Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

  • Thread starter Thread starter childinthefaith
  • Start date Start date
Whether or not automobiles were designed for transportation is irrelevant. They kill people every day. And yes, sometimes they do so intentionally. They are dangerous if used improperly, just as guns are. Used properly, or left without human intervention, they are no more dangerous than a feather.

Failure to see that is what is laughable.
 
The US is far above other countries for lots of things. Where do we fall on the scale for drug addiction, divorce, or crime in general? It has to do with the failing mental state of our society. It is all about “me”.

Criminals use their guns against other criminals and innocent folks as well. Yes, removing guns from law abiding citizens would leave only the criminals to have guns, and you certainly would see an increase in innocent people being victimized at that point.

If you go back to my first post in this thread you will see that some people do have an unjustified fear of being victimized without having their gun. I don’t disagree with that, but it is a minority and comes from immaturity on the persons part.

I have carried a gun pretty much every day for 15 or so years. Not once have I had to draw it for defense of myself or anyone else. For that I am very thankful. On days when I choose not to have my gun with me, do I go around paranoid because of not having it, no. But that doesn’t mean that I have chosen to simply not carry a gun most days. Kind of like keeping a spare tire in my vehicles. It is there just in case I need it. Odds are I won’t, but that doesn’t mean I take it out and hope not to have a flat.

My wife and I taught CHL classes for about 10 years. When we finished with the class, I always made it a point to tell the students that just because they are getting their permit to carry does not make them fully capable carriers. Kind of like when you first get your drivers license, there is still a whole lot to learn. Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility, you must be mentally prepared for its use, and you must be physically capable of using it properly and accurately. For many the class was a first step towards that. Did all of the students follow my recommendations, probably not.

As a society we have chosen to defer to others the dirty work, to become “civilized”. We expect the police to protect us. We expect the fire department to save our property. We expect volunteers to keep our country safe from invasion. We expect our vet to do the dirty work of putting our pets down instead of killing them ourselves. You name it, we now expect someone else to do the “hard” things that we once were required to do ourselves. I am not so certain this is being more civilized, others may disagree. I think this has allowed us as a society to simply ignore to some extent the things we don’t like to deal with.
 
I think that other parishioners have a right to know if others are bringing weapons into the Church with them.
I don’t fear possible shooters coming into Church as much as I fear possibly getting caught in the crossfire between a shooter and a law enforcement wannabe.
Let everyone check their weapons at the door.
 
maryjk said:
It would probably depend on how the law is written.

The pastor isn’t the property owner.
Click to expand...
But the pastor is responsible for the property. He can refuse admission to anybody for whatever reason at any time. He doesn’t need to be the owner to do that.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
I think that other parishioners have a right to know if others are bringing weapons into the Church with them.
I don’t fear possible shooters coming into Church as much as I fear possibly getting caught in the crossfire between a shooter and a law enforcement wannabe.
Let everyone check their weapons at the door.
Click to expand...
Good thing laws aren’t written based on what some folks think.

Just because someone carries a gun doesn’t mean they are are law enforcement wanna be. Does that mean folks who own guns are soldier wanna be’s too?
 
Cirdan_XII said:
40.png
maryjk:
It would probably depend on how the law is written.

The pastor isn’t the property owner.
Click to expand...
But the pastor is responsible for the property. He can refuse admission to anybody for whatever reason at any time. He doesn’t need to be the owner to do that.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely wrong with that statement.

Have a pastor refuse admission to his parish for someone being black. See how far that gets him.
 
Again, guns were designed to expel a projectile through a barrel at a high rate of speed with accuracy and repeated reliability.

The atomic bomb was designed to produce nuclear fusion which results in an extremely large explosion.
 
Only speaking in Texas, the law allows those who do not own property to still have authority over property in most situations, like the manager of a store. The phase is, "the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner
neophyte said:
but your unreasonable fears do not trump my fundamental right to be able to defend myself
Click to expand...
I would address two errors I see here. One, is the assumption that a fear is unreasonable. It is no more unreasonable to believe one needs to carry a gun for protection than to believe one is in danger from someone who is carrying a gun. Both involve fanciful and remote possibilities of harm. \

Some one brought up early whether is was moral to deny someone from receiving the Eucharist because they did not feel safe without their gun. It has occurred to me that the opposite could be said as well. Should one be denied the right to receive the Sacrament because they are afraid to go to Mass where people are carrying guns? A bishop or pastor must weigh the needs of both of these people equally.

Second, while your have the right to defend yourself, you do not have the right to carry a gun wherever you want. Gun rights are not the only constitutional rights. Property rights are also a concern. Your right to carry ends where another has the right to let you carry on their property, or property over which they have authority.
 
farronwolf said:
Just because someone carries a gun doesn’t mean they are are law enforcement wanna be. Does that mean folks who own guns are soldier wanna be’s too?
Click to expand...
They wouldn’t need to be for the fear of that to exist. We are talking about fears here, including from some who carry of extremely remote chances. As Joe did not say all were wannabes, one could still have fear of those who are. My own experience is that the majority are pretty well balanced. Some are not, as I am sure you are aware.
 
Glad you see that a spare tire isn’t a gun, but both are carried just in case we need them.
I really don’t think we are any more bloodthirsty than we have been since the beginning of recorded history. Heck when there were only a few people created Cain killed his own brother. Goes back a long, long time.

When one starts to call names, you realize they are failing in their arguments. Again, just because someone carries a gun doesn’t mean they are the lone ranger. You really don’t need to tell me to “listen” to you, unless you have something really important to say.

I don’t rely on the police to protect me. Others might, their call. In fact I tend not to rely on others for much.

Since you prefer to live in a civilized world, you should thank those who you rely on to keep you safe daily, since you either can’t or won’t do it for yourself. But just remember you expect some of them to have a gun ready for your defense, whether it be the military or police. I guess if an ordinary Joe decided to defend your life you would simply say, no thanks, I will wait for the police to arrive while whatever happens, happens. Hopefully you will never have to experience that.
 
farronwolf said:
Simply pointing out the absurdity of the statement made.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a rather absurd and silly example that doesn’t disprove my statement.

You cannot compare being black to being a jerk. Two wholly different things. In fact it is sad that you need this pointing out to you.
 
It’s like I said earlier in the thread, the way some of these guys write, it sounds like they’re living in a literal war zone. Time to move!
(Locking the church doors after Mass begins, scared to go to Mass without a loaded weapon… can’t imagine living my life like that).
 
Cirdan_XII said:
But the pastor is responsible for the property. He can refuse admission to anybody for whatever reason at any time. He doesn’t need to be the owner to do that.
Click to expand...
Your words not mine. Which are in fact wrong.

If you meant to write he can refuse someone entry into the church for being a jerk, you should have written that. You did in fact write that he can refuse admission to anybody for whatever reason at any time.
 
Not to derail the thread but if someone said on this forum that receiving communion in a state of sin is perfectly acceptable, do you think anyone would correct them or ask for a more precise explanation of that they were referring to?

Pretty certain it is frequent, and not used to deflect or distract from the argument.

Just my observation though.
 
To clarify a point that is often misunderstood. Police are civilians. They can quit their job at any time without repercussion. The are simply hired by an agency to provide law enforcement.

Military whether active, reserve or national guard are not civilians. They can not quit their job or not show up without repercussions, up to and including being put in jail for violating their enlistment or commission.

The laws, whether federal or state allow for individuals to carry a firearm. You may not agree with them, but then again, I am certain there are all kinds of laws each of us don’t necessarily agree with. From those laws, there is justification for people to carry firearms where legally allowed to.

Whether a pacifist or not, we all owe our country something. Desmond Doss certainly was a perfect example of that.

When my father signed up at 17 during WWII to serve in the Navy, he felt it was his duty. When I enlisted in the Army 5 days after graduating high school I felt a duty. I am encouraging my son who is a junior in high school to consider enrolling in the ROTC during college.

You don’t feel that civilian gun owners are people who should protect others. Why? Are we not qualified? I would argue that I am certainly qualified to handle firearms safely, and have a good knowledge of the laws to make certain that I am not violating the law if the need ever arises.

I shot in international competition at the age of 14. Served in the military, am certified by the NRA, 4-H, and the State of Texas in firearms and hunter education instruction. Have been shooting firearms for probably 45 years. Am I the best out there, absolutely not, am I better trained that some of the law enforcement and military personnel. Yep.

What is it that you think should preclude me from protecting myself or someone else by the use of a firearm? Very curious to hear the answer.
 
Don’t bother, doesn’t make any difference to me.

But you could just ignore that and answer why you think I should be precluded from carrying a firearm for self defense?
 
Ok, so in Texas, in order to be qualified to carry a gun on your person you must be:

Proficient in firearm usage. Basically know how to operate your gun, and hit a person sized target from 3 to 15 yards with a 70% accuracy with 50 rds. Are you required to be a sharp shooter, absolutely not, but you must be able to hit better than the broad side of a barn.

You can not have a diagnosed history of mental illness. You can not have been convicted of drunk driving recently, can’t be a spousal abuser, can’t be addicted to drugs or alcohol, can’t be delinquent on child support, can’t be dishonorably discharged from the military, can’t be delinquent in taxes to the state, can not have a felony conviction, or a class a or b misdomeanor in the past 5 years.

Must pass a fbi background check with fingerprints submitted.

So in essence, you do have to be a pretty good citizen to get one. Does the local community get to weigh in, no, it is a State’s right thing not a local right thing.

As an instructor, we do have the ability to weigh in on the matter by making a statement to the State DPS if someone in our class gives us pause as to whether or not they should get their permit. Instructors can notify the state if we have concerns, they would investigate further and make a determination.

Just for further discussion, should the local community get to vote on whether someone would get to exercise their right to use the 1st amendment. I mean should we be able to vote on whether someone should attend Mass, or be able to use the internet or write a letter to the editor. I know the answer, but both the 1A and 2A are in the bill of rights. We certainly can’t be selective on which rights we can actually exercise can we, even though others may feel uneasy about certain people exercising them.
 
If those type of requirements are in place for concealed carry, and you agree with them. Why would they not be a good thing for general gun ownership? Why not a license with similiar requirements for any operation if a firearm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top