Hurry and pass gun control before we have time to read it!

cornhole153 wrote:
How are guns a liability but not a safety issue? Are you saying they may do financial or property damage but won't inflict personal injuries?



Oh, and all I'm say re off duty cops, is that unless they are required to carry, it's church policy that they don't bring their guns into church. I don't see how any rational person could read the church's handbook statement and disagree with this.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

2 Points brought up in your post 1> The difference between liability and safety. If it was really a safety issue, the church would remove all guns from the premises, and not allow any on, they didn't. So it is not a "safety" issue. Again, if it is a “safety” issue as you contend, why do they not actually “ban” guns – i.e. No guns at all?



2. if it is as simple as “On duty” and “off duty” why does the policy not say that? Smart people draft these policies, why do they not say “on duty police officers?” I’ll tell you why, because that is not what they mean. I’m sorry that the policy makers of the church don’t agree with your point of view. You’ll just have to get over it.

cornhole153 wrote:

Regardless, you simply don't believe in the 2nd Amendment and wish it could be done away with without actually amending the Constitution.

I'd prefer an amendment to a strained SC interpretation. What's so wrong with wanting a mostly gunless society--like we have in church, BYU, and the temples?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

There you go giving the Boy scouts the short shrift again? We don't have a "mostly gunless society" in the church. Church buildings, yes, church itself no, not by a long shot.

cornhole153 wrote:

Regardless, you simply don't believe in the 2nd Amendment and wish it could be done away with without actually amending the Constitution.

I'd prefer an amendment to a strained SC interpretation. What's so wrong with wanting a mostly gunless society--like we have in church, BYU, and the temples?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And we probably could have a mostly gunless society if most people were worthy to go in the temple.

Sorry, but the only strained interpretation is that of liberals and cornholes. Thank the heavens above that our forefathers were given the inspiration to include the 2nd amendment. UntilJesus Christ commences his millennial reign, the right to bear arms will serve as a check to unlawfulness and abuse of government power. cornholes, your assumption they you will always have LE and the government to protect you is a dangerous one, and a lie that gun control advocates readily spread.



until the millennium..... "from my cold, dead hands!"

A statement on gun control and the 2nd amendment from a legal immigrant.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/legal-immigrants-must-watch-testimony-against-gun-control-in-america/

This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ddawg wrote:
This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Well we agree that it desn't say "off duty" SO if an officer, off duty, has a directive from a superior to wear a concealed wepon to church - you're good with that - right?

cornhole153 wrote:

This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You forget an important point - (in the section in question - 76-10-530) - anytime the church (Bishop and/or Stake President) wants to provide and exception, they can.



So, the reality is, off duty LDS L.E. do take their weapons to church every Sunday. There are no documented cases of bad things happening as a result. And, if anyone raised a stink, the Bishop just needs to say: "I gave him permission" and it's a non-issue.

ABYUFAN wrote:

How are guns a liability but not a safety issue? Are you saying they may do financial or property damage but won't inflict personal injuries?



Oh, and all I'm say re off duty cops, is that unless they are required to carry, it's church policy that they don't bring their guns into church. I don't see how any rational person could read the church's handbook statement and disagree with this.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

2 Points brought up in your post 1> The difference between liability and safety. If it was really a safety issue, the church would remove all guns from the premises, and not allow any on, they didn't. So it is not a "safety" issue. Again, if it is a “safety” issue as you contend, why do they not actually “ban” guns – i.e. No guns at all?



2. if it is as simple as “On duty” and “off duty” why does the policy not say that? Smart people draft these policies, why do they not say “on duty police officers?” I’ll tell you why, because that is not what they mean. I’m sorry that the policy makers of the church don’t agree with your point of view. You’ll just have to get over it.

1. So if something isn’t totally banned, then it’s per se not a safety issue? Huh? So since firefighters aren’t banned from entering the church with axes and a high pressure hoses, it wouldn’t be a safety issue for me to teach nursery while holding an axe and sitting on a high pressure hoses?



2. The policy is that only officers that are required to be carrying, can be in the Church with a gun. I don’t think off-duty officers are required to carry. Though the policy is even broader than just ‘on-duty vs. off-duty’ since even on duty officers aren’t allowed in with guns unless they are required to go in with a gun.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You forget an important point - (in the section in question - 76-10-530) - anytime the church (Bishop and/or Stake President) wants to provide and exception, they can.



So, the reality is, off duty LDS L.E. do take their weapons to church every Sunday. There are no documented cases of bad things happening as a result. And, if anyone raised a stink, the Bishop just needs to say: "I gave him permission" and it's a non-issue.

But that would mean Bishops and Stake Presidents would be directly violating the Church's policy.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

ABYUFAN wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Well we agree that it desn't say "off duty" SO if an officer, off duty, has a directive from a superior to wear a concealed wepon to church - you're good with that - right?

Perhaps, but I'd think the most reasonable read of "required" is really legally required, and a directive from a superior doesn't bind him legally.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Well we agree that it desn't say "off duty" SO if an officer, off duty, has a directive from a superior to wear a concealed wepon to church - you're good with that - right?

Perhaps, but I'd think the most reasonable read of "required" is really legally required, and a directive from a superior doesn't bind him legally.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

2 things.



1. You'll just keep addign words to the policy 'till it agrees with you won't you?



2. Yes, they do have to follow a direct, lawfull instruction, or they lose thier job

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Well we agree that it desn't say "off duty" SO if an officer, off duty, has a directive from a superior to wear a concealed wepon to church - you're good with that - right?

Perhaps, but I'd think the most reasonable read of "required" is really legally required, and a directive from a superior doesn't bind him legally.

Not true at all. Exactly what is your background? Have you ever been in the military?



A police dept. is a "para-military" organization. Meaning, they pattern themselves on a military organization - discipline, chain of command, following orders, etc.



If a police officer is give a directive - an order - from a superior in his chain of command - he must comply or he can be disciplined. Discipline includes various options, including: suspension without pay, demotion, letters of warning, letters of reprimand, and termination. One form of discipline does not exclude any other. For instance, you could receive a letter of reprimand, be suspended without pay, upon return to duty be demoted, and then terminated (fired). Receiving an order from a superior is legally binding and refusal of that order has consequences.



P.S. I've seen a sizeable number of guys fired for failure to follow orders. These were significant breeches, but nonetheless, resulted in losing their jobs. Some lawyer up and try to get their jobs back. Not many are successful.

cornhole153 wrote:
But that would mean Bishops and Stake Presidents would be directly violating the Church's policy.

Whcih policy? The actual policy, or the one that you made up by changing a bunch of words in the actual policy?

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
This is a serious question for mr. cornhole. You have made a big deal over off duty L.E. officers not being able to bring their guns into an LDS church building. After I called and talked directly to the SLC PD and the Orem PD, we know they can and do. Ok.



Can you show a single documented case where an off duty L.E. officer,carrying a concealed weapon at church, shot or injured someone at church? To put it another way, can you give a documented incident where an off duty L.E. at church did something bad with his weapon?



Just think, on any given Sunday, there are probably at least 200 off duty LDS L.E. folks carrying their concealed weapons to church throughout the entire state of Utah. That might be a conservative figure. So, 200 chances per weekend, x 52 weeks in a year = 10,400 chances a year that something bad could happen in Utah at church. Let's go back 50 years. 50 x 10,400 = 520,000 opportunities for something bad to happen at an LDS church on Sunday with armed off duty L.E. in Utah. Can your cite any negative incidents?



As a side note - did anyone ever hear about the off duty L.E. officer in Aurora, Co. that stopped a mass shooting at church by shooting the bad guy? It happened in April 2012.



The story here -



http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont know of any accidents, but maybe that's because off duty cops follow the church's policy and dont bring their guns to church? Shouldn't you really be questioning the Church about this instead of me?



The Church could have omitted the "as required" qualifier, but since they did not it's crystal clear that unless an officer is required to carry a gun (off duty or otherwise), it's contrary to Church policy for them to be there with a gun.



If it were up to me, I'd probably allow active off duty police officers to bring concealed weapons to church. But alas, this is the Churches decision, which we are suppose to respect.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Well we agree that it desn't say "off duty" SO if an officer, off duty, has a directive from a superior to wear a concealed wepon to church - you're good with that - right?

Perhaps, but I'd think the most reasonable read of "required" is really legally required, and a directive from a superior doesn't bind him legally.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

2 things.



1. You'll just keep addign words to the policy 'till it agrees with you won't you?



2. Yes, they do have to follow a direct, lawfull instruction, or they lose thier job

I don't really understand the what you are driving at with this detail? The point is the church bans guns, except in very rare circumstances. Perhaps those very rare circumstances includes off-duty cops with specific order to take their guns to church. Ok, whatever.



Although since I enjoy a debate, and actually have learned a lot from this discussion, I'll defend my interpretation of the Church's policy.



1 I added a word because "required" is terribly vague as your example illustrated. If the cop's wife required him to carry under family rules, would that work? How about if the cop's union required him do so so? What if he/she belonged to a gun loving religion that required him to carry? What if the cop moonlighted as mall security and they that rule?



2- notice all the requests above are at least as lawful as his superiors request, which I'm not sure is entirely legal--though I'm not sure we want to get into employment laws of various states.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:
The point is the church bans guns, except in very rare circumstances.

No they don't. They don't "Ban" guns, they allow guns to all, and encourage the use of guns to all boys between the ages of 12 to 18, except in certain specific locations.

ABYUFAN wrote:

The point is the church bans guns, except in very rare circumstances.

No they don't. They don't "Ban" guns, they allow guns to all, and encourage the use of guns to all boys between the ages of 12 to 18, except in certain specific locations.

+1. Good grief - a truthful, honest, sincere discussion is impossible here. How about being a "student of truth" - not a "student of spin." This discussion with cornhole is a prime example of "pretzel logic."

ABYUFAN wrote:

The point is the church bans guns, except in very rare circumstances.

No they don't. They don't "Ban" guns, they allow guns to all, and encourage the use of guns to all boys between the ages of 12 to 18, except in certain specific locations.

Once again--on their property (with the possible minor exception of parking lots--thanks Sno).



And they don't encourage gun use, they encourage scouts, which happens to teach gun safety.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Ddawg wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:
The point is the church bans guns, except in very rare circumstances.

No they don't. They don't "Ban" guns, they allow guns to all, and encourage the use of guns to all boys between the ages of 12 to 18, except in certain specific locations.

+1. Good grief - a truthful, honest, sincere discussion is impossible here. How about being a "student of truth" - not a "student of spin." This discussion with cornhole is a prime example of "pretzel logic."

Nice, abyufan reframes the argument to something that I was clearly not asserting, but I'm accused of being dishonest and using pretzel logic.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">