We have to deal with the availability of guns. We have to change the laws...Nope--no legislation politicking there, Snuffy. No wonder Americans United for Separation of Church and State are hesitant to get involved. I mean, from the 501(c)(3) St. Sabina graphic in front of your mug, it's clear you're speaking as an individual...right?
We have to change the laws and legislation and we have to go after the legislators who are being pressured by the NRA and other organizations to keep them from changing those laws...
We've got to change the legislation--maybe we need to change the Second Amendment. Maybe we gotta go back and look at that and say "Is this really what the fathers meant when they said we have the Second Amendment?"
...We need to do sweeps of the houses...guns have to come off the streets...
We're looking for common sense laws.
The rest of this propaganda-fest is just sickening. A bunch of hacks and bureaucrats, who have failed utterly and miserably when given countless plundered millions to pursue their socialist agenda, proposing more of the same as the solution, and blaming everyone and everything except the system they have created to foster dependency, and allow individuals to abdicate responsibility for control over their lives and freedom. Proposing to register every handgun in America owned by those of us who are not out of control, and leaving us to the tender mercies of your street constituencies won't exactly fly in the heartland, folks.
And how about that ABC7? Fair and balanced, no? Could the moderators have looked any more sympathetic and understanding? I'm sure glad they listened to my suggestions.
Look, I hate what Snuffy's doign as much as anybody, but I'm not going to advocate the government tax churches or tell them what they can and can't say.
ReplyDeleteJust because I don't like what he's saying doesn't mean I want to use force to shut him up.
Reason is right in principle, but it isn't necessary to succeed here to accomplish something importanrt.
ReplyDeleteWhat David is doing is worth doing to shine a light on what's going on the hypocrisy of the powers that be, especially the whole "one law for thee, another for me" thing that seems to surround Pfleger. A "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" demand it, after all. ;-) The Remnant will hear.
Me neither--I advocate we all get the same breaks. It's unAmerican to give one group "privileges and immunities" not afforded to all. It's a fundamental matter of equal protection under the law.
ReplyDeleteI could have sent this stuff to the IRS, but I won't do that. But if the left wants to do the heavy lifting, I won't mind seeing them turn on each other.
My whole point here is to expose hypocrisy. If Snuffy actually ends up getting in trouble, that's an added bonus, but it won't be because I turned him in.
Don't take one post out of context. Search this blog for "Pfleger" and view it in the context of the entire series of posts. That's why I do such extensive linking.
The left complains to the IRS about a fundamentalist minister making a political reference--but when a one of theirs makes a career out of politicking from behind his tax exempt corporation, they suddenly clam up. By exposing this, I not only show Snuffy for what he is, but also demonstrate how "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" is beyond hypocritical--they don't want to achieve their stated goal--they just want to eradicate traditional Christianity. Exposing this is also a "win."
And if they end up pressured to live up to their charter, we may not consider that a win for freeedom, but it sure as hell will be a loss for one of freedom's enemies.
Any time you can get the left to eat their own, I'm not going to pass it up. Any chair in a bar fight--never start them, but if one is ever forced on you, there are no rules.
What Rev. Pfleger fails to realize is that even though our Catholic Church of course recognizes that murder is wrong and all life is sacred, so is YOUR life and your right to defend yourself against evil, even if it means dealing a lethal blow.
ReplyDeleteWho is he to say that the guns sold in those shops wouldn't be used in self-defense or the defense of innocents against evil criminals? Criminals don't buy guns in stores, but law abiding citizens do for self defense. Through his actions and words, he is attempting to prevent the defense of the innocent, thereby spreading evil.
In blaming the tool, what would he do if all guns and weapons were destroyed and I had to resort to self defense using a tree branch? Would he then state that all trees are evil? Even if made by God? What about my bare hands? Now you can see just how far down he has fallen from grace.
This, gentlemen is a fallen priest who has been deceived by evil. (AKA Satan, The Brady Bunch, MMM's, Socialist/Democrats, etc. etc.)
Here's the applicable Canon's from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
(Taken from http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html)
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."[65]
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
Does this asshole have an email address.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he would like to "snuff" me when I am through with him.
I'm not as civilized as his normal prey.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete