And I should be able to make comments that suggest that I want the president to die and carry said weapons in his presence, even though such talk is sedition, which has always been a crime.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Are you an idiot? You keep comparing small arms, to fucking tools of mass destruction, and since you've done it repeatedly, I can only assume that either, a. You don't have any other argument that's defensible, or b. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about. And as for the second part, why shouldn't you be able to make a comment that suggest you want the President to die? How is it any different that somebody saying they want some random person to die? It's not.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
You claim that x item shouldn't be illegal because you have a right to defend yourself and there shouldn't be a law restricting that.
No restriction means no restriction.
By your logic, there's no reason for me to not legally possess and carry a container of antrax or anything else as long as it is openly carried and I don't 'intend' to use it except for self defense.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
"why shouldn't you be able to make a comment that suggest you want the President to die?"
Because that is sedition, as well as a threat and it is not protected speech. NEVER was.
"How is it any different that somebody saying they want some random person to die?"
it is illegal to say that of anyone. But the president is the people's representative. so that adds sedition to the charge.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
No, it's not sedition, claiming that you're going to kill the President, would be sedition. And saying you want somebody to die, is not a threat, threatening to kill somebody is a threat. Is that really that hard to distinguish the two? And no, it's not illegal to say that you want somebody, or hope for somebody to die, it's only illegal to threaten that person. If I said, I wish person (a) would did, it's not a threat, if I said I'm going to kill person (a) that's a threat.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
Fucking look at the definition of sedition.
sedition |siˈdi sh ən|
noun
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Also, Saying that you want someone to die is a threat. You get locked up for that shit in many sates of the union. You don't have to be specific in order to make a threat.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
I have looked at the definition of sedition, the difference is I actually understand how it's defined legally, which you clearly don't. Maybe you should look up the would incite as well? Because inciting people to kill somebody is not the same as, wishing for somebody to die. He didn't sit there and say, everybody, go and kill the President, he wished he were dead. Totally different things.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
incite |inˈsīt|
verb [ trans. ]
encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior) : the offense of inciting racial hatred.
• urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way : he incited loyal subjects to rebellion.
"I want him to die"
"He is an evil Man"
"He wants to kill your family"
"He should die"
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Seriously, by your standards, do you know how many drug kingpins and mobsters have to be set free?
"Your honor, I never told Jake the Snake kill Louie. I just said I wanted Louie to die and Jake did it all on his own without any instruction from me"
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Yes, because obviously, wishing for somebody to die, in an open public place is the same thing, as a criminal mob boss, "telling" somebody he "wished" somebody was dead yeah, clearly those are the same things....right. I suppose you're going to start to talk about intent now, right?
jubeigh13 2 years ago
It can be argued that pastor 'wished' that Obama was dead too.
That pastor had 'wished' someone else would die and you know what happened? That person was murdered.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
It isn't necessary to know intent in order to perceive something as a threat.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Um..yes it is. Otherwise you don't know if it's actually a threat or not. Somebody making a comment that they want person (a) dead, isn't considered a threat 99.9999% of the time. and that .00001% of the time where it is a threat, it's because they actually act on that threat, in which case, it's an actual case of directing violence towards another person.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
Clearly you don't know what a threat is.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
And no, saying you want somebody to die, is not a threat. Find me a story where somebody was arrested for saying they wanted to see somebody dead, and I mean just that. Not telling other people to go out and harm somebody, just saying they wished somebody was dead. Because by your imbecilic reasoning wishing death, to say a convicted rapist, is a crime. You clearly, do not understand the difference between a threat, sedition, or hell, anything for that matter.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
SAYING that you want another person dead and then taking it as a threat is a crime.
For instance, if I say, "I want to see you die in agony and have your screams lull me to sleep at night." That's a threat. Did I say that *I* was going to kill you? Nope.
Did I say that *I* was going to get someone else to do it? Nope.
Is it a terroristic threat? Yup
Robert Pickett was shot while loading his gun in front of the whitehouse and the Secret Service didn't even know his motive.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Yes, in that case, you're addressing a individual in person. In this case, a person was being addressed to a group not an individual. If you go up to a person and say I want you dead, it may be considered a threat, if your speaking to a friend, and you tell them you hope somebody dies, it's not a threat. You can't possibly not understand the difference. On and about Pickett you are again wrong. He fired two shots, and then turned his firearm and pointed it at the police, he was then shot.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
If you publicly say that you want someone dead. it is a threat. Since you are saying it in public, the assumption is that you understand that they may hear or see it.
Pickett didn't fire his weapon, dumbass. I should know, I live near DC and it was all over the news when it happened.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
And even further, have you actually seen anybody carry a firearm, openly, close to the president? I mean within a few yards? I haven't. They've been people to do so at events where the people were protesting outside, of where the President was speaking. And if the President is speaking near my home, lets say 1,000 yards away, hell, let's say half a mile away, it's legal for me to sit on my front porch and brandish a loaded weapon if I choose to, and the President can't do anything about it.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
I see you confuse legality with what's right.
"And even further, have you actually seen anybody carry a firearm, openly, close to the president?"
How about the guy that shot Reagan? Then there was the guy that Shot Lincoln.
Most people are smart enough to leave their guns at home when they see the president.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
That was concealed carry, and done in an illegal fashion. The second things was done over 150 years ago. Again, apparently you don't understand, these people were not in proximity of the President. And it's not about being smart, it's about what's legal. If it's legal for me to carry a firearm outside of where the President is speaking, I don't fucking care if you don't like it, it's legal, and you can fuck yourself over the difference.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
By your worldview, he should be able to open-carry the loaded weapon legally. Saying that it was illegal is a moot point on your end because you think it should be legal for him to carry anyway.
Look at you, getting all pissy because I pointed out a clear flaw in your 'logic'
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Of course he should be able to open carry, it's already legal, why shouldn't he be allowed to open carry? And it's not just me who thinks he should be able to carry, the LAW states he can, so again I'm right, as I always am. And no, you didn't point out a flaw any anybodies logic, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about in the first place, much less should it be considered that you could point out a flaw an anybodies reasoning. That's just laughable.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
Open carry isn't legal in every state dumbass.
Different states have different gun laws.
You can't open carry in my state (MD). If you want to carry, you have to get a concealed carrying permit, which requires a reason to carry a concealed weapon.
Yet another flaw in your reasoning revealed.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
I meant, it's legal where he is. How could you be so stupid as to misinterpret that statement? Oh, and you clearly, don't know what a flaw in reasoning is, as you proved nothing, you didn't prove my reasoning was wrong, bad, or even off-basis. The only thing you proved, was that you don't know what is being discussed.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if it is legal where he is. the fact of the matter is that legal or not, that is still a loaded weapon within firing range of the president. Your reasoning is wrong because you act as though people shouldn't be alarmed because it is legal there, which is fucking stupid.
I know what's being discussed dumbass.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
What? Of course it matters where it took place, that's the entire fucking crux of that argument. And no, he wasn't within firing range of the President, unless, his bullets can do through glass, metal, wood, and an assortment of other shit. Do you actually think the President was 20 feet away? And the second part of your statement is moronic. You're suggesting my reasoning is wrong, because I've said people shouldn't be alarmed when a person is legally carrying a firearm?
jubeigh13 2 years ago
'Of course it matters where it took place, that's the entire fucking crux of that argument.'
Nope.
the crux of the argument is:
1) Person with ill intent toward the president
2) Armed
3) In vicinity of the President
Doesn't matter if the person is legally armed or not. all that matters is that he is armed in the vicinity of the president.
'Do you actually think the President was 20 feet away?'
AR-15 effective range is over 500 yards.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
And guess what genius? Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it wrong. Learn the fucking distinction, learn what it means to prove something wrong, and then come back. And no, apparently you don't know what's being discussed.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
BTW, you need to learn to read.
I wasn't talking about the fucker in the video. I was talking about the guy that shot Reagan.
I was pointing out that your defective reasoning that it isn't a valid example because it was illegal carry, was stupid.
You believe that everyone should be able to open carry, so that point is moot. THAT i where I pointed out the flaw in your 'logic'
sc0pl355 2 years ago
So now, you're going to say you were talking about Reagan, when you made only one mention of him, like 5 comments ago, and never address a comment in respect to that aspect? And what was illegal carry? In respect to the man who shot Reagan? Really no shit? How long did it take you to realize that? Oh and, no. I've never stated that everybody should be able to carry openly, or you can find the comment where I said exactly that. Maybe you should learn how to fucking read.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
I was referring to when I was talking about people carrying guns around the president. The guy I was talking to suggested that, because the carry was illegal, that it was an invalid comparison. but he believes that everyone should carry, so that cancels his argument out.
Ever heard of clarification?
' I've never stated that everybody should be able to carry openly'
Then where do you draw the line? Everyone gets the same rights.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
And you have absolutely no clue what sedition is. Nor do you have any fucking clue how it's represented in a legal process. Unless you're in the military, and are openly threating to kill the President, you're chances of being charged with sedition are negligible. For one reason, because it can be difficult to distinguish between were an act of implied sedition would being to trump your first amendment rights. I'd explain this to you in more detail, but it wouldn't do any good.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
"you have absolutely no clue what sedition "
sedition |siˈdi sh ən|
noun
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
You still have absolutely no clue what sedition is. Just because you can find a dictionary definition of a word, doesn't translate to understanding the actual meaning. You've proven you don't understand what it means, just because you read it, doesn't mean you understand it. A. You have to prove that this was inciting people to rebel, which is nearly impossible, as he was stating his opinion, and not advocating others to do such. Please, learn what sedition actually is, before you commet.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
I already know what sedition is. I'm telling you, if that kook would have took a shot at Obama, the whole lot of them would have been rounded up and charged.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
The only thing the government can do, is punish the individual, you can't punish the entire group, especially when 99% of the group probably wasn't involved. Oh and you clearly have no idea what a threat is, as in all of these cases, nobody has been threatened, harmed, or otherwise injured by anybody carrying firearms. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if a stupid fucking liberal tried to start something, because that's about all they are good at; fucking things up.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
"nobody has been threatened,"
This guy's pastor said he wants Obama dead. Then this kook shows up at the meeting with a AR15. That's threatening.
Also, brandishing a weapon, ALONE is a threatening thing to do. That's why it is illegal in most sane parts of America.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
No it's not. For it to be a threat, he would have actually had to use the weapon against Obama, and seeing as how this guy wasn't even really that close. It also can't be precieved as a threat. The fact that it was a legal action, and a threat, is a illegal action, means he would have had to point the weapon at Obama, or near him, for it to be considered a threat. Otherwise you're saying carrying a firearm around the President is a threat. And you don't know what brandishing a weapon is.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
"For it to be a threat, he would have actually had to use the weapon against Obama"
Um, no. That's called an assault.
If you point a gun at someone, it is assault, not a threat.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Hey that guy isnt a white hick from rural america. Main stream media will twist it that after the video was shot the man took his make up off and was white as a ghost.
JerryD0101 2 years ago
He isn't a white hick. He is a brainwashed Black Conservative...
Tougemaster06 2 years ago
gotta love the video editing with the title " supports right wing militias " guess we know how this author feels about the second amendment, its my personal opinion that people are stepping up to remind obama of their second amendment rights, likely cause he's shown hostility against it when he added his signature to a bill banning handguns and effectively doing away with self defense in Chicago, now some people might see that as a step forward but history proves that bans do more harm than good
cqb5787325 2 years ago
The guy with the gun is a pussy.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
rest in hell
"pastor STEVEN L. ANDERSON"
U WISHED DEATH FOR OBAMA BUT u DIED BEFORE HIM....THANKS GOD,HE HEARD MY PRAYERS. so if u you are racist go f#ck yourself.... """"""""""GO OBAMA""""""""""""""
rastaboymana 2 years ago
the pastor is fucking racist.
FUCK YOU" PASTOR STEVEN L.ANDERSON"
rastaboymana 2 years ago
I like how he's carrying his AR-15 as if, at any moment, Obama will reveal his true form as - Beelzebub! Then he will brandish his firearm and destroy the foul demon, saving the whole world from that fiend! Yeah, right.
And the pastor who says that it's stupid to pray for your enemies, and then says, "People who [pray for their enemies] should read the Bible!" Apparently, he skimmed Matthew 5:44. God, I love irony.
thoraxe1354 2 years ago
God? The Bible has to be the most hate ridden book I have ever read. The Old Testament is a good example, the new also full of it. I find it cute how you have your little imaginary friend called god. I am a Marine, and its legal in my home-state of Arizona to do this, I do it all the time. What's wrong, if you believe in states rights then this is no trouble. If this was such a problem Arizona would be crime ridden, but DC, CA, NY, are all crime ridden and have high gun control.
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
Cool story, bro.
thoraxe1354 2 years ago
thanks, keep yourself armed, better to not need it and have it, then to need it and not have it
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
DC murders in 2003= 248
Phoenix murders in 2003= 241
Granted, Phoenix has a higher population, but it is also bigger and more spread out. So, DC has higher per capita. But look at this.
NY murders in 2003= 597
Looks big right?
but NY city has FIVE TIMES the population of Phoenix, but only twice the murders?
Per Capita
NY: 0.96 times the National Average
Phoenix: 2.24 times the National Average
Eat it.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Your statistics have been conveniently placed in 2003, before the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban crap, before the DC gun ban was uplifted, and so on. Sorry, its common sense, the country is in no mood for gun control, thats why Obama dropped it, thats why 2/3 of US state attorneys signed a brief to Obama. But we are talking about gun deaths, not murders in general. I served in the corps,to give to my country, its my right to own firearms. Anti gun policies don't work.
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
"before the DC gun ban was uplifted, and so on. "
First off, my source for the statistics only lists them for 2003.
SECONDLY, you were saying that DC had high crime BECAUSE they didn't have guns. So, if they had a gun ban, it actually works AGAINST your argument.
THIRDLY, Semi-Automatic rifles were NOT assault weapons under the ban unless it had two of the following: folding stock, Pistol Grip, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher.
Eat it again.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Your right, it would help your argument if death soared, but it didn't . Your source us wrong, in my opinion, probably from a biased site, the Centers for Disease control is the best bet.
Yes, the new assault weapons ban, had semi autos rifles without such features, pistols, even pump shotguns. Are you even aware of what a grenade launcher is? If so explain, and why are all of these things in an Assault weapons definition, they have no effect on the bullet fired.
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
"Your right, it would help your argument if death soared, but it didn't ."
Phoenix has a higher murder per capita than New York
"probably from a biased site"
Cityrating. c o m. Not biased at all.
"Are you even aware of what a grenade launcher is?"
I would assume that it is the mountable device for launching grenades or a muzzle device capable of launching or firing a rifle grenade.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
" If so explain, and why are all of these things in an Assault weapons definition, they have no effect on the bullet fired."
They have an affect on the USE of the weapon.
If you have a folding stock, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher on your gun, that shows a clear intent to use the weapon for some serious combat.
You don't need ANY of those things to defend yourself with said weapon. As you say, they have no significant affect on the bullet fired.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
What is a grenade launcher and state where it is mounted?
Flash suppressors date back to hunters in the 1900s doing this to keep the flash, condensed, it still shows quite a report, but "suppressed" , not totally silenced.
There has never been a bayonet used in crime, ever. Not is US history has their ever been a recorded case of a bayonet being used.
folding stocks make the gun look nicer, and fit easier to hand. no effect on rate of fire or nothing, its all comfort.
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
A grenade launcher is a device for firing grenades.
A M203 grenade launcher is mounted under the barrel. Where would you mount a grenade launcher mr marine?
I know what a flash suppressor is. I didn't say silencer. I said suppressor. Stop trying to look clever, I'm not impressed.
Are you suggesting that a person has never been killed with a bayonet?
Look, you clearly don't understand that the law is drawing a distinction between civilian equipment and military.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Oh, I detected another fallacy.
Red Herring.
You wish to divert the discussion from the fact that Phoenix Arizona has plenty of crime, to whether or not I know what a grenade launcher is. Nice try.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Wrong, you are not informed, a grenade launcher is the barrel, designed for firing rifle mounted grenades. The M203 has never been on the civilian market, the only thing on the market is the sights for this action.
I'm telling the truth that not one person in US crime history has been killed with a bayonet.
Looks like you do
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
1) You asked what a grenade launcher was, you didn't specify what type you were talking about. If you bothered to READ what I wrote, you'd see that I also listed a RIFLE GRENADE, which is what you just described.
2) OF COURSE the M203 was never released in the consumer market. it is banned. I never said it wasn't banned.
3) Are you suggesting that nobody has ever been killed with a bayonet? It is a simple question.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
No, its just your ignorance of firearms, that was the only "grenade" launchers ever mentioned in any Assault weapons bans.\
Of course people have been killed with bayonets, in wars. There has never been a crime with a bayonet, so therefore no reason to ban them
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
"No, its just your ignorance of firearms, that was the only "grenade" launchers ever mentioned in any Assault weapons bans"
So this is legal?
snipurl. c o m / ryal0
"Of course people have been killed with bayonets, in wars"
So, you're suggesting that they are perfectly safe for civilian use? Guess I should be allowed to buy a AI Battletank.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Comment removed
jubeigh13 2 years ago
Also, dumbass, I didn't specify 203's, I just used them as an example of a grenade launcher.
Learn to read, because I specifically said this:
"I would assume that it is the mountable device for launching grenades or a muzzle device capable of launching or firing a rifle grenade."
In your face.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
No you said an example, its okay to admit when you are wrong, it shows strength, its not you, its just the anti gunners lies and exaggerations confused you. I consider myself to be an expert in firearms, so yes I can utilize them to the defense of myself and my family.
In your face?
grow up and end on something more mature
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
Look at what is said and look up the term RIFLE-GRENADE, mr expert on weapons.
Like I said, your entire argument is a red herring.
And now you've elevated it to add Equivocation and Either/Or thinking. All Logical fallacies.
sc0pl355 2 years ago