Personally, I am agnostic. I do not go to any church.
The following seems rather irrational though.
- Gather lots of people together, who share a religion.
- Make the gathering open to the public.
- Gather regularly, and predictably.
- Recognize, due to prior events, that other people want to kill members of your religion.
- Allow your congregation to be defenseless.
Seriously. Leftists say they believe in science and logic, but where is the logic in allowing murderous individuals to kill your family, friends, neighbors, and fellow worshippers when you know damn well that the sick bastards are, in fact, ready, willing, and able to do just that.
Excellent observation.
And not to mention we're no longer allowed to notice patterns. Pattern matching is innate to human survival, but leftoids want us to ignore our hard programming, thereby having these attacks on infinite repeat forever. Noticing patterns is racist.
Great post, BTW!
This. Only patterns you can notice must support the progressive ideology. Any other pattern is bigoted or racist or a Russian talking point.. Sounds insane..but true.
Notice they are not calling for other places of worship to be gun free zones? Only Christian churches.
There is a holy war coming; we American Christians won't allow them to do what they have done to Europe, burning churches once a week without fear of prosecution, let alone retribution.
What was the Second Revolution about Grandma?
"The preservation of our right to worship Christ and bear arms to protect ourselves, while doing so. The Socialist Democrats with MS-13 and Antifa, were burning our churches..."
A church in my town does not advertise the fact that members carry. But this is Arizona, and people I know who attend that church, are packing. Their reactions are fast and their aim is true.
It's even more straightforward than that!
+1 doot for you. Good one!
I'd be interested to know where that started and how far back into history that goes. Back to swords, maybe?
If you attack God's people, the congregation will do their part. Then God will do his and that is far worse than mere physical death.
I don’t recall any leftists trying to disarm any mosques. It is fairly specific to churches. This is political and logical from the leftist perspective. They want to break, control, or kill us. It is easier to do so if we are unarmed. I won’t go to a church that isn’t well defended.
You spelled terrorist training camp wrong.
I go to a church that generally has about 600 people in a service on Sunday morning. There are 62 men who are authorized and trained to carry firearms on the premises.Every Sunday school class has multiple armed men. Every person at the doors greeting people are armed and people are strategically placed in spots in our auditorium. You have to have a plan to respond to these things, and the only one that is really effective is a fast, armed response. We have been studying and planning for years. The only answer is men with guns. But... if you were a visitor to our church you would never see a gun or know they were there unless you had a trained eye for such thing.
Not until now!
Well that does not explain the Latter Day Saints. According to my LDS churchgoing friend it is their CHURCH POLICY to not have guns in their temples.
Good thing the Mormon cult didn't come into existence until after the founding fathers!
I do not know where the LDS stands on violence or self defense. Every religious order has their own rules. Amish churches almost certainly will not defend themselves with guns, for example, even though I believe their religion allows the use of shotguns or muzzle-loaders for hunting.
It's kinda like how most people who say marriage should be genderless (i.e., include same-sex arrangements) were/are not married.
It should be gender-less in that the government shouldn't be able to set or enforce standards on marriage, or legally "approve" of a marriage.
Freedom of association and freedom of religion mean a church should decide for itself who it marries in its private capacity whether its a Baptist Church or a "church" for Bronies.
Would never had the whole gay marriage issue if the government wasn't sticking its nose in marriage.
Yes, as long as consenting adults are involved. They have freedom of association.
But sometimes (only with one unqiue kind of arrangment) additional humans that are not old enough to consent have the potential to come into existence. Therefore it does make sense to protect the rights of these humans (i.e., children) by setting apart and incentivising the security of whatever arrangment they come into existence through (i.e., one human male and one human female that are post-pubescent, and in addition we could add not of close blood relation). But as soon as such humans are old enough to consent they have the full freedom of association.
Those are the same people who tell us that our religious values have no bearing "on real life in modern America" and that we can't vote our values.
Of if they do go to church or anywhere else they have their own armed protection details. Gun control has never been about guns. Those who want gun free zones are fine with guns so long as said guns are under their authority and control.