This surprised me - the Mormon Church has long been one of the more gun-friendly organizations.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/26/75455...-policy-change
This surprised me - the Mormon Church has long been one of the more gun-friendly organizations.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/26/75455...-policy-change
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...nt/2814247002/
Having noticed some ripples in their political activity in my state, I don't think this is going to go over well, at all.
Their Church has been quietly divided over the topic of guns and ammunition for quite some time now; from what I remember, on one hand there are those who point out that in their past their communities had taken up arms against the US government, among others, and there's also an increasing number that thinks it makes modern sense to stock food and not ammunition.
If a mass shooting is enabled as a result of this change in policy, I think the shooter is very likely to be a former member.
I live in UT but I’m not a member of any church.
There have been instances of clowns dropping their CCW pistols in church. Maybe that’s part of the reasoning?
Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for that dumb bastard.
Is that the sound of JMB rolling over in his grave?
-------------------------------------------
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
My CERT did some training for the local LDS church as part of their emergency preparedness day. Other participants included a group that provided instructions (and brought a working model) of a solar oven.. They claimed that they could get over 400'F!
I doubt this church would abide this new mandate willingly.
Seems most churches here are busy building their own security teams after the law changed last year allowing them to do so.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
So, it makes sense for LDS members to stock six months' worth of supplies, but have no means to prevent anyone else from treating that stockpile as a free supermarket?Originally Posted by Yung
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
It's the same logic as billionaires living in silos after the 'End'. Their 'guards' will protect them. Guards - free food and trophy waves and Ivanka style daughters. Bang.
It is a problem for some religious folks of many denominations to accept the need for violence. I do respect those who have a worked out a true pacificist theology and accept that they will not act in SD (for various religious reasons). But no guns in church - silly. Total pacifist or not at all.
Traditional Catholic orthodoxy has always supported defense of self and others up to the point of lethal force. This needs to be tempered by both mercy and justice, and proportionality.
The more traditional the Church, the more the laity tends to carry guns in my observation. I know for a fact that men carry guns in the various traditional parishes. This is viewed as a masculine duty and responsibility.
A person looking to shoot up a RC church definitely should think twice if they smell incense or hear Latin when they walk in.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the original article lumps a negligent discharge in with two criminal homicides, as if to imply they are caused by the same thing. Guns are bad, mmmkay? That's par for the course, in the lazy template-driven journalism world of today.
Also, note the prohibition doesn't apply to "current law enforcement officers". I wonder how much of this policy was driven by the head office legal team.
Last edited by Horseman; 08-27-2019 at 09:53 AM.
Roy, as is often the case, may have the right of it.
Once a trained security team in emplaced it would make sense to geld the remainder of the congregation. That simplifies the decision-making process: (a) anybody who has a gun and (b) is not a recognized member of the security team (c) needs to be addressed.
Reply With Quote