News

Clergy reject Missouri bill on concealed guns in churches

Members of the Missouri House of Representatives work on the final day of the legislative session on May 13, 2016, at the Capitol in Jefferson City, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Religious leaders from a variety of faiths join Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, at podium, to express opposition to a Missouri bill that would permit people to carry concealed firearms in church, during a news conference in St. Louis, on April 11, 2018. Photo courtesy of Fred Koenig

(RNS) — A group of religious leaders is condemning a Missouri bill to permit people to carry concealed firearms in church without permission from clergy, with St. Louis’ Catholic archbishop threatening to sue if the bill is signed into law.

The bill would “broaden Second Amendment rights at the expense of the First Amendment right of religious liberty,” said Archbishop Robert J. Carlson.

On Wednesday (April 11), a group representing Jewish, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and other traditions held a news conference to oppose Missouri House Bill 1936, which would allow residents to carry a concealed firearm on most private properties — including houses of worship —  unless there is specific signage saying otherwise.

Currently, concealed-carry permit holders in the state are required to obtain permission from their pastor, minister or people representing their religious organization before bringing concealed guns to such places.

Two state House of Representatives committees already approved the bill — along party lines — with Republicans voting in favor.

“Pastors, rabbis and religious leaders should not be compelled by the government to place signage in our sacred places prohibiting activity we may not want to allow on our own private property,” said Carlson, whose archdiocese includes nearly 500,000 Roman Catholics.

The Missouri Capitol overlooks the Missouri River in Jefferson City. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

During a question-and-answer session a few minutes later, Carlson — whose fellow Missouri Catholic bishops issued a joint statement condemning the bill and gun violence in general last week — warned of a potential legal battle: “We (Catholics) would not be above lawsuits or other actions to prevent the law from going into effect.”

Jered Taylor, a Republican Missouri House member from Nixa who is sponsoring the bill, said he “completely disagrees” with the archbishop’s assessment.

“The last thing I want to do is infringe on individuals’ rights,” he said in an interview, noting there are churches that support his proposal. “If they don’t want (concealed guns on their property), all they have to do is post a sign just like any private property. Allowing the church to decide will not infringe on their religious liberty rights.”

Other clergy, however, echoed the archbishop’s discontent and expressed frustration with the broader issue of gun violence.

Rabbi Brigitte Rosenberg of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association said she was “troubled” by the “epidemic” of gun violence. Episcopal Bishop George Wayne Smith encouraged lawmakers to take up alternative legislation, such as banning bump stocks, strengthening background checks, limiting high-capacity magazines and ensuring better access to mental health care.

United Methodist Bishop Robert Farr said he is a gun owner himself and there is a role for “responsible gun ownership,” but he argued in a statement that the bill might “negatively impact the safety of a local church” and hinder the ability of houses of worship to self-govern.

Members of the Missouri House of Representatives work on the final day of the legislative session on May 13, 2016, at the Capitol in Jefferson City, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

“We hope and pray that the political leaders of our state will overcome partisan divisions for the sake of safety,” said the Rev. Charles Norris, second vice president of the St. Louis Metropolitan Clergy Coalition, which represents leaders from more than 50 local African-American congregations.

The campaign mirrors years of activism by faith groups in other states. In 2014, prominent rabbis, pastors and bishops in Georgia publicly opposed legislation allowing people to carry firearms in sanctuaries if permitted by an individual place of worship. When the bill was passed, groups of Episcopal and Catholic churches in Georgia promptly banned guns — with a few exceptions, such as those carried by law enforcement — from their property. Similarly, when Texas expanded its open-carry laws in 2016, the Catholic diocese in Dallas banned guns in all of its churches.

More recently, many religious organizations and clergy members participated in the March for Our Lives last month — a sprawling protest calling for stricter gun control laws.

There are some, however, who embrace the idea of parishioners carrying firearms into houses of worship. In the aftermath of November’s church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the Rev. Robert Jeffress — a Dallas pastor and faith adviser to President Trump — voiced support for having an armed congregation, saying, “I’d say a quarter to a half of our members are concealed-carry. They have guns, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that — they bring them into the church with them.”

Religious leaders from a variety of faiths express opposition to a Missouri bill that would permit people to carry concealed firearms in church, during a news conference in St. Louis, on April 11, 2018. Photo courtesy of Fred Koenig

About the author

Jack Jenkins

Jack Jenkins is a national reporter for RNS based in Washington, covering U.S. Catholics and the intersection of religion and politics.

101 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Interesting that Rep. Jerry Taylor’s point was completely ducked there.

    If a church doesn’t want anybody to enter their building with a concealed gun, they need only post the familiar “Circle-Slash-Gun” symbol like any other local business, building, or school.

    HB 1936 doesn’t override this aspect. Individual churches should be allowed to make their own yes-or-no decisions here.

  • “Parkland teacher arrested after leaving gun in public lavatory”http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43733755

    Yes, the school was made so much safer by an armed teacher!

  • Actually I think that point was answered – otherwise, there is limited religious liberty. On top of that there, are equal or greater risks to church members with ccw.

  • Umm, the Parkland teacher, a survivor of the school shooting, did NOT leave his gun anywhere near the high school. He accidentally left it at a restroom in Deerfield Beach, several miles away.

    So this teacher did not endanger the school at all, PLUS the school board has told the media that they would most likely NOT seek disciplinary action against him.

    Meanwhile, you visibly ducked Rep. Taylor’s specific point. Just for the sake of topicality, do you care to respond to his irrefutable argument?

  • Where exactly was Rep. Taylor’s point answered? Could you point me to the paragraph or sentence there?

  • Way to polish that turd! Either way we are talking about someone who clearly wants to carry a gun all over the place, but far too irresponsible to do it.

    Like pretty much every untrained gomer who thinks putting guns in people’s hands is supposed to make the world safer. It is an idea that can only come from the minds of the NRA. The representative of gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

    People who use firearms in their profession practice such as security, military and police strict gun control within it. Guns are registered, recorded, their use and carrying is strictly controlled and access to them is limited. Misuse or irresponsible handling is usually cause for termination. Irresponsible ammosexual fools want to carry them around in all sorts of inappropriate places and generally show a dangerous lack of care with them. Even to “peaceful protests” There is nothing more absurd than “armed protest” favored by conservatives and neo-nazis.

  • “The last thing I want to do is infringe on individuals’ rights,” he said in an interview, noting there are churches that support his proposal. “If they don’t want (concealed guns on their property), all they have to do is post a sign just like any private property. Allowing the church to decide will not infringe on their religious liberty rights.”

    If that’s all there is to it I see a easy compromise. If you want and think concealed guns by anyone in your church is a good thing, get signs of plowshares circled with a slash through them and put’m up everywhere in your building. If you don’t want the law to effect your house of worship you don’t have to change anything.
    It’s freedom of religion, freedom from (their) religion, and the answer to second amendment prayers all rolled up nicely.

  • That’s all? Umm, that’s not an answer at all. See, Missouri is NOT stopping the archbishop or any of his pastors/clergy from banning guns at their local churches. Plus, the standard gun-ban sign, if displayed, is binding on both members and outsiders/visitors, which is what you need.

    But this archbishop does NOT like religious freedom. He doesn’t want his individual Catholic congregations to make their own adult Yes-or-No decisions, do their own debating, on this matter. He knows that a few of them would oppose his gun-control stance, and vote to allow CCWs.

  • It was permissible before but only with the written permission of the pastor, worship leader etc. Given that the Bill revokes any type of gun free zone in any type of location in the State, posting signs is a no-go.

  • Actually it is – gun fee zones are no longer legally permissible – any wish to be gun free is only by request – like please refrain from wearing perfume.

  • Neither of us are Catholics, but I’m pretty sure those are the kinds of decisions their bishops are entitled to make. They do not have congregational governance, by definition. And the Church is not a democracy.

  • It doesn’t “revoke(.) any type of gun free zone in any type of location in the State”.

    Default becomes licensed carry is permitted.

    Churches and others may prohibit with signage.

  • It is worth noting that the article was about concealed carry by law-abiding citizens, not “‘armed protest’ favored by conservatives and neo-nazis” or any of the other groups you like to vent about.

    The NRA is made up of around 5 million ordinary dues paying members, not gun manufacturers.

    The misuse or irresponsible handling of firearms by ordinary citizens are cause for criminal charges.

  • There is no need to “enlarge” the Second Amendment.

    It creates a presumption of the right to own and to bear arms.

  • The key, of course, is that Missouri is NOT proposing to stop the archbishop, his clergy, rabbis, ministers, and so on from banning firearms, concealed or otherwise.

  • Not relevant in response. I was using it as an example of the ridiculous and inappropriate places people think they are entitled to bring guns to.

    Law abiding citizens can be remarkably irresponsible and reckless with their firearms when they feel laws concerning their use are lax. As thousands of accidental gun deaths and injuries annually attest to. LARP fantasies of amateurs saving the day with their trusty firearm pale in comparison with the well documented and irresponsible use and handling of them by untrained amateurs.

    Those who support the NRA also support criminal gun ownership by lobbying against effective efforts to stem the traffic of smuggled guns through straw buying.

    The NRAs primary source of income is from gun manufacturers. They do not publish actual membership numbers. Your assertion is either fiction or a party line.

    “The misuse or irresponsible handling of firearms by ordinary citizens are cause for criminal charges”

    No argument there. Too bad encouraging misuse and irresponsible handling isn’t.

  • “LARP fantasies of amateurs saving the day with their trusty firearm” is not a relevant response. Your animus towards private of ownership is a personal issue, not a fact that should impact legislation.

    The NRA’s primary source of income is from members. Since they do not publish membership numbers your suggestion that my assertion is either fiction or a party line is either fiction or a party line.

    The gun manufacturers have their own organization – the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

    https://www.nssf.org/about/

    The only area where one organization supports the other with funds is in training. Both work together to train young people, adults, and law enforcement officers in the use of firearms.

    The “straw buying” nonsense I have dispensed with at least a half dozen times before. I won’t even entertain that silliness again.

    If a church feels having its law-abiding and church-supporting members armed is a problem, the proposed Missouri ordinance provides a simple remedy.

  • My animus is against people promoting lackadaisical attitudes towards firearms handling.

    No excuse is used more for the mishandling of firearms than “self protection”.

    Unless you are in a profession which requires having a firearm, the likelihood a person who is either open carrying or concealed carrying is an untrained and irresponsible amateur are pretty high. The likelihood of them using their firearm to escalate a conflict and/or brandish illegally are also well documented and rather high.

    Yes it’s an animus. A well justified one. I don’t like enabling dangerous stupid people.

  • And it is acceptable for them? Nope.

    Good to know you want to excuse irresponsible behavior rather than address it.

    Whataboutism generally tells the world poor things about the speaker.

  • Good to know that you can equate pointing out that law enforcement officers do it with it being “acceptable”.

  • Your animus is towards private ownership of firearms.

    The only income being reported by the NRA does not support your conclusion as to “finances, platform, and lobbying”.

    Both the NRA and the NRA-ILA file publicly available documents.

    Rampant gun crime and mass murders are not the province of the NRA or law-abiding citizens.

  • Not at all. I am a firearms owner and you need a strawman position to go with your canned narrative. I just don’t like people acting stupidly and dangerously with their guns. Something every law abiding gun owner should support. But obviously the NRA does not.

    Your claim only comes from the PR section of the NRA. But they have no desire for transparency on that front.

    “Rampant gun crime and mass murders are not the province of the NRA or law-abiding citizens.”

    Their efforts in enabling them through lobbying says otherwise.

  • That was your point. Whataboutism excuses.

    I was not the one making excuses for dangerous stupidity here. That was all you.

  • The issue is not what you like.

    The Constitution and the laws do not exist to please you.

    The NRA is pro-law enforcement and anti-crime, particularly gun crime.

    Here’s the NRA’s 2015 990:

    https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/530116130/201623149349300602/IRS990

    Member dues were $165,664,978.

    Please point out all the income from gun manufacturers.

    Now, since you love the other side of the discussion, please help us find the sources of revenue for:

    The Humane Society of the United States – $96 million – one of the most anti-hunting organizations in the USA.

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) – $17 million – effectively took over the Humane Society above.

    Everytown for Gun Safety- formed in 2014 when two non-profits – Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America merged. As a a 501 (c)(4) it can
    engage in unlimited lobbying, can engage in political activity, can endorse or
    oppose political candidates, and can donate money and/or time to
    political organizations. Its 2014 990 lists two voting members. The NRA’s members can all vote.

    Its revenue on its 2014 990 was nearly $41 million.

  • I read the Bill – the above is what was repealed. Licensed carry was previously with written approval, In fact, the state firearms association led their write-up on the bill with a logo indicating gun free zones no longer are permissible – not just churches but schools, hospitals, arenas etc.

  • First of all, what these clergy members want is to force all people in all places of worship to be disarmed. How foolish this is. I am a retired pastor who facilitates the Clergy in Support of the 2nd Amendment’s online presence (http://clergyinsupportofthe2ndamendment.org/). I can assure you that there are many clergy persons who strongly support the right of trained people to carry in church and elsewhere. Churches have been the subject of attacks, and people carrying firearms by virtue of concealed carry permits have stopped these attacks. The church I attend has a safety team and allows lawful carry – and I feel much safer because of it.

    The reality is that these clergy members do not want to have to post signs because they know that it will result in some people deciding to look for another church. They want the state to keep people from carrying so they can get what they want without having to justify it.

  • If the state can force a church to post a sign, I can see all kinds of possibilities that Evangelicals might not like.

  • It did seem to be an unfortunate carelessness that could have had other consequences. But as Bob Arnzen pointed out there are penalties for such carelessness…if applied. It’s a funny thing that we pass laws to circumscribe questionable acts and behavior, and then we have to pass laws to mitigate or amplify those laws when they are circumvented. It makes being in the legislature a sinecure if not a racket.

  • Your understanding of the Constitution is confused, infantile and contradictory. You argue things which fly in the face of common sense and sanity.

    The NRA feigns being pro law enforcement. But it undermines their efforts. It contributes to the atmosphere of fear which gets unarmed people killed by cops, enables illegal guns to flood the streets and even supports rhetoric about killing cops as part of an insurrection from “a tyrannical government”.

  • Your understanding of the Constitution is confused, infantile and contradictory. You argue things which fly in the face of both its plain text and the SCOTUS opinions based on it.

    The NRA is pro law enforcement and works closely with LEOs in training proper firearm use. Most LEOs are either NRA members or support the work of the NRA.

    It is you and your shrill gun control mavens which contribute to the atmosphere of fear.

    You need to find new sources of propaganda.

  • No Concealed weapons allowed! Yeah? You tell that story to criminals intending to rob or kill. Good luck!

  • Just check out the statistics how many killings have been prevented by people who otherwise had been NO MORE!

  • Sadly there are drivers who mistakenly caused injury or death, some after 30 or 50 years driving. Just ban them for live? That could be YOU! But that’s different!

  • Exactly.

    They want the state to do it for them so they can avoid any responsibility at all.

    That keeps the Good News being the Good Living.

  • If guns were as heavily regulated as cars are, we would not be having this conversation.

    Mandatory liability insurance for cars has done much to ensure car owners can bear responsibility to the public for the potential peril they pose to the community. I find nothing wrong with doing the same for firearms. Plus it would create the national level gun ownership database needed for effective law enforcement. All without the concerns of confiscation which drive NRA efforts which enable illegal guns to flood the streets.

  • No need. None of which is relevant to this topic. To keep with my initial metaphor, you aren’t going to make it shine. You certainly aren’t going to cover up the stench.

  • LOL!
    NRA actively worked to weaken gun law enforcemen
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/?siteID=eyzsD2QGsYg-7_dcno5J70kFdlMnqwfHRA

    The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years. Let’s end its stranglehold on science.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

    NRA: 10 ways it has weakened gun-control laws in the UShttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/13/nra-weakened-gun-control-laws

    For an organization which is “pro law enforcement”, they certainly want to make it difficult to actually enforce the laws (or keep illegal guns off the streets)

    The NRA loves illegal guns.
    “How South Carolina’s guns end up in the hands of out-of-state criminals”
    https://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/how-south-carolinas-guns-end-up-in-the-hands-of-out-of-state-criminals/Content?oid=5898775

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.f0817f7fe634

  • I thought anyone having a drivers license can rent a car and inflict more harm than guns, as has happened in this world. Ban all cars and trucks and presto problem solved. People are killing each other with guns, cars, knives hammers etc. Or am i wrong? If so PROOF it please.

  • I of II

    The current national handgun background system was proposed and promoted by the National Rifle Association.

    The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, the Tiahrt amendments, and BATF Reform and Firearms Modernization Act all prevent an administration like Obama’s from using bureaucratic harassment to put gun dealers out of business and extend the mens rea requirements to gun dealers.

    The CDC goaded Congress into cutting its research funds in the area of guns after the CDC knowingly and wilfully violated the law against lobbying with appropriated funds.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

    The CDC leadership knowingly and wilfully violated USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 93 § 1913:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1913

    Director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

    In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research topics for potential additional research in gun violence. The CDC contracted the prestigious Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies to conduct the study, which was released in 2013 entitled “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence”.

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

    Among its findings:

    1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker.

    2. Defensive uses of guns are common.

    3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining.

    4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results.

    5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime.

    6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime.

    7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides.

    The Democratic President and his Democratic Congress ceased pursuing CDC “studies”.

    Your Guardian article from the UK perspective considers the following to be “weakening” gun control. Although it claims “10″, it actually provides 9, and it sources the now gone Michael Bloomberg-funded anti-gun propaganda front – Mayors Against Illegal Guns – as its sole source.

    1. Concealed carry reciprocity

    The NRA supports national civil rights legislation affirming the Second Amendment across the US to pre-empt the unconstitutional attempts by states and localities to suppress it as they used to suppress voting rights.

    2. Private gun sales “loophole”

    The NRA opposes placing casual private firearms sales, which are not a significant source of guns used in crimes, between friends, family, and gun collectors under the same background requirements as licensed gun dealers.

  • II of II

    3. Terror watch list “loophole”

    As a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment requires adjudication to prohibit the sale of guns to an individual. The so-called “no fly” list is a bureaucratic non-adjudicative process, demonstrably rife with errors and nearly impossible to correct. The NRA opposes incorporating it into the database used for background checks for firearms purchases unless and until due process safeguards are incorporated.

    4. Stand-your-ground laws

    The NRA believes that the common law castle doctrine was and remains sound public policy, that no citizen should have to become a bankrupt or lose employment for defending his person, home, or family.

    5 and 6. Guns on campuses and in schools

    Prohibition of firearms have demonstrably not prevented shooting in schools, but have provided hunting zones for lunatics to kill with impunity. The NRA believes that civil rights extend to school campuses.

    7. Guns in the workplace

    The police require a warrant or probable cause to search vehicles. The NRA supports the right of law-abiding citizens to keep lawfully owned firearms locked in their vehicles.

    8. Guns in bars and restaurants

    The NRA points out that the unlawful use of guns by concealed permit holders in bars and restaurants is a non-existent problem.

    Virginia legislators voted to allow the state’s concealed carry permit holders to carry their concealed weapons into restaurants and bars.

    The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants in Virginia declined 5.2 percent the next year.

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110820/OPINION01/708199979

    9. Tracing guns used in shootings

    The BATF kept a file on the history of guns used in murders and shootings, which theoretically allowed police to trace them back to the point of sale. After years of zero actual success leading to convictions using this data, and the use of the database in a politically motivated “sting” led by then NYC mayor Bloomberg which led to zero arrests, the Tiahrt amendment restricted the use of this data to bona-fide law enforcement.

    10. Revoking licences from corrupt dealers

    The NRA believes that the Second Amendment is meaningless unless firearms can actually be purchased. The NRA supports requirements for due process, including a requirement for mens rea, to prevent bureaucrats from revoking the license of gun-dealers for clerical errors.

    Finally, there is no Iron Pipeline.

    Despite years of investigation there are essentially zero charges filed and zero convictions, and both your articles mention none – zero.

    Nor does either article present a “solution” – they are fig leaf articles for ineffective Democratic administrations in Chicago and New York City who have let crime get out of control.

    I point out that you have presented each every bit of this propaganda multiple times in the past, and each time you’ve been rebutted.

    I would get some fresher material to copy were I you.

  • If the right to own and drive an automobile were in the Bill of Rights, they would not be as heavily regulated as they are.

    The question is not what you find wrong, but what is constitutional.

    You can no more require liability insurance for gun ownership than you can for exercising the First Amendment.

    As I pointed out in another post, the NRA has made zero efforts to flood the streets with illegal guns.

  • A ridiculous canned response. Also a rather immoral and unethical one which posits that untold preventable harm to the public is perfectly acceptable for self serving sociopathic reasons.

    Of course gun ownership requires and in many cases already has regulations. All of which currently are considered congruent to the right of ownership. Even apparently according to SCOTUS, a right to ban assault weapons.

    Yes we get it, you want irresponsible ownership of firearms, mass murder, and a thriving illegal firearms market.

  • “There is no Iron Pipeline” according to you because the facts of it are an inconvenience to your stance . You are complaining of a lack of convictions when the issue is a lack of effective enforcement in the first place. A very dishonest stance. The proof is in the origins of guns confiscated long after the fact.

    The solution is easy, national level electronic gun ownership record keeping. What the ATF has been clamoring for for decades. The NRA does not want effective law enforcement of illegal firearms.

  • “The CDC goaded Congress into cutting its research funds in the area of guns after the CDC knowingly and wilfully violated the law against lobbying with appropriated funds.”

    No evidence of that and contradicted by your subsequent point

    “In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research topics for potential additional research in gun violence”

    Honest citation is not your strong suit.
    1. Family members of armed citizens are more likely to be shot than intruders or robbers
    2. Most defensive use is not actually defensive but an armed person escalating a conflict or using their gun illegally
    3. Mass shootings are not declining
    4. Without national level efforts such laws are undermined. The iron pipeline is a perfect example of how they are exploited
    5-7 are not correlated to the issues presented.

  • “‘The CDC goaded Congress into cutting its research funds in the area of guns after the CDC knowingly and wilfully violated the law against lobbying with appropriated funds.’”

    “No evidence of that and contradicted by your subsequent point”

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/09/no-government-isnt-banned-from-studying-gun-violence/

    https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/cdc-spent-record-budget-on-everything-but-core-mission-heres-how-they-wasted-our-money

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/

    “Honest citation is not your strong suit.”

    Here’s the entire report:

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

    and here are all the hits for, for an example, “family”:

    https://www.nap.edu/booksearch.php?record_id=18319&term=family

    You can’t get more honest than that.

    The “Iron Pipeline”, which is an imaginary propaganda invention just like “assault weapon”, is a perfect example of how the gullible like yourself are exploited by multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his gun control flunkies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everytown_for_Gun_Safety

    “Everytown was founded in 2014, combining ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ and ‘Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’. Everytown for Gun Safety is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg, who also founded the group.”

    It has two voting members, one of which is none other than Michael Bloomberg.

  • There is no Iron Pipeline because there have been zero indictments and zero convictions.

    That’s an amazing situation for a large and longstanding criminal enterprise.

    The only thing that the origins of guns elsewhere prove is that if you want booze in a dry county, you find it in a wet county.

    The source of this imaginary Iron Pipeline is none other than multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who peddles his imaginary tripe through gun control fronts disguised as membership organizations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everytown_for_Gun_Safety

    “Everytown was founded in 2014, combining ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ and ‘Moms
    Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’. Everytown for Gun Safety is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg, who also founded the group.”

    It has two voting members, one of which is none other than Michael Bloomberg.

  • Liability insurance as a condition of exercising a civil right is in the same class as a poll tax for exercising the right to vote.

  • It is hardly an attack on the right of ownership. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that any sign of responsibility is somehow an attack on liberties. Especially when it comes to the ownership of weapons. Liability insurance is for the protection of both owner and the public.

    I would hate to be around a rifle range or hunting ground with you.

    “in the same class as a poll tax for exercising the right to vote.”

    A poll tax doesn’t protect the owner from going bankrupt due to their negligence or indemnify the public. You have no idea how property/casualty insurance works.

  • If the premise is that law enforcement is hampered by existing conditions then looking for indictments and convictions as evidence is utterly dishonest. The whole point is that detection and enforcement against it is virtually impossible due to the conditions today. Your claim is ridiculous on its face.

    “The only thing that the origins of guns elsewhere prove is that if you want booze in a dry county, you find it in a wet county.”

    Ridiculous analogy missing the point entirely.

    “The source of this imaginary Iron Pipeline is none other than
    multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who peddles his imaginary tripe
    through gun control fronts disguised as membership organizations.”

    Your link does not support your statement. Dishonest citation as usual.

  • Your Federalist citations are entirely opinion and conjecture.

    At no point is there actual proof of the claims asserted concerning the CDC cutting its own budget or acting illegally. It doesn’t ever help you when a source talks about “mainstream media” in a derogatory fashion. It means it is the work of unreliable propagandists
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist-papers-project/

    A questionable source exhibits one or more of
    the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to
    credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

    Notes: The Federalist Papers Project has overt right wing bias in
    reporting. It often publishes misleading news stories and conspiracies
    that amount to fake news. Has a horrible track record with fact checking. (9/12/2016) Updated (6/20/2017)

    “The “Iron Pipeline”, which is an imaginary propaganda invention just like “assault weapon”,”

    Neither of which are true statements nor supported by your links.

  • #neveragain

    Bobosé, enough of your blathering. Get off your lazy backside and start working to make gun control happen.

    DO IT!

  • #neveragain

    Bobosé, enough of your blathering already. Get off your lazy backside and start working to make gun control happen.

    DO IT!

    #neveragain

  • #neveragain

    Bobosé, enough already of your blathering. Get off your lazy backside and start working to make gun control happen.

    DO IT!

  • #neveragain

    Bobosé, enough of your blathering. Get off your lazy backside and start working to make gun control happen.

    DO IT!

    #neveragain

  • #neveragain

    Bobosé, enough of your blathering. Get off your lazy backside and start working to make gun control happen.

    DO IT NOW!

  • As should our nation!

    #neveragain

    Bobosé, enough of your blathering. Get off your lazy backside and start working to make gun control happen.

    DO IT!

  • “At no point is there actual proof of the claims asserted concerning the CDC cutting its own budget or acting illegally.”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1913

    U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1913 Lobbying with appropriated moneys

    “No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation …..”.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

    “CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, ‘We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.’“

    “However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he ‘envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.’”

    etc etc

    “It doesn’t ever help you when a source talks about “mainstream media” in a derogatory fashion. It means it is the work of unreliable propagandists”

    “https://mediabiasfactcheck….”

    You sure know how to select your sources, first “Everytown for Gun Safety” a pure propaganda organization funded by and controlled by multi-billionaire gun hater Michael Bloomberg, father of NYC’s ex-large soft drink ordinance, now “Media Bias/Fact Check”.

    https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html

    “Media Bias/Fact Check rates PolitiFact as a ‘Least-biased’ source of information. How does MB/FC reach that conclusion? The website has a ‘Methodology’ page describing its methods:”

    “The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line according to their Left or Right bias.”

    “This system makes PolitiFact’s ‘Truth-O-Meter’ almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system of objective bias measures–something that probably nobody on the planet has even dreamt of achieving.”

    “It comes as no surprise that Van Zandt lacks those objective measures:”

    etc

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/

    “Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: ‘Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.’”

    “Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:”

    “‘[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony Media Bias Fact Check site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous rating – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as has been accused of being satire. Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this Media Bias Fact Check scam.’”

    “‘But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …’”

    “‘Media Bias Fact Check is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.’”

    “But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.”

    “‘Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,’ he said. ‘We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.’”

    The “Iron Pipeline” is an imaginary propaganda invention just like “assault weapon”.

    When indictments come down, and convictions result, be sure to let us know.

  • The “Iron Pipeline” is an imaginary propaganda invention from the fevered mind of Michael Blommberg, just like “assault weapon”.

    When indictments come down, and convictions result, be sure to let us know.

  • So, what you’re saying is that if liability were a requirement before you could exercise First Amendment rights, you personally would not have an objection and you think the ACLU would be silent.

    Do you have any clue at all about what a civil right is?

    A poll tax conditions the exercise of a fundamental civil right on an expenditure.

    In comparison to the cost of insurance, poll taxes were trivial.

  • https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest/

    “In the opening paragraph of her review of Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check contributor Faith Locke Siewert writes:”

    “On their article http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp#affirmative, they use the Richard Sander’s (law professor at UCLA) essay ‘A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.’ To support much of their hypothesis, obviously against affirmative action (seeming also to support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior).”

    “Those two sentences contain three demonstrable falsehoods:”

    “‘A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools’ is not just an essay. It is a peer-reviewed journal paper that was published in the Stanford Law Review. Big difference.”

    “Just Facts does not use this paper to support ‘much of’ its research on affirmative action. The research contains more than 60 footnotes, and this paper is just one of them. Just Facts’ full research on racial issues has 498 footnotes, and this paper is two of them.”

    “Just Facts does not offer any ‘hypothesis’ in this research, much less ‘support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior.’ To the contrary, the opening section of Just Facts’ research on racial issues covers the topic of science and presents multiple facts that challenge that notion.”

    “The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.”

    You sure can pick’em.

  • You were quoting a source which cannot be taken at face value. Which is a change of pace from your misquoting or selectively omitting material information from more reliable sources.

    Repeating a nonsense assertion and doubling down on it does not make it any more convincing or credible.

  • Your assertion is not supported by reality. Your criteria for evaluating its non-existence is laughably dishonest.

    Even the NRA isn’t denying its existence. They just avoid talking about how their efforts enable it. Choosing to focus on pretending to support law enforcement and capitalizing on mass murders.

  • The comments of the CDC officials, which can be verified independently of the Federalist articles, by simply plugging them into Google, and the law itself are irrefutable.

    Hearing “Repeating a nonsense assertion and doubling down on it does not make it any more convincing or credible.” from someone who copies and pastes Michael Bloomberg propaganda and thinks a one-man “fact checker” is reliable is hilarious.

  • When there are indictments and convictions, get back to us.

    The NRA opposes all violations of gun laws and advocates vigorous prosecutions.

    Its close relationship with law enforcement is a matter of record.

    Also a matter of record is your stooge-like repeating of Michael Bloomberg propaganda.

  • They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes.

    In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does however convey a right leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy. There is also extensive use of loaded negative emotional words when describing the left. This is the opposite approach that a fact checker should take, when instead they should be using neutral language. We rate this source Right-Center Biased. (4/26/2017) Updated (5/29/2017)
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/

  • Btw, how does the Michael Bloomberg fronts – your only source – rate in terms of objectivity?

  • LOL. Michael Bloomberg Master of Conspiracy! 🙂

    (Also one of the most successful mayors NYC had)

  • You sound like a mobster. But the whole point I’d it tough to do when the NRA is deliberately hampering law enforcement efforts in the first place.

    They clearly want illegal guns on the streets. It spurs buying of guns “for self protection” and over militarization of police.

    So what is your POV? Accept rampant urban gun violence and regularly occurring mass murder as acceptable. Do everything possible to avoid and promote the situation. Ridiculous sociopathic nonsense.

  • #neveragain

    No, Bobosé, you little yellow snowflake and ninnie.

    Stop dodging. Get to work on gun control. DO IT!

  • #neveragain

    No, Bobosé, you little yellow snowflake and ninnie.

    Stop dodging. Get to work on gun control. DO IT!

  • That would be better than citing your Christian horror fantasy book also known as the bible, Bobosé, you little yellow snowflake.

  • The religious right has ‘code words’ that bespeak their biases and prejudices. They can puzzle of go over the heads of average readers and viewers.

  • You sound like you’re in the employ of Michael Bloomberg.

    Yes, the NRA “hampers” law enforcement by providing training to LEOs, advocating for strict enforcement of gun laws, and standing foursquare for the Bill of Rights.

    There is only “rampant urban gun violence” in cities run by Democratic party machines like Memphis, Chicago, LA, New York City, and so on.

    And it ain’t because guns are available.

    Mass murders are so “regular” that each one dominates the news for weeks.

  • Not related but in case you haven’t heard, dear friend

    (1) Sarah Jones, “Inside the Spectacular Implosion of Religion News Service: The country’s leading religious news wire hired a new publisher in 2016. Then it all fell apart”, The New Republic, April 27, 2018.

    (2) Stephanie Russell-Kraft, “As EIC of Religion News Service is ousted, staff fears loss of editorial control”, Columbia Journalism Review, April 27, 2018.

ADVERTISEMENTs