The Eagle editorial board received an interesting letter from a Kansas pastor upset about the state’s new concealed-carry gun law. His complaint is that churches are among the places where concealed guns aren’t allowed.
He seems to support letting churchgoers bring guns: “History shows us that when shootings take place in a church, it is by people that come off the street and start shooting. If this law stands, then it will make it illegal for ‘religious’ people to defend themselves.”
But his main objection is a separation of church and state: “The state has no right to determine what and who can go into a church; this is a decision of the church. If this law stands, then it will give the government a crack in which they can invade the church.”
And besides, the offerings are sure to increase if you know the preacher is packing.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
129 Comments
“…If this law stands, then it will give the government a crack in which they can invade the church.”
As if the church isn’t currently invading the state.
Let the prohibition stand. There have to be some free fire zones available for the criminals to practice their craft safely ;-)
It is a very valid point.
Oh God… The world is ending, I have to agree with Nathan! I believe that places should be able to opt out as well as opt in.
It’s an interesting question.
Churches are private property, but many invite the general public. I’m not sure the general argument can fly (it’s a restriction on the gun owners, after all, not on the churches).
But if the Church of the Locked and Loaded challenged it, I would be cheering them on!
Google “church shootings”. See how many hits that brings up.
Not many: 805. But the sites that are promoting this meme is, I think, the detail more worthy of attention.
And I think Google News gives us better a indication of the reality:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22church+shootings%22&btnG=Search+News
Congratulations on so cleverly revealing your bigotry against gun owners and Christians by using that graphic from the Landover idiots to paint us all with one broad brush.
Ah, a member of the L&L church!
Perhaps you would prefer the graphic at the top of this?
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to the lieberman/gannon stuff.
Funny, for a bunch of humorless and depressed lefties.
Oh, I forgot… GODLESS lefties…
heheh.
Church is NOT a place for guns. How can anybody even consider such a thing? It’s hard for me to imagine going to church to hear about God’s love and packing a sidearm. Can we say context?
Laeve your piece in the trunk.
X:”It’s hard for me to imagine going to church to hear about God’s love and packing a sidearm. Can we say context?”
Please. You are making too much sense this Sunday morning.
“Pass the lord, and praise the ammunition!”
Firesign Theatre’s variation on the old WWII song.
As ever XXX is the voice of reason.
Yep.
In the early days of our nation adult men brought their weapons (muskets and swords) to church as a matter of practice. Partly because of everyday dangers, indians,bears,wolves, etc. but also because militia practice followed worship services. There were no cops, it was considered your duty to protect yourself and family and failure to do so was considered a moral offense against the community.
Obviously the landscape and culture have changed considerably in 200 years. I don’t know how many church shootings there have been in the last 50 years, probably not many. But churches are not immune to violence. I support letting the churches decide, I wish the law had left it as an option to the church. But putting them on the prohibited list is probably what got CCW passed this time around so I can live with it.
Like a previous commenter said, just Google “church shootings.” Perhaps those of you who believe that people should not be allowed to defend themselves inside a church building believe rather that it is a good place to be brutally murdered.
Murdurous criminals aren’t going to care if there is a concealed carry law. They aren’t going to care if there’s a twist in the law about legal concealed carry in a church building. They are just going to walk in and start shooting.
Just Google it.
Most of the church shootings I’ve read about were like workplace shootings in that they werent a robbery type situation, they were a person(usually a church member)taking out a personal vendeta. And most of them didnt take place during worship services they took place during some other function. But I havent really studied it carefully.
There should not have been any restrictions. Law enforcement carry guns into churches and other buildings all of the time. Even when they are off duty they are on duty.
I can sort of understand the ban in the capitol but I think it would have been wiser for the state to just install metal detectors and have people identify who is carrying and who is not. They could either check their guns at the door or have the person fill out an itinerary of their visit to the capitol. People get pretty upset sometimes as to what goes on under the Topeka dome.
I think it was appropriate for the legislature to allow businesses to ban guns if they so chose. This if freedom of choice and we know a lot of people are all about choice except when it comes to babies.
Hopefully the group put together to decide on the details for the rules and regulations of this legislation will see the light.
Hmmm, Heckler, the voice of reason?
Is DP short for DPSHT, Alan? How about a specific link, as a blind Google works AGAINST your argument?
Ya know, I can’t remember the last time I saw a bear or a wild Indian in church.
This isn’t the wild west. Guns don’t belong in church or bars, for that matter.
I was at Gander Mountian yesterday looking at .50 cal handguns. WOW!S&W has a beauty. But bullets for the thing are $45 a dozen. OUCH, lol!
Well, I think there should be a limit in each church to two guns. Call it a modern interpretation -He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘No, not a thing.’ He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”: and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ (Luke 22:35-38, NRSV)My guess is the churches that want guns in them are some of the more liternal minded, so this should be perfect for them.
And you all think there AREN’T people in church with guns already?
I have this visual of some guy running into a church with a gun in his hand, asking for help, but all the congregation sees is the gun, so they pull theirs, and the guy is shot by 200 people. Sure, that could happen anywhere, but think about it.
Let the pastor pack, and maybe the head deacon, if you’re so afraid.
I pastor a church in TN, and I encourage our members to be armed, if they like. Why should churches be places where armed criminals may operate in perfect safety with no fear of anyone being able to stop them? Wherever good people have weapons, everyone there is a little bit safer.
Using Dr. M. St. John’s line of thinking, shouldn’t students be allowed to carry concealed weapons in schools? After all, aren’t school shootings in the news from time to time? Someone with a score to settle comes in guns blazing? They know they won’t get shot because it is illegal to carry in school.I’m actually BSing about carrying in school, but I think everybody who thinks concealed carry is the answer needs to take a deep breath and think this all the way out. I wonder how many peole willing to use a pistol to defend themselves really will have any business carrying it. Much has been said about putting in time at the range, but in a combat situation, range time is of little use. I remember a short time ago Wichita police had a shooting situation in Old Towne where they fired many rounds and didn’t hit anything, and everybody said they needed to go to the firing range and practice. Most critics don’t realize it is a lot diffrent shooting a paper target on a range, and shooting at someone who is actually shooting back. And where do those bullets fired really go. In an urban situation like Wichita city limits, that can be a disturbing thought. Someone several blocks away, who is not involved in this situation could be hit. How many people will see a crime in progress and want to get involved and face needless risk?I have illegally carried a weapon for years when on the road. Some 25 years ago near Dallas, my wife and I were traveling late at night and stopped at a full service station (remember them?) when on the other side of the faciltiy 2 men pulled up, one went inside to the cashier, and the other was going car to car in a robbery attempt. I pulled my .357 out and decided if he came here I was going to give him a surprise. My wife was driving the car and we were both still in it. She ordered the attendant to stop the pump immidiately, threw out a $10 bill and hauled a$$ out of there. I am thankful for her fast thinking and I avioded having to make a decision that would have changed my life forever.I still think most people are in far greater danger being maimed or killed in a traffic accident.I will never support concealed carry. More guns won’t solve anything.
Pastor St. John,So, who would Jesus shoot?
“I wonder how many peole willing to use a pistol to defend themselves really will have any business carrying it.”
And Who should we let decide? You? Me? Many would say some people have no business voting, Yet it is a right shared equally.Numerous states have enacted CCW and you don’t see the streets running with blood.
Were the streets running with blood before they enacted concealed carry?
There is no proof that CC Laws reduce crime, it’s just a bunch of fantasy propaganda cooked up by the pro-gun, John Wayne wannabees. Don’t bother me with the NRA and gun-lovers links, please. It’s all based on perpetrating the myth, not on actual facts.
Hoodie, the jury is still out on CC laws, there may just be evidence that it increases gun violence. Only time will tell. Right now no one knows the consequences, and if they say they do, they are misinformed.
So Brown–if someone DOES bring a gun to church, what exactly are you prepared to do about it?
dc,I’d do the same thing you would do if someone brought a gun to school, or anyone of the other places that the concealed carry law will be exempt from.Some people and their hypothetical “what if” scenarios need to get a life and quit worrying about how they will use their gun if the opportunity arises. Your example is a “worst case” scenario. If you go to church, maybe you should try praying to God instead of worrying about worrying about who will come crashing through the door guns blazing.It was pointed out earlier that most church shooting did not happen during worship, but rather at another function. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about somebody coming into my church guns blazing, but I don’t go to the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, either.Do you?Since you like “what if” scenarios, what would you do if you were driving down the interstate with your family or loved ones, and another car veers across the median. You try to take evasive action but everything you do, the other car adjusts his course accordingly. What are you going to do? Shoot him? Can you hit a moving target? What about other cars on the road? If you miss your target will you hit them?If a gun is the answer, it must have been a really stupid question.
By the way, that is “brown” with a lower case “b”.
Seems to me two different facets of this discussion are being intermingled. The first has to do with concealed carry to defend yourself when your life is in imminent danger..if you have an option other than using the gun..like retreating to a safe distance or to a safe location, then in many states using the firearm would be illegal. The weapon is to be used when no other option is available.
Then there are those who seem to think that they have the right to “defend” the lives of those whom they consider in imminent danger. This is even one step further removed from the earlier case. It is one thing for you to decide that your life is in imminent danger..it is quite another to decide for someone else that their life is.
Sure seems to me that there is quite the strain of vigilantism in a lot of CCW advocates.
Some of the posts by gun advocates are starting to worry me.
Will the real John Wayne please stand up?
XXXThey worry me too. I know the power that todays firearms have. I own several pistols, belong to a gun club, and enjoy shooting at the range.I dread the day that I would have to use one of them on another human being.I hope we have not opened pandoras box. Many will point to other states passage and successful implementation of CC laws. I hope that is the case here. Some of these cowboys and their “what if” scenarios are what worry me. I hope they have thought it all the way out.
Gee, all I did was ask a direct question. Can’t you just answer it directly without a lecture?
Interesting.
Haven’t thought about the church/state thing, though I can see his point. I doubt that it it a matter to get all worked up about. I’d prefered private entities to make those choices themselves, just as businesses may. But creating these “gun-free zones” was the political price to passing CC, so I can live with the compromise.
Just one thought on the “gun-free zones” – if I am trustworthy to carry out in public at large, it is silly to assume that I am not trustworthy when passing some arbitrary line. After a year or three, we can start removing those zones when it is apparant the fears of some have not come to pass.
However, the string of WE editor’s musings on this subject, and their tones, says volumes about Phil Brownlee.
Isn’t the whole reason there is a ban in churchs in the first place. is because churchs asked for it, if the pro gun pastor wants guns so bad he should have spoke up before the law was passed. PS I seen many progun people who want to use the goverment force private companies to allow guns on there premises
brown – I don’t know of many people that would advocate students carrying in schools. Almost all states put the legal limit of CCW at either 18 or 21 (VT being the exception with 16). This means that even without the “gun-free schools” laws (which have been in effect LONG before Columbine, Jonesboro, et al), that high school students are not allowed to carry. The issue is the faculty. There have been several cases in which faculty members who had a CCW license were not able to stop the situation because their sidearm was in their car. In one instance the assistant principal ran out to his car, grabbed the pistol, and shot the killer student, ending the situation. Many students died that did not have to, because of that time it took to run to the parking lot.
Damoon,
Ok, so if we agree that the jury is still out, then what grounds are you going to use to deprive me of the ability to protect me and my family? I’m not John Wayne or Dirty Hairy.
Ultimatly, I am the only one that can take responsiblity for my safety. Not the government, not my church. I choose to be responsible.
The thing that I find amusing is that with the millions of carry permit holders, You probably pass within arms length of several guns on a daily basis. They haven’t bitten you yet! They are not likley to.
As far as the issue of where guns belong, I grew up in a small town . I shot on a Boyscout rifle team in the shooting range located in the basement of the Highschool (at one time it was required that new High Schools had a shooting facility). We taught hunter safety in the church. We would have look at you funny if you suggested that was a problem.
Yah know,
I have a permit. I have recieved extra training in the safe and effective use of my firearm. I am capable of protecting myself.
Should I step foot onto private property and the owner requires me to leave my gun in the car, and them I fall victim to a violent crime…
That property owner is legally liable for depriving me of the ability to defend myself just as he is liable for a broken leg due to an unsafe condition causing a slip and fall.
Let’s see if I have got this correct. Armed “christians” ready to KILL anyone who sends harm their way. When did God get so small that he couldn’t or wouldn’t protect and look out over folks? And the thought of a “christian” KILLING another human being is just flippin’ ludicrous. WWJD?????????
“Let he who hath no sword sell hiscloak and buy one.” –Jesus, Luke 22:36
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
I think that when many people think of church they only think of Sunday service when in fact at most churches there is much more going on, throughout the week.
For instance, church council meeting-maybe 15 people present, any time of day or night, any night of the week. 2 or 3 people in on a saturday to decorate for a special holiday celebration. Someone decorating for or rehearsing for a wedding. A parishioner mowing the lawn, planting flowers etc.
You have all kinds of activities going on all times of the week, sometimes just 1-5 people present, maybe late in the evening on a thursday.
Couple that with the fact that not all churches are in the safest part of town. The other extreme, out in western Kansas they may be a mile or more from the nearest farmhouse.
Give the church and its parishioners the choice, not every church is a megachurch on north Rock Road.
How about we find out what THE MAN has to say about the issue:
http://gunshowonthenet.com/biblicalarmsquotes.html
Of particular interest is;
To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up…
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.
That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
- Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, 8, 14, 15
“The LORD [is] a man of war: the LORD [is] his name.” – Exodus 15:3
“For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation.
Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
Let] the high [praises] of God [be] in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand;
To execute vengeance upon the heathen, [and] punishments upon the people;
To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.” – Psalms 149:4-9
“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” – Ezekiel 33:6
“Wisdom [is] better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.” – Ecclesiastes 9:18
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. – Matthew 10:34
Then said he unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one”. – JESUS,Luke 22:36
“When a strong man armed, keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.” – JESUS, Luke 11:21
“When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” – Matthew 22:49
(Now, wait a minute here. Israel was under Roman rule – a conquered people, yet Rome let them keep their swords? We citizens of the U.S. are not a conquered people, are we? How come they don’t want us to keep our ’swords’?)
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” – Hebrews 13:8
This used to be one of our motto’s:
http://gunshowonthenet.com/Patriot/IntentofRepublic.html
Do I need to remind anyone of what He said to do to those who didn’t want for Him to rule over them? (Let’s just say it’s not pleasant).
God is NOT a wimp. WAKE UP AMERICA!
Just another redneck using the bible as a weapon. “GOD is not a whimp”. Yes, I can see Jesus now, guns ablazing, kicking everyone’s ass!
I seem to remember the KKK using the bible as an excuse for their violent attitude toward their fellow man.
So Damoon, only rednecks want to pack heat? how very elitist and “east coast” of you1
viva la raza Blanco!!
Why don’t you go shoot yourself in the foot, Ian. It’s better than sticking it in your mouth like usual.
Damoon,
I have 80 firearms and I ani’t giving up a damned one of them. The way things are going in this country, I bet even you will be packing heat in a couple of years!
Viva La Pistola!!
“Killers for Christ” YYYEEEEHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!
Damoon,
C’mon, we’re not talking about killing in the name of…
This is about being able to provide for your own protection. Protecting yourself and your family is not un-christian. Standing in protection of your community is noble. I have carried for years. I take it as a big responsibility. I have NEVER killed anyone.
Now would you tell me I am un-christian if I stand between an evil-doer and my daughters on equal footing?
“But those MINE ENEMIES, which WOULD NOT that I SHOULD REIGN OVER THEM, bring hither, and SLAY [them] BEFORE ME.” – JESUS of Nazareth, Luke 19:27
We shall see who is correct and who is not.
It’s time for GUN NUTS for GOD with the reverend Hoodie!
Let’s load up for the holy spirit today.
And God spake unto the rednecks telling them “Even as thou comest to my house, keep ye a sidearm. Thou shalt keep thy sidearm cloaked from the eyes of men for I knowest of and establish my covenenant with thee. Keep it with thou and yea magazines and bandoliers also of ammunition. For thou art my arm and wrath in my House against evildoers whom I could’st strike dead with mine own power but entrust insteadto ye.”
Chabo-I said I was BSing about carrying in school. It’s in the next paragraph. I wasn’t serious.
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in the sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
George Washington, from his Farewell Address to the Nation
The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, January 1, 1802, in an address to the Danbury Baptists
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! – Patrick Henry
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of Supreme Court
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
John Quincy Adams
By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing.
Runkel v. Winemiller, 1796
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people…it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams(Is this not the problem we are having TODAY?)
Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government.People v. Ruggles, 1811
The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith – the Bible.
Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 1844
Had the people, during the Revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle…At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect…. in this age there can be no substitute for Christianity….That was the religion of the founders of the Republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants…The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
House Judiciary Committee Report, March 27, 1854
__________________________________”To fail to recognize who that God is is not only illogical and ridiculous, it is also detrimental to the court system.”
“They don’t want to be reminded that there is an authority higher than the authority of the state.”
“Rights come from God, not from government.”
“No, because this country was not founded upon the Qur’an. It was not founded upon a Muslim faith. It was founded upon a Christian faith and the acknowledgement of God of the holy scriptures.”
“The acknowledgement of God was the very reason for the existence of this country.” – Roy Moore, Judge
Oh wow another nut.
Brother E. David joins the service in progress……
Thankfully, few states have passed “deadly force”, aka “stand your ground”, legislation. The idea that people should use deadly force only to defend their lives is rooted in English common law, Another common-law principle, the “duty to retreat,” requires people to avoid potentially deadly confrontations. The principles apply in many U.S. states. Hopefully, this will remain true for the majority of states, even for CCW states.
Using a gun to defend yourself when your perception is that your life is threatened and there is no other alternative makes a good deal of sense. Where it becomes hazy for me is using the weapon to defend another because you “perceive” the situation is life-threatening, when in actuality the use of deadly force should be based on the perception of the individual actually being threatened. I can imagine a domestic dispute between a husband and wife where the husband goes off in a fit of anger and appears to be on the verge of doing something nasty to his wife, (when in actuality he never does). An observer might pull his weapon and use it here because of his/her impression of the situation. The wife, however, knows that nothing will happen.
It also becomes pretty foggy for me when one brandishes the weapon in the hope that it acts as a deterrent. If it doesn’t have the intended effect, then I imagine in most states you would still be required to retreat as a first option. However, i think that most people who pull a weapon would have the attitude “in for a penny, in for a pound”, and use it, regardless of state law on the matter.
And J R said unto E David…..
Thou art a nut. Get thee serious counseling. Arm thyself not, lest ye shoot off thy foot as thou hast thy mouth.
U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE 5TH CONGRESS, 1796: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
J.R.
Do you have anything inteligent to debate or are you just going to lower yourself to slam anyone who has a different point of view?
And as Brian spoke wisdom, E David did search the guidance of the NRA talking points.
Ulitmatly, to cut through all the fog… It’s about private property rights. In this case, the state has clearly removed the “choice” from the congregation/community.
Is that where we want the state?
P.S. JR… The NRA represent many americans.
We shall see who the ‘nut’ is, JR.
You ignore the very foundation of our country. You do have a right to be wrong. But, you cannot argue the facts of what the whole basis for the Foundation of our country was/is.
It is people such as yourself that have helped to bring us to such a low state.
We used to be the envy of the rest of the world. Look at us now. A bunch of petty tyrants that could care less about true Freedom and Liberty.
Selfishness, arrogance and greed is what governs this country and the majority of its people. And their is a price to be paid;
“Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
The state of our Legal system and government as a whole:
“SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA.”
“COMMUNIS ERROR FACIT JUS.”
“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
Disregard at your own peril.
I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life;Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right tosupport and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evidentbranches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,commonly called the first law of nature.
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one,or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce theiressential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when thegrand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, isfor the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principalof which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men,through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up anyessential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end ofsociety would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedombeing the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienatethis gift and voluntarily become a slave.- Samuel Adams, (also known as The ‘Father’ of the American Revolution), The Rights of the Colonists
and while E David googled, RD spoke truth.
Then Hoodie did return and without message. And he shouted unto J R “dost thou agree with me or not? And If not then thou art judgemental in thy point of view that differs from mine”
And Hoodie boasted of the NRA saying “Who is like unto the NRA?”
And E David rambled incoherently with many cut and pastes and made himself a fool.
JR,
Since you’re in a KJV Bible type of mood,
“And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand” [Ezek 9:2]
“Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” [Luke 22:36]
There can be nothing worse than one who is willfully blind.
Especially so, when they announce their error to others and hold it out as fact. To err may be human, but to continue in error is ignorance at it’s ultimate height.
And J R did wade through the rant of E David and found chaff and talking points.
Ok Brian that stops me cold. I’d have to read that for context.
And I was having such fun with the fundies.
E. David Quatermain,
Sure you have a right to life, liberty and property, and the right to defend them. I assume by “defense” of your life, you mean surviving the confrontation. It has been shown that the best thing one can do to “defend’ one’s life when confronted with deadly force is to run, if this is an option. Survival rates are greater than 97%. Anyone who has been to a pistol range and watched the average person there shoot knows that most people are pretty cruddy marksmen, even when there’s no pressure. Imagine now that criminal trying to use that gun in a pressure packed situation where his accuracy will be generally just awful. Even if you’re hit, it is generally non-fatal.
So, if you define “defending” your life as surviving the confrontation, you’d be better off with a pair of track shoes. If you define it as “teaching that SOB a lesson” or “I’lll show him what a man I am”, then by all means, use the gun, even though odds of 97% chance of survival are hard to beat.
JR, I’m sorry :-((
Obviously, I took the verses out of context. The Bible is filled with junk like that that you can pull out to support just about any position.
Continue with the Middle English jocularity (as Fr. Mulcahey on M.A.S.H. would say). I’m almost crying :-)).
That’s ok Brian. Agreed the bible is very subjective.
But Jesus did say turn the other cheek.
I’d have to read for context, but the “sell your cloak to buy a sword” I would take as “if you feel the need to be armed do so at the peril of your being cold” but again I’d have to read for context.
JR,
Funny you should mention the “turn the other cheek” passage. Some Bible scholars view this passage as a call to nonviolent confrontation. the actual wording starts with being struck on the right ckheek, and then offering the left. Since most people are right-handed, to hit someone on the right cheek, you’d have to hit them back-hand. A back-hand slap, especially in those times, was how you hit an inferior. A forehand slap would hit you on the left cheek…and a forhand slap was generally reserved for those of your “rank”.
So perhaps Jesus was just asking us to do what Gandhi did…make others treat you as an equal, but do it without violence…do it through nonviolence that makes the other person stop and think.
Brian?
That is way too deep for me this late.
See why I stopped when YOU quoted scripture? I hope the blog sees it too.
I take no great pleasure in bashing religion. I don’t mind bashing the self righteous who use it to bash others.
E.D.–After surveying your list of quotes, “nut” seems rather mild. The manufactured Jefferson quote was especially hilarious. Anyone who knows anything about Jefferson had to be HOWLING at that one!
What Jefferson REALLY said:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th JeffersonJan. 1. 1802.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
JR,
Roger that. Sorry.. I have insomnia.
Me too.
Rage,
You’re using it productively though. That T.J. letter was a great comeback !!
Thank you, Brian!
I’ve been a student of Jef’s for years (you might call it “independent study”), so it was really a fish in a barrel for me (oops, I don’t have a permit!).
WOW – To see JR calling ANYONE else “self-rightous” is indeed a howl !! Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
To the poster who spoke of “stand your ground,” Brian, I think:
Finally; some thought on this other provision.
You should know that Kansas at present has NO retreat requirement; in other words, “stand your ground” is presently the general law. So in effect the only change this proposal makes is to create a legal presumption that a person forcibly in your home or car is a threat, removing the objective element from the self-defense equasion. I’ve never been convinced that is a good idea, and have always advocated retreat when it can be done without putting yourself or others in additional risk. If retreat is not an option, however, I have also advocated CC as a last resort.
GMC70
Correct me if I’m wrong, Stand Your Ground DOES change civil law regarding lawsuits does it not?
If it is determined that you acted in self defense you cannot be sued by your attacker or the attackers family. This is important to prevent you from being sued into poverty for a legitimate act of self defense.
Thanks for the info., GMC
BTW, contrary to your probable perceptions, I am not a gun control “freak”. I worry about vigilantism. The death of even a single innocent individual in this way bothers me, just like the execution of any innocent person by the state does. I believe retreat is the “best” option, but I’m not against any means of defense if this fails. I also believe that laws should be grounded in facts..you have to admit that there is no general concensus on the effect of CCW. One also has to consider that the chances of “Dodge City” returning are near nil since so few people legally carry, and statistically few people are actually accosted. It’s not a return to the “wild west” that’s a problem for me…it’s the fact that we as individuals and as a nation don’t seem to have a problem with someone else taking a person’s life, but we have a cow when that person off himself…and he’s really the only one who has the “right” to take his life.
And lo came Rage saying “E David hast in his tongue been false, for he hast taken the words of Jefferson and corrupted them”. But E david had fled away and was not found nor was any part of him found.
BAHH…
Brian,
I totally agree with retreat, BUT sitting in church/movie/store with my wife and Daughter (3) and Daughter (6), I will hustle them right out the door while some crazy is blasting away unannounced.
Have you ever tried to move a 3 and 6 year old anywhere in a hurry?
And how many times does this happen Hoodie? Some crazy opening fire in a chuch, store, etc. Maybe 2 or 3 times a year?I think you’re safe. Firearms in a home with small children is eminently more dangerous.
And if those places say no carry, will you break the law?
Amen, JR!
I beg to differ, Jr.
Ignorance and fear is eminently more dangerous than guns. All those gun toting cops don’t have children?
Got my first rifle at five. It has never hurt anyone.
Statstically, You are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than you are to be in a car accident (I can give you the link on Fed Violent Crime Stats). I bet you buck your seat belt, don’t you?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/viocrm.htm
“There were 6.6 million violentvictimizations, including 141,000 rapes,1.2 million robberies, and 5.3 millionassaults.
4.9 million households, or 5% of allhouseholds, had a member victimizedby violence this year.”
“Americans have a greater chance ofbeing a violent crime victim than of beinginjured in a motor vehicle accident.”
Some states require by law that you buck up. Maybe they should require everyone to wear a bullet-proof vest. I choose to carry a gun.
You continue to be a victim in waiting. I choose to take a more active role in my life.
A RIFLE at 5!Just my opinion but I’d call that very poor parenting.Is your 6 year old handling guns? The 3 year old?
Well I guess it was drilled into you early.Statistics do not interest me. The other side of the arguement has statistics too, among thenm that you or your kids are far more likely to be killed by your gun than someone elses.
No I do not buckle up nor do I wear a bullet proof vest.
As to my “choosing to be a victim”. I almost was. In 1986, I was taking care of my grandmothers farm as she was laid to rest. The land was leased out to another man running cattle. I was approached by 3 men who wanted to hunt the land for deer. I said no. One of them put a rifle round into a fence post less than 10 feet from me.In 1993, I was taking out my trash late at night. I tripped and made a little noise. I looked up to find a very scared man pointing a very large pistol at me. He thought I was a prowler. I don’t know who was scared more. Me for nearly being shot or my neighbor for nearly shooting me for no reason at all.
And your paranoid attitude does not inspire me with comfort to know that you are armed.
Want some more stats? CDC anyone?
Age adjusted (children)deaths in 2003:
Slip and falls =16,926Transport accidents =47,325Hernia =1,617Asthma =3,964Alcoholic liver disease =12,064Alcohol-induced deaths1 =19,699Injury at work =4,735Accidental firearms discharge =752
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_15.pdf
Yes my children do handle firearms and very safely. When they are not under my direct supervision, I know that they will know how to react to an unsupervised gun. Just they know how to act around an unsupervised stove or kitchen knife.
Guns have always been in our family with no ill effect.
I don’t find myself paranoid at all.
I will be sure to pass on to my father that he was a poor parent.
I have not seen a single concrete reason for your unrational fear of firearms, JR. You might want to seek some profession help for you phobia.
“Statistics do not interest me. The other side of the arguement has statistics too, among thenm that you or your kids are far more likely to be killed by your gun than someone elses.”
Please provide me with a credible link. I am open minded and curious.
I do not have a fear of guns. I have a fear of IRRATIONAL (not un rational) people carrying them. As you admittedly( even proudly) allow a 3 year old to handle a gun, you would qualify to just about anyone I know as irrational, perhaps even criminally so. I am truly sorry and worried for your daughters, your family, and anyone that should happen upon you.
Statistics? My bet is someone in your family is going to be one.
Do you intend to carry in no carry zones?
Interesting story reprinted from the Times of London. This in a city which has banned handguns and most long guns (if not all).
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA72D.htm
Well, when you compare that in all of the United Kingdom there is a little over 1,000 (and only 8% done with a handgun) murders each year, compared to the USA, where there is 12,000 murders (over 68% committed with a gun), people are still safer living there. They have 1/2 the police force per capita that we have, and I’m sure they’re not nearly as effective as a police force that lives in a war zone like ours.
Hoodie, go to The John Hopkins Center for Research and Gun Policy. They are not only unbiased and credible in their research, they have all the facts and statistics relating to gun deaths in this country. Our children have 12 times the chance of being killed in this country by a gun than children in every other industrialized country in the world.If lawn darts killed over 5,000 children and wounded another 20,000 each year, people would be screaming to get them banned, but for some reason a gun is worshipped as some sort of holy grail in this country. Is it really necessary to own a gun? As necessary to own a car? Or a bathtub? Please don’t bother me with all the “but, kids die all the time from other causes” argument. It’s getting very old, and I’m sick of hearing it. The gun death (30,000 per yr)in this country is a national disgrace.
heckler;
Yes, there is that provision, but I’d be willing to bet it’s meaningless. Any competent lawyer can get around it. The problem is one you hit on yourself:
“If it is determined that you acted in self defense . . .”
How do we determine that, absent a hearing before a court?
In Switzerland, every man aged 18 and over is considered a part of the national militia and is required to have a fully automatic assault rifle with ammo in their home and they have a very low crime rate there! Of course, the Swiss don’t have millions of pathological, low IQ non-White criminals to commit gun crimes with illegal weapons!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
GMC70
Isnt that determined by the District Attorney’s office based on the police investigation?
Isnt the point of the legislation to protect someone from being dragged into civil court if the police determine self defense?
I don’t know, your the law guy, you tell me.
Damoon
The interesting part is guns are banned in London, yet if you look at their stats the murder rate keeps climbing.
And you are wrong about being safer in London. Their violent crime rate is far higher than in the US.
Damoon
Something else thats worshipped like some kind of Holy Grail in this country, its called Liberty, you may not be familiar with it. But it carries benefits as well as risks.
Keep in mind that over half of those deaths are suicides. You may blame those on guns but you may want to look at suicide rates around the world in places that have few or no guns like Japan or Finland. Some of these places have double to triple our suicide rate.
For more perspective on death check out the number of deaths in this country from accidents by health care workers and doctors. Pretty shocking stuff.
Not trying to make any particular point, just pointing out interesting stuff.
Yea, Heckler, I think that’s the point, but I doubt very much that such a law will have the intended impact. The standards for determining whether a shooting is justified and/or whether to initiate prosecution by a CA/DA is quite different than a civil standard that might be applied in a civil court.
For example, it may well be that a prosecutor concludes that a shooting was not justified under the law, but also concludes that due to evidence issues or jury considerations he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the shooter is likely guilty, but not prosecuted. Is civil suit barred? Likely not.
If a shooter is prosecuted but found not guilty, does that bar suit? Probably not, as the civil standard is different, and a jury aquittal does not necessarily exhonerate the shooter, it’s just a finding that the State did not prove their case BARD.
The long and the short of it, I think, is that the statute bases the exemption upon the defensive use of the weapon. Whether the weapon is defensively used properly is a fact question, that must be determined, ultimately, by a legal factfinder, i.e. probably a court. So – at the end of the day, the protection is probably less protection than you might think.
Thank you sir.
“And you are wrong about being safer in London. Their violent crime rate is far higher than in the US.”
Have any back-up for that?
“John Hopkins Center for Research and Gun Policy. ”
I’m having a hard time finding the items, Do you have a link?
“Our children have 12 times the chance of being killed in this country by a gun than children in every other industrialized country in the world.”
Again, a link please.
Hoodie, I’m sorry, as much as I hate to admit this, I don’t know how to do the “link” thing.Go to google, then just type in “John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research” and it will come up.Some interesting facts.
Damoon,To provide a link, do the following:When you are on a page you want to link, put the arrow of your cursor on the url and left click on the url. It will turn blue. Then press the “Ctrl” key (lower left corner of your keyboard) and the “c” key at the same time. Go back to the e-mail or place where you want to post the link and again press the “Ctrl” key and the “v” key. That should post the link.
Damoon,
I did that. Honestly I did. I found a lot of things about tracking the success of gun legislation, some of which envolved legislation aimed at protecting children. Couldn’t really find anything that would support either camp.
I have to be honest. This subject is wearing on me. My way of life seems to really bother some.
Why do you care how I live. I have not said a word about forcing any of you to own a gun. Yet you would like to force me not to.
That it is wearing on you is telling hoodie. And no one here has attacked OWNING guns. This thread is concerned with CARRYING guns and the attendant public safety.
Two other conceal carry proponents that I know of have not weighed in here. One did way upthread and with little explanation. The other has as much as admitted to carrying illegally……not very inspiring of confidence.
I sympathize Damoon. With webtv I cannot post links. Thank you brown the info. When I get a computer soon I hope it will be helpful.
I do not mean to attack your “lifestyle” hoodie, beyond how it affects mine. Folks like you and GMC and Heckler just seem to me to be looking for a chance, any chance, to use your gun.
Agreed, while gun proponents empasize their right to carry guns, what about MY right to be in a gun free environment?
Agreed, while gun proponents empasize their right to carry guns, what about MY right to be in a gun free environment?
I followed your instruction, Brown, it just doesn’t work for me.Here is the link:
http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy
Hoodie, that’s the home page, you have to explore the site to get the statistics, they’re all there.
JR (sigh) – Here we go again.
“Folks like you and GMC and Heckler just seem to me to be looking for a chance, any chance, to use your gun.” I asked once before, and I’ll ask again. Any basis for that statement? No? I thought not.
Damoon:
“What about MY right to be in a gun free environment?”
1. What right is that? Would you like to show it to me? Exactly where is that enshrined?2. Not possible, even if desirable. Guns are a part of the history and culture of this nation, for better or worse. Probably always will be.
I have never understood why there is so much fear of the person who legally carries. Remember – he’s gone under the law enforcement microscope, and passed. It is the criminal WHO WILL CARRY NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW that you need be concerned about.Right now, there are two types of those who carry; both are carrying around you daily, JR, Damoon, and you don’t know it. One is the otherwise law-abiding citizen who for whatever reason, whatever circumstances, believes he must carry for his safety. He’s inconspicuous, and wants to be. You’ll never know he’s carrying, absent a threat to his family. While I’ve rarely carried (yes, there has been that occasional defendant), I can understand that. I don’t carry now for one simple reason: it’s illegal. That changes in January.
The other is the thug. He’s carrying to do you harm. Your concern there is real, and legitimate. But for reasons I cannot fathom, your concern is not directed there.
This statute merely makes the first person able to defend himself legally. The second will carry regardless, and for all the wrong reasons.
Like Hoodie, the subject is wearing on me. Enough. The sky will not fall.
Thank you GMC70, I could not have expressed it as well.
None of you have anything to fear from a legally carried gun. It’s as simple as that.
That is all I will add on this subject.
Ben
“Have any back-up for that?”
The stats in these tables are for the entire nation it does not break London out seperately, but I think that you can assume the rate for London would be higher for the nation wide stat. Note that the US has a lower rate than England/Wales. Very few Americans are aware of this and England certainly likes to play it down.
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/app4.pdf
Damoon lives in a utopian fantasy world! Millions of low IQ minority criminals will not turn in their guns and behave themselves and our murderous, evil government will not change its’ ways either. As such, I demand the right to be armed and to use those weapons against criminal scum and tyrannical government with impunity!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!!
Blah, Blah, Blah, I’m tired of this discussion, too. Everything that can be said about the subject has been said.Ian, you assume alot sbout me; go to work with me someday, I’ll show you the “utopian” world I live in.
You cannot ever convince a mentally ill person to change their mind, no matter how much logic you use. Hoplophobes also rarely receive treatment for their illness. For help, check this link: http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/shortdescriptionlist.asp?phobiaid=1603
Here’s one for the liberal commie crowd, posing as Americans;
“The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature,is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law.This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; itextends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation — of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one,whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.”
- James Wilson, ‘Of the Natural Rights of Individuals’, 1790-1792(Signed the Declaration of Indepedence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice).
“The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrarydisposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature’s laws hasnothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.
“The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man,has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.”
- James Wilson, [The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D.;Chap. III Of the Law of Nature].
Here’s one just for the Jefferson crowd:
“Dear Sir,–In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798–99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”
- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes. Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford].
I always find something new and interesting every time I come around here – thanks.
Interesting I was looking for some answer and you gave them to me http://boymedexams.ifrance.com/
great site!!thanks for the service http://doctorhorny.ifrance.com
Excellent site I have bookmarked your site and I will come back soon! http://drunkenboys.rbbloggers.com/
This is one of the most interesting sites I have ever seen http://gaymedical.ifrance.com/
Doesn`t matter what you say, but how…!! But you said it well http://straponcrush.ifrance.com/
Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/