Do you doubt mormon ghawd’s ability to protect those deserving protection?

We all know that when death intrudes, it is just part of The Plan…

“With the exception of current law enforcement officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited.”

I was taught that your mind is your most powerful weapon. But no worries, nobody on church property is packing.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “With the exception of current law enforcement
> officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on church
> property, concealed or otherwise, is
> prohibited.”

How many armed cops show up at your ward of a Sunday?

A couple maybe here and there.

You must have gathered of late that we live in a violent society.

Carry your LDS church-prohibited piece in your purse or shoe in case.

Kooks blow down Judisch synagogues, why not a couple Mormon wards?

Now you care about Jewish synagogues?

Just the other day you posted a piece of white supremacist literature, fraudulently ascribed to Rudyard Kipling, that you took from some alt-right website.

Now you are the voice of reason and moderation? You are no longer with the "kooks" promoting "Saxon hate" against other races?

My Baptist church has several members with LTC's; two of us are retired law enforcement, the others are civilian. So we keep one such in the back, on his feet, where he can keep an eye on the lobby. He also serves as a greeter for late-comers.

There's a shelter/halfway house not far from our building. They also serve men on probation and parole. A few EDPs (Emotionally Disturbed Persons) have come in. An elderly woman once noticed my firearm (careless me); she didn't know we had organized security. "I'd rather trust in Jesus!" she proclaimed.

"Maybe Jesus arranged for some of us to stand 'watch,'" I answered. She was sort of satisfied with that.

takes-gun-to-church crew checking in ~


in b 4 ~ Luke 22:36 ~

I'd feel safer if they had bag searches and metal detectors as the entry though!

Can't enforce it.

-- Oh, horrors -- excommunication??

Beer me ;-D

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beer me ;-D

Beer gentle.

My Brother in law is part of a security team for his baptist church. He really enjoys serving in that capacity (he has his permit to carry).

When I visited my former ward, there were two high priests sitting in the chapel doorway. I could not tell if they had a concealed weapon.

I think it's hypocritical for Rusty and the other phonies to have a fully trained mini army and the rest of the members should rely on god to stop an attack.

Not hypocritical . Two words: Cody Judy

Their life is more important than your life, which is more important than the life of whichever loon wants to cause trouble. After all, “thou shalt not kill” doesn’t apply to them.

Mormonism: a gun club with a baptismal font.

Except in Boston, where they'd just footnote you to death.

Amen to Messygoop. Why are we supposed put our trust and faith in god when they don't. Typical of them-do as i say, not as I do.

I disagree . if some person has a grudge against the Mormon Church and they want to shoot somebody who would they go after ? Probably one of the leaders not some lady going to Relief Society . Remember Cody Judy ? he said he had a bomb not a gun but you get the idea?

For those like me to whom the phtasey ”Cody Judy” meant nothing:

https://www.deseret.com/1993/2/9/19031221/suspect-in-fireside-bomb-threat-says-he-was-fulfilling-prophecies

For once I agree with the Mormon oops,COJCOLDS. if they don't want guns on what is thier property that is thier right and no gun lovers the 2 nd Amendment keeps the government from infringing not private groups or individuals .The comments on Heavenly Fathers tee Vee station website are hilarious " We are all sitting ducks " and the like . Got news for Ya . Mass shootings are rare despite what is on the news making people think every time they go shopping or to school they are going to be a victim of a mass shooter . If I ever have a concern about what might kill me a,mass shooting isn't on the list . Driving on I 15 on the Wasatch Front is because Utah Drivers are dangerous and really stupid

This policy won’t be popular with my redneck Mormon relatives in Utah. Maybe they will stop going to church and spend Sunday shooting their guns instead.

I’m sure the gun carrying goobers know that this is said with a wink wink. I’m sure it is BECAUSE they know so many members are packin. There will be no attempt at enforcement. It’s just to cover their asses when some kid is playing with mommy’s purse in sacrament meeting and pulls out her gun and shoots someone. They need to legally be able to say “we’ve done our part to ban guns.”

Guns at church has nothing to do with the security of the sheeple and everything to do with the church being self insured and watching the bottom line.

I think your observation has a lot of merit.

Should an incident take place in which gunfire injured third parties, a suit against the church for allowing 'guns' at church would be more easily defended based on the church being able to point to their 'rule' that guns were not allowed. Doesn't mean they'd win, because the jury could be presented with this explanation and decide that the church knew or should have known that there would be pistolas en la capilla.

Remember, as is pointed out, with ghawd's church, it's all about the money.

It's about time!!

I'm pretty sure I can keep legal gun carriers from trespassing on my property.

per the 2nd, most places are legal to carry, especially open carry, 'no permit needed'.

perhaps more this way in the West....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2019 12:13AM by GNPE.

Back in my TBM days, we had a very interesting (to say in the least) Sacrament meeting.
A member of the bishopric and his wife were the featured family speakers. This was when you could have displays to enhance your talk.
I can't remember to this day what the subject was supposed to be about, but I sure remember the show and tell displays.
When it was the guy's turn to speak, he reached under the seat where he had been sitting and pulled out a couple of his rifles! He assured the audience that the rifles were not loaded. He then proceeded to show the proper care of guns.
I sat there speechless, hoping he wasn't going to go crazy on us.
Two weeks later, he was released from the bishopric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfONckOPyaI

--TheSafetyFiend

Are we really supposed to believe that since taking guns in to a church building is against church rules, that we are safe in church? Yes, the law abiding, church obeying church members will then leave their guns at home.

So does the murderer who desires to shoot things-up say to himself "gee, I was going to go in to that church and kill a bunch of people. But now there is a rule that prohibits me from entering the church building with a weapon. So I guess I can't go in and kill a bunch of people after all"? Answer: no,the crazy shooter will say "no one in there will be able to shoot back. They will all obey their church leaders and I will he the only one with a gun in there".

I would rather know that the people I know and trust will be near-by to take that crazy person out as soon as he opens fire. Every member a concealed weapons carrier.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2019 10:54PM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are we really supposed to believe that since
> taking guns in to a church building is against
> church rules, that we are safe in church? Yes, the
> law abiding, church obeying church members will
> then leave their guns at home.
>
> So does the murderer who desires to shoot
> things-up say to himself "gee, I was going to go
> in to that church and kill a bunch of people. But
> now there is a rule that prohibits me from
> entering the church building with a weapon. So I
> guess I can't go in and kill a bunch of people
> after all"? Answer: no,the crazy shooter will say
> "no one in there will be able to shoot back. They
> will all obey their church leaders and I will he
> the only one with a gun in there".
>
> I would rather know that the people I know and
> trust will be near-by to take that crazy person
> out as soon as he opens fire. Every member a
> concealed weapons carrier.

This post (and this thread) may be deleted because it can be seen as violating board rules.

Before that happens, I am (since I am vulnerable of being in a place where this occurs) going to give my own take on this subject.

Increasing numbers of Jewish shuls (synagogues), Jewish community centers, Jewish day schools, etc. are hiring security personnel--as well as putting other, sensible, security procedures in place.

In addition, most any shul or other Jewish institution is going to have, just normally as a part of regular daily life, one or more members, teachers, rabbis, cantors (etc.) who have completed "their" IDF/Israeli Defense Forces service stint ("as if" they were Israeli citizens, which they usually are NOT....they are Americans--American citizens who volunteered for Israeli military service "as if" they were Israelis, and after their service stint has been completed, they return to the USA, often (most immediately) to finish their college educations and get started on their adult careers.

Whether shul security staff, or ex-IDF military, these people know how to protect those who need protection, and take care of (in whatever way is necessary) those who intend harm.

This is far different from a typical civilian who carries a weapon into a house of worship, a community center, or a school for children, thinking they can protect those around them.

Again, as someone who could very well be in the position of being a victim of this kind of violence, I do NOT think that non-specifically trained civilians should be carrying weapons into these kinds of places where people commonly gather.

My opinion, but I have thought about this at great length (and I think about it all over again with each new massacre), and this is my position as a logical, potential, victim of this kind of mayhem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2019 01:11AM by Tevai.

IDF experience should be irrelevant, like time in any other service in any other military or even police force. I say that not because ex-military people are often troubled and sometimes commit violent crimes, which is true, but because there must be a single licensing process for all security at places like Jewish synagogues and community centers.

That Jewish facilities must be militarized is appalling. The answer, however, is not to permit various categories of people to carry weapons into those facilities but, however regrettable, to bolster real security with real experts--until, hopefully, society can improve to the point where places of worship no longer need de facto checkpoints and armed guards.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IDF experience should be irrelevant, like time in
> any other service in any other military or even
> police force. I say that not because ex-military
> people are often troubled and sometimes commit
> violent crimes, which is true, but because there
> must be a single licensing process for all
> security at places like Jewish synagogues and
> community centers.

IDF experience is not like American military experience. The level of training is different, the "cultural" (I don't know of any other word to use here) milieu is different, and the "reflexes" which are taught and internalized are immensely different.
[This is one of the reasons why that really cute, 5'4," young (late teens, early twenties) woman who is the security check for your El Al flight is so formidable--not only has her prior IDF training been amazingly intense by American standards, but her military assignments after training often involved life-and-death, make a decision NOW!!, situations, where she, or other people, would die if she called it wrong.]

Ex-IDF veterans are not "troubled" (this is a subject which I just realized does not come up with ex-IDF veterans; any personnel who are "troubled" are filtered out, either entirely, or are assigned to sectors which are appropriate for their issues), and they do not go on to commit violent crimes.

It is an entirely different cultural perspective from that which exists here in the USA. If a real life situation where I was present were to go wonky, I would desperately hope that somewhere in the chaos was an ex-IDF veteran--because if lives COULD be saved, that person will likely be the one doing the "saving."


> That Jewish facilities must be militarized is
> appalling. The answer, however, is not to permit
> various categories of people to carry weapons into
> those facilities but, however regrettable, to
> bolster real security with real experts--until,
> hopefully, society can improve to the point where
> places of worship no longer need de facto
> checkpoints and armed guards.

Ex-IDF ARE "real experts"--their lives, and the lives of those who serve in the IDF with them, and the civilians whose welfare they are responsible for, demands a level of competence which is usually in the minority among those not similarly trained.

And I don't know what licensing requirements there may be in the various states, but ex-IDF veterans would easily fulfill those requirements as just a normal part of their being ex-IDF.

For a comprehensive (and as brief, or as prolonged as you want) view of IDF service, especially for "lone soldiers" (those who, typically, come from overseas and do not have close relatives living in Israel), go to YouTube and search for: Lone Solder IDF. There are many videos (from very short, to longer) which will come up, highlighting both male and female IDF personnel, and you will be able to see, and listen to, what I am (ineffectively) trying to say with words. :)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2019 01:17AM by Tevai.

Three points.

I have had numerous experiences with that "really cute, 5'4," young . . . woman who is the security check" who handles entry at airports, at ports, and at land crossings. She is superb at her job. If a tourist or business person raises any red flags, she spends 30-40 minutes with that person politely asking simple questions that are clearly, obviously, designed to reveal flaws in one's story and either too few or too many inconsistencies in communicative style. We all know that ethnic appearance is one of the red flags, and yet there is in the interview virtually no evidence of prejudice. I am confident that a LOT of countries would do better if their entry personnel were as well trained.

Second,if the US is going to permit veterans of one country's military to carry weapons in public places in the US, it will permit many countries' veterans to do so. There will be no special status for IDF personnel. The implications of that should be clear. Would a Jewish patron of a community center in LA feel comfortable knowing that Jewish veterans of the Russian wars in Chechnya or Afghanistan may be carrying arms? I surely wouldn't.

Third, I take issue with your statement that "Ex-IDF veterans are not "troubled" (. . . any personnel who are "troubled" are filtered out early), and do not go on to commit violent crimes." Do you really want to state something like that in absolute terms? The IDF may be better than most militaries at identifying mentally and emotionally compromised people and removing them before deploying them, but the institution is by no means perfect. That should make intuitive sense. Moreover, whether someone is "troubled" before beginning training is largely irrelevant since war transforms people from healthy to unhealthy.

Israel is notorious for hiding the data about mental illness and veteran crimes, but there are hints of the the effects of combat on solders--and they are exactly what one would expect given the experience of other countries' armies. Take PTSD, which is a proxy for the whole range of post-combat disorders and itself a leading indicator of suicide, domestic violence, and public crimes. After Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, thousands of soldiers were diagnosed with PTSD and fifteen years later half of them were still receiving disability payments and a significant number remained unemployed.* Marital counseling was also ongoing because, of course, soldiers with PTSD present serious long-term problems for families.

The data for the military campaigns of the early 2010s paint a similar picture. Operation Protective Edge, which lasted a mere 50 days, produced nearly 5,000 victims of PTSD who required counseling, marital help, and unemployment insurance--and even these efforts did not stop the suicides. Of those who suffered physical wounds, a minimum of 49% also registered high on the PTSD scale and often exhibited other mental illnesses as well.** Moreover in 2018 the IDF expanded its marital support programs because they were simply inadequate.

It may be true that mental illnesses among vets of Israeli engagements are only 3% rather than the US level of about 8%, but that is a far cry from saying that ". . .IDF veterans are not 'troubled.'" They are in fact troubled, undeniably so. And it would be equally naive to believe that those shell-shocked, depressed, and traumatized warriors for some reason do not act out the way their peers in other countries do. Israel doesn't publish data on vets and their connection to crimes; but in a country where 74% of citizens serve in the military, we probably don't need to see the precise numbers anyway.***


*http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/232312

**https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-treats-hundreds-of-soldiers-for-ptsd-like-symptoms-post-gaza/

***https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> azsteve Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are we really supposed to believe that since
> > taking guns in to a church building is against
> > church rules, that we are safe in church? Yes,
> the
> > law abiding, church obeying church members will
> > then leave their guns at home.
> >
> > So does the murderer who desires to shoot
> > things-up say to himself "gee, I was going to
> go
> > in to that church and kill a bunch of people.
> But
> > now there is a rule that prohibits me from
> > entering the church building with a weapon.

Agreed. The "gun free zone" has got to be the most intensely moronic notion in our society. Anyone prepared to commit one or more homicides isn't going to be deterred by a stupid little sign outside saying they can't care there. And yet this irrational myth continues on.

“I would rather know that the people I know and trust will be near-by to take that crazy person out as soon as he opens fire. Every member a concealed weapons carrier.”

Plus, guns are ideal toys for bored toddlers.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Plus, guns are ideal toys for bored toddlers.

As well as for the permanently or temporarily deranged adult not the mention the self-styled frontiersman who just had a really bad fight with is wife.

Better to be judged by 15, than carried by 6. Maybe a lot of CCW holders are going to get no trespassing letters from Kirton McConkie.

It’s a good thing they put that “no guns” policy in writing!
There is no chance a crazy whacko will come in and shoot up the place now...

Some businesses have applied 'decals' / signs on their premises to inform visitors of the no-gun rule, will ChurchCo?


How's a 'gator to know without being warned/informed beforehand (i.e. before being confirmed with the H.G.?)

eta: I apologize, my NEW COMPUTER has a hair-trigger Enter key...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2019 12:40PM by GNPE.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some businesses have applied 'decals' / signs on
> their premises to inform visitors of the no-gun
> rule, will ChurchCo?

The church is going to put up a no Jesus sign on every door. That will be plenty of warning that Jesus is not found inside.

I’m for CC or OC. I prefer CC. Some places you can only open carry. I’m not comfortable with that, for myself.
First, don’t want to scare people needlessly if I come into a place with a Glock attached to my hip. Second, I probably won’t use it anyway.
Don’t want to make a situation worse by starting a firefight .
A lot of times the threat will be out of range or too many people in the path ( Know your target and what’s behind it.)
The other person can disarm you too.
I haven’t carried yet . I only have my guns in their case with their actions opened , when I’m driving to the range.

The mormon church takes the easy, safe, liability-free choice when it comes to guns on church property. The policy is there to protect the mormon corporate empire and not any individuals. They did the same thing with their kitchens in the 1980s. No one is allowed to cook in church kitchens anymore. It's safe. No one can get hurt and therefore, no lawsuits.

They can't cook in the kitchens because they don't meet code for commercial kitchens. That makes them liable for health department citations. There of course is also a serious lawsuit risk because if they let people cook in a kitchen that was not up to code and people got sick, they'd be in deep trouble.

In MN, and many other states, the sign is not enforceable as such. You would need to be asked to leave the premises and refuse to do so before anything can come of it. If you refuse, it’s a petty misdemeanor and a $25 fine.
Their policy is similar, unless it is codified in the statutes of the respective state that churches are off limits, then it’s a different matter.

Not sure where you get the idea that no guns on private property needs to be " codified in statutes" Private,property is just that and if somebody can't abide by the owners rules and won't leave then that would be a trespass gun or no gun . the 2nd Amendment does not override private property.

In the case of MN, from the state statutes.

There are all sorts of categories of people whom you cannot order off of your property while they are doing their business. Those categories include the police, firemen, health inspectors, many sorts of other inspectors, meter readers, etc. In states where there are no limits to where a person can carry a weapon, most of those categories of people can enter your property with a pistol whether you like it or not.

I can tell someone to leave my house for any reason or no reason at all . not sure where people get the idea they can go into a homeowners house with a gun if homeowner does not want them and thier gun there .There are exceptions of course like police having a warrant , firefighting a neighboring property, implied consent that if you have gas water electric then meter readers need to check amount of service being used . Sorry but the 2 nd Amendment does not override my property rights .

There is only one occupation that you mentioned where a gun is carried and that is a police officer . I doubt the guy form the gas company checking the meter is Packin heat.

One contradictory fact is enough to negate an argument.

But there are other facts as well. Not only a police officer but an FBI agent, a Secret Service agent, or a fireman may enter your property with a firearm without your permission. Along the Columbia River, and probably other places as well, an environmental inspector can carry a pistol as he measures pollutants on your property or near your boat. The homeowner has no right to prevent that.

I would additionally guess that if a state enables all licensed adults the right to carry a weapon, concealed or open, they can take that weapon with them as they do their work. If they have independent license to encroach upon your property, your feelings about their weaponry would be irrelevant.

Sorry but law enforcement officers need either my permission or a warrant to enter my home with a very few exceptions . not sure what constitution you are reading.

We were talking about "property," not your home. The police may walk up to your door with pistols even if you have posted to the contrary. You have absolutely no right to stop that.

Moreover, the exceptions are exactly what we are discussing. With a warrant or exigent circumstances, the police, the fire department, other law enforcement agencies, and even inspectors can enter your property at any time.

My point was that your statement that "There is only one occupation that you mentioned where a gun is carried and that is a police officer." That statement is false.

Inspectors? What are they inspecting ? Btw my entire property is my home . house , backyard , flower bed , driveway ,garage .Property is not limited to the house itself .Seems you are OK with " the authorities " doing whatever they want on private property . I'm not .

I didn't express my opinion. I frankly don't like a lot of what the authorities can do.

My point was that you can post whatever signs you want; you can instruct people to do, or not do, whatever they want. But if they are among the groups I listed, you cannot stop them from entering your property to do their work even if they are armed. If you try to stop them, you will be arrested.

I don't like the state of affairs, but it is what it is.

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry but law enforcement officers need either my
> permission or a warrant to enter my home with a
> very few exceptions . not sure what constitution
> you are reading.

It's probably obvious by now, but don't rely on Lot's Wife to know or apply constitutional law.

What did I say that was wrong?

Of that list, which is not allowed to carry a weapon onto your lawn in the performance of their duties?

-Police
-Fire department
-FBI
-Environmental inspectors in Oregon

Put up or shut up, you moron.

And in Texas, per Dave's post below, from tomorrow you can't stop the postman from carrying a gun onto your property.

You have anything to say, carameldreams? Anything beyond sweeping generalities devoid of actual facts?

"If it's legal, it's not as much fun."

--Judic West, Probationary Devil's Advocate

"A reminder from NBC News.

“Just weeks after the shooting in El Paso, gun laws are changing in Texas … Starting Sunday, September 1, it’s going to be a lot easier to carry and store guns in Texas.” That’s right. The Texas legislature has responded to mass shootings by loosening gun laws in Texas. And those laws go into effect tomorrow.

This includes a rule that protects people carrying guns who knowingly enter a business or home where guns are prohibited. And it includes a rule that churches have to permit handguns."

Well, that's going to the courts.

I wonder if the first court will impose a stay--especially if it is a religion that sues.