Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

1451, 23 Apr 18

Waffle House Killer Was Stripped of Right to Own Firearms

It looks like law enforcement was on the ball. The dad needs to be prosecuted.

A suspect with mental health issues who allegedly killed four people in a Tennessee fast-food outlet on Sunday had been previously stripped of his right to own firearms and left a trail of red flags.

Questions are being asked about how Travis Reinking, 29, was apparently able to get his hands on the weapons.

Police said the AR-15 rifle he allegedly used in the attack at a Waffle House in a Nashville suburb had been confiscated from him just last year.


Secret Service officers detained him in July 2017 and charged him with unlawful entry after he crossed a security barrier.

He told Secret Service agents he “was a sovereign citizen and has a right to inspect the grounds” and that he wanted to meet President Donald Trump, according to a police report.

Following that arrest, authorities revoked Mr Reinking’s Firearm Owners’ Identification card.

They also confiscated four legally owned guns, including the AR-15 that was used in the Waffle House attack, police said on Sunday.

But authorities said the guns were returned to the suspect’s father, Jeffrey Reinking, after he asked to keep them.

Sheriff Robert Huston in Tazewell County, Illinois, told a news conference on Sunday the father had promised he would “keep the weapons secure and out of the possession of Travis”.

It was unclear how Travis Reinking apparently reclaimed the guns, said Sheriff Huston.

But Nashville Police spokesman Don Aaron said Jeffrey Reinking “has now acknowledged giving them back”.


1451, 23 April 2018


  1. billphoto

    How the hell was a paranoid, delusional, police-hating, gun-crazed, White House storming, Taylor Swift obsessed whackjob able to get his hands on an AR-15 (after his guns were confiscated by police – added)  to commit mass murder in a Waffle House? – Piers Morgan.

    Of course, it is Trump and the NRA’s fault not his father for giving the guns back to his paranoid, delusional, police-hating, gun-crazed, White House storming, Taylor Swift obsessed whackjob.

  2. Kevin Scheunemann

    I’d go with blaming Democrats, because they constantly create policies to make it difficult to lock these whack jobs up.

  3. jjf

    Careful, Kevin, the “sovereign citizens” tend to be conservatives, and you want to lock them up? Where was this fellow radicalized?

  4. Kevin Scheunemann

    Just because he called himself that, does not mean he was a conservative…and it still means he was a whack job.

  5. jjf

    You think he was a Democrat?

  6. Jason

    >You think he was a Democrat?

    For all the bullshit you give Kevin, I’m struggling to understand why you’re asking his opinion on anything?    Oh wait, chumming the waters.

  7. jjf

    Oh wait, Kevin blamed Democrats first.

    Oh wait, the shooter and his family sound just like Kevin.

  8. Kevin Scheunemann

    So you deny that Democrats actively pass policies to make it difficult to lock criminals, and the mentally ill, like this complete whack job, up?

  9. Le Roi du Nord

    “Just because he called himself that, does not mean he was a conservative”

    Once again, k is the only person with the right to determine the truth.  What hubris.

  10. Kevin Scheunemann


    “Sovereign citizens” tend to identify more as “Libertarian” than conservative.   Even the one that use term “Libertarian”, they tend to be more anarchist in practice, rejecting all legal authority, which is a more liberal bent.

    If you got educated, you would realize that simple facts are not “hubris”.

    Smearing the “conservative” label on this lunatic is a liberal cover to prevent his anarchist views from nailing him as a typical far leftist.

  11. jjf

    Oh, No True Conservative, huh?  Do you think the shooter voted for Trump?  Do you think his mom (at least) doesn’t sound like Kevin?

    Republicans love programs to spend more on (often private) prisons. Mental health, not so much.

    Who else can we add to the list that Kevin would like to lock up?

    Libertarians don’t reject legal authority. Strict ‘L’ prefer private courts. They think you should pay for your interests to be protected. If you wave your hands briskly enough, centuries of evolved civil organizations can be swept away.

  12. Le Roi du Nord


    Thanks for proving my point.  You have always claimed to be the sole arbiter of truth, and you continue on in that practice to this day.  The burden of that responsibility must be tremendous.  Do you get extra pay or benefits for being condescending as well?  Explain again, using “simple facts” how the earth is only 6000 years old?

  13. Kevin Scheunemann

    jjf,   There are good Libertarians, there are bad libertarians, who really  are anarchists.    This “sovereign citizen” strikes me as a leftist anarchist.


    I’m surprised you even acknowledge “truth” exists, since it is always shifting for you.

  14. Le Roi du Nord

    Nope k, it is always there for me.  Now explain that 6000 year old earth claim…..

  15. Kevin Scheunemann


    You have objective truth?   I find that hard to believe.

  16. Kevin Scheunemann


    We have been over the origin of the universe stuff.   You have leess evidence for your faith then I do mine.   Here is the official answer to your question on Creation and the age of the earth true Christians believe it is….

    “As Christians, our starting point is that Scripture is always true and truthful.  (Numbers 23:19; John 17:17)  That means that if Scripture says one thing and other sources say something else, we side with Scripture.  We side with Scripture because God is ultimately its author, even though he used human beings to write down his words.


    Another important principle regarding Scripture is that we interpret Scripture as the context directs us.  This means understanding the genre of the section of Scripture under consideration.  Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narratives.  So, we understand the content literally, not figuratively or poetically.  Thus, the “days” of Genesis 1 are days—periods of time that have “evening” and morning.”  There is nothing in the language of the Bible’s creation account to indicate that the days were longer than 24-hour periods.


    References to 2 Peter 3:8 (“With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”) have no connection whatsoever with the creation account.  2 Peter 3:8 speaks of God not being bound to or affected by time.  A day on earth affects God no more than a thousand years on earth.  God does not age.  He is not affected by time.  He exists outside time.  He is eternal.  When people try to say the days of the creation account were longer than 24-hour periods because of what 2 Peter 3:8 says, they are guilty of illegitimate biblical interpretation.


    Do we find variety within species?  (That is another question you raised.)  We do.  But we do not find change going across the biblical “kind” (Genesis 1).


    Carbon dating is not as precise as it is made out to be.  I can suggest a paper at the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Essay File that addresses this subject.  In fact, there are numerous papers on file that address creation and evolution.  You will find some of those papers addressing the fact that God made the world with the appearance of age.  (There were fully mature fruit trees, for example, to provide food for Adam and Eve.)


    I can also direct you to the website of the Lutheran Science Institute, an organization within WELS, that can provide you with even more reading material.


    When it comes to creation, the Bible presents an eye-witness account.  The only one present was God, the Creator.  He tells us that he spoke and called things into existence.  He did not oversee an evolutionary process, nor were things made apart from him.  He spoke, and his powerful word created.  “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11).  The biblical record is clear:  God is the creator.  God bless your study of his word.”

  17. Le Roi du Nord

    So you really don’t have ANY facts relating to the 6000 Y/O earth claim.

  18. Kevin Scheunemann


    As many facts as you have when it comes to the question: “where did material leading up to Big Bang come from”?

    Answer that one. Let’s see if your arrogance is warranted when you through the word “fact” around.

  19. jjf

    It’s as if science has been building a road for centuries and miles and miles, and is still building a road, and Kevin goes to the end where they’re working and says “There’s no road over there yet, hmm?  Gotcha!”

    You don’t think there’s any evidence and research between the Genesis origin stories (spoiler: there’s two and they’re not the same) and the present edge of understanding about the Big Bang?

  20. Kevin Scheunemann


    There it is!   Allow me to translate: “You can’t hold Big bang theory to the same scientific proof we hold Creation to!”

    If the road for science is not there, but you beleive it anyway…is that not called “faith”?

    I am completely honest about my “faith”, why can’t you and Nord be honest about your faith?   Why all the arrogant supposition that your faith is superior, or deserves a better place in public square as the established liberal religion?

  21. jjf

    I don’t need to have “faith” in what we do not know. The road of science is there. You choose to ignore it in favor of ever-wavering re-interpretations of the religious texts of Bronze Age goat-herds. You’re not going to persuade or convince anyone by blurring the meaning of words like “religion” and “faith.”

    Yes, please, hold the Big Bang theory to the same expectations as any other bit of knowledge.  Find someone who can give a better explanation and they’ll win fame and maybe prizes.  Quite simple.

  22. Kevin Scheunemann


    SO you want to be dishonest about your faith in an unprovable dream.   Whether you believe it or not, to believe something without evidence is FAITH.

    At least we got you to acknowledge the evidence for where the material came from leading up to the BIG Bang is not there.

    All I am asking is the same tolerance and treatment for the faith others have in their orgin of the world belief system as the faith you have in yours.

    I think it is awful (and arrogant) for you and Nord to hold Christians to an evidence scrutiny standard, that you are unwilling to hold yourself to!

  23. Le Roi du Nord


    Not true.  There is all sorts of evidence that the earth is greater than 6000 years old.  How much proof do you need?  10 peer reviewed papers? 100? 1000?   Yet you can provide no proof of your 6000 YO claim.

  24. Kevin Scheunemann

    We are discussing the origin of the universe.

    I take Creation on faith.

    You also take the Big bang on faith.

    I have courage to admit my faith.


  25. Le Roi du Nord


    No, you switched subjects.  The original question was regarding your 6000YO earth claim. (see @10:13)

  26. Kevin Scheunemann


    That question is just code for: Are you a Creationist or do you subscribe to the liberal state religion of the Big Bang?

    If we are being honest….which seems to be a problem with the liberal Big Bang religion.

  27. Le Roi du Nord


    Wrong again.  You made a snide comment about “simple facts”.  When asked to elaborate on those “simple facts”, you are the one that started talking code, and have dodged the simple question ever since.  The question I asked can be answered with a yes or no.  Man up and answer it.  .

  28. Kevin Scheunemann

    There are plenty of facts to back up sudden creation.

    I have already discussed the Cambrian layer life explosion and the lack of life in pre-Cambrian layer.

    Even Darwin acknowledged those facts and evidence as a problem for his religion.   All evidence uncovered since Darwin still affirms the Cambrian layer life explosion.

    You want to ignore those facts.
    When it comes to how old the earth is…what does it matter to you?   Your version of proposed orgin has more scientific holes than swiss cheese.

    I’ve already linked a paper on the problems of carbon dating, but again, that alone is a faith test….when it comes to scientists getting their method correct.


  29. jjf

    What does the Bible say about carbon dating or life in the Cambrian?

  30. Kevin Scheunemann


    Bible does not say anything about either.    Cambrian layer fossil record did not get much attention until Darwin brought it up in mid 1800’s.

    I bring up Cambrian layer because Darwin’s own evidence DISPROVES his theory.  Even Darwin devoted a whole chapter to the problem in his Origin book.  The Darwin disciples want to ignore that evidence because they are desparate to believe in their godless religion.   I hate it when Darwin diciples demand “evidence” from Creationists, but ignore the obvious Cambrian layer evidence that cause their religion to fall apart.   If you are going to play that game, hold yourself to the standard, first.

    Carbon dating has been suspect from time to time.   Let’s assume it is substantially accurate…which is still a leap of faith….my view is:  an all powerful God can create anything to appear any age if he so chooses.

    Carbon dating does not disprove Creation, it merely adds to the discovery, power, and the majesty of God.

  31. jjf

    Darwin published in 1859. Much has happened since. Much has been learned. Soft-bodied animals don’t fossilize well, and still there is plenty of fossil evidence that life relatively rapidly diversified during the millions of years in the Cambrian. It doesn’t disprove anything. The evidence is there.

    So if the Bible doesn’t say anything about carbon dating or life in the Cambrian, what methods should we use to improve our understanding?  Just keep repeating “God did it”?

  32. Kevin Scheunemann


    Science should be used to increase our discovery and awe of creation and the Creator.   Science should not be used as an excuse to censor.

    That perversion is what the liberal religion has done to science.

  33. jjf

    If the process of scientific discovery finds explanations for the past that aren’t described in the Bible, and if you believe God can make anything appear to be any age, then why do you think science is not simply discovering what God did? I don’t see why explaining how life evolves is “censoring.”

    I’ll leave for another time the question of why God would tell you He made the world in seven days six thousand years ago, but would instead make it look like it was 13.8 billion years old.

  34. Kevin Scheunemann


    Legitimate science has not found anything substantive for an origin outside the bible.  The stuff calling for an origin outside creation is theory and guessing.   A secular religion out of control.

  35. Kevin Scheunemann

    jf,   Thanks for the link.  I found this paragraph VERY fascinating:“By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.When Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell, the Pope’s science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion, though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.”

    My observation:1.) The Roman Catholic church’s rejection of Creationism comes very close to rejecting the core (if not rejecting it alltogether) of Christianity (the problem of sin/need for a redeemer from sin).2.) It is clear “back in the day” religion and science could be discussed side by side like big boys and girls without trying to censor one or the other.   We have a much more vicious, hypersensitive, leftist religion in the place where science once stood…especially in universities and public schools.

  36. Le Roi du Nord

    “is theory and guessing”

    And creation theory isn’t?

    ““back in the day” religion and science could be discussed side by side like big boys and girls without trying to censor one or the other”

    When is “back in the day”.  Did you conveniently forget the censorship that christians placed on scientists like Galileo and Copernicus?

  37. jjf

    You’d think we can all still talk about the role of science and religion. Do you see any actions by the Walker or Trump administrations to throttle (or “censor”) scientific discussion? Why are they doing this?

  38. Kevin Scheunemann


    You will not get me to defend the hubris of the Roman Catholic church.  Martin Luther clearly demonstrated the church left the Gospel behind in the 1500’s on several fronts, that included how to act in grace.


    The role of science in religion is almost verboten to be discussed on many university campuses, and nearly every public school because liberals fear catching God cooties.

  39. Le Roi du Nord

    And scores and scores of scientists have clearly demonstrated that the earth is more than 6000 years old.

  40. jjf

    Not quite sure what you’re talking about, Kevin, as religion and its role is certainly discussed in any course on the history of science, and I’ve taken a few at UW-Madison.

    Apparently Paul Ryan doesn’t like it when the chaplain mixes religion and politics….

  41. Kevin Scheunemann


    Great, you have faith in Carbon dating.    My point still stands, “don’t you think an all powerful God can create anything at any age, at anytime.”?  Assuming scientists are correct…which is a stretch…and earth is 4 billion+ years old, don’t you think God could have made the earth to appear to be that old at point of creation?   There is also the issue of the corrupt fall of Creation, scientists cannot possibly know what corruption of the perfect creation, by the imperfect, does to the quality, age, and composition of creation because they have no sampling of the perfect.    It is arrogant presumption to assume “no effect” in terms of quality, age, and composition of creeation before and after the Fall of man/creation into sin.

    Very little, substantive, human activity can be documented to 4000 BC outside the biblical narrative.    Does that not strike you as very odd for someone that claims to adhere to the scientific method?

    Your argument on earth’s age is moot, because it does not disprove Genesis.   I can, however, disprove evolution and the Big Bang.

  42. jjf

    Well, the way science works, it’s the person making the claim who needs to prove it. Can you prove Genesis?

  43. Le Roi du Nord

    Looks like there is hubris to be shared with lutherens as well:

    “Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who’s pleading for geocentricity. Do you? Do you know anybody? In that case the church has said, “Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.”

    from Dr Sproul etal

  44. Le Roi du Nord

    Yes, I trust that carbon dating is more accurate than your theory.

    “Very little, substantive, human activity can be documented to 4000 BC outside the biblical narrative.    Does that not strike you as very odd for someone that claims to adhere to the scientific method?”

    It strikes me as odd because it isn’t true by a long ways.  We have human remains here in northern WI that date back almost that far.  Check out how old human activity is in the Rift Valley.


  45. Kevin Scheunemann


    We have no historical documentation. The coherent written word has only been around 5000 years. Did you ever ask why in all the alleged billions (or the hundreds of thousands you claim man to be arpund) of years, why is there no coherent written word documenting before the Bible? That is a glaring problem for you evolutionists. The written word burst onto the seen….there was no gradual evolution. You would think there would be a gradual written word evolution.

    Also, burden is on one who is making claim? What? I just blew apart Big Bang and Evolution in 2 easy swipes and you still cling to it without proof!

    Either admit your religions, or practice the same standard on yourself FIRST, before you hold others to your absurd standard.

    Is that so hard? Or does your secular humanist zealotry get in the way?

  46. Le Roi du Nord

    And there is no contemporary account of creation either.  Who wrote the in-person account on the first day of creation?  What did they write it on? With what?  What language? So your whole argument is based on hearsay written long after what you claim occurred.  Your double standard undies are showing again.

    How did you blow up the Big Bang AND evolution?  You provided absolutely nothing to that effect.


  47. Kevin Scheunemann


    Let’s accept both your links as accurate.  (which I do not, I find them  to still be a lot of guessing and conjecture)  Don’t you have one, important “scientific” question?

    If “civilization” has been around this long, why don’t we have any solid narrative, historical, evidence of any historical events before 4000 BC?

    Given gradual evolution theory, and the alleged idea humans have been around hundreds of thousands of years….don’t you think there was an implausible acceleration of historical narrative recording starting around 2500 BC?

    Even the most illogical secular humanist disciple has a problem explaining that.

  48. jjf

    Kevin, is there any evidence of early writing before the Bible that you do accept?  How do you think language should’ve evolved or appeared?

  49. Kevin Scheunemann


    Do you have any coherent writing/historical narrative documenting anything before 4000 BC (beyond the bible)?

  50. jjf

    Not offhand. What’s your point? That writing systems should’ve arisen earlier if evolution is true, and we don’t have earlier examples, so therefore evolution (which says nothing about writing) is false?

  51. Kevin Scheunemann

    You nailed it.

    Writing systems seemed to explode onto the scene under the evolution scenario. Much like the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian fossil record.

    The reason there were no writing systems is: nothing existed before 5000 BC!

    2 simple pieces of science disproving the secular humanist religion, yet the zealots cling to the evolution faith.

    Our kids deserve better.

  52. Le Roi du Nord


    Nobody nailed anything.  All that anybody proved is that you have a desperate need to always be right.  I can flood this site with documented, peer reviewed, scientifically derived proof that the earth is greater than 6000 years old.  Owen probably wouldn’t tolerate that, but the ability to provide that information is out there.

    And why have you changed your claim to 7000+ years old.  You always said that the earth was only 6000 years old, now you moved that back to 7000 (5000 {see above} plus 2018=7018).   Why the sudden change?

  53. jjf

    The logic of that is beyond sloppy. Evolution explains speciation and how biology works and how life has changed. It doesn’t say anything about how quickly human writing should develop. (For that matter, the Bible certainly doesn’t have any predictive logic about when writing should’ve emerged.)

    I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually find examples of writing twice as old. I don’t think humans of 10,000 years ago, fundamentally, were different from us. Writing could’ve arisen and then lost several times in the last 100,000 years. We have clay tablets because those are more readily preserved in dry climates. If they were scratching wood or birch bark or bamboo in wet climates, it didn’t survive.

    Similarly, why hang it all on writing? You think they didn’t have oral traditions of history that were lost?

  54. Le Roi du Nord

    How about the 30,000+ year old cave paintings ?

  55. Kevin Scheunemann

    Let’s assume wikipedia is a valid source for a minute.    Did you read the page?  There is a ton of scientific skepticism in relation to the carbon dating, and in some cases skepticism in belief about the time period given the style of the “art”.

    So you dismiss all this valid scientific sketicism and admit this page as “fact”?  I thought science was suppose to be 100%, not 40 or 45%?

    This is the problem, you take conjecture, guessing and theory, and label it “science” to make yourself feel all superiror, when what you really have is a form of faith.   You want your faith to be true becuase you know the consequence of being wrong about your godless life.

  56. jjf

    Generations of scientists have been refining their tools to be able to find a date for old things. If they’re wrong, they admit it. If they can refine their tools, they do it. They’re downright eager to be falsified. There’s plenty of competition to refine the answers so they’re more correct. You can win a prize or two along the way if you find something that’s more right.

    Is that the way religion works?

  57. Kevin Scheunemann

    So in science…something is “true”…until it is not true?

    That takes a lot of faith.

  58. Le Roi du Nord


    Did you even read the article?

    There are 20+ sites mentioned that are older than 10,000 years.

    44 listed references

    Numerous items of selected additional reading

    A list of external links for even more additional information.

    That is a lot more proof than you have ever provided to the contrary.




  59. jjf

    Well, Kevin, the Bible didn’t have much to say about the equations to describe motion, so Newton wrote it up instead. His equations work rather well at human speeds and scales. Einstein refined them, found the edge cases at small scales and greater speeds and showed the link to gravity and space. At human-size scales and speeds on the surface of the Earth, the results from Einstein’s equations and Newton’s equations are the same. Does that mean Newton didn’t do valuable work? Again, the Bible says zip about all this.

    If you want to get thoroughly epistemological about it, yes, the phrase I hear the most is that science proceeds by accepting truths on a provisional basis. It’s not wild relativism. It’s a way of saying that you accept something as so very strongly demonstrated that it is true, while also holding out for the possibility of better evidence that might refine what you know.

    I’m trying to share my understanding with you as best I can. I’ve taken a few science courses at the undergrad and grad levels, in disciplines as well as history of science. I’ve even gone out for beers with Stephen Jay Gould, your Cambrian explosion punctuated equilibrium fellow, as well as P.Z. Myers, another well-known evolution advocate.

  60. Kevin Scheunemann


    Problem with your carbon dating science is: we can never be sure.

    Doubts are raised in several spots in article.

    If there is legitimate doubt, how can it be science?

    Science should be things that are undisputed, not things we take on faith that may or may not be correct.

  61. Major Booris

    The actual definition of science, used by scientists, is unaffected by what you think it ‘should be’, Kevin. Words have meanings, as you yourself have said, and I’m sorry if your understanding of some of them is flawed.


  62. Le Roi du Nord


    “Problem with your carbon dating science is: we can never be sure.”

    Sorry, but that isn’t true. Radioactive decay is a known, and is and has been proven.  Look it up.

  63. Kevin Scheunemann


    So all doubt about carbon dating, and the evidence in that context, should be dismissed?

    Not very scientific of you.

    Sounds like faith.

  64. jjf

    March on, Kevin…  tell us why carbon dating techniques are wrong, and which Bible verses can help us improve them.

  65. Kevin Scheunemann

    Or, if you want the godless source:

    Ignoring the evidence on the problems with carbon dating is not a scientific position.

    When can I subject you faith in public square to same disdain and mistreatment you reserve for Christians?

  66. Le Roi du Nord


    re your second post, there is nothing in the attachement regarding carbon dating other than the headline.  Did you bother to read it?  If so, please provide the entire article.  Thanks.

  67. jjf

    Are you linking to the Letters section of Science magazine? It appears to be behind a paywall.  The principal authors of the letter are mathematicians?

  68. jjf

    Lousy USA Today story. Douglas Lake in Tennessee is middle Ordovician. Yes, that fossil might be 475 million years old. Not unusual, not rare, not for that area, nor would it be unusual in SE Wisconsin, either.

Pin It on Pinterest