Tennessee Church Shooting Suspect Left Facebook Clues to Possible Rage Triggers

By David Codrea

Church Shooter : Emanuel K. Samson/Facebook
Church Shooter : Emanuel K. Samson/Facebook. For a supposed Christian, “Beast Mode” holds a significance beyond a murderous rampage.
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Everything you've ever doubted or made to be believe as false, is real. & vice versa,” Facebook posts published Sunday by the suspect arrested for a Tennessee church shooting declared. “Become the creator instead of what's created. Whatever you say, goes. You are more than what they told us.”

Sudanese immigrant Emanuel K. Samson, 25, allegedly shot and killed one woman outside the church and then went inside, opening fire on the congregation and injuring eight others, including himself. Samson, reportedly wearing a mask, was stopped in his rampage when, per WKRN News 2 Nashville, church usher and concealed carry permit holder Robert Engle, 22, retrieved his firearm from his car and held the attacker until authorities arrived, an act described by police as “extraordinarily brave.”

“A motive wasn’t immediately known,” the report noted. A statement from the U.S. Department of Justice advised:

“The Memphis FBI Field Office’s Nashville Resident Agency, the Civil Rights Division, and the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee have opened a civil rights investigation into the shooting at the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch, Tennessee. The FBI will collect all available facts and evidence. As this is an ongoing investigation we are not able to comment further at this time.”

Pending release of further information from that investigation and further reports where interviews with family and friends can reveal more, that motive is subject to speculation based on what can be learned from other resources uncovering who Samson is.  One such resource is “real-time news and information portal” Heavy.com, which has posted “Emanuel Samson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.” Included in that report are further background details and a video interview with a police spokesman and the fact that he is “Trilingual in the following languages: English, Arabic, and Acholi (tribal language).”

Checking social media, Samson had a Twitter account, which now indicates “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!” Samson’s Facebook page has not been taken down at this writing, but in anticipation of its possible removal, several screenshots have been taken of posts he has made that may give further insights into what might have influenced his action.

Two major influences appear to have been bodybuilding and religion. A proliferation of self-portraits highlighting his muscular physique speaks of a person very much into his physical appearance and strength. Spiritual references also appear throughout, News accounts indicate he used to worship at the church he attacked although he has not attended in recent years.

Other posts that may shed further light are more political in nature and reveal stories and ideas he believed worth sharing his opinions on, and include subjects like Islam, Black Panthers, Africa, the police, and being against “white extremism.”

Were any of these topics triggers for Samson's grievances?

Noting that some of Samson’s opinions and concerns are not without basis, the fact remains his opinions have been colored by “progressive” interpretations. In no case can these excuse, mitigate or even make understandable why he developed murderous rage, snapped and took it out on innocent churchgoers in a country that took him in and provided opportunities he’s have never known in his native Sudan.

What’s undiscovered at this writing is if Samson’s guns were legally owned, or if he had a concealed carry permit. What's known is that a lawful concealed carrier saved the day before the police could  have possibly arrived, something the gun-grab groups scoff at.

Leave it to the antis to proclaim guilt before hearing any facts.

So leave it to the Bloomberg lackeys at Everytown to not even mention that, but to instead self-righteously snivel:

“Churches should be peaceful places where families gather to worship without the threat of gun violence.”

If it had been up to them and to the citizen disarmament policies they demand, Samson would have had plenty of opportunity to up the body count.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 55 thoughts on “Tennessee Church Shooting Suspect Left Facebook Clues to Possible Rage Triggers

    1. Thank you for explaining your views. You might be able to help out with some other questions I have. I agree that there are deep social issues that drive crime. Guns sold in the US don’t cause crime, but they certainly facilitate it, not just in the US, but in Central America as well. A large number of the crimes we read about would simply be impossible to commit without guns or similar-level firepower. A person intent on mass-knifing a crowd probably wouldn’t get very far (though I know there have been some significant ones), and a large portion of suicide attempts that don’t use guns fail. If you met an assailant on the street who was armed with a knife, you stand a chance of outrunning him; if he had a gun, you would only be safe if you were close to cover to start with.

      People seem to ignore or be oblivious to the symmetric nature of our laze-fare policy, focusing only on how policies affect them personally. Explanations that any law that arms them also arms their attackers fall on deaf ears. [The “bad guys will have guns” argument ignores the life cycles of guns and ammunition]. Empowering people to overthrow bad governments by force empowers others to overthrow good governments; we have plenty of examples of that all over the world.

      I believe that the best solution is to regulate guns in the same way we do automobiles, and for the same reasons: both can kill people if misused, badly made, or poorly maintained. This means holding people liable for what happens to their guns, especially if the guns fall into the wrong hands due to negligence or sale. A certain level of responsibility comes with everything you own, and the level is higher for some things (your dog, your car, your gas grille) than with others, based on its potential to harm people, or, in the case of a living thing, to be harmed. Your gun is high on that scale.

      One often-ignored problem with guns is that a significant portion of them flow through our porous system down to Central America, and arm narco-states. This in turn drives illegal immigration, especially of children. A Gun Owner’s Responsibility Act that periodically verified ownership or legal transfer would go a long way towards stopping that.

      As for the meaning of the Second Amendment, nobody has been able to explain these things:

      1. If the purpose of a right to bear arms is for self-defense or to keep a bad government in check, why were those purposes omitted in the 2nd amendment, and replaced with an altogether different purpose (civil defense)?

      2. Why does the Militia Act of 1792 and its successors, specifically grant control of the Militias to the President, contradicting the purpose of government overthrow and not related to personal self defense in any way we could imagine?

      3. If the purpose of arming people is to thwart dictatorship, how does that square with elections? What happens if someone who thinks their elected government is a menace (i.e., Timothy McVeigh) decides to destroy it?

      4. Why did the NRA change its tune? Why did it support the NFA and subsequent legislation?

    2. Your message on the heals of the Las Vegas massacre is very poorly timed at best.
      More, your logic in justifying the proliferation of guns in this case is badly flawed.
      The Second Amendment surely could not have anticipated such an abuse of its intent and purpose.
      What I see more today is “the Chicken and Egg story” whereby the USA has become so impacted by violent acts and simply violence that it has caused the citizens to arm themselves as protection against the likelihood of violence against them. In essence, let’s arm all of the Chickens as defense against the growing number of Bad Eggs. That was not the intent of the Second Amendment.
      Such situations as we are now digesting in Las Vegas can only become more common place yet you can be sure that the vocal gun lobby will argue that owning 40 guns (some legally converted to automatic fire) and thousands of rounds of ammunition is not only protected by the Amendment; its OK! They will argue the actions of one Bad Egg should not be reason to impose sanctions. As a sceptic, I see no real change other than the change that more violence will bring; and I am convinced more gun related violence will be in the future. As such the gun culture will only grow.

      1. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow colonists to defend themselves against Indians and Canadians (who were essentially British). If the other nations threatened, the militias could deal with them too. As we found in the revolution, moving a continental army in response to every attack was extremely difficult and had some bad side effects (see 3rd Amendment).

        Except for the preamble, the Second Amendment is the only place in the Constitution and all of the Amendments where any sort of reason is given for the framework it enacts. There is no mention of self defense or of threatening a tyrannical government with overthrow. If the founding fathers had opinions about that, those opinions never made it into the Constitution, which is the only place that really counted.

        The Second Amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. That’s all fine and good, but what the hell is a “well regulated militia”? There are many regulated bodies of partially or fully armed people: the Army, the police, MS-13, etc. They could be the “miltia”,, but their main role is not to defend the free state.

        Fortunately, Congress quickly enacted the Militia Act of 1792 to answer this question. It told exactly what the militia was and how it operated. It begins:

        “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.”

        It goes on to say that the President can also use the Militia to put down uprisings with states as long as the courts are on board, and allows the President to use other state militias if an intended state militia fails to activate. It then details how the Militia members are to be paid, what happens if they disobey the President, and other necessary details. Read the whole thing. The gist of it is that the President is in charge of the Militias, as much as he is in charge of the Army. Over time, they reworked it a bit until the Militia became the National Guard that we know today.

        So how does this square with the idea that the Second Amendment promises unlimited use of weapons for self-defense and a remedy against a bad government? It doesn’t, unless colonists were expected to text the President for help whenever their families were threatened, or that presidents who felt that they had become dictators would summon a militia to have themselves removed.

        1. Not correct at all. You should read Patrick Henry’s comments in DEBATES, the journal of the Virginia debates on adoption of the US Constitution.
          I won’t copy and paste from the text of the book available on line from the Library of Congress.
          But Henry opposed adoption of teh new US Constitution in 1788 because the protections of individual rights were inadequate.
          He refers directly to the militia in many places, one that I can almost remember perfectly goes like this…
          Henry— Let’s make him a king [the president] at the head of the army. Your militia will desert you and fight against you [the organized militia or National Guard] and what protection will you have without your arms. What will become of you and your rights. If I recall correctly this was in September 1788.

          1. Irrelevant, as I said above. There were strong differences of opinion in many aspects of the constitution and even the concept of a federal government. The words in the Bill of Rights are the ones they agreed to and continued to enforce for many years afterward. Even the NRA was fine with that, backing gun control laws, until sometime in the 1970s when they suddenly reinterpreted the Second Amendment.

            1. Uh, No. Irrelevant as the 2nd amendment was always held to maintain individual firearms possession absent of government permission, hence it’s nature as an individual right, until it was “Reinterpreted” by politicians in the 20th century.

              The personal writings of the founders back that up, like it or not.

      2. If more laws against guns will make us safer then why is Chicago not violence free ? They have lots of anti-gun laws !!
        How is a young lady on rer way home from work who must be out on the street at night supposed to protect herself from the gang of guys in a car that are looking for a girl to rape. How about the older person that encounters a weight lifter perhaps with a chain that just wants to harm a person. These persons may be all drugged up.
        The police “may” arrive 10 minutes later to clear up what happened to a raped or dead person.

        1. @Allison

          I personally favor ladies such as yourself being armed. As someone who wants to be a good husband and father someday, my family’s safety would be of top priority. I strongly support your right to carry and to terminate any individual who would attempt to cause you bodily harm, and ask only that you educate every friend you possibly have to the honest truth involving firearms and self defense.

          You can’t legislate morality, and you can’t legislate sanity. Sadly, Lawrence will never have an honest answer for your reply because there is no rational response. All he can do is regurgitate the same insipid talking points he was hand fed and asked to post here.

          My sincerest wishes to you and your loved ones, stay safe and shoot straight.

      3. This message needs to be heard. There are already laws against murder. Did they work? You coward ass liberals want a world where you feel some higher power or law will keep you safe. Guess what criminals are already by definition Breaking the Law. Until every man and women in this country take their own personal safety and that of their loved ones into their own hands- we will continue to have VICTIMS. How long would it take for a cop to get to you right now? Any cop will tell you this, police are a reactionary force. Something happens they react. Tell me if someone were raping your wife or daughter would you want a way to stop the attack or do you want a cop to be on his way to deal with it in the next 15 minutes or so, if there’s an officer in the area. Is there nothing so sacred to you that your not willing to give you life to defend it!? COWARD! What could have one or ten or twenty armed men done if allowed to attend the concert like our fore fathers had intended -ARMED. This is the world we live in. I’m super sorry that you don’t live in a fairytale world we’re nothing bad happens-good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns simple, every time.

        1. Willie, what if you notice that the intruder coming through the door is unarmed. What will you do, hand him one of your guns first? Make it a fair fight? Because that is exactly what you are doing when you support a policy of arming everyone, with no questions asked. You live in a fantasy world where your guns will save you, but in fact they are less than worthless for that. You are more likely to shoot yourself or your family members.

          And for spree shooters, read the Buzzfeed article that Recce1 posted below. Over a span of 20 years and hundreds of spree shootings, they could only come up with these nine small ones (~13 total dead). What about that Las Vegas shooting? Are you telling me that with thousands of people at the concert in a totally open-carry state, none of them had guns? I bet dozens and dozens did.

          We on the left are getting tired of burying your sad asses. Go find your own graveyards. You certainly know a good way to get there.

          1. Ness your are living in a delusional world. The criminals will always have a gun so I just want a fair fight by being armed my self. If someone came through my front door and didn’t have s gun I’ll hold him until the cops get here. What ru gonna do when a criminal come through the door and you have nothing but a dumb ass look on your face? Your gonna be a VICTIM! That’s your choice to make. I have had to use my guns to protect myself and my family. I know damn well what I’m doing and why. What is your excuse for being a soft ass who will roll over tummy up and surrender. Your not welcome to adjust the Rights I was given by being born American. Tell me who is going to come round up all these horrible guns in your delusional world. Are you gonna come and take my grandfathers or my fathers guns from me?? You can have them from my cold dead fingers. I’ll keep my rights to defend myself against all comers, I’ll teach my children about the responsibility and privilege of being able to take care of themselves and not to rely on someone else for their safety.

            1. It is too bad that nobody will be around to teach your kids how to think. You may be an excellent marksman. Your kids could go on to win national-level shooting awards. You could all be accredited gun safety instructors. What about the guy next door who isn’t? When you arm everyone as we are doing now, you arm the morons, the drunks, the criminals, the Hillary lovers, and the people who you plan to shoot when they come through the door. You arm people who want to overthrow the government you elected and replace it with a free-love socialist society.

            2. @ Lawrence Ness

              Oh, So since shotgun Willie disagrees with you, and since he has no intentions of capitulating to a confiscation scheme you seem to be in favor of and won’t give up his guns until he is dead. So because of that you seem to think it is ok to now wish death upon him and leave his children fatherless?

              “It is too bad that nobody will be around to teach your kids how to think.”

              And please, don’t try to say “That is being taken out of context!” Most of us here aren’t stupid, and we can clearly see exactly what you are linking it too. How Tyrannical of you. First you had the gall to try and claim I would murder an innocent person out of a belief it was self defense, and now you are trying to suggest Shotgun Willie should have a bullet in his head because he won’t give up his guns just because you say he has to?

              Second, I love the false analogy there. Suggesting that if we don’t give up our personal firearms and become defenseless, that We are arming antifa to overthrow our government while completely ignoring the fact that the firearms we have also prevent Antifa from overthrowing our government and replacing it with Communist/Socialist central. Just wow…….

          2. Factual Notes.
            Anyone “Intruding” in a house is already breaking the law, since it implies having gained entry illegally and not having any legitimate right to be present. This also means the point raised about shooting family members is a false premise. This further highlights Lawrence’s ignorance of firearms handling rules since you verify your target before you pull the trigger, and you don’t aim it at anything you do not intend to shoot.

            Further, legally, the idea of suggesting someone is unarmed does not eliminate a threat or prevent the capability of an intruder causing you grievous bodily harm. It also attempts to shift the culpability to the victim instead of the criminal who has just broken a window or kicked in a door to gain entry.

            So, according to his own standards involving lack of knowledge, and lack of training in handling and safety Lawrence is exactly the kind of person that he himself is saying should never be allowed to own much less touch a firearm. By that standard therefore, he has no legitimate standing to take part in a debate involving private firearms ownership.

            And Even though there are more cases where good guys with guns prevented situations from becoming spree shootings, Lawrence would just dismiss any number as not being enough. The fact that the ones brought up were linked to specifically because the intentions of the Shooters were known to have wanted to commit much more as opposed to cases were the shooter is dead after a self defense case with no knowledge of whatever else they may have had planned would fall on deaf ears as well.

            Of even more importance is the fact that Lawrence Ness is here admitting to being caught in a lie.. He lied when he said “Good guys with guns have never stopped Spree Shooters!” Well, as he is now admitting while trying to dismiss it as inconsequential, he had his backside handed to him on that account. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. The idea that he might salvage any credibility here tied to that name… Interitus.

        2. Lawrence Ness is of the same ilk as the people trying to quote the “Well Regulated” portion of the second amendment while ignoring everything else. They are trolls who just repeat the same mantra over and over. The last idiotic Canadian who tried it and insisted he was a Historian with a secret cypher that only he was given the revelation of (See also, the delusional joker named Geoff Smith), thought that by writing an article on an online blog should count the same as a peer review legal journal.

          Essentially, they’re morons hoping we will buy into their view, but personally I think the only time their elbows feel a breeze is when they pass gas. I’m never going to accept or live by their opinion, and my rights will never be an option that they can touch or interfere with. If Lawrence has an issue with that, I’m sure he can attempt to persuade 80 Million American gun owners to hand them over all on his own. Of course once we finish laughing, we will still have our guns and he is free to run off to who knows where and cry in a corner.

          1. Sounds like you are trying really hard to ignore the Well Regulated clause and everything that came after it. If you can’t win an argument, start throwing insults. Once you are finished laughing, you can return to your obsession that some dark figure is waiting in the shadows to get you, and you will miraculously send him to his grave. I just hope the target of your split-second decision is not an innocent person, but, if the case arises, odds are 5 to 1 that it will be. That will be a hell of a thing to live with.

            1. Ahh, so when you can’t win an argument, accuse the other of being an unhinged individual likely to murder an innocent from being trigger happy?

              And it sounds like you are trying really hard to ignore two things “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” and the more important “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

              So again, you can continue as much as you want. We are never going to go along with what you are saying, and we are never going to give up our firearms. Our rights do not come from government, and as stated one of our preliminary rights stated at the onset of the birth of our nation is the FACT that it is our right to do away with any form of government when it seeks to usurp power and abridge, infringe, suppress, or control our individual rights and liberty. End of story.

    3. Finally, after hundreds of thousands of gun homicides and millions of gun suicides in the US, we have the mythical “good guy with a gun”. Miracles do happen … well, not quite. The shooter wasn’t taken out with a gun, but only held at bay after he had already shot himself. Sorry, we can’t quite call it that.

      You know there is a reason why a good guy has never taken out a spree shooter. People realize, when confronted with the situation, that they have a strong likelihood of missing and hitting an innocent person, or of drawing the shooter’s fire. Even well-trained police sometimes hit civilians, which is why, when the police become involved, they try to plan counter-assaults very carefully.

      Would mental health patrols have prevented this? If Facebook reported each case where people started to express dark thoughts (as if they could muster the manpower needed to track that), and governments started to take away or stop purchases from the suspects, who do you think would yell bloody murder?

      One pattern we see with many of these spree shooters is that they tend to stockpile guns like the world will end tomorrow. Maybe this is a good indicator of dangerous pathology. That is a terrible thought, since it would justify those horrid one-assault-rifle-per-day laws that we struggle so hard to defeat.

      1. Confused as to why you would call it a “mythical guy with a gun” when clearly it would have been worse if one of the church goers hadn’t been armed. Would the attacker have turned his gun on himself? Who knows, all I know is that when confronted with some person who has a gun and is willing and intent on using it- I will have one of my own to protect myself. To say anything different is to be victim, who in the hell are you to even suggest that I become so. How about you grow a set of nuts and take your own safety into your own hands. This country and its people need to be armed to DEFEND themselves. If every person was required by law to be armed then we would not present such a soft target to those who would do us wrong. An armed society is a polite society. If you don’t want to live in an armed society then move. There are many countries that have the gun laws that you want move to one of them. This here this is America and we are born with certain unalienable rights quit trying to muck with my rights. Cause then you are the enemy too.

        1. Your logic is pretty twisted, and I am not sure I can untangle it for you, but I will give it a try. By supporting universal unregulated gun ownership, you are making yourself a victim, and everyone else too. You are painting a bulls eye on your forehead. Why? Because you are arming both sides! And there are a lot more of them, and there are much less predictable, and your years of careful training won’t prepare you for the split second life and death decision you might have to make.

          And here is the awful part: the people most likely to kill you or your family members aren’t gangs, spree shooters, or angry drunks at bars. They are your brainless neighbor who can’t tell you from a raccoon (they don’t test vision when you get a gun permit in most states – why not?). They are your son or grandson who found a loaded gun and wants to try it out. You may use and support trigger locks, but the NRA opposes making them universal. They are your scared wife who heard about a creep menacing the neighborhood and didn’t expect you to come through the back door. What heroic acts can you take to defend yourself against these people?

          1. @ Lorence Ness, your logic is definitely twisted. You are an absolute liberal that made and drank the kool aid. Your posts will not change the minds of anyone on this forum. Most everyone here are Constitutional conservatives so you are wasting your time and spinning your wheels. This country was founded on the Constitution and we will abide by it. Some of the suggestions you make about accidents with guns is prespostorist and has no meaning except in your mind. Accidents can happen but they are rare and that perp you referred to in your neighborhood could come into your house and do whatever he wanted if you can’t defend yourself or your family.

            1. You are probably correct – many people in these boards are completely immune to logic and facts. Statistics showing your gun is 5 times as likely to kill you or a family member must be fake news.

              You call yourself a “Constitutional Conservative”, but I know that there is one part of the Bill of Rights about which you are clueless. I can save that for another post, since it would be the ultimate blasphemy,

      2. I see Lawrence Ness is a firm believer in a police state. I assume he’d love to see Facebook and other media monitored by No Such Agency and SWAT teams sent out without warrants to raid homes and confiscate any weapons found. I also assume he’d raid homes of individuals who “stockpiled” guns, whatever he means by that.

        I also assume mass shooting are never stopped by those with private weapons because the MSM rarely reports such cases or because Lawrence refuses to believe it happens. But maybe if he read https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit, he might change his mind. But then aqain, likely he’ll just dismiss it.

        1. You completely misunderstand my post. I was trying to point out how absurd the idea is of trying to predict who might go nuts at any point. Of course I wouldn’t want Facebook to undertake such a task, and I believe that NSA activities that spy on Americans are illegal for reasons entirely unrelated to the 4th amendment. It is a fact of life that crazy people will always turn up in random places and there is not much you can do about it. As a technology and a science, psychology is somewhat behind alchemy, and it grows even more useless when applied to a society at large.

          I checked out the Buzzfeed posts. I tend to follow links that people offer me, but usuallly only when they have opposing viewpoints. These stories are legit. They are rather small scale affairs (hence more limited coverage in MSM) but you can use them to support your point.

          As a practical matter, arming everyone isn’t working out so welll. Imagine that there were two armies, a “good” one and a “bad” one. Of course you are on the good side. Someone comes along and offers to sell equal armaments to both sides. The good side agrees to that. However, because they are such stealthy guerillas, always with the element of surprise, you end up with the sad score we see today: 10,000 killed each year, and 20,000 more killing themselves. What does your side gave to show for itself? A couple of incidents like the ones in the Buzzfeed article, spaced years apart? Have you won any decisive battles in the war on crime? Have you even made a dent? You do the math. One thing is certain – if you were fighting a real war on these terms, you would long for the days when nobody was armed with more than bows and arrrows and spears. At least a lot more of your side would still be alive.

          Oh, and please don’t start with that “if guns were outlawed…” argument. If guns were outlawed, they would quickly disappear into the hands of Guatemalan drug lords (the true intended customer) and graduallly into the hands of police. If ammunition eww outlawed, the guns would become useless

          1. As opposed to the argument of “Let’s ban guns!! That will solve everything if we make those illegal for civilian ownership!”

            Worked really good when we made murder illegal didn’t it, or banned booze in the 20’s?

            1. No, lets regulate guns and ban the ones that have no useful purpose for hunting or self defense. Let’s require gun owners to be responsible for their guns

            2. Ok, Perhaps we should also regulate the internet and require people to obtain permission to use their free speech rights as well. Wouldn’t that keep people like you from being able to post a lie over and over again trying to prop up your own opinion in the hopes of forcing it on others?

              Of course, that’s not going to happen. The problem with your current argument is that you are suggesting we pass laws to restrict and control the firearms of people who have not broken any laws, namely the very individuals who are Responsible. Again, why not just pass a law against murder so it only affects those who break the law? Because that is not your intent, your intent is to specifically restrict and control all, not just the law breakers.

              So let me pose a question. Since you are admitting here that self defense is a legitimate use for firearms ownership, lets take a look at a Government double standard. The US Government has come up with a classification for a weapon called a PDW, Personal Defense Weapon. The Government believes that an extremely short, small caliber, large capacity, fully automatic weapon fits the role as an ideal close quarters defensive weapon for individuals requiring range of movement or discretion in their jobs negating the use of a full sized automatic rifle. But!!! They believe it is only suitable for that purpose in their hands. If it is an ideal self defense weapon as prescribed by a set of parameters, then those parameters are still present even in civilian life where the range will be short and in every likelihood you will be outnumbered or disadvantaged in some form.

              So what classifications are you attempting to say have no legitimate purpose for self defense, and what do you feel constitutes Self defense parameters for a weapon?

          2. Lawrence, my apologies for “misunderstanding” your post, but perhaps you should have been more clear. However, there’re many liberals who desire to institute a nanny police state. They’ve forgotten Benjamin Franklin’s adage that those who’d trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

            However, I’m quite relieved that you staunchly believe that NSA and other agencies who spy on Americans without a court warrant is unconstitutional and absolutely wrong. I also had to pleasantly smile about your description of psychology.

            Although I’m a firm believer that the 2nd Amendment gives INDIVIDUALS the right to own weapons, I would agree with you that arming everyone, or even a large part of the population, is a rather dangerous idea. That said, why are there so many murders where guns are used? For me to answer that I would be castigated by liberals as racist. Yet the answer goes far beyond the issue of gun rights. The breakdown of the nuclear family in America, especially among minority communities (of which I’m a part of) is to me a significant part of the problem.

            I realize however, how hard it is to convince liberals that their notion of gun control, i.e., people control is not the answer. I found another interesting article titled; “Anti-Gun Liberals Silent About New Crime Statistics” at http://conservativetribune.com/crime-statistic-shatters-narrative/ that addresses the increase in gun ownership by law abiding citizens on the rate of guns crimes.

            There’s also another good article at http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29699 Report From Liberal Cable Outlet Shows That More Guns Equals Fewer Firearms Deaths.

            As for the reason for the 2nd Amendment, one of my favorite quotes comes from supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the Court by the author/editor of the Constitution, James Madison. He wrote, “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

            Finally, as with all the other rights, save the 9th and 10th Amendment, ascribed in the Bill of Rights, I view that in the 2nd Amendment as an individual one, not a statist collective one controlled by government. The Bill of Rights tells the government what it CAN NOT do to us, not what our obligations are.

            1. I have a few things to agree with, and to disagree with your comment Recce1, but I’ll keep it short and without sarcasm as I often insert in other areas.

              First, Individual rights are not limited to only a select number or group of individuals. The cost of a free society is a loss of some safety due to the unknown.

              Second, Note that in the first eight amendments each one is not an individual right, but as you say are individual restrictions and restraints on all levels of Government, with the 9th and 10th stating “Just because we didn’t list them here doesn’t mean you can have any control over other rights not listed either.” Individual rights predate and preempt the Constitution. You’re last paragraph is spot on factually, it is only my opinion that it could be worded a little better. As for your belief in where the true moral rot is coming from, I believe you are quite correct on that as well.

              Ultimately, What Lawrence is saying is get rid of the guns and most of the deaths will cease(Except for his classification of a few bad apples which will turn up inevitably. ~This is his disclaimer for when people are still being murdered post gun control) Also, NSA Spying, great.. Yes blanket spying is illegal, hence the 4th amendment. His putting this up is nothing more than a red herring intending to get you to think “Oh, He’s reasonable. He’s not saying ban all guns, just ban most guns and put restrictions(see regulate) on the rest” What it does is keep rational people from noticing a key point from his original comment like “Good guys with guns don’t end mass shootings”, well except for cases where they actually have such as

              1. Oct 11,1997 Pearl High School. Shooter planned on continuing onto the middle school after. Not counted as a mass shooting since only two died after nine were shot.
              2. April 24, 1998 Parker Middle School. One dead three others injured before shooter was held at gunpoint and made to lay down. Could have been much worse.
              3. Jan 16, 2002 Appalachian School of Law. Three dead, three wounded. Two students who worked as law enforcement outside of class accessed personal firearms from their cars to end this.
              4.Dec 9, 2007 New Life Church in Colorado Springs(I have family in that town). Two dead, three wounded. Shooter also had a grenade he was trying to use after being shot by Jeanne Assam, who firing two more shots ended the attack and the threat.
              5. May 27, 2010 AT&T Store in New York Mills. Gunman wounds one employee before being shot to death by a concealed carrier. Had a list of employees he planned to murder that day on his body.
              6.August 30, 2010 Sullivan Central High. Resource officer and police corralled the shooter and ended his life after a short gun fight. No innocents listed wounded or killed.
              7. Mar 25, 2012 Freewill Baptist Church. Concealed Carrier holds man with a shotgun at gunpoint, preventing loss of life.

              There are many more. The point being, good guys with guns prevented them from becoming “Spree killings.” How does that line up with Lawrence’s quote “You know there is a reason why a good guy has never taken out a spree shooter.”? It either means he is ignorant in regards to history, or he is intentionally dismissing situations like those mentioned above for the purpose of crafting a lie to push a personal ideology through misdirection and confusion aimed at well intentioned gun owners such as yourself. Be very careful when reading his statements, as the excuse “You are misunderstanding me/taking what I said out of context” is going to come up all too often when someone hits him with hard facts.

              My favorite anecdote attributed to B Franklin(May be a quote from Gary Strand back in 1990, but he may have picked it up somewhere else himself) is .
              “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

            2. @Recce1
              Case in point. Take a look at Lawrence Ness’s comment to Shotgun Willie that he made at 6:08PM Eastern time tonight, on this very same page. That should tell you very well your original reading of him was on point.

            3. The Revelator,

              Thanks for your comments. Please keep in mind one of Lawrence’s arguments against the 2nd Amendment was about arming EVERYONE. In response I WAS NOT suggesting restricting people from owning weapons by law, except in cases of violent criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill by a court.

              What I was suggesting is that NOT everyone is psychologically suited to owning a gun, even though it’s their constitutional right which shouldn’t be infringed. Perhaps this is a bit sarcastic, but I’d be concerned with arming all of the snowflakes, leftist professors, Antifa, and BLM crowd. But Lawrence is implying that’s the argument we have to accept. I believe he’s making a false premise, nothing more, in order to advance an anti-2nd Amendment agenda. After all, I don’t think he’s against guns, just guns in the hands of citizens who might oppose a tyrannical government.

              Therefore there’re two quotes I believe he’d reject. The first is by Benjamin Franklinn, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” So you’re in good company.

              The second goes to the very core of this discussion by supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Court by Pres. James Madison, the author/editor of the Constitution. “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

              He’s saying what do the other rights matter if the people can’t protect them from violation by an abusive government. As we both know, the Bill of Rights is a prohibition on the government from infringing on our preexisting God-given rights, or at least it’s supposed to do so.

              Justice Story also wrote, “The importance of this article [the Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and DOMESTIC USURPATIONS OF POWER BY RULERS.”

              Also, George Washington wrote, “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” If I recall, Franklin believed that the militia consisted of all free adult men.

              By the way, I appreciated your listing of instances where individual private citizens used guns to prevent further tragedies in contradiction to what Lawrence claimed.

          3. “And never forget what gun control is REALLY about. It is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people.

            Lawmakers who want to disarm you really want to control you. History is full of governments who first registered guns, then confiscated guns, then rounded up and systematically killed those who the government deemed were trouble makers…

            170 million of them!

            Don’t think it could not happen here. Look at the freedom and liberties we have lost since 9/11. Sandy Hook Elementary is just another scapegoat to take another step at controlling the American people.

            After every mass shooting, we hear the unenlightened politicians and knee-jerk liberals wailing, “If we can save just ONE life by getting guns off the street, then it is worth passing stricter gun control…”

            Well, the next time you hear that from anybody, I want you to respond with: “Over 170 million people would disagree with you… if they could. You can’t talk with them, because they are dead! They were killed by their own governments after strict gun control disarmed them.”


            In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated…


            In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


            Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.


            China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


            Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


            Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


            Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.”

            That’s fact and that’s the end of the discussion.

            1. @V E Veteran, you did your homework and came up with a lot of good statistics. Good job! all the long winded posts here do not change a thing. You ARE correct the only reason for gun control is to control the people, not the guns. If they take our freedoms the only ones with guns, conceivably, will be criminals and the criminal government.

              You are right when you say that is the end of the discussion.

    4. Imagine, a black immigrant shot up a church. He, probably, got upset about the nfl and decided to level the playing field. Whatever his reason was is not a conceivable way to conduct himself. This is close to Nashville that has turned somewhat liberal and they probably welcomed him with open arms and lots of dollars. Keep giving to us or we will protest and, possibly, shoot you.
      Many people I know from church carry. I would pity the fool that tries to rob our church. No signs on the doors restricting guns and no one objects.

    5. Keep on carrying to church. It is our God ordained and right. I preach sometimes while wearing my pistol on my side open. I always carry when I go to church sometimes concealed simply because of having fun being diverse. All my deacons carry and many members also. Kudos for the one brother that was at least cognizant to go to the car and retrieve his gun. This and other stats agree with John Lotts great book More Guns less crime!! We as a country have given more help to the peoples of the world than any other country and I am proud with the God kind of pride to say so. I also am proud to see more and more Christians waking up and taking back what the devil liberal worldly system has stolen from us. Go USA and Christians who carry!!!

      1. In this country we follow due process. In some dictatorship — Putin’s Russia, Assad’s Syria — they would just kill him.

      2. Samuel, I take it you’re not an American patriot who believes in the Constitution, the rule of law, or the Bible. So what makes you any better than the miscreant? You need a Saul type experience.

    6. It couldn’t happen in a church they are a “gun free zone”! AKA “free kill zone” Surely the best way to save lives it to make people defenseless.

      1. My church isn’t a gun free zone. We have a guy who open carries every Sunday. I haven’t seen anyone say a peep about it either.
        When I get my CCW, I will likely carry there too, as I volunteer at the entrance 2x a month, and am in a great place to see anyone coming in with ill will.

    7. Seeing as how they were all white victims and the shooter was black could it be termed a racial crime, or a hate crime?
      Probably not as it wouldn’t fit the liberal definition of a hate crime.

      1. What , you expect the same treatment as an immigrant. I’m sorry this is part of your “white privilege” you will receive no concern, no it isn’t a hate crime it was directed at White people by a black man. Don’t you know we the white people who haven’t owned or even told a black man to do a single thing, are still supposed to feel sorry and make restitution for something that happened hundreds of years ago. This is why I carry ever day. So that if/when a crazed individual with a death wish is trying to make a statement with mine or my family’s life I can end the situation. Everyone without regard to the color of their skin color deserves and has the Right, given by he constitution, to protect themselves and families. Until we all have and get the same treatment from the media, each other, from political groups we will never be able to move forward as a nation. Our differences are what makes this the greatest nation on earth. The current state of affairs are what is separating us making each person feel alone. Join with your fellow man accept that we are all a little bit different, learn from one another and know that there will be strengths and weaknesses on both sides. This constant bickering is hog tying the western world and while we fight among ourselves a real enemy my be sneaking in the back gates. Islam is the real enemy open your eyes. Islam teaches about making the whole world Islamic. It is time for the older men in our community’s to organize together. With age come wisdom and experience. With calm rationale and intelligence that come with age, discuss the problems facing the community and country. Get the youth under control, if the young are taught that there is right and wrong, and you will be punished for not following the guidelines, then the youth will grow into decent adults.

          1. VE Veteran,

            He was being satirical at first, then got serious. What he is attempting to say is that people here in the US are being held in a constant state of “Us vs Them” by the political parties and the media, while our schools have been turned into glorified daycare centers for toddlers within the ages of 5 to 35, and with a sizable portion of the world population that absolutely hates the idea that we have free thought and free will lurking just behind the shadows looking for opportunities to kill us.

            His solution as stated is for the “old men”, see veterans, to lead patiently but fervently, not with belligerent domineering, to reverse the process of what is being done in classrooms across the country so that the youth will grow up to be decent old men. I think the saying like father like son fits in well here. At least that is what I took from his comment, and he is free to offer a correction if I got it wrong.

            Been outta town for a few, so it’s good to be back.

            1. Close however being a veteran neither qualifies nor disqualifies an individual not everyone needs to be trained to fight. Being a patriot has nothing to do with serving the military

            2. Mad American, you’re right, one doesn’t have to be a veteran to be a good patriot, but more often than not we veterans are better trained to act in such situations.

            3. @Mad American

              A point I have tried to make when people try to use time in the military as an excuse to dictate their opinions to others(Thereby dishonoring themselves next to those who actually served)

              Was just trying to offer an easy translation was all. I tip my hat to you sir.

    Leave a Comment 55 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *