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

The safety gun control advocates want CAN'T be found in new laws or banning guns. But it CAN be found in places they don't want to look.

Harold B. Lee wrote:
Safety can’t be won by tanks and guns and the airplanes and atomic bombs. There is only one place of safety and that is within the realm of the power of Almighty God that he gives to those who keep his commandments and listen to his voice, as he speaks through the channels that he has ordained for that purpose.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1973/10/closing-remarks?lang=eng&query=gun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

Wow you really nailed me there on expanding my argument. Looking back i went all the way from stating that the church bans guns in all their buildings to the church bans guns at BYU and BYU student housing. Good thing you pinned me down now or I might even have gone so far as including temples, seminaries and the church office building as church buildings.



And yes, candles are a net hazard--like guns--my point.

So, your point is? What? Because the Church leadership says it's inappropriate for civilians to bring a concealed weapon - even though they have a CCW and it is lawful for them to do so - you are insinuating the LDS Church is anti-gun ownership and anti-2nd Amendment?



It's also inappropriate to walk into Sacrament meeting with a large pepperoni pizza. So, using your logic, are we then to conclude that LDS Church leadership is anti-pepperoni pizza?

That guns (in the Church's view) are a safety hazard to people in their buildings. I agree with the church, and that's why I don't allow guns in my house.



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

That's leaping to a conclusion. I have never seen any statement by a prophet that says firearms are a safety hazard. Joseph Smith sure didn't think so when he was shooting at the mob that killed him.

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

Wow you really nailed me there on expanding my argument. Looking back i went all the way from stating that the church bans guns in all their buildings to the church bans guns at BYU and BYU student housing. Good thing you pinned me down now or I might even have gone so far as including temples, seminaries and the church office building as church buildings.



And yes, candles are a net hazard--like guns--my point.

So, your point is? What? Because the Church leadership says it's inappropriate for civilians to bring a concealed weapon - even though they have a CCW and it is lawful for them to do so - you are insinuating the LDS Church is anti-gun ownership and anti-2nd Amendment?



It's also inappropriate to walk into Sacrament meeting with a large pepperoni pizza. So, using your logic, are we then to conclude that LDS Church leadership is anti-pepperoni pizza?

That guns (in the Church's view) are a safety hazard to people in their buildings. I agree with the church, and that's why I don't allow guns in my house.

That's not what the Church has said at all - that they say it is "inappropriate" for non-L.E. Church members to bring guns into the Church because it is a safety hazard. You like to embellish with an active imagination.



I believe the Church has taken it's current position because of people like you that would make a big stink. The purpose of going to Church is to worship. But folks like you, even though you are in the minority, will cause a big dust-up. It detracts from the purpose of attending Church, which is to focus on the Lord and worship.



If the Church really believed that having a legal concealed weapon in the Church was a safety hazard, they would not allow L.E. to carry either. The key is training and judgement. A holstered pistol is just as safe as carrying your wallet. I know because I have carried one for over 20 years.

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

I agree with you though, the church wants to limit their liability, it's just in their calculation it seems guns don't make you safer.

Your conclusion is completely erroneous. The Church's position that they ask non L.E. members of the Church to not bring their concealed weapons to Church does not mean the Church has made any conclusion about guns making you safe or not safer. That is your conclusion.



Please show any statement from the Church Leadership - stating that owning a gun makes you less safe. Support your statement with documentation please.

Why else would the Church go to such lengths to ban concealed guns from its buildings?



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

You are ridiculous. They have not banned guns. They have advised that bringing weapons into a Church building is inappropriate. There is a difference.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

I agree with you though, the church wants to limit their liability, it's just in their calculation it seems guns don't make you safer.

Your conclusion is completely erroneous. The Church's position that they ask non L.E. members of the Church to not bring their concealed weapons to Church does not mean the Church has made any conclusion about guns making you safe or not safer. That is your conclusion.



Please show any statement from the Church Leadership - stating that owning a gun makes you less safe. Support your statement with documentation please.

Why else would the Church go to such lengths to ban concealed guns from its buildings?



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

You still haven't shown that the Church has asked guns to be prohibited from any building outside of Utah either.

BYUH bans guns as well...



The possession or use of any firearm, wrist rocket, paintball gun, or other deadly weapon on campus is prohibited by BYU-Hawaii policy except for law enforcement officers.



http://studentlife.byuh.edu/Security/Security_Report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Do I really have to look up every state? Or can you see a pattern here?



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

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

I agree with you though, the church wants to limit their liability, it's just in their calculation it seems guns don't make you safer.

Your conclusion is completely erroneous. The Church's position that they ask non L.E. members of the Church to not bring their concealed weapons to Church does not mean the Church has made any conclusion about guns making you safe or not safer. That is your conclusion.



Please show any statement from the Church Leadership - stating that owning a gun makes you less safe. Support your statement with documentation please.

Why else would the Church go to such lengths to ban concealed guns from its buildings?



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

You are ridiculous. They have not banned guns. They have advised that bringing weapons into a Church building is inappropriate. There is a difference.

Wow this is getting ridiculous. They have jumped though the hoops to make it illegal to bring guns into church. I think that qualifies as a ban.



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

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

I agree with you though, the church wants to limit their liability, it's just in their calculation it seems guns don't make you safer.

Your conclusion is completely erroneous. The Church's position that they ask non L.E. members of the Church to not bring their concealed weapons to Church does not mean the Church has made any conclusion about guns making you safe or not safer. That is your conclusion.



Please show any statement from the Church Leadership - stating that owning a gun makes you less safe. Support your statement with documentation please.

Why else would the Church go to such lengths to ban concealed guns from its buildings?



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

You still haven't shown that the Church has asked guns to be prohibited from any building outside of Utah either.

BYUH bans guns as well...



The possession or use of any firearm, wrist rocket, paintball gun, or other deadly weapon on campus is prohibited by BYU-Hawaii policy except for law enforcement officers.



http://studentlife.byuh.edu/Security/Security_Report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Do I really have to look up every state? Or can you see a pattern here?



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

I didn't realize BYU-Hawaii was were official Church doctrine and policy came from. My mistake.

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

I agree with you though, the church wants to limit their liability, it's just in their calculation it seems guns don't make you safer.

Your conclusion is completely erroneous. The Church's position that they ask non L.E. members of the Church to not bring their concealed weapons to Church does not mean the Church has made any conclusion about guns making you safe or not safer. That is your conclusion.



Please show any statement from the Church Leadership - stating that owning a gun makes you less safe. Support your statement with documentation please.

Why else would the Church go to such lengths to ban concealed guns from its buildings?



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

You are ridiculous. They have not banned guns. They have advised that bringing weapons into a Church building is inappropriate. There is a difference.

Wow this is getting ridiculous. They have jumped though the hoops to make it illegal to bring guns into church. I think that qualifies as a ban.



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

No they have not. Making something illegal means you get arrested and go to jail. Stating something is "inappropriate" is not illegal with jail sentences.



The Church has no authority to make anything illegal.

mr. cornhole - you keep spinning like a top. Please show documentation that the LDS Church is anti-Second Amendment. That the LDS Church has issued an official statement that Church members should not own guns.



You must own a fine pair of tap shoes because you sure like to dance around the issue - which is the 2nd Amendment.

So you don't have guns at your house. That's fine. The church doesn't want guns at services, cool. I don't see the connection that gives you or anyone else the right tell me that my liberties are now limited. Sorry, huge leap of logic fail.

Cornhole is suffering from a common liberal disorder. He is putting policy before doctrine.



The doctrine of the church is that the constitution was established by God for the protection of our agency.



The church has a public policy of discouraging weapons on church property.



A simple liberal mind has difficulty in processing the two simultaneously. He concludes that they are in conflict when they are not. Since the constitution is an enemy of liberalism he sets aside church doctrine and uses policy to discredit and undermine the constitution, which was never the intent of the policy.



The intent of the policy is to save the church a lot of bad publicity and law suites. It is not intended to change doctrine or disarm the church membership.



As a bit of anecdotal evidence I can share with you something that I was told by a plain clothes law enforcement officer. As best as I remember, he was called into his bishop's office and the conversation went something like this.



Bishop: "How is your work in law enforcement going?"

off duty officer: "There are still a lot of crazies and bad guys out there so I have job security."

Bishop: "We agree. The fact that there are crazies and bad guys out there gives us concern for the welfare of the members of this ward."

off duty officer: "How can I help?"

Bishop: "Well.... We cannot ask you to bring your gun to church."

off duty officer: "Okay."

Bishop: "Do you understand?"

officer: "Yes."

That brother is going to hell for directly going against the revealed of the prophet who has told us time and again that guns are evil and the root cause of our degredated (sp?) social condition.

SpiffCoug wrote:
That brother is going to hell for directly going against the revealed of the prophet who has told us time and again that guns are evil and the root cause of our degredated (sp?) social condition.

Actually all gun owners are going to hell if they are not conforming their homes according to what BYU housing recommends. Student/married housing at BYU and BYUH, after all, is the celestial model (I sure hope not).

cornhole153 wrote:

Yes, all life is precious and the US far exceeds all these countries in gun deaths--it isn't even close. The US also has far higher rates of homocide,

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

I'd believe that these countries are just less violent places in general. They don't have a chicago, Washington DC, Miami, LA where gang violence and violence in general certainly raises the average homocide rates in the USA.

So I guess since you guys can't rebut my original, and only, point that the church bans guns from its buildings for safety reasons, you've decided to changes argument to the Church is anti 2nd amendment?



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

tww wrote:
Cornhole is suffering from a common liberal disorder. He is putting policy before doctrine.



The doctrine of the church is that the constitution was established by God for the protection of our agency.



The church has a public policy of discouraging weapons on church property.



A simple liberal mind has difficulty in processing the two simultaneously. He concludes that they are in conflict when they are not. Since the constitution is an enemy of liberalism he sets aside church doctrine and uses policy to discredit and undermine the constitution, which was never the intent of the policy.



The intent of the policy is to save the church a lot of bad publicity and law suites. It is not intended to change doctrine or disarm the church membership.



As a bit of anecdotal evidence I can share with you something that I was told by a plain clothes law enforcement officer. As best as I remember, he was called into his bishop's office and the conversation went something like this.



Bishop: "How is your work in law enforcement going?"

off duty officer: "There are still a lot of crazies and bad guys out there so I have job security."

Bishop: "We agree. The fact that there are crazies and bad guys out there gives us concern for the welfare of the members of this ward."

off duty officer: "How can I help?"

Bishop: "Well.... We cannot ask you to bring your gun to church."

off duty officer: "Okay."

Bishop: "Do you understand?"

officer: "Yes."

If that bishop is in Utah, he just asked that officer to break the law. Not sure that's great evidence.



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

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

I agree with you though, the church wants to limit their liability, it's just in their calculation it seems guns don't make you safer.

Your conclusion is completely erroneous. The Church's position that they ask non L.E. members of the Church to not bring their concealed weapons to Church does not mean the Church has made any conclusion about guns making you safe or not safer. That is your conclusion.



Please show any statement from the Church Leadership - stating that owning a gun makes you less safe. Support your statement with documentation please.

Why else would the Church go to such lengths to ban concealed guns from its buildings?



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

You are ridiculous. They have not banned guns. They have advised that bringing weapons into a Church building is inappropriate. There is a difference.

Wow this is getting ridiculous. They have jumped though the hoops to make it illegal to bring guns into church. I think that qualifies as a ban.



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

No they have not. Making something illegal means you get arrested and go to jail. Stating something is "inappropriate" is not illegal with jail sentences.



The Church has no authority to make anything illegal.

The Utah statute (76-10-530) allows churches to opt in. The Church opted in by posting notice in the Trib & Des news, thereby making it illegal to bring your gun to church.



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

cornhole153 wrote:

Cornhole is suffering from a common liberal disorder. He is putting policy before doctrine.



The doctrine of the church is that the constitution was established by God for the protection of our agency.



The church has a public policy of discouraging weapons on church property.



A simple liberal mind has difficulty in processing the two simultaneously. He concludes that they are in conflict when they are not. Since the constitution is an enemy of liberalism he sets aside church doctrine and uses policy to discredit and undermine the constitution, which was never the intent of the policy.



The intent of the policy is to save the church a lot of bad publicity and law suites. It is not intended to change doctrine or disarm the church membership.



As a bit of anecdotal evidence I can share with you something that I was told by a plain clothes law enforcement officer. As best as I remember, he was called into his bishop's office and the conversation went something like this.



Bishop: "How is your work in law enforcement going?"

off duty officer: "There are still a lot of crazies and bad guys out there so I have job security."

Bishop: "We agree. The fact that there are crazies and bad guys out there gives us concern for the welfare of the members of this ward."

off duty officer: "How can I help?"

Bishop: "Well.... We cannot ask you to bring your gun to church."

off duty officer: "Okay."

Bishop: "Do you understand?"

officer: "Yes."

If that bishop is in Utah, he just asked that officer to break the law. Not sure that's great evidence.



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

Really? Better check the law you are quoting. There are exemptions. Look closely at #3.



Exemptions to Utah Concealed Carry Laws



The following are exempt from Utah weapon laws:

1. U. S. Marshals engaged in their official duties;

2. Federal officials required to carry firearms while engaged in their official duties;

3. Law enforcement officials;

4. Common carriers while engaged in the regular transportation of firearms as merchandise.



So - did that Bishop really break the law? Nope. L.E. officials are exempt, and it does not differentiate between "off duty" and "on duty." If you are L.E., you are exempt.

cornhole153 wrote:
So I guess since you guys can't rebut my original, and only, point that the church bans guns from its buildings for safety reasons, you've decided to changes argument to the Church is anti 2nd amendment?



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

This was hardly your original rebuttal, as your first point was something about DC and the weapons ban they have there and how DC is somehow safer now or then or something. Your original rebuttal certainly wasn't this highly debatable Church-wide ban on guns.



And you still haven't shown that the Church has made this ban apply to the Church writ large and not just to buildings in Utah.

cornhole153 wrote:
So I guess since you guys can't rebut my original, and only, point that the church bans guns from its buildings for safety reasons, you've decided to changes argument to the Church is anti 2nd amendment?

mr. cornhole - you are all over the place. Exactly what is your point.



1. No, the LDS Church has not banned guns from it's buildings for safety reasons. If you have proof, a statement from LDS Church officials, that guns are banned from it's buildings for safety reasons - then you have made a point.



Until you do that, you are making assumptions, and have proven NOTHING.