Members of Erie's faith community tal...

Members of Erie's faith community talk gun control

There are 147 comments on the Erie Times News story from Jan 30, 2013, titled Members of Erie's faith community talk gun control. In it, Erie Times News reports that:

About 20 people attended a forum at the Booker T. Washington Center in Erie on Jan.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Erie Times News.

mind your own

Oil City, PA

#87 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
Again, I think that makes a previous point of mine that if someone has a bead on you your gun will be of little help in self-defense unless you're The Flash.
And if you get the bead on them first, I think in many cases a tazer would be just as effective in disarming them.
Curious as to your opinion on that too mind your own.
So, three men with firearm bust down your door, They shoot a friend of yours, you are in the other room with nowhere to retreat they are all headed your way fast. your chances of surviving are slim but you have a tazer and an AR15 which one will you pick up?
mind your own

Oil City, PA

#88 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
Again, I think that makes a previous point of mine that if someone has a bead on you your gun will be of little help in self-defense unless you're The Flash.
And if you get the bead on them first, I think in many cases a tazer would be just as effective in disarming them.
Curious as to your opinion on that too mind your own.
If tazers were just as effective then thats all the police would need to carry
Francis Marion

Greenwich, OH

#89 Feb 4, 2013
Dickweed wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I a political pawn?
Because I disagree with you?
Personally I have no real fear of the govt taking m guns. If some were confiscated during Katrina while the city was under marshal law, how does that apply to 30 round clips for hunting rifles?
What does that incident 8 years ago, under a Republican administration mind you,have to do with an insane person carrying more than 1 gun ito a school to kill kids?
What does that have to do with a Nun saying kids were cut in half when they were only just shot a time or 2?
What does it have to do with a crazy old man hold up in a bunker with an autisic kid he kidnapped?
This is the NRA paranoia that is badfor all of us.
The issue at hand is gun control laws. Not governemnt siezures of weapons.
New tougher laws should be enacted on gun owners and those wishing to become gun owners.
How you got to Katrina, from all this I don't know.
Just blame it all on Obama ad the liberals and keep up with your research.
You idiots ain't no fun to play with anymore.
You automatically deem yourself a political pawn when you believe a political statement from one side without taking the initative to do any research for yourself. You got on here and called me a liar and a few other things and I kept asking you to do your own research. Sorry this isn't "fun" for you but for a few of us real Americans we swore oaths to protect and defend this nation, and none of us rescinded that oath upon leaving service. There are still a few American that have FAITH in the government that was established over 200 years ago. I still believe in it, but it is in my opinion being F'ed up by lazy, know it all people like yourself who can't even type a few words in a search engin to see if perhaps someone is playing you as a sucker. Laziness breeds inefficiency!
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#90 Feb 4, 2013
mind your own wrote:
<quoted text>
So, three men with firearm bust down your door, They shoot a friend of yours, you are in the other room with nowhere to retreat they are all headed your way fast. your chances of surviving are slim but you have a tazer and an AR15 which one will you pick up?
That's not the question, it's 2 others.

1) What if demons from hell might appear in the flesh (to my mind) 900 of them as our religion says might happen? Should we be allowed small nukes or are you anti-religion, anti-first amendment AND anti-second amendment?
2) How stupid are our scenarios allowed to be before we call either BS or at the least call them significantly insignificant? IOW I'll bet you 50 thousand to one your kids are never shot in a school.

To answer your question though, I wouldn't pick up anything and assume I was just having a 2nd amendment wet dream.
skip the pee pee

Erie, PA

#91 Feb 4, 2013
Dickweed

Ames, IA

#92 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the question, it's 2 others.
1) What if demons from hell might appear in the flesh (to my mind) 900 of them as our religion says might happen? Should we be allowed small nukes or are you anti-religion, anti-first amendment AND anti-second amendment?
2) How stupid are our scenarios allowed to be before we call either BS or at the least call them significantly insignificant? IOW I'll bet you 50 thousand to one your kids are never shot in a school.
To answer your question though, I wouldn't pick up anything and assume I was just having a 2nd amendment wet dream.
That was awesome....
1 post removed
mind your own

Oil City, PA

#94 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the question, it's 2 others.
1) What if demons from hell might appear in the flesh (to my mind) 900 of them as our religion says might happen? Should we be allowed small nukes or are you anti-religion, anti-first amendment AND anti-second amendment?
2) How stupid are our scenarios allowed to be before we call either BS or at the least call them significantly insignificant? IOW I'll bet you 50 thousand to one your kids are never shot in a school.
To answer your question though, I wouldn't pick up anything and assume I was just having a 2nd amendment wet dream.
so are you saying that my scenario hasnt happened in the U.S. more than a few times?
So what is your point about your 50,000 to 1 bet? are you saying nothing should be done because the chances are slim? thats what it sounds like your saying!
My point was that NO a tazer is no where near as effective as a firearm in defending yourself against attackers.
You are no differant than the rest of the left, when someone shows you your wrong , you start your verbal attacks.
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#95 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
I'm sure it happens. But just because on occasion you wake up with my kawk in your mouth does that mean we should advocate that for everyone?
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#96 Feb 4, 2013
mind your own wrote:
<quoted text>
so are you saying that my scenario hasnt happened in the U.S. more than a few times?
So what is your point about your 50,000 to 1 bet? are you saying nothing should be done because the chances are slim? thats what it sounds like your saying!
My point was that NO a tazer is no where near as effective as a firearm in defending yourself against attackers.
You are no differant than the rest of the left, when someone shows you your wrong , you start your verbal attacks.
I'm saying taking away guns isn't taking away your right to bear and keep armaments, just some of them. Either you think some arms can be limited or none can. What's your one word answer to the idea that arms can be limited, true or false?
mind your own

Oil City, PA

#97 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying taking away guns isn't taking away your right to bear and keep armaments, just some of them. Either you think some arms can be limited or none can. What's your one word answer to the idea that arms can be limited, true or false?
you can spew your BS all you want. if you read the federalist papers they plainly in no uncertainty explain that they are talking about guns and only guns in the righting of the second amendment.
They wrote this to explain to the people what the amendment was about before it was added. your going on with this bazooka shit just makes you look stupid. do some research.
by the way the author of the federalist papers was also one of the authors of the bill of rights
mind your own

Oil City, PA

#98 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying taking away guns isn't taking away your right to bear and keep armaments, just some of them.
"shall not be infringed"
you might also want to look up this:
"efficiency of militia bill H.R. 11654"
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#99 Feb 4, 2013
mind your own wrote:
<quoted text> you can spew your BS all you want. if you read the federalist papers they plainly in no uncertainty explain that they are talking about guns and only guns in the righting of the second amendment.
They wrote this to explain to the people what the amendment was about before it was added. your going on with this bazooka shit just makes you look stupid. do some research.
by the way the author of the federalist papers was also one of the authors of the bill of rights
Are the federalist papers IN the constitution? A simple yes or no will do.

In a 1939 decision against sawed off shot guns the view was that the common arms of the times was what the 2nd amendment referred to noting that the organized militia spelled out the type of arms the soldiers could carry. But do you mean to tell me if a guy stole away a home made knife in his boot--an armament not on the registry of what the hillbillies should carry--that would have been a violation of the Constitution? I hardly doubt it.
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#100 Feb 4, 2013
mind your own wrote:
<quoted text>
"shall not be infringed"
you might also want to look up this:
"efficiency of militia bill H.R. 11654"
I'll take your word for it. But that is my point: either no armament may be infringed upon or some can. If some can, guns can. If none can, nukes can't.

In regards too. regarding the nukes there's also the issue of the government not being allowed prior restraint. A recent example was the Catholic Church suing the government over contraception in Obamacare.

The view was you can't sue until it's happened. If applied to the 2nd amendment it would be that you can't prevent a nuke until one is set off, but then again it can only be against that individual. Or we can prevent them in which prior restraint is valid.

Which is it? You're a cowboy. Answer straight up and get out of dodge.
skip the pee pee

Erie, PA

#101 Feb 4, 2013
Dickweed wrote:
<quoted text>
That was awesome....
No stupid, this is awesome

Home : News :
Martin Luther King Jr. High School coach shoots attackers




Coach shoots two teens police say tried to rob him

Posted: 02/01/2013
Last Updated: 3 hours and 40 minutes ago
(WXYZ)- Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women's basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.

Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.
The man who shot the attackers was 70 years old, according to police.
One of the attackers was found dead in the median on Lafayette Boulevard, and the other was taken to a local hospital, according to police sources. We've learned that both of the men had attended the high school, and one had been recently expelled.
Police sources say the coach has a Concealed Pistol License and is reportedly a reserve police officer. They say he is fully cooperating with authorities.
Crime scene tape could be seen on Lafayette Boulevard and also around the back parking lot of the school near the gym.
Students could be seen being walked to their cars late Friday night.
The Detroit Public Schools issued this statement to 7 Action News:
At approximately 7:30pm DPS Police responded to a call of attempted robbery at Martin Luther King Jr. High School. DPS Police are cooperating with DPD which is handling the lead investigation.

We are very relieved that all students and DPS personnel and representatives involved are safe and were unharmed. Preliminary reports are that shots were fired during an attempted robbery of a member of the coaching team of the school’s girls basketball program by two assailants outside the school. There was one fatality and one injured suspect in serious condition.
mind your own

Oil City, PA

#102 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
<quoted text>
Are the federalist papers IN the constitution? A simple yes or no will do.
In a 1939 decision against sawed off shot guns the view was that the common arms of the times was what the 2nd amendment referred to noting that the organized militia spelled out the type of arms the soldiers could carry. But do you mean to tell me if a guy stole away a home made knife in his boot--an armament not on the registry of what the hillbillies should carry--that would have been a violation of the Constitution? I hardly doubt it.
Ya your right, they are not in the constitution. It is just the founding fathers explaining to the people what the second amendment means. I can see how you find that of no importance.
You might want to read the militia bill I told you about. It explain to those that dont understand exactly what the militia is.
explains that men between 18 and 45 may own as many GUNS as they can afford
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#103 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
<quoted text>
No stupid, this is awesome
Home : News :
Martin Luther King Jr. High School coach shoots attackers
Coach shoots two teens police say tried to rob him
Posted: 02/01/2013
Last Updated: 3 hours and 40 minutes ago
(WXYZ)- Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women's basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.
Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.
The man who shot the attackers was 70 years old, according to police.
One of the attackers was found dead in the median on Lafayette Boulevard, and the other was taken to a local hospital, according to police sources. We've learned that both of the men had attended the high school, and one had been recently expelled.
Police sources say the coach has a Concealed Pistol License and is reportedly a reserve police officer. They say he is fully cooperating with authorities.
Crime scene tape could be seen on Lafayette Boulevard and also around the back parking lot of the school near the gym.
Students could be seen being walked to their cars late Friday night.
The Detroit Public Schools issued this statement to 7 Action News:
At approximately 7:30pm DPS Police responded to a call of attempted robbery at Martin Luther King Jr. High School. DPS Police are cooperating with DPD which is handling the lead investigation.
We are very relieved that all students and DPS personnel and representatives involved are safe and were unharmed. Preliminary reports are that shots were fired during an attempted robbery of a member of the coaching team of the school’s girls basketball program by two assailants outside the school. There was one fatality and one injured suspect in serious condition.
Yawn. If shooting a young black kid makes you a hero then we have superheros on the eastside.

Nobody is shot because the shooter thinks they are doing right.
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#104 Feb 4, 2013
clarity: because the shootie is doing right.
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#105 Feb 4, 2013
mind your own wrote:
<quoted text>Ya your right, they are not in the constitution. It is just the founding fathers explaining to the people what the second amendment means. I can see how you find that of no importance.
You might want to read the militia bill I told you about. It explain to those that dont understand exactly what the militia is.
explains that men between 18 and 45 may own as many GUNS as they can afford
Man, I never saw someone avoid a yes / no, can / can't answer in all my life.

BTW what does it say about technology to come in the constitution?
mind your own

Oil City, PA

#106 Feb 4, 2013
skip the pee pee wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take your word for it. But that is my point: either no armament may be infringed upon or some can. If some can, guns can. If none can, nukes can't.
In regards too. regarding the nukes there's also the issue of the government not being allowed prior restraint. A recent example was the Catholic Church suing the government over contraception in Obamacare.
The view was you can't sue until it's happened. If applied to the 2nd amendment it would be that you can't prevent a nuke until one is set off, but then again it can only be against that individual. Or we can prevent them in which prior restraint is valid.
Which is it? You're a cowboy. Answer straight up and get out of dodge.
Now come on, Do I need to slow down for you ?
The 2nd amendment is about guns .
The founding fathers explained it to the people.
Just because you read something and think that you understand what the definition of arms was 100's of years ago doesn't mean you are right.
Try doing some research.
Your argument is lame.
skip the pee pee

Waterford, PA

#107 Feb 4, 2013
mind your own wrote:
<quoted text>
Now come on, Do I need to slow down for you ?
The 2nd amendment is about guns .
The founding fathers explained it to the people.
Just because you read something and think that you understand what the definition of arms was 100's of years ago doesn't mean you are right.
Try doing some research.
Your argument is lame.
The founding fathers explained about Jesus as well but that's not in the constitution. There is NO mention of guns in the constitution, only armaments (arms).

Either prove that the founders never entertained the idea of Jesus or prove it's in the constitution. If Jesus was "entertained" but not in the constitution, so was "guns", but instead armaments, like the word creator was chosen instead.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Dishonorable Smear Of Chuck Hagel: A Warrio... (Jan '13) 4 min C Kersey 6
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 6 min Trumpler 17,671
News House to consider ban on transgender surgery fo... 12 min Reich Wingers 249
News Some urge Boehner: let Dems pass fiscal cliff bill (Dec '12) 22 min C Kersey 9
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 34 min The FACTory 222,033
News Republican 'stages armed coup' at Tea Party org... (Dec '12) 34 min C Kersey 34
News Trump intensifies criticism of his own attorney... 38 min Cordwainer Trout 5
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr IND 280,146
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr bob53 1,567,013
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Cheech the Conser... 242,123
News Can Trump pardon anyone? Himself? Can he fire M... 2 hr IMpeach Now 164
More from around the web