Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: Guns in church discussion point

  1. #1
    Regular Member Old Virginia Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SE Va., , Occupied CSA
    Posts
    366

    Question Guns in church discussion point

    As I think about how to debate for guns being allowed in church, I just thought of this strategy. Maybe someone else has already used it. When speaking with an anti-2A person, ask them to imagine this hypothetical scenario:

    You, who thinks guns should NOT be allowed in a church, are sitting in church one day, when a killer, who has broken a multitude of gun "laws" already, comes in heavily armed, blocks the doors, and begins to shoot, one by one, the people sitting defenseless, in the pews. As you await, terrified, you happen to notice, that somehow, there is a plain, simple, loaded gun on the seat next to you. If you point and pull the trigger, it will shoot out a bullet. Would you pick it up, and try to neutralize the killer, or, due to your principled belief in being disarmed in church, opt to leave the gun there, untouched, and await the execution of your friends and finally yourself? There are only these two options available. I cannot imagine an honest person claiming he would not shoot the killer. If he will admit that, then he must admit he is a terrible hypocrite. Preach one thing, and yet do the opposite.

    If we were to use this scenario, wouldn't it make at least the honest antis admit their hypocrisy? This same picture can be used for those opposing guns at the university environs. I suggest 2A politicians use this point in chamber debate. In campaign advertising. Any thoughts?
    VCDL, Army Vet, Virginia Native

    Hey, Libtards, it's the "Bill of Rights," not the "Bill of Needs" . . . . .

    If the 2A does not apply to modern weapons, then the 1A does not apply to modern communications like the Internet! How do you like them apples!?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    That line of thought has been tried numerous times and seems to be a consistent failure. I think that is because the person you are addressing it to has never considered the possibility of defending themself and probably never will - even if actually placed in a life-or-death situation.

    Going a bit further - why do you care (OK, there is probably some altruism in play) what someone else feels about defending themself? Aren't you carrying because you want to be able to defend your self and your loved ones? Don't you believe that it is your responsibility to do whatever is possible for their safety before you even begin to deal with the safety and well-being of others? It would be nice, after assuring that you and yours are safe, if you could do something about the danger that those other folks are facing. But they have apparently decided to abrogate their responsibility for themselves and their loved ones to the hands of someone else, be it the police or you sitting two pews back from them.

    The question of carry in church or anywhere else is a personal one, and I do not want to become involved in discussing, let alone debating, anyone else's decision about protecting themself. All I ask is that they not impose their decisions on me as well as themself. If it is legal for me to carry in church and I do so in a manner that does not violate the principles of the religion then I should be left alone to follow the dictates of my consience and to worship as I see fit. In other words, I probably would not be a member of The Society of Friends if I regularly carried a handgun for self defense. I'm not sure but I think the notion goes against at least one of the core principals of that religion.

    Where we are at is the question of control, not the question of guns. One person wants to control how everybody behaves, and wants everybody's behavior to be like theirs. The other person wants to be allowed to decide on their own how to behave, within the restrictions of the (religious and secular) law. When asking WW$dietyD, take guns out of the question and focus on the issue of forcing others to behave and believe as you do. If memory serves me correctly, even the folks that were generally in agreement about which religion and how to practice it became "somewhat" upset over the Spanish Inquisition and the attempts to enforce a specific and rigid practice.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member Old Virginia Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SE Va., , Occupied CSA
    Posts
    366
    """""why do you care (OK, there is probably some altruism in play) what someone else feels about defending themself?"""


    All that you said is good, and I agree. I DON'T really care WHAT they feel, but unfortunately, how they "feel" is causing lawmakers to make me a lawbreaker if I exercise my right to self-defense. Clearly, they made the law, and I have to be careful what I do about it. There are enough of these fools out there to put the rest of us in jeopardy, just like at VT, my alma mater. I may want my kids to go there one day, but with this foolishness in place, I ain't sure about funding that, and I cannot afford Liberty U!!

    I'm just looking for ways to win the silly but ongoing argument, and move on. Trying to make a contribution to the discourse. My life is well over half over, and I would like to live to see it resolved in our favor! It is taking too long!
    VCDL, Army Vet, Virginia Native

    Hey, Libtards, it's the "Bill of Rights," not the "Bill of Needs" . . . . .

    If the 2A does not apply to modern weapons, then the 1A does not apply to modern communications like the Internet! How do you like them apples!?

  4. #4
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    That line of thought has been tried numerous times and seems to be a consistent failure. I think that is because the person you are addressing it to has never considered the possibility of defending themself and probably never will - even if actually placed in a life-or-death situation.
    The response I've heard most often is a worried, "But what if I miss and hit the wrong person?"

    Well, so, what if you do? I understand that it would weigh on your conscience, but if the killer is methodically killing everyone in the place it doesn't matter who fired the shot.

    Even legally, it doesn't matter -- if someone is engaged in legal defense of self or others, and while attempting to use justified force harms a third party, it is the criminal actor who is liable and responsible. YMMV with state statutes and case law, but that's a general legal principle.

  6. #6
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670

    skidmark, well said...

    while i might not OC while attending a religious service to preclude the anti zealots from jumping up and down screaming, those around me wouldn't know i am armed with my favorite Five-n-seveN on my hip and my CC in my wallet.

    go well and i hope you enjoy your holiday feast w/family, loved ones and friends in your company...


    wabbit...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    24
    I definitely would not OC but if it is legal and no one had to know, I don't see a problem with CC.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    this is very interesting! I was just reading in a gun mag at the local walmart tonight! That Georgia is working on throwing the ban on firearms in religious places out. You will have to do a little research, but they were using the 1st and 2nd amendments and from what I gathered they seem to have a strong case on many valid points. Now I am no lawyer, but was well versed and schooled in the art of debate, which pretty much makes me an expert "sarcasm"

    I hope it passes, which may open it up for other states as well.


    would I OC in church?.....No, I believe that a gun could distract someone that needs to be there and hear something.
    CC in church, heck ya! The Lord helps those that help themselves! and NO that is not in the Bible! But my names is and thats all that counts!


    Tim

  9. #9
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    My church is chock full of CC'ers. The board of directors for Blade-Tech all go there. And a lot of carriers might surprise you.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    this is very interesting! I was just reading in a gun mag at the local walmart tonight! That Georgia is working on throwing the ban on firearms in religious places out. You will have to do a little research, but they were using the 1st and 2nd amendments and from what I gathered they seem to have a strong case on many valid points. Now I am no lawyer, but was well versed and schooled in the art of debate, which pretty much makes me an expert "sarcasm"

    I hope it passes, which may open it up for other states as well.


    would I OC in church?.....No, I believe that a gun could distract someone that needs to be there and hear something.
    CC in church, heck ya! The Lord helps those that help themselves! and NO that is not in the Bible! But my names is and thats all that counts!


    Tim
    We need to remember that a church is private property. It is not a commercial private property that must provide signage to show it's wish to keep firearms out(just as you don't, to keep firearms out of your private property). There is a simple fact that many 2A activists seem to forget. The only place you have a "right" to carry is on your own property and on public property(where not deemed illegal), everywhere else your carry is by the consent(either implied or expressed) of the owner of that property. Even if Georgia were to remove it's restrictions, if you carry in a church without the permission of the controlling authority of that church(pastor, steering committee, etc.) you are violating the rights of the property owner. While I can certainly sympathize with anyone wishing to exercise their right of self protection, we must not do it at the expense of someone else's rights.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    We need to remember that a church is private property. It is not a commercial private property that must provide signage to show it's wish to keep firearms out(just as you don't, to keep firearms out of your private property). There is a simple fact that many 2A activists seem to forget. The only place you have a "right" to carry is on your own property and on public property(where not deemed illegal), everywhere else your carry is by the consent(either implied or expressed) of the owner of that property. Even if Georgia were to remove it's restrictions, if you carry in a church without the permission of the controlling authority of that church(pastor, steering committee, etc.) you are violating the rights of the property owner. While I can certainly sympathize with anyone wishing to exercise their right of self protection, we must not do it at the expense of someone else's rights.
    I am not talking about any "right" to carry in a church. I am talking about the desire not to have to bow to the wishes of someone who disagrees with me regarding personal responsibility and self defense when all other factors (no general agreement of the membership, no religious doctrine prohbiting) are not involved.

    The Constitution says the government cannot tell me what or how to worship. The church/synogogue/mosque/temple/etc. I attend can tell me what and how to worship. But if the question of self defense is not a central tenent of the religion I do not want someone telling me I cannot take lawful steps to provide for my self defense - and the operative word there is lawful.

    If the congregation wants to take a vote and decides that they prefer that nobody carries in church I am free to either risk certain consequences (most likely expulsion from the congregation) or go find/start a congregation that does not believe that way. The OP's question/premise does not involve decisions of the congregation - merely a decision of one congregant who is opposed to lawful self defense means wishing to impose their personal believe and values on another person. If that individual wants to impose their values and beliefs on another, I suggest that they have missed an important point in the theology they claim to profess and follow.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Regular Member Steeler-gal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The Constitution says the government cannot tell me what or how to worship. The church/synogogue/mosque/temple/etc. I attend can tell me what and how to worship. But if the question of self defense is not a central tenent of the religion I do not want someone telling me I cannot take lawful steps to provide for my self defense - and the operative word there is lawful.
    Isn't there a law in VA though that states we cannot carry in church? I don't have the law/site bookmarked but I thought that was the law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeler-gal View Post
    Isn't there a law in VA though that states we cannot carry in church? I don't have the law/site bookmarked but I thought that was the law.
    ...except for good and sufficient reason, which is undefined in the Code. Recently the AG said that personal protection is good and sufficient reason (provided you are not otherwise breaking a law).

    18.2-283. Carrying dangerous weapon to place of religious worship.
    If any person carry any gun, pistol, bowie knife, dagger or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place he shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.
    Last edited by paramedic70002; 11-22-2011 at 09:09 AM.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I am not talking about any "right" to carry in a church. I am talking about the desire not to have to bow to the wishes of someone who disagrees with me regarding personal responsibility and self defense when all other factors (no general agreement of the membership, no religious doctrine prohbiting) are not involved.

    The Constitution says the government cannot tell me what or how to worship. The church/synogogue/mosque/temple/etc. I attend can tell me what and how to worship. But if the question of self defense is not a central tenent of the religion I do not want someone telling me I cannot take lawful steps to provide for my self defense - and the operative word there is lawful.

    If the congregation wants to take a vote and decides that they prefer that nobody carries in church I am free to either risk certain consequences (most likely expulsion from the congregation) or go find/start a congregation that does not believe that way. The OP's question/premise does not involve decisions of the congregation - merely a decision of one congregant who is opposed to lawful self defense means wishing to impose their personal believe and values on another person. If that individual wants to impose their values and beliefs on another, I suggest that they have missed an important point in the theology they claim to profess and follow.

    stay safe.
    If the one congregant that doesn't wish for firearms in the church is the controlling authority of that church, then(at least in MO) they can make that decision alone.


    (14) Any church or other place of religious worship without the consent of the minister or person or persons representing the religious organization that exercises control over the place of religious worship. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

    I have to say I agree with that too. The congregation can come and go, the permission for you to carry should come from the ones controlling the private property. I will add on a side note, that I wish the state leg. would add the bit about vehicle possession to include all areas, so I could carry my gun to and from work.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559
    "The Lord helps those who help them selfs" forget where in the bible that is...
    and there is the part in John about how dangerous the road ahead is and to sell your cloak and buy a sword if you do not have one...
    Used those and "Do you really think a criminal bent on mayhem is going to obey any law, any sign prohibiting a gun in church?"
    Then I send them to this site... http://www.carlchinn.com/Church_Security_Concepts.html
    There is violence and mayhem all over the world and it does not respect the sanctity of a church by stopping at the door....

  16. #16
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    A church is a private entity, there is no way the state should dictate if a person can or can not carry on church property.

    If the church counsel/trustees should ban weapons from their property, that is strictly their business. It would be for strictly secular reasons as there is no prohibition in an religion's scripture that I know of.

    If the state had a legal prohibition, what would the Sikh's do? The Sikh religion says that all adult males MUST be armed at all times, for the protection of themselves, their families, their neighbors and their religion. Even NYC has been forced by the courts to concede to the Sikh's.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon View Post
    "The Lord helps those who help them selfs" forget where in the bible that is...
    and there is the part in John about how dangerous the road ahead is and to sell your cloak and buy a sword if you do not have one...
    Used those and "Do you really think a criminal bent on mayhem is going to obey any law, any sign prohibiting a gun in church?"
    +1, except that "the Lord helps those who help themselves" is not in the Bible. It's a saying. But the Bible does discuss self defense and it can be applied to church.

    Luke 11:21, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;"

    1 Timothy 5:8, 'But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

    Guarding my own and providing for my family I believe can be extended to my church family. The Bible also discusses protecting those that cannot protect themselves. At the same time, it is a last resort.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by eringdf View Post
    +1, except that "the Lord helps those who help themselves" is not in the Bible. It's a saying. But the Bible does discuss self defense and it can be applied to church.

    Luke 11:21, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;"

    1 Timothy 5:8, 'But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

    Guarding my own and providing for my family I believe can be extended to my church family. The Bible also discusses protecting those that cannot protect themselves. At the same time, it is a last resort.
    told y'all I was in the Bible haha!

    I cant believe that I have never payed attention to Luke 11:21! Very cool verse

    Tim

  19. #19
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Virginia Joe View Post
    As I think about how to debate for guns being allowed in church, I just thought of this strategy. Maybe someone else has already used it. When speaking with an anti-2A person, ask them to imagine this hypothetical scenario:

    You, who thinks guns should NOT be allowed in a church, are sitting in church one day, when a killer, who has broken a multitude of gun "laws" already, comes in heavily armed, blocks the doors, and begins to shoot, one by one, the people sitting defenseless, in the pews. As you await, terrified, you happen to notice, that somehow, there is a plain, simple, loaded gun on the seat next to you. If you point and pull the trigger, it will shoot out a bullet. Would you pick it up, and try to neutralize the killer, or, due to your principled belief in being disarmed in church, opt to leave the gun there, untouched, and await the execution of your friends and finally yourself? There are only these two options available. I cannot imagine an honest person claiming he would not shoot the killer. If he will admit that, then he must admit he is a terrible hypocrite. Preach one thing, and yet do the opposite.

    If we were to use this scenario, wouldn't it make at least the honest antis admit their hypocrisy? This same picture can be used for those opposing guns at the university environs. I suggest 2A politicians use this point in chamber debate. In campaign advertising. Any thoughts?
    "God will protect me, and if he does not, then it was meant that my life be taken that day."

    More or less.

  20. #20
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon View Post
    "The Lord helps those who help them selfs" forget where in the bible that is...
    Quote Originally Posted by eringdf View Post
    +1, except that "the Lord helps those who help themselves" is not in the Bible. It's a saying. But the Bible does discuss self defense and it can be applied to church.
    "Whenever a man makes haste, God too hastens with him." appears in Aeschylus' play the Persians in Ancient Greek and in other words many times after - but not in so many words in the Bible.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    If the church wants to ban carrying, then they can, unless laws say otherwise.

    Now, as a member, if one chooses to carry against the leader(s) wishes, then you have that choice, but there could be consequences. Trying to convince someone who is against it, is like spitting into the wind....it usually comes back and stinks.

    As a congregational leader, we have had a few members/guests who wanted CCW banned/posted so they would feel comfortable. It is already prohibited in MO, unless you get permission from the leaders, then you are ok.

    Fortunately, our leadership group has taken the stance to allow the state law be enforced; however, they haven't asked anyone to leave that is carrying. They suspicion many, but haven't made it an issue, even at the huge urging of a few.

    Ultimately, it is a risk v reward decision.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    ....

    As a congregational leader, we have had a few members/guests who wanted CCW banned/posted so they would feel comfortable. It is already prohibited in MO, unless you get permission from the leaders, then you are ok.

    Fortunately, our leadership group has taken the stance to allow the state law be enforced; however, they haven't asked anyone to leave that is carrying. They suspicion many, but haven't made it an issue, even at the huge urging of a few.

    ....
    Just to satisfy my perverse curiosity, what does your church's theological teachings say about imposing your will on others?

    And how did you, as a congregational leader, deal with those few members/guests who wanted to impose their will on others so they could "feel comfortable"? Especially if it was at the "huge" urging of "a few".

    If you feel that answering the questions might expose you to accusations of hypocracy you may elect not to respond publically. But I hope that you do answer the questions, if only to yourself.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  23. #23
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Just to satisfy my perverse curiosity, what does your church's theological teachings say about imposing your will on others?

    And how did you, as a congregational leader, deal with those few members/guests who wanted to impose their will on others so they could "feel comfortable"? Especially if it was at the "huge" urging of "a few".

    If you feel that answering the questions might expose you to accusations of hypocracy you may elect not to respond publically. But I hope that you do answer the questions, if only to yourself.

    stay safe.
    When you say imposing 'your will', are you suggesting me imposing my own personal beliefs? No, they weren't. The decisions were based upon scriptural review, organizational bylaws and city/state laws. It was a decision of two committees. The final decision was based upon the pastor's review of the committees recommendations.

    As for the thought of carrying from a theological perspective, overall, there was nothing conclusive that prohibits a person from defending themselves. Hence, why the final decision was to follow the state laws; however, there is no pressing effort to frisk those who are suspected. Our security team gave their opinion to follow state laws; however, didn't have an issue with giving those who carry permission to CCW. The pastor has reserved this option, too.

    As for those very few who started the review (aprox 20); several were not pleased, some of them left and others have remained, with comments they were glad the issue was reviewed.

    I hope this answers your curiosity.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Thanks for the reply. For purposes of clarification, I was not referring to you personally imposing your will on others, but to the few members of the congregation who wanted everybody to believe - or at least act - like they did.

    And it appears that in spite of all the obfuscation you have thrown around the decision was that your religion has nothing to say one way or another about a person chosing to defend themself against physical evil and thus you (the congregation) decided to say out of the matter and let the secular authorities deal with it via established law.

    It's just my opinion but I believe you and your congregation are better off after those few who left after not getting their way departed from amongst you.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  25. #25
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    When you say imposing 'your will', are you suggesting me imposing my own personal beliefs? No, they weren't. The decisions were based upon scriptural review, organizational bylaws and city/state laws. It was a decision of two committees. The final decision was based upon the pastor's review of the committees recommendations.

    As for the thought of carrying from a theological perspective, overall, there was nothing conclusive that prohibits a person from defending themselves. Hence, why the final decision was to follow the state laws; however, there is no pressing effort to frisk those who are suspected. Our security team gave their opinion to follow state laws; however, didn't have an issue with giving those who carry permission to CCW. The pastor has reserved this option, too.

    As for those very few who started the review (aprox 20); several were not pleased, some of them left and others have remained, with comments they were glad the issue was reviewed.

    I hope this answers your curiosity.
    Well-stated post.

    Following city/state laws is a responsible action that our society, at large, would do well to observe.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •