Ole Miss Rejects Gun Shop Sponsorship

[mikeb302000]

http://www.sunherald.com/2011/10/06/3491117/ole-miss-says-no-to-gun-shop-owner.html">The Sun Herald reports

University of Mississippi officials say they are protecting its brand by refusing to allow an Oxford gun shop owner to sponsor a university hockey club.

University attorney Lee Tyner told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal that no student organization is authorized to sell sponsorships that pair one of the university’s logos with that of a business.

In his whining and complaining, the rejected sponsor, Nathan Yow, owner of Mississippi Auto Arms Inc., pointed out that the University of Mississippi does have a relationship with a casino.

“When you go to an Ole Miss football game, every other slide that comes on the scoreboard is for Gold Strike Casino, so if you openly accept donations for casinos, how’s that any different from firearms?” he told the Daily Journal.

He raises a good point, a thought-provoking one. I suppose if I were in charge, there'd be no advertising from the casino either, but to consider the gambling business the same as the gun business is just silly.

This is one of the tactics of the pro-gun crowd, to keep trying to present guns as just another tool, to keep trying to present gun shops as no different than any other business. It's all lies.

This is what the open-carry movement is all about. They represent the most blatant attempt to mainstream guns and gun rights, and they're usually met with derision.

The really wacky gun advocates even say there is biblical justification for owning and carrying guns. But the fact is, far from carrying an AK-47 himself to support them, Jesus would call them http://www.yourdictionary.com/whited-sepulcher">whited sepulcers.

Gun shops are not like casinos or bakeries or car-repair shops, they are dealers in death. I realize they have legitimate customers who need guns and manage them responsibly, but along with them they also supply http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/straw-buyers-account-for-90.html">straw purchasers and http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/lawyer-nabbed-buying-illegal-guns.html">hidden criminals. They sell to mentally ill folks who wouldn't pass the most cursory psychological screening, if such a thing existed. They add to the problem; they are the problem.

What's your opinion? Is Ole Miss being discriminatory towards Nathan Yow or are they making the right move in disallowing this alliance?

Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[DrDan]

1. K&R

[Iktomiwicasa]

10. un-recced

[ileus]

2. I'm going to check out Auto Arm's website and place and order.

Hopefully they'll see a little boost from this media attention...Ole Miss really didn't have much to gain from the alliance IMHO but they did miss an opportunity to help promote the shooting sports and the second amendment.

I could use a few spare magazines for some of my safety devices, I just sold one of my 308's a few days ago so I have an extra 500 to plop down on new gunner goodies.

[iverglas]

14. how do you "promote" a constitutional amendment?

That's just weird.

Oh, and why would a university take it upon itself to "promote" the shooting sports ... let alone by offering a forum for one business to advertise itself?

[rl6214]

18. "how do you "promote" a constitutional amendment?"

Oh come on, you aren't that dense, you are just being difficult and arguementative.

[Francis Marion]

66. John Adams to Posterity:

"Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

Freedom certainly doesn't have to remain where she's not appreciated.

One promotes the Bill of Rights by exercising and affirming those rights. That's why universities should affirm freedom of speech, freedom of association, personal privacy.

Rights atrophy and disappear over time when their only considerations are neglect or contempt.

[rl6214]

17. "I just sold one of my 308's a few days ago"

OMG!!! You are one of those hidden criminals willing to sell your machines of death to anyone that gives you the money regardless of their mental status without any background checks. Did you do it at a gun show? I'll bet you did. You used the gun gunshow loophole. You are an illegal dealer.


























:sarcasm: Just in case I needed to put it.

[ileus]

20. Mike forgive me for I have sinned...

[mikeb302000]

22. for your penance

sell all your guns, donate to the brady campaing and say 5 Hail Marys

[ileus]

28. Well I am Catholic....

but I don't know about selling them and donating the proceeds...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Old Miss didn't Miss Anything

Since when is it Old Miss' responsibility to be promoting anything other than education?

[jmg257]

3. I agree - no more gun dealers. We should all buy directly from the manufacturers.

Wholesale prices, cut out the middle man, guns delivered right to your door.
Used firearms all bought and sold person to person, or over the 'net.


Who needs background checks and FFLs - every owner is a dealer!

[Hoyt]

4. Great post. I see a few posters are going to run out and buy a gun or a few accessories from poor,

persecuted gun shop owner who has probably sold many a gun to right wing Mississippi gun owners.

I'm proud of Ole Miss for standing up to such folks. BTW -- have they quit parading around with a confederate flag or two at games and other functions?

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Have you destroyed *your* guns yet? Better do it quick before some right-winger buys them:

[PavePusher]

5. So you hate Civil Rights....

and continue to demonize those who defend them by conflating the all to criminals.

Just another reason you got kicked out of DKos.

[iverglas]

15. can you tell me

what part of your post qualifies as something other than a personal attack?

I'm seeing

a lie ("you hate civil rights") ... a really stupid one at that

another lie ("and continue to demonize those who defend them by conflating the all to criminals") ... since it isn't even related to anything said in the post you "replied" to, let alone a truthful characterization of it

and just pure disruptive personal attack ("Just another reason you got kicked out of DKos") that could be true or false, I neither know nor care

[rl6214]

19. "Just another reason you got kicked out of DKos."

:rofl:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

7. Checkout their drum magazine pricing....thanks for the tip Mike.

http://www.mississippiautoarms.com/drums-c-709.html

http://www.mississippiautoarms.com/saigaconversionkits-c-238.html <<<saiga conversion kits priced pretty good also.

[petronius]

8. This isn't unusual, really, and I doubt it has much if anything to do with the nature of the shop

Universities are very protective of their logos, and rules preventing clubs and student organizations from using the logo in conjunction with a business name or for other commercial activities are typical. The athletic department itself, as a higher-level and altogether more lucrative entity, is subject to different rules, of course.

A few things I've seen universities do along the same lines: at my grad school, they sued a local gas station for using a tiger logo, with no other apparent university connection. Don't recall how it came out, but I noticed at the time that they didn't sue Exxon (?), which was advertising in the same market with a tiger logo. And at my current school, a club I know wasn't allowed to use the logo on its own water bottles or t-shirts without paying a licensing fee, although no businesses were involved...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. maybe because Exxon was already established with the tiger logo and

the university wanted to keep new businesses from using the tiger logo to keep down confusion and to promote brand recognition.
as for the club, I guess that was a legal thing and another way to generate monies for the university.

weird how your post generated a deleted sub-thread :shrug: how did that happen?

[petronius]

27. I was being a bit snarky about Exxon (although the school had a tiger

much earlier) since our suspicion/joke at the time was that the gas station would have been fine if it had kicked a few million dollars into the petroleum geology program, but I'm sure there was a consideration by the school lawyers about proximity and the individual recognizability of all parties. No one would confuse Exxon with a major university, but perhaps they concluded that someone could mistake a local one-off gas station for a school business - everyone I know thought that was ridiculous.

Something I notice around universities, and I'm sure every big organization has it, is a tendency toward policy creep and multiplication. Every administrator feels a need to be 'doing something,' and that something usually involves tweaking and adding rules to try and address every possible contingency. The typical result is that it becomes increasingly difficult to do anything at all, like put a symbol on a t-shirt. Every little piece makes sense in some way, but the sum of it all is quicksand...

(Don't know about the sub-thread, I never got to see it. Probably some passing dean or provost lashing out at perceived criticism of university authorities... ;))

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. Virginia Tech

A similar trademark situation was recently adjudicated at Virginia Tech. My guess is you won't be seeing them push the gun agenda anytime soon.

[petronius]

39. I'd be curious to see details, but my point was really that this decision isn't about guns,

but rather is just the administrative application of campus rules governing student clubs and what they're allowed to do with the university brand...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Real Estate

Involved a real estate company but I can't imagine the reaction to be more positive if it were a fun dealer.

[petronius]

48. Right, like I said: student clubs are sharply limited in how they use logos and

engage with commercial sponsors, no matter the type of club or business. I'm not sure why you'd expect the rules to be applied any differently for a gun shop...

(I like your typo by the way - it's spot-on accurate! :) )

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. I Don't

Not sure your point.

Mine is it doesn't help their image and for that Va Tech isn't about to ignore any more than Old Miss.

[petronius]

56. I've stated my point in each of my posts: the decision at Ole Miss is not a firearms issue at all,

but rather the application of a rule governing student clubs. It would apply the same to any business or any club (and, based on your example, VA Tech has a similar rule).

Image is certainly the controlling issue: universities are generally quite resistant to having their identifiers linked to any sort of commercial activity (although of course they love to say things like "Big Company X just gave $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ to program Y!" or "We have n graduates employed at Big Company Z!")...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. Ok

...fine. I'm delighted the gun lobby has no influence in Ole Miss.

[petronius]

64. You may be leaping to a conclusion; there's no indication that the gun lobby even tried

to exert any influence at Ole Miss. But yeah, I also doubt it has any pull there or at any university (unless it can deliver megabucks or highly-touted football recruits, which it can't)...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. LOL

...ok. They didn't even bother to try and this whole thread is completely irrelevant to guns ...according to to you ... the dozens of posts by gun advocates not withstanding..

[petronius]

70. The thread is about guns - tangentially - but the decision at Ole Miss wasn't

related to the type of business.

I'm not sure why that's funny to you... :shrug:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Right

...so why even bother posting if Ole Miss ' decision had nothing to do with guns.

[petronius]

75. Why not? It's a discussion board...

:shrug:

(And, some people find it interesting to talk about the event, what most likely happened, and why it's not a firearms issue in any meaningful sense.)

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Calling a gun store a "dealer of death" is like calling your grocery store a "dealer of salmonella".

The really wacky gun advocates even say there is biblical justification for owning and carrying guns. But the fact is, far from carrying an AK-47 himself to support them, Jesus would call them whited sepulcers.

I have no interest in delving into myths and superstition, thanks.

Gun shops are not like casinos or bakeries or car-repair shops, they are dealers in death. I realize they have legitimate customers who need guns and manage them responsibly, but along with them they also supply straw purchasers and hidden criminals. They sell to mentally ill folks who wouldn't pass the most cursory psychological screening, if such a thing existed. They add to the problem; they are the problem.

Calling a gun store a "dealer of death" is like calling your grocery store a "dealer of salmonella".

Just like the vast majority of food sold by your grocery store is perfectly safe, the vast majority of firearms sold by gun stores are never used in violent crime.

[mikeb302000]

23. comparing guns to food?

That's one of the wildest comparisons we've seen yet.

I admit "dealers in death" is strong, but it is accurate. That's what guns are for, am I wrong?

[rl6214]

24. "That's what guns are for, am I wrong?"

yes, you are wrong.

99.9% of my guns have never killed anything.

[ileus]

29. give a man a deer....

feed him for a day...give a man a gun, feed his family for a lifetime.

[ileus]

30. Some guns are for saving lives...

some are for feeding people, some are for target/competitions.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. Reading is fundamental, Mike. I'm not comparing guns to food.

comparing guns to food? That's one of the wildest comparisons we've seen yet.

Reading is fundamental, Mike. I did not compare guns to food. I compared the amount of death caused by gun stores to the amount of salmonella caused by grocery stores.

I said "Calling a gun store a "dealer of death" is like calling your grocery store a "dealer of salmonella"" .

I'm comparing the amount of death caused by guns sold in gun stores to the amount of salmonella released by grocery stores selling groceries.

In other words, it is wrong to call gun stores "dealers in death" since hardly any of the guns sold in gun stores result in deaths. Just like hardly any of the groceries sold in grocery stores spread salmonella.

I admit "dealers in death" is strong, but it is accurate.

No, it is horribly inaccurate, and a purposeful distortion of the truth. Most of the firearms sold every day, indeed most firearms in existence in this country are never used for violence, let alone causing death.

That's what guns are for, am I wrong?

Yes, that is what guns are for, but the fact is the vast majority of them are never used for that purpose.

[Remmah2]

50. You asked, you're WRONG.

nuff said.

[SteveM]

12. Prohibitionists LOVE psychological screening. Such a wanton way...

of inserting your prejudices into a "scientifiky"-sounding science. And the content of the insertion? Why one's already pre-loaded and deep-seated animosity; garbage in, garbage out.

The patent inauthentic argument presented:

"Gun shops are not like casinos or bakeries or car-repair shops, they are dealers in death. I realize they have legitimate customers who need guns and manage them responsibly, but along with them they also supply straw purchasers and hidden criminals."

Gotta get in that hateful gig, then cover yourself with a Saran-wrap veneer of reasonableness by citing "legitimate customers," but then grope in the dark for more "hidden criminals." Is that a fair summation?

What's your opinion?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. Tin Foil

My opinion?

What is 'hateful' about not wanting criminals to have guns, being against straw purchases and wanting only the sane to have guns?

Reasonableness is such an 'inauthentic argument' to many who wear tin tin foil hats while suggesting others are wrapped in Saran-wrap merely because they are rational.

[rl6214]

16. And how is this a RKBA issue?

Or is it just another opportunity to pimp out your blog with a couple more blind links to your blog?

"In his whining and complaining" How is this whining and complaining? It is because you are an anti-gun zealot and it fits your agenda. I could say that every one of your posts is "whining and complaining" about gun owners.

"but to consider the gambling business the same as the gun business is just silly."

Oh come on, you can't be that dense are you? He is simply saying each of them are businesses. It's really not that hard to see, even through your rose tinted glasses.

"keep trying to present gun shops as no different than any other business"

It is just another business. If you were from the evangelical right you would say the same thing about a casino. Those evil casinos shouldn't be allowed to be around. They aren't the same as my funiture store. Ban them.

"This is what the open-carry movement is all about"

OK, so now you've transitioned from advertisine to open-carry? WTF? Talk about moving the goal posts.


"Gun shops are not like casinos or bakeries or car-repair shops, they are dealers in death."

Again, WTF?

"I realize they have legitimate customers who need guns and manage them responsibly, but along with them they also supply straw purchasers and hidden criminals. They sell to mentally ill folks who wouldn't pass the most cursory psychological screening, if such a thing existed. They add to the problem; they are the problem."

So which of these things did you do to make you and illegal gun owner. Why are you a hidden criminal.

Edit to add: Unrec for the ususal reasons.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. Correct

This is not a 'RKBA' issue. The school is 100% right.

[spin]

26. You state, "The really wacky gun advocates even say there is biblical justification ...

for owning and carrying guns. But the fact is, far from carrying an AK-47 himself to support them, Jesus would call them whited sepulcers."

What exactly is a sepulcer? Is that an odd Italian way of spelling sepulcher? (Note: I refuse to click on your blind links.)

whited sepulcher

whit·ed sepulcher (hwtd, w-)
n.
An evil person who pretends to be holy or good; a hypocrite.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whited+sepulcher

What exactly did Jesus say about carrying weapons?

He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘No, not a thing.’ He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”: and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ (Luke 22:35-38, NRSV)

The sword was the handgun of its day and was a VERY effective and lethal weapon. In fact at close range and in skilled hands it is FAR more lethal than a handgun.

This interesting video demonstrates how lethal a sword is when compared to a .357 magnum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwS9bV5X488

Many religious people twist themselves in knots to explain away Jesus's statement that said that carrying weapons was OK. However, an incident that happened during the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane is interesting and very revealing.

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
John 18:10-11 (New International Version)

I find it revealing that Jesus did not tell Peter to stop carrying a weapon nor did he seem to be particularly upset that Peter had cut off the servant's ear. He merely pointed out that his arrest was part of his destiny.

There is no indication that Jesus himself carried a sword. Nor did he advocate that everybody should carry a sword. The bottom line is that he was not opposed to honest people carrying weapons.

Did Jesus feel as you suggest and because of the fact he carried a weapon consider Simon Peter to be a whited sepulcher, a person who pretends to be good or holy? It doesn't appear that he did from what he told Peter.

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18 (New International Version)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. Thanks for Making the Point

Jesus died because he didn't have a gun. Who knew?

[spin]

34. If you believe in Jesus, he died on a cross because it was his destiny...

If you believe that he was a legend, the same thing applies.

In either case, he was not the typical superhero.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. Correct

He didn't need or use weapons of any type.

[spin]

40. Christians will tell you to wait until he comes back ...

Read the Book of Revelations (the last book in the Bible) and study the battle of Armageddon.

Jesus assumes the role of a superhero in this book. He simply and totally wipes out all opposition.

The Great Battle

This horrific Battle of Armageddon is described in Revelation 19:11-20:3 and Ezekiel 38:17-39:29. It is graphic, brutal, and ends with utter bloody destruction of the forces of evil. The evil ones will assemble in battle formation, tensely waiting to engage their enemy (Revelation 19:19).

The battle will start with Christ descending from heaven with the armies of heaven, which are evidently angels, and others Guns are fired, missiles launched, fighter planes dispatched, artillery belches fire and lead, and the two sides will engage with deafening ferocity.

***snip***

Then Jesus opens up His salvos, “And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations; and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, ‘KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS’” (Revelation 19:15, 16).

The Battle of Armageddon is quickly over. The cries of the dying and the stench of the dead fill the air. The birds will be called to eat of the flesh of dead bodies. In fact, it will take over seven months to bury the dead (Ezekiel 38:12). The devastation of evil will be utter and complete.
http://www.bible-teaching-about.com/armageddon.html

It is entirely your choice on if you want to believe the book in of Revelations or not, but irregardless in the book Christ drops his image as a super nice guy. He is indeed a superhero and even surpasses all other superheros such as Superman in our modern society. In fact, he is the ultimate Superhero, bar none, in this tale.

Superhero

A superhero is a type of stock character, dedicated to protecting the public. Since the debut of the prototypical superhero Superman in 1938, stories of superheroes — ranging from brief episodic adventures to continuing years-long sagas — have dominated comic books and crossed over into other media. The word itself dates to at least 1917.<1> A female superhero is sometimes called a superheroine. "Super heroes" is a trademark co-owned by DC Comics and Marvel Comics.<2>

In the traditional paradigm, superheroes utilize their abilities to combat criminal actions and to supplement the endeavors of law enforcement by circumventing legal restrictions on police entities to achieve success. In addition to this fundamental purpose, a superhero is also prone to combating characters representing their polar opposites known as supervillains, which are usually characters possessing similar powers and abilities who utilize them for nefarious or malicious purposes. Traditionally, a superhero will regularly engage in physical and strategic combat with a collection of recurring idiosyncratic and iconic villains often known as a rogues gallery in attempting to thwart a number of schemes; it is also common for one of these characters to serve as a primary antagonist for a superhero as an archenemy, with the others serving as secondary nemeses. Additionally, superheroes sometimes will combat such threats as aliens and supernatural or mythological entities.

Superheroes remain a staple of most illustrated serial fiction in Western culture, and frequently draw both acclaim and controversy for both their perceived and demonstrable influence on social and political issues that are usually addressed in the works depicting them. In the twentieth century, superheroes and comic books were occasionally attacked as proponents of subversive political and social ideologies; on other occasions, they served to support and idealize the dominant values of the national culture. They have, historically, also been utilized as commentary on controversial subjects afflicting national matters political, social, sexual, and philosophical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhero

edited for typo.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Christians?

I love it when one Christian presumes to speak for all Christians.

As I said, Christ never used weapons of any type.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. As I love reading the self appointed inquisitors/zampolits who seek to vet other DUers...

...ideological purity. You can almost hear them grinding their teeth while they post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Guns

Want to discuss guns?

[spin]

55. Sure. That's why I post in the Gungeon ...

Guns are merely modern weapons and weapons have existed since the first caveman discovered how effective a club was for either attacking another caveman or for defense from an attack. Since our species is basically predatory, weapons have throughout our history have also been very useful for hunting.

Without weapons we would have probably been extinct or still living in trees. Without weapons we would not be the dominate species on this planet.

Weapons have both drawbacks and advantages. The development of weapons has fueled our advancement but in the end it might also insure our extinction.

We needed our innate aggressive nature and our love of weapons to achieve to reach our current level but we will need to find a way to overcome our basic nature in order to journey to the stars. This is the final test and chances are we will fail.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. May I Suggest You Start by Fighting that Nature Urge

...we do not have a constitutional right to be.....predatory.

[PavePusher]

60. Evolution doesn't care about the Constitution.

P.S. Tell it to the cow or the carrot.

[spin]

68. Why do you consider me to be a predator ...

because I support my right to use lethal force to defend myself or someone else from an attacker who intends to inflict serious injury or to kill?

I have absolutely no intention of ever harming another individual in any way unless it is absolutely necessary. I also hope and pray that I will never find myself in a situation where I will have to make that choice.

Actually I basically agree with your statement with the exception that I have no problem with those who hunt for food to put on their table in order to feed their family. I live in a very poor county in Florida and many people that I know hunt in order to provide affordable meat for their family. I personally have never hunted but I have enjoyed venison and wild hog when I have had the opportunity. In my opinion, it tastes better than the meat I buy at the grocery store when prepared properly.

I am not nor do I intend to become a vegetarian although I have no problem with those who chose that life style. In fact, with the cost of meat I might consider talking up hunting in the future. Unfortunately I have a bad back and I am a candidate for a hip replacement. If I failed to humanely kill a deer or a wild hog, I could find it difficult to track and dispatch the animal. Therefore at this time, I will avoid hunting.

Employing legitimate self defense is not a predatory activity. In fact it is precisely the opposite.

edited for typo

[spin]

44. Most Christians would not consider me as one of the flock ...

I do enjoy studying religion and I am in the process of developing my own views on the subject. It is a fascinating subject, however most people who consider themselves to be Christian have never read or studied the Bible. I have to admit that I was amazed when I walked into a church the last time and I was not struck dead by lightning or at least didn't hear thunder.

The early days of Christianity are very interesting and were filled with different views. The problem is that little factual evidence exists on those times and over the ages Christianity has evolved into the religion it is today.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject and even if I was, many Christians would disagree with my current viewpoints. The book of Revelations is controversial at the least but many Christians accept it as truth. As I have stated, if you believe in it, Christ does not come across as a pacifist.

Is a whip a weapon? Jesus used one according to the Bible.

International Standard Version (©2008)
After making a whip out of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, including the sheep and the cattle. He scattered the coins of the moneychangers and knocked over their tables.
John 2:15

Having seen a whip in action, it is my opinion that I would have fled from someone welding one.

edited for HTML error and because I hit post before I was through editing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. Speak for Yourself

Christ never used a weapon.

Disappointed?

[Remmah2]

47. He did speak for himself.

Kind of hard for anyone here to speak about first hand knowledge of Christ.

[spin]

51. Very true. Any opinions that I express are merely my own ...

I don't claim to be an expert and while I am always willing to consider other viewpoints, I would need a time machine to discover the truth.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Weapon

What weapon did Christ use against another?

You ask is a whip a weapon.

Who did Christ strike with a whip?

[spin]

58. Why then was he able to chase the money changers from the Temple ...

if he posed no threat?

In this episode, Jesus is stated to have visited the Temple in Jerusalem, Herod's Temple, at which the courtyard is described as being filled with livestock and the tables of the money changers, who changed the standard Greek and Roman money for Jewish and Tyrian money<1> Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.<5><6>...emphasis added

Creating a whip from some cords, “he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. But he said to those who sold doves, ‘Get these out of here! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!’
]”
“ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

Obviously there were a large number of people who decided to flee. Jesus must have impressed them as being very threatening.

Did he actually whip a person? The Bible doesn't say. In my opinion, if these people had no reason to fear a nut case armed with a whip, they would have simply laughed at him. He must have been extremely impressive. Also note that he also drove cattle and sheep our of the temple. If this story is based on fact, he was very aggressive. In fact, I would think that the people in the temple as well as the animals viewed him as a serious threat.

An unarmed pacifist would have a hard time achieving this result. If you accept this story, he impressed the people in the temple and the animals as one serious bad ass.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Seriously

He swept the trash out of the temple and you call THAT a weapon. Gosh...ok. LOL.

[spin]

69. Did he use a broom to sweep the trash out? ...

I must have missed that part.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Ok...you missed that part

...fair enough. The money changers defiled the temple and Christ cleansed it.

[spin]

76. That's the most interesting revision of the Bible that I have seen recently ...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

77. Good for You

... now show me the one with Christ packing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. Let me guess

....you were in the crowd throwing a rock at the prostitute justifying your actions with the moral superiority of man's predatory nature. Christ had a few words for you...didn't he.

[spin]

71. If the prostitute was not attacking anyone with the intention ...

of seriously injuring or killing the individual, I would not have been involved.

Nor would I throw a switch to electrocute another person or administer the drugs to kill him as I do not agree with the death penalty.

Your accusation is foolish and irrelevant.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Christ was a man of peace

...you visualize him with a gun.

That is not my Christ and I do my best to live as he would.

[spin]

78. Where did I say that I visualize Christ with a gun? ...

Even in the Book of Revelations being armed with a gun would have done little good against the assembled armies of the world.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. A World without Guns

...sounds good to me.

[spin]

83. Unfortunately we have far more powerful weapons (n/t)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. ....nah

....only to those who give them power.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. And when they did just THAT to Christ

....what did he say?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. Isn't the Point

...is you should have been involved in protecting and defending her not with stones but with your life as Christ did.

[spin]

84. Unfortunately I was not there...

That was well before my time.

[spin]

49. I am not disappointed in the least ...

The Bible is open to many interpretations and contains numerous contradictions. In reality most people who read it will its message differently. That's what makes it so fascinating to read and study.

Currently I sum up the message of the Old Testament by this example given in the Talmud...

The Talmud in tractate Shabbos 31a relates the following well-known story of Hillel:

"On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot."<1> Thereupon he chased him away with the builder's cubit that was in his hand.<2> When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."<3>
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/ahavas-yisroel/08.htm

And I sum up the message of the New Testament in this statement ...

Luke 6:31

New International Version (NIV)

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

You might notice that neither statement forbids the use of force to prevent discouraging an attack by an individual who intends to seriously harm or kill you or another person with a weapon. Nor does it encourage it. It is simply your choice.

You can choose to interpret the Bible in any manner you chose or you can simply ignore it. You may be right and I could be wrong. Perhaps we could both be right. Perhaps whatever we decide is totally irrelevant.

Making that judgment is well beyond my pay grade.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. Christians will Tell You?

Your words. Not mine.

[Francis Marion]

61. Non lethal weapon, but a weapon still...

Jesus attacked temple money changers by means of a knotted cord.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

65. ...or a Broom

....tell me what Christ said when stones starting flying.

[gejohnston]

85. slight difference

the stones were about hypocrisy
the whip on the money changers were about greed and religion as a business

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. Such a Distinction

...

[S_B_Jackson]

82. One could reasonably argue that legalized, casino gambling

has had much worse impact on American families than has the gun industry. You trite dismissal of "that's just silly" is, well.....just silly.

[gejohnston]

86. funny you should mention that,

I have heard that very same thing about gambling, including state lotteries, on both American Family Radio (religious right) and Pacifica (which is as far left as it gets in the US.)
with the same argument.