In answer to a crying need that no one else knew existed (except the bill's four co-sponsors including Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin), Mrs. Davis has pre-filed HB 1232, which would remove the restrictions against carrying guns into churches.
Mrs. Davis spoke on the issue in a column last month:
One concern I have with the current law is that guns are prohibited in churches. This means there is no defense for the members if a criminal act is attempted or perpetrated. There is a provision in another section of Missouri statues allowing an override of this prohibition, but why should this section of the law exist it at all? This subjects churches to state laws in an area where the state should be silent. It’s as though the state does not consider churches capable of defining acceptable standards within their own jurisdiction..
Churches do not belong to the state. Therefore the state is overstepping its bounds by taking gun-possession decisions away from the churches. The state would do well to delete this issue for the same reason that we do not dictate what people can do in the privacy of their own homes. Most of us were taught as children that the church is God’s house. Just think how differently things may have turned out if it were not for a heroic woman with a gun at the New Life Church in Colorado.
When well motivated and properly trained people demonstrate personal responsibility to protect themselves against law-breakers, it saves costs of law enforcement and human suffering. The State of Vermont does not require a permit to carry a concealed gun. Former Vermont Representative, Fred Maslack, went a step further in 2000 by introducing House Bill 760 which encouraged residents to protect themselves against crime. Under his bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their names, addresses, Social Security Numbers, and driver's license numbers with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says. This bill did not pass.
I am not intending to introduce anything like this, nor do I know of any other states entertaining this idea, but it shows how other people in our country feel about the benefits of gun ownership and the importance of being able to protect the innocent
11 comments:
I am impressed by your continued willingness to lie about self-defense, that "no one" but a few legislators in favor of any given bill see the need for it. Not only is that not your or the government's decision to make, it's trivially falsified.
I cannot believe that you are totally ignorant about the animus many hold towards religion in this country or the many shootings that have occurred at generally disarmed churches. I know you have to know about the local one, and if you've not heard about e.g. the one stopped by an armed civilian volunteer in Colorado you can follow the link to Wikipedia.
I'd point out the infringement of the Establishment clause that such laws as Missouri's involve (enforcing pacifism on all sects), but since you don't seem to believe in self-defense at all, there's not much point.
It is hard to argue with someone who thinks the solution to everything is to put more guns everywhere. Sadly, it appears that in this day and age, there is a need for armed, trained security guards at churches, and I have no problem with that, or even with a church designating someone trustworthy for that position on a volunteer basis if it cannot afford to pay for one, but the idea of parishioners being encouraged to bring loaded weapons into the church is a bad one any way you look at it.
... I have no problem with ... a church designating someone trustworthy for that position on a volunteer basis if it cannot afford to pay for one....
Which was exactly the situation in Colorado.
Too bad that's illegal in Missouri; you said this is a "need that no one else knew existed (except the bill's four co-sponsors...)".
So which is it?
It is hard to argue with someone who thinks the solution to everything is to put more guns everywhere.
Who has advocated such a solution? Additionally, do you believe it appropriate for a state government to define the firearms possession policy of churches within the state, even though the management of other private establishments are permitted to establish their own policies regarding the possession of firearms by visitors to the premises? If so, what other policies of churches do you believe should be established by the state, rather than by the management of the church itself?
but the idea of parishioners being encouraged to bring loaded weapons into the church is a bad one any way you look at it.
Who is encouraging such action?
Yes, when Jesus comes back I'm sure he'll feel right at home at the churches where all the congragants are packing heat. Because that follows his teaching exactly. He was all about keeping a dangerous weapon on himself; he wasn't a pacifist at all. You supporters of this are fools and you will live as fools and die as fools. Turn the other cheek Jesus said. He didn't direct you to shoot the M#%@$r F*#$@r down. The paranoia that vibrates in the minds of the religious right is frightening to me.
When you're the Son 'o God and can presumably kill with a touch (the reverse of raising the dead with a touch), the moral calculus of self-defense is a bit different.
And wasn't "turn the other cheek" with regards to insults to one's pride? He didn't say "if someone stabs you on one side...."
And what about his charge to his disciples as they were headed out in the world to spread the Word to procure a sword if they didn't have one?
(As a side note, however paranoid I might be, I was raised Catholic and am now agnostic, I've never been part of the "religious right" as that term is used.)
Yes, when Jesus comes back I'm sure he'll feel right at home at the churches where all the congragants are packing heat. Because that follows his teaching exactly. He was all about keeping a dangerous weapon on himself; he wasn't a pacifist at all. You supporters of this are fools and you will live as fools and die as fools. Turn the other cheek Jesus said. He didn't direct you to shoot the M#%@$r F*#$@r down. The paranoia that vibrates in the minds of the religious right is frightening to me.
I am curious; are you in support of state governments dictating the policies of private churches regarding matters on which the management of private secular institutions are permitted to dictate for themselves? If this is the case, could you explain other church policies that you believe should be dictated by the state?
Ok, Dimensio, first of all, I never said anything about government deciding one way or the other what rights churches have. My comments were not about government regulation at all, just about how disgusting it is to think of people being so intent of being able to take their guns to church. Something in my Christian soul is sickened by the image of people just itching to bring their .45 to church. So, don't go misconstruing my words. But, now that you've brought it up, yes, I agree, government should not be dictating what the basic rules in churches are, as long as it is not infringing on the rights of others. Dance with snakes if you want, as long as you're not forcing anyone else to do it. And, since we don't want the government to create any special regulations or such on churches, I say remove their nonprofit status too. We don't need the government telling churches what they are or how they should be treated after all. They should be taxed just like everyone else.
Now to the agnostic who commented earlier. Jesus never used violence, if he was so prone to violence, would he have let himself be peacefully arrested and crucified? No, he was a pacifist and met his fate bravely, but without some impulse to take down any bastards who would do him wrong.
And, please, before you start spouting off "biblical" comments, get your info right. Some people might actual believe the crap you're saying.
Luke 22:47-51
When his followers saw what was coming, they said, “Lord, shall we use our swords?” And one of them struck at the High Priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “Let them have their way.” Then he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
Yep, Jesus was a real bad ass there wasn't he. How about this, which is obviously not about pride, as you insinuate:
Matthew 5:38-42
You have learned that they were told, “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” But what I tell you is this: Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left. If a man wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. If a man in authority makes you go one mile, go with him two. Give when you are asked to give; and do not turn your back on a man who wants to borrow.
So it's a good thing you're an agnostic and not a biblical scholar.
My comments were not about government regulation at all, just about how disgusting it is to think of people being so intent of being able to take their guns to church.
Your position is understandable; I suspect that Matthew J. Murray, had he survived, would have desired that no armed civilians been present at the New Life Church of Colorado Springs, Colorado. It is likely that he did not expect to encounter an armed civilian at such a location.
Anonymous at 5:50 PM: WRT turn the other cheek I still note that none of those examples include serious and/or permanent physical harm; there's a significant difference in kind between "wrongs you" and "severely injures you".
And you totally ignore what doesn't support your case; besides the ambiguous Matthew 10:34, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" and the totally unambigious chasing the money changers out of the Temple with a whip, there's the verse I specifically referred to, 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.
You're welcome to explain how those are the words of a pacifist, I'm all ears.
how do you people find time to read blogs with all this bible study?
Post a Comment