Do Guns Belong in Church?

[SecularMotion]

A bill that drew national scrutiny allows handguns in Georgia churches only if church leaders allow it, and lets hunters use silencers.

The bill received final passage by a House vote of 112-58 Thursday night and now goes to Gov. Nathan Deal’s desk. The approval came despite national efforts by opponents to defeat what they dubbed the “guns everywhere” bill, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The final version would legalize the use of silencers for hunting and says guns remain banned in houses of worship unless church leaders allow them.

According to language added by the Senate, someone caught with a gun in a church that didn’t allow it would face a misdemeanor charged and a $100 fine.

http://dacula.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/do-guns-belong-in-church-patch-readers-debate-issue

[ileus]

1. Are lives less worthy of protection in churches?

That would have been a better title.


The answer is no.

[Common Sense Party]

16. Some DU'ers might think so.

Every person shot in a church is one less delusional magic thinker, in their twisted minds.

[Feral Child]

26. Come on.

I'm surely the most obstinate atheist on the DU, and I don't want any Christians killed. Let's keep the hyperbole down, OK?

I own and sometimes carry. My usual is a Sig P238 .380 because it's light and convenient. GA carry license.

I won't be carrying in church, however.

BTW, this is also off-topic.

[Travis_0004]

2. It should be up to the church.

I don't think the state should ban them in churches (and there have been cases where a person with a legal handgun stopped a shooting in a church).

Make them legal, but allow the church to ban them if they want, so I agree with this bill.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Perhaps you should discuss this with the elders of the congregation where you attend.

[petronius]

4. It should be at the discretion of the church, just like with any private entity

I see this as more of a 'church/state' issue than a 'guns' issue - absent compelling cause, which doesn't exist in this case, laws should not be treating places of worship any differently than other places where groups of people meet in a private setting...

[Token Republican]

6. Not exactly

A private entity can make nearly any rules they want.

The OP is supporting laws that would criminalize not obeying the rules of private entities.

Using the OP's model, if the OP wanted to exclude blacks from his house, it would be OK to make it a misdemeanor if an african american entered his property.

Read the OP again.

[Glaug-Eldare]

40. Isn't that covered by trespassing? nt

[SecularMotion]

41. He's dead, Jim

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=312370

[Glaug-Eldare]

42. Call me fashionably late..? nt

[Token Republican]

5. So

So the OP is questioning if the Government has the right to restrict a right guaranteed by the bill of rights in a religious establishment?

What other parts of the bill of rights can the government restrict or eliminate in houses of worship?

Is the OP advocating that there should be laws that criminalize guaranteed rights if the owner of private property doesn't allow those rights?

Jim Crow much?

[gejohnston]

7. Why just churches?

what about mosques, meeting houses, synagogues, temples, covens, Shinto shrines etc?
My oak grove allows guns.

[fnctel]

10. My synagogue ...

... has private security (armed) and the local police provide additional security (armed) on holidays.

Historically, there is a really good case to be made for an armed presence at a synagogue (or any other place of worship) in the United States.

[jeepnstein]

18. No doubt.

It's a crying shame it comes down to that.

[blueridge3210]

19. Transitional neighborhoods

Many houses of worship are located in areas with changing demographics; the congregation chooses to stay and minister to the area in spite of the increased risk of crime. Prudence would seem to dictate that the individual congregation respond as they see fit based on local circumstances.

[DonP]

8. Why not ask Mary Shepard, who was attacked in her church?

It might be a piece of "intellectual" curiosity for you, but for her not being able to carry almost cost her life.

In 2009, Mary E. Shepard (a Missouri CCW permit holder) was performing volunteer duties as treasurer at her church (in Illinois), when she was assaulted and beaten by an intruder and left for dead. Her injuries were numerous and major, including skull fractures, hearing loss, shattered teeth, and vertebral damage, which required many surgeries and extensive physical therapy.

Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking an injunction barring Lisa Madigan, in her capacity as Attorney General for the State of Illinois, from enforcing the sections of the Illinois State Statutes that prohibit public carry of a loaded, functional firearm.

The appellate court decision requiring some form of carry in Illinois was the direct result of this assault in a church where you and your ill informed ilk would still have her defenseless.



Thanks in part to being forbidden to carry at her church, or anywhere else, Illinois now has concealed carry.

Happy ending, Mary is fully recovered and has one of the first concealed carry permits in the state.

[ManiacJoe]

9. God helps those who help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with guns in churches. Churches are common places where folks get attacked.

Most places allow guns in churches and have no problems as a result. I know of no reasons Georgia would be any different.

[pablo_marmol]

11. Do pro-choice physicians deserve to be killed in Church? NT

[spin]

14. Of course not. What does that have to do with the issue under discussion? ...

Murdering an individual whose views you may disagree with is not legitimate self defense.

In passing I am pro-choice.

The Bible has little to say about the issue of abortion. It does forbid murder in the Ten Commandments. (Some will argue that the Bible forbids "killing" but that is obviously a mistranslation.)

[pablo_marmol]

17. My point was that as long as murders can take place in Church,

self-defense is a legitimate choice in Church.

Thought my point was obvious.

[spin]

20. The pro-choice doctor reference threw me off. ...

It reminded me of George Tiller.

George Tiller

George Richard Tiller, MD (August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009)[3] was an American physician from Wichita, Kansas. He gained national attention as the medical director of Women's Health Care Services, one of only three clinics nationwide to provide late-term abortions at the time.[4]

During his tenure with the center, which began in 1975 and continued the medical practice of his father, Tiller was frequently targeted with protest and violence by anti-abortion groups and individuals. After his clinic was firebombed in 1986, Tiller was shot in both arms by anti-abortion activist Shelley Shannon in 1993. On May 31, 2009, Tiller was shot through the eye and killed by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder, as Tiller served as an usher during the Sunday morning service at his church in Wichita. Roeder was convicted of murder on January 29, 2010, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

***snip***

Assassination in May 2009

Tiller was fatally shot in the side of the head on May 31, 2009, by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder during worship services at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, where he was serving as an usher and handing out church bulletins.[15][25][26] After threatening to shoot two people who initially pursued him, Roeder fled and escaped in a car.[27] Three hours after the shooting, Roeder was arrested about 170 miles (270 km) away in suburban Kansas City. On June 2, 2009, Roeder was charged with first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault in connection with the shooting,[26][28] subsequently convicted in January 2010 on those charges, and sentenced on April 1, 2010, to life imprisonment without parole for 50 years, the maximum sentence available in Kansas.[29]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller

I feel we both feel that an individual should have the same rights and ability to stop an attack inside a church by using an appropriate level of force up to and including lethal force, just as he would if he was walking down the sidewalk outside the church.

[pablo_marmol]

24. My intent was in fact to reference George Tiller, and I know that

he was ambushed - so a firearm on his person would have done no good.

However, had the shooter continued taking out other churchgoers - then other guns could have saved lives.

Yes spin - we agree on this......and likely almost everything else relating to the RKBA. Poor choice of words on my part.

[spin]

29. No problem. Gun rights are often very unpopular here on DU which is understandable. ...

This is definitely a very liberal and progressive forum and many liberal and progressive people strongly support gun control and can not comprehend why any other good liberal would not.

I'm an elderly Democrat and come from a long line of Democrats who worked in the iron and steel mills in Pennsylvania. They fought for worker's rights and fair pay and often spent months on union strike lines. By doing so they helped to create a strong middle class in our nation. Unfortunately unions are far less powerful in our nation today and perhaps that is the main reason that the middle class is in danger of becoming extinct.

For generations these members of my family have owned and used firearms for hunting, target shooting and several used one successfully in legitimate self defense to stop an attack.

Therefore it is not surprising that I support gun rights but am also very liberal.

Here on DU the number of people who absolutely hate firearms is far larger than the number who strongly support the right of an honest, sane and responsible citizen to own such weapons. Perhaps that's why I misinterpreted the meaning of your post.

[pablo_marmol]

33. My sister and I represent the first generation of "city slickers" on both

my Dad and Mom's side of the family. Dad was a farm boy, and Mom was a small town girl. My Pop was by no means a "gun guy", but he was certainly not gun-aversive by virtue of his upbringing. I spent time on the farm he grew up on in North Dakota as a kid and did quite a bit of shooting out there, but already had some rifle skills as Dad had bought me a .22 bolt action Remington when I was fairly young. We used to plink with it when we were out of city limits.

I'm extremely liberal, but by virtue of my family background, I have no tolerance for the rural citizen bashing that so many libs participate in. And of course the nasty culture war involving gun hate doesn't work for me either.

I'm not quite elderly, but at 57 I see myself as a "codger in training."

[spin]

35. I've lived in both rural areas and big cities. ...

People usually have a tendency to feel superior to those who are like them.

City dwellers bash their rural cousins and make fun of their intelligence but rural people also have a low opinion of city people.

(I could also point out that even people who live in larger cities often intensely dislike those who come from New York City. New Yorkers are frequently viewed as obnoxious, impolite fools with an enormous superiority complex.)

I've had good friends who lived in rural areas and good friends from large cities including New York City. I've also met some real asses from both environments. Obviously a person functions best in an environment he is familiar with.

I've noticed that most rural homes have firearms inside. Hunting and plinking are quite popular in rural areas and many country people shoot in their backyard or in the woods near their homes. A city dweller often has to drive miles to shoot at a range and pay a fee to use the facilities. That may help explain why rural people often know far more about firearms than those in the city. In many cases such as yours they grew up with guns in their homes and were taught firearm safety when they were extremely young.

[Eleanors38]

12. SecMo: What does your place of worship think about this?

Oh, and the "sound supressor" legislation is long overdue. Now, if the things weren't so damned expensive...

[rrneck]

13. They do if it's the kind of church where they hand you a snake. nt

[Eleanors38]

15. LOL!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. You don't need a gun.

Just a garden rake.

[rrneck]

22. It depends on the snake.

I'm not against shooing them out the door. Give me a little attitude and me and Mr. 1911 will cut him into bite sized chunks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. .

I think we're going to need a bigger rake.

[rrneck]

25. LOL! nt

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Jesus wept. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Assumes he existed at all.

[RufusTFirefly]

39. Chill, dude. I'm on your side. n/t

[Politicalboi]

28. Why not, I'll NEVER be in a church

I say go for it gun nuts. You never know if any demons need a killing, and what better place to be. Don't worry, your god will save you.

[pablo_marmol]

37. Well, when you finally meet The Flying Spaghetti Monster

he's not going to be terribly thrilled about your bigotry.

[left is right]

31. in church, gun toting by christians is blasphemy and goes against the bible

i don’t have the patients to look up the verses right now but
there are verses that claim vengeance belongs to the Lord and he will repay. there are verses that claim God is the believer’s protector-the believer needs no other; his eye is on the sparrow and every hair on the head is counted-god knows when even one falls to the ground; blessed all the peacemakers; jesus admonishes peter for drawing his dagger in the effort to protect jesus from the roman soldiers; beating swords into plowshares; and so many more. god is either all powerful and you trust him, you don’t need a gun or he isn’t, if you need a gun for protection in a church you have no business claiming him as lord

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Then again, there's Luke 22:36...

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.

[SQUEE]

34. not all sin is blasphemy.

And throughout the Torah I am extolled to bring forth my sword in the service of God. There are others houses of worship aside from the Christian church, In fact Sikhs MUST have a weapon on them at all times, including in "church"

I have worked security at more than one Synagogue and JCS, for some reason people tend to blame us for the world ills...

[spin]

38. Perhaps in the church you attend. ...

I'm not a member of a church so normally if I go to one it's for a wedding. When I do, I carry.

However I know a good number of Christians who have concealed weapons permits in Florida and do attend Sunday services armed.

Perhaps you might find this article interesting.

What does the Bible say about self-defense?

Question: "What does the Bible say about self-defense?"

Answer: Without close study, the Bible can seem to give conflicting instructions on self-defense. There are numerous passages that speak of Christians being pacifistic (Proverbs 25:21,22; Matthew 5:39; Romans 12:17). Yet there are many passages that talk about war and violence that God approves of, such as David slaying Goliath (1 Samuel 17). Not to mention the fact that God commanded the Israelites to completely destroy everyone and everything in the Promised Land! So what is the conclusion? Is God for violence or not? Under what circumstances is self-defense appropriate?

As with many questions in our lives, self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. For instance, in Luke 22, Jesus does tell His disciples to get a sword. Jesus knew that now was the time when Jesus would be threatened (and later killed) and His followers would be threatened as well. Jesus was giving approval of the fact that one has the right to self-defense. Now, just a few verses later, we see Jesus being arrested, and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes Peter for that act. Why? Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped. We must be wise as to when to fight and when not to.

As far as self-defense when one’s life or property is threatened, there is not a whole lot in the Bible concerning this. Exodus 22 does show quite a bit about God’s attitude towards self-defense. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft” (Exodus 22:2-3). Obviously, here we see that when a thief breaks into someone’s house at night and that person defends his home and slays the thief, God does not hold that death over the defender’s head. However, God does not wish for anyone to take the law into his or her own hands. This is why it is said that if a thief is struck down during the daylight the defender is guilty of bloodshed. Now, this is speaking of thievery, not an attack. So if the thief were to attack the defender even during the day, self-defense would be justified.

The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In many karate classes, one of the principles is “Restrain your physical abilities by spiritual attainment.” This is a fancy way of saying that since one has the ability to bring great harm that doesn’t mean he or she needs to use it. Just because we can break someone’s arm doesn’t mean we need to use that ability. Just because we have a gun doesn’t mean we need to fire on someone who breaks into the home.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html#ixzz2x88kUVzU

[pablo_marmol]

36. C.O.Y.O.T.E., SecMo

Kindly Call Off Your Odious Treacherous Evangelism

(Unashamedly stolen from the prostitutes' advocacy group COYOTE. Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics)