RandyPA2 asked:


Make no mistake. Jeanne Assam is a heroine for stopping a gunman from taking more innocent lives at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Sadly, before being gunned down and wounded by Ms. Assam, the gunman shot and killed two sisters and wounded their father and two other church members. This happened more than 12 hours after the gunman shot four staff members (two were killed while the other two were wounded) of the Youth With A Mission [YWAM] group at its missionary training center in Arvada, Colorado.

According to The Denver Channel web site, Pastor Brady Boyd of the New Life Church said that Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The rest of this story can be read here:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

Keep in mind that a church security team for New Life and emergency plans created by this team were put in place long before the tragic December 9, 2007 shootings in Arvada and New Life occurred. What strikes me here is

1.) Jeanne Assam’s suggestion of beefing up security for the New Life Church after learning about the Arvada shooting.
And:
2.) Pastor Brady Boyd agreeing with Ms. Assam’s suggestion.

At least one person, who goes by the name Chuck, said that They would have been luckier had they cancelled the service altogether. Very likely Chuck was thinking that by cancelling the Sunday services, the two sisters who died would still be alive today. Chuck’s entire comment can be seen at this web site:

http://www.denverpost.com/olympics/ci_7684728

or Google his above quote to find links to web sites that include Chuck’s quote.

Cancelling church services–with this in mind, I must ask (and I don’t mean to sound harsh):

A.) Do you blame Jeanne Assam for her suggestion to beef up church security after the shooting in Arvada?

B.) Do you blame Brady Boyd for agreeing with Ms. Assam?

If either one or both are to be blamed, explain why and what you would’ve done if you were in their places after learning of the Arvada shooting. Thanks.

And may God grant eternal happiness to those four who died on that sad Sunday of December 9, 2007 and may God continue to help and give comfort to the families, relatives, and friends of the dead and wounded.

PETTWAY

RandyPA2 asked:


This question is really about owning a gun for protecting yourself and others around you. So whether you’re for or against guns, for or against the Second Amendment of the Bill Of Rights (part of the U.S. Constitution of course), a gun rights or gun control advocate, feel free to answer the question provided and explain your answer. Also, additional advice, feedback, and more or different answers are welcome.

Now to further explain my question, since the tragedies:

1.) at Virginia Tech (April 16, 2007)

2.) at the post-homecoming party in Crandon, Wisconsin (October 7, 2007)

3.) at the Westroads shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska (December 5, 2007)

4.) in Colorado (at the Youth With A Mission [YWAM] training center in Arvada and the New Life mega-church in Colorado Springs) (December 9, 2007)

5.) at the Lane Bryant clothing outlet in the Brookside Marketplace in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park, Illinois (February 2, 2008)

6.) at Northern Illinois University (NIU) (February 14, 2008)

I’ve been seriously thinking about exercising my God-given right to defend myself and others from harm (a right reaffirmed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill Of Rights). That is, purchasing a handgun for this purpose. I could be wrong, but the state that I live in (Maryland) has a lot of challenges when it comes to gun ownership. I’m a Roman Catholic Christian by the way (hence my reference to the 2nd Amendment as God-given). Based on passages from both the Old and New Testaments that pertain to defending oneself and others from harm (the ones that I’ve seen online), I found that there is nothing wrong with defending yourself and those around you if your life and their lives are threatened. One particular passage is the part where Jesus commands Peter, in verse 26:52 of the Book Of Matthew, to Put thy sword back in its place. For he who lives by the sword will perish by the sword. Some people say that Peter using his sword to defend Jesus from being arrested was inappropriate because Peter would’ve prevented Jesus’ mission to redeem us sinners from taking place (Jesus being lead to his crucifixion, dying on the cross, and resurrecting from death), hence, Peter being told to put his sword away. So now my question is when Jesus commanded Peter to put his sword back in its place (its sheath), did Jesus:

A.) really mean it (as in ‘This is not the time to use your sword. There will be other times on when it’s OK to use it)?

or

B.) really mean get rid of the sword forever (as in throwing it away or destroying it)?

Please explain why you pick A or B as your answer. And based on them, I can determine for myself whether I can proceed on exercising my aforementioned right (this includes knowing the gun laws, taking the training courses, learning how to handle the gun, learning to shoot well with it, knowing when to shoot and when not to, getting the permit, etc. while keeping in mind how this process costs a lot of money) or abandon it completely. If I got some details wrong in the above paragraph, by all means, let me know and correct me on them. And again, additional advice, feedback, and more or different answers are welcome. Thanks.

GOOKIN