March 30, 2015 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
You made three mistakes, pastor.
First, you - like most right to carry opposition - assume that there is a great evil in allowing a CCH to carry on premises. There is no justification or evidence to support that view. More importantly, why would you want to limit the ability to defend the children, youth, mothers and staff? If evil entered your building - such as happened in 2006 at the West Nickel Mines (Amish) School - would you really want to limit the defense of your students to unarmed individuals?
Second, you either asked the wrong question or the wrong authorities. The fact is that anyone asked to leave your premises must do so. They must do so, not because they have a legal weapon, but rather because they would be trespassing if they refused to leave. Not only would they be trespassing, but they could be cited for criminal trespassing. The Attorney General answered this question long ago. But, since his answer didn't allow you to use your bully pulpit - you apparently found an answer that did.
FAQ: "If I’m licensed to carry concealed and I enter a business that is not posted as
prohibiting concealed carry, do I have to leave if the owner or an employee sees
that I am carrying and asks me to leave?
o Answer: Yes. While you would not be violating the concealed carry law, if
you refuse to leave an establishment that has asked you to leave, you could
be cited for criminal trespassing. This is a result of you remaining in an
establishment after the owner or employee tells you to leave (K.S.A. 2011
Supp. 21-5808 [formerly 21-3721])." http://www.ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/concealed-carry-faqs.pdf
Third, nothing in the legislative session this past spring had anything to do with churches. The bill that was passed specifically addressed “state or municipal buildings” with no mention of churches, synagogues, mosques, or other houses of worship. http://www.ag.ks.gov/public-safety/concealedcarry/2013-legislative-changes
Thanks or condescending to the writer in your first line. It made me want to read all of your points.
So, did you?
I don`t think the pastor is necessarily suggesting that conceal and carry is a great evi, but instead is an insult and an affront when exercised in a house of worship.
That is a much better argument than the one the pastor made. Instead he made the argument that the no concealed carry sign was an affront, which makes almost no sense.
WOW I get it!
I wonder why posting a no gun sign would violate their faith?
I don't know, but it is a case of the state dictating exactly how they decorate their church.
They shouldn't force them to decorate church's with those fire alarms either! That is unconstitutional as well!
Not really. If the church catches fire, it could spread to other buildings in the area.
Your earlier argument indiciated the state shouldn't dictate exactly how they decorate their church (no guns). Now it appears you are arguing that the state should be able to dictate how they decorate their church (fire alarms).
I am confused what your position is.
If you're confused about my position, perhaps reading what I actually said instead of writing your own narrative into it would help.
Fires spread. It's not an overreach to make sure every building meets the fire code.
Now, I'm not sure what the laws were previously about CC, but I'm fairly sure you could carry guns into churches that allowed it before this law changed. So why change the law to presume all churches allow guns unless they post a giant gun with a bar through it on their door? This isn't about whether or not YOU think guns should be in churches, and you'll note that I never made a declaration about whether or not it was constitutional for them to do so. That was all you.
Yes, actually. The fire alarms in buildings like that usually alert the fire department.
Early detection DOES help prevent the spread of a fire. If the FD takes a while to respond, they'll take even longer if the fire needs to be a large enough conflagration that someone notices it and calls. Really, this is a very silly point to get stuck on. You're both trying for a parallel that just doesn't exist. Try a different argument.
Usually I try to help people define their own arguments before I prove someone wrong, but for the sake of time, I will cut to the chase.
(1) A church can be required by the state to “decorate” with fire alarms, EXIT signs, and generally meet other building code requirements, for public safety. Therefore, it would be analogous for the state, if it wanted, to require a “no firearm” sign in churches.
(2) However, even though it may be in the state’s power to require the church to “decorate” with a “no firearm” sign, the state is not requiring this at all. The LTE got it wrong. The church has the right, as does every real property owner, to prohibit trespassing. The sign merely puts people on notice of who would be considered a trespasser. (see KSA 21-5808a for criminal trespass) But again, this is not a state requirement for a church, anymore than it is requirement for you to put a “no firearm” sign on your home to prevent guns. A gun totter can be asked to leave your home, or the church without the sign. Your original premise was wrong, which makes all your conclusions false.
My "original premise" was clarifying the argument of the LTE writer - who says he was told by the police that they would not remove someone simply for having a concealed weapon unless the church had a specific state AG approved sign as outlined here: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_75/Article_7c/75-7c10.html
A church is allowed to forbid CC weapons, but they have to post the sign. The sign doesn't put people on notice as to who is a trespasser. It puts them on notice as to who gets arrested for illegally carrying a firearm into a place. It may be that the police misspoke or that he asked the wrong question. That I do not know. I'm not a lawyer. But it seems the police are not willing to remove someone if the church calls them up and tells them the person is armed, which means they have to then confront and eject the armed person themselves. Perhaps it's the confrontation of armed individual that is causing the upset. Or rather the fear of upset armed person. You'd have to ask the LTE writer for clarification.
Only if they don't want guns in there.
I don't see the problem.
Why not force churches that want guns to put up the sign? Or leave it up to churches to handle their own policies on the matter? A business is free to eject someone for carrying a gun even if they don't put up a giant gun sign, aren't they? Maybe the LTE writer misunderstood things, but he seems to be saying that a church isn't free to do that. That doesn't seem right.
Well, we could write the law that way, but that's not how it's written.
KS is a pretty "pro gun" place, so it fits with that for places to have to prohibit CC specifically, otherwise it's allowed.
A business is free to tell anybody to leave at any time, without giving any reason at all, just as an individual is allowed to tell somebody to leave their property. So, yes, I think that churches would be allowed to tell people to leave if they had a gun and the church didn't want that.
In practice, of course, it might be a little intimidating to ask somebody with a gun to leave, if you didn't know them and how they'd react.
I think the letter writer is mistaken, and/or deliberately misstating things to make some sort of political point.
KS only became that level of "pro gun" recently, after Brownback made that big push to get rid of all the moderates. This was ALEC model legislation, and it failed to pass last year.
I recall not very many years ago, an armed church member in another state, stopped a person intent on killing a lot of people in that church. The media, not knowing what to call this lady, called her a volunteer security guard.
It is a shame a "volunteer Security guard" was not at the Church the day Scott Roeder assassinated Dr. George Tiller. Not sure if it would have saved Dr. Tillers Life, Though. Knowing that another church member Probably had a gun MIGHT have been enough to change Roeder's mind. Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. It is too late now.
I recall that several years ago in this state, an unarmed congregation stopped a person intent on killing every single member of that church. Your point?
Just as a few unarmed plane passengers stopped armed terrorists from flying a hijacked jet into the White House in 2001.
Courage doesn't require guns.
"Courage doesn't require guns."
Courage isn't always successful either. Tell us about The World Trade Center or The Pentagon.
Yes the target was the White House. 40 passengers and 4 terrorists died. Flight 93 was the only plane that did not make it to its target. I guess that is Some consolation to the families of those that died that day. Their deaths were not in vain. It most certainly would have been worse had they done nothing. God Bless their Souls.They saved lives by forfeiting their own. And the phone calls proved they knew it. I remember that day so vividly it still gives me chills just thinking about it.
in this country some people believe in the fascist nature of linking the guns and the
military and religion together. They do this rather naively. All I have to do is look
at the "Got Mit Uns" belt buckles worn by German soldiers in the good war
(World War One) and the horrible war (World War Two) that a family member
has in their collection. Who is God really with? Is he with the Christian airman
at places like Colorado Springs more than the Jewish, Muslim, or Agnostic,
or Atheist practices? it's a shame that some people go nationalistic against
others instead of realizing the free practice of ALL religions with the First
Amendment. I'm a grown Preacher's Kid who got my first shotgun at
eight years of age in Louisiana and hunted with my MINISTER father.
We don't believe in the NRA, political paranoia, or the need for guns
in churches and have collected firearms most of our lives. Like
I told AG Schmidt's office in Topeka a couple of weeks ago....
If I wanted to be armed like the Wild West I'd move to Dodge City
but therein lies the problem...who wants to live in Dodge City
or have guns in a church? no sensible person I hope.
Just a slight correction re Dodge City - - no guns could be carried north of the train tracks in the Dodge City of the 1870s. You had to check your guns before going into the main town area. Just saying that the Old West Dodge City had very very few shootings or deaths by guns. But then, it also had almost no crime from the cowboys upon the townspeople at all. Nicer people ? Less greedy ? Oh, and painted ladies were legal. Maybe that's the case -- legal sex versus concealed carry. Yup.
There is no rational debate to this problem. To me a gun means you are the biggest bully and surpresses all my conversation with you because your answer is in your gun.
Or, "a gun" means you are a single woman who wants to protect herself against violent aggressors. Do you think being a "bully" is allowed only if its natural, but changing the natural balance of power by lawfully allowing guns to protect the weak is wrong?
As the old quote goes--"God made man, but Samuel Colt made all men equal."
I strongly agree with you. Armed women are not bullies, they are only exercising their right to self preservation. The statement that people who carry guns are bullies, is incorrect. Peace officers try to help people and stop bullying. Law abiding citizens exercising the same right of protecting themselves and their families are not bullies. One can count on pages of remarks anytime an article about guns is published in this, or any, paper. I agree with Satirical !!
I am confused by two statements from the pastor:
(1) “It would appear that the Legislature holds the rights of gun owners over those in congregations to practice their faith without interference from the state.”
Do you also think the state requirement of fire alarms interferes with your right to practice your faith? I think it is interesting how the left is now trying to emulate the right in using religion as an excuse for non-sense.
(2) “Many of the officers of this congregation feel that posting a no-gun sign would violate basic tenets of our faith and conscience.”
How? No one is making you post a sign that says God hates gun owners. The sign simply indicates the gun, not the person, is prohibited. Is your religion one that prohibits signs? What about the state required EXIT signs, or the other state required building code requirements? It's called "freedom of religion" not "freedom to do whatever you want under the guise of religion."
You're backwards, this is what happens when two conservative dogmas come to butt heads against each other. God and guns suddenly opposed to each other? Which is more important to you?
I do find it funny that those who are against gun regulation because it won't stop criminals are the ones suggesting they post a sign because it will.
The cognitive dissonance of the illogical right is astounding.
"God and guns suddenly opposed to each other? Which is more important to you?"
I do not find God and guns mutually exclusive and I believe the pastor did a poor job trying to make the argument. If you wish to try to make the argument, I will be happy to respond.
I did not suggest legislation nor a sign will stop individuals carrying firearms. Can you point to something I wrote which indicates otherwise?
My statement was that the pastor's argument was illogical.
The comment wasn't directed at your argument. When you make this comment:
"I think it is interesting how the left is now trying to emulate the right in using religion as an excuse for non-sense."
You made it clear that you are confused on the issue itself as 'the left' has nothing to do with either side of this argument. There is no "Left", these are two issues conservatives/regressives try to uphold at all costs and the problem has come where they are on opposing sides.
So you are arguing that restricting the right to keep and bare arms is a conservative position?
You do realize there are left leaning pastors in Lawrence, correct? This pastor's argument seems more like a liberal trying to understand and use a conservative argument to support a Left agenda, but clearly failing for lack of understanding of the conservative argument.
In any event, Right, Left, Up, Down, doesn't matter to me. The argument the pastor uses is illogical.
Your mental gymnastics are pretty impressive - you clearly stated this was a left issue and that was part of the reason for it being illogical - I merely pointed out it was not using your same tone.
You realize that your issue is with your own argument, and that you believe doesn't matter to you.
Restricting the right to keep and bare arms is a Left position. Perhaps the sarcasim didn't come through in the first sentence of my last post. I didn't say it was illogical because it was a left issue, I said I found it interesting (ironic) that the Left and the Right use similar religious argument to promote non-sense (i.e. neither side has a monopoly on promoting non-sense).
However, it is extra funny when the Left (or Right) tries to use an argument from the other side and gets it completely wrong; which is what appears the pastor did.
Are they left leaning because they try to help the poor, disabled, and elderly like the bible says, or because they don't do/feel the same way you do?
Someone is left leaning when....wait for it....s/he holds positions, like gun control, which are typically considered "left" on the political spectrum. Just like someone is right leaning s/he holds positions, like gun rights, which are typically considered "right" on the political spectrum. Let me know if I am going to fast for ya.
Also, nice try with the fallacy of false alternatives trap.
That's a less than helpful way to look at it, I think.
It means that instead of discussing ideas and substance, we label certain ideas and then react to the labels.
I prefer to discuss and debate ideas, because I think it's more productive. And, people of different labels can hold a wider variety of ideas and positions than those labels suggest.
I've not seen that the right cares if a business or church has been against any "no guns" policy except in public areas. Private property means the owners decide what happens there within law. Put a " no guns" sign on your house and I won't care. Put one on your church and I won't care. Put one on city hall - no, we need to talk about that first.
Signs on buildings will never stop criminals. Criminals do not read signs. "No Gun: signs merely allow people with guns to be prohibited from entry and forced to leave solely on the premise that they are carrying a gun.
I'm as pro-gun as anyone here, but I'm not pro-gun enough to think I can violate your property rights by possessing anything on your property that you forbid.
The argument is logically valid. You see cognitive dissonance because when you look at the subject, that is all you can see.
I am 100% pro gun and a life long church attender. My opinion: guns in church is shameful, it is a place that they are not appropriate.
Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. Psalms 20:7
Also seems like you had time to lob stereotypical attacks. I guess making bigoted remarks takes less effort than engaging in meaningful dialogue.
You would know.
Can you please cite where I have made a bigoted remark? If not, I think I will put your comment into the schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" category.
I am constantly amazed at the wonderful dialogue from those who oppose rights for others.
Your comment reminds me of the "right" of others who don't want same-sex couples to marry. Both are non-existent.
The right to keep and bare arms is in this thing called the U.S. Constitution. This trumps your imaginary negative right.
I appreciate you showing an example immediately following my post so I don't have to spend 5 minutes looking. If you can't see the stereotyping in your last two comments above then I can find several more, though you will continue to ignore them.
Please explain how my comment was bigoted.
Seems you're cherry-picking your own statements, you said: "Also seems like you had time to lob stereotypical attacks. I guess making bigoted remarks takes less effort than engaging in meaningful dialogue."
Certainly you can see the stereotypical attacks in your previous posts (which you equated to being bigoted, not anyone else), and your aversion to meaningful dialog.
I know what I wrote. Please provide a specific quote anywhere in my previous posts where I attacked someone with a stereotype.
The comment (since removed) which I called bigoted, was both bigoted and used a stereotype (evidenced by the fact it was removed). Can you please provide a specific quote which indicates a bigoted remark?
Can you please be specific about when/how I have an aversion to meaningful dialogue?
Lobbying attacks and backing them up with facts are two separate things. I am prepared to support all my arguments with facts/reason. I would appreciate if you could do the same.
I don't see any sort of stereotyping. Please point it out.
Correction, "bear" arms, not "bare." Thanks for the fix of the typo. Please don't call the grammar police. This isn't my first offense.
"And further where in Constitution is marriage limited to heterosexual couples only?" - silver
It isn't there. Just like the right you suggested. That was my point.
Silver, you have the absolute right to not want guns carried anywhere. You also have the right to want one million dollars. Good luck!
"No it just appears to me that most CCH people are like young children who have to carry a pacifier everywhere."
Exactly why we cannot trust the gun haters to pass legislation regarding firearms.
In their minds, if you own a gun, you are dangerous.
We're not scared of the child wanting his binky, we feel sorry for the college classmate who still can't leave home without it, and that need is why we cannot trust those who can't to pass legislation regarding firearms.
Do you feel sorry for the single female who has to walk home late at night in a high crime area? Or do you feel that this women doesn't have a right to disrupt the natural balance of a man's power?
Odd that you would bring gender into a conversation that has nothing to do with it. Good red herring, though, tasty.
I can repeat the same argument without a reference to a woman; even though it doesn't change my argument, and it doesn't matter.
Do you feel sorry for the 90 year old WWII vet who has to walk home late at night in a high crime area. Or do you feel that this man doesn't have a right to disrupte the natural balance of power?
Try responding with an actual counter-argument next time rather than non-sequiturs.
You can change the gender of the subject or change the subject entirely, but it still won't change that it doesn't have any bearing on the argument.
Your argument equated those who have or want a concealed carry permit to a "child wanting his binky," and someone you "feel sorry for" because he "can't leave home without it."
My argument had a direct "bearing on your statement." My counter-argument was that many people who want a concealed carry permit should not be equated to children wanting his/her binky. Rather allowing someone to have the right to bear arms is beneficial to the weak in our society and empowers them. Your argument that the weak don't need protection says a lot.
I didn't state an argument, I stated an opinion that I feel sorry for these people and why. I made no opinion, nor made a statement regarding what you consider 'the weak'.
Red Herring again, tasty.
So if you own a gun, you are protecting yourself from danger. In the last generation this society has become much more dangerous. That's why you carry guns in churches. If you don't like it ...don't go to Church. Or schools. Or Mc Donalds. Sorry about your luck. You could go to a firing range...
Actually, violent crimes are on the decline and have been for a while. In fact, I often see this decline cited as a propter hoc validation of CCH law. If you truly believe that "society has become more dangerous," you're inadvertently proving Ludus' point.
I understand that violent crimes have been on the decline for a while. Doesn't have anything to do with this society become much more dangerous. It's a crime to be a wage slave. It's a crime not to be able to afford a surgery if you work as a wage slave. It's a crime not to have a retirement ... it's a crime that we no longer have a democracy any longer...i could go on and on...you are not gonna need guns. You need drones.
Let me get this straight. You're trying to convince us that carrying a gun everywhere is not an act of paranoia, correct? Just checking.
Wearing a gun everywhere is no more an act of paranoia than is wearing a seatbelt whenever you are in a moving vehicle.
We have actual data that shows seat belts make you safer. They like doing studies on seat belts. Nobody is introducing bills to prevent you from studying seat belts. People aren't actively trying to prevent police officers from enforcing existing seat belt laws in order to sell more seat belts.
Until we have actual data - good data, not propaganda, and I mean that sincerely because I see propaganda from both sides of the debate, you cannot say the same about guns. Not at all. In fact, if we borrow that seat belt analogy, you may be the person arguing that you shouldn't have to wear your seat belt because you might be in a wreck where you only escape injury because you're thrown clear from the car just before it hurls off the cliff or catches on fire.
All you know is that you feel safer carrying a gun on the off chance that you can solve a problem by brandishing or discharging it. Other people feel less safe because they think you're going to accidentally discharge the gun, make a bad judgement call, or unwisely escalate a problem rather than solving it.
Who is more likely to be correct? Well that's a great question. Too bad we're prevented from getting valuable data on that and figuring it out with something other than an emotional argument.
Meanwhile, in the thread at hand. K says they need a gun because we live in an "increasingly dangerous society" Not true. Crime is down. When this is pointed out, K then makes a somewhat incoherent argument about wage slavery and retirement? Uh. I'm just saying it wasn't exactly countering the whole "nut" part of the gun argument.
Exactly, jayhawklawrence. You can't trust democrats with gun control legislation, even sensible legislation like improved background checks. We need to fight the democrats tooth and nail so they cannot get a foot in the door again and start banning weapons based on cosmetics like they did with the assault weapons ban..
The point is that the basis of the complaint is false. In spite of this, it is being used to dredge up fear of guns.
And you fell for it.
I have a license and I almost never carry my gun. People who have licenses are not idiots regardless of how the left wing wants to try to portray us.
By their actions they provide the evidence for why we are/should be suspicious anytime the government wants to take something away from us. They say the devil can talk you into anything if you keep listening. It is the same with our politicians and the media. Stop listening.
People who have CC permits run the gamut from the guy who shot his wife accidentally to people who are very careful and responsible.
If you almost never carry your gun, why do you need a CC permit, and when do you actually carry it?
Not listening to other opinions and points of view is a good way to isolate yours from challenges to it, and may result in maintaining a point of view that's seriously flawed.
I believe you have seen enough of my comments to know that I am not isolated and I believe you know the point I am making.
There is simply too much misinformation being spread by the political parties and the media and they are upsetting a lot of people who repeat many of these same false arguments.
There is another choice. Turn the television off.
I don't watch any tv news at all.
"A 20-year-old pastor’s daughter was critically injured Sunday after she was accidentally shot while attending church services at the Grace Connection Church in St. Petersburg, Fla., according to authorities.
Moises Zambrana, 48, a church congregation member, accidentally discharged his gun and the bullet struck Hannah Kelley in the head."
Well, I just hope that Moises does an adequate amount of jail time for his "accident."
If we allow people to conceal carry in church, then God will be offended, and therefore we should pass laws to not offend God.
Not only will it offend God by not passing this legislation, churches will turn into Wild West shootouts; just like everywhere else where concealed carry is allowed...
I find it funny how pro-gun folks think they are protecting us.
I find it funny that anti-gun people think pro-gun people shouldn't be able to protect themselves.
Was there a legal requirement that you attend a specific church that I missed?
Please state your argument clearly, because I have no idea what relevance your statement has to this thread.
The thread is a reaction to the LTE, which is about a church.
I do find the pervasive "I've got a gun. Here I am to save the day" attitude to be silly, and I'm not opposed to either gun ownership or CC permits. The vocal advocates for gun rights aren't exactly stellar ambassadors for the cause, here.
It's strawmaning to claim that this is the same thing as insisting that you "shouldn't be able to protect yourself."
If you feel it's too dangerous to go to a church that doesn't allow CC, then you can go to a different one that does. And, if there isn't one that you want to go to, then you can simply not go to church at all.
Nobody's forcing you to go to a dangerous church.
I find it sad that my brother told me, after a couple of the church shootings a few years back, that his wife's brother had been asked by the deacons of his church to carry his licensed, concealed gun during services. Just in case someone came to their church and started shooting.
However, I find this pastor's argument confusing. What, exactly, about posting a sign violates your Christian faith? Are you also opposed to No Parking signs? It's a specious argument and mostly troll-bait, I think.
I don't understand why the police would be powerless to remove anyone from a premises who was there against the owner's wishes. I wasn't aware the owner of a property had to have a reason for asking someone to leave.
I have always liked the gun advocates position of "the more guns there are out there the more guns we need out there". Bet George Tiller wishes there weren't guns in churches. He should have known he needed a gun in church.
Did_I_say_that has it mostly right. Churches should be allowed to decide for themselves as the law permits whether guns are permitted on the premises. Fear of licensed gun carriers is grossly misplaced. Each of them has been through some training and a fingerprint background check in my state. I am more afraid of being in a place that prohibits the lawful carry of a weapon. I would call such a place a "free fire zone" for criminals and crazies and that is where we repeatedly see them do the most harm. In my own church I know of several good Christian men who regularly carry a weapon. I hope they never have to decide to use that weapon on anything other than a paper target at a legal gun range. I know them to love their fellow man with generous hearts and serve their community. I also know if a crazed gun-man came into our church with evil intent I would want them to do what needed to be done to protect the innocent. Much of this anti-gun talk is about the "lambs" (the unarmed) fearing the "wolves" (evil armed people). I see that some among us are "guard dogs" (legally armed and honorably intended) and I am glad to have them nearby and can make the distinction between them.
This letter seems opposed to a need to post a sign that guns are not allowed. I understand that posting a sign seems to come as an affront to the sensibilities of a congregation or a "church", but such an "affront" need not BE an affront unless the sensibilities of the congregation are more important than any message of assumptions. Leaders are able to tell their congregation that they do not want anyone to carry (concealed or exposed) a weapon into their church. Is that not good enough? There is no need for a worthless sign unless the leaders determine that it is of use. No sign has any power unless there is a power beyond the sign. They may as well post a sign that nobody is allowed in their church that has not been approved by the church, but neither sign will guarantee that people holding a gun will not enter.
I think that they are perfectly free to post no sign. I think that they have a right to do so or not. I think that it will make no difference. I don't see grievous harm coming from posting a sign or not. I see confusion and fear. Is fear to be coddled or dismissed? There is no indication, in my mind, that either coddling or dismissing will do anything...but soothe the desires of patrons. Nothing else will come of it.
Do what you will. Do what you want. Do what you must. Don't expect a different outcome from your choosing whether or not to post a piece of paper, lam(b)inated or not.
I suggest asking your congregation not to carry weapons, and acknowledging that they live in a world run by another congregation, run by greed and foolishness beyond the tenets of their belief.
It makes no difference unless you MAKE it make a difference. I wish you luck with that, but think it will make no difference...just the same...all the same...as we're all in the same boat...on the same roiling sea...in the same magical time of instability...and fear the needs that are never recognized.
Gun violence is borne of despair, poverty and a culture of hopelessness...or af pure insanity. Fix that. Forget about a "sign".
...or of pure inanity and insanity...
In the way old days, you left your edged weapon(sword/knife) outside church. To take it inside was a breach of the peace and an act against god.
It cannot be enforced but it can be obvious. Make it obvious and be at peace with your means of doing so.
Do you want to teach the Life of Jesus or become a political organization?
It can get complicated.
I'm curious to learn what variety of firearm Jesus would use?
He used hands and arms that could turn over the tables of a den of robbers in the temple ...
He had fire arms.
Any person who thinks it's okay to bring guns to church obviously doesn't understand the meaning of "thou shalt not kill." Would Jesus ever shoot somebody?
There is better evidence than 'thou shall not kill." When Jesus was captured by the soldiers prior to his death, Peter took a sword and cut off the ear of a man named Malcus. Jesus response was NOT "Great job Peter." It was to heal the mans ear and request peace rather than violence. Paul, the apostle was stoned and left for dead because of his belief and he didn't take a weapon for his protection. There is not one Bible scripture to indicate that carrying a weapon to a place of worship is a good idea.
I've been going to church twice a week for over 50 years and been in many Bible studies; in groups ranging from 15 to hundreds. I have never seen one occasion where any type of self defense was ever needed.
You can be pro-gun and anti taking guns to church.
This is such a silly argument.
Nobody is going to force anyone to allow guns in church.
This is a false argument with only one purpose and that is to try and portray concealed carry owners as fanatics. In other words this argument is designed to manipulate and deceive you into supporting strict gun control legislation that will criminalize law abiding American citizens.
The fact that a church will provide cover for what is basically a lie is what happens when churches become political tools.
Just another reason I'm glad I'm an atheist.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·