rulemylife
Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife why is safety an issue? Isn't the whole event designed to prove these people are safe? Is it? I got the impression from the article (go figure) that it was about celebrating, "the birth of our nation," and showing, "we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here." quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife The second question is whether the insurance argument is a smokescreen to gain his fifteen minutes of fame promoting something he truly doesn't believe in. I mean, do Wal-Marts, Home Depots, TGIFridays, or Denny's prohibit concealed carry due to insurance requirements? If you weren't having so much fun that you neglected to think, it might have occurred to that maybe the church's insurance (if it can afford any at all) doesn't cover, eh? K. Well, since you responded to my post you must have read it, yet you only restated the points I was disagreeing with. And apparently you missed these quotes from the pastor in the link: He said recent church shootings, including the killing Sunday of a late-term abortion provider in Kansas, which he condemned, highlight the need to promote safe gun ownership. .........."Firearms can be evil and they can be useful," he said. "We're just trying to promote responsible gun ownership and gun safety." So it would seem he is not celebrating the relation of firearms to the birth of the nation but using the holiday in an attempt to prove what he said in the quotes above. You don't need to encourage people to show up with guns to a 4th of July event unless there is a political agenda. Which again brings me to the question of how he is promoting safe gun ownership when he doesn't trust his own parishioners to be safe with loaded guns in their own church. As far as the insurance issue, I believe I covered that earlier and you did not address how it is that every other business and organization in states with concealed carry laws have not found the need to ban what is legal under the law due to insurance restrictions. And more to the point, if the insurance company did so is that not an acknowledgment that, based on pure statistical analysis, they believe that the risk of a large group of armed people congregated in one place is too great?
|