|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Guns in Churches? Pastors Debate Church Security
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Texas legislature is considering a law that would allow churches to hire security officers. Many Wichita Falls churches have security, but not everyone believes armed guards belong in church. "If you think you need to have a gun to go to church, or have someone there to guard you, it makes me wonder if we need to test the depth of our faith," Cheryl Murray, Pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church, said. "Maybe we are just sticking our big toe in the shallow end instead of diving all in." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/1/2017)
|
| Naïveté will get you killed. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(2/1/2017)
|
| Churches in Northern Alabama do not have the expense of hiring an armed guard. A large fraction of our congregations are presently armed. Families know that our churches will not become targets. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
