to read article without registration, try www.bugmenot.com
I guess all restaraunts should not have to post signs banning smoking due to gubmint mandate- it might make the patrons feel "unwelcomed".Private property, right? oh nevermind, smokers and gun owners have no rights,I forgot.If I want to take a person to court for trespassing, I have to 1) either have a sign posted ,or 2) tell them to leave.Do the churches have extra, special rights?
1 posted on
08/02/2005 10:29:44 AM PDT by
Rakkasan1
To: Rakkasan1
I say we give em the right to force guns to be kept at the door, as long as churches can bar gays from walkin in the door with their guns.
2 posted on
08/02/2005 10:32:10 AM PDT by
kharaku
(G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
To: Rakkasan1
"Religious institutions should have the right to control their own property and to be able to worship without firearms,'' said David Lillehaug, attorney for Edina Community Lutheran Church
You do have the right to worship without firearms. Put up a sign, you moron. Of course, I wouldn't want to go to a church that advertises itself as a gun-free zone.
3 posted on
08/02/2005 10:34:33 AM PDT by
andyk
(Go Matt Kenseth!)
To: Rakkasan1
Hopefully some Texas Freeper will be able to set the record straight on this. I thought that I remembered hearing that Texas had churches as off-limits for CCW during the first year or two of it's CCW law, but after high numbers of collection-plate robberies, later changed the CCW law to allow CCW in churches. Anyone?
4 posted on
08/02/2005 10:37:41 AM PDT by
Hat-Trick
(Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
To: Rakkasan1
"Religious institutions should have the right to control their own property and to be able to worship without firearms,'' said David LillehaugTypical religious hypocrisy. They'd be the first to scream in outrage if the government passed laws making illegal to be a Lutheran or a Unitarian, but although they want ot wallow in religious freedom, they don't want anyone else to exercise rights in other areas.
5 posted on
08/02/2005 10:37:47 AM PDT by
from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
To: Rakkasan1
7 posted on
08/02/2005 10:41:03 AM PDT by
ButThreeLeftsDo
(Carry Daily, Apply Sparingly)
To: Rakkasan1
He who does not have a gun should sell his jackett and buy one.
Mylo
He who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
Jesus
8 posted on
08/02/2005 10:47:12 AM PDT by
Mylo
("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
To: Rakkasan1
"ECLC is a Reconciling in Christ congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It is a community where all are welcome in every aspect of congregational life."
"What does it mean that ECLC is a "Reconciling in Christ" congregation?
"Reconciling in Christ is our congregations declaration that we welcome gay, lesbian and transgender people into leadership and membership at ECLC."
Pastor Pam Fickenscher
" advocating for domestic abuse victims in the 1980s and against expanded gun permit legislation in the early 21st century
" standing with native Americans at Wounded Knee in the 1970s and with women seeking ordination in the late 1960s "
9 posted on
08/02/2005 10:47:46 AM PDT by
PAR35
To: Rakkasan1
Unity Church Unitarian in St. Paul. I worked for a manager who is a member of that church. Sociopathic backstabbing liberal.
More Twin Cities ninnies that have an obsession about running other peoples lives.
10 posted on
08/02/2005 10:53:18 AM PDT by
Fred Hayek
(Liberalism is a mental disorder)
To: Rakkasan1
"The churches contend that worshippers should be welcomed in a more hospitable manner rather than a demand that they leave their guns elsewhere."
Then don't make that demand. You don't have some sort of right to make the government make that demand for all churches, just because you don't want to have to tell your congregation that you don't trust them yourselves or don't want to post a sign that demonstrates your views.
This isn't an attempt to keep guns out of their church, the law gives them the ability to do that insofar as a law is capable of doing so. This is about the ability to restrict guns from all churches, even ones where the church's leadership believes they are necessary for their congregations protection.
This is about controlling other people. Even worse, it's about controlling law abiding people, because laws have no real effect on stopping criminals from carrying guns.
To: Rakkasan1
Anyone who wants to sit defenseless in their church hasn't been following societal changes at home or social trends abroad very closely.
16 posted on
08/02/2005 11:38:22 AM PDT by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: Rakkasan1
I thought firearms were one of the reasons that churches were able have services without the government's permission!
18 posted on
08/02/2005 11:56:30 AM PDT by
doubleaught
(Once a king always a king but once a knight is enough!)
To: Rakkasan1
If a church is true private property, lets check the property tax bill and receipts. Surely the Padre can tell the parishioners to leave the Iron at home. Put some ice on it.
To: Rakkasan1
If you're carrying concealed, people aren't supposed to know about it.
23 posted on
08/02/2005 12:42:15 PM PDT by
shekkian
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson