If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News 10 ABC Sacramento)   So ban on assault weapons in California supposedly oppresses people of the Sikh religion says man suing the state   (news10.net) divider line 20
    More: Unlikely, Yuba City, Sikhs, Sikh religion, gun controls  
•       •       •

5221 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-13 10:17:21 AM
4 votes:
This guy isn't just a Sikh, he is a Sikh asshat.

Sikh are required (by tradition / religion) to carry a Kirpan at all times. It is a ceremonial sword or dagger.

from teh intrawebs:
To Sikhs the Kirpan is religiously symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on a individual as well as social level. The usage of the Kirpan in this religious context is clearly indicated in the Sikh holy scriptures (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and wearing it is meant to inspire a Sikh in their daily life;

Oddly enough the ancient holy scripture remain agnostic on the whole AR-15 issue.

This guy is just a dickwad who wants to carry an AR-15 and thinks he found a religious loophole.

The lesson I draw from this is that NO laws in a secular country should have religious exceptions except Rastafarians mon.
2013-03-13 10:57:26 AM
2 votes:
Not a Sikh, but I have had extended conversations with a few of them about the need to carry their kirpan - their ceremonial knife.

The general consensus is that they are symbolic only - many kirpans are actually glued into their scabbard, or welded, or are so small as to be completely useless in combat.  Instead, they're meant to be a physical reminder of the commandment that you must actively prevent violence being done to others, and you may need to use violence to ensure that happens.  It's not as backwards as it sounds, basically it only authorizes violence in the cases where you're protecting others (or yourselves) and another party has already become violent.

There's also deeper stuff having to do with mental fortitude to defend against injustice and strike down lies, and other non-physical aspects, sort of like a mentally-armed political activist. By itself though, doesn't represent a real weapon, only a willingness to implement those ideals.  It's interesting because even in the US, they're allowed to - for example - fly with their kirpans, though there are ~some~ restrictions, and douchebag TSA agents still reserve the right to confiscate them.

There's apparently nothing in the religion that indicates they need to be actually literally armed with weapons capable of death of others at all times.
2013-03-13 10:19:30 AM
2 votes:

Marine1: That's kind of how I see it. I could be in the dark on this, but the Sikhs I've met and heard of don't sound like the types to go off the deep end.


All Sikhs I have ever met have been the nicest, kindest people you could ever meet. To me they appear to be one of the few religions that try to live up to the marketing material.

And the guy in the article is just an asshat who happens to claim to be a sikh.
2013-03-13 10:13:33 AM
2 votes:

steve-0: This has "religious fanatic" all over it, and not in the good way.


Well, maybe.

A basic tenet of the Sikh belief structure is the defense of the defenseless so maybe this one isn't so bad as the one that sets off car bombs.
2013-03-13 10:09:43 AM
2 votes:
Didn't this already get resolved by allowing students and adult Sikhs to wear kirpans anywhere they want? I thought the kirpan was "the sword of God"? Also, did this guy get named a Khalsa, or is he using Khalsa as his last name?

This has "religious fanatic" all over it, and not in the good way.
2013-03-13 11:04:48 AM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: jso2897: Joe Blowme: It would oppress everyone who lives under the protection of the US constitution, regardless of religion or lack there of

I don't know if I agree with you about that, but I do think we can agree that "technical" gun bans are not the way to go. I am FAR more concerned about who gets their hands on guns, and how, than I am about what kind of guns they get their hands on.
I know people I would trust with a tommy-gun in a nursery school - and people I wouldn't trust with a .22 Derringer in a biker bar.

I would thin that if the goal is to reduce death there are bigger holes in teh damn to fix first, this leads me to believe it is not really about the children or saving lives because we continue to ignore the larger killers of innocent people in favor of doing feel good measures that only affect law abiding citizens and further infringe on the 2nd. If we dont need more than a 10 round clip why to wwe need a vehicle that can go over the speed limit when speed kills way more that guns? Or drunk driving, why does everyone not have a breath start in their car? WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!??!


Well, you need to support your paradigm that ALL gun control is bad, and that only bad, unreasonable people support any form of it - so you will only dialogue with or accept as legitimate "gun control advocates" of the "Diane Feinstein" mold, and simply refuse to talk to, or even acknowledge the existence of the far more numerous advocates of a reasonable approach, such as myself. Of course, I do suspect that there is really no form of any kind of gun control that you would ever accept as legitimate, because after all other arguments are exhausted, you still have the "slippery - slope" argument, which, of course, ANYBODY can always use for ANYTHING.
2013-03-13 11:01:57 AM
1 votes:
Is there any article about "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines" that isn't trolltastic or at the very least significantly uninformed?
2013-03-13 10:59:42 AM
1 votes:

quietwalker: Not a Sikh, but I have had extended conversations with a few of them about the need to carry their kirpan - their ceremonial knife.

The general consensus is that they are symbolic only - many kirpans are actually glued into their scabbard, or welded, or are so small as to be completely useless in combat.  Instead, they're meant to be a physical reminder of the commandment that you must actively prevent violence being done to others, and you may need to use violence to ensure that happens.  It's not as backwards as it sounds, basically it only authorizes violence in the cases where you're protecting others (or yourselves) and another party has already become violent.

There's also deeper stuff having to do with mental fortitude to defend against injustice and strike down lies, and other non-physical aspects, sort of like a mentally-armed political activist. By itself though, doesn't represent a real weapon, only a willingness to implement those ideals.  It's interesting because even in the US, they're allowed to - for example - fly with their kirpans, though there are ~some~ restrictions, and douchebag TSA agents still reserve the right to confiscate them.

There's apparently nothing in the religion that indicates they need to be actually literally armed with weapons capable of death of others at all times.


No need for the religion to state it, the constitution does it for them. Its some where between the 1st and 3rd amendments
2013-03-13 10:49:33 AM
1 votes:

SpectroBoy: Marine1: That's kind of how I see it. I could be in the dark on this, but the Sikhs I've met and heard of don't sound like the types to go off the deep end.

All Sikhs I have ever met have been the nicest, kindest people you could ever meet. To me they appear to be one of the few religions that try to live up to the marketing material.

And the guy in the article is just an asshat who happens to claim to be a sikh.


there have been Sikh extremists & terrorists, honor killings, and the like.

it wouldn't be correct to assume any group doesn't include a lunatic  s ide.
2013-03-13 10:47:30 AM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: It would oppress everyone who lives under the protection of the US constitution, regardless of religion or lack there of


I don't know if I agree with you about that, but I do think we can agree that "technical" gun bans are not the way to go. I am FAR more concerned about who gets their hands on guns, and how, than I am about what kind of guns they get their hands on.
I know people I would trust with a tommy-gun in a nursery school - and people I wouldn't trust with a .22 Derringer in a biker bar.
2013-03-13 10:24:16 AM
1 votes:

steve-0: Old_Chief_Scott:

A basic tenet of the Sikh belief structure is the defense of the defenseless so maybe this one isn't so bad as the one that sets off car bombs.

What I meant was I thought carrying around a Kirpan was the whole point of that, not carrying around an assault rifle.


Maybe he finally got around to watching Raiders and figured a knife might not be the most up to date weapon for defense.
2013-03-13 10:22:18 AM
1 votes:
I think that he's just trying to save some time for himself, by clinging to guns *and* religion at the same time.
2013-03-13 10:21:46 AM
1 votes:
I imagine this will cause a lot of confusion in GOP circles
2013-03-13 10:18:13 AM
1 votes:

steve-0: Didn't this already get resolved by allowing students and adult Sikhs to wear kirpans anywhere they want? I thought the kirpan was "the sword of God"? Also, did this guy get named a Khalsa, or is he using Khalsa as his last name?

This has "religious fanatic" all over it, and not in the good way.


Yeah, here in California Sikh kids are indeed allowed to wear a kirpan on campus. If one tries to replace it with a rifle and high capacity magazine "because religion!!!" it would not end well. Kid would probably be shot by one of the kids carrying illegally, of which there are plenty in some areas.

/then they'd steal his holy assault rifle
2013-03-13 10:16:00 AM
1 votes:
Does it really matter when there's only ever two of them at any given time?
2013-03-13 10:15:59 AM
1 votes:
Protecting public safety by prohibiting ownership of semi-automatic rifles that feature threaded barrels, pistol grips or collapsing stocks overrides any supposed freedom of religion.

Consider the increase in rates of violent crime that would occur were California residents not barred from purchasing rifles with thumbhole stocks.
2013-03-13 10:14:46 AM
1 votes:
Old_Chief_Scott:

A basic tenet of the Sikh belief structure is the defense of the defenseless so maybe this one isn't so bad as the one that sets off car bombs.

What I meant was I thought carrying around a Kirpan was the whole point of that, not carrying around an assault rifle.
2013-03-13 10:14:21 AM
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: A kirpan is a dagger, not a semi-automatic rifle.
Didin't anybody tell this guy?


I'll give him some credit for updating his religious beliefs for the 21st century.
2013-03-13 10:12:37 AM
1 votes:
A kirpan is a dagger, not a semi-automatic rifle.
Didin't anybody tell this guy?
2013-03-13 10:11:35 AM
1 votes:
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report