Guns and God????

[SamH]

In no way did I say that he was a hero - but the government’s method of dealing with the sack of fertilizer (an apt term) showed how rational is to fear the term “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’ve not seen that opinion represented here. Sir Knight is probably our strongest pro-gun/pro-concealed carry voice on these forums but he does not exclude other methods of home protection and he actually advocates a multi-layer approach. Many others do the same. Dogs, good locks, exterior lights, alarm systems, and yes, guns. I’m certainly outspoken when people misrepresent guns, but in no way do I suggest that they are the end-all of home protection. In fact I think they are simply the last resort. ***After all else fails ***then there is the gun. But when a gun is necessary there is no other good substitute.

This is true.

I have outdoor sensor lights which turn on by themselves when it gets dark. This serves not only as a deterrent to crime but also lights up the property so that if visitors come after dark, they don’t trip or fall down a step. I also have lights that are hooked up to a motion detector so that if someone or something (I live out in the country and when a bright 300w light goes one, it sends coyote, fox, etc.; running) is lurking about, they will go on.

Inside, I have a monitored security system. Every door, every window is wired. Plus I have motion detectors in the hallways. Finally I have a 140-pound dog that sleeps on the step landing between the first and second floor. If somebody gets past all of that, I can safely assume that they are not there to borrow a cup of sugar and are there for evil purposes and I am duty bound to protect family and self.

Part of that duty is being properly prepared before hand to deal with such a danger. When somebody is coming up the steps, that is not the time to start looking for a baseball bat or an umbrella to confront the badguy with.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Further, the way you represent the issue of taggants and the NRA position regarding them is also not accurate.

That’s your opinion. We happen to disagree. Deal with it.

 

[melensdad]

That’s your opinion. We happen to disagree. Deal with it.

NO, it is not OPINION. You have made, and have repeated, statements that are clearly not accurate about this issue and attributed that errant position to the NRA in a disparaging way. Not opinion. Fact.

Please deal in fact and then neither one of us will have to “deal with” anything.

The NRA simply supported the position of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and its recommendation to Congress that a system to introduce taggants into black powder should not be introduced. The NAS made this recommendation based on many factors. The NRA simply agreed with their findings.

 

[melensdad]

Facts:
Ammunition
Taggants And Gun Powders

IDENTIFICATION taggants are microscopically color-coded particles that, if added to explosives or gun powders during their manufacturing, might facilitate tracing those products after a bombing back to the manufacturer. Then, through use of mandatory distribution records, tracing would continue through wholesaler and dealer levels to an original purchaser or point of theft. Detection taggants may be added to a product to facilitate detection of that product before it is exploded or burned in a crime.

Section 732 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 required a general study of taggants as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The study is required to demonstrate that taggants: “will not pose a risk to human life and safety; will substantially assist law enforcement officers in their investigative efforts; will not substantially impair the quality of the explosive materials for their intended lawful use; will not have a substantially adverse effect on the environment; and the costs associated with the addition of the tracers will not out weigh benefits of their inclusion.”

During the summer of 1996, Congress approved an NRA-backed proposal (an amendment to Section 732 in H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidation Appropriations Act of 1997) that an independent body examine all technologies that allow explosives to be detected before a terrorist or criminal explodes his bomb in addition to those that will identify the explosive after a blast. NRA fought hard for the inclusion of this language, knowing that preventive technologies offer our best hope for enhanced public safety and more effective law enforcement. That independent body is the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which completed the study and published their findings and recommendations in a report titled: “Black and Smokeless Powders: Technologies for Finding Bombs and the Bomb Makers.”

NAS Final Report on Black and Smokeless Powder

To conduct the study on black and smokeless powders, the National Research Council, the research body of the NAS, created the Committee on Smokeless and Black Powder which conducted the research and wrote the final report. In that final report, which was reviewed by an independent panel of experts with diverse perspectives and technical expertise, included the following findings:

Bombs using black and smokeless powders account for a small number of deaths and injuries each year. (Annually, 10 deaths and approximately 100 injuries.)
Information gathered by the BATF and the FBI regarding bombings is incomplete.
An effective taggant system with the associated record keeping would incur significant costs.
No taggant system has been found that is technically feasible for use in black and smokeless powders.

The Committee specifically recommended:
“Detection markers in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.”
"Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time."

The Committee`s recommendations were carefully directed to identify feasible and effective actions that would assist law enforcement to prevent bombings and to conduct investigations in their aftermath.The use of taggants or markers in black and smokeless powders were found to be unfeasible and of uncertain value. The Committee did however, recommend that improvements be made in the information collection done by federal agencies in two areas. First, a comprehensive database of the properties and chemical makeup of blackand smokeless powder products should be created. Second, a single comprehensive and searchable national database on bombing statistics should be established. The Committee found that the current records that are kept by the BATF and the FBI separately are incomplete and inadequate. The committee also recommended that further research be conducted on the use of dogs to detect explosives and the development of detection technology that would aid in wide area searches for explosives.
Expert Testimony

J. Christopher Ronay, president of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), recently spoke before an NAS panel. Ronay is the former Chief of the FBI Explosives Unit, and in his 18 years there was involved in investigations of the Pan Am 103 and World Trade Center bombings and the Unabomber case. Prior to his FBI career, he commanded a U.S. Army explosives ordnance disposal detachment. Ronay said IME is “strongly opposed” to placing identification taggants in explosives. “Based on my many years in the war against terrorism, I urge you to recommend that funding be redirected toward the development of new explosives detection technologies . . . . Identification taggants will not deter terrorism.”

Ronay also addressed the Swiss taggant experience, often grossly distorted by anti-gun politicians and the media. Switzerland passed legislation requiring taggants in explosives (but not black and smokeless powders) in 1980, and yet not one other nation has followed suit. Ronay said that although the Swiss program is cited as being useful to law enforcement, that claim “does not hold up to scrutiny.” Addressing those bombings that Swiss police solve each year, he said, “in those cases there is no evidence in the record to show what role, if any, taggants played in the investigations.” Ronay added, “I do not believe that taggants will save lives or prevent terrorist bombings. . . . I feel very strongly that there are more beneficial ways to spend our resources.”

Much to the chagrin of the Clinton-Gore Administration, which sought to turn gun owners who possessed untagged propellants into criminals, the issue of identification taggants has, after two decades, moved from the political arena into the domain of scientific research.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

And I disagree with your recitation of the incident and the standing of national science bodies. It was, in fact, different than you relate. But it was a while ago. Look, be less insulting and a little less controlling as to dialogue.

But you can have the last word.

 

[melensdad]

And I disagree with your recitation of the incident and the standing of national science bodies. It was, in fact, different than you relate. But it was a while ago. Look, be less insulting and a little less controlling as to dialogue.

But you can have the last word.

Please refer to the post 1 above yours. It very clearly shows the FACTS and the NRA position.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t understand the point of the pastor to have this event.

Especially since he is requiring the guns to be unloaded …

From the article

: The guns must be unloaded and private security will check visitors at the door,

 

[Sword_Brethren]

If it wasn’t for the NRA, we would not have any gun rights it this country.

 

[sabrefan]

Our church has had several gun raffles… no big deal.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Handgun or rifle or both?

 

[Zapfenstreich]

If the Knights of Columbus can bring swords into Church, what’s the rationale in barring a parishoner’s pistol? Assuming all the legal hoops have been cleared.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The swords are ceremonial and not sharpened but my S&W 360 is loaded with GoldDot hollowpoints

 

[sabrefan]

Handgun or rifle or both?

Rifles. Also our priest goes hunting a lot.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Hey, so does our’s! As a matter of fact, one of his favorite sayings is that he loves the almighty buck. He loves to see it in the collection basket and in the front sight of his rifle. Many parishioner don’t understand what that means and from time to time I have folks asking me if I understand it and if I can explain it to them.

 

[SamH]

If you disagree, just say so. Please do not accuse me of dishonesty.

."

The easiest way to avoid that issue is to be honest.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I know nothing about you personally, so I can’t speak to whether your intentions and your markmanship are good, but I can say that I would not feel comfortable attending Mass with you knowing that you are armed. In our society, we hear of too many horrible things happening with guns, so I never feel comfortable seeing someone I don’t know carrying a weapon - I can’t know for sure if this person is the kind of person who is going to pull that weapon and, say, kill and abortionist or a priest (both of which have happened in the recent past). In my opinion, I should be able to worship without that particular anxiety, and the house of God should remain a house of prayer. It’s hard to be completely prayerful when, in your case, you’re scanning the crowd to see if you need to take defensive action and, in my case, I’m watching you to make sure you’re not one of the whackos that winds up on the front pages each week.

You might be very surprised at how many people carry in social places. With the number of permits that are issued it seems to me that if only 25% of them carry full time the odds are that there is at least a couple of guns near you and your family at all times. Yes even in church.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I live in the same town where this event will take place & actually grew up not too far from this church. The consensus here is that this pastor is either off his rocker or using his church to make a politcal statement.

I believe it is a political statement. IMHO the pastor should have held a Saturday picnic to teach gun safety and other issues. I have no problem with this. Also many of the churches in past HISTORY had coat and gun rooms where you placed your coat and firearm when entering the building.

That being said I have no delusions that this church building (or for that matter any building I enter) would ever be “gun free”. I just prefer to know that there are probably a few legal guns available in case of problems. I think that the right to carry legally is a right that should not be eliminated in our society.

 

[sabrefan]

Hey, so does our’s! As a matter of fact, one of his favorite sayings is that he loves the almighty buck. He loves to see it in the collection basket and in the front sight of his rifle. Many parishioner don’t understand what that means and from time to time I have folks asking me if I understand it and if I can explain it to them.

A hole bunch of went out a few time and we had a good time… we even go camping a lot!

 

[sabrefan]

You might be very surprised at how many people carry in social places. With the number of permits that are issued it seems to me that if only 25% of them carry full time the odds are that there is at least a couple of guns near you and your family at all times. Yes even in church.

I have a permit to carry in my state and also Italy and I carry it around 10% of the time… also my son is a cop (in a very high crime area) and he only carries his around half the time.
I never carry a weapon at church… but that’s just me.