Search found 2 matches
Return to “Church shooting Charleston SC”
- Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:11 am
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Church shooting Charleston SC
- Replies: 200
- Views: 110767
Re: Church shooting Charleston SC
In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?
- Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:36 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Church shooting Charleston SC
- Replies: 200
- Views: 110767
Re: Church shooting Charleston SC
Charles' comment was no more ill timed than the leftist anit-gun zealots who can't even wait for the bodies to grow cold before using them as the platform for their own personal agendas. The difference is that Charles was speaking the truth - had someone in that bible class been legally armed, there would have been a different outcome. Pastor/State Senator Pinckney was in the position to not only provide the public with the legal means to defend themselves, he had the final say in that regard within his own church (as I understand SC handgun and self-defense laws). Now, the sorry excuse for what passes as media took the twisted interpretation of what Charles said and has continued to run with it. But that doesn't change two main facts in all of this. The killer is 100% responsible for the deaths of 9 innocent people. And Pastor/State Senator Pinckney's actions (or lack thereof) did have negative consequences.dale blanker wrote:What is really unfortunate about the quote is the timing of it - not what the grieving pastor's family and other victims' families needed to hear now. I don't think the comment was malicious but maybe thoughtless and tacky. Charles must have thought this and hence the removal.baldeagle wrote:Only Charles can answer your question, but I can tell you this. In the current climate in America, you don't have to say anything wrong to be assaulted on the internet. All you have to do is say something that people disagree with. What Charles said was that the Pastor opposed carry in churches, which is a fact, and some of the dead could be alive if carry had been allowed in the church, which is also a fact.EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:
If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?
Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.
What is not a fact is that Charles blamed the victims for their deaths. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. It's not surprising. It happens on both sides of the political aisle by people who don't care about truth but only care about promoting their own agendas.