Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) signed a bill allowing guns in church — which means that anti-second amendment Lefties (in my best Col. Nathan Jessup voice, “Are there any other kind?”) started exploding second later.
Because, you know, guns kill people, and OMG you can’t even go to church now without gun clingers mingling with the Bible clingers.
But honestly, I don’t understand why Lefties care so much…it’s not like they go to church anyway…
Rep. Henry Burns, R-Haughton, introduced the bill, allows…
…authorized persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.
The pastor or head of the religious institution must announce verbally or in weekly newsletters or bulletins that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.
Opponents of the bill said that churches should remain “free of guns and violence” and should focus on worship. Yeah…well someone should remind the Leftards that gun-toting criminals intent on killing unarmed civilians aren’t exactly scared off by gun-free zones. In fact, a lot of recent mass shootings occur in places, such as schools and universities, that are deemed gun-free zones. Which, to a criminal, means un-armed victims.
Men have the right to protect themselves wherever they are. Even church.
I would suggest the anti-second amendment dimwits at TPM, Shakesville, Alan Colmes Land, etc. go read this fantastic piece at — you’re not going to believe this — the Daily Kos in support of the second amendment, titled “Why liberals should love the Second Amendment.”
It’s one of the clearest and most concise arguments supporting the second amendment you’ll ever read.
An excerpt:
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as “gun nuts.” They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights
Make sure to go read the entire post. Don’t read the comments, though; they’re mostly typical Liberal tripe.
*Here in Texas, we cannot bring guns into churches. Yet.
Related Posts
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Here in Texas, there are many police officers attending services with their families and they are always armed.
Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs.
Texas needs to follow Louisiana’s example on this.
Gov. Jindal also signed another law yesterday that you haven’t heard much about because all the lefturd heads exploded simultaneously and none were left to criticize it.
Bobby Jindal Signs Landmark Abortion Reforms into Louisiana Law.
I really like Gov. Jindal and have for years.
LOL!
Gov. Jindal is awesome.
Thanks for catching the humor in that.
Thanks for the link to the Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs article. I’ve sent it to many friends over the years, as I try to explain to them why I’m a CHL holder. It’s amazing how many of them don’t get it, at least not until they read this article.
Raises a toast to his fellow sheepdogs…
*clink*
Cheers!
Cheers to Gov. Jindal, we need many more like him.
Years ago, an officer was killed and there was a big ado because the agency said no guns would be allowed inside the church where the memorial service was being held. Ridiculous. I’m not sure what the leftards think this phony symbolism achieves.
I’ve said it repeatedly for years “Gun Free Zone”= Target Rich Environment. Or to put it another way..if you want to hang a sign that says “GunFreeZone” anywhere you might as well hand one that says:
ATTENTION CRIMINALS! This is a place where you can kill as many as you want because the people who run it, are too STUPID to let people who might want the option of defending themselves to do so. In other words, it’s a target rich environment. So feel free to enjoy yourselves.
The illogical, irrational & ignoranous of you gun nuts is mind boogling. First off, unless your gun is in your han, fully loaded & your finger on the trigger, if a nut job or criminal burst into a church with a fully automatic weapon, he will kill you and a whole bunch of others before you could draw. Secon, are you suggesting the 6 year olds and petitie female staff at the school of the massacre should have been armed & ready? Third, the intent of the 2nd amendment was for the militia, which at the time was every able body male, to be ready to fight the tyrannical British. Both were about equally armed. Do you honestly think your AKs are gonna fight back M-1 Abram Tanks, Drones Nvay Seals, 500,000 soldiers, Jet Aircraft, Biological Weapons, & Nuclear Weapons? You people are as insane as the nut job at the school. And most pychologist would inform you that your possession of numerous guns is your security blanket for your paranoid & insecure personalities. THIS IS THE REALITY. YOU ARE THE DELUSIONS NUTS.
At the minimum we are suggesting that there are ARMED security guards at schools because , guess what, a “gun free zone” means nothing to anyone intent on a killing spree and thus even in “gun free zones” there are to be exceptions for staff. Obviously whatever security the school district had that day at that school, was insufficient to disarm that psycho.
Ask the Russians and the US Military about fighting against the simple weapons of a determined enemy in Afghanistan. Two of the world’s great militaries have not been able to defeat a few hundred thousand Muslims armed with Ak-47s and a few antiquated mortars and anti-aircraft missiles.
I have zero doubt that the tens of millions of legally armed citizens of this country would do more than hold their own against the might of the superior fire power.
Add to that, having served in the US Army, and coming from a family of military men, I have strong feeling that the defections from the Military would be so widespread if the our government ever decided to use them against the citizens of this country as to render the military nearly obsolete. In fact, the Government’s biggest concern if they were ever to order the military to start dropping bombs on US Citizens would be for them to refuse the unlawful order and might instead drop that bomb in the center of D.C.
But let me ask you simple, straight forward question, Ms. Hebert: If a bad person attacks your child and is planning is trying to kill them, what is your plan to stop them? Will you call 911, wait on an operator, and then wait for police to arrive many minutes later? Do you hope that a stranger comes to your child rescue? Would you use a gun to kill a man trying to kill your child if you had a gun at your disposal?
I know the answer to all these questions, ma’am, which is why I always have a gun with me. I won’t ever be at my boy’s funeral lamenting, “If I’d only had my gun…”
I agree Robbie! These people who argue against gun ownership are the first one to lament once anything happends. But the “what if” is useless and that’s what they do not understand. For some not even such a tragedy is a wake up call. Ms. Hebert had the audacity to criticize us but not even once in her comment offered a solution to this dilemma. All these so called liberal softies never offer any solutions. So I say let them suffer the consequences of their stupidity….
People like us can at least stand up for the victims of this tragedy. Let our voices be heard.