Little Rock, AR – Should you be able to carry a gun to church? It’s a question state lawmakers will be taking up next week when they debate a bill that’s kicked up a little controversy. The bill being discussed would let churches decide on their own to post a sign to ban guns inside, but opponents say it should not even be an option. Grant Exton is a gun owner and president of the state’s Concealed Carry Association. He’s been working with lawmakers on a bill that would allow people licensed to carry a concealed handgun to take their guns to church. Exton says the proposed law’s less about guns and more about property rights.
“Businesses, homes here in Arkansas are able to make the decision on whether they want to have people carrying on their premise, and we’re just trying to give that right to churches as well.” It’s also about personal protection. Exton cites the 2007 shooting that killed one person and injured four others in a Colorado church, where a gun-carrying church security worker stopped the shooter.
“We really believe God provides and protects his own and that it wouldn’t be in the best interest of what the church stands for to have people armed and packing on Sunday morning.” This weekend marks 23 years since Reverend Phillips was shot. The bill goes before a house committee on Tuesday.
So how long before we see metal detectors at the church entrance?
#23 Mr Diesel got it right!
Isn’t it odd that the places where horrible mass murders were committed were in gun free zones?
Columbine, Virginia Tech, San Ysidro McDonald’s, and only heaven knows how many post offices.
It’s like some people believe in a magic power which keeps bad people with guns out of gun free zones.
Looks like fathertime really though this one out. đ
Let’s see. Either allow the public to arm themselves for protection against bad guys and an overly fascist government, or-
Sit passively while allowing the government to search each and every home, business, and body cavity without due cause, thereby insuring the creation of a complete Orwellian state.
“crime” is so subjective to owners đ As I’ve sarcastically pointed out, people bring to church a lot worse issues than just carry a gun. How come some of these are not crimes.
#19, MacGuy
Amazing, but true. Although not a smoker, I’m amazed at the “no smoking” laws enforced on private businesses as to whether or not the owner will or will not tolerate smoking on premises.
Hey, if I don’t want to smell it, I won’t eat at your restaurant. However, if allowed, I just might have a cigar at the bar after dinner. Taking away this right from the business owner still honks me off, and really disgusts friends of mine who own respectable and fine restaurants and bars. They have lost many loyal customers over this.
I’m not saying I approve of smoking in public places, I’m saying it should be up to the business owner. Period.
If it’s concealed, how will anyone besides God know?
#33–Bubba==you are wrong. The issue of secondary smoke has nothing to do with the Business Owners customers. The cases have been decided on the rights of the employees not to have to make a choice between their health and earning a living.
Its still a stupid position you take. The governments makes smoking pot illegal and you can go to jail for doing it. Making smoking tobacco an infraction subject to a fine is so trivial compared to how overbearing the government is on so many other issues.
Choose your addiction.
Sorry, bobbo. Your argument doesn’t cut it. As a small business owner, I should be allowed to choose what legal things take or not take place in my business. If I say “No Kids” in a china shop, or “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”, what difference does that make? I should be able to place a sign on the door that says, “This is a smoking establishment. Enter at your own risk.”
Tough luck, the city council or the state should not be able to legislate what legal activities take place in MY place of business. Get over it. And no, I don’t want you as a customer if you’re going to argue against that.
BTW, several small cities around Dallas have since come to their senses and done away with the no smoking in restaurant stuff. Seems the owners and bar owners were losing customers to those communities where one could choose their poison.
Bobbo… You have a right to free speech. You do not have the right to come into my house and talk.
#36–Bubba==its not “my” argument==its the ruling of the courts as I stated. YOUR business cannot employ underaged children. Your business cannot employ illegal aliens. Your business cannot issue vile odors, smoke, noise, fumes to the discomfort of your neighbors. Your business cannot discharge firearms, fireworks, stay open past legal closing times, employee sex workers, play copyrighted music without the permission/payment to the artists and ON AND ON.
Your business cannot constitute an unsafe environment for workers. That is the basis used to pass No smoking laws. You have rights, owners have rights, employees have rights all balanced out by “the law.” Laws vary by district.
#37–Gag==true but what does that have to do besides NOTHING with smoking bans in the workplace?
#38, bobbo, no contest on the illegal stuff. But since when can the govt. legislate what I can and can’t do in my business with an activity that is legal in my own home? All your examples are BS, as they are not legal in businesses OR homes.
But cut it anyway you want it, around here the people have spoken, and the money has won. Good luck to the city of Dallas, whose bar and restaurant owners are leaving for surrounding communities. And whose convention business has declined to zero.
I have no interest in arguing this any further. If I own a bar / restaurant and my customers want to smoke, I should be able to provide a separate room where they can do so, if, and only if, I want non-smoking patrons to enter the establishment.
I don’t give a flying frick if McDonalds has a ‘No Smoking’ sign on their door, I don’t eat garbage.
I’m going to my favorite bar and having a Monte Cristo. You can lounge in front of an LCD. Go re=read (your favorite punctuation) my post #33.
No shirt, no shoes, no service. Defend that.
bobbo, just as an afterthought, have you ever read anything by John Brunner?
People should be armed ANYWHERE they go. Ex cops get a pass to carry. So I asked and ex cop… if you walk your dog at night in the neighborhood, do you carry a gun? “Yes”. (Naturally). Then I asked, why should you be entitled to carry a gun, if I am not? No reply.
The next part of this discussion, I will leave to your imagination. I do, however, ALWAYS feel safe. Permit? I don’t need no stinkin’ permit.
Oh man. First I could not even imagine why one would want to have a gun in church.
The only reasonable explanation would be to protect himself.
So let’s think. What is the chance to get shot? One in some million probably? Surely less likely than to be hit by lightning.
And what are the chances that someone shoots somebody when he
a) has a gun
b) has no gun
And now look what decision protects you best from getting shot?
Banning guns or arming yourself and live in fear?
Arming yourself protects you from a virtually non existing and self-generated risk.
Banning guns protect you from a real risk.
And yea, second amendment and stuff. I know.
This was probably not a really bad thing.
But what about keeping these guns at home?
When you need to do a uprising (this is what these weapons are for) just take them out of the closet.
I live in a country where you can only have a weapon when you have a license (ok, that will never happen in the US). And even then, carrying a armed weapon is highly illegal. If you transport a weapon you must keep the ammunition in a separate bag!
And I can tell you, not a single person is afraid to get shot. Our police does not tase you down when you don’t follow them immediately.
And traffic controls don’t happen at gun point.
Schools have no metal detectors.
I’m not constantly prepared to be struck by lightning.
And I’m totally unprepared when some one tried to shoot me. And I feel totally save!
PS: My risk calculation is for outside the church. You could imagine what the probabilities would be for inside.
#30–Bubba==hahaha. You are starting to sound like Perkel with his stamps. The issue is simple, “too” obvious, yet you (stamp) your feet and throw a little tantrum. I thought you were supposed to reach for the stars, but keep your feet on the ground?
But since when can the govt. legislate what I can and canât do in my business with an activity that is legal in my own home? /// Since from when they pass laws to do so. Logically, there is no incongruity since the government can make an activity product illegal, they can take any intermediate step as well==absent your Constitutional Rights. Take your guns and rise up?
All your examples are BS, as they are not legal in businesses OR homes. /// Just a feint to get you to start thinking. So, you would be composed if smoking tobacco became illegal to do so in your home? Thats happening as smoking tobacco is now illegal in some area’s apartment complexes because of secondary smoke.
Why don’t you think about/address the twice made CENTRAL POINT that the legislation makes VERY GOOD SENSE from an employee safety/health perspective? Tying back in with legal at home issue, at home you can operate a band saw without a safety guard. At work, the same saw MUST BE operated with a safety guard == for the safety of the employees.
You don’t want to argue anymore==and then you do. YOU and your customers should have a choice about smoking I agree. What about the employees? (Hint–asking for volunteer smokers to serve your smoking room is BS.) So, there is a conflict between competing legal interests. Who wins? The government decides. The argument about businesses close is always made. Evidence is that it is not true. If you can’t make an honest dollar without poisoning your employees, you shouldn’t be in business anyway.
I did go re=read #33. I totally missed the “cigar/pipe after your good meal”—reminds me of the comedian who rifted on that like why not sit around the table emitting loud smelly farts? YOU may like it, but what about the rest of us? Amusing you finish with the strongest argument AGAINST you as even smokers hate cigar/pipe smokers. Why not go around burning dog turds and other incense because you are a rough and tough individualist?
Regarding McDonalds: you are probably right, fatty foods are next from our Nanny State but the argument will have to change because there is no health impact on employees==the point and purpose of the legislation which you have TOTALLY IGNORED!!
No shirt, no shoes, no service. Defend that. /// Easy–the business owner wants to maintain a certain decorum that is seen as supporting his business model and banning same is legal.
I tried to read Brunner and found his works not as much fun as I wanted from a Sci-Fi novel. Maybe I’m more patient now and should try again given his reputation? I had the same problem with Asimov. Would you recommend a certain dystopian novel and why?
Bubba,
You make one grave error that has effected your entire argument.
Smoking is not a “legal” product. It is a “regulated” product.
In our wisdom as a society where over 70% of the people do not smoke, We do not want to smell it, regardless of where we are. We also recognize the health dangers and, as Bobbo pointed out, we will not allow someone to work in a potentially dangerous environment when it can be made safe. Your “right” to smoke can not outweigh society’s right not to breathe second hand smoke.
Besides, if you walk around with your penis hanging out at home, a perfectly legal activity, why would society have any interest in preventing you from doing it in public?
đ
# 43 Shallow-Thought said, “So letâs think. What is the chance to get shot? One in some million probably? Surely less likely than to be hit by lightning.
1: Odds of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1
2: Odds of being murdered with a gun: 20,000 to 1
Odds of being shot and not killed…
Most people don’t die from a gunshot.
Even factoring in heading to church, you’re going to get shot LONG before you get hit by lightening.
bobbo – To answer your earlier question directed towards me…
It’s simple. If I’m the owner of a business, this is my property, and you are entering my store with MY permission. Since you are on my property, I expect you to conduct yourself accordingly. If that conduct includes not possessing a firearm, then so be it. I don’t know how thorough your instruction was, nor do I know how safe your firearm is, nor do I know how safely you’re carrying it.
Therefore, it is the property owner’s right to decide whether or not they will allow concealed firearms on their property. It’s a safety issue for both the property owner as well as the other patrons of the business.
#48–MacGuy==your businessy property owner rights should end where my constitutional rights begin. Your safety issues are valid and should be addressed by the licensing authority/review process of gaining the CCW permit to begin with.
The CCW permits apply within a STATE WIDE jurisdiction. Having to go thru each little fiefdom of a conflicting property owners druthers is an affront to the King and violates the direct purpose of the CCW.
I’ve said “should” throughout because the issue is completely controlled by the Courts given the 2nd Amendment Issue. That being the case, I’m sure most of these issues have been/are being addressed thru litigation and reported case law. I’m just following the logic of the reasonable interpretation of both sides.
As a fierce anti-gun advocate myself, its embarrassing to find myself defending these idiots from Property /Business Owners who appear to be even more idiotically self-centered than the gun nuts.
Your ârightâ to smoke can not outweigh societyâs right not to breathe second hand smoke.
I’m glad we’ve extrended the concept of rights to the point where we can justify entering somebody else’s property and using the force of government to demand that they change their behavior to suit us.
> 1: Odds of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1
> 2: Odds of being murdered with a gun: 20,000 to 1
Still not very likely. đ
And I’m sure the figures will improve when guns are banned in public.
But most important.
Even if these are official figures, the risk would be far less for ‘normal people’.
How many of these gun victims are criminals and how many of them happened on the streets?
Mr. Fusion,
Thanks for the correction. Alcohol is also legal, and regulated. A liquor license is difficult to obtain in many areas. But there are no “smoking licenses.”
Bye, Bobbo. I have no interest in your pedantic stuff. The money has spoken, and the bar and restaurant owners have left for more profitable areas. Dallas oldest Bar and Grill went bankrupt. Apparently they don’t want to argue with your ideas either.
#47, Cow-Paddy,
The odds of being hit by lightening are much more common than you think.
According to the U.S. National Weather Service, the odds of being struck by lightning — in your lifetime — are 1 in 5,000.
The odds of being struck in any given year: 1 in 700,000.
http://lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
#52–Bubba==you keep blaming me as if its just my opinion if I correct your posting that 2+2=5. Its not 5, its 4. Thats not my opinion, just a reference to established “facts.”
You can over personalize an issue, as you continue to do, or you can deal with established facts. Something a scientist should go to first?
Its not me, but the legislative process in Dallas/Texas that has established the no smoking in restaurants rule. Business/Property owners rights do not trump everything else in society==again, not my opinion, just FACTS!!! I think reasonable ((you know what being reasonable is don’t you?)) people could disagree on whether or not employees should have a smoke free environment as a matter of health or if they should be left to the druthers of employers who don’t even offer health issurance as part of their benefits==which are portable any way 10 years later when you get emphysema from your job.
Yes, reasonable people could discuss this but you won’t. Thats ok. Some deep emotional nerve has been struck within you. If you are a tobacco addict==get some help. If you are a property owner that thinks as such you have a right to do whatever you want==get some help. We all have them. If you recognized this about yourself, I’d bet your approach would be stronger.
Should you continue to post on this subject, I will as well. Its only by learning the opponents position that your own position can be made stronger.
You don’t even know what I think because so far we have only engaged in what the law IS==regardless of what either of us think otherwise.
PS–you have insulted me to the core. “I” am a pragmatic, anti-theist, existentialist. Calling me Pedantic is about the worst thing you could do. My feelings are hurt.
# 53 Mr. Fusion said, “According to the U.S. National Weather Service, the odds of being struck by lightning â in your lifetime â are 1 in 5,000.”
Sit back and think about that. So, they’re saying that 1:5000 GET HIT by lightening in their lives. Obviously, that’s a crock.