CV75 Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Sorry to jump in late, but the proof in whether we can as a people/nation handle the 2nd Amendment is found in an honest assessment of how we balance or prioritize a willingness to be conscripted into the military and use our guns under military direction to defend our country with a willingness to use them for self-defense, law enforcement, hunting, recreation, etc. As long as these are out of balance, there will be slippage into abuse (criminal, mental and accidental) as the market meets demand. As long as there is a lack of public virtue in the right to bear arms, there will be a larger measure of abuse in bearing them. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 No I did not, what were militias in the founders time? They were groups of private citizens, farmers, merchants, tradesmen, ect. using their provately owned guns (illegally owned at one point) to defend their rights. The argument that the "a well regulated militia" part only pertains to state national guards and standing armies is patently false and exactly opposite of what the founding fathers intendedI will issue my CFR one last time and then I will report you... Show me where and increase in gun ownership has led to more violence, or conversely where gun bans have decreases violent crimes.No, The Founders were afraid of standing armies. So they provided for militias the militia. In the time of the Founders were those white male colonials that could be called up into government service to defend against Indian attacks.http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed26.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionAlready answered.http://aje.oxfordjou...160/10/929.full 1
Nathair/|\ Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 All the guns on a military base didn't stop the Fort Hood shooter. There were armed guards at Columbine, and Virginia Tech. Didn't stop a one of those.All the guns at Fort Hood were locked up in the armory. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 The MP's sure have guns, and it permissible for military personnel to store personal guns in their quarters. But it is a bad idea.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) And yet this hasn't happened in the US. The assault weapons ban has been over for 10 years and yet there have been no armed revelutions or uprisings even though almost every citizen can legally own those weapons. "It seems" that you are way off base. You also should refrain from questioning the faithfulness of Saints who believe in gun rights as I believe questioning the faithfulness of other members is against the board rules.You never heard of Rick Perry or of the Secessionists Movement?I never questioned the faithfulness of any member. I have questioned the necessity of arming the determined and/or the demented with any type or amounts of firearms/grenade launcher/bomb /etc., they desire. Edited January 13, 2013 by thesometimesaint 1
teddyaware Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 So, according to you, advocating for stronger gun control laws now means that I'm something less than a worthy member of the Church or Latter-day Saint? Or that I don't understand the revelations and am like unto a foolish virgin? Or that God is somehow offended by my good intentions, and will punish me with the fires of hell? You are making a awfully lot of sweeping judgements here. And I've given my life to this Church; I fully support the Brethren. But last time I checked, the Brethren have not taken a stance on this issue. So, I'm free to do my own research and form my own conclusions. And if I wanted to, I could also find a scripture or conference talk that supports my viewpoint. I think 2 Timothy 1: 6-7 sums up how I feel pretty well:For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.I love your passion; it's obvious you're a faithful member of the Church. When I have time later in the day, I'll respond to your points. You'll come to see I'm more reasonable and rational that you may suppose. 1
Saints Alive Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 No, The Founders were afraid of standing armies. So they provided for militias the militia. How did anything I wrote suggest otherwise?The militia In the time of the Founders were those white male colonials that could be called up into government service to defend against Indian attacks.http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed26.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionTechnically they were rebels not a legal government, and many used their own guns.Already answered.http://aje.oxfordjou...160/10/929.fullNo it doesn't, those statistics only state that those with guns in the home are more likely to encounter death or suacide by a gun. There are a number of third variables that could explain why that is but since it has nothing to do with my CFR I won't get into it. My CFR was for your assertion that more guns = more violence OR that banning guns = less violence.
Saints Alive Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 You never heard of Rick Perry or of the Secessionists Movement?I never questioned the faithfulness of any member. I have questioned the necessity of arming the determined and/or the demented with any type or amounts of firearms/grenade launcher/bomb /etc., they desire.yeah and how far did that go? It pales in comparison to sub-Saharan Africa or Afghanistan.
Saints Alive Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 The MP's sure have guns, and it permissible for military personnel to store personal guns in their quarters. But it is a bad idea.actually most bases do not allow soldiers to carry their privately owned weapons on base.
canard78 Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 It seems to me that once there is no armed citizenry the next thing to go is your right to free exercise of your religion. Plenty of examples. Read history. Several less than 50 years ago.Ok, I may have said I don't know about American gun problem and its history, but I do know about my own country and this complete and utter bunk. UK hasn't had the right to bear arms for ages. Our freedom of religion is just fine. Paranoia and falsehoods to justify toting an Uzi. Ridiculous. 1
Questing Beast Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Columbine: armed security woefully unprepared for such an assault, so a non sequitur to cite as evidence for armed school guards being a bad "solution".Virginia Tech: all armed security elsewhere, not any in the targeted building. Arriving police waited until the incident was over, i.e. shooting had stopped, before entering the building: SOP, as police are not obligated to defend anyone.Fort Hood: as stated, no armed MPs within "striking distance" of the shooter. No CCW either, as that is forbidden/illegal. Go figure.... 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 How did anything I wrote suggest otherwise?Technically they were rebels not a legal government, and many used their own guns.No it doesn't, those statistics only state that those with guns in the home are more likely to encounter death or suacide by a gun. There are a number of third variables that could explain why that is but since it has nothing to do with my CFR I won't get into it.My CFR was for your assertion that more guns = more violence OR that banning guns = less violence.We've had a legal government now for a little of two centuries, and a standing army almost as long. 1812 was the last foreign invasion of the US. There is no logical necessity for an armed citizenry. Now if some one wants to hunt, target practice, or even defend themselves against the armed intruder in there own home. Be my guest. Just know the responsibilities of owning a firearm. Also statistically speaking a firearm in the home is more dangerous to the occupants than the bad guys.I never said it was that simple of an equation. However the presents of guns makes any violence more deadly. I never said that I favored banning guns. I don't. That ship sailed a long time ago, and it would be futile if not problematic to try to institute a ban now.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 yeah and how far did that go? It pales in comparison to sub-Saharan Africa or Afghanistan.I guess you'll have to ask the Southerners whom fought for slavery in the US Civil War.
Questing Beast Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 The UK has experienced a dramatic upswing in general violence, especially "hot" burglaries, since all handguns and most firearms have been taken away. Domestic violence across the board is significantly higher than the US's. Same holds for OZ and even Canada, where gun restrictions are much stiffer than in the US. It isn't all about the murder rate being higher or lower: it is about quality of life. In the US a private citizen is much safer from criminal aggression than other countries. The amount of gun violence is almost entirely criminal on criminal (not counting suicide)....
Sky Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 The UK has experienced a dramatic upswing in general violence, especially "hot" burglaries, since all handguns and most firearms have been taken away. Domestic violence across the board is significantly higher than the US's. Same holds for OZ and even Canada, where gun restrictions are much stiffer than in the US. It isn't all about the murder rate being higher or lower: it is about quality of life. In the US a private citizen is much safer from criminal aggression than other countries. The amount of gun violence is almost entirely criminal on criminal (not counting suicide)....CFR
Sky Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) My CFR was for your assertion that more guns = more violence OR that banning guns = less violence.Can't speak for thesometimesaint, but I've already responded to your CFR's. But you haven't responded to any of them. Edited January 13, 2013 by Sky
canard78 Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 The UK has experienced a dramatic upswing in general violence, especially "hot" burglaries, since all handguns and most firearms have been taken away. Correlation is not causality. Very few people had guns before the ban so there's little change in the criminal's 'target' either way.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 ... Virginia Tech: all armed security elsewhere, not any in the targeted building. Arriving police waited until the incident was over, i.e. shooting had stopped, before entering the building: SOP, as police are not obligated to defend anyone. ...While "set[ting] up a perimeter and waiting for SWAT [or its analogue]" (my words in quotes) used to be standard operating procedure for law enforcement, since Columbine, that has changed. That's why the Trolley Square shooter (in Utah, for those of you outside the area) although he wreaked a fair amount of havoc and mayhem, was not able to do more: law enforcement officers who responded entered immediately, sought out the shooter, engaged him, and neutralized him.
Sky Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 At least one in Texas less than one score years ago where children were burned to death by the federal government for their religion.If you're referring to David Koresh and the Branch Dividians, he happened to be the leader of a dangerous cult and a child abuser and a rapist. There was more going on than simply trying to practice "their religion" in peace.
Saints Alive Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Can't speak for thesometimesaint, but I've already responded to your CFR's. But you haven't responded to any of them.If you did I missed it, I am reading the posts from my phone. I will review you references when I get to a computer.
Saints Alive Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 There is no logical necessity for an armed citizenry. Then we need an amendment not more gun laws. I think it should be clear that the 2nd amendment was meant to give citizens the right to arm themselves and has nothing to do with hunting or trap shooting.
Saints Alive Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Correlation is not causality. Very few people had guns before the ban so there's little change in the criminal's 'target' either way.careful there... That axe swings both ways.This thread is political, sorry.
Recommended Posts