Like so many other aspects of thought and action, Wierwille and Martindale set the example for gun play that was followed by a great number (not all) twi leaders.
I believe that Vic's body guards were usually packing and the same for king okie...I believe this was fueled by the delusional self importance that they placed on their own lives...these "guys with the guns" were trained to believe that they were like secret service protecting the president...it was their job to protect the mog against the minions of hell...in other words, they were all whacko and capable of just about anything.
...and by the way, Geer wasn't the only "clergyman" carrying a gun at the famous clergy meeting...
It boggles the mind -- it really does. A bunch of "Clergy" . . . . . "packing heat"!! No other reason but to USE them--or to PROTECT themselves or to INTIMIDATE.
Now, if they were going to USE them--on who? Each other?
Who would they be ptrotecting themselves from? Each other?
Who were they trying to intimidate? Each other?
They claimed to be CLERGY!! What. . . . ordained by the NRA?
What kind of insanity runs that place? Your everyday garden variety paranoia--or a very special biblical paranoid-schizophrenic-delusional-bloated self-importance variety?
I guessed they missed that "love your enemies" "Turn the other cheek" stuff. Oh yeah, that is in the gospels--doesn't count. Sorry, got a little "crazy" there. That whole Jesus love your neighbor thing.
Think about it, that is really insane behavior. Carrying guns to a clergy meeting.
And at 21 with NO money --No family--owing your home and tiny living to the MOG bully who held the gun to your head--well, it didn't really encourage running to the police--throw in a meek heart--a hope to serve God--and the fact that some of us checked our brains at the door of PFAL--well, you might understand why he didn't leave.
I am glad to hear that some of us had the sense they were born with, but some of us were young-stupid and had a pathetic upbringing which allowed us to be so manipulated.
Maybe that is why people say-"If I knew then what I know now" I sure think about that when I consider all I put up with.
The more I think about this topic, the more shivers I get. When we were in FWC 20 we had to take a hunter's safety course and fire a .22 rifle and a shotgun of our choice (I chose the 20 gauge and it still knocked me on my butt). It did get me over my fear of firearms though.
But the very thought of a bunch of socalled men and women of God in a big important meeting and some of them, including the thug who called the meeting to begin with, carrying firearms in there, what on earth? These guys are just plain nuts and I wish I'd left sooner than I did.
There's just nothing left there that remotely resembles the teachings of Jesus. But then, He never was all that important to TWI, I guess.
Yeah. Craig's Advanced Class (PFAL -- I was gone before the WAP AC). He made a show of cocking a shotgun and a pistol (a Glock, I think) as "sounds that would back off a devil spirit." or words to that effect. At least in HIS theology, a devil spirit would rather hang out in a human that he'd already "conditioned" than have to go find another.
George
I remember that well - it was a Glock.
I also remember that he brought out a piece before the AC at Rome City once and cocked it.... I grew up around guns and had no problem with being around it but it was just soooooo surreal to see a weapon in a former RC church....
I remember being in some leaders' meeting (it might have been at an AC or WIB). The gentleman leading my group was a BC in Louisiana. He shared that in one PFAL class he ran, he had to remove a firearm from one of the participants (not by force, just saying the guy didn't need it). I started laughing hysterically, thinking about a guy who thought he might have to shoot his way out of a Bible class!
Now a clergy meeting, on the other hand... :blink:
So, then, in essence, the top dogs, VPW included, didn't really "believe" all their own banter about how we were "more than conquerors" in every situation because of the "Christ in me". They didn't really "believe" God would protect them and give them adequate wisdom. Instead, they resorted to the same methods used by "natural man"----- guns, goons, guard dogs and bodyguards.
And to think that these are the same guys who once told us that carrying a spare in the trunk meant we were believing to get a flat tire.
Where was their "believing"?
To be fair, Nehemiah had armed people building the wall of Jerusalem, and Paul had a Roman cohort protect him from those who plotted to kill him.
And at 21 with NO money --No family--owing your home and tiny living to the MOG bully who held the gun to your head--well, it didn't really encourage running to the police--throw in a meek heart--a hope to serve God--and the fact that some of us checked our brains at the door of PFAL--well, you might understand why he didn't leave.
I am glad to hear that some of us had the sense they were born with, but some of us were young-stupid and had a pathetic upbringing which allowed us to be so manipulated.
Maybe that is why people say-"If I knew then what I know now" I sure think about that when I consider all I put up with.
Most of us were young with varying degrees of stupid due to circumstances beyond our control. I'm just very confused as to how anyone just sat there and thought there was anything remotely godly about the behavior. I'm honestly trying to understand this.
Bluze- I agree. My godmother became a paraplegic the day her policeman husband was cleaning his gun (he thought the gun was empty but there was one in the chamber and he left the safety off.) The bullet ricocheted two rooms away and severed her spinal cord.
That's just crazy...but it unfortunately happens all the time. I think on the part of the person that handles the gun everyday it is complacency fueled by familiarity. Not that this is an excuse...there is no excuse and there arent enough 'I'm sorry's' in the universe that will make it all better.
As for the topic at hand...yes I think some of those folks that packed back in the day or even today are unhinged enough to fire the darn thing. And some of them might even have a twinge of guilt afterwords. (Just a twinge mind you.)
Most of us were young with varying degrees of stupid due to circumstances beyond our control. I'm just very confused as to how anyone just sat there and thought there was anything remotely godly about the behavior. I'm honestly trying to understand this.
Well, I didn't say hubby thought it was Godly behavior. In fact, he thought this guy unhinged, but, he used a firearm to intimidate hubby and it worked. Hubby was afraid of him. It wasn't until I came along that he got away from him. That wasn't all he did to people BTW. I have a list of real life horror stories.
There are others who post here--who knew this guy. They may have had different experiences, but I do know someones ex--who walked out with a string of cusses and anger and didn't look back. Good for him--we wish we had done the same. We talk about the what-ifs sometime.
He was the big MOG of the region. I will say this--hubby did love this guys wife and kids--his brother and sister-in-law are among the kindest people you ever want to meet.
But, hubby still has a hard time speaking of this guy without a string of invective and the guy has been dead a few years. It was a big deal.
I mean why did any of us put up with it? Woman raped and drugged who remained. Woman chased and hounded and nearly driven insane. Why suicide instead of just leaving?
Stupid choices.
I had a stalker--we kept it "in house". I could have gone to the police. I bet many of us at one time or another could have.
Abused people often stay in relationships--relationships take many forms--why did any of us stay? I honestly don't know. I know now what I would do--but this is now--that was then. A whole different mindset and understanding.
Crazy huh? I am glad you retained your wits-I didn't have any to begin with--I grew em post TWI. True.
We allowed ourselves to be submissive to men who abused--we thought we were serving a greater good. We were fooled.
Again--if I knew then what I do now--my life would be different--better youth, more productive service to my fellow man and a whole lotta shouting down TWI from the rooftops.
Hubby just said--if it was "Healing wholeness" for the women. What were they doing with the guys? Intimidation and fear. Guess it all depends on who you were around.
My former splinter group has had gun ownership and training of the youth in proper gun safety a goal. Personally, I do not think that they would be very good at intimidating folks with weapons for the majority of the gun owning locals in their rural area.
Once, the member of the group that was given some responsibility in terms of researching the types and numbers of guns that they would buy got permission to rid the group farm of a pest. In spite of his supposed skill he took a rifle out of the box and without sighting or test firing the weapon he started shooting at the deer from close range, about fifty feet if I recall. He didn't even come close, but did manage to chase the pest off that day anyway.
On another day the same elder that fired me from my job later was boasting to me of all the different weapons they have and the multitude of ammunition, with a view to convincing me that the fox that was at the time preying on the chickens was dead meat if it showed up again. After he finished I (With a completely straight face mind you) said,"So what you're saying is the fox has a fifty-fifty chance if it shows up." (snort, chuckle) Some time later he told me that after spotting the fox crossing a field coming in their direction several of them got their rifles out and unloaded many rounds in the foxes general direction, but that it ran of unscathed. Then with a surprisingly thoughtful look on his face acknowledged that the fox had about a fifty-fifty chance.
And this is going on in a group in which the leader has told them that they would be attacked by the locals or the government, SCARY!!!
Sorry for the off-topic part of this post, now back to the topic.
For my splinter group intimidation tactics I've heard of all manner of intimidation of the general public even, mostly after I was kicked out and started talking to the general public. Most of it involved isolating someone that they wanted to work over to get their way. Most of the intimidation seems to be verbal, but there were a couple of thugs that could get in someone's face if they thought it would get them what they want. I consider it to the kind of behavior that a pack of jackels might be good at if they ran in packs and isolated their prey.
Within a structured sharing the leader would work us all over by picking out someone to be verbally abused, and then share his supposed heavy- revy for the day. Once he yelled at his poor wife for about five minutes in front of us all for a harmless mistake that she made in the public kitchen while preparing food for a church meeting.
For me the only thing that has held them back from actually physically assaulting people is fear of reprisals. I'm even now recalling many types of intimidation that happened to me and others, but I'm running out of time today. I think that all had inflated self worth at the delusional stage as an underlying factor anyway.
... I think on the part of the person that handles the gun everyday it is complacency fueled by familiarity. Not that this is an excuse...there is no excuse and there arent enough 'I'm sorry's' in the universe that will make it all better.
Slight disagreement here. Familiarity is not the fuel for complacency. One SHOULD be familiar with any dangerous object, be it it gun, a vehicle or your kitchen blender. That, coupled with concern, makes you safer. Now if familiarity is COUPLED with complacency you have a problem - but familiarity is not the fuel itself - one's own complacency is the real fuel.
The real fuel is usually bravado and/or contempt which can be masked as familiarity. We've all seen the drunk at the bar. His buddies ask if he needs a ride home and he waves his hand around and says he's just fine... "I can drive my home from here with my eyes shut." It is not his familiarity that makes him dangerous. It is the bravado.
So the bravado of being in power as a MOG is what gave some the idea that they should bring guns to a "clergy meeting," or to sit it intimidatingly on a desk in plain sight while a young man was confronting the MOGFODATAH?
Out of context. I was only referring to Eye's comment about "complacency fueled by familiarity" in the general context of gun handling and/or other dangerous equipment.
So the bravado of being in power as a MOG is what gave some the idea that they should bring guns to a "clergy meeting," or to sit it intimidatingly on a desk in plain sight while a young man was confronting the MOGFODATAH?
I'm just saying...
The whole gun thing went way beyond clergy. TWI taught gun ownership in an almost vigilante way. While it is my experience that clergy were never taught explicitly to carry weapons of any sort - many of us can refer back to the lovely one week "gun safety" class in the corps and the foolish Henny Penny MAL pack fiasco. A one week course - with a borrowed gun does NOT make you safe OR familiar enough to handle, let alone own, a gun.
I only know of a very few clergy who had guns at the clergy meeting and all but two of them were on staff at HQ. The other two were pretty deviant already and would have been packing whether it was a clergy meeting or an ROA.
Out of context. I was only referring to Eye's comment about "complacency fueled by familiarity" in the general context of gun handling and/or other dangerous equipment.
The whole gun thing went way beyond clergy. TWI taught gun ownership in an almost vigilante way. While it is my experience that clergy were never taught explicitly to carry weapons of any sort - many of us can refer back to the lovely one week "gun safety" class in the corps and the foolish Henny Penny MAL pack fiasco. A one week course - with a borrowed gun does NOT make you safe OR familiar enough to handle, let alone own, a gun.
I only know of a very few clergy who had guns at the clergy meeting and all but two of them were on staff at HQ. The other two were pretty deviant already and would have been packing whether it was a clergy meeting or an ROA.
I apologize RumRunner. I was just thinking on the page.
I guess I don't know how to describe the mentality I'm referring to.
A young woman (non-twi) who carried a pistol for self-defense once told me:
This abuse of guns and people thing makes me somewhat ill.
I will be the first to admit that I like guns. I've owned them since I was a 12 year old. I qualified with all manner of US and German light weapons in the Army, up to and including 30 caliber machine guns. I have several big noisy guns in my bedroom and a few small ones too. Since I've become a father 21 years ago I've rarely fired them. I hope to change that soon as my wife and two of my employees have shown a strong interest in target shooting.
That said, guns are utterly unforgiving. You can't undo a fired bullet. To threaten a person with a firearm, either bluffing or serious, is absolutely despicable behavior. Let's be really clear. Threatening a person with a firearm is a *felony* and to my thinking should result in some serious prison time. To threaten a person with a firearm in the name of Christianity is the worst kind of hypocrisy and ignorance.
Regarding the clergy meeting, I know only what I've read here at GSC. I never meant to allow the focus to go there.
I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts into words regarding this subject.
I have no doubt that there are those there are some dangerous people at HQ with the potential to use a firearm and do some real damage. The gray area for me is the relatively sane people that know better and yet still choose to use a gun for the purpose of intimidation and manipulation.
I guess I'm trying to say that a threat is only as good as the promise to follow through on it. Do you think that the black cloud of bad publicity is enough to stay someone's hand?
Perhaps it just depends on the situation and the people involved.
Like so many other aspects of thought and action, Wierwille and Martindale set the example for gun play that was followed by a great number (not all) twi leaders.
I believe that Vic's body guards were usually packing and the same for king okie...I believe this was fueled by the delusional self importance that they placed on their own lives...these "guys with the guns" were trained to believe that they were like secret service protecting the president...it was their job to protect the mog against the minions of hell...in other words, they were all whacko and capable of just about anything.
...and by the way, Geer wasn't the only "clergyman" carrying a gun at the famous clergy meeting...
Ya know.. all it would have taken would be for one of them to sneeze or twitch just right, and a lot of the "clergy problem" would have been solved..
Dooj, the real troubling part of this to me is, why would a *MINISTER* in a CHURH need to pack lead, to either enforce compliance, or to protect oneself from the "flock"?
it juist sounds like an insane mindset to begin with.
Dooj, the real troubling part of this to me is, why would a *MINISTER* in a CHURH need to pack lead, to either enforce compliance, or to protect oneself from the "flock"?
it juist sounds like an insane mindset to begin with.
Ham, that's why I started the thread the way I did:
Control.
Control at all costs.
Intimidate and manipulate.
This is what I frequently think about when I think about some of the tactics I saw while in twi. It could have been as subtle as a leader telling you to get back in fellowship (even though you didn't even know you were out,) or it could have been as intense as a public face melting.
We've read and heard about the brandishing of guns by Mr Linder and his henchmen. It's one thing to have a security force of twi "rent a cop wannabes" to keep things safe. It's quite another when you consider that guns have been used to intimidate people into keeping their their mouths shut and maintaining the party line.
How would the following headline be received?
"Wayfer Killed by TWI Security Force"
Twi is all about controlling their image. I wonder if there is any real "teeth" to the threat of gun violence when a gun is conveniently shown to intimidate a "beloved member of the household."
What do you think? Do you think they would follow through with it? Do you think they just play the odds that someone doesn't want to find out?
The very fact that a gun needs to be shown points to a desperate need to control circumstances. A "guard the party line at any and all costs" kind of mentality.
Just think about how many moral filters have been breached to get to this kind of thought. Of course, there's religious extremism in play here, so it's not surprising. But, just what is being protected? and who? and who will really stand to gain the most in the end?
Ham, that's why I started the thread the way I did:
The very fact that a gun needs to be shown points to a desperate need to control circumstances. A "guard the party line at any and all costs" kind of mentality.
Just think about how many moral filters have been breached to get to this kind of thought. Of course, there's religious extremism in play here, so it's not surprising. But, just what is being protected? and who? and who will really stand to gain the most in the end?
Rhetorical questions really, but worth asking.
Bully mentality...
The bold part, that's it exactly. I have a very small collection of weapons, but I enjoy them. But I don't make it a point to show them to everyone. In fact, about 3 people that I know in real life have seen my weapons. And that is because they are also interested in firearms. Why on earth would someone feel it necessary to not only BRING a weapon to a church (or whatever the he!! twi wants to call it) much less bring it out and show it to people IN CHURCH?
Of course, none of that ever happened in MY twig. If it had, the next week I would have taken along my Draganouv and told the TC "Hey, mine is a HE!! of a lot bigger than yours dude". :)
It's almost, if not entirely Machievellian.. at least seems to me.
The "Prince" can't afford the "luxury" to adopt the "ordinary" morals of citizenry.
I think in der vey's case, the "prince's" primary responsability was to study how to make war on, not other nations, but different religious groups and centers of thought.
There WERE two different sets of morals and standards in the organization.. that's pretty obvious.
Dissention was quashed with a brutal hand of terror.. with such efficiency, that dissention was usually put down, even before it could possibly occur.
Can't you just FEEL the "love"..
I think they sent out goons and hatchet (ahem) "men" to our area to bleed off those who wouldn't tolerate loy's "indiscretions" before they even came to light.
Recommended Posts
geisha779
It boggles the mind -- it really does. A bunch of "Clergy" . . . . . "packing heat"!! No other reason but to USE them--or to PROTECT themselves or to INTIMIDATE.
Now, if they were going to USE them--on who? Each other?
Who would they be ptrotecting themselves from? Each other?
Who were they trying to intimidate? Each other?
They claimed to be CLERGY!! What. . . . ordained by the NRA?
What kind of insanity runs that place? Your everyday garden variety paranoia--or a very special biblical paranoid-schizophrenic-delusional-bloated self-importance variety?
I guessed they missed that "love your enemies" "Turn the other cheek" stuff. Oh yeah, that is in the gospels--doesn't count. Sorry, got a little "crazy" there. That whole Jesus love your neighbor thing.
Think about it, that is really insane behavior. Carrying guns to a clergy meeting.
And at 21 with NO money --No family--owing your home and tiny living to the MOG bully who held the gun to your head--well, it didn't really encourage running to the police--throw in a meek heart--a hope to serve God--and the fact that some of us checked our brains at the door of PFAL--well, you might understand why he didn't leave.
I am glad to hear that some of us had the sense they were born with, but some of us were young-stupid and had a pathetic upbringing which allowed us to be so manipulated.
Maybe that is why people say-"If I knew then what I know now" I sure think about that when I consider all I put up with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
The more I think about this topic, the more shivers I get. When we were in FWC 20 we had to take a hunter's safety course and fire a .22 rifle and a shotgun of our choice (I chose the 20 gauge and it still knocked me on my butt). It did get me over my fear of firearms though.
But the very thought of a bunch of socalled men and women of God in a big important meeting and some of them, including the thug who called the meeting to begin with, carrying firearms in there, what on earth? These guys are just plain nuts and I wish I'd left sooner than I did.
There's just nothing left there that remotely resembles the teachings of Jesus. But then, He never was all that important to TWI, I guess.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
I remember that well - it was a Glock.
I also remember that he brought out a piece before the AC at Rome City once and cocked it.... I grew up around guns and had no problem with being around it but it was just soooooo surreal to see a weapon in a former RC church....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I remember being in some leaders' meeting (it might have been at an AC or WIB). The gentleman leading my group was a BC in Louisiana. He shared that in one PFAL class he ran, he had to remove a firearm from one of the participants (not by force, just saying the guy didn't need it). I started laughing hysterically, thinking about a guy who thought he might have to shoot his way out of a Bible class!
Now a clergy meeting, on the other hand... :blink:
To be fair, Nehemiah had armed people building the wall of Jerusalem, and Paul had a Roman cohort protect him from those who plotted to kill him.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Most of us were young with varying degrees of stupid due to circumstances beyond our control. I'm just very confused as to how anyone just sat there and thought there was anything remotely godly about the behavior. I'm honestly trying to understand this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
That's just crazy...but it unfortunately happens all the time. I think on the part of the person that handles the gun everyday it is complacency fueled by familiarity. Not that this is an excuse...there is no excuse and there arent enough 'I'm sorry's' in the universe that will make it all better.
As for the topic at hand...yes I think some of those folks that packed back in the day or even today are unhinged enough to fire the darn thing. And some of them might even have a twinge of guilt afterwords. (Just a twinge mind you.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, I didn't say hubby thought it was Godly behavior. In fact, he thought this guy unhinged, but, he used a firearm to intimidate hubby and it worked. Hubby was afraid of him. It wasn't until I came along that he got away from him. That wasn't all he did to people BTW. I have a list of real life horror stories.
There are others who post here--who knew this guy. They may have had different experiences, but I do know someones ex--who walked out with a string of cusses and anger and didn't look back. Good for him--we wish we had done the same. We talk about the what-ifs sometime.
He was the big MOG of the region. I will say this--hubby did love this guys wife and kids--his brother and sister-in-law are among the kindest people you ever want to meet.
But, hubby still has a hard time speaking of this guy without a string of invective and the guy has been dead a few years. It was a big deal.
I mean why did any of us put up with it? Woman raped and drugged who remained. Woman chased and hounded and nearly driven insane. Why suicide instead of just leaving?
Stupid choices.
I had a stalker--we kept it "in house". I could have gone to the police. I bet many of us at one time or another could have.
Abused people often stay in relationships--relationships take many forms--why did any of us stay? I honestly don't know. I know now what I would do--but this is now--that was then. A whole different mindset and understanding.
Crazy huh? I am glad you retained your wits-I didn't have any to begin with--I grew em post TWI. True.
We allowed ourselves to be submissive to men who abused--we thought we were serving a greater good. We were fooled.
Again--if I knew then what I do now--my life would be different--better youth, more productive service to my fellow man and a whole lotta shouting down TWI from the rooftops.
Hubby just said--if it was "Healing wholeness" for the women. What were they doing with the guys? Intimidation and fear. Guess it all depends on who you were around.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
My former splinter group has had gun ownership and training of the youth in proper gun safety a goal. Personally, I do not think that they would be very good at intimidating folks with weapons for the majority of the gun owning locals in their rural area.
Once, the member of the group that was given some responsibility in terms of researching the types and numbers of guns that they would buy got permission to rid the group farm of a pest. In spite of his supposed skill he took a rifle out of the box and without sighting or test firing the weapon he started shooting at the deer from close range, about fifty feet if I recall. He didn't even come close, but did manage to chase the pest off that day anyway.
On another day the same elder that fired me from my job later was boasting to me of all the different weapons they have and the multitude of ammunition, with a view to convincing me that the fox that was at the time preying on the chickens was dead meat if it showed up again. After he finished I (With a completely straight face mind you) said,"So what you're saying is the fox has a fifty-fifty chance if it shows up." (snort, chuckle) Some time later he told me that after spotting the fox crossing a field coming in their direction several of them got their rifles out and unloaded many rounds in the foxes general direction, but that it ran of unscathed. Then with a surprisingly thoughtful look on his face acknowledged that the fox had about a fifty-fifty chance.
And this is going on in a group in which the leader has told them that they would be attacked by the locals or the government, SCARY!!!
Sorry for the off-topic part of this post, now back to the topic.
For my splinter group intimidation tactics I've heard of all manner of intimidation of the general public even, mostly after I was kicked out and started talking to the general public. Most of it involved isolating someone that they wanted to work over to get their way. Most of the intimidation seems to be verbal, but there were a couple of thugs that could get in someone's face if they thought it would get them what they want. I consider it to the kind of behavior that a pack of jackels might be good at if they ran in packs and isolated their prey.
Within a structured sharing the leader would work us all over by picking out someone to be verbally abused, and then share his supposed heavy- revy for the day. Once he yelled at his poor wife for about five minutes in front of us all for a harmless mistake that she made in the public kitchen while preparing food for a church meeting.
For me the only thing that has held them back from actually physically assaulting people is fear of reprisals. I'm even now recalling many types of intimidation that happened to me and others, but I'm running out of time today. I think that all had inflated self worth at the delusional stage as an underlying factor anyway.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Slight disagreement here. Familiarity is not the fuel for complacency. One SHOULD be familiar with any dangerous object, be it it gun, a vehicle or your kitchen blender. That, coupled with concern, makes you safer. Now if familiarity is COUPLED with complacency you have a problem - but familiarity is not the fuel itself - one's own complacency is the real fuel.
The real fuel is usually bravado and/or contempt which can be masked as familiarity. We've all seen the drunk at the bar. His buddies ask if he needs a ride home and he waves his hand around and says he's just fine... "I can drive my home from here with my eyes shut." It is not his familiarity that makes him dangerous. It is the bravado.
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
So the bravado of being in power as a MOG is what gave some the idea that they should bring guns to a "clergy meeting," or to sit it intimidatingly on a desk in plain sight while a young man was confronting the MOGFODATAH?
Insanity.... straight insanity.
And who's holding the weapons in the asylum now?
I'm just saying...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Out of context. I was only referring to Eye's comment about "complacency fueled by familiarity" in the general context of gun handling and/or other dangerous equipment.
The whole gun thing went way beyond clergy. TWI taught gun ownership in an almost vigilante way. While it is my experience that clergy were never taught explicitly to carry weapons of any sort - many of us can refer back to the lovely one week "gun safety" class in the corps and the foolish Henny Penny MAL pack fiasco. A one week course - with a borrowed gun does NOT make you safe OR familiar enough to handle, let alone own, a gun.
I only know of a very few clergy who had guns at the clergy meeting and all but two of them were on staff at HQ. The other two were pretty deviant already and would have been packing whether it was a clergy meeting or an ROA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I apologize RumRunner. I was just thinking on the page.
I guess I don't know how to describe the mentality I'm referring to.
A young woman (non-twi) who carried a pistol for self-defense once told me:
Don't point a gun unless you intend to shoot.
Back to the topic...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
This abuse of guns and people thing makes me somewhat ill.
I will be the first to admit that I like guns. I've owned them since I was a 12 year old. I qualified with all manner of US and German light weapons in the Army, up to and including 30 caliber machine guns. I have several big noisy guns in my bedroom and a few small ones too. Since I've become a father 21 years ago I've rarely fired them. I hope to change that soon as my wife and two of my employees have shown a strong interest in target shooting.
That said, guns are utterly unforgiving. You can't undo a fired bullet. To threaten a person with a firearm, either bluffing or serious, is absolutely despicable behavior. Let's be really clear. Threatening a person with a firearm is a *felony* and to my thinking should result in some serious prison time. To threaten a person with a firearm in the name of Christianity is the worst kind of hypocrisy and ignorance.
This is just stunningly bad behavior.
Edited by JimLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Okay, it seems I derailed my own thread.
Regarding the clergy meeting, I know only what I've read here at GSC. I never meant to allow the focus to go there.
I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts into words regarding this subject.
I have no doubt that there are those there are some dangerous people at HQ with the potential to use a firearm and do some real damage. The gray area for me is the relatively sane people that know better and yet still choose to use a gun for the purpose of intimidation and manipulation.
I guess I'm trying to say that a threat is only as good as the promise to follow through on it. Do you think that the black cloud of bad publicity is enough to stay someone's hand?
Perhaps it just depends on the situation and the people involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Ya know.. all it would have taken would be for one of them to sneeze or twitch just right, and a lot of the "clergy problem" would have been solved..
Dooj, the real troubling part of this to me is, why would a *MINISTER* in a CHURH need to pack lead, to either enforce compliance, or to protect oneself from the "flock"?
it juist sounds like an insane mindset to begin with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ham, that's why I started the thread the way I did:
The very fact that a gun needs to be shown points to a desperate need to control circumstances. A "guard the party line at any and all costs" kind of mentality.
Just think about how many moral filters have been breached to get to this kind of thought. Of course, there's religious extremism in play here, so it's not surprising. But, just what is being protected? and who? and who will really stand to gain the most in the end?
Rhetorical questions really, but worth asking.
Bully mentality...
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
The bold part, that's it exactly. I have a very small collection of weapons, but I enjoy them. But I don't make it a point to show them to everyone. In fact, about 3 people that I know in real life have seen my weapons. And that is because they are also interested in firearms. Why on earth would someone feel it necessary to not only BRING a weapon to a church (or whatever the he!! twi wants to call it) much less bring it out and show it to people IN CHURCH?
Of course, none of that ever happened in MY twig. If it had, the next week I would have taken along my Draganouv and told the TC "Hey, mine is a HE!! of a lot bigger than yours dude". :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It's almost, if not entirely Machievellian.. at least seems to me.
The "Prince" can't afford the "luxury" to adopt the "ordinary" morals of citizenry.
I think in der vey's case, the "prince's" primary responsability was to study how to make war on, not other nations, but different religious groups and centers of thought.
There WERE two different sets of morals and standards in the organization.. that's pretty obvious.
Dissention was quashed with a brutal hand of terror.. with such efficiency, that dissention was usually put down, even before it could possibly occur.
Can't you just FEEL the "love"..
I think they sent out goons and hatchet (ahem) "men" to our area to bleed off those who wouldn't tolerate loy's "indiscretions" before they even came to light.
Look who's left..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.