Helmke is still trying to explain Heller away

[pointedstick]

"You can't have pornography" ??

Freudian slip! Paul Helmke is the kind of guy who wants to criminalize anything he doesn't like. Interesting that he'd throw people in prison for yet another victimless act.

[SickofSoCal]

Helmke says cynically -


How can any rational person sit there and listen to this trash and think that the hijackers wouldn't have been stopped if AT LEAST one person was carrying to stop the threat of a man with box cutter on those planes?? What a D-bag.


Helmke says -


Here we go again more hypocrisy picking an choosing what SCOTUS AND the Bible say about self-defense while at the same time saying the "repubs" are guilty of.
First, we "worship" our right and protection to life by self-defense and Firearms (just like the sword) are the tool to fundamentally allow that. Not everyone follows the Bible Paul and the Bible certainly is NOT a book of rights for the people of this country. But for those who may do follow the Bible, self-defense is NOT a sin. The only worshiping here is your worship to blame the inanimate object...the gun...(the sin punishes MAN, not the sword you dolt) and even self-defense is wrong to you if it's against a criminal that's trying to KILL YOU. His message here quoting the 5th commandment is really saying - "thou shalt not kill ANYONE... and that includes the criminal trying to kill you or your family" which is totally contrary to what the rest of Bible says about murder vs. self-defense. http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

What I also get from this portion of Helmke's "speech" (dribble) on trying to bring a small portion of the Bible into it,
is that aside from the Law-abiding, not even LEO or Military shall not kill off evil either. He's really the sickest one of them all here.



Here, Helmeke blatantly admits that self-defense of ones person's well being to life, and liberty is "a sick way of life".
NO Paul, allowing criminals to run rampant, killing, raping and destroying people while preaching that the rest of law-abiding society is to be left defenseless to preserve their own life from evil is what's sick.

Helmke says - (pointing to everyone)


Helmke resides in the land of Toontown hypocrites.
Helmke, YOU and your cronies don't trust ANYONE who owns a firearm who chooses to carry in preparedness for danger to self life. You might as well say don't wear seat belts or buy insurance (firearms are a fundamental insurance) because we MUST trust every driver around us... so there is no need to wear them or buy insurance because not trusting anyone and everyone is "sick". You really have taken too many spins on dumbo haven't you?

Der Helmke says -


That's an outright LIE.

I can go on, but he's pretty much summed it up how much of a lunatic he really is and continues to be.

Good summery.


80 million American gun owners didn't kill anyone yesterday.

[pointedstick]

He talks about how paranoid we are not to trust everybody… there's such an easy counter to that:

"Mr. Helmke, are you saying that you trust everyone? Would you be willing to walk alone through dark alleys or make deliveries to bad parts of town? Hmm?"

[wildhawker]

Wait, what?

[locosway]

What bothers me is the anti's always say "NRA, blah blah blah", "blah NRA blah"... It's always about the NRA... I just recently became a NRA member, and I rarely read their publications. I guess the NRA is the scapegoat for the Brady Bunch?

[ZombieTactics]

... I think he fails to point out (and I think most religious folks here will agree, even though I am not) that "though shalt not kill" really means "though shalt not murder". It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. ...

As a serious student of the Bible, I'll offer that I think you are 100% correct. There are also many passages which support or command a duty to self-defense, even to the point of killing.

[locosway]

As a serious student of the Bible, I'll offer that I think you are 100% correct. There are also many passages which support or command a duty to self-defense, even to the point of killing.

It also depends on if you're reading from the OT or NT and if you're using the OT to understand the NT. Many newer groups only follow the NT and leave out everything in the OT, and when they do this they get the "turn the other cheek".

[Shiboleth]

Everytime i hear one of these people complaining about how paranoid gun owners are for wanting to protect themselves from crime, it makes me wonder what they're complaining about then. You can't claim on one hand that society is so completely safe that no one will be a victim of violence, while on the other hand spouting out of context statistics to show how many people are shot each year. If gun violence is such an epidemic that widespread restrictions are necessary, then clearly society is dangerous enough to warrant need for self-protection.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

FACK!!! lol

Actually, its spelled "FRAK."

So say we all.


The Raisuli

[FastFinger]

He can talk all he wants, but the facts are the facts.

[Sgt Raven]

Another funny thing about Paul is that for all of his indictments of the NRA he never EVER brings up 2AF or any of the other groups that are really taking him to the mat.

He sure likes to attack Wayne Lapierre but I don't think he can even mouth the words "Alan Gura". It's almost like he's afraid or something...

Maybe Paulie is afraid to say Alan Gura's name 3 times because he thinks he'll appear, like saying Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.

[Apocalypsenerd]

I believe I am a gundamentalist. Beautiful.

[Sgt Raven]

It also depends on if you're reading from the OT or NT and if you're using the OT to understand the NT. Many newer groups only follow the NT and leave out everything in the OT, and when they do this they get the "turn the other cheek".

Then they also get "sell your coat and buy a sword".

[N6ATF]

Actually, its spelled "FRAK."

So say we all.


The Raisuli

"frack" is how it appears in the Writer's Guide, dated October, 2, 1978.

[1JimMarch]

He's got his theology just as hosed as his gunology.

OK, I'm currently agnostic but was raised Jehovah's Witness...I'd put my bible knowlege up against most folks .

In the Old Testiment there's a complete recipe for running a government. The whole concept of "gun control" (weapons control, actually) is completely missing. It's not there for kids, not there for visitors from abroad. Laws for alien visitors are present and discussed.

You can find both positive and negative examples of weapons use. Wrongful use of weapons is either criticized or if it's part of a story or fable, the persons misusing weapons "get theirs" in one fashion or another. Even then, you don't ever find anything like "what the hell were they doing with a sword/axe/bow/etc. in the first place?".

In general, numerous "godly people" are shown owning or packing weapons, including the David v. Goliath story involving a kid only 12 years old.

New Testament:

One of Jesus' followers tried to defend him when the Romans came for him near the end. Lopped said soldier's ear off. Jesus stuck it back on and said that defense in this situation wasn't the thing to do, but he still didn't criticize the possession of the sword.

Paul's letters to the various congregations after Jesus' death don't show any preaching of "hardcore pacifism" of the sort Helmke is trying to push.

The closest you'll find to an "anti-weapons" statement is "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" but that's hardly a condemnation of personal defense.

Look, there ARE religions out there that are truly pacifistic. In such cases they make a huge deal out of it, because it's contrary to basic human nature. If pacifism was built into either the Old Testiment or New Testiment, it would be emphasized. It's absolutely not, unless you're somebody like Helmke who is a pacifist for personal reasons and tried really, really hard to find it!