Democrats Push Bill That Could Prevent Churches From Having Armed Security

[leaningright]

Why? You do believe in the power of prayer don't you?

Absolutely!!

But I refer you to post #21 and James 2:18-26

 

[Nordberg]

Nordberg’s comment does indeed deserve a groan. It is akin to the guy who prays to God for help with “ “ (insert any life problem there…marriage, drug/drinking problem, financial problem, etc.) and does nothing to try to help improve his situation. While “The Lord helps those who help themselves” is not a direct quote from scripture, it is the essence of scripture’s teaching.

I am in the assembly of Christians every Sunday AM & PM and every Wednesday night. I carry every time I’m there. If a situation did arise that required defense I will use deadly force if warranted … and I will “pray to God” before, during and after…

Guess which part is useless?

 

[leaningright]

Guess which part is useless?

Neither…

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It has nothing to do with banning.
It makes it illegal to be part of an armed group with a command structure that
1. publicly patrol, drill or engage in techniques that could cause bodily harm or
2. interferes with attempts to interfere with government activities or
3. interferes with the civil rights of other people or
4. attempts to perform the duties assigned to law enforcement

It doesn't matter if the group calls themselves a militia or not. It matters if they meet the definition.

A self described militia can train privately all they want without violating the law.
A group that calls themselves a "dance team" that arms themselves and publicly waves guns around and threatens people would violate it.
a militia that shows up at the border and starts "arresting" brown people that look like they might have snuck across the border would violate it.

When is a "ban" not a "ban"? When Democrats do it. LOL

What is the necessity for this law? Why should the rights of Americans be limited? To what end?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

When is a "ban" not a "ban"? When Democrats do it. LOL

What is the necessity for this law? Why should the rights of Americans be limited? To what end?

It doesn't ban militia groups any more than bank robbery laws ban people from going into banks.
Bank robbery laws make it illegal for people to walk into a bank and rob it.
This law makes it illegal for a militia group to walk into a government building while armed and interfere with government business.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

But the fact that some liberal idiot even proposes something like this is cause for staying on one’s toes as to what is going on.

And people can talk about and/or disparage the source (Breitbart) all they want to, and although I hate the incessant support for all things Trump by them, before the rise of “conservative” media things like this would have flown under the radar of most JQP.

Being informed of such efforts, if, heaven forbid, I lived in NY, this senator would go directly to my “do not support” list.

I personally voted for this "idiot" for several reasons,
one of which being that the "gun" issue falls very far down my list of priorities.

[In Massachusetts, not New York...same difference to a righty like my good friend, the Rev, I presume.]

This "idiot" gave the Kennedys their first ever Massachusetts loss in a head to head primary challenge.
I'm sure that the senator from Louisiana helped with that, somewhat.
RFK Jr. will rinse and repeat shortly.

 

[leaningright]

I personally voted for this "idiot" for several reasons,
one of which being that the "gun" issue falls very far down my list of priorities.

[In Massachusetts, not New York...same difference to a righty like my good friend, the Rev, I presume.]

This "idiot" gave the Kennedys their first ever Massachusetts loss in a head to head primary challenge.
I'm sure that the senator from Louisiana helped with that, somewhat.
RFK Jr. will rinse and repeat shortly.

Oops, my bad. I knew that when I saw your earlier post in the thread. Definitely a mistake on my part.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It doesn't ban militia groups any more than bank robbery laws ban people from going into banks.
Bank robbery laws make it illegal for people to walk into a bank and rob it.
This law makes it illegal for a militia group to walk into a government building while armed and interfere with government business.

You're comparing a church or other group that has members training to be an organic defense force to bank robbers? Why not rapists?

The good news is that this won't pass since it does, indeed, limit Americans from defending themselves.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr6981/text

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Oops, my bad. I knew that when I saw your earlier post in the thread. Definitely a mistake on my part.

No biggie, my friend.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You're comparing a church or other group that has members training to be an organic defense force to bank robbers? Why not rapists?

The good news is that this won't pass since it does, indeed, limit Americans from defending themselves.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr6981/text

Read the f-ng text of the law before you make yourself look like a fool.

Exceptions

Subsection (a) shall not apply to—


a group of individuals who—
(A)

associate as a military organization solely for purposes of historical reenactment or study; or
(B)

parade in public as part of a bona fide veterans organization with no intent to engage in the activities prohibited by subsection (a);
(3)

students in an educational institution authorized by the Federal Government or a State to teach military science as a prescribed part of the course of instruction, when under the supervision of a military instructor; or
(4)

members of an organization that is authorized under Federal or State law to provide paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services training or to engage in paramilitary activity, law enforcement, or security services when performing the functions authorized by law and, in the case of paramilitary activity and law enforcement functions, when under the direction and control of a governmental authority.

By the way, an organic force is not one with command and control so would clearly be exempt from this law since it only applies to groups with command and control. Read the f-ing definition you posted.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Read the f-ng text of the law before you make yourself look like a fool....

Thanks for the typical Democratic response.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You're comparing a church or other group that has members training to be an organic defense force to bank robbers? Why not rapists?

The good news is that this won't pass since it does, indeed, limit Americans from defending themselves.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr6981/text

By the way, a church is not a public space, it is privately owned and operated by the church so there is nothing in the law that could even apply to people armed on church property.

You seem to be so blinded by your bias that you can't even comprehend simple English.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Thanks for the typical Democratic response.

Obviously you can't read.
Did it help you to make my suggestion bigger?

Let's start with the simple shit that you seem to not understand.
Is a church public property or is it private property?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You seem to be so blinded by your bias that you can't even comprehend simple English.

Thanks for the classic Democratic gun control explanation.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Obviously you can't read.
Did it help you to make my suggestion bigger?

Let's start with the simple shit that you seem to not understand.
Is a church public property or is it private property?

QED

Regardless, it won't pass.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

QED

Regardless, it won't pass.

Nice deflection from your inability to read and comprehend simple English.

Is a church public or private property?
Does the bill apply to private property?

C'mon Dutch. You are normally smarter than this. Let's have a discussion about what is actually in the bill and not some made up shit.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nice deflection from your inability to read and comprehend simple English.

Is a church public or private property?
Does the bill apply to private property?

C'mon Dutch. You are normally smarter than this. Let's have a discussion about what is actually in the bill and not some made up shit.

Yeah, but I'm not worried since I have people in Congress to both read it and vote it down for me sooo.......

Private. Don't know. Again, those charged with protecting my rights against gun-grabby authoritarians will read it and vote it down.

Why is this legislation necessary? You said it was to prevent militias from being on government property armed. Why not just make them gun free zones as Democrats like so much?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yeah, but I'm not worried since I have people in Congress to both read it and vote it down for me sooo.......

Private. Don't know. Again, those charged with protecting my rights against gun-grabby authoritarians will read it and vote it down.

Why is this legislation necessary? You said it was to prevent militias from being on government property armed. Why not just make them gun free zones as Democrats like so much?

The legislation would allow the Proud Boys to march carrying bats, shields and Tiki torches. It might not allow them to march carrying guns.
The legislation would allow the KKK to march in Skokie without guns.

The legislation requires a command and control structure in a group before it can be applied. That isn't really defined. If a group elects a President, is that command and control? Or does it require layers of command like in the military.
The real problem I see with the legislation is it attempts to make illegal any attempt to train to do the 4 things that are illegal under it. That would probably not survive a court challenge.

Why attack it with an unreasonable argument about what is in it? Why not just figure out actual reasons to oppose something.

Maybe it isn't reasonable to prevent people from carrying guns, but why are you opposed to preventing them from carrying explosives and incendiary devices? Actually pick the thing apart instead of a knee jerk reaction of "guns good, gun grabbers bad."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The legislation would allow the Proud Boys to march carrying bats, shields and Tiki torches. It might not allow them to march carrying guns.
The legislation would allow the KKK to march in Skokie without guns.

The legislation requires a command and control structure in a group before it can be applied. That isn't really defined. If a group elects a President, is that command and control? Or does it require layers of command like in the military.
The real problem I see with the legislation is it attempts to make illegal any attempt to train to do the 4 things that are illegal under it. That would probably not survive a court challenge.

Why attack it with an unreasonable argument about what is in it? Why not just figure out actual reasons to oppose something.

Maybe it isn't reasonable to prevent people from carrying guns, but why are you opposed to preventing them from carrying explosives and incendiary devices? Actually pick the thing apart instead of a knee jerk reaction of "guns good, gun grabbers bad."

It's a federal one-size-fits-all law seeking to punish innocent people from having the right of self-defense. Sorry, but I'm against such further encroachment on individual rights.

Ill-defined laws = carte blanche for whomever gets to enforce them. Empowering law enforcement agencies to confiscate land, vehicles and other materials from criminals to cover costs seems logical but when it becomes an excuse to take from people even for minor offenses, it becomes abusive.

I've watched the Democrats seek to ban guns since 1992. They are not to be trusted. If they want my support for such legislation, it's up to them to prove such laws won't be abused.

 

[Bigdog]

That was a stupid claim. You are a special brand of twisted. I see all churches as the same. The leadership is using comforting lies to fleece the flock. They have no more knowledge about the afterlife than you do. They are a huge con. Cons work so well on rightys.

So Christian Black and Hispanic Whites are "rightys"? And you want to deny them the right to defend themselves because they believe in a religion? Are you insane.

And the only "good" people are atheists, according to Democrats?