Search found 3 matches
Return to “Church shooting Charleston SC”
- by dale blanker
- Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:37 am
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Church shooting Charleston SC
- Replies: 200
- Views: 110252
baldeagle wrote:dale blanker wrote:baldeagle wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
Thoughtless and tacky? When did the truth become thoughtless and tacky? Another church in SC was attacked by a shotgun wielding cretin. The difference is, nobody was killed, because the church members, one of whom had a CHL and was armed, took him down when he entered the church.
There is absolutely no doubt that not all nine of those people would have died if even ONE of them had been armed. The cretin reloaded FIVE times. After the first shot, I'm plugging that guy right between the eyes.
Well, the pastor was effectively accused of neglect and therefore partially responsible for avoidable deaths. I suspect the families did not need to hear that from Charles so quickly. It could have waited, don't you think?
I won't try to justify the timing of Obama's gun control comments but I suspect the family was not has bothered by that nearly as much as hearing their pastor's neglect was a major factor in the disaster.
- by dale blanker
- Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:24 am
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Church shooting Charleston SC
- Replies: 200
- Views: 110252
K.Mooneyham wrote:EDITED TO CLARIFY WHO WAS BEING ADDRESSED
dale blanker wrote:baldeagle wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
dale blanker, you folks think you're rather amusing, don't you? Think you've won some major victory? Well, there is a thing called counting your chickens before they've hatched. You really shouldn't do such things, you might find yourself not so happy later.
I may have given the wrong impression but I was definitely not trying to be funny. And I was not disagreeing with what Charles said - certainly another gun or two might have saved the day - only the timing of his comment. I would say it myself maybe in a couple of weeks but still without naming the pastor as a possible contributing factor.
- by dale blanker
- Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:04 am
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Church shooting Charleston SC
- Replies: 200
- Views: 110252
baldeagle wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.