Bring guns to church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shaolen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
captainrick said:
Anyone carrying should have extensive training in gun safety. Are there any law enforcement officers in your parish? If so, I’ll bet some or most of them are armed on church. Of course you wouldn’t know, because part of carrying a weapon is keeping it well concealed.
Click to expand...
Amen. I finally took my first and plan to follow it up with another.
 
robertericleech said:
In fact the framers of the Constitution were well educated, civilized men, who believed in the rule of law. That’s why the seldom-quoted first half of the Second Amendment says, ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ For some reason, many NRA supporters leave the first half of that sentence out. We didn’t have a huge standing military with a million and a half active duty members in 1791.

I like shooting, and I don’t think all guns should be banned…but, in my opinion, this idea that the average person needs to keep a military arsenal in their home for dubious protection from some sinister future government is a pseudo-apocalyptic paranoid fantasy designed to create a market for the multi-billion dollar firearms industry. They have to sell all those guns to somebody.
Click to expand...
What do you shoot? Your own guns?

newtownbee.com/news/0001/11/30/gun-confiscation-leads-genocide/13276

Look up Jade Helm.

The gov does not want any militias, for they will put a damper in their agenda.

The U.N. is evil.

You need to read the writing on the wall. Please.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I’m a little late to the thread.

I carry in Mass. And at least one priest friend of mine does as well.

I would say, counting cops, the number of people who carry at our parish is about 10-15 percent. Enough to stop an aggressor.
Click to expand...
Good deal. We need to be vigilant. I also get the submissive point tho.
 
josh987654321 said:
No way, I am very happy with Australia’s gun laws. They might have been a bit too strict, but it’s way better than what they were and I would never want to go back or end up with Amercia’s gun laws. Shooting massacres are a non occurance here in Australia ever since our gun laws were changed.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/

Had to do it, but please refute.
 
Eddie_Mac said:
I carry a concealed firearm every time I go to Mass. It is entirely legal in Texas to do so.

At my last parish the pastor knew many ushers were armed. He often cited the Constitution and our God given rights.

Modern firearms do not just go off. Keep your booger hook off the bang switch.

Know and live by the 4 rules of firearm safety.

Those of us who carry, even openly, do not do so to intimidate anyone. Stating such also implies that anyone who exercises other rights including free speech and religious freedom do so to intimidate others. If persons are intimidated by the sight of a firearm then they do not understand them. Firearms are merely tools. Does someone carrying a hammer or screwdriver intimidate them?

Licensed firearms carriers in Texas are many times less likely to be convicted of a felony than law enforcement officers. The Texas State Police (DPS) tracks such data. We are much less likely than citizens in general to commit crimes. Most police officers know this, and when encountering licensed carriers, it is no big deal. They treat us with respect as we do them.

We are not the enemy. Evil is the enemy.

If you decide to not arm yourself that is your decision. There is no such thing as “gun violence”. Inanimate objects do not commit violence. Humans do.

Why do politicians and hoplophobes blame people like me very time an evil person kills someone? With the numbers of drunk driving deaths nationwide far outpacing the number of firearms deaths, why isn’t there an outcry to ban alcohol? Oh, wait. We did that once and it worked out so well. Banning firearms will not stop the violence.
Click to expand...
I can agree with, or at least accept, almost everything that you say.

I do take issue with this:
Firearms are merely tools.
Click to expand...
I always find that a tad disingenuous.

A firearm is a weapon. It is designed to be a weapon.

I instructed a few weapons classes on a recruit course. My very first lecture started with an intro to the C7 (Canadian version of the M16) – after the formal intro from the lesson plan, I told the class, essentially:
This is a C7 rifle. It will be your personal weapon. And that is its function: weapon. It is not a tool, you don’t hammer nails or open cans with it. Its specific purpose is to inflict death or grievous bodily harm on another human being. And at some point your nation may call upon you to take this weapon and do just that: kill or wound another human being. And if you cannot accept that, you need to find another line of work.
Click to expand...
Sounds nasty, but that is what a weapon is for.

A pistol or rifle is no more a “tool” than a fragmentation grenade, a SCUD missile, mustard gas shells, or Little Boy and Fat Man. Call a spade a spade. And a pistol ain’t a spade. (It’s a beggar to get the dirt out of the workings and makes the RSM testy.)

Whether or not they are moral to be used, or should be carried openly or concealed in church, or if the government should regulate them, is a separate issue. A .44 Magnum is not a door plane, and should not be conflated with same.
Does someone carrying a hammer or screwdriver intimidate them?
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is a danger of me thinking that someone with a Sig Sauer on his hip is going to use it to hang a picture. Likewise, if someone produces a switchblade, should I say, Oh, how, nice, I bet he’s going to produce a wheel of brie and he’s gonna give me a slice on a nice baguette… :rolleyes:

And not every person who may be intimidated by someone openly carrying a weapon is by necessity a hoplophobe. Their fear is not necessarily irrational.

I’m on the fence, myself, about weapons in church. As I said earlier, I believe 4th-degree Knights carry swords (a weapon is a weapon). Also, did or did not knights do armed vigils in churches back during the Crusades — especially Templars, Teutonic Knights, etc?

Again, given no decree from Rome either way, it would be up to the local Ordinary.
 
exnihilo said:
For some reason gun control always means limiting gun ownership to the state. Why would anyone want to do that? While crimes like the one in SC are horrible the state kills far more people with its weapons than do private citizens. The episode in Australia is a good example. The cops killed just as many people as the criminal.
Click to expand...
And people don’t die in crossfires involving armed citizens?
 
Even_So said:
captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/

Had to do it, but please refute.
Click to expand...
Sure. I never said that the crime rate would drop, rather that there would be no more shooting massacres. People will still get shot, people will still die, but no where near the extent of what happens in America with their shooting massacres.

I believe the idea that if only more ‘good guys’ carried firearms we wouldn’t have shooting massacres (as the ‘good guy’ can be there to shoot the ‘bad guy’) is fallacious; because the ‘bad guy’ always has the upper hand, as before you even know what’s happening, the bad guy has in the far majority of cases already got you.

Please legitimately consider this, if your in a crowded mall and you hear what ‘might’ be gun shots, by the time you assess who the shooter is (considering you have ruled out cap guns, blanks, a joke etc) and whether he needs to be taken out, chances are, he has already hit you, unless you were in a fortunate position to begin with.

Not to mention, that your standard little hand guns (M9, Glock etc) are no match at all for your standard Assault rifles, especially kitted out with magazines of 30 rounds or more.

Take for example the recent shooting massacre in that Church, the kid was there assessing his surroundings and planning before he opened fire, if the priest or one of the members were ‘carrying’ he simply would have shot them first, or waited another day to carry out his plan, only takes about 2 seconds to hit the majority of people in such surroundings, you think you could do all of that assessing I mentioned above in the mall scenario and combat this guy at the back of the church who you can’t see and don’t have a clear shot, all in a couple of seconds? You might be good, but none are that good.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
josh987654321 said:
Sure. I never said that the crime rate would drop, rather that there would be no more shooting massacres.

I believe the idea that if only more ‘good guys’ carried firearms we wouldn’t have shooting massacres (as the ‘good guy’ can be there to shoot the ‘bad guy’) is fallacious; because the ‘bad guy’ always has the upper hand, as before you even know what’s happening, the bad guy has in the far majority of cases already got you.

Please legitimately consider this, if your in a crowded mall and you hear what ‘might’ be gun shots, by the time you assess who the shooter is (considering you have ruled out cap guns, blanks, a joke etc) and whether he needs to be taken out, chances are, he has already hit you, unless you were in a fortunate position to begin with.

Not to mention, that your standard little hand guns (M9, Glock etc) are no match at all for your standard Assault rifles, especially kitted out with magazines of 30 rounds or more.

Take for example the recent shooting massacre in that Church, the kid was there assessing his surroundings and planning before he opened fire, if the priest or one of the members were ‘carrying’ he simply would have shot them first, or waited another day to carry out his plan, only takes about 2 seconds to hit the majority of people in such surroundings, you think you could do all of that assessing I mentioned above in the mall scenario and combat this guy at the back of the church who you can’t see and don’t have a clear shot, all in a couple of seconds? You might be good, but none are that good.
Click to expand...
These are good points. The shooter could have a semi-automatic gun which can kill tens of people before anyone is able to take him out.
 
Tomdstone said:
These are good points. The shooter could have a semi-automatic gun which can kill tens of people before anyone is able to take him out.
Click to expand...
👍 Exactly (Although semi-automatic rifles I think are okay if the clips are limited) I believe the only solution is to limit the weapons with such destructive capability that people can get their hands on, after all, people would be mad to take the ‘right to bear arms’ to the extent of allowing their citizens to have their own nuclear weapons. Even if they were mentally stable, the more floating around, the greater the danger of them falling into the wrong hands.

Note: I have no issues with semi automatic rifles (clips limited to 5 bullets or less), shotguns (Not the AA12 and the like though) and bolt action rifles etc

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
exnihilo said:
For some reason gun control always means limiting gun ownership to the state. Why would anyone want to do that? While crimes like the one in SC are horrible the state kills far more people with its weapons than do private citizens. The episode in Australia is a good example. The cops killed just as many people as the criminal.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the ricocheted bullet is an example of cops maliciously killing people in the same way that terrorists do? Are you serious?
 
robertericleech said:
In fact the framers of the Constitution were well educated, civilized men, who believed in the rule of law. That’s why the seldom-quoted first half of the Second Amendment says, ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ For some reason, many NRA supporters leave the first half of that sentence out. We didn’t have a huge standing military with a million and a half active duty members in 1791.

I like shooting, and I don’t think all guns should be banned…but, in my opinion, this idea that the average person needs to keep a military arsenal in their home for dubious protection from some sinister future government is a pseudo-apocalyptic paranoid fantasy designed to create a market for the multi-billion dollar firearms industry. They have to sell all those guns to somebody.
Click to expand...
The militia is actually defined by law.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Well regulated means well trained.

We second amendment supporters do not ignore the first part of the amendment. It seems your argument lacks merit because many here ignore the last part which says “shall not be infringed”.
 
Boy, who would have thought a discussion on guns would be so contentious. I’m surprised. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top