J_dazzle23 wrote:I'm sorry guys....but both of you- you're cracking me up here.
I don't think I cracked you up. It is clear I've offended you. And for that I'm sorry. It was and is not my intention. If you are encouraging folks to contact LDS leaders while obeying the law and policy, then I can't fault that a bit. But I missed it and I apologize for that as well. Please forgive me.
J_dazzle23 wrote:I also have been giving it quite a bit of thought since the thread piped up, and continued to do so through your comment. So please don't discredit my thoughts on the matter by simply assuming I didn't read or think about your points. You have made the same ones repeatedly.
I know I'm verbose. It turns some folks off. But I really think there is value to some discussion and back and forth. And I'm noticing that most of those who periodically express various degrees of cavalier-ness about the church/home gun ban and LDS policy don't much care to discuss.
You and I usually have a good discussion even when we disagree as we did on capital punishment. But on this issue, you asked a question about the non-religious difference between carrying into an LDS Church and into a Costco. Turns out you didn't really want to discuss that as when the answer was provided you immediately changed course to something else.
That is your right, of course. But it caused me to question the reason for your inquiry. Was it really to understand the legal, political, or other differences? Was it to suggest that because I carry into Costco others are equally justified in carrying into churches that have banned guns? Was it to encourage equal deference to business policies as to church/home policies and State law? I have no idea.
What Mel and I have written is not that the issue isn't worthy of discussion. It is that there can be no hint of violating the law or policy. The political costs are too high (completely ignoring any personal religious costs, which for active members of a faith that does ban guns, I think are likely to be quite high, eventually).
As I wrote previously, I think folks ought to treat Utah laws on banning guns in churches and private homes very much the same way they treat the laws on machine guns, silencers, etc. We can complain about and disagree with such laws all day long. We can consider how we might get such laws repealed. We can explain why repealing the laws is a really good idea. But no sensible gun owner would ever even joke or hint or make thinly veiled hypotheticals in any public setting about violating class III laws. Indeed, most posts complaining about class III laws will include some disclaimer (at least implicit) that the poster is obeying the laws no matter how much he dislikes them.
I believe that needs to be the tone and message of posts regarding the LDS church gun ban.
All the best.