Category: Crap For Brains

Rapid Fire Republic
the one thing we must admit is impressive is the social conditioning they’ve been indoctrinated with. They’ve gone from being people to being remote control husks with a series of pre-programmed emotional responses set on a myriad of hair triggers. Effectively turning them into an emotionally unstable hive-mind that can be activated like a drone army. Their rationality, critical thinking, consideration, logic, and even humanity have been replaced with auto-responses of extremist anger and condemnation for anything that dares poke their bubble.

I can’t say whether or not this Miguel De La Torre is a Christian or not, as that is the purview of God. But, I can say that he’s stuck in the dark ages where the superstition that a thing, an inanimate object has moral agency and somehow has the power to exert influence over a human mind and is what we actually reject.  This mental malady supposedly died out during the renaissance, but apparently has lingered on in the minds of the ignorant or those with a covert political agenda.

Christian Website Writer Claims Guns Cause Sin of Shooting People

Guns don’t cause crime.

I think if most people are being honest, they’ll acknowledge this fact. It might not change their views on gun control, granted, as they’ll likely rationalize it as being really about disarming the criminals or something of that sort, but they’ll acknowledge that guns aren’t causing anything. They’ll just say it’s making the issue worse.

Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is probably someone who should reside in a padded room because it sounds like inanimate objects are talking to them or something.

Normally, though, I tend to not get that worked up by anyone making the claim that guns are the problem no matter how they frame it. I disagree and will often write about my disagreement, but it’s hard to be outraged at something you actively seek out every day.

I tell you that so you understand that when I say that this made me livid, you’ll understand how rare that is.

I won’t repeat the statistics showing that the number of mass shootings in the U.S. in one year exceeds the total of all countries combined for multiple years. Facts make no difference when combating the Second Amendment ideology.

We choose not to change because we confuse our savagery with civilization. We choose not to change because we reject Christianity and other love-based faith traditions.

A foundational principle of Christianity is to put the needs of others before the self. In the first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul writes, “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (8:13, NIV).

The right to consume this gun culture is not only causing others to sin by killing the innocent but advancing the opposing message to life found in the gospel–death.

We reject Christianity and other “love-based faith traditions,” do we?

Well…let me just say that there are certain words I’m not allowed to use on this site. They’re the same words you can’t use on network TV, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Right about now, I want to use all of them.

I reject Christianity because I won’t give up my guns?

Then explain Luke 22:36:

Then He said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money belt is to take it along, and also his provision bag, and he who has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one”

That was Christ telling the Disciples to arm themselves.

I’ll admit not everyone shares my understanding of this passage, but that doesn’t negate its existence.

Further, let’s talk about his comments on Paul, followed by his claim, “The right to consume this gun culture is not only causing others to sin by killing the innocent,,,” for a moment.

Now, Paul is talking about a specific situation that, in my understanding, is hypothetical. If something I do causes others to sin, I should stop doing that thing. Yet the author claims guns are causing people to kill folks.

That’s ridiculous.

Guns are a tool, but the actions are still the willful acts of people. Guns cause nothing on their own because they’re incapable of causing anything on their own. All they could potentially cause is displacing air. As such, this claim that guns are sinful because they cause people to sin is asinine.

I don’t pretend to be the best Christian out there, but I’m genuinely troubled by the onslaught of anti-gun Christians running around trying to pretend they’re the true believers, ignoring anything to the contrary, and now seemingly claim that guns, by their very existence, make people kill.

They’re guns, not cursed objects capable of exerting a will all their own on the possessor.

Meanwhile, people like the writer are those who seek to pervert God’s word to fulfill their own earthly agenda. Talk about sinful.

So what else is new?

Harris Might Own A Gun, But She Doesn’t Represent Gun Owners

Vice President Kamala Harris shocked a lot of people when she said she owned a gun during the debate last week.

Well, in the most technical sense, sure.

However, that doesn’t absolve her from her many anti-gun sins, so to speak.

ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis referenced the vice president’s flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, which amount to confiscation, during one question that was more about changing policy positions generally than it was about the Second Amendment specifically.

Near the end of the debate, Davis asked, “You wanted mandatory buybacks for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t,” Davis said before asking Harris why so many of her policy positions had changed, according to The Reload.

Vice President Harris didn’t address the question and was only forced to respond later to a criticism by former President Donald Trump warning voters that if elected, the vice president would have “a plan to confiscate everyone’s gun.” She jumped in with a comment that caught viewers’ attention.

“And then this business about taking everyone’s guns away, Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Vice President Harris stated. “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”

The vice president’s remark about being a gun owner drew attention. She practically never mentions being a gun owner in all her calls for more gun control and the only reference before is a glancing mention in a 2019 CNN interview. Not surprisingly, Second Amendment supporters were skeptical of her statement.

“So now Harris owns a gun? Ha, I’d love to know what kind/caliber and how often she trains with it,” competitive shooter, GunsOut TV founder and CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton posted on X.

Now, the truth is that there were previous reports of Harris owning a gun. As a former prosecutor in a city like San Francisco, it’s not overly surprising that she’d have a gun. A lot of prosecutors do, and for what should be pretty obvious reasons. It’s not like there isn’t some potential of such people to be targets, after all.

But there are gun owners and gun owners.

See, no nation has a complete and total gun ban. There’s always a way for some people to have a firearm and Kamala Harris is one of those people who will be able to get a gun no matter what the laws are.

What she’s advocating for are laws that will inhibit regular people, the actual gun owners, from having them. Both she and her running mate might own guns, but they’d gladly see us relegated to revolvers and pump-action shotguns for protecting our family while the criminals are running around with semi-autos and those converted to full-auto.

As for her response to Trump, she might not be taking everyone’s guns, but she most definitely wants to take some of them from us. I don’t care what she says, I’m not buying that suddenly she figures a mandatory buyback is a bad idea. At best, she knows it’s never going to happen so she won’t push for it anymore. It’ll come back the moment she thinks she can get away with it and we all know it.

I think the best way to view it is that Kamala Harris isn’t really a gun owner so much as someone who owns a gun.

The latter group figure they’re the exception, that they can be trusted with one but aren’t so sure about everyone else, so they should be restricted. The former recognizes that in order to protect their right to keep and bear arms, everyone else’s needs to be protected as well.

There’s no world I can imagine where anyone remotely like the Kamala Harris we’ve all seen would fall into that camp.

Federal Judge Upholds Gun Ban: What This Means for the 2nd Amendment

In a recent case out of Hawaii, a U.S. District Court has upheld a federal gun ban, denying a motion to dismiss the indictment of Christopher Chan, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. Judge Derek Watson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment. While the court’s decision isn’t surprising, given the political landscape in Hawaii, it raises critical issues about how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.

The Case: U.S. v. Christopher Chan

The case stems from an incident where Christopher Chan was found in possession of a short-barreled rifle and a machine gun. These are firearms that, under the National Firearms Act (NFA), must be registered, and in this case, they weren’t. Chan’s legal team argued that the charges violated his Second Amendment rights, asserting that these firearms are “arms” protected by the Constitution. They also challenged the Commerce Clause, arguing that Congress didn’t have the authority to regulate the possession of these firearms.

However, Judge Watson’s decision struck down both arguments, claiming that neither the short-barreled rifle nor the machine gun falls within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. This ruling is significant because it highlights the ongoing tension between federal gun laws and the constitutional right to bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Tim Walz promises that Harris will continue to radicalize and politicize the military by making sure there are more and more transgender military members and that your tax dollars pay for their surgeries.

The number of transgender soldiers in the military has doubled since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris started their term.

This administration has spent $26 million of your dollars paying for s*x change surgeries and procedures such as gender-affirming voice training and facial reconstruction.

Here’s How We Really Know Kamala’s CNN Interview Wasn’t Good for Her

There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris’s first interview since she took Joe Biden’s place at the top of the ticket was underwhelming at best — or a train wreck at worst — for her. I thought it was really bad. Kamala got a lot of softball questions that she couldn’t answer, and Tim Walz didn’t help much either.

But how do we know that the interview was a bust for Kamala? Let me explain.

As you know, Kamala has been under significant pressure to stop hiding behind scripted campaign events and speak to the media in interviews and press conferences. When her interview with CNN was announced, there was little reason to believe that it would satisfy her critics — between choosing a friendly network with an anchor who was gonna give her the softest of softball questions, the deck was going to be stacked in Kamala’s favor to come out looking pretty good after the interview.

She didn’t, and that’s not because I said so. Kamala’s performance Thursday evening didn’t exactly floor CNN pundits.

Former Obama advisor David Axelrod said he thought Kamala did well, but “It wasn’t a huge — I don’t think she moved the ball that much forward.”

Ashley Allison, a former Obama White House staffer, similarly tried to paint the interview in a positive light, by falsely claiming that Kamala “answered every question” but added, “Now, you might not like the way she answered them. But she answered them as a capable, qualified leader. And I do think she — I think she moved the ball forward a little bit. Maybe she didn’t score a touchdown, tonight. But she definitely moved down the field.”

One goal that Kamala wants to achieve in the campaign is putting distance between her and the Biden-Harris administration. CNN political analyst Astead Herndon clearly doesn’t think she succeeded.

“I don’t think there’s a policy separation that they’ve created with Biden. Obviously, she gave a kind of personal defense of him. But they’re also very clearly trying to position her as a change candidate,” he said.

Another devastating blow for Kamala is that even CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale admitted that she was being dishonest about her flip-flopping on fracking.

Remember, this is CNN. This network wants Harris to win, yet its attempts to put lipstick on the pig that was this so-called “interview” let enough truth come through to make it clear that nobody really thought she did that great of a job.