Packing heat at church


Wheats
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd chime in here-

I've been considering getting a concealed weapon permit and handgun. Until recently, I've always hated the idea of carrying any kind of weapon on my person as such weapons could be wrested away from you and used against you. Even something as simple as mace could be turned against you if you are clumsier than the person trying to do you harm and they manage to take it from you before you can put it to your advantage.

This is why, when I went away to college and was living on my own in a big city, I opted to take self-defense and martial arts courses. I was of a mind that I could turn my own body into a "weapon" that could not be used against me. I learned the skills I would need to defend myself in basic confrontations. When pursuing martial arts, there will always be somebody who knows more and is better at it than you are, but your chances of such a person being involved in a "random" crime are pretty slim. I feel pretty confident that I could defend myself and family adequately in most possible situations and wouldn't really want to get a gun...

However, even if I get a black-belt, I would never feel confident enough to handle myself should a confrontation with my ex be in my forseeable future. He is an ex-wrestler and has been able to counter every self-defense maneuver I ever tried with him. I am terrified of the man and hope I never see him again, but I have been starting to think that a gun might be a good idea, just incase. That way, I wouldn't have to worry about him even getting within arms reach of me. The plan would be, if a confrontation ever does come up in the future and he thinks I won't have the guts to shoot, I can shoot his foot or leg to make my point. At that point, if he keeps coming closer, I'm running (since he'll be injured and not very able to pursue), or if I can't run shooting to kill.

That would really be my only reason for getting a concealed handgun. There are only two reasons I haven't done so yet. 1) I think the possibility of this ever happening is very, very slim. 2) I don't know if I would have the fortitude of mind to follow through with it. Hunting is different. :) I'd like to try my hand at hunting someday, but that's an entirely different topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I served in the military and never was I trained in the tactic of identifying my position and armaments as a means for advantage in conflict. All I asked is for such a link.

My wife was taught that tactic in a "Personal defense in the Home" class, offered by our local police, using a curriculum designed by the NRA, in close consultation with various law enforcement agencies.

If you are engaging in an activity with a deadly weapon for conditions that you have never faced or trained for (let alone recently) - all I can say is good luck with that concept.

I don't see anyone pushing that concept here - do you? On the contrary - I absolutely push the notion that a gun is not a magic talisman that wards off evil. It is a complicated and dangerous tool, requiring practice and wisdom to use effectively.

Whenever you engage in deadly conflict (or think of such things or plan such things) - make sure all other possible and reasonable options have been completely exhausted.

Agreed. I mentioned concepts like deterrence, avoidance, and evasion earlier, and advocated folks put at least as much thought into them, as they do into preparing to effectively employ a firearm for self-defense.

from the responses on this forum - am glad and thankful that most of you were not there.

I'm at a loss to understand any reasonable basis you have for your opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

you all are forgetting an important fact....what does our friend the second amendment say on the matter? what did the founders say on the matter?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

shall not be infringed....last i checked this means SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED. any and all restrictions of gun ownership and carry violate the wording of the 2nd amendment. the fact the church apparently doesnt want us to carry at church boggles my mind and i disagree completely. the only exception ill make is in the temple and thats the only exception i agree with. any other place no....carrying is your God given right.

utahs no carry on church grounds is idiotic. any gun restriction law is idiotic at best and tyrannical at its worst and is summarized in this hilarious yet very accurate video.

GunCite: Second Amendment-Quotes from the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries on the right to keep and bear arms.

my two cents....id rather have the priesthood,garments and guns as my protection all 3 go together just wonderfully. sure the priesthood is enough but arent we instructed to do everything we can do ourselves first and THEN call on The Lord?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you all are forgetting an important fact....what does our friend the second amendment say on the matter? what did the founders say on the matter?

The founders lived in the 1780s, not 2011. Packing heat at a church is a big no-no. I don't want to go to any restaurant where people come in packing a gun and I don't want to go to any church where people pack a gun.

I do own guns and enjoy owning them. But the country would be better off if we got rid of all handguns. It's pretty hard to kill people if you don't have access to a handgun. Can people be murdered other ways? Sure. But handguns are involved in a high percentage of crimes/murders. And expanding bullets should be banned outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you all are forgetting an important fact....what does our friend the second amendment say on the matter? what did the founders say on the matter?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

shall not be infringed....last i checked this means SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED. any and all restrictions of gun ownership and carry violate the wording of the 2nd amendment. the fact the church apparently doesnt want us to carry at church boggles my mind and i disagree completely. the only exception ill make is in the temple and thats the only exception i agree with. any other place no....carrying is your God given right.

utahs no carry on church grounds is idiotic. any gun restriction law is idiotic at best and tyrannical at its worst and is summarized in this hilarious yet very accurate video.

GunCite: Second Amendment-Quotes from the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries on the right to keep and bear arms.

my two cents....id rather have the priesthood,garments and guns as my protection all 3 go together just wonderfully. sure the priesthood is enough but arent we instructed to do everything we can do ourselves first and THEN call on The Lord?

If one has to trump the other i throw my money in with the church.

Heat or no heat, it does not bother me.

Nor can i say that a no weapons policy for a place of worship is stupid in and of itself.

Nor does politics trump doctrine, or obeying the lords servants.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one has to trump the other i throw my money in with the church.

Heat or no heat, it does not bother me.

Nor can i say that a no weapons policy for a place of worship is stupid in and of itself.

Nor does politics trump doctrine, or obeying the lords servants.

the scriptures tell us to obey the constitutional laws of the land and even says america will hang by a thread which clearly indicates america isnt always going to be doing what it should be doing. the constitutional laws of the land aka the second amendment in this case clearly say i have a right to keep and bear arms. so it seems to be contradicting itsself for the church to not want people to carry at church then tell us to obey the constitution. i suspect this is a case where church leaders dont have a full grasp and understanding of the constitution because they are human and are allowed to make mistakes.

The founders lived in the 1780s, not 2011. Packing heat at a church is a big no-no. I don't want to go to any restaurant where people come in packing a gun and I don't want to go to any church where people pack a gun.

I do own guns and enjoy owning them. But the country would be better off if we got rid of all handguns. It's pretty hard to kill people if you don't have access to a handgun. Can people be murdered other ways? Sure. But handguns are involved in a high percentage of crimes/murders. And expanding bullets should be banned outright.

yet our founders are some of the most wise and noble spirits to ever walk to earth. their opinions matter greatly and they were greatly educated on matters of government and how to maintain a free society. considering they created the government when it comes to matters of what the government should and ought to or not to do their opinions hold a great deal of weight.

and their opinions are clear freemen should be allowed to carry guns and there is no logical reason not to allow it unless you oppose freedom.

of course while i realize few know this and ill be laughed at for saying so. america should never have a real standing army. the citizens being armed or in other words the second amendment provides a standing army in and of itsself. congress is only allowed to pay for armies every 2 years. the founders very much hated standing armies because tyrants so often use them to abuse power. in fact every war america has kicked much butt so WW2 and earlier we never had a real standing army it was always a call to arms go in beat up the bad guys and return home. our mentality now of a long standing army and fighting poorly clearly isnt working and the whole concept of the draft failed us as well. look at the war today? look at the vietanam war? both wars we are violating the constitution and lost one and are basically losing the other.

standing armies are also extremely costly as this war is demonstrating and we are very much over extending ourselves.

this is yet another reason citizens should be armed most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the scriptures tell us to obey the constitutional laws of the land and even says america will hang by a thread which clearly indicates america isnt always going to be doing what it should be doing.

This is a point we need to be very careful about. The "hang by a thread" statement is not found in the scriptures. It is, instead, part of the infamous "White Horse Prophecy" believed to be written by Joseph Smith. Regarding this prophecy, the Church has released an official statement on their website early last year stating, in part:

The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.

So, please don't pass this "hang by a thread" statement off as church doctrine. Because it's not. Moving on, though, to the topic,

the scriptures tell us to obey the constitutional laws of the land... the constitutional laws of the land aka the second amendment in this case clearly say i have a right to keep and bear arms. so it seems to be contradicting itsself for the church to not want people to carry at church then tell us to obey the constitution.

You seem to be saying that the 2nd Amendment tell us to bear arms. It says nothing of the sort; instead, it tells us we have the right to.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As with all of the rights we are given in both the Constitution and the Law, for example our right to remain silent or our right to practice a religion, we have the choice to exercise that right or not. Just at it would be ridiculous to think that the 1st Amendment requires us to be religious, it's also ridiculous to think that the 2nd Amendment requires us to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment just lets us do that if we so please.

and their opinions are clear freemen should be allowed to carry guns and there is no logical reason not to allow it unless you oppose freedom.

And, as with any right, the 2nd Amendment taken to an extreme is only harmful. For example, take our right to freedom of speech. Excuse me for using a cliched argument, but does that give us the right to yell "bomb!" in a crowded building? Does that give us a right to hate speech? Clearly, with any right there has to be limits to that right for the sole purpose of avoiding anarchy. In the US we have what is called defamation law, the origins of which predate even the American Revolution. These laws are sane limits that allow us to keep our 1st Amendment rights while keeping us from infringing upon the rights of others. In other words, my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins, figuratively.

Limits like these (paradoxically) only preserve the freedom of not only us, but others as well. I think sane limits on the 2nd Amendment can only have the same effect. What exactly those limits should be, though, is an entirely different post. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree w/ Ben that every one is entitled to their own opinion. Gun ownership (especially handguns) brings heated debat on both sides. I am a cops wife and my husband carries at church. There is a great article entitled.. "sheep, sheepdogs and wolves" On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Take the time to read it. I for one am indeed greatful for the "sheepdogs" their duty, their responsibility is a heavy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kayne? The church is private property.

They have asked you to leave the gun at home.

You can bring a gun in, and they can ask you to leave. Should they have to?

Let's do a test:

Let's say I have a home in the US. I have invited you over. I say "Oh, and please leave the gun at home. It doesn't send the right message to my kids."

Are you going to say, "My constitutional right to bear arms is God Given! I'm carrying a gun in to your home whether or not you want me to! You just don't understand the Constitution!"

Not to set up a strawman here, but since the church is privately owned and the church has asked you not to bring a gun to church, are you suggesting that any private individual doesn't have the right to stop you from bringing guns on to their property?

the scriptures tell us to obey the constitutional laws of the land and even says america will hang by a thread which clearly indicates america isnt always going to be doing what it should be doing. the constitutional laws of the land aka the second amendment in this case clearly say i have a right to keep and bear arms. so it seems to be contradicting itsself for the church to not want people to carry at church then tell us to obey the constitution. i suspect this is a case where church leaders dont have a full grasp and understanding of the constitution because they are human and are allowed to make mistakes.

yet our founders are some of the most wise and noble spirits to ever walk to earth. their opinions matter greatly and they were greatly educated on matters of government and how to maintain a free society. considering they created the government when it comes to matters of what the government should and ought to or not to do their opinions hold a great deal of weight.

and their opinions are clear freemen should be allowed to carry guns and there is no logical reason not to allow it unless you oppose freedom.

of course while i realize few know this and ill be laughed at for saying so. america should never have a real standing army. the citizens being armed or in other words the second amendment provides a standing army in and of itsself. congress is only allowed to pay for armies every 2 years. the founders very much hated standing armies because tyrants so often use them to abuse power. in fact every war america has kicked much butt so WW2 and earlier we never had a real standing army it was always a call to arms go in beat up the bad guys and return home. our mentality now of a long standing army and fighting poorly clearly isnt working and the whole concept of the draft failed us as well. look at the war today? look at the vietanam war? both wars we are violating the constitution and lost one and are basically losing the other.

standing armies are also extremely costly as this war is demonstrating and we are very much over extending ourselves.

this is yet another reason citizens should be armed most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the constitutional laws of the land aka the second amendment in this case clearly say i have a right to keep and bear arms.

Your 2nd Amendment right does not trump someone else's right. The church has the right to ban someone from carrying on their property if they want to. Private property. Just like I can tell you not to pack on my property if I want. Just because you have the right to keep and bear arms, does not give you the right to carry one anywhere you want.

Edited to Add: I had not read funkytown's post before I posted. We are saying the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the church however which who i am talking about though private property i should respect your wishes however i shouldnt need a permit to carry it whereever i do carry it and by and large people who put no carry signs on their place of business or homes at large generally have this weird fantasy that no guns = safer. and another side to this equation is....the person puts up said sign i obey it but the person's home i am going to is really using that sign to render me defenseless because they are serial killers.....so whats more important my right to self defense in all circumstances or their right to trump my right to bear arms? i mean you said my rights shouldnt trump theirs but theirs shouldnt trump mine

the church however very much supports the constitution and holds it in high regard so asking people to disregard their right to bear arms seems contradicting. it seems contradicting to say i love the constitution but that gun right thing....ya leave that in the car.

because of reasons i mentioned i think gun rights fall into a slightly different category and private property shouldnt be able to trump it as i could be walking into a trap and say i have my family with me as well you hear it all the time in the news quite person youve known for 20 years turns into a psycho killer.

FYI your kids should be taught guns are not bad and those that carry them are not bad people anything else is a disservice to them.

and did you all even see my video i posted in that one link? it clearly outlines gun freezones are laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kayne? Uh... I don't... Want to start an argument against a strawman here, so I'm going to quote some things.

So far, what I'm hearing is that your argument essentially boils down to:

1) You are afraid there are serial killers lurking in the woodwork in Church, waiting for you to put down your gun.

2) You shouldn't need a permit to carry a gun to church.

3) You feel that the church asking you to keep your gun at home while you're at church somehow infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

4) You hear in the news all the time how somebody puts up a sign saying 'No guns, please' in their window, invites people over and then murders them.

If I've gotten any of those points wrong, feel free to correct me. I would like to respond, but I want to make certain I understand what you're saying first.

i shouldnt need a permit to carry it whereever i do carry it and by and large people who put no carry signs on their place of business or homes at large generally have this weird fantasy that no guns = safer. and another side to this equation is....the person puts up said sign i obey it but the person's home i am going to is really using that sign to render me defenseless because they are serial killers.....so whats more important my right to self defense in all circumstances or their right to trump my right to bear arms? i mean you said my rights shouldnt trump theirs but theirs shouldnt trump mine

the church however very much supports the constitution and holds it in high regard so asking people to disregard their right to bear arms seems contradicting. it seems contradicting to say i love the constitution but that gun right thing....ya leave that in the car.

because of reasons i mentioned i think gun rights fall into a slightly different category and private property shouldnt be able to trump it as i could be walking into a trap and say i have my family with me as well you hear it all the time in the news quite person youve known for 20 years turns into a psycho killer.

FYI your kids should be taught guns are not bad and those that carry them are not bad people anything else is a disservice to them.

and did you all even see my video i posted in that one link? it clearly outlines gun freezones are laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The founding of our country along with the Constitution by our inspired founding fathers was made for the preparation and restoration of our church, not the other way around. Yes I have the right to carry a gun to church or to the temple. But if the church requests us not to do so, then I will certainly abide by that request.

I'm sure you won't go to hell if you carry your gun into church, but who do you respect more? God or man? It's your choice. Go ahead and exercise your Constitutional right. As for me and my house, we will respect the Lord's appointed requests.

Edited by skalenfehl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mysticmorini

I think too many people forget that the constitution was made to protect citizens from the government. In that context all the second amendment says is that the government cannot infringe on your right to keep arms. The second amendment DOES NOT extend to private property where the owner of the property has the right to make a vast array of rules for those who wish to dwell on said property.

So the church or even I can stipulate that your permission to be on my property is conditional upon you not having a weapon on your person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Colorado Springs, a few places have developed a firearm policy that seems to be a pretty good compromise. I've seen it a the local mega-church where they had a shooting a few years back, a downtown hospital, and a few other places.

It sounds a little something like this:

"It is absolutely forbidden to have anything even closely resembling a gun here! We don't allow knives either! We are a violence-free premises, and we don't tolerate that sort of stuff around here. Don't even think about bringing your gun or knife here. If we see you with a gun here, you'll be asked to leave, and we will call the cops and have you arrested if you make trouble. There will be absolutely no exceptions to this policy (other than law-enforcement personnel and other permitted situations). No, no, no guns allowed!"

Another version of this policy, is the presence of big visible signs on all the doors stating something like "The open carry of firearms is forbidden. Violators subject to removal."

It seems to keep everyone happy. People who don't think much about the issue, see the picture of the handgun with the red line through it, and are happy. Conceal carry permit holders like me, understand that we can carry legally, and we're happy. The property owners have a very strongly worded policy in place to keep all the emotionally-driven fearful complainers happy. Dumb criminals see the signs and figure they might get in more trouble than one building over, and go away happy. Smart criminals understand that permit holders are welcome in that building, and they move off to a real gun-free zone to prey on Hoosierguy.

I'd like to see this policy take hold and spread all over the place.

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confuzzled

I have wondered for years what I was and now I know thanks to your reference and yep I am a sheepdog and proud of it one day it may cost me my life but you know someplace I remember the saying that goes something likes this you can do no better service than to be in the service of your fellow man.

I have firearms and will use them to protect my family, my friends and for that matter anyone that I need to and if it costs me my life in doing so then so be it.

As to packing in heat in church, I would first make sure my bishop was not against it as it is his turf and you are to respect your bishop as he is the one appointed to care for his flock. Second is to make sure that as few as possible know you are carrying, for me that would be hard as all my firearms will print( that means if you look you will most likely see there is something there) so it would be really hard for others who know me especially not to realize I had one with me.

Do I think carrying firearms in church buildings in Utah is wrong, not my call it was handed down by church leaders who have the right to make the call and I only hope that LEO's are still allowed to carry in church.

We have to realize we are subjects of our national laws and also the ruling or if you will decisions of our church leaders and if they say no firearms in church then that is their right. One day it is sad to say I do think we will seeing a lot more firearms in the public.

Edited by shdwlkr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

funkytown

you forgot folks like me who like artillery peaces, so I guess it would be ok to bring a 155 howitzer to church but I would have to leave my glock at home. Wonder how many baddies would want to deal with my heat and if they can run fast enough to get out of the way. ha ha

Wonder what the local Walmart would think of a pair of 50 caliber machine guns in the back of a truck or maybe bring them to church to see if the members felt safe or threatened. In case you don't realize the 50 caliber will go through any church building built with the right bullets. This is one of the reasons our snipers use them now as they have such a wide choice in ammunition they can use. When in the military I had the chance to use this weapon and it can be a real help when you need to get to the baddies on the other side of something and it does mess up there day.

Again our church leaders have the right to allow or not allow firearms in church not the members as it is their responsibility to look out for our spiritual, mortal and even our progression or failure there of to the best of their abilities to help us move forward.

Why are we debating the ruling of the church on this issue anyways? Yes it is fun to see what others think but either we follow the counsel of our church leaders or we don't and then if we decide we can pick and chose what we will follow then what kind of church do we have a church of free will or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? I know which I am following and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share