by SpiffCoug · 1/18/2013
hawkwing wrote:
How is 'inappropriate' a strict ban? It's also 'inappropriate' for women to wear pants to church, but nobody cares.
cornhole153 wrote:
Oh, and the Church is private property and can deny entry to anyone it choses for any reason--like carrying a gun. Think about it--you have a clear constitutional right to make public statements contrary to church doctrine, but that doesn't mean the church can't deny you entry into the temple for doing it.
So even though the Washington law discussion is off topic, i.e., has nothing to do with Church Policy (my original post), you applied that incorrectly as well.
cornhole153 wrote:cornhole153 wrote:SpiffCoug wrote:So, back to the original question, and one posed to corn hole: Should a gun control law include exemptions for law enforcement officials?
Cornhole, can I get an answer?
And I still haven't seen anything showing a Church-wide ban on weapons - just a public notification of one for church buildings in one in Utah.
Still waiting.
1-no
2-the Church handbook applies world wide.
2- Yes the handbook applies world wide. But the ban is not in the handbook. All you have is a statement from the Church of its intent to comply with Utah state law. I don't believe Utah state law to be world-wide enforceable.
1- Wow! Are you saying a that a gun control law should NOT have exemptions for law enforcement agents?! So if the law is written so that no gun can have more than three rounds, then police should only be allowed weapons with three rounds as well?
In the handbook, the church officially prohibits guns (except for LE required to carry), which is a ban.
Sorry, I mean't no--I misread your question.
cornhole153 wrote:
Oh, and the Church is private property and can deny entry to anyone it choses for any reason--like carrying a gun. Think about it--you have a clear constitutional right to make public statements contrary to church doctrine, but that doesn't mean the church can't deny you entry into the temple for doing it.
So even though the Washington law discussion is off topic, i.e., has nothing to do with Church Policy (my original post), you applied that incorrectly as well.
SpiffCoug wrote:Oh, and the Church is private property and can deny entry to anyone it choses for any reason--like carrying a gun. Think about it--you have a clear constitutional right to make public statements contrary to church doctrine, but that doesn't mean the church can't deny you entry into the temple for doing it.
So even though the Washington law discussion is off topic, i.e., has nothing to do with Church Policy (my original post), you applied that incorrectly as well.
If this were true and it was Chuch policy to ban guns, you would think they would have been more clear in the handbook and would not have simply issued a public notification on some obscure website that most members of the Church haven't seen or read that guns were completely taboo.
If the Church were that opposed to guns, you would think they wouldn't be so obscure.
And I still haven't seen any evidence that this Church notification is in effect anywhere outside of Utah.
SpiffCoug wrote:Oh, and the Church is private property and can deny entry to anyone it choses for any reason--like carrying a gun. Think about it--you have a clear constitutional right to make public statements contrary to church doctrine, but that doesn't mean the church can't deny you entry into the temple for doing it.
So even though the Washington law discussion is off topic, i.e., has nothing to do with Church Policy (my original post), you applied that incorrectly as well.
If this were true and it was Chuch policy to ban guns, you would think they would have been more clear in the handbook and would not have simply issued a public notification on some obscure website that most members of the Church haven't seen or read that guns were completely taboo.
And I still haven't seen any evidence that this Church notification is in effect anywhere outside of Utah.
Ddawg wrote:
Let me fill you in on a little secret Einstein - if a city, town, county, and a municipality are restricted by law to NOT infringe on the right to keep and bear arms - I assure you a private church (which has ZERO law making ability) cannot infringe on those Constitutional rights.
Cougarfan87 wrote:
I don't have time to read through all of these, but I feel I can speak to a few items of discussion. It is true that the Church handbook states that it is inappropriate to bring lethal weapons into the church buildings because we come to church to escape the cares of the world. In fact, I recently noticed someone carrying a concealed weapon and politely let him know about the church policy on bringing firearms into the building. He was not an off duty police officer. For Cornhole's benefit, I would add that some off duty LEO's are required to remain armed at all times--such as FBI agents.
While I do not worry so much about the cares of the world at church, when I am at home I do have to worry about the cares of the world. Home invasions happen far more often then someone breaking into church while people are there. For one thing, there isn't nearly as much to steal in the church as their is in the home.
Just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't mean we have to. I can understand why Cornhole doesn't want to have guns in the home. If it makes him feel uncomfortable, then he shouldn't do it. When I strapped on a weapon, it made me feel different. So I decided I would not carry a concealed weapon everywhere I go. I will arm myself for long trips and camping, because you are in unfamiliar territory, but most places I go day to day are not too dangerous. Since I work in a federal building, I have the added protection of armed guards at work. Perhaps I would feel differently if I did not, or if I worked in some urban area with a high crime rate.
At home, the guns will be unloaded and locked up in a fireproof gun safe (along with our important papers--safe will be purchased this year with tax return since my kids are not quite old enough yet to mess with guns, but it is definitely on the horizon). Once they are old enough, I will teach them how to safely operate a weapon, so that they will learn how to respect it. Apparently in Wyoming, they have very few gun accidents because kids grow up hunting and understand how dangerous weapons can be. It is the ignorance of what a weapon can do, how to use it, and leaving them unsecured that are the real dangers in the home.
Once I get the pistol, it will have a trigger lock on it, have it locked in a separate case, and have that case locked in the gun safe since I will only be taking it on long trips and camping/hiking. Besides pistols while hiking are good for other dangers besides people--such as bears, rattle snakes, wild dogs, wild hogs etc.--or for walking up unexpectedly on a pot farm. Don't laugh, that stuff happens.
For home defense, I highly recommend a shotgun with some double aut buck shot, rather than a pistol. Just the sliding of the pump action should send would be wrong doers running, as it is a universally understood sound. You don't need accuracy like you do with a pistol--just pointing in the general direction should do the trick, especially if it is sawed off to the legal limt (18 inches) like mine is--I received it as a gift that way. Hopefully, the slide of the action will mean you never have to use it.
This is the balance I have struck with some calculated risks. I own an assault rifle that was given to me as a gift. It is very fun to shoot, and if there ever is a breakdown in social order, it is truly the best weapon to use to defend yourself against roving bands of thugs that we saw during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A shotgun is the best home defense weapon. A pistol is the best for traveling long distances, hiking, or for concealed carry if you feel you need to. Weapons are serious business and all come with risks.
When it comes down to it, there are worse things than losing your life. Of that I am not afraid. What I am more afraid of is what terrible people in the world might do with my wife and children. I am not sure that I could live with myself. I know that I would fight, barehanded and all to defend them, which means I would probably be killed. So I have decided to give myself a chance. Hence, I take some calculated risks. I asked my mother about owning a gun for her protection since she lives alone, and she won't do it. She is older now, has lived a full life, and has consigned herself that if that if she is killed, so be it. Owning a weapon is a calculated risk that she has decided is not worth it to her at this stage in her life. Ask her thirty to forty years ago when she had lots of little ones at home, and I am sure she would have given a different answer. She knew how to use a shotgun.
Gun ownership/use/reliance is a very personal decision. What is right for me and my circumstances may not be right for anyone else. But I believe that the citzenry should have the right to arm itself for self defense against criminals and a tyrranical government. We don't have a tyrranical government right now (all political blustering aside), but no one has a crystal ball to determine what might happen 30-50 years from now. I am sure that the poor German people who democratically elected Hitler never saw what was about to happen to Germany coming either. We cannot predict the future, but we can prepare for it--and hopefully never need it. I hope I never need to use my food storage, but I have been having a feeling that I will. So I am getting better prepared this year with my tax return. More food storage, a fire-proof gun safe, etc.
