Another Freedom Infringed on.
The Commission under the misdirection of the County Executive voted to prohibit legally authorized Firearms Carry Permit Holders from carrying their firearms into county parks. Clearly the County Executive mis-spoke when she declared that the policy must be accepted because it was required by state law. The law, "SB 0976 & HB 0716"
which was sponsored by both our State Representative and Senator states "Allows handgun carry permit holders to possess handguns in parks and other similar public places owned and operated by the state, county, or city. Allows local governments to elect to prohibit gun carry permit holders from possessing handguns in local parks. Requires approval by a majority vote of the local legislative body. Requires the prohibition to apply to entire parks".
What the County Executive failed to do was read the entire statement which states "Changes the majority vote provision to a majority resolution of the governing body",
but then rules never seem, that important to the County Executive unless they benefit her position. Allen Barrett
which was sponsored by both our State Representative and Senator states "Allows handgun carry permit holders to possess handguns in parks and other similar public places owned and operated by the state, county, or city. Allows local governments to elect to prohibit gun carry permit holders from possessing handguns in local parks. Requires approval by a majority vote of the local legislative body. Requires the prohibition to apply to entire parks".
What the County Executive failed to do was read the entire statement which states "Changes the majority vote provision to a majority resolution of the governing body",
but then rules never seem, that important to the County Executive unless they benefit her position. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 10:33 PM
58 Comments:
Mr. Barrett,
You are on a mission when it comes to Mrs. Vanzant, aren't you? It's more than obvious.
By the way, that would be "infringed upon". Thank you.
I beleive all commissioners get a copy of the agena days be fore court. The court knew what they were voting on. Hopefully the commissioners read it. Don't blame exe. for this.
SB 0976/HB 0716 has already become law. It became effective on September 1st 2009. The county commission cannot retroactively prohibit valid permit holders from exercising their rights. If the Commission wanted to make this prohibition, they need to have done so Prior to September 1st.
6:32 and 8:14 must be the Vanzant cheerleaders. Should we call it job security??? Are you the ones watching and keeping up with all everyone does at the county annex building? Seeing who is coming and going and reporting to Vanzant. How shallow can you be?
To the 6:32 AM poster.
Thank you for correcting my grammatical error, that should help clarify the topic.
You state, "You are on a mission when it comes to Mrs. Vanzant, aren't you? It's more than obvious."
Should that have been a question or a statement? I would not define my attitude toward Mrs. Vanzant as a mission. I look at it more as being unwilling to allow her to bully me or accept her lies. I have made every attempt to treat her with respect and friendliness but those attempts have been met with a lack of respect and hostility. Allen Barrett
You are right Mr. Barrett. I have personally witnessed her behavior in meetings when she doesn't agree with a commissioner or a citizen. She can be so hateful and disrespectful. What's up with that? Does she not think that maybe certain points are valid points and if she would just listen and be a little open minded she might learn some very valuable information. But when she makes up her mind she is stubborn and want change, even walks out of the meetings running the commissioners down. What a leader. Time for a change. She's pulling this county downward instead of the way it should be going. Look at ALL the law suits she has already caused. And we've got another year to go!
wab
I asked you a question. The real hint was when I asked "aren't you."
And, by the way, I believe you are on such a mission. Perhaps you admire her much more than you are willing to admit.
We could say the same thing for you. Perhaps you admire Mr. Barrett much more than you are willing to admit.
Sorry 7:12 I have to agree with WAB on this you presented a declarative statement not a question then nitpicked about his grammar. I have to give you an "F' and WAB a "B".
Sign me a Teacher
Teacher..
So, saying to a student, "You spilled your milk, didn't you?", is a declarative statement and not a question? How so?
I must give you a "D" for not doing better in college English.
5:41 is correct!
When did the Second Amendment become an English lesson? Mr. Barrett, explain something to me please. "Changes the majority vote provision to a majority resolution of the governing body".
What exactly does this mean? I understand the first part, the majority vote, but what is the majority resolution of the governing body? Let me know please.
For those who think Mr. Barrett has it in for Ms. Vanzant, all you have to ask yourself is these simple questions.
1. Is it unconstitutional?
2. Is she wrong?
3. Is the law being broken?
If you answered yes to any one of these questions, then it doesn't matter what you think of Mr. Barrett or Ms. Vanzant. You have to understand it is not directed personally at Ms. Vanzant, but it is a personal issue. The 2nd amendment is something that has helped keep us free for over 200 years, stop playing games and listen. This isn't a blasted English class, it is a forum for the betterment of our community.
I may be missing something here, but is the gist of the thread about having the right to have guns in our local parks?
Sept. 27, 9:44 I believe you are very correct. Thats what I understood from listening to the news. Ms Vanzant WAS aware of the dealine.
Lets review the second amendment for a moment ( 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. ). I don’t think any of the people wanting to carry guns in parks are part of any well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of this state. Now that being said I do feel people should be allowed to own and carry “concealed weapons” if they go about the legal way. People use the the right of the people to keep and bear arms ans seem to leave out the rest of the amendment. Im not one of those tree hugging hippies that want to do away with all guns. I think all law abiding honest citizens should carry a gun but all of us ger a little nurvous when se see one of those morons walking around wal-mart with a pistol on their side and most of you do to wheather you want to admit it or not. Mr. Bass wanting to allow guns to be carried on bars and other palces alachol is served is crazy. Inside parks with a carry permit would not be a problem if the weapon is carried concealed and not in the view of the general public but lets stop using the second amendment as a defence to every gun law.
Hey !! Let's all take our machine guns into parks and slaughter all them rabbits that eat up all our grass .
Dont get in my way now , you hear ?
D. Crockett
So, 10:20 basically what you are saying is that nobody should legally carry guns into parks and bars, right? If that is the case, then the converse of that must also be true; that is that the only firearms in the afore mentioned places should be there illegally? I have never even touched a gun in my life, but the
2nd ammendment is not a technicality to me and is does not state that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to those who are part of a well regulated milita, for the benefit of the state. It's a personal right guaranteed by our Costitution and I don't believe I am alone in thinking that there are far too many folks out there willing to forfeit these rights without the consent of the citizens. Heck, most politicians are not even pretending to have any qualms about removing our personal rights and freedoms, a little at a time. Some are actually being blatant about it such as those in the west allowing a tiny lizard species to starve an entire community and put hundreds of families in danger of losing their livlihoods as well as their lives.
Your logic regarding firearms in bars hold no water either unless you believe those citizens who are prone to alcohol induced violence are going to let some silly local statute stop them from shooting up an establishment if they so desire and should that occur, I would prefer that the "good guys" have at least an equal amount of "fire power".
A little logic is sorely needed regarding this issue.
The difference in a "majority vote" and a "majority resolution vote" is a huge part of the question. My understanding is that a majority resolution is the requirement for a 2/3 majority but I could be wrong that is why I am awaiting word from an authority in Nashville.
My understanding also is that the deadline for implementation was moved from the original date to the 1 Sept. date in order to give cities and counties more time to opt out but after the 1 Sept. 2009 deadline the option to opt out was removed.
As to what the 2nd Amendment says The Supreme Court has already decided that it applies to individual citizens, period. Now ask yourself where can you go that an individual is allowed to carrying a firearm without breaking the law or having a valid carry permit? A person who has a valid carry permit has gone through some rather extensive training in order to gain that permit. Do you feel uncomfortable when you see an armed policeman or Sheriff's deputy walking through Wal Mart, if not why would you be uncomfortable with a fully qualified citizen walking through Wal Mart with a firearm? Many people who have carry permits have as much experience, if not more, with firearms as a policeman or Deputy. I personally have over five years experience as a unit armorer which allowed me familiarity with a number of firearms of different calibers and supervision of firing ranges.
Now would I walk around with a firearm exposed, not likely and I don't like to see others do it but they should have that right if legally qualified.
Rep Bass was 100% right in his legislation which passed with a large majority. There was never any intent nor privilege granted to anyone to carry a firearm and drink alcohol only to enter a restaurant where alcohol was served. As for firearms in parks are you aware that the day after Nashville opted out of allowing qualified permit holders to carry in city parks that a man was robbed at gun point in Shelby Park. The city has not opted out of this law why should the county? Allen Barrett
To the above two posters I understand the courts ruling and I agree with it, all I was saying the second amendment is used far to often as a defense to each and every gun law. There are some that use it to justify carrying fully automatic weapons for “Self Defense”
The second amendment was used to try and stop the brady bill that required a background check and the waiting period. If you read my post I stated I felt all law abiding citizens should carry a gun and that I had no problem with the carrying of concealed weapons in parks. As for bars if your gona carry a gun in there anyway fine but if it was against the law at least you could be charged with a crime. Also if the person in a bar chances are they are going to be drinking. Alcohol and guns don’t mix I don’t care how you put it or dress it up. As for law enforcement they go through years and years of training with firearms. All you have to do to get a carry permit is take a four-hour class one time, I would not exactly call that well trained. Concealed carry if the way to go if your going to carry a weapon. The folks I see with it on their hip just want every one to see it and know they are big and bad. I know because I know a lot of these folks. Also If a bad guy wants to do something stupid he doesn’t need to bring a gun all he has to do if take it away from one of these people which probably wouldn’t be to hard. If it is concealed then only the holder knows its there and isn’t that better defense if you have the element of surprise. I myself carry a gun on my person at all times and no one ever knows I have it. I hope I have answered any questions about my post if not Im sure one of you will let me know
Friday, September 25, 2009 10:20:00 AM
fully automatic guns are already outlawed!
Crime will disappear when perverts who rob & rape jump out of the bushes & discover that a 45 is faster than an oncomming pervert.
Law abiding people don't shoot other law abiding people, they help them. If perverts don't know who is packing heat, they'll move to nashville where good citizens are fair game. Looks like they'll all be comming to Pulaski
Did Pulaski Take any action on the Guns in parks thing?
I don't know but last night at Sam Davis there was a sign up that said no guns allowed during school activities-I would assume that they did not pass the law of no guns in parks-if so the sign would have said no guns allowed any time.
Pulaski did vote on the new law and decided to leave as is as the mayor and aldermen think they are covered by no guns during activities where children are present. Any other time who knows?
This is amazing...Mr. Barret seems to have nothing better to do than to run around finding stuff and people to attack over a computer blog. We elected the County Executive and I will take it as it seems, you didn't vote for her and so your going to throw any and every hissy fit you can. Wow this entire blog is ridiculous. This thing need to be shut down or start maybe banning people. it states at the top of this page "The purpose of the "Giles Free Speech Zone" is to identify problems of concern to the people of Giles County, to discuss them in a gentlemanly and civil manner, while referring to the facts and giving evidence to back up whatever claims are made, making logical arguments that avoid any use of fallacy, and, hopefully, to come together in agreement, and find a positive solution to the problem at hand. Help make a difference!" But it appears all Mr. Barret cares about is his opinion and nothing else matters. The moderaters of this blog need to do some thinking about this and realize its just a place where some grumpy old man takes verbal shots at any and everything he can cause it doesn't fit into "his" views of how society should be.
Hey 1:30 I must have missed something I didn't realize Mr. Barrett was the only person writing on this blog. Oh did he write your statement for you. The only thing I see Mr Barrett doing so far is provide a service where discussions can take place and he has revealed much of what has disgusted people in this county for years but were to cowardly to do anything about.
1:30
Excellent post. I think you could be right. But, while we are speculating, could it be that he is trying to discredit her in every way he can and then run against her at election time? I'm NOT making an accusation; I merely throw that out for consideration.
To 14 Oct 7:37
Not trying to burst your speculatory bubble but I have no intention of running for the County Executive position and as far as discrediting the current County Executive she has been able to do and outstanding job with that all by herself. Allen Barrett
Well wab, it's about time you started stirring up more trouble with some new and, of course, negative thread on this blog. In case you haven't noticed, it's about dead again.
I look forward to seeing your next negative topic which will no doubt be started purely for the "betterment" of Giles County. Right?
I do not agree with WAB often, but I do agree that JVZ has discredited herself. I think that the persons who support her should see that she can not tell the same story twice, that she is bad for our county.
If you think she is on the up and up with you, and that she is on your side.....just give it time. If you don't believe it, just watch her.
When may we expect the next negative and finger-pointing thread on this blog? It's dying again, so we must have some juicy rumor or gossip to talk about. But how about selecting a victim other than Mrs. Vanzant, Mr. Jackson, or certain other officials who have been targets for so long? Surely something can be dug up to embarrass or discredit someone else for a change.
To: Posters 1:30 and 1:45 Sat. and 7:10 Sun. as well as various others. I am not sure what blog you are reading, but on this particular one, I have noticed that WAB actually expresses an opinion very rarely. He is responsible enough to present unbiased articles and leave it, for the most part to the "anonymous's" (myself included) to work themselves into a frenzy by twisting the facts. Have any of you actually read the topics, or does the title simply hit a nerve and you go off on some perceived slight or insult. Occasionally, WAB expresses an opinion; it is his right as much as ours, but if we disagree with him, we know who it is and how to contact him. I don't have time to go to all the mtgs that he attends and it's a pretty safe bet, in my opinion that we won't get the whole story from the local paper, so I appreciate his posting of important information. Some of US are so conditioned to the "don't ask don't tell mentality, that as soon as a basic article with FACTS only and no commentary is published, we immediately jump to the conclusion that he is stirring up trouble. Just because we don't like the facts, doesn't change the facts. I may not like what is going on, but I should CARE that it is going on. Most of you who accuse WAB of stirring the pot, when you ask him to prove his statements, he does. Then instead of acknowledging that he backed up his statements, you go off on another tangent, never admitting that he knew what he was talking about.
Seriously, go back and read the topics. How many opinions of Barretts do you read? Be honest. And to those of you who "hate" this blog, maybe somebody should get rich writing a book called "Blogs for Dummies". The problem is it would only have one page and it would say, "If you do not like what you are reading, then stop reading it."
Guilty also
1:26
I am 7:10, and I stand by every word I said. Opinions? Yes, I just shared mine.
I can assure you 2:18 that Jackson is no victim. Not really sure what your point was of your post. My comment refers to your previous post.
anon
1:11 a.m.
Look, I don't see it the way you do, and that makes me neither right or wrong. The same applies to you.
Yes, Mr. Jackson and others determined to be undesirables are victimized AND demonized on this blog. It's a shame that people professing Christianity stoop to such low levels. Am I judging? NO! It reminds me of an old saying that says I can't hear what you are saying, because your actions are deafening. Think.
I agree 6:20 AM, because we may hold different opinions does not in itself make either one right or wrong. The deciding factor should always be the facts. I speak for my self and identify myself when I do speak. There is no post on this blog where I have made a personal attack against anyone, demonized or victimized anyone on a personal level. I have said some strong things and spoke plainly in what I have accused anyone of but I always provided the facts to support my statements. Ignore the facts and you perpetuate the problem.
Either you are someone who writes similar to you have on a number of occasions questioned my "Christianity" because I have unveiled some ugly situations. I believe it is a part of my Christian duty to stand firm against anything I know to be wrong.
Would you declare someone such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer the Lutheran minister, to be Un-Christian because he helped organize and fought with the Resistance in Nazi Germany?
Your last sentence says a great deal about the shallowness of your thinking. In-action speaks as loudly as anything else a person can do, especially in the face of wrong. Allen Barrett
Mr. Barrett....
Did I say anything questionable about Allen Barrett's Christianity? No. But I will say that your brand of Christianity is vastly different from mine.
Do you not call it demonizing someone when you call them a liar? Perhaps our dictionaries are vastly different as well. And you question the shallowness of my thinking. What a laugh.
To 5:45 I believe that your implication was very clear especially based on your number of other comments about my Christianity or lack of.
I checked my dictionary and found that "DEMONIZE" means 1) an evil spirit: a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin. Now that we know what demonize means let's look at what I actually said and not your simple lopsided interpretation.
My statement was, "There is no post on this blog where I have made a personal attack against anyone, demonized or victimized anyone on a personal level. I have said some strong things and spoke plainly in what I have accused anyone of but I always provided the facts to support my statements". You see the thing is you are not demonizing a person when you take their behavior and show the facts to prove it to be evil, harmful or ruinous.
Someday, though I have almost given up the thought, my hope for you is that you will open your eyes and mind to see that when facts are presented in support of an accusation it tends to carry more weight that when a person simply makes an unfounded accusation. So far not once have you presented anything backed by anything other that your feelings and even those you don't have the conviction to be identified with.
You sir, based on your writings and behavior on this blog, are revealed as a weak thinker, an opinionated boor, a coward and an enabler of wrong behavior, but you have a nice day now. Allen Barrett
Well, at least you didn't call me an anal buffoon. You are absolutely hilarious!
Please allow me to make an observation, since you made a feeble and erroneous attempt to depict me as someone I'm not. I have NEVER seen a preacher out in public creating havoc and calling people names other than you. Such behavior presents the wrong example and is a HUGE stumbling block to those who might decide Christianity is not for them. Have you honestly ever thought of that? Does the Bible teach us that we will in fact give an account for causing our brother to stumble? YES!
You sir, can condescend and use smart remarks to me all you want, but the fact remains that you ARE guilty of demonizing those who, for whatever reasons, are found in your cross hairs. And I make that observation based on watching your behavior.
To the cowardly lion who wrote the 27 Oct. 5:44 post. I did not call you an “anal buffoon” because you have sunk far below that designation and besides I know how much trouble you had trying to understand it before. Remember how upset you became at thinking it referred to part of your anatomy? I take it as a compliment that you refer to me as “hilarious”. How could I take it any other way considering the fact that you have been proven wrong about so very many other things? So as you sit mindless in your hebephrenic stupor laughing at the shadowed delusions that control your life, perhaps someone will remind you that I am “absolutely hilariously” happy in my life.
So you’ve never seen “a preacher out in public creating havoc and calling people names other than you. Such behavior presents the wrong example and is a HUGE stumbling block to those who might decide Christianity is not for them”. What a very interesting thought, now if you carry that thought forward with logic it would seem that because you have never actually seen a Kodiak Bear in the wild they obviously don’t exist. Because you have never actually seen the summit of Mt. Everest it simply doesn’t exist. Can anything be more absurd? Let me suggest you read about the life and ministry of John the Baptizer, Jesus, Peter, John, Stephen, Paul and dozens of other preachers in the Bible who went out “in public creating havoc and calling people names”. It seems Jesus was claimed to have turned the world upside down. You might also read 1 Peter 2:8 where Jesus is described as a “stumbling stone and rock of offense” to some folks. The Bible states that people stumble because of their blind unbelief. Now for some more modern day preachers who have publicly called others names have you ever heard of such people as Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, John Wesley, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell. Martin Luther King Jr., WA Criswell, Billy Graham, George Truett, RG Lee, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts. Each of these men were very effective in leading many to Christ but were vilified and cursed by many others, did their failure to please everyone prevent them being considered preachers even outstanding preachers? Every time a preacher calls sin what it is and those involved what they are he will be considered a trouble maker and “stumbling block”. Those who only want straight talk in church and meek get along acceptance outside of church will never be pleased with the active faith of others. Now as for “condescending and using smart remarks” to you, I have done no such thing. The word condescend means, “to waive the privileges of rank or to assume an air of superiority”. I feel no superiority or subservience to anyone. The way I speak is the same to every person, with respect until they act disrespectfully to me. If you fail to understand what I say it isn’t because I have spoken down to you but perhaps that you have failed to educate yourself to a higher level. As for using “smart remarks” I try to refrain from such things with you because you don’t seem to understand them, thus perhaps why you feel I “condescend” to you. Once again you make a false charge that I “demonize” others and so once again I ask you to give some evidence, your feelings excluded, where I have spoken ill of anyone without providing the evidence for such statements. Until you produce some such evidence with your name attached I have no choice but to believe your charges are nothing more than the aimless ramblings of a cowardly little person set on the obstructionist behavior of one committed to enabling evil. Allen Barrett
wab..
Why did I know that you would have a "logical" explanation for not calling me an anal buffoon? You called me everything else. Why? Because I strongly disagree with the way you act. Please don't flatter yourself by the fact that I called you hilarious. And you sir, are no John Calvin or martin Luther, so enough of those grandiose delusions already.
You claim that you never condescended or used smart remarks to me? Sure, you did. Isn't calling me names considered smart remarks. Is it not condescension when you give me the dictionary definition of what ther term means? Of course, it is.
You ask that I give evidence of where you spoke "ill" of anyone. Well, for goodness sakes, how how calling Mrs. Vanzant a liar? Would that not constitute speaking badly (ill) of someone? Sure, it does. Just because someone makes an anonymous charge does not make it untrue. And yes, I do believe we will have to give an account of those we cause to stumble. That would apply equally to us both, wouldn't it?
You called me a cowardly little person set on obstructionist behavior to enamle evil. You just spoke ill of me, sir, and I happen to be a Christian gentleman!
To the anonymous 28 Oct 3:30 fabricator.
You knew I would have a logical explanation because I am a very logical person. I could not care less about how strongly you disagree with me I have only asked that you would provide some reasoned support for your disagreement rather than to simply rely on your unfounded feelings and that you just don’t like me. Your comment that “And you sir, are no John Calvin or martin Luther, so enough of those grandiose delusions already” is a complete off the wall rant of either a very stupid person or one who is illiterate or both. Nowhere did I say or suggest that I was either of these men or anyone else other than myself nor did I claim to be or suggest that I was in the same league with them.
You state, “You claim that you never condescended or used smart remarks to me? Sure, you did. Isn't calling me names considered smart remarks? Is it not condescension when you give me the dictionary definition of what ther term means? Of course, it is.”
A smart remark has nothing to do with calling you a name, that’s the result of your actions. A smart remark is to offer the correct answer to a question just as a dumb remark would be to give the wrong answer, neither require nor involve calling you a name. I gave you the dictionary definition of t the word so you would stop misusing it.
You state, “You ask that I give evidence of where you spoke "ill" of anyone. Well, for goodness sakes, how calling Mrs. Vanzant a liar? Would that not constitute speaking badly (ill) of someone?” If I had stated what you said I would agree with you but the fact is that what I said was very different from what you claim. This is what I said, “Once again you make a false charge that I “demonize” others and so once again I ask you to give some evidence, your feelings excluded, where I have spoken ill of anyone without providing the evidence for such statements”. The key element here is speaking ill of someone without the evidence to support the accusation. When you produce that statement where there was no evidence I may think differently of you but until then I must remain sincere to my statements.
Now one other statement you make that reveals the utter stupidity of your claims, “Just because someone makes an anonymous charge does not make it untrue”. I agree with you and neither does it make it true but here’s the thing, I have made no “anonymous charges” each post I have made carries a very clear identification of who wrote it. You on the other hand have never posted anyway other than anonymous.
Yes, we will give an account for those we caused to stumble but, and this will probably be news to you, I will never have to give that accounting to you. I wonder why you failed to make even one mention of all those I listed including Jesus who at one time or another were accused of being stumbling blocks for others?
Yes I called you “a cowardly little person set on obstructionist behavior to enable evil and I stand firmly by that with my name as the seal. You claim to be a “Christian gentleman”! Not knowing exactly what you mean by that I would say based on what you write it is the rather grandiose delusion of a little mind who is more church member than Christian and as gentlemanly as Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini, but don’t give up there is always hope. Allen Barrett
wab
When I said you would give a logical explanation, I was being facetious. I thought you would have known that. And I never said you thought you were either John Calvin or Martin Luther, did I? Of course not. But in a paranoid delusional state, there have been individuals who even thought themselves Christ. Can you imagine that?
As for the evidence of your speaking ill about someone, I just gave you a clear example in the previous post. Would you not think calling someone a liar is speaking ill of him or her?
Now where in my post did I say that you of all people would make an anonymous charge? That would be a very foolish statement since you always post your name. I'm amazed that you misunderstood that. What I SAID is that just because someone makes and anonymous (didn't say wab) doesn't necessarily make it untrue.
You wonder why I failed to respond to all those names you listed? Well, sometimes it's just not worth the effort. You know as well as I do what the Bible teaches about being a stumbling block to our brother. I wonder why you didn't understand my example of the smoker with cigarette in hand who is trying to convince someone else not to smoke. The smoker's message isn't heard because the behavior is deafening. The smoker is the stumbling block to the person he's trying to convince.
Well, you can go ahead and stand by your calling me names and such, but you know it's not right. In parting, I must say that you are the only preacher I have ever known or encountered who called me names. And how you harmonize that with your position and with God's word absolutely slays me. Then you judge my statement as grandiose when I tell you I'm a Christian gentleman? Does your Bible not teach that one can know that he or she is in a saved relationship with God even though you don't think I am! And you never lay claim to an ounce of arrogance?
Hasn't it occurred to you that one of the reasons that this country is in the terrible shape it's in is because there aren't more preachers strong enough to stand up and call a snake a snake.
I may not always agree with Mr. Barrett but I certainly have to admire his willingness to say what he believes is right and wrong and not hide behind an anonymous name. The country needs more Mr. Barrett's or we will not survive the crazy liberalism that has infected our nation.
5:54
No, what occurs to me is that our country needs more preachers who are willing to pray for people instead of call them names. After all, Christ was very clear in His teachings on that.
Well 11:17 Seems either you don't know the Bible as well as you claim or else you just ignore the part you don't like. Try reading Matthew Chapter 23 and ask yourself if Jesus call anyone a name they objected to?
Read Matthew 3:7 and ask yourself did John The Baptizer call anyone names? Read Acts 4:10 and ask yourself did Peter call some folks murderers? I won't even list the numerous times Paul was in trouble because he called people names.
Here's the thing, calling a person a name without justification is very different from calling someone a name with justification. So when I have called a person a liar it has been after I have personally spoken to that individual and gave the justification for the name. I have not called anyone a name simply for personal reasons and each time I have referred to a person by an unflattering name in a post it has been with posted justification.
Now as for your "stumbling block" I gave you a long list of people that at sometime or another were considered stumbling blocks and you simply ignored that fact. I submit to you that the greatest stumbling block in history, that has kept people from God has been none other than Jesus Himself. The Bible identifies Jesus as a stumbling block and reality proves that billions of people have missed God because they were unwilling to go through Jesus to get to God. So I hope God will continue to strengthen me to do His will in speaking the truth and that I too may be considered a stumbling block to all who would use anything other than the truth to guide them.
I never questioned your salvation only what you wrote which revealed you more as a church goer than an active Christian and certainly did not show any "gentle man" qualities such as honesty, integrity, courage etc.
Allen Barrett
wab...
I WISH you could get past your grandiose delusion that you are smarter than anyone else and always a step ahead intellectually. Guess what? You're not!
I am aware of and understand the Biblical passages you asked me to look up. But, I stand by what I said about preachers. I have never known nor encountered one (other than you) who would call me names and attempt to discredit and belittle me. I could cite you a few scriptures, but what's the use? You would deny that they apply to you anyhow.
You charge that what I write reveals me more a church goer than a Christian. And then you say that you did not question my salvation? Or would you excuse yourself by saying you are only describing my behavior? Poppycock!
No, I AM a Christian "gentleman" who is no stranger to honesty and integrity. How about you?
I would add humility to your list of needed virtues. What does your Bible say about pride, a haughty spirit, a proud look, etc?
To 6:24 I have no delusions and never claimed to be smarter than anyone. I'm just an average person who happens to look at things through the clear cut imaginary of God's Word and the life experiences that have formed me into the person I am.
I never questioned your salvation that is not something I would do with anyone. I only questioned the possibility of your being more church goer than Christian based on two issues. One as I stated I didn't clearly know what you meant
by your term "Christian and gentleman"; 2nd that the qualities of a gentleman as I know them are missing from your writings.
While my personality may not set well with you and probably some others, I have never had anyone legitimately question my integrity or honesty.
It's rather odd that you speak of humility when you have so often claimed to know my thoughts, motivations and challenge the legitimacy of me proclaiming God's Word to others. To me the ultimate arrogance is to profess to know the motivations of another person, especially when you don't even know that person and the ultimate cowardice is to make such claims anonymously. Allen Barrett
wab...
Didn't you mean to say clear cut "imagery" of God's word? Just wondered.
Questioning whether or not I'm merely a church goer or a Christian IS raising questions about my salvation. I am amazed that you can't see that. You know NOTHING about my qualities as a gentleman, sir. And I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else. Do you honestly think calling people names in a public manner is a virtue of a gentleman?
You mentioned the ultimate arrogance and can't seem to see that you are brimming over with it. Unbelievable!
I would suggest that you do away with the anonymous feature of this blog if you don't like anonymous posts. That would be the kiss of death for a blog that's dying anyhow.
To 4:32, thanks for the correction.
I'm surprised at you not knowing that going to church is not an indication of salvation unless you believe that it's a requirement for salvation. I know that Salvation is the result of what Jesus did not where we go. Church attendance is an act of obedience for Christians, but there are many other reasons why some go to church that has nothing to do with salvation.
One thing I know about you is you seem to use the word gentleman to hide your cowardice and ignorance behind.
I agree you don't have to prove anything to me but if you insist on publicly making statements that reveal you to be a hypocritical ignoramus perhaps you might benefit by proving yourself as something different from what you have thus far. I mentioned the ultimate arrogance as claiming to know the motivations of another person, especially when you don't even know them. Not once have I ever said or implied that I know why you do the things you do. I can only know what you do and guess at the reasoning. You on the other hand have made numerous claims that you know absolutely that you know my motivations.
Anonymous is a legitimate term to post under but it is inappropriate that one would continuously make personal attacks and hide under the anonymous label while claiming to be a responsible adult "gentleman". Allen Barrett
wab...
You just can't accept the fact that I am a Christian gentleman, can you? Well, I am whether you think so or not. If we be fellow Christians, then why do you insist on calling me names (hypocritical ignoramus, coward, ignorant)? And I don't need a sermon on church attendance and the various motives some people have for going to church. Furthermore, I don't have to defend or explain my love for going to church to you.
When did I ever imply that I knew your motivations? I once asked and did not imply or suggest that perhaps you want to discredit Mrs. Vanzant in every way you can so that you could run for her job. I NEVER said that WAS in fact your motivation. I simply threw the question out for consideration. Don't you routinely do the same thing by "suggesting" things and then sitting back and watching the fireworks? I think you do. Notice that I didn't say you do.
Finally, the things you call personal attacks on you are mere observations based on empirical evidence (your behavior). You keep leaving yourself open for scrutiny and then seem to get angry and start calling names when that occurs.
Hopefully, I have been able to clear up some additional misunderstandings on your part.
Do you not know what the Bible says about a quarrel with your brother. It says go to that brother and talk it out. And also forgive. That is something we all need to work on. Don't ruin the blog by bickering back and forth, just stick to the topic and everything will be much better. There is to much criticing going on and if you think you can improve things by all means put your name on the ballot next year.
Mary
I DO consider one who differs with me my brother. We are ALL God's children. But, for the life of me, it's hard to understand why my brother continues to call me nasty names whenever I point out (constructive criticism) some of the things he says about others.
I suppose you are right about the forgiveness thing. We need to forgive even those who are too proud to ask for it. Good point.
No, I'll not be on a ballot anytime soon. I've been asked to run on occasion, but I would not tolerate the way some people (my brothers) get on this blog and crucify select individuals with no regard for their families and friends. Oh, I'd be OK as long as I was in their good grqaces. But Heaven forbid should they not like me! No, I won't put my family through that.
6:23 I believe WAB asked you to show an example of where he called someone a name without having the support to justify that name. So far you have not done that so it is obviously time to shut up since you cant put up.
I'm sure the Vanzant Speer faction has asked you to run for office but I know you are to cowardly to expose yourself to such an overwhelming defeat. Your ability lies in the fact you are an idle complainer about others doing what you are fearful of even trying.
Someday hopefully you will mature beyond nine years old and realize people don't see you as stupid because you disagree with them but because you write such stupid things.
1:22
My, but you have been busy cheerleading for the "whiners club" this afternoon.
It's none of your business who has asked me on occasion to consider a run for an office, but you go ahead and think what you will. It's a bit amusing that you said I would be subjected to an overwhelming defeat should I ever choose to run for an elected position. As I recall, it was some of those for whom you seem a cheerleader who were overwhelmingly defeated when they did run.
Tis better and more honorable to have failed trying than to never have tried and been a cowardly failure.
8:55
Surely, you are not referring to me as a coward because I don't want to subject myself or my family to the ruthlessness of people on this blog who do their level best to destroy anyone they dislike or resent? Surely not. It's because I AM an honorable person that I would not allow such a thing to happen to those I care about. It has nothing to do with cowardice as you so ignorantly suggest.
Perhaps you are getting it confused with...twas better to have loved and lost than to have never loved? What a laugh.
Yes, I was referring to you as a coward for many reasons one of which is your active mouth and inactive life. Cowardice is what one experiences when they know the right thing to do but choose to do something different instead and that about covers you. Your high self opinion exceeds arrogance and descends into self worship. Keep this up and I may have to reconsider your cowardice as being just stupidity.
11:33
Consider or reconsider whatever you wish; it makes no difference to me. Your problem with me is that I don't go along with what YOU think is right. And then you have the nerve to call me arrogant...among other things. Not a problem.
Are you not just as much a "coward" as I am since you post anonymously?
Post a Comment
<< Home