Guns for All? Churches Remain with the Right to Say 'No'

  With the shooting at the church in White Settlement, Texas, I can see the benefit of guns in the church. It is hard to deny the benefit served by allowing those parishioners to bring their guns. It clearly saved the day (save for the three lives that were lost).
   Lest you think mine is a change of my opinion from what I have had in the past, I don't think so. I have argued for allowing private security. Though unpaid, those who brought their guns were specified by the church management. It wasn't open season. Not everyone in the congregation was free to bring their guns. Those who did, were cleared to do so, thus allowing a degree of discretion. If all could bring their guns, the danger of their being used, and the reality that those guns might end up being used -- same as the assailant in this case ended up using his -- would remain.
   The proliferation of guns does not lead to a reduction in their use. When you deploy them, it should be with discretion. You want guns to defend, but that is as far as you go.
   Churches have the right to say what can and cannot be done on their property. Yes, the Second Amendment does say we shall not infringe of the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not extend to bringing them onto private property if the private property owner doesn't want them there. Property rights are also part of the Constitution. If the property owner can say who can and cannot come on his property, he can say whether he will allow them to bring guns.

(Note: One sentence, "Property rights are also part of the Constitution," added Jan. 2.)