Concealed Carry in Church

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"They were open carrying as a deterrent to bandits."

So, do these folks advocate open carry of side arms as a visual deterrent?

No need to train to actually use them, though? Like Amish farmers armed with Ar15s?

The anti self defense crowd's arguments are not only silly, but actually DANGEROUS.

Good grief. This is no different than liberals arguing "Aim for the hand or leg" instead of center mass.

A lot of straw here.

Carrying a weapon as a visual deterrent doesn't mean not adequately acquainting yourself with it's use (But it would be nice if we had the name of the gladiatorial school the apostles trained at to become proficient in swordplay against Romans who did nothing but train).

When I was doing undercover asset protection, we were following someone who appeared to be shoplifting, until we saw the concealed gun he was carrying, and we walked away. Visual deterrent.

Kind of like those signs that read "This house doesn't call 911". What's that for, but to act as a visual deterrent?

Many carry unloaded, as a visual deterrent.

But here's the thing. We aren't talking simply carrying a firearm in this thread while in public.

We are talking about concealed, that is, not visual, firearms, to a church gathering.

Now, I know you have firearms, right? And I know you meet in homes for your church meetings. I assume you meet in your home on occasion?

Is your gun loaded and holstered under your pant leg during the meeting, or secured with a trigger lock in a locked case under a bed or in a cabinet somewhere, during the meeting?

Because what is being discussed in this thread are brothers covertly carrying loaded weapons on their very person during meetings with the intent to use them--IN A CROWDED LOCATION--should an attack occur.

Esaias, do you pack when you go to a house meeting?

[votivesoul]

Here's the thing about concealment.

It makes it appear you are not armed. So, if a criminal was looking for a chance to attack, he might assume you were unarmed, and go for it.

But if you carried unconcealed, he would likely see the weapon and think twice.

So which of the two are actually deterring violence?

So what's the difference if instead of 21st century USA church, we're talking 1st century disciples making their way back toward Galilee carrying a weapon on their leg, to deter those who might wish them harm.

[jfrog]

I find no contextual or historical reason to believe a New Testament Sword is something other than a sword.

Is it within the realm of possibility? Sure. But there is no reason to believe that's the truth other than it better fitting the narrative some would rather believe.

[jfrog]

I find concealed carry in churches to be distasteful. That said, in a city church in a high crime area I wouldn't judge. For 99% of the churches in my area I very much so would.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Here's the thing about concealment.

It makes it appear you are not armed. So, if a criminal was looking for a chance to attack, he might assume you were unarmed, and go for it.

But if you carried unconcealed, he would likely see the weapon and think twice.

So which of the two are actually deterring violence?

So what's the difference if instead of 21st century USA church, we're talking 1st century disciples making their way back toward Galilee carrying a weapon on their leg, to deter those who might wish them harm.

1. There is a very good argument that open carry by a non-LEO citizen actually invites opportunistic criminals. A: They can easily identify an armed person and target them first. B: they can see someone has a weapon and may be induced to take it from them. C: If an unknown number of people are carrying concealed, potential criminals don't know who, if any, are armed, and this has been shown to decrease incidents of violent crime.

2. Pacifism, as an ideological position, is inconsistent if it allows for others - like police - to be both armed and carry out violence on behalf of the pacifist. If it is wrong to be armed and inflict deadly force on another, then it is wrong for all others, including police and soldiers. If it is wrong to use deadly force to defend oneself against attackers, it is wrong to hire or use others to use deadly force to defend YOURSELF against attackers. When a pacifist says it's okay to have police or soldiery be armed and do violence against would be attackers on their behalf, this is no different than the 'shabbas goy' concept among some Jews, who think that although it is wrong to cook on Sabbath, it is okay to have a gentile do the cooking for you on Sabbath. In other words, hypocrisy.

3. The word translated "sword" is the same word found in Romans and Matthew to describe Roman and Judean soldiers' weapons. There is ZERO - Z.I.L.C.H. - evidence that Jesus commanded His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy letter openers and not actual swords.

4. The makhaira is a term used to describe swords in general, as well as single edged cutting swords - often used by cavalry. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest Jesus told the disciples to buy anything other than that, nor is there any evidence to suggest the two that were presented were anything other than that.

All the gyrations attempting to deny the plain and simple import of the text are eisegesis in support of a faulty premise.

Now, if a person does NOT want to be armed, that's their business. Nobody is saying you MUST be armed. The fact that the Lord was shown two swords, and He said "it is enough", proves that not every single male in a congregation must be armed. I think it could be argued that it does, however, show that SOME ought to be armed, but I'll not go there.

5. There is a common but false notion that we have two Bibles, one a "back then" Bible, called the Old Testament, and the other a "here and now" Bible called the New Testament. This is error. There is ONE BIBLE, authored by ONE GOD, given to ONE PEOPLE. That Bible contains writings that were written before Christ's incarnation, and writings written after His incarnation, but they constitute ONE BIBLE, ONE WORD. The New Testament is not a "replacement" of the Old Testament (I'm speaking of the Scriptures here). There is no "God of the Old Testament vs God of the New Testament". ONE GOD. The Old Testament is undeniably and categorically non-pacifist. The New Testament, while it has been claimed to be pacifist, is not necessarily "undeniably" pacifist. The Scripture "cannot be broken". There is no conflict or disjunction between the two testaments. There certainly is an unfolding and perfecting of DOCTRINE, from the old to the new, but they are not "two laws" or "two Bibles" representing "two Gods". They must be understood in context with one another, not in isolation from each other.

If a person is a "whole Bible Christian", who believes "The BIBLE is the sole rule and authority for faith and practice", then the Old Testament scriptures cannot be ignored. As I tried to point out earlier, one cannot ignore one for the other, either the old for the new or the new for the old. They work TOGETHER.

It is often claimed that Jesus is our example, He rejected the use of armed resistance, therefore we should also. Yet, He also willingly died on a cross to effect our salvation. We cannot do that. To take up our cross means to lay aside our carnal will in favour of the Will of God and to identify with Christ as our Saviour. There are many things He did that we cannot and dare not do. He specifically declared to people "thy sins are forgiven thee". Shall we do likewise? May as well become catholic priests then and grant absolution to whomever we think God wants us to! Jesus is our example, and our TEACHER. We as disciples are to obey ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE HAS COMMANDED HIS ORIGINAL FOLLOWERS. That would include selling our extra clothes and buying swords, would it not? Or in other words, if we genuinely want to follow His instructions, at least SOME of us may feel compelled by Him to be armed. He did, after all, command His disciples to be armed...

It is often claimed that early post apostolic Christians were pacifists. If anyone wants to make that claim and debate it, I'm your Huckleberry. If not, then let's stick to the Bible, and Jesus' commands.

• He told His disciples to be armed, even at great cost to themselves.
• He apparently allowed for some of them to be unarmed, as long as some were.
• He refused any resistance to be offered against His arrest, trial, and execution.
• When Peter jumped the gun, He told him to sheath his weapon, not surrender or abandon it.
• That means, He told him to KEEP it, but not to use it at that time for that situation.
• Paul was happy to have Roman soldiers protect him with the very real threat of immediate and deadly force.
• The first Gentile saved was a Roman Centurion, who was never told to lay down his arms and resign or quit his position.
• Paul taught soldiers, responsible for enforcing laws, were armed and dangerous by a Divine ordinance to punish evil and reward good.
• Paul and Peter taught Christians to submit to the ordinances of man as long as they do not violate the express will of God.
• According to the ordinances (law) of the United States, who is responsible for personal security and safety? Hint, it isn't the police or military.

[shag]

For me, i generally conceal carry when I’m with my wife and kids, wherever we go, including a church meeting. I have for years.

It’s the same as if we are at home...I’ll do what I can to stop a situation, if the intent of someone is ever to fatally harm my family.


Carry on....

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I think that within the whole population of those who conceal carry there are those who, if the opportunity presented itself to fire off a few rounds at someone they thought was going to attack them, would be quite satisfied with the results.

That doesn't mean you, or anyone who posts here. But it exists, even in the church. Houston had it right. A segment of our nation's population is looking forward to a so-called coming "Civil War" they think is heading our way, because it fuels their apocalyptic fires, an OT Holy War for the NT crowd. Jihad isn't limited to Islam.

Curious. I'd be interested in finding out where your mental abilities of discerning another's intent came from. When did you become psychic, Votive? Or do you have some evidence to support this claim?

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I wasn't trying to be literal here.

You certainly sounded very literal.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Are you suggesting that if these parts of the world didn't have gun control laws in place, that these churches would pull a USA and begin bringing guns to church, or that they'd be willing to have a shootout if they were to get raided?

And you're suggesting they wouldn't defend themselves if they could? Who's to say. Since they literally can't defend themselves, I guess we'll never know.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The truth is, we have professionally trained police officers, who have spent hours and hours in the firing range, who likely have tended to gunshot wounds and know what a round does to human flesh, who, in the heat of the moment, can't control themselves and empty their clips into people. Not often, not even every day, but it has and will continue to happen.

So, if even these trained at the highest level protectors of our peace cannot always be guaranteed to be level headed in a bad situation, is someone who spends a few hours at a range a couple of times a week and goes hunting better equipped to have a more level-headed approach, especially if they secretly or subconsciously are hoping for some kind of righteous apocalyptic war they think is on the horizon?

Again, I hope you have some evidence to support this assertion that some people are "hoping for some kind of righteous apocalyptic war". Is there a possibility some could panic? Yes. Does that mean no one should conceal carry, just because some can't handle the situation properly? No.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

So, again, maybe that's not you (never said it was). But it's someone, in fact, a lot of someone's. There are a lot of people who carry the Christian banner as a pretense in this country who wouldn't mind being on a extermination squad as an outlet for their perceived patriotic duty.

Again, you post this malarkey without any supporting evidence. We are just expected to take it on your word that all you put forth is true. What evidence do you proffer in support for this claim?

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Salem Witch trials? Indian massacres and genocide of the indigenous? Lynchings? Much if not most of these things happened and were committed by those who claimed to have some kind of religious, Biblical warrant.

Again, that doesn't mean you, or anyone here.

Inquisition? Crusades?

Every slippery slope begins somewhere.

And the slippery slope argument is a fallacy without supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A lot of straw here.

You should speak.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Carrying a weapon as a visual deterrent doesn't mean not adequately acquainting yourself with it's use (But it would be nice if we had the name of the gladiatorial school the apostles trained at to become proficient in swordplay against Romans who did nothing but train).

So, wait. Let me get this straight. You're absolutely okay with open carry, but completely opposed to the idea of conceal carry? What mental gyrations must you go through to accommodate that viewpoint?

Originally Posted by votivesoul

When I was doing undercover asset protection, we were following someone who appeared to be shoplifting, until we saw the concealed gun he was carrying, and we walked away. Visual deterrent.

Kind of like those signs that read "This house doesn't call 911". What's that for, but to act as a visual deterrent?

Many carry unloaded, as a visual deterrent.

As Esaias already posted, it can actually be a bigger issue to open carry (even if unloaded, which makes absolutely no logical sense), since that means there's a chance you're more likely to be targeted because of the weapon.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

But here's the thing. We aren't talking simply carrying a firearm in this thread while in public.

We are talking about concealed, that is, not visual, firearms, to a church gathering.

Now, I know you have firearms, right? And I know you meet in homes for your church meetings. I assume you meet in your home on occasion?

Is your gun loaded and holstered under your pant leg during the meeting, or secured with a trigger lock in a locked case under a bed or in a cabinet somewhere, during the meeting?

There's not much point in owning a firearm for self defense, if it's locked away in a drawer somewhere. Carrying concealed means that others who may be bothered by guns are set at ease (since they don't know you're carrying), while still maintaining the ability for defense of ones self and others.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Because what is being discussed in this thread are brothers covertly carrying loaded weapons on their very person during meetings with the intent to use them--IN A CROWDED LOCATION--should an attack occur.

So your solution is that we should open carry, and thus attract more attention to ourselves? What kind of solution is that?

[Sherri]

I'm thankful for all the people who carry their guns to church. We have had some "crazies". They usually have one armed person sitting behind Eddie and I at all times. I think that's a little weird sometimes, but at least I ruled out them escorting me down the halls. That got creepy, although it was in our best interest. I don't like to be singled out - I'm more of a background person. An "escort" was too much!

[acjcpastor]

Glad to live in a State that is a Constitutional Carry State and I would encourage those who exercise that right to feel free in doing so while worshiping in our services.

[Bill E Goat]

I ALWAYS carry!!! Under my arm and in my boot!