u/Averagecrabenjoyer69

I mean don't get me wrong I've considered it myself lol. However almost every waterfowl hunter I talk always mentions about upgrading to a semi auto, its about time to upgrade, or its guys that already have semi autos that expect it. All of this seems to be in the context of its tradition and a rite of passage. I experienced it myself the first couple times I went duck hunting with a buddy at a leased blind. I had a Benelli Nova pump 12 gauge and of course my buddy and the other guys there had bottomland semi autos. Well they looked at my gun and gave me the side eye, and then my buddy explained I was new to duck hunting and they were like "ohhhh okay that makes sense". I still use that pump and when I talk to other waterfowlers a lot of time the reaction is like "oh...well okay". I meet very few duck hunters who are content with their pumps or SxSs.

The historical precedent is open carry had much more constitutional backing than concealed carry.

Louisiana

"In State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had the right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defense of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."

https://guncite.com/court/state/5la489.html

Kentucky

Holland v. Kentucky (1956), the final decision stating, "We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon openly, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer's right so to do."

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/1956/294-s-w-2d-83-1.html

North Carolina

State v. Kerner (1921)"We are of the opinion, however, that "pistol" ex vi termini is properly included within the word "arms," and that the right to bear such arms unconcealed cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as "arms" of offense and defense is beyond controversy"

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-kerner-2#:\~:text=In%20State%20v.,was%20not%20concealed)%20was%20unconstitutional.

Alabama

THE STATE V. REID.

"1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly, or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution"

"That the statute under which the defendant was convicted, did not impair that right, while it proposed to discountenance by punishment, a practice which had been greatly promotive of violence and bloodshed. (p.614)Every man was still left free to carry arms openly, the only manner in which they could be used for defensive purposes."

https://guncite.com/court/state/1al612.html

Georgia

Nunn v. State "We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void"

https://guncite.com/court/state/1ga243.html

Mississippi

"Article 3, Bill of Rights, Section 12. The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/mississippi-open-carry-gun-law/2735671/

Tennessee

1840 "Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the state’s concealed weapons ban.125 Finding that “the right to bear arms in defence of themselves is coupled with the right to bear them in defence of the State,” and that arms used in defense of the state “must necessarily be borne openly,” the court held that only the open carry of weapons could be protected by Tennessee’s Second Amendment analogue."

Idaho

1902 " Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages. The legislature may, as expressly provided in our state constitution, regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it. A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state"

https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/IDSupremeCtBrickeyRulingOnOpenCarry1902.pdf

Michigan

"The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear (in the defense of himself or the State, subject to legislative regulation), must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State"

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-brown-4009

Vermont

"Under the general laws, therefore, a person not a member of a school may carry a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed"

https://guncite.com/court/state/55a610.html

This is sort of a follow up from my previous post. I myself am a Southern Baptist and my wife a pretty passionate Pentecostal. If you want the previous details it is in the past post so I won't repeat here. To summarize we're not leaving the Southern Baptist church we've been attending because I disagree with or am disillusioned by the SBC, but rather a theological disagreement on church membership. However to preserve unity of one flesh, and to exercise patience, we're looking for a church with less emphasis on membership(preferably not a Pentecostal church either). There's a local Presbyterian church that is PCUSA, and from what I've heard and researched they do have a formal membership but don't put heavy emphasis on it and the church themselves states they serve both members and non members in worship.

We've never been to a Presbyterian church, so not completely sure what to expect. To lay it out we are both conservative, live in the South, believe in Sola Scriptura in its totality, I myself have respect for the Church as an institution but we're both low church just my wife significantly more so than me. What are things to know or expect? I'm trying to be open minded from SBC creed, and my wife wants Scripture based and less emphasis on the membership aspect.

It seems my wife and I have come to a schism of sorts. I'm a Southern Baptist born and raised, she's a pretty passionate Pentecostal. We've mostly agreed on everything biblically and we've been attending a Southern Baptist church the last several months. My wife is vehemently against church membership and since we've been going we've technically been "visitors", and the pastor and congregation have put out friendly feelers that they'd like us to join. Which I understand why, we've been a good fit, attend regularly, and have been involved in helping things like VBS. Which being raised as a Southern Baptist has always made sense to me, and not in the sense that just one particular denomination is right, but more so whatever church you choose regardless of denomination you should be dedicated to it, and membership is a sign of that. However things came to a bit of a head today, we traded scripture. While I'm not a high church man by any means I do believe the "Church" is an established institution, whereas my wife feels that the "Church" isn't an institution but rather just the spiritual body of believers. I mentioned of course passages from Matthew, Hebrews, Acts, 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Revelations 2 and 3, and that positions like priests, pastors, or deacons are dedicated positions in a church hierarchy and not just symbolic positions of prestige, but she believes that church membership is man made and not biblical and that treating the Church as an structural institution with rules and hierarchy rather than just a fellowship of believers is from man not Jesus.

Sooo all in all its put me in a hard space. I told her that while I am supposed to heed her advice, it is still my responsibility as head of the house/family to lead us where I feel God is calling us spiritually. She says that while she feels that our particular pastor is biblical in terms of Scripture, but finds the service bland and misses "worship with some fire and charisma" she can't get behind church membership and baptism being required to join the church even if previously saved, and would have to disobey me if I tried to get us to formally join as members.

I love my wife dearly and in most such cases she's been "submissive" in a biblical manner and I have strived to love and respect her as Christ loved the Church. In order to preserve unity, I've told her we can try churches that don't formally require membership but it will be difficult and whatever church we pick too we need to dedicate too. She asked what I meant by that and I had to clarify I meant serving and being involved in the church not necessarily joining as members.

The only churches I'm aware of that don't put any emphasis on membership have been non denominational, certain independent churches, Church of Christ, and a lot of Pentecostal churches. The more I've attended church and read the Bible the more I've believed that respecting and being involved in the church as a structured institution matters and not just the willy nilly of non denominational churches, I would rather remain with the SBC than an Independent or Reformed Baptist church, and I haven't had the best experience with Pentecostal churches as I disagree with many of their interpretations regarding modesty in clothing, alcohol, and allowing women as preachers. On top of the claim that one must speak in tongues as proof of salvation in some Pentecostal circles.

All in all my heart is heavy and I must give myself to prayer and guidance of the Lord in this matter. My wife and I love and value each other and we swore our vows sacred. We don't believe in separation or divorce if physical infidelity isn't committed nor do I believe it to be cause for such circumstances. She is my first priority, as is serving the Lord. Prayers and advice are welcome. Lord Jesus guide me and put it on both our hearts to grow ever closer with each other and You.

Specifically Southern Baptist/SBC vs Pentecostal not Northern/American Baptist, Reformed Baptist, or Independent Baptist.

If so does that make you reconsider their position as beibg heretics vs being Christian? I'm not as well read on their movement and theology beyond the understanding that they traditionally denied the Trinity and Nicene Creed and were therefore heretics.

I've heard many try to argue that the Old Testament verses are referring to pedastry rather than homosexuality. However they also tend to ignore New Testament references. Even if you accept that the OT isn't explicitly condemning homosexuality. The NT is prettu direct that marriage is meant for one man and one woman, so any justification for gay marriage is out the window. The NT referencing sexual desires of men for men and women for women as unnatural and otherwise sinful. How do some of these churches justify affirming that sin? Its as if they think God will overlook large sections of His Word for some larger philosophy of kumbaya or that you can opt out of pieces of Scripture you find offensive.

That's not the only subject of course, I had a post on here regarding what Scripture says about women submitting to their husbands and defined roles in a marriage while husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loves the church. One commenter said that while Christ's Word does command women to submit to their husbands, they said it was still misogynistic as if that piece of Scripture was flawed or offensive. Another commenter said he did the extra chores and let his wife have her way because it guaranteed good sex, which still flies in the face of Scripture.

Can anyone give me the view point of these types of churches or if you're a more liberal Christian and believe these, what is your basis?

Scripture for reference.

From the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”’ (Mark 10:6-8).

Romans 1:26-27

‘For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.’

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.’

Genesis 2:22–24 “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Matthew 19:4-6 : "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

1 Corinthians 7:2 : "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

I found it rather funny because as a Southern Baptist there is some truth to it. We can be somewhat suspicious of Pentecostal churches, despite largely sharing the same theology. Baptists particularly the SBC is low church, but I like to think that we still have respect for the church as an institution amd tradition, even if not to the point of Catholics or even Presbyterians. Pentecostals are about as low church as you can get with only the vaguest concept of the church as an institution, one step before non-denominational really. I've discovered since first meeting my wife who was Pentecostal, that Pentecostals don't believe in the concept of church membership and have little regard for seminaries and the man of the cloth as a formalized position. I've also been suspicious of speaking in tongues(not denying speaking in tongues as it is biblical, but I do question the commonality sometimes), and I've always disagreed with Pentecostal interpretations on things like alcohol(moderation is fine, and I disagree with prohibitionists and teetotalers as much as I do drunkards, gluttony is just as much a sin and applies to sweets too) and modest dress.

However I'm curious of the Pentecostal perspective of Baptists particularly Southern Baptists. Are we too boring and stiff? What are the Pentecostal opinions of high churches? What separates Pentecostals from Non-denominationals at this point?

I want to do some more scouting and prep work, but my word all this heat and humidity just kills my motivation. Its gonna be 90+ again with a 100+ heat index and humid down here in Kentucky & Tennessee. Squirrel season kicked it off in Kentucky, our opening dove is tomorrow, and opening archery season for deer is Saturday. Its miserable, I had been wanting to squirrel hunt some but I just can't get myself to fight the snakes, ticks, mosquitoes, and poison ivy for them, and my work schedule takes up my mornings. For those of y'all that do it, how do you do it?

Ughh I'm so ready for fall flannel weather.

I watched this video of this older couple that got pulled over by a cop, y'all may know what I'm referencing. Before the cop can even finish his sentence the husband says "hollld on there buddy" and steps out of the vehicle. Cop asks if he's had anything to drink, older guys says some today, cop wants him to take a breathalyzer test and the older guy is bewildered. The cop then asks his wife if he's drunk any alcohol and the wife says absolutely not. The cop then asks the man what he's drank today, and he says "oh a couple dr peppers, and a water I think". "So you've had no alcohol?", "no sir not at all".

There's also still older folks that still leave their doors unlocked, they're still high targets for identity theft and getting taken advantage of, etc.

Why do older folks seem so naively or innocently minded? Like the dude in that video thought the cop was asking if he was hydrated, instead of common sense saying if you get pulled over and asked if you've been drinking its in reference to alcohol.

Hey y'all, my wife and I are planning on taking around a week long or so trip to Alaska roughly around June 2028. We're from Kentucky and planning on flying out of Nashville, lay over in Seattle, flying into Anchorage, and renting a vehicle. From there we're interested in renting a cabin not far from the National Park. Ideally we'd like to get as much hiking, sight seeing, amd wildlife viewing as much as possible. Seeing Mount Denali is a big one for us, and we'd maybe like to do a little fishing since that'll be around the salmon run. What are some tips and advice y'all would offer to better the trip?

• Its my understanding that Alaska is a constitutional carry state for open and concealed carry. While we'll have bear spray, I prefer to have a firearm. I've considered either flying with a pistol or having a shotgun mailed via USPS. Is long gun open carry pretty common in town? I understand bears and moose are a big deal.

• We'd prefer not to take the bus tour to Denali, how far in the park can we go by personal vehicle?

• There's a thousand different cabin choices and quite a few look more like modern hotels. We want more of the rustic with a fireplace experience. Any suggestions?

• How about food and buying groceries vs eating out?

• We plan on spending a good amount in the interior, but we'd like to see some coastal area. What would be the best way to go about that?

• Anything in particular we should check out?

I've met a few people that once you talk to them on the subject. That openly acknowledge the existence of God and even Christ and admit we live as His creation. Yet they still refuse Him and do their own thing. How does one even go about this in life? You accept that God exists, you live within His realm, and even that He's all powerful, but you either think He's unjust or refuse to worship the Lord. How does such a mindset exist?