Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

Don't get me wrong I believe we need the government (limited, small and barely a rumor is what I'd like to see). There is however, a difference in your drivers licence analogy, that is, the government is not trying to get rid of cars, and the government is not trying to tell you; you can only have five gallons of gas in your car at a time.

 

The Church is not for or against CC permits (I guess President Benson would be for them). I think the doctrine of being taught correct principles is perfect for this ideal as well. We don't need big brother to force us into one way when our own choices based upon correct principles is good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post

That is exactly my point. To keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

SEE post 20.

 

I don't believe I disagreed with you on that.

 

The only particularity I believe I have had is the pragmatics with respect to the required training (or lack of same) in order to qualify for a CCW.  The training programs which are required by the states which require them, are laughable.  Yet, for some strange reason, lack of training in those states which do not require it does not seem to have been the source of any significant problems when compared to the "required training" states.

 

That's all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't get me wrong I believe we need the government (limited, small and barely a rumor is what I'd like to see). There is however, a difference in your drivers licence analogy, that is, the government is not trying to get rid of cars, and the government is not trying to tell you; you can only have five gallons of gas in your car at a time.

 

The Church is not for or against CC permits (I guess President Benson would be for them). I think the doctrine of being taught correct principles is perfect for this ideal as well. We don't need big brother to force us into one way when our own choices based upon correct principles is good enough for me.

 

I'm not for big government either. Just one that can do what its citizens want it to do. IE; If a storm wipes out my house I have insurance to replace it. If I get sick I have insurance to pay the medical bills. I am very blessed with this world's goods and services. I also pay taxes so that other people's children can have the basics of life, including free to them schooling..

 

I've never argued for getting rid of all firearms. They are useful tools when used appropriately. They are also deadly if misused or put into the hands of those that shouldn't have them.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not for big government either. Just one that can do what its citizens want it to do. IE; If a storm wipes out my house I have insurance to replace it. If I get sick I have insurance to pay the medical bills. I am very blessed with this world's goods and services. I also pay taxes so that other people's children can have the basics of life, including free to them schooling..

 

I've never argued for getting rid of all firearms. They are useful tools when used appropriately. They are also deadly if misused or put into the hands of those that shouldn't have them.

 

The funny thing about federal government flood insurance (if that's what you're talking about) is that it has unintended consequences: it actually encourages people to build where their chances of getting flooded out are higher than usual.  Why?  Because Uncle Sugar will pay for it!  If a private casualty insurance company will not offer flood coverage for a particular place prone to flooding, or charges very  high premiums for it, then that's a market-based disincentive for building in a very stupid location.  And that's what we need the federal government for: to incentivize foolish behavior.

 

The Law of Unintended Consequences is not precisely a law of science, but it is more properly part of the science of economics.  As opposed to economic wishfulness, which is what too many economists (and politicians) seem to prefer following.

 

LUC leads to some very odd outcomes, too.  I applaud seat-belt laws, and wear them consistently, for obvious reasons.  But I believe that a study has found that the wearing of seat belts has caused a certain increase in the amount of risky driving (and hence accidents), due to the extra security that that the belts provide drivers.  This is not a reason for driving unbuckled, but a reminder that almost always: You Can't Do Just One Thing. 

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing is idiot proof. ;):lol:

 

And if there ever were something that really was idiot proof, the Universe would simply evolve a better idiot.  :D

Share this post


Link to post

The shooting took place in Orem, but UVRMC is a few miles down the road in Provo (there is a Macey's grocery store across the street from UVRMC, so that's probably where the error came from).

 ..................................................................  

Thanks for the correction, smac.

Share this post


Link to post

...............................................  

 

The Church is not for or against CC permits (I guess President Benson would be for them). I think the doctrine of being taught correct principles is perfect for this ideal as well. We don't need big brother to force us into one way when our own choices based upon correct principles is good enough for me.

What would Brother Brigham have said to any Mormon asking the question?  What would he have advised Orrin Porter Rockwell?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...