Mississippi Senate okays Christian militias

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So apparently church-goers in Mississippi can now walk around packing without licences. Further, churches can now train members to act as in-house security and members will be offered legal protections on par with law enforcement for acting in the course of said duties.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/mis...ccountable-soldiers-of-god-as-armed-security/

Does anyone think turning churches into armed camps; members of the congregation into literal 'soldiers of God' is in any way a good idea?

 

[Nietzsche]

So apparently church-goers in Mississippi can now walk around packing without licences. Further, churches can now train members to act as in-house security and members will be offered legal protections on par with law enforcement for acting in the course of said duties.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/mis...ccountable-soldiers-of-god-as-armed-security/

Does anyone think turning churches into armed camps; members of the congregation into literal 'soldiers of God' is in any way a good idea?

They better equally respect my right to sail in through the fog, raven banner straining in the gale, torch and axe in hand as I prepare to demonstrate the frailty of their Hvítakristr

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

They better equally respect my right to sail in through the fog, raven banner straining in the gale, torch and axe in hand as I prepare to demonstrate the frailty of their Hvítakristr

I don't know what that last word means but I'm close to drooling at the thought of you doing this.

 

[Valjean]

Christian militias? Sounds kind of oxymoronic.

Maybe just moronic...

 

[freethinker44]

It hasn't passed yet, and probably won't. Also, it's clearly unconstitutional.

would also block state officials from enforcing federal regulations or executive orders that would conflict with the state constitution.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, states try to pass bat-**** crazy laws all the time.

 

[YmirGF]

It hasn't passed yet, and probably won't. Also, it's clearly unconstitutional.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, states try to pass bat-**** crazy laws all the time.

Yeah, seriously, what could go wrong, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

So apparently church-goers in Mississippi can now walk around packing without licences. Further, churches can now train members to act as in-house security and members will be offered legal protections on par with law enforcement for acting in the course of said duties.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/mis...ccountable-soldiers-of-god-as-armed-security/

Does anyone think turning churches into armed camps; members of the congregation into literal 'soldiers of God' is in any way a good idea?

The sky-is-falling linked article conflicts somewhat with the ABC News version of the story (which is still slanted against gun rights).....
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mississippi-sen-favors-allowing-armed-security-churches-38015488
I see some problems with the bill, but not with church members being armed.

 

[BSM1]

They better equally respect my right to sail in through the fog, raven banner straining in the gale, torch and axe in hand as I prepare to demonstrate the frailty of their Hvítakristr

Not too sure how your axe and torch thingy will fair against a Glock.

 

[Kori]

They better equally respect my right to sail in through the fog, raven banner straining in the gale, torch and axe in hand as I prepare to demonstrate the frailty of their Hvítakristr

Don't count on it. Pagan Religions are not real and does not get 1st Amendment protection.

Who want's to start a Norse Militia?

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't count on it. Pagan Religions are not real and does not get 1st Amendment protection.
Who want's to start a Norse Militia?

It doesn't appear that the legislation is about militias at all, Xian or otherwise.
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resourc...arry-rights-gun-permit-holders-extra-training

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't know what that last word means but I'm close to drooling at the thought of you doing this.

Hvitakristr is Old Norse for "White Christ".

 

[Jainarayan]

Not too sure how your axe and torch thingy will fair against a Glock.

Stealth. We learned after the first time 1,000 years ago.

 

[Jainarayan]

Who want's to start a Norse Militia?

Callng all Vikingtrúar! Calling all Brosatrúar!

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So apparently church-goers in Mississippi can now walk around packing without licences. Further, churches can now train members to act as in-house security and members will be offered legal protections on par with law enforcement for acting in the course of said duties.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/mis...ccountable-soldiers-of-god-as-armed-security/

Does anyone think turning churches into armed camps; members of the congregation into literal 'soldiers of God' is in any way a good idea?

People will only seek to defend themselves if they feel threatened.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So apparently church-goers in Mississippi can now walk around packing without licences. Further, churches can now train members to act as in-house security and members will be offered legal protections on par with law enforcement for acting in the course of said duties.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/mis...ccountable-soldiers-of-god-as-armed-security/

Does anyone think turning churches into armed camps; members of the congregation into literal 'soldiers of God' is in any way a good idea?

I'm confused. But I'm an outsider, so perhaps that explains it.
Apart from the name of the bill, and the way it is presented by those seeking it's implementation, what is there in this that is Church related? Isn't it more related to permitless carry?
I'm missing the nuance of what defining church members as 'security guards' actually means legally, I think. Do they then get powers above and beyond other citizens?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

People will only seek to defend themselves if they feel threatened.

You think people have the right to defend themselves when they feel threatened?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

You think people have the right to defend themselves when they feel threatened?

Rights.

Did any of you realize that the term 'rights' actually originates from the word 'write',
as during medieval times, if you had a 'writ' for something, then you had a document from the King
which said that he reckoned you owned whatever you had that 'writ' for.

So the King could sign a parchment saying that you had a 'right to a piece of land'
then if someone tried to invade that land, the King would send some of his cronies to shift person off that land.

So the very concept of 'right' was always simply a medieval legal privilege.
Backed up by weapons.

So the 'right' to carry arms, is in a way a bit of a redundancy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Rights.

Did any of you realize that the term 'rights' actually originates from the word 'write',
as during medieval times, if you had a 'writ' for something, then you had a document from the King
which said that he reckoned you owned whatever you had that 'writ' for.

So the King could sign a parchment saying that you had a 'right to a piece of land'
then if someone tried to invade that land, the King would send some of his cronies to shift person off that land.

So the very concept of 'right' was always simply a medieval legal privilege.
Backed up by weapons.

So the 'right' to carry arms, is in a way a bit of a redundancy.

Nope, it's really not.
Where the concept of 'rights' originally came from is one thing, but you're talking about a system which basically recognized a King as the nearest thing on Earth to God. Unless you were a Catholic, I guess. Regardless, whatever the case WAS, that is no longer the case, even in the most traditional of monarchies globally. I'll happily talk medieval sociology with you until the cows come home, since it's an interest, but in terms of this topic, it's a tangent.

I didn't ask whether you believed people had the right to carry. Let's just say they do. My actual question stands : Do people have the right to defend themselves when they feel threatened?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Nope, it's really not.
Where the concept of 'rights' originally came from is one thing, but you're talking about a system which basically recognized a King as the nearest thing on Earth to God. Unless you were a Catholic, I guess. Regardless, whatever the case WAS, that is no longer the case, even in the most traditional of monarchies globally. I'll happily talk medieval sociology with you until the cows come home, since it's an interest, but in terms of this topic, it's a tangent.

I didn't ask whether you believed people had the right to carry. Let's just say they do. My actual question stands : Do people have the right to defend themselves when they feel threatened?

Not sure what you question means.

Are you saying:
A) Should people defend themselves if they feel threatened?
B) Should the government allow people to defend themselves if they feel threatened?
C) Should I allow people to defend themselves if they feel threatened?

In the case of :
A) They will
B) If they feel threatened by the gobbermint, then they still will
C) Regardless of what I attempt, they will still defend themselves if threatened

 

[Milton Platt]

So apparently church-goers in Mississippi can now walk around packing without licences. Further, churches can now train members to act as in-house security and members will be offered legal protections on par with law enforcement for acting in the course of said duties.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/mis...ccountable-soldiers-of-god-as-armed-security/

Does anyone think turning churches into armed camps; members of the congregation into literal 'soldiers of God' is in any way a good idea?

Seems redundant....they already have the KKK