And while we're on the subject of repulsive -

[fpb]

- I never even bothered to read the article, but is this not the most mentally-challenged headline you've ever seen? http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DougGiles/2008/03/01/would_christ_carry_a_concealed_weapon

Comments

[filialucis]

I ventured into the first screenful of that article. The body of it is even more brain-dead than the headline. Ugh.

[cheyinka]

It's actually a question a real person supposedly asked the columnist. I'm not sure which is weirder: thinking "Would Christ carry a concealed weapon?!" is an appropriate counter-argument (he didn't enlist in the Roman armies, either, does that mean no one should enlist in their country's armed forces?) or writing an entire article saying that Jesus would personally have approved of carrying a concealed firearm if such had been invented at the time.

I have no problem with CCW or with someone using deadly force to defend themselves or those who are in danger, mind you, and I still think it's weird.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

It's funnier if you add "In his pants!"

[jamesenge.livejournal.com]

It's pretty bad. To many people in the US, "Christ" is just a brand name that they are loyal to, like "Coke" or "Pepsi." The idea that this particular logo goes with a set of personal and ethical responsibilities that might sometimes even override the sacred Political Talking Point (holiest of American icons)... Well, some people are able to wrap their heads around this. Others, obviously, not.

[bdunbar.livejournal.com]

I'm upset at the picture in the article. Dude - that is NOT a safe way to carry a firearm.