What gives the State the right to ban guns in church?

[Peejay]

Arkansas is a fine state. Little Rock is one of my favorite towns. Reminds me a lot of Raleigh, NC. Even in town, the people have a rural vibe. NC is moderate like Arkansas too. Comparing NC / SC is like apples and oranges. SC is very red and very conservative. Not anywhere near the industry, research and progressiveness of NC. Jim Hunt really made a huge difference for NC, over four terms as Governor. Improved education by leaps and bounds, provided incentives for new industry, research and pharmacueticals, instead of sitting around and waiting for textiles and furniture to die. That's pretty much what SC has done and is still doing. Crying about the loss of textiles but doing little in the way of progressing to new industry. I think they are just getting the idea that the textiles ARE NOT COMING BACK.

But guns? Shit, we got guns. NC is open carry, despite the fact it is a progressive state. Jessecrats are a pretty cool breed. SC is not open carry. You are forced to conceal your weapon when you travel. When you hit the state line, you have to pull over and unlock the trunk or glove box and put the gun out on the seat before you continue into NC. I don't know if you can carry gun into church or not. I don't know how much of an issue it is. We do have plenty of gun accidents though.

But when I weigh the issues, it comes down to the fact that at some point, nuts with guns may be all that stands between me and my government. I don't like jack ass cops or nuts with guns but they both serve a valuable purpose. Same reason I don't kill snakes.

 

[k2skier]

Whoever feels the need to bring a gun into a church, especially during services, has some serious paranoid issues. It just goes to show you how backwards thinking those that live by "god and guns" are, (and they usually live in the South, hmmmm where marrying your second cousin is legal).

 

[Jon]

NC is moderate like Arkansas too.

I knew there was another moderate state I couldn't remember, and NC would be it. Is it a surprise that Raleigh is also one of the best places to live in the country?

 

[Peejay]

NC is moderate like Arkansas too.

I knew there was another moderate state I couldn't remember, and NC would be it. Is it a surprise that Raleigh is also one of the best places to live in the country?

I've traveled much of the country and yeah, there is a striking resemblance and resonance with the tone of politics in NC and Arkansas. I think it has a little to do with each of the relative geographics. NC is between the die hard south and VA, DC, PA. Arkansas is the bridge from the Midwest to the south. Somewhere, where these lines meet, moderation will surely emerge. Well, that or war.

 

[Jon]

NC is moderate like Arkansas too.

I knew there was another moderate state I couldn't remember, and NC would be it. Is it a surprise that Raleigh is also one of the best places to live in the country?

I've traveled much of the country and yeah, there is a striking resemblance and resonance with the tone of politics in NC and Arkansas. I think it has a little to do with each of the relative geographics. NC is between the die hard south and VA, DC, PA. Arkansas is the bridge from the Midwest to the south. Somewhere, where these lines meet, moderation will surely emerge. Well, that or war.

Yep. You have to realize that the line dividing north from south went by both states. It's no surprise that Northwest Arkansas is so progressive and politically moderate. We are literally the melting pot of north, south, east, and west. It's one of the many reasons I love this area. People from all walks of life, with many different ideals, and parties are cast aside for solutions. Instead of battling for supremacy, sides come together to find a common ground. It's what democracy is supposed to be about, and very few places in the country actually allow it to happen. This area is one of those places.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They constitutionally protected to worship as they please. If they choose to do it carrying Smith and Wesson, so be it.

You know a lot of churches whose parishoners need to wave guns around and yell "yippe ai oh kayaaaa" as part of their worship?

didn't think so.

on the other hand, i suppose if churches no longer wanted to rely on CIVIL police to protect them....

Only a dumbass waits around for the cops to protect them. Even the cops admit that they can't, because they can't be everywhere at once.

I always love it when people reveal their true mindset by trying to justify taking away Constitutional rights by saying, "But you don't need them anyway, and it's such a good idea for us to not let you have them." Thanks for coming out in the open.

 

[Cecilie1200]

no need. What authority does the government have to determine what can be brought into a church if it is legal outside of the church ?

Just a contingency plan for when the moonbats finally succeed in dismantling the second amendment.

gotcha---however moonbats may dismantle religious freedom first.

In this case, they're doing both at once. Very efficient of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They constitutionally protected to worship as they please. If they choose to do it carrying Smith and Wesson, so be it.

You know a lot of churches whose parishoners need to wave guns around and yell "yippe ai oh kayaaaa" as part of their worship?

didn't think so.

on the other hand, i suppose if churches no longer wanted to rely on CIVIL police to protect them....

There are those who could justify carrying an assault rifle with them everywhere they go. And I mean everywhere.

So?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are those who could justify carrying an assault rifle with them everywhere they go. And I mean everywhere.

There are and they may be right however I think the topic is about the government's right to regulate what happens in a house of worship.

There are, and that is why the government tries to control when, where, and who can carry firearms, and that is the point of the topic. There are many laws on the books that cover what can and cannot be done in private places as well as public places.

And there are two really major ones that say you can't pass this particular law. They're called the First and Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are, and that is why the government tries to control when, where, and who can carry firearms, and that is the point of the topic. There are many laws on the books that cover what can and cannot be done in private places as well as public places.

so---what by what authority can the state regulate the presence of handguns in a place of worship ?

Hopefully, the government will never stop the Christians from blowing each other away, since that is what seems to be most important to them judging by the posts here. They were killing each other off in Europe before the gun was invented, and relish every improvement that has come along in ways to exterminate their fellow religious zealots. To the Christian mind, that is why God created gun powder (or the necessary components to make it).

It tells us a lot about your character and lack of impulse control that you think having a gun automatically equals shooting someone. It tells us, for example, that you obviously are an anti-religious bigot as well as a violent wackjob who can't be trusted with a gun. It does not, however, tell us a damned thing about the church attendees in question.

 

[jillian]

There are and they may be right however I think the topic is about the government's right to regulate what happens in a house of worship.

There are, and that is why the government tries to control when, where, and who can carry firearms, and that is the point of the topic. There are many laws on the books that cover what can and cannot be done in private places as well as public places.

And there are two really major ones that say you can't pass this particular law. They're called the First and Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of them.

you're not allowed to burn crosses into your kid's skin either.

or didn't you know that?

are you always this angry?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If churches are immune from govt gun laws (as so many seem to be implying) does that mean that the police can tell them to stick it and not respond if there's a problem?

you know, given that y'all don't want government intervention and all.

I dunno, sweetie. Does your right to privacy from the government give them the right to tell YOU to stick it when you call upon them to do their job for you? Do you give up all YOUR civil rights in order to "earn the privilege" to call the cops? You tell me. Or is it just those damned Christians, who should be grateful you even allow them to breathe, who shouldn't have any civil rights or ability to require the government to do its job on their behalf?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those dastardly Christians, if only they were like all the wonderful non-Christians who never commit any acts of violence, then this world would be a much better place.

All of you religious folks love killing in the name of your God(s), it is what you do best.

All of you bigots love spewing ignorant hate. It is what you do best.

 

[Peejay]

There are and they may be right however I think the topic is about the government's right to regulate what happens in a house of worship.

There are, and that is why the government tries to control when, where, and who can carry firearms, and that is the point of the topic. There are many laws on the books that cover what can and cannot be done in private places as well as public places.

And there are two really major ones that say you can't pass this particular law. They're called the First and Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of them.

Umm...maybe I am misunderstanding you but, this law is already in effect. Guns are banned in churches in Arkansas already. This was about repealing that law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So ... what was that about not wanting separation of church and state? (the few I am speaking of know)

As for the law, I think this is just more of those "nanny" freaks trying to protect everyone from the good people. It's stupid, gun bans are bad enough when they don't infringe on religions.

Frankly, it seems to me that anyone with good intentions by attending church services doesn't NEED a gun in the first place. It's a no-brainer. Has gun ownership become such a fanatical issue that it will eventually be necessary to have metal detectors at church entrances? If so, that further makes the case for gun CONTROL.

Ah, yet another one who wants to justify taking away civil rights in the name of "Well, you don't need them anyway, and it's such a good and noble thing for us to take them."

It really doesn't matter whether you think I should have my civil rights or not. I don't have to ask your permission. THAT should be a no-brainer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are those who could justify carrying an assault rifle with them everywhere they go. And I mean everywhere.

There are and they may be right however I think the topic is about the government's right to regulate what happens in a house of worship.

First and foremost, "government" has the obligation to protect its citizens. What if a bin Laden type entered a church waving an automatic but didn't use it, was arrested anyway, but got off because of Second Amendment rights? It's the lunatics who hide behind the Second Amendment that is the problem here.

First and foremost, government does NOT "protect its citizens" by depriving them of their rights. That is one of the things they need protection FROM. Second of all, you absolute, utter, fluffbrained TWIT, if a bin Laden type wanted to take a gun into a church and wave it around, do you honestly think the fact that there's a law against him doing so would stop him?! Do you really think terrorists sit around saying, "I'd really like to do this, but oh darn, it's illegal. Guess we'll scrap THAT plan"?

Third, the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does NOT protect any right to brandish them and threaten people with them. Duhhh. And fourth, if a bin Laden type DID go into a church that allowed law-abiding citizens - of which he would not be one - to carry their legally-owned and registered weapons with them, he wouldn't be getting arrested, much less getting off on a technicality, after brandishing it. He'd be dead, which is a hell of a lot better than a mass of parishioners being dead.

I guess it's only the lunatics who spout bullshit who hide behind the First Amendment, so we should just scrap THAT sucker.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever feels the need to bring a gun into a church, especially during services, has some serious paranoid issues. It just goes to show you how backwards thinking those that live by "god and guns" are, (and they usually live in the South, hmmmm where marrying your second cousin is legal).

Whoever feels the need to take away someone else's civil rights on the grounds that they MIGHT do something dangerous with them has some serious paranoid issues. It just goes to show you how backwards-thinking those that live by "nanny government" are (and they usually ilve in big cities, hmmmm, where drive-by shootings happen daily).

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are, and that is why the government tries to control when, where, and who can carry firearms, and that is the point of the topic. There are many laws on the books that cover what can and cannot be done in private places as well as public places.

And there are two really major ones that say you can't pass this particular law. They're called the First and Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of them.

you're not allowed to burn crosses into your kid's skin either.

or didn't you know that?

are you always this angry?

You're comparing peacably and legally keeping and bearing a firearm to major child abuse, and I'M the cuckoo one?

Are you always this insanely stupid, or did you skip your meds this week?

 

[xsited1]

I know it's strange, but I've never seen this happen:



(Click to enlarge)

 

[krotchdog]

Colorado shootings by same gunman, police say; security guard credited with saving lives

Colorado shootings by same gunman, police say; security guard credited with saving lives
Steven Saint, Reuters
Published: Tuesday, December 11, 2007
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado -- A 24-year-old Denver-area man was responsible for weekend shootings at both a Colorado evangelical Christian church and a missionary training center that killed four people, police said on Monday.

Police said Matthew Murray had ties to the Christian missionary training center in Arvada, where he killed two young missionaries with a handgun shortly after midnight, and apparently bore a grudge there.


Security guard Jean Assam, a volunteer, saved many lives at the church, New Life senior pastor Brady Boyd told a televised news conference on Monday. "She's a real hero," he said. There were about 7,000 people in the building when the shooting erupted.

"I heard shots fired. There was chaos. The shots were so loud, I thought he was inside. I saw him coming through the doors," Assam told reporters.

Assam said she then took cover, identified herself to the gunman and "I took him down." She credited God for her survival because of "the firepower he had compared to what I had."

Assam has a law enforcement background but had never fired on a suspect while working as a police officer.

The guy had over a thousand rounds on him.

enough said.