Packing heat at church


Wheats
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Again, that comparison is silly. Does the 1st Amendment, which gives us (among other things) the right to be religious, require us to be at a religious service all the time? Is the church infringing on our 1st Amendment rights by telling us that we only can do sacrament meeting on Sunday and not any other day? The point that I'm trying to make is there's difference between supporting a right and allowing somebody to exercise that right everywhere and at any time. There's a time and a place for the 2nd Amendment, and according to the church at sacrament meeting is not one of those times. But, this isn't telling people to "disregard" their 2nd Amendment rights at all. Perhaps a review of how it is worded in Handbook 2 might be helpful:

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.

Essentially, the church is saying that carrying lethal weapons is inappropriate in places where the church is trying to create a haven from the world. The church says nothing about using your 2nd Amendment rights elsewhere. The only scope of this statement is during church, where bringing lethal weapons would render making a spiritual environment very difficult. I don't think the church should be considered a "gun-free zone" as much as it should be considered a "world-free zone."

Then again, though, you have your agency. You can choose to do whatever you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is it me or all Americans obsessed with guns and shooting things? :P

It's just you. We've just got problems you don't have.

However, it is almost a fundamental truth of the universe, that in any USA-specific gun thread, someone from the UK will eventually post something along the lines of what you just did.

(Canadians used to be part of this truth, but Canada has been producing more and more people like FunkyTown in recent decades, so they were dropped from the list.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental truth in America is God, Guns and Guts

Look how many nations in the world we have waded in and saved from being wiped off the face of the earth! Many of those same nations see fit to complain about the fact here in America we know what freedom is and what cost it takes to keep it and also what it costs to lose it.

May America always see fit to honor God and Country even with the blood of our people if needed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a big supporter the 2nd ammendment. I hold a CFP, outside of work where "weapons" are not allowed I am carrying. If you see me at the gas station, or in line at the store, little do you know that I have a government size ("full" size in lamens terms) 1911 .45acp loaded with Hornady Critical Defense on my hip covered by my shirt. This is almost a rule, with little exception. It is my right to legally carry this item for the protection of myself or others. However, I recognize and accept that it is also the right of an institution to request that firearms not be allowed on their property. Just as it is my right to own and carry a firearm it is the church's right to bar them from being on church property pending certain circumstances.

One interesting thing I remember the instructor talking about when I took my concealed carry class, is he brought up specifically that the LDS church doesn't allow firearms on their property (this information was relevant as I live in Utah) , but he did know several people who had spoken with their bishop about it and had been given permission to carry while on church property and during church services. So if you are really that adamant about carrying while at church one could always discuss it with their bishop and perhaps they will grant your request. If not, owell, life goes on.

Edited by xLandonx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see how the carrying of a gun or the intended use of one fits in with the teachings of Jesus Christ?

For example Matt 5 38-41:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

So if Jesus is saying we should not resist evil surely shooting them is doing just that? There's no footnote saying unless of course you have your gloch in your pocket, then whip it out and put a cap in his arse.

Just my thoughts.

Edited by GB-UK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrying a weapon in the defense of others is different. In fact, the man whom Christ had the most unreserved praise for was a Roman Centurion.

The pacifism argument isn't really what this is about: This is about the church asking people not to bring guns to church. It's about respecting the decisions of the leadership.

I just don't see how the carrying of a gun or the intended use of one fits in with the teachings of Jesus Christ?

For example Matt 5 38-41:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

So if Jesus is saying we should not resist evil surely shooting them is doing just that? There's no footnote saying unless of course you have your gloch in your pocket, then whip it out and put a cap in his arse.

Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrying a weapon in the defense of others is different. In fact, the man whom Christ had the most unreserved praise for was a Roman Centurion.

The pacifism argument isn't really what this is about: This is about the church asking people not to bring guns to church. It's about respecting the decisions of the leadership.

Yes, but that praise was for his expression of faith not for the fact that he was a centurion. Your other point I totally agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see how the carrying of a gun or the intended use of one fits in with the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Well, you might wish to consider something else He said about it:

"And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."

Back in those times, The Nephites contended "with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion."

These days in the US, various citizens carry, not to defend against another nation, but to defend against evildoers who are Americans. We have deadly gang violence, home invasions, armed assaults. There is an established and still-growing threat of home-grown terrorist acts involving small-scale one-man deadly operations. And on top of all that, my drive home involves winding remote foothills and less-traveled dirt roads. If we get stuck and try to walk home, it's good to be able to keep the coyotes off my daughters.

Does any of this help you see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its just one of those cultural divides. Not being from the USA and not seeing guns here in the UK very much other than in films and occasionally you see an armed police officer its just strange to read about people carrying firearms. I remember the first time I went to Northern Ireland where the police are armed and just staring at the first policeman I saw because he had a gun. I guess its just a common sight over in the US to see armed police and being able to carry weapons yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its just one of those cultural divides. Not being from the USA and not seeing guns here in the UK very much other than in films and occasionally you see an armed police officer its just strange to read about people carrying firearms. I remember the first time I went to Northern Ireland where the police are armed and just staring at the first policeman I saw because he had a gun. I guess its just a common sight over in the US to see armed police and being able to carry weapons yourself.

What's the official policy in England, Wales and Scotland? Are you allowed to buy and own a handgun? What about rifle and shotgun? What if you want to go duck hunting or go join Prince Charles and hunt the foxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that when fox hunting was legal in England it was the hounds that destroyed the foxes? That's why it was called chasing the hounds. I know that it was banned in Scotland in 2002 and in England and Wales in 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a CCL, and owning a gun, which I carried concealed when I can, I look at it this way....if a person asked me to not bring a gun into their house, I respect their rights and don't bring it into their house. The church is the Lords house, the church has asked us not to carry in the Lord's house...I respect that and I don't carry. If some nut job comes into the church and shoots me, killing me, at least I can say on the other side I was at church. Besides I actually believe D&C 122 about days being numbered, so if I die from a gun shot wound in church or if I have a heart attack in church, it was my day to die.

Of course death be not proud, it comes to us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the weapons are out, the probability of violence sky rockets.

also conceded

Having been a law enforcement officer for many years. that is exactly why my gun only comes out if I am prepared to use it. And I will only use it to protect someone else from the threat of serious bodily harm, sexual assault or death.

Once someone has stooped to that level in my presence, I am willing to use my weapon to stop them from furthering their cause no matter where it happens, church included.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but that praise was for his expression of faith not for the fact that he was a centurion. Your other point I totally agree with.

True, but he didn't tell the Centurion he was a jerk for being a Soldier. The fact that a soldier had the most unblemished praise that anyone in the entire bible got should tell us that being a soldier is not necessarily bad.

On topic: I suspect that police/FBI agents/CIA agents and the like aren't covered by the request, or could get special dispensation from their bishops. I sincerely doubt that anybody would be upset that Agents Smith and Smythe carry in church.

On the other hand, "Tex" Texarkansas Texagan of Beaumont, Michigan probably doesn't need to carry in church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On topic: I suspect that police/FBI agents/CIA agents and the like aren't covered by the request, or could get special dispensation from their bishops. I sincerely doubt that anybody would be upset that Agents Smith and Smythe carry in church.

Law enforcement are exempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think those who protect our Prophet go unarmed when they enter any place as the body guards of the Prophet?

There are others that are allowed to carry because of work they do in daily life. think Judges as one example.

One of the judges I knew years ago when I got my first CCW permit was asking me why I wanted one and I explained and he agreed my reason was valid and he went on to explain that judges were supposed to carry at all times because of the work they did and many did not at that time but he had been threatened and so he carried and had only once had to bring it out and it the court room no less.

Having a firearm CCW puts much more on you as a person to know when to bring it out and when to just walk on and not show that you could bring the issue to closure.

As I said once before and NoGreaterLove brought out when you bring that firearm out it is to end a threat and you had better have made up your mind long before reaching for your firearm that you will stop someone's clock if you have to to protect yourself or another from harm. This is not always easy to do, the decision can be easy whether to bring out your firearm, but to think it all the way through and accept that you may have to kill someone to protect yourself or others is a very hard decision and sometimes you have just a very few seconds to make that decision so it much better to accept that you are willing to do this long before the real test comes. If you pull out a firearm and are unwilling to stop the threat then it may very well be the firearm that kills you!

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

and that is the extant of it. it does not elucidate further where as to say you have the right to bring arms as a citizen onto private property aftyer being requested not to.

I imagine that part of the constitution is kept short and succinct for a reason.

Were you to take it to court you would need the courts to intrepret it in your favor- as it is written there is a lot of leeway for intrepretation. Legally we could make a law against gun ownership period, and still be following the constitution as long as individuals are still allowed to bear other weapons.

Nor does it elucidate on how or where an individual may do such- that is left up to the courts... altho in this case i think you would find it difficult to win in bearing weapons onto private property that isn't yours after being told not to.

When the leadership feels that the time has come that it will be necessary for members to have their weapons with them at all times including at worship (not counting those who have special permission/exception), they will let us know, but that time is not now. I don't doubt that at some point the US will fall apart, or the constitution fail- it has done so in the past... but we will recieve warning before it happens if we are being rightious and obedient.

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 constitution also gives rights for freedom of speech.. does this mean church leaders should allow individuals to hand out porn ads to members during the sacrament?

Should we strike down the rights of private individuals so that other rights trump theirs?

I imagine they are quite aware of it, and I imagine that the subject of bringing guns into a church has been discussed heavily at various points by the apostles at various times throughout the churches history... especially during times when guns were much more prevalent than now.

I'm sure they are aware that the "The right to bear arms" does not necessarily = "The right to bear arms in all places and all times, no matter what"

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.

as great and insightful as they were, we must keep a few things in mind- they were imperfect as the rest of us, and they were not annointed as God's servants to lead the church, and as such they bear no authority over it, subsequently nor does the constitution, nor does the church hold any authority to the constitution.

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.

this depends on the situation sometimes this is a good thing and at other times it is not so.

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.

again this is a good concept.. but only for certain situations and certain times. IN the founders day it was good that everyone had to have a gun because more people knew how to use them and be more responsible with them, and had to have them at a moments notice because that was the situation they were in. We did not have the resources, the training, or the time to become an effective military on the whole. we only won the revolutionary war by a thread and a prayer, and we were more lucky that britain did not want to spend more resources on it.

Having a standing army has been effective- we have not had to fight any foreign sovereignity on our soil since WWII.

Should we decide to abandon that model and rather opt for the every citizen a soldier concept right now as you propose (without a major and very costly overhaul) would be disasterous should another world power want to invade the US- we'd be hosed, especially if they don't care about the people and lands as much as getting rid of them.

Again what model should be used depends on the times and the situations preferrably multiple models should be used simlultaneously in case one fails. aand each model has pros and cons.

And rarely has the US been able to "Kick Butt" without paying for it in with serious blood... and not always from volunteers (remember the Draft? it accounted for a very significant portion of the forces in WWII)

Also to "win" requires very specific goals, and currently despite what you say, we are doing far better than what we were in WWII.

and there is no such thing as a cheap war.

Edited by Blackmarch
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