Ohio’s carry conceal automatically excludes churches from the permit. A church has to allow permit holders to carry. This shooting in Knoxville is a good example of liberal thinking. Men blocking bullets is heroic. Men dieing to save children is heroic. What is disturbing is that few would see the answer as a hero with a carry conceal permit to pull his gun and take out the shooter permanently. While this congregation and society “ponder what to do” and “what answers can we find”… the answer is obvious. Allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves wherever they are. In doing so they will save many lives.
A side note on this tragic shooting. I doubt that will be the conclusion of this congregation. However, according to Universalism’s teaching they shouldn’t find a problem with taking a life. Everyone in the end will be in heaven according to Wikepedia.
The defining theology of Universalism is universal salvation; Universalists believe that the God of love would not create a person knowing that that person would be destined for eternal damnation. Thus, they concluded that any existing person must be destined for salvation. In other respects Universalists followed orthodox Christian doctrine, simply expanding the number of the saved to include all persons. Some Universalists believe that Hell exists as a temporary abode for those who have died unreconciled to God, but where God continues to work with the souls in Hell and will lead them eventually to the salvation God intends for all persons. Other Universalists, notably Hosea Ballou, denied the existence of Hell entirely.
What is problematic is that many liberal churches believe that the love of life prohibit the taking of life. Where is the love of life when the only lives a person can take are innocent lives. This wicked man comes to only kill and steal life. It is the responsibility of the adults to protect all life but the murderer standing and point a gun at the youth. It’s time for all states to allow permit holders with their weapon in churches.
(CBS/AP) Members of a Knoxville church are in mourning after a gunman opened fire at a youth performance, killing two people and injuring seven others….
Fifty-eight-year-old Jim D. Adkisson is in custody and charged with first-degree murder in the shootings at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville. He is being held on a millionRight after the play had started, we were sitting there and heard a loud explosion,” Terry Uselton told CBS’ The Early Show. “Couldn’t figure out what was going on; we thought maybe it was something with the lighting or something went wrong. Heard a second explosion. And then I turned around to look and saw a man standing in the doorway with a gun. And so I got up from my seat and started toward him.”
Uselton helped tackle Adkisson to the ground.
He said, being a teacher, he has thought through scenarios of how to protect children in the event of a school shooting. “This is one of those cases,” Uselton said. “That was my thought: ‘Somebody’s got to stop this guy.’”
Another witness told the newspaper that the man killed was a hero.
“Greg McKendry stood in the front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest of us,” Barbara Kemper said.
McKendry’s foster son Taylor Bessette watched it happen.
“He stood in front of the bullets between the child and the gunman and actually took the bullets to save the child,” said Bessette.
6 Responses
If this is the best response you can come up with to rationalize the shooting in Tennessee, then it is apparent that conservative thought processes are running low on fuel. You so miss the bigger picture. Perhaps it is time for you to study to renew your perspective on life, politics, and firearms.
Posted on July 30th, 2008 at 7:19 am
It is the liberal mindset that is out of fuel. How can anyone say this is rationalizing the shooting? Have another Starbucks and think again.
It is only the liberal mindset that leaves the innocent unprotected from the sludge of society.
Posted on July 30th, 2008 at 8:37 am
If our church decided they wanted an armed presence, I’d be happy to oblige, but why would I possibly want to carry a concealed weapon? If you are going to prevent someone from shooting up a church, seeing pistols on a few hips or in shoulder rigs would probably be more effective than concealed weapons. Besides, you can get to it faster.
Or if my church really wants a deterrent, let someone sit near the entrance, or in the parking lot with a shotgun. It would cut down on occasional car break-in during the service too.
Posted on August 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be banned in California?
Posted on August 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 am
Here is a prime example of how important it is to use caution when citing Wikipedia as a source. The passage quoted is a very generalizing summation, that in reality is highly ineffective in describing what the average Unitarian Universalist believes. In fact, more so than alot of denominations, it would be very difficult to sum up what “the average Unitarian Universalist” believes, because there is so much diversity among the congregation when it comes to spiritual beliefs. This is especially true when it comes to beliefs in the afterlife. And to say “According to Universalism’s teachings,” would make alot of UU’s chuckle. UU’s are a diverse mix. There are atheists, agnostics, and pagans. There are those who come from Jewish, Catholic and protestant upbringings. Many of which retain aspects of those belief systems. It would be similar to saying “northerners like hockey.”
Posted on August 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Many Northerners do like hocky. Certainly not everyone but enough to make the general point.
So you are making the point that no one knows what a UU believes and more importantly that it really doesn’t matter what they believe.I doubt that you will be willing to say there are UU’s who believe and live in such a way that sends them to the hot spot… Am I right?
Posted on August 19th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Add A Comment