Swords Into Plowshares

[ERayR]

I'd also like to add that there are lots of easily accessible things that can be used to commit mass murders. We cannot remove the tool, we can only change the user.

If you want to do the research I think you will find the most loss of life in a mass killing of school children was caused by dynamite.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with your statement above. So I don;t understand how you think we differ. Please clarify why you disagree with me. Think it's likely there's a misunderstanding.

I misread the intent of your post. My apologies.

[ERayR]

In ten states, you are more likely to be killed by a gun than in a car accident (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington). See here.

The violence Policy Center is not exactly an unbiased source of information. While there statistics may be correct their implied assertions are not. As an example take Arizona. The gun deaths in Arizona includes the steep spike in border deaths by illegal aliens and drug runners. Not exactly a good argument for disarming law abiding citizens.

[ERayR]

I am not LDS but I feel strongly about the 2nd amendment.

In all truth, If the 2nd ammendment were infringed, I would consider it an act of high treason and respond accordingly either standing alone or alongside whatever red blooded Americans that would stand on the principle that we would not see our republic handed over to tyranny.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

My friend just let me know where to stand.

[ERayR]

About 30,000 per year in the US.

We do. There are stringent safety controls on vehicles. Everything from fender size to seat belts to catalytic converters.

The most dangerous part of air travel is the trip to the air port by car.

And still the slaughter goes on. Time to ban private ownership of motor vehicles.

[ERayR]

How do you tell the good guy from the bad guy?

The bad guy is in my home pointing his gun at me or my family.

[Sky]

Are we going to side with the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart (all supposedly in the name of the second amendment), or the victims and survivors of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook shootings? Because they tend to be the ones making the strongest and most persuasive case for stricter gun control laws. See here.

And I'm not necessarily against the second amendment. But with gun ownership should come accountability and responsibility. I have no issue with wild-animal hunting as a sport. But nobody needs an assault rifle for that. I might even be in favor of confronting the video games and entertainment industry about the amount of gun violence depicted in their products.

But we as a country cannot continue to let these violent shootings happen and pretend that guns aren't a part of the problem. I realize that may make some people uncomfortable and run counter to their pre-conceived, ingrained ideas. But if we do nothing, it will only be a matter of time before another Aurora or Sandy Hook or Columbine happens again.

[Nathair/|\]

In ten states, you are more likely to be killed by a gun than in a car accident (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington). See here.

I've never seen a gun kill anything on it's own without a human controlling it.

[Nathair/|\]

How do you tell the good guy from the bad guy?

The bad guy is the one who initiates force.

[thesometimesaint]

And still the slaughter goes on. Time to ban private ownership of motor vehicles.

Actually the number of automobile deaths has been in decline for many years despite more cars and more miles driven.

The benefits of private ownership of cars outweighs the costs. Be it injuries, deaths, or traffic jams. I don't see any need to ban private ownership of cars or guns. However I do see a need to make both more safer and out of the hands of the determined and the demented.

[Nathair/|\]

Our own Church history should warn us about the dangers of being unable to resist a tyrannical government. Fortunately, we were able to resolve James Buchanan's attacks without bloodshed, but things didn't go so well against Governor Boggs.

[thesometimesaint]

The bad guy is in my home pointing his gun at me or my family.

By the time he is pointing that gun at you, or yours, it's a little too late. It wouldn't be a fair trade to me to watch one my grandchildren die, even if I killed the bad guy.

Add in that you are much more likely to kill a family member than you are the bad guy.

[ERayR]

Are we going to side with the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart (all supposedly in the name of the second amendment), or the victims and survivors of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook shootings? Because they tend to be the ones making the strongest and most persuasive case for stricter gun control laws. See here.

And I'm not necessarily against the second amendment. But with gun ownership should come accountability and responsibility. I have no issue with wild-animal hunting as a sport. But nobody needs an assault rifle for that. I might even be in favor of confronting the video games and entertainment industry about the amount of gun violence depicted in their products.

But we as a country cannot continue to let these violent shootings happen and pretend that guns aren't a part of the problem. I realize that may make some people uncomfortable and run counter to their pre-conceived, ingrained ideas. But if we do nothing, it will only be a matter of time before another Aurora or Sandy Hook or Columbine happens again.

Glad to hear you are not against the Constitution. What would be more comforting to me would be to hear you say you were in support of the Constitution. Indeed gun ownership should include accountability and for 99.9% of gun owners this is the case. None of these were done with assault rifles.

It is also commendable that you might even be in favor of confronting the video games and entertainment industry. Would you also be in favor of improving mental health care?

[thesometimesaint]

Our own Church history should warn us about the dangers of being unable to resist a tyrannical government. Fortunately, we were able to resolve James Buchanan's attacks without bloodshed, but things didn't go so well against Governor Boggs.

Sure. Take that AK and go up against a F-16 armed with Hellfire missiles. Moreover if a government is that tyrannical. What's to stop them from using a thermonuclear device?

[ERayR]

By the time he is pointing that gun at you, or yours, it's a little too late. It wouldn't be a fair trade to me to watch one my grandchildren die, even if I killed the bad guy.

Add in that you are much more likely to kill a family member than you are the bad guy.

Even when he is pointing the gun at me it is not too late. What evidence do you have that I am so incompetent with firearms that I am the one more likely to kill my family members than the "bad guy".

[teddyaware]

Are we going to side with the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart (all supposedly in the name of the second amendment), or the victims and survivors of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook shootings? Because they tend to be the ones making the strongest and most persuasive case for stricter gun control laws. See here.

And I'm not necessarily against the second amendment. But with gun ownership should come accountability and responsibility. I have no issue with wild-animal hunting as a sport. But nobody needs an assault rifle for that. I might even be in favor of confronting the video games and entertainment industry about the amount of gun violence depicted in their products.

But we as a country cannot continue to let these violent shootings happen and pretend that guns aren't a part of the problem. I realize that may make some people uncomfortable and run counter to their pre-conceived, ingrained ideas. But if we do nothing, it will only be a matter of time before another Aurora or Sandy Hook or Columbine happens again.

This country is in the process of ripening in iniquity. That's why there's so many mass killings. And in the not too distant future (if not sooner) the economy of this nation is very likely going to collapse. When that happens, there is going to be horrific chaos with social upheaval, rioting, food shortages, looting, plunder and armed preditory mobs. In addition, robbery, theft and all manner of violent criminal activities will become commonplace. And sadly, the downward slide into full wickedness will accelerate to brakeneck speed. And now, with this unimaginable national disaster looming at the very doors, many naive and uninformed people are clamoring to have removed from the US citizens the last constitutional line of defence against violent anarchy on one had, and govenmental tyranny on the other. What a mess. Only God can save us now...

Edited January 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[DavidB]

Sky, are we really going to side with auto industry. I respect the right to drive but no one needs a Lexus, BMW, or any other type vehicle. Families can have mini-vans limited too certain manufacturers, all persons will be limited in vehicle purchase based on demonstrable need, those who can not show a need may not purchase or otherwise drive a vehicle.

Edited January 12, 2013 by DavidB

[Nathair/|\]

Sure. Take that AK and go up against a F-16 armed with Hellfire missiles. Moreover if a government is that tyrannical. What's to stop them from using a thermonuclear device?

I'm sure Randy Weaver and his family would have appreciated a few AK-47s or M-16s. I'm sure Victoria Soto would have appreciated even a derringer.

A thermonuclear device on that scale is impractical.

[thesometimesaint]

Glad to hear you are not against the Constitution. What would be more comforting to me would be to hear you say you were in support of the Constitution. Indeed gun ownership should include accountability and for 99.9% of gun owners this is the case. None of these were done with assault rifles.

It is also commendable that you might even be in favor of confronting the video games and entertainment industry. Would you also be in favor of improving mental health care?

I like our Constitution, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every court decision regarding how it applies.

I've taken many oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

We don't make laws for those that would obey them anyway

Not true. http://www.motherjon...s-shootings-map

I think the warning labels are sufficient. I don't like first person shooter games, but I have no desire to ban them. I'm all in favor of censorship as long as it is the personal kind.

I'm absolutely for vastly increasing access to mental health providers.

Edited January 12, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Even when he is pointing the gun at me it is not too late. What evidence do you have that I am so incompetent with firearms that I am the one more likely to kill my family members than the "bad guy".

What makes you believe you are any faster or more accurate with your gun than the bad guy is with his?

Simple statistics my friend. You are 43 times more likely to kill a family member with that gun than you are the bad guy.

[ERayR]

I like our Constitution, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every court decision regarding how it applies.

I've taken many oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

We don't make laws for those that would obey them anyway

Not true. http://www.motherjon...s-shootings-map

I think the warning labels are sufficient. I don't like first person shooter games, but I have no desire to ban them. I'm all in favor of censorship as long as it is the personal kind.

I'm absolutely for vastly increasing access to mental health providers.

First, this post was in response to post 32 by Sky. I am not sure that your oaths are apropo. If we don't make laws for those that would obey them, why the call for more laws to burden those that do obey them if we don't expect obedience?

[BCSpace]

Given the statistics that gun ownership results in more friendly fire than enemy fire, it is debatable whether people need them even now.

There are no such statistics,

In any case, even the rationale of owning a gun for self-protection cannot justify many of the types of guns on the market today,

Incorrect. One of the reasons for the Second Amendment is to protect ourselves from out of control governments ("war against the king"). This reasoning was upheld recently in DC vs. Heller (2008).

and it is likely that in the coming year or so we will a major push (hopefully successfully) towards making the ownership of those guns, magazines, and bullets unlawful.

It is true that several states, such as Illinois where it originated, are still not in compliance with Heller. Considering history, we ought to thank God every day for the Second Amendment and the recent cases Heller(2008) and McDonald(2010) that will put the kibosh on current gun control attempts.

Of course there are those currently in power and those who cheer them on who blatantly flout the Constitution at every opportunity.

Will faithful Latter-day Saints who are avid supporters of the Second Amendment and the owners of guns and accessories that become illegal to possess obey the law and give them up?

Are you implying you don't support the Second Amendment?

Or will they find some higher moral law to justify violating the law?

I'm sure we would do whatever the Lord asks us to do.

Do we really need to wait on the Lord before beginning the process of beating our swords into plowshares?

It is official doctrine that the Constitution is inspired, so I would say the typical way to look at "swords into plowshares" is wrong. Rather, the Lord has directed us to be armed and prepared; the implied doctrine is therefore, peace through strength. Considering history, as long as the Lord is not personally reigning on the earth, is at least the same length of time we must be armed.

Therefore, I would say that it is incumbent upon faithful Latter-days Saints to resist these recent gun control efforts as that is what the Lord would want.

[BCSpace]

Are we going to side with the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart (all supposedly in the name of the second amendment), or the victims and survivors of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook shootings? Because they tend to be the ones making the strongest and most persuasive case for stricter gun control laws.

Incorrect. The only valid argument they've made is the case for being armed by choice. Disarmament leads to only one choice in situations like those. Calling 911 if possible before being killed. The choice to arm oneself is another choice that most people would rather have in such cases.

Edited January 12, 2013 by BCSpace

[Sky]

This country is in the process of ripening in iniquity. That's why there's so many mass killings. And in the not too distant future (if not sooner) the economy of this nation is very likely going to collapse. When that happens, there is going to be horrific chaos with social upheaval, rioting, food shortages, looting, plunder and armed preditory mobs. In addition, robbery, theft and all manner of violent criminal activities will become commonplace. And sadly, the downward slide into full wickedness will accelerate to brakeneck speed. And now, with this unimaginable national disaster looming at the very doors, many naive and uninformed people are clamoring to have removed from the US citizens the last constitutional line of defence against violent anarchy on one had, and govenmental tyranny on the other. Whay a mess. Only God can save us now...

Are you a prophet of doom and gloom? Because that's an awfully pessimistic view. Granted, there are many many problems in our country, and some of it may have been prophesied, but that's still no excuse to just sit back and let it happen. Let's not make it a self-fufilling prophesy. Let's roll up our sleeves and take action. There are good people out there that are trying to make positive changes all around us. And at least we are having this conversation, which is a good first step.

[Sky]

Sky, are we really going to side with auto industry. I respect the right to drive but no one needs a Lexus, BMW, or any other type vehicle. Families can have mini-vans limited too certain manufacturers, all persons will be limited in vehicle purchase based on demonstrable need, those who can not show a need may not purchase or otherwise drive a vehicle.

Sorry, but you're analogy linking cars and guns isn't convincing me. They aren't exactly parallel. That you fail to see the difference is rather surprising to me.