Swords Into Plowshares

[wolfcall]

and very few times in history has change been peaceful. as to the mujadeen look in their history as to who armed them...

[Calm]

History proves this point repeatedly.

I have little knowledge of military history, I am thinking more from an individual's psychological standpoint and that may be completely mixed up when immersed in a culture, including a military one.

[Sky]

The second amendment wasn't written so that people could hunt, it was written so that private citizens could defend themselves.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that the Second Amendment might be wrong, or in need of modification? I guess not. But one thing is for sure, times are different now than when the Founding Fathers were alive. We need to respond and act accordingly. The bottom line is that the more guns that are out there, the more people will continue to die due to these senseless, evil acts. The evidence supports this, if you are willing to do some research. I think the right to live is worth more than the right to own a gun, or even the Second Amendment.

[wolfcall]

historically the fear of being such a small influence at the start is what probably drove the second amendment. basically letting people know that if your spoiling for a fight youll find that and more. as to changes to the second amendment in what way would you change it? how can you improve it as to not to offend anothers rights or prevent them the right of defending their rights against someone who would take those rights. my family is military as long as we can remember and the most important thing we teach each generation is that a gun is not a toy and not a symbol of power but is a weapon and should be respected as such. its not your first choice and with proper educated should only come as your last. because what i was taught is that if you have to draw your gun you better make sure your willing to use it otherwise your being stupid and dont deserve that gun. more educating of the masses might help.

[blackstrap]

Just watched an interesting video. It showed the crime stats nationwide as compiled by the FBI every year. It was pointed out that from 1992 to 2012 the rate of violent crime was cut in half and that the murder rate was reduced by over 50%. Two other stats were shown.One was that the greatest decrease was in areas where there were the most conseal/carry permits. The other was that the highest rates were found in cities with populations over 250,000 and strict gun laws.

[Saints Alive]

Are you willing to consider the possibility that the Second Amendment might be wrong, or in need of modification? I guess not.

If that is the case we need to amend the constitution, not create unconstitutional gun laws. "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't say you can pick and choose which guns I can own, it say my right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The bottom line is that the more guns that are out there, the more people will continue to die due to these senseless, evil acts. The evidence supports this, if you are willing to do some research. I think the right to live is worth more than the right to own a gun, or even the Second Amendment.

Since we are talking about research... CFR that there is a correlation between the number of legally owned guns and the number of mass shootings.

I think the right to live is worth more than the right to own a gun, or even the Second Amendment.

that is completely irrelevant.

[blackstrap]

I want to relate a situation that occured here in Canada,Ontario to be specific. A man's home was attacked by 3 men early on a Sunday morning about 2 years ago. They threw molotov cocktails at his home and started it on fire. The man tried to get 911 but was unable so he went to his gun safe,opened it and took out a S&W 38 with ammo. He went to the front door and fired the gun into the ground as one of the masked men was about to throw another gas bomb. The attacker ran off. The homeowner fired a couple more shots into the tree in his front yard and the other 2 guys also ran off. The home owner then got a hose and put out the fires around his house , then went inside and was able to phone 911. The police arrived 10 minutes later. In the meantime he got a second gun out of the safe and put it on his bed.

Now the surprises begin. When the police arrived they rushed into his house and saw the guns on his bed. There were 2 bullets on his night stand. He was charged with unsafe use of a fire arm and failure to properly store ammo. He has fought this charge for 2 years and just last week was found not guilty by a judge who,in his statement, said that the Crown's argument was illogical.The Crown will appeal the decision.

There is an agenda here to remove firearms from individual owners. The government recently scrapped the long gun registry which was costing over 2 billion to get and keep running. There is still a strong bureaucratic feeling,however,that guns are bad,period and so the fight continues.

Edited January 13, 2013 by blackstrap

[blackstrap]

Just to clarify,the 3 men who tried to burn down the house with the man and his wife in it, were captured,charged with arson and attempted murder,pled guilty and were given 2-3 years in the Pen.

Had the home owner been found guilty he would have faced 3 years in prison.

Seems like an equivalency to me,right!

[cdowis]

Sky makes what he thinks is a brilliant argument: "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? "

Let's look at the facts:

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

http://www.anncoulte...2012-12-19.html

She goes on to relate where gun carrying citizens prevented many instances from happening. The Sandy victims died, not because they were in a "gun free" zone, but because there was no one who could have protected them.

--At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

----------------

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

Edited January 13, 2013 by cdowis

[teddyaware]

Didn't I see you on that Doomsday Preppers show:)

I posted the following on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, in response to a poster who half-jokingly accused yours truly of being a "Doomsday Prepper."

I'm not a "Doomsday Prepper." Sorry if that disappoints you. By the way, wouldn't you say that we 'Mormons' with our year's supply of food, year's supply of water, fuel storage, and that whole "preparedness thing," are the original Prepp...ers? In this regard, how about some words of wisdom from a General Conference address by Ezra Taft Benson:

"We encourage you to be more self-reliant so that, as the Lord has declared, 'notwithstanding the tribulation which shall descend upon you, … the church may stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world' (D&C 78:14). The Lord wants us to be independent and self-reliant because these will be days of tribulation. He has warned and forewarned us of the eventuality." (October 1980 General Conference)

And again:

"Too often we bask in our comfortable complacency and rationalize that the ravages of war, economic disaster, famine, and earthquake cannot happen here. Those who believe this are either not acquainted with the revelations of the Lord, or they do not believe them. Those who smugly think these calamities will not happen, that they somehow will be set aside because of the righteousness of the Saints, are deceived and will rue the day they harbored such a delusion." (October 1980 General Conference)

One of the strangest things for me to contemplate as a Latter Day Saint is the following: We LDS all know, according to more than abundant prophecy, that this present world is going to end violently and horrifically. A sad and lamentable repeat of history, if you will, We have all been taught that as it had been for the Nephites in their day, just before the Saviour appeared to to them, so will it be with the people of the world in these last days.

The Nephite's world was ripening in iniquity; disharmony and strife within in the Church were rampant; secret combinations (the greatest of all forms of wickedness in the sight of God) abounded; ruthless and lawless Gadianton robbers filled the judgement seats; the people eventually got used to corrupt government and just "went with the flow," as they say; the Nephite's wonderful system of governmental freedom by law, not by men, had been torn to shreds by corrupt, usurping schemers; sexual immorality and a callous disregard for the sacredness of human life ruled the day; the majority of the people mocked and disbelieved the prophets of God who warned them that they were ripening in iniquity and that the fiery, cataclysmic judgements of an offended God awaited them.

It's always been this way, and I guess it always will -- even with many of the Latter Day Saints, I suppose. Haven't we been taught that the parable of the wise and foolish virgins testifies concerning the members of the Lord's own Church?

Edited January 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

We have often looked to some great leader to save us == Ronald Regan, Ike Eisenhower, FDR, etc. But those days are past. There are no great leaders to lead us out of this pit of filth and unrighteousness now. As the BOM warns us, the tipping point is when over 50% vote for unrighteousness, and that day has come with the acceptance of SS marriage, massive abortions, and legalizing drugs.

There is only One who can save us now, but that will only come after much tribulation. To me, the Mayan prophecy was indeed fulfilled, but not in a way recognized by the common man.

[Calm]

Just watched an interesting video. It showed the crime stats nationwide as compiled by the FBI every year. It was pointed out that from 1992 to 2012 the rate of violent crime was cut in half and that the murder rate was reduced by over 50%.

Apparently mass murder rates are going up though I do remember reading one study that showed otherwise, but that may have been because it took in a greater time period than the ones I just saw when I looked it up (the past 50 years or so as opposed to the last century). I couldn't find it when I looked for it again, it was through a yahoo news link shortly after the school shooting. Edited January 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Are you willing to consider the possibility that the Second Amendment might be wrong, or in need of modification? I guess not. But one thing is for sure, times are different now than when the Founding Fathers were alive. We need to respond and act accordingly. The bottom line is that the more guns that are out there, the more people will continue to die due to these senseless, evil acts. The evidence supports this, if you are willing to do some research. I think the right to live is worth more than the right to own a gun, or even the Second Amendment.

Show conclusively that the guns are the problem and then we will have something to talk about. These "senseless, evil acts" will happen with or without guns. Rocks, hand tools or even a little specially mixed fertilizer have been used to commit these "senseless, evil acts".

[Saints Alive]

According to John Stossel the violent crime rate increased 3 fold after the handgun ban in Britain.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Saints Alive

[blackstrap]

Wait, I just had a brainwave ! Let's ban personal vehicles except each family can ( like Awwwnold ) own a fully operational tank.That way the people can Seriously defend themselves against any enemies,foreign and domestic. AND , when it comes time to beat our swords into plowshares , we will have some heavy iron to contribute !

(Sometimes , I just kill myself... but that's for another thread .)

[Sky]

Since we are talking about research... CFR that there is a correlation between the number of legally owned guns and the number of mass shootings.

I've already given several references to back up my position (in this thread and here), but it doesn't seem like anybody reads them, because if it doesn't jibe with their viewpoint, they simply dismiss the source as "biased." I mean nothing from the New York Times or the Violence Policy Center should ever be taken seriously, right? Those news outlets are simply liberal and communist bent on destroying the constitution.

But to satisfy your CFR, I will once again provide you with more references. All of which are available with a simple Google search, by the way.

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

Arming people doesn't stop mass murders

Mass murder, shooting sprees and rampage violence: Research roundup

Firearms and Gun Control: The Evidence

[SamIam]

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.

In 40 states you are much more likely to get killed in a car accident than by a gun...there now aren't statistics fun?

[slamarwi]

One doesn't have to go back very far in history to see what happens if you give up the right to bear arms.

For example - The Great Famine of ‘32 & ‘33, the Great Terror of ‘37 & ‘38 and the Holocaust from ’39 -’45 all had one common denominator – the people had no form of self-defense.

On the 19th of September 1941 in Kiev (Babi Yar), 33,761 people were executed and only a handful of weapons were collected from the Jews before being shot by the Nazi’s. The same outcome occurred can for the people of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania etc.

Maybe the massacres at Kharkiv, Vilnius, Warsaw, Lodz, Dnipropetrovsk, Kamianets-Podilskyi etc. would have had a different outcomes had the people been armed. By reading history and believing in the constitution, we will never question why weapons for civilians are not just important, but absolutely vital.

[volgadon]

Surely it would be the attitude of the citizenry that would make the difference one way or the other, whether armed or unarmed.

An unarmed civilian standing in their way might have even a greater impact than a civilian or a number of civilians with guns pointed in their direction.

A friend of mine was servingin the Soviet Army the year that the Soviet Union fell. He said that they were trained in preparation ofr an assault on Moscow to crush the dissenters. While they were kept in the wings, waiting, several of the generas decided to disobey the orders from the top, and did not crush the revolt.

[ERayR]

A friend of mine was servingin the Soviet Army the year that the Soviet Union fell. He said that they were trained in preparation ofr an assault on Moscow to crush the dissenters. While they were kept in the wings, waiting, several of the generas decided to disobey the orders from the top, and did not crush the revolt.

Interesting it is.

[volgadon]

One doesn't have to go back very far in history to see what happens if you give up the right to bear arms.

For example - The Great Famine of ‘32 & ‘33, the Great Terror of ‘37 & ‘38 and the Holocaust from ’39 -’45 all had one common denominator – the people had no form of self-defense.

On the 19th of September 1941 in Kiev (Babi Yar), 33,761 people were executed and only a handful of weapons were collected from the Jews before being shot by the Nazi’s. The same outcome occurred can for the people of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania etc.

Maybe the massacres at Kharkiv, Vilnius, Warsaw, Lodz, Dnipropetrovsk, Kamianets-Podilskyi etc. would have had a different outcomes had the people been armed. By reading history and believing in the constitution, we will never question why weapons for civilians are not just important, but absolutely vital.

I lost ancestors and relatives in the Holocaust, my wife lost them in the Holodomor. Looking at the latter, private ownership of guns is not likely to have given people food in an artificialy prolonged famine. If anything, it would have meant more people robbing fellow civilians less able to defend themselves. Private ownership isn't the key, an armed and determined organisation is far more effective, though even if it doesn't work towards its own interests it might still be ineffective. Afterall, the UPA still had armed insurgents fighting against the Soviet Union in the late 1950s, fat lot of good it did anyone.

This song was written to encourage people to join the Soviet partisans in Bessarabia. They didn't do much, as the terrain was totally unsuited for partisan warfare.

Jerusalem of the Woods, like all other partisan groups, couldn't survive direct assaults by a regular army. The key to their success was remaining hidden.

[volgadon]

I found this to be a balanced and intelligent post on the gun issue. http://theslowhunch.blogspot.com/?view=classic#!/2013/01/tickets-to-gun-show.html

[canard78]

I find the American obsession with guns bemusing. I suppose it's a cowboy throwback. Private gun ownership should have died around the same time the Wild West was consigned to Hollywood nostalgia.

[ERayR]

I find the American obsession with guns bemusing. I suppose it's a cowboy throwback. Private gun ownership should have died around the same time the Wild West was consigned to Hollywood nostalgia.

One might find it that way if one was to lazy to study history and failed to understand . He who fails to understand history is doomed to repeat it.

[Garden Girl]

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

Sorry TSS... CFR...

How do you mean that? Do you mean in defense of one's home... or do you mean as in a case of murder?

GG