-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Got kicked out of a thrift store....
- Thread starter Tolerance
- Start date
Tolerance
Regular Member
In a purse my big bad Glock 35 isn't scaring the people apparently... Though me with a purse big enough to fit it might make my wife laugh
DVC
Regular Member
Accepted.
njkennelly
Regular Member
I am a Mormon and carry in the Church bldgs all the time, to include Deseret Industries. I was at DI a couple days ago open carrying, no one said a word. I wound up in a portion of the store where a group of mentally challenged youth were working (such volunteer groups are there quite often). At that ppoint I decided to conceal (lawfully) for obvious reasons I hope. My Bishopric (Congregation Leadership) are aware that I and many others in the congregation carry in Church, icluding themselves. Caveate; while at Church we do conceal for policie's sake.
Here is the excerpt from the Church Handbook of Instruction re: Firearms:
21.2.4 Firearms
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.
This has been edited from presious edition of the Handbook. I believe the Law Enforcement exception use to say something to affect of 'while on duty'. It was interpereted to mean while in uniform.
The full Handbook is available to the General Public here: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbo...hurch-policies?lang=eng&query=firearms#21.2.4
Here is the excerpt from the Church Handbook of Instruction re: Firearms:
21.2.4 Firearms
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.
This has been edited from presious edition of the Handbook. I believe the Law Enforcement exception use to say something to affect of 'while on duty'. It was interpereted to mean while in uniform.
The full Handbook is available to the General Public here: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbo...hurch-policies?lang=eng&query=firearms#21.2.4
And since God has no need for LEO's, there should be no exemption. If there is an allowance for LEO's, there is an equal allowance for EVERY MAN.
usmcmustang
Regular Member
Ahhh... but LEOs have magical, mystical "authority" to carry wherever and whenever they please... and most everyone is of that "superstition"... both the LEOs and those over whom they are "enforcers." Most everything written (handbook or whatever) and most everything said simply re-"enforces" that "superstition." One can never be really free unless and until their mind is freed of that "superstition." Oh, one can be "free" to do this or that... but is that really freedom?
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
If you stop and think about it, People say that god, or their religion is the highest power in their life, yet If the ten commandments supersede the supreme court, why do religious people join the armed forces? Thalt Shall not Kill?
Why do religious people utilize medicare, and tax subsidy's? Thalt shall not steal?
Someone will say what does this have to do with open Carry, and they have a valid point... But at the same timne if we do not critically think some of these thought processes, Open carry will be limited in it's ability to progress.
Rusty Young Man
Regular Member
Because that particular Commandment was mistranslated:
http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/killormurder.html
The verb "ratsah" is generally understood as the criminal ending of another's life. Murder.
So, the Commandment may be best read as "Thou shalt not murder".
Otherwise, King David, Samson, and the tribe of Israel would all have earned their spot in hell. And I'm pretty sure God helped (these three examples, at least) in taking the lives of others.
So "murder" and "kill" are two different concepts, much like all squares being rectangles, respectively, but the converse not being true.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
It is more like Thou shall not commit murder. I hope they join for the valid reason of defense of homeland and kin. Defense is not in contradiction of the commandments.
By the way, people, religious or otherwise, say a lot of things. Judge by actions rather than words. Look for those that walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Again as stated recently in this forum Jesus said that if you don't have a means of self defense, do what you have to do to get it. (my words) The carry of tools of defense is not anti-religious.
ooops, I just fell off my soapbox. At least my openly carried firearm stayed securely holstered.
TBG
njkennelly
Regular Member
In no way was I defending the Church. I was just posting the reference for reference sake. I don't agree with the policy and believe that it should be rescinded. That policy is just that, policy. It's not Gospel Doctrine.
For goodness sake, Brother John Moses Browning himself was a fully active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) himself. And I carry 1911. I love that man.
usmcmustang
Regular Member
I think we all understand. "Killing" is the taking of another's life. Sometimes "killing" can be in self-defense, and therefore not "murder." One can "kill" another and yet not "murder." "Murder," on the other hand, is an immoral act. But what about those who "kill" for others... mercenaries, so to speak. Are their acts of "killing," in fact "murder?" For example, if an "authority" figure or group has a willing throng of individuals that have the means and desire to "kill" others because of some "patriotic" or "ideological" motive, would that just be "killing" or would it be "murder?" In that sense, "killing" vs. "murder" is all subjective and can never be truly determined by any objective analysis. Invading an entire country or region and "killing" its civilian inhabitants and its mercenaries for the purpose of attempting to "secure" the continued existence of the invaders might, in some minds, be "self defense" and simply "killing"... or "murder" in the eyes of others. It all depends on which side of the equation one finds himself. History is replete with examples.... and history DOES always repeat itself.
Last edited:
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
If you find yourself across the ocean, putting your cross hairs on the anatomy of another human, whom you know nothing of other than he has not personally been the reason you are there, who in fact may be defending his home, meanwhile you are receiving compensation for it? That is murder, and makes you a hired assassin. You do not have to travel around the world to defend your life.
Does doing it in the name of the government make it right? This might best be answered with another question. Did the supreme court of the u.s. declaring slavery legal make it right? That is why morality is so important. If you wear a uniform, and can do one thing in it, that you cannot do without it. Chances are your actions may be looked at on day, in the same light as the uniformed "sanctioned" men who loaded human cargo in cattle cars.
Last edited:
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
*standing ovation*
OC for ME
Regular Member
Well, does the supreme court declaring that we have a individual right to bear arms make it legal everywhere? Also, there was a president who freed the slaves via executive order. In violation of state(s) laws, did that make the executive order legal? Slavery is bad and good and well abolished even though it took illegal means to do so.
If you don't like the government you have, vote to get the government you want, until that happens "it", whatever "it" is, is legal until found illegal.
It is odd that some government intervention is requested by everyone at one time or another, to the objection of the other guy at that time.
To the OP, thanks for the information. Deseret Industries is off my list of places to go when out that way. I'll drop them a note as to why along with my passing the word to others who share my views on the 2A.
usmcmustang
Regular Member
And what if one doesn't want any government? And what if one sees that government... any government... as simply one group of people holding a gun to the head of other group(s) of people. Your suggestion of "voting" does just that. All voting does is "swap" those groups around at various times and stages. Government "executes" it's policies, laws, orders, etc., (domestically and abroad) through force and threat of force. "Legal" and "Illegal" will always have different meaning and effect at different times and circumstance. The government has complete "control" of what might be "legal" or "illegal" whenever or wherever. Morality never figures into the question of what the government - any government - determines to be "legal" or "illegal."
Last edited:
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
Then they accuse you of being an anarchist, implying someone who does not wish to be involuntarily governed is somehow less ethical and more violent prone than the State.
Always makes me think of this:
In 1842, this ninety-one-year-old veteran was interviewed by a twenty-one-year-old reporter. The young reporter apparently expected to hear stories of unjust taxes and oppression, and of revolutionaries schooled in theories of liberty. What he got was far different, and more to the point:
Reporter: “Captain Preston, did you take up arms against intolerable oppressions?”
Preston: “Oppression? I didn’t feel them.”
R: “What, were you not oppressed by the Stamp Act?”
P: “I never saw one of those stamps. I certainly never paid a penny for one of them.”
R: “Well, what then about the tea tax?”
P: “I never drank a drop of the stuff; the boys threw it all overboard.”
R: “Then I suppose you had been reading Harrington or Sidney or Locke about the eternal principles of liberty?”
P: “Never heard of ‘em. We read only the Bible, the Catechism, Watts’ Psalms, and the Almanac.”
R: “Well, then, what was the matter? And what did you mean in going to this fight?”
P: “Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this: We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Morality, now there's concept. What I believe to be right is moral, what you believe to be right is immoral.
If you ask the average anti firearms politician if their vote to abolish private ownership of firearms is moral, they will answer yes, even though you and I may disagree with that position. So given that, morality does figure into the question of what the government determines to be legal or illegal. The real question is, who's morality?
TBG
Last edited:
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
Take it a step further and ask: by what authority do they have the right to enforce their version of morality upon others?
Gallowmere
Regular Member
Precisely.
This is a very common confusion for many people. Confusing ethics with morality can be a bit problematic. The root of such a question, in dealing with morality would be properly set as "is protecting the lives of all citizens, to the best of your ability, within your morals?" The answer, should obviously be yes. However, the ethical question of "how can we accomplish this, as a society?" is not something that can be dictated by morality anyway, because everyone has at least slightly different moral values.
Basically, morality is for the individual, ethics are for social diktat.