WBC to picket boston marathon funerals

[fivekatz]

More bad stuff has been done in the name of Lord than any other factor in world history. It seems tyrants find great comfort in wrapping themselves in the supreme being whether it be Islamic Extremists or Euro-Christians sailing to the Western Hemisphere to bring Jesus (and death) to the indigenous peoples.

I personally believe these wing nuts really believe the horse manure that comes out of their mouths, they have the right to say it and hopefully a majority will ignore their actions as long as they are peaceful. And I can only hope that divine intervention will make all their children, gay activists who marry interracial same sex partners who smoke pot and drive hybrids.

[TempestTS]

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.- Arthur C Clarke

[TSMichelleAustin]

A Str8 man bought a house across the street from WBC and painted it like a Rainbow and made it a GLBT help center! LOL These people are nuts, its like talking to Franklin, no matter how many times u tell them they are wrong, they still think they are right! LOL

[TempestTS]

A Str8 man bought a house across the street from WBC and painted it like a Rainbow and made it a GLBT help center! LOL These people are nuts, its like talking to Franklin, no matter how many times u tell them they are wrong, they still think they are right! LOL

You cant have an intellectual debate with the clinically insane or the terminally stupid (WBC)

[fred41]

If you haven't already done so, you should read their Wiki Page: Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're really just a big all family hate cult. There have been some terrific counter protests and parodies. Under "criticisms"...it mentions how a few members of the KKK denounced them as being "hatemongers"...
found this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...iPFH_blog.html

damn...hatemongers that hatemongers hate.

can't get much lower than that.

[Prospero]

Hatemongers that hatemongers hate... all too true fred.

But their hatred is insane. Al Queda have some of ideological basis - though evil and hateful. But these people - Americans - who carry banners proclaiming: "God bless IEDs" "We hate the USA" ...!!! Perhaps they should form a common front with the Taliban and then they could be arrested and sent to Guantanomo Bay as "enemy combatants."

[BrassVillanueva]

In theory I don't have a problem with it, rather it is how it is being used to prevent any sensible controls.

There is no such thing as "sensible controls." The moment you start regulating guns, you've infringed the Second Amendment. That's the problem. You make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns while those who DON'T abide by the law... well, they don't abide by the law. They're going to either find guns on the black market or use another weapon and do the same damage (if not more). We already have background checks... didn't stop Sandy Hook, because the shooter didn't own the guns, he stole them from his mother after he killed her. No gun control legislation would have prevented that. Smaller clips? Great... just bring more of them. No "assault weapons?" Well, no assault weapons are available (semi automatic weapons are not "assault weapons"). Ban guns that LOOK like assault weapons? Fine, someone will use a semi auto that looks like a regular rifle. You see the point here? No gun control legislation is necessary because it simply won't work and, in fact, will make things WORSE than they are now. "Sensible controls" do not exist. The Second Amendment isn't being used to stop gun control, common sense is.

And honestly the original thoughts that brought Patrick Henry to include it in the Bill of Rights no longer exists in any form of reality. The US has built a military complex so big that an armed rebellion by a militia is an impossibility.

Any war against this government would have to be of a insurgent nature given the shear strength of the military. It wouldn't be so much fire arms as terrorist attacks using IED's like yesterday's tragedy in Boston.

It's not just about national defense or civil war, it's about self-defense and protection of one's property. They weren't simply worried about uprisings or invasions, personal protection was just as much a concern then as it is now.

It is time for us to adjust not dismiss the Second Amendment IMHO. Our clinging to this quaint notion of constitutional purity in the face of carnage like Newtown is not sort of American "exceptionalism" that we realy want to stand for is it?

I'll tell you this much: if Sandy Hook had NOT been a gun-free zone and a handful of adults had been carrying, Lanza never would have gotten beyond the lobby. No Constitutional adjustments needed.

Perhaps best put the right to be a hurtful idiot with your speech has remained timeless, while being a hurtful idiot with your assault rifle is a 21st Century factor that Patrick Henry never considered?

Patrick Henry DID consider fighting hurtful people by arming GOOD people with the same weapons that the hurtful people have. THAT'S the point of the Second Amendment. Taking those weapons away from people will only do more damage.

[robertlouis]

There is no such thing as "sensible controls." The moment you start regulating guns, you've infringed the Second Amendment. That's the problem. You make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns while those who DON'T abide by the law... well, they don't abide by the law. They're going to either find guns on the black market or use another weapon and do the same damage (if not more). We already have background checks... didn't stop Sandy Hook, because the shooter didn't own the guns, he stole them from his mother after he killed her. No gun control legislation would have prevented that. Smaller clips? Great... just bring more of them. No "assault weapons?" Well, no assault weapons are available (semi automatic weapons are not "assault weapons"). Ban guns that LOOK like assault weapons? Fine, someone will use a semi auto that looks like a regular rifle. You see the point here? No gun control legislation is necessary because it simply won't work and, in fact, will make things WORSE than they are now. "Sensible controls" do not exist. The Second Amendment isn't being used to stop gun control, common sense is.



It's not just about national defense or civil war, it's about self-defense and protection of one's property. They weren't simply worried about uprisings or invasions, personal protection was just as much a concern then as it is now.



I'll tell you this much: if Sandy Hook had NOT been a gun-free zone and a handful of adults had been carrying, Lanza never would have gotten beyond the lobby. No Constitutional adjustments needed.



Patrick Henry DID consider fighting hurtful people by arming GOOD people with the same weapons that the hurtful people have. THAT'S the point of the Second Amendment. Taking those weapons away from people will only do more damage.

I'd like to take issue with this crap, but frankly, I'm too dispirited by the result in the Senate last night. Yep, keep adding more guns, no checks, and switch off the light when the last American gets shot.

[Dino Velvet]

Hatemongers that hatemongers hate... all too true fred.

But their hatred is insane. Al Queda have some of ideological basis - though evil and hateful. But these people - Americans - who carry banners proclaiming: "God bless IEDs" "We hate the USA" ...!!! Perhaps they should form a common front with the Taliban and then they could be arrested and sent to Guantanomo Bay as "enemy combatants."

Yeah but if the WBC were in Syria our media might call them rebels. If they went down to Mali they'd be back to being pieces of shit again.

[BrassVillanueva]

I'd like to take issue with this crap, but frankly, I'm too dispirited by the result in the Senate last night. Yep, keep adding more guns, no checks, and switch off the light when the last American gets shot.

Who said anything about having no checks? All I said was that the checks we have NOW are satisfactory to accomplish the goal that some people are claiming we need more restrictions to accomplish. We already HAVE background checks and a solid set of restrictions on who can and cannot obtain firearms in this country. We've got THAT part of the equation covered. What we NEED is to stop this ridiculous notion that guns are the problem and comprehend the fact that it's the CRIMINALS who CIRCUMVENT the background checks (and will continue to do so no matter how many of them you put in place) that we have to protect ourselves from. The only way to do that is to arm ourselves to ensure that we're not the next victims. It's simple logic.