MSNBC:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A gun-toting Kentucky pastor says it's OK to bring weapons to church — at least for one day.Ken Pagano asked his flock to bring their unloaded handguns — in holsters — to New Bethel Church in Louisville for a celebration of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Consitution that guarantees the right to bear arms.
More than 200 people answered his call. There was just one rule for the several dozen who brought their guns along: No bullets.
[...]
The "Open Carry Celebration" included a handgun raffle, patriotic music and screening of gun safety videos. Some gun owners carried old-fashioned six-shooters in leather holsters, while others packed modern police-style firearms. Kentucky allows residents to openly carry guns in public with some restrictions.
[...]
Across town, a coalition of peace and church groups concerned about Pagano's appeal to gun owners staged their own gun-free event.
"I think when people first learned about this invitation to wear guns to church, many people were deeply troubled," said Terry Taylor, one of the organizers. "The idea of wearing guns to churches or any sacred space I think many people find deeply troubling."
Pagano's event also troubled his church's longtime insurance carrier, which declined to insure the event and informed him it won't renew the policy. He found a new carrier at a cost of $700 for the day, but guns had to be unloaded.
.
11 comments:
"Carry A Colt For Christ!"
Why do people get so offended at what was done since the beginning times (a way to self defend and defend family and home)and taken away at one time or the other and sometimes re-added back again at a later date due to - times and people's opinion's change regularly.
During the 1800's when guns were so prevalent, I am sure that men went to church with their guns strapped to their legs or hidden under their coats. Usually one's who believe in carrying a gun do not just "take it off" just because they are going to church or elsewhere is my thinking based on the times then. It only becomes a big deal when it is made out to be one.
Has anyone pondered that the buzz for the day, week, month year or beyond is started by whom? Was it you or someone else you know who started it in a direction by starting the reference to a subject and off it flew?
Guns do not pull the trigger themselves, it is the idiot at the trigger end who does that. We grew up around guns and what they can do and therefore, were not afraid of them, knew how to handle them and knew the consequences good or bad of their use. That comes from having knowledge and not fear of not knowing. Knowledge is power they say and I happen to believe that too. Being a leader and not a follower is knowledge that is power too, and it is a shame that so many follow what someone else starts and it is not a "problem" until that someone else brooches "that" subject to make it a problem that is then broadcast and now a world or nationwide problem up for discussion, rally, protest or any other form of gathering or talks either for or against.
So, do you always just follow the leader and help to perpetuate what you did not start in the first place?
Anyone who is raised around guns and is taught proper usage of them has no fear of them and also see's the good they can have when used properly. It is usually not the law abiding citizen who is in court for doing something against the law, but the citizen with no license to carry who has the gun anyway and chooses to use it for no good reason other than to hurt or kill another human.
People should learn that taking guns from law abiding licensed citizen's does not make you safer, it just means that the criminals now out number the law abiding and can and do get away with more hurting of the law abiding public.
I believe it was Australia that put a ban on people owning guns and funny thing was, that the crime rate went up not down, because the criminals now knew the law abiding citizens had no way to defend themselves and they could do as they damned well pleased and did.
Like usual, the people who obey laws will anyway and the one's who do not, will continue to not obey no matter what laws are in place.
During the 1800's when guns were so prevalent, I am sure that men went to church...
Why do you think this is true? Why should anyone here take your word?
If we are going to throw out unsupported beliefs, mine is this, guns were less available because people earned less money and mass production wasn't as common (and, yes I know who Eli Whitney was, I'm still unconvinced).
Look, guns are for killing or threatening to kill so the idea of taking one to a place in which both of those things are considered sinful is a sign of disrespect. Period. But this isn't about Christianity at all, is it now?
-g
During the 1800's guns were so prevalent,... ...elsewhere is my thinking...
You missed where it states "is my thinking". Means, what I think of that time period, no fact(s) because it's my thoughts. Not asking to be "believed" as you stated. I commented on what I felt or is this one sided, not up for discussion of one's thoughts on the subject matter?
You "Why do you think this is true? Why should anyone here take your word?"
No one has to "take" my word when I was expressing a thought on the times, nor was I asking for you to "take" my word for what I thought/said. "Why do I think it is true?", you ask? I know people who still feel this way about their guns; if not for State and Federal Law's stop one's from carrying, they would-have the mentality of some of what history state about "Billy The Kid" types and such. Some believe we have the right to bare arms. I'm one. My family has collected guns for years, so have many friends, no one shot at anyone. You have to respect what they do -same as a vehicle. Vehicles are killing machines too. Why not take them off the road too? Come's down to personal preference, tolerance to each individual's likes, grew up with and therefore is used to and has a tolerance for. So, because some one not in their right frame of mind hurts, kills, causes problems, are you saying we all should pay for that one? I don't, never have, never will. I take blame for my actions, never have and never will take blame for someone elses, which is why I and my family believe in the right to bare arms as law abiding citizens following the rules to ownership. Do you also believe those who hunt for the very food that feeds them shouldn't be allowed to own guns because they kill? Yes, guns kill, still comes down to who's behind the trigger, same as, who's behind the wheel. Do you have yearly statistics on how many are killed each year by guns and how many by cars? I think that could be an interesting figure to see!
You stated "If ...going to throw out unsupported beliefs, mine is this, guns were less available because people earned less money and mass production wasn't as common..." You are stating your belief and I am to accept it, so why not do the same in return? Are you stating I have to believe what you say because you say it? I thought a "belief" is just what it states, a belief. I did not say anything on belief, but did say "U think". Very different terms of use and meaning. You did not ask if I was making a statement, a belief, or a thought on the times and assumed a belief. I was taught not to assume and become the first three letters, as it is easier and best to clarify instead of interjecting one's own into another's and thinking it is what they were saying, as it may not have been! And to use your words, where are your facts to back up what you state? Even though this was not about facts but what I thought on the subject matter. This is not unlike today, if a criminal wants something they find a way to get it. Usually means steal, buy stolen or whatever other means it takes to get what's wanted without paying or abiding by the law. I don't think (notice "I don't think" my opinion) what someone earns predicts totally what they will own. I have to wonder if Mrs. Winchester would agree with you on the "availability of guns" and why she continuously built onto the Winchester House in California.
cont'd
You, "Look, guns are for killing or threatening to kill so the idea of taking one to a place in which both of those things are considered sinful is a sign of disrespect. Period." Much like mine being an opinion, so is yours and the4 world is full of them, regardless of if it held by many, so is how I think on the subject matter. I thank GOD all the time that we are not all alike or this would be one very boring earth to live on-in. There is enough being told what to do, how, when to do it and we need more? Communism anyone? You may think it extreme to use this, I don't because the more rules and laws we have the less freedoms we have also and at what point do we no longer have any say? Do you prefer Police states where you have next to nothing to say in what you can say, do or have? I don't, I like having freedom's.
I'm very religous. Still stand behind the right to bare arms. See no disrespect carrying a gun to church if that's what I wanted to do as long as it's not being weilded around like it's a toy. That's when it is disrespectful of others as I see it (again, my thoughts on it). If it were maintained in a safe spot, such as the holster and locked for saftey, it wouldn't bother me. Too many people want to tell others what to do, how to live, when this and that. I follow the rules and laws. I don't think I need to be told by fellow citizen's more of what I can and can't do if the law is already doing that and if the law allows it, then it is not illegal. I realize some of this goes beyond, but that 's what most of this or any other subject of scrutiny does, because none of it's cut and dry. There are many aspects to the subject.
A last word is that we can all agree to disagree just like I do with family, friends and others when we can't come to the same conclusion and that is how I feel on this subject.
It's been great "sparring" with you! LOL Just kidding. Have a great day anyway!
It just seems a tad ironic to carry a gun into a place where the people gather to worship the "Prince of Peace" and who told his followers to "turn the other cheek."
Hi Mustang, Yes it is and can be ironic. My comment is based on what I think on the subject and not actually acting out by taking a gun into any church. More of my point is based on we all have opinion's, belief's, thought's, and not necessarily would we act on it to this extent, but on the other hand we are so bombarded by do this-do that and then the you can't do this or can't do that. I am a live and let live type of person, leave me alone and I leave you alone. I have put up with all kinds of flack throughout life and find it sickening that people can find so much time to mind the business of others when they should mind the business matters at home. Not saying do not keep a look out for safety sake, but too many go over board, call landlords for the likes of not liking this tenant or the other and or they call cops. Cops have better things to do with their time than to have to keep going out on calls for stupid things than a tenant who does not get along with the rest so they make calls regularly and things of this sort. A big gripe you could say is when people say guns kill. No, the person who has the finger on the trigger kills. Guns are inanimate and therefore could not and cannot do anything that the human behind it did not make it do, pulled the trigger and harmed or killed, be it human or animal. I've been turning the other cheek all my life and have been getting stabbed in the back for said same. I live by the Bible and the word of God and sometimes it is not easy when you have people who just look for trouble. My reason for wanting to move where there are no more than a house every two or three miles or more between. Had enough of the petty, drama, trauma types who find nothing better to do with their time than to make problems where there were none in the first place and that was what I mainly started out getting at. Things do not always have to be or become a problem if someone talks to another or if there is brainstorming or someone just sits and comes up with a solution and it gets worked on and qwells the supposed fire.
cont'd.
Had this not made the news-internet do you think any of us would be typing anything here on it. No, someone made it a subject for discussiona and yes, I too, hopped on. Hopped because so many feel guns kill when it is their brethren that kills and the gun is their tool, same as a knife, vehicle, hammer, etc. So, because someone decides to have no self control we should eliminate everything off the market that someone else finds a use for so that that person does no harm to another? I say, NO! We all go without for the one or one's who decide to do wrongdoing? Again, I say, NO! I'm not going to pay the price for what I did not do. We are taught to live by the Bible, I do and therefore feel I shouldn't have to go without at the hands and expense of another that I had nothing to do with. Does anyone feel it a disgrace to see people go to church with holey clothes? Or, are you glad to see that even the less fortunate still made it to church in spite of what others will think Of them? I would be glad to see them and offer them what I could, but I know others who would ridicule them and think they should have stayed home. I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where it states that you had to come to church in a certain manner. I believe it refers to come one, come all, just as Jesus did not dress in the finest of clothes, he went around as he was, himself in spite of what others had to say about him or did to him. Maybe the priest-minister was trying to make a point that people - even with guns and sort of different could come to church and still mingle with the no-gun holders and at the end of the service they all left the same as they came, in one piece and with no violence. Not everything in life has to be fixed by violence as some take things to, such as using a gun to make a deadly point that cannot be turned around at that point and for many is a regret once it is over. Self control fixes many a situation and taking the emotion out of it never hurt anything either. Then you can have some rational thoughts. Sorry for bending your ear, some things can't be said in so few words. I have yet to learn that one!
Again, just my thoughts and take on life's subject matter. Have a great night!
Okay.
I guess yours is a Christian faith that says "pack heat" as opposed to the one the says "if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also".
Anyhow, the point I was making was that regardless of what you or I believe, there are facts. Those of us in the reality-based community preference them over any thoughts (and we like evidence of the facts).
Therefore, if I tell you that Bellesiles analysis indicates that "relatively few (about 15%) white adult male Americans even owned a gun prior to 1790. It was not until the mid 19th century...that gun ownership became commonplace in response to the post Civil War 'rise of manufacturing and mass marketing” of the gun makers. In other words, America’s gun culture is an artificial product of a prolonged sales campaign by those who would profit from its promotion'."
(http://www.logosjournal.com/?q=node/73), and I note that his analysis hasn't been questioned but for his use of Revolutionary Era probate records, I'd like to see some sort of evidence-based counter.
-g
Anonymous (one of you, anyway): Bellesiles' analysis of gun ownership was widely discredited, and he resigned his position at Emory University amid accusations of sloppy research, fraud, and inaccurate documentation. The award he won for his book was rescinded by Columbia U. Apparently his motives were political, not scholarly, which of course did more harm to his cause than good.
Don't trust me: use Google.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.