Posted on 07/18/2009 3:01:12 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
In this CNN interview, this car dealer does a great job defending common sense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e60VhXBo1S8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpub29%2Ebravenet%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Fstatic%2Fshow%2Ephp%3Fusernum%3D2442810129%26frmid%3D8%26msgid%3D1035701%26cmd%3Dshow&feature=player_embedded
He handled himself very well. The reporter was so bias it was pitiful. What happen to being objective? Guess I am a very old timer.
Excellent representation by the dealer....the only one that I have witnessed do it better is Ted Nugent (Motor City Madman).
interesting
Mancow’s brother.
BTTT
Too bad selling cars is probably more lucrative than holding public office, because this guy sure could do it. He'd get my vote in a New York minute!
These guys should understand, better than most, the concept of defending self and territory against individual criminals and against tyrannical benefactors.
In a story touching on the former, he finds himself doing the latter.
You could tell he was getting a bit testy when the reporterette insinuated that giving away a gun with a car sale was "a tad irresponsible", and he stated flatly how the guy & wife in Florida who got raided and killed a week ago would have *loved* to have an AK47. The she floats the falsehood about how "cops have guns and still get shot", and he immediately replied about at least "having a sporting chance".
It was pretty plain to see (especially to herself) that reporterette was way out of her depth.
Yep - That's as example of why liberal talk radio has no value. Logic, facts, and reason have no place in the liberal agenda. So every time a liberal allows a rational conservative to respond to their drivel, the liberal comes out on the losing end.
Liberals only quote scripture when they think it fits their agenda. They usually misquote it, twisting it to fit, and completely ignore other contradictory scripture. When it comes to issues like this, you won’t find them quoting Matthew 10:34.
OMG this Mark Muller did an incredible job talking to the snarky anchor-babe. I just finished writing him a letter congratulating him.
When Christ walked the earth in the flesh, the sword on one's hip was the consummate semi-auto assault weapon of choice. Each time you pulled the trigger (or, in this case, swung the blade) someone could die.
Peter once demonstrated his mastery of the weapon by taking off a guy's ear as a warning when Peter was defending Christ against the evil-minded authorities. Liberals love to quote Matthew's account of the incident by pointing out that after Jesus miraculously put the fellow's ear back in place He tells Peter:
"Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
What the intentionally deceptive and the biblically-challenged don't convey is that Christ's admonishment was simply a reminder to Peter that their's was not to be just another armed insurrection (similar to a couple recent unrelated ones which were brutally crushed) but rather a spiritual one. If the lefty pacifists would quote Christ's complete thought, the point would be more clear. He continued:
"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
The Lord, personally, had authority to directly request that the heavenly weapons of mass destruction be deployed were it deemed appropriate to the mission. But it was not. The mission was to fulfill OT prophesy.
And make special note of Christ's actual instruction to "Put up again thy sword into his place". Or, as John recounts more specifically, "into the sheath".
It should be quite obvious that Jesus did not consider the sword's "place" to be anywhere but on Peter's hip. NOT in the garbage. NOT, in this dispensation anyway, as part of some hippie hemp farmer's plowshare. And definitely NOT in a pile at the cop station as a result of the "Swords for Sandals" buy back program!
The sword, like a gun, is simply a tool. Just because the Lord did not want the tool used on His behalf in an armed resistance against the government does not, at all, mean it was no longer to be used for defensive purposes.
And just because He kinda chewed out Peter for going off-mission to physically defend Him does not, at all, imply that we should not defend our selves, our loved ones, our neighbors or our nation - with the choicest weapons available if possible.
Rather, Christ was more pissed at Peter's demonstration that he either did not remember (unlikely) or did not comprehend both OT prophesy and Christ's own words regarding His unwavering duty and destiny as the sacrificial Lamb of God.
What state is that dealership in?
Luke 22:36
Wasn’t that specific one a direct quote of Jesus himself?
A definite home run for 2A.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.