Mormons and the 2nd Admendment, The Bill of Rights

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

I don't know if attitudes are changing. I do know that when I worked in the Church Office Building complex for 10 years, not long ago, gun ownership by church employees was very common.

Understandable. They are such violent places.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The 2nd Amendment is only applicable in the US. As we in the US become more urban the necessity to hunt becomes less and less. If you want to own a gun and can legally possess them, take the necessary courses, and beyond scrupulously follow the rules. Be my guest. That being said with guns being a major cause of death in our country being openly armed in public isn't such a good idea.

In all fairness, it is the guns in the hands of criminals, seldom by lawful gun owners. 99% of lawful gun owners never use a gun in any unlawful mannor. Other than law enforcement or retired law enforcement carry "openly". Most other carry concealed, and those who have permits have never committed any domestic violence, nor guilty of any Federal crimes, and many other disqualifying State Laws. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Bad; egregious, evil.  Congress chooses to protect one industry above all and it is this one.  

Please don't make this political. I was wondering if the use of the word means that you believe gun owner, and carry permits of those owners are evil. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that people could have a weapon at home with which to fight off attackers (Indians, raiders, invaders) as an organized militia. Some today imagine they want to make sure gun-toting nuts can shoot law enforcement. Many of the founders supported laws limiting where you can carry firearms which is somehow now seen as Second Amendment protected for some reason

Gun toting nuts shooting at the Police, don't work within the law, don't register their guns, because the guns are stolen or bought out the trunk of a car on the street. State Militia are filled with people who are whatched by the Feds, because most are just crazy. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The owner has died and the kids have taken over.  They are slowly ruining it.  

Sad, because that place is great. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Gun toting nuts shooting at the Police, don't work within the law, don't register their guns, because the guns are stolen or bought out the trunk of a car on the street. State Militia are filled with people who are whatched by the Feds, because most are just crazy. 

Not entirely true. Around 80% of firearms used in mass shootings in the last three decades were obtained legally (whether the users could legally have them is not that relevant) which is one of the main stats used by the gun control lobby.

Now if you get down to smaller scale shootings by 'professionals' (by that I mean organized crime, gang members, criminals, contract killers, etc) the number of illegal guns skyrockets up the percentage chart.

The problem with figuring out if gun control works is figuring out what constitutes illegal. This is why you will see contradictory stats thrown around regularly. For example a firearm could be legally owned but loaned to someone who could not legally have it (often the case in domestic incidents) so where does it go? The numbers are all over the place due to shades of grey. Add to that that about a third of homicide cases are never solved and so we do not know what firearm was used and it gets even more tricky. Most sources I have looked out put the percentage of guns used in crimes obtained either illegally or possessed by someone illegally at around 75%. This does not necessarily mean that total gun control (i.e. making them illegal) would lower gun crime by 25% because many illegal guns were once street-legal registered guns that got lost in the system (serial numbers removed, modified, given away, stolen, etc.).

The gun control lobby can point to places like Australia where severe gun control heavily cut down on gun violence in the nation. Their opponents can point out that there are too many firearms in the system now for severe gun control to heavily impact the crime rate. I believe in restricting firearm ownership and restricting what kinds of firearms a civilian can acquire but do not fully support the Australia solution.

And to put a bit of fun in the discussion while I was browsing the web for some of the numbers to make sure my memory was not faulty I found this question on Quora:

"Is it legal to marry your gun in the US?"

[Bob Crockett]

52 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Please don't make this political. I was wondering if the use of the word means that you believe gun owner, and carry permits of those owners are evil. 

I own guns.  I hunt and target shoot.  Why have special constitutional protection for the gun industry?  Need to repeal the Second Amendment and put gun owners and the industry on a footing with other industries.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I own guns.  I hunt and target shoot.  Why have special constitutional protection for the gun industry?  Need to repeal the Second Amendment and put gun owners and the industry on a footing with other industries.

If repealed it would take an admendment to the Constitution, and 2/3 of the States to ratify. This would pave the way for confiscation, leaving only Gov't as the only gun owners. It also shows a lack of faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers". But, that is all I will say, so that it does not become too political. 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not entirely true. Around 80% of firearms used in mass shootings in the last three decades were obtained legally (whether the users could legally have them is not that relevant) which is one of the main stats used by the gun control lobby.

Unless you are lumping those weapons stolen, otherwise  would love to see where this data is coming from. 

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I own guns.  I hunt and target shoot.  Why have special constitutional protection for the gun industry?  Need to repeal the Second Amendment and put gun owners and the industry on a footing with other industries.

 

47 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

If repealed it would take an admendment to the Constitution, and 2/3 of the States to ratify. This would pave the way for confiscation, leaving only Gov't as the only gun owners. It also shows a lack of faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers". But, that is all I will say, so that it does not become too political. 

I think you could make weapons illegal now unless the citizen in question is part of a legally organized militia or National Guard unit or whatever if you read the Second Amendment as I believe it was intended. I really wish the Federalists who pushed through the Bill of Rights were more careful in their wording. It is almost as badly worded as the 14th Amendment. I appreciate both the 2nd and 14th but couldn't you take the time to be a little more clear?

For 200 years the Second Amendment was understood by federal judges to involve the keeping and bearing of arms for military purposes (obsolete by our standards as national guard and regular military units do not have to procure their own weapons). It also was not intended to restrict states from regulating firearms. One other purpose of the amendment in the early days was to allow states the ability to fight an overbearing federal government but that question was settled in the Civil War. For example back in 1939 a case came to the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because it had no relation to a well regulated militia. It was only in the 80s and 90s that the meaning of the amendment morphed and in 2008 in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment gave a citizen the right to keep a firearm for self-defense. I think this decision was a mistake.

Americans have had and borne firearms with reasonable restrictions decided by both state and federal governments for two centuries without a problem. Suddenly the NRA and their lobby have morphed gun ownership into a fundamental right in defiance of original intent and a vast history of judicial decisions on the matter. Responsible gun owners did not need absolute Second Amendment protection in 1817 and 1917 and do not need absolute protection in 2017 either. Instead reasonable gun control regulations should be decided by our legislators through normal processes. What the NRA has done with the Second Amendment has been called historical fraud and I am inclined to agree with that assessment.

Edited May 17, 2017 by The Nehor

[Bob Crockett]

17 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

If repealed it would take an admendment to the Constitution, and 2/3 of the States to ratify. This would pave the way for confiscation, leaving only Gov't as the only gun owners. It also shows a lack of faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers". But, that is all I will say, so that it does not become too political. 

 

I have a lack of faith in the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted.  And, yes, I know that it would take a constitutional amendment.  We've had them before and will have them again.  I don't believe the constitution was God-breathed nor do I believe that it should not be amended to respond to societal needs.

Certainly, I would not think much of a member of the church who would carry a gun into a meeting house unless the person was a cop.

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

suddenly the NRA and their lobby 

 

The firearms industry; the same who manufacture assault weapons for teenagers and terrorists.  I'm a libertarian but also a Latter-day Saint.  I don't think that championing the ownership of guns has any part of Christianity or Mormonism and, instead, seems to be unChristian.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

Certainly, I would not think much of a member of the church who would carry a gun into a meeting house unless the person was a cop.

On that we agree.

[Guest]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

The firearms industry; the same who manufacture assault weapons for teenagers and terrorists.

 

Now that is harsh, teenagers nor terriosts are not who machine guns are made for, they are made for the military, and only licensed suppliers can have or purchase one. It is true that terriosts get their hands on them by sealing them or picking them up on the battlefield, but these are AK-47 types made by China and Russia, who will sell to anyone except their own citizens. Anyone caught modifying an AR-15 into a machine gun, if caught face very long prison sentences, and should. 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Unless you are lumping those weapons stolen, otherwise  would love to see where this data is coming from. 

Here is one source I found:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

Here are some others that makes it harder to figure out exactly how the numbers are distributed:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

Note this refers to mass shootings which, while a horrible plague lately, are statistical outliers. Your average assailant in a gun violence situation is not a mass shooter. Mass shooters expect to die and many of them have limited or no criminal records and can legally obtain guns. Crimes of passion are also more likely to be done with legal firearms. If you find our your wife is cheating and decide to kill her in the heat of the moment you are unlikely to be careful about it. In many of those cases though the killer has a criminal record and often has limited access to legal firearms. In some cases they borrow legally owned weapons from others but there are no hard numbers I could find on percentages. Guido (Mafia made man), Stan (contract killer), Herman (member of the Bloods gang), and Bob (drug cartel enforcer) all have a vested interest in hiding their weapons. They are more likely to have stolen, modified (serial numbers shaved off), or illegally purchased weapons as they hope to get away with any shooting they have to do and often plan their killings. Some of these weapons were legal and later became illegal but hard to get numbers on that too.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The firearms industry; the same who manufacture assault weapons for teenagers and terrorists.  I'm a libertarian but also a Latter-day Saint.  I don't think that championing the ownership of guns has any part of Christianity or Mormonism and, instead, seems to be unChristian.

 

 

There has been a shift. My dad told me that when he was a teenager NRA meetings and gunshows were about hunting and you would get pistols and hunting rifles and cleaning knives and they were filled with seminar about responsible use and safety. Now they seem like a military surplus store with buyers trying to get the most bang for their buck and get the most deadly weapon they can. I am not sure what triggered the shift but I suspect there were a lot of factors involved.

[SteveO]

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The firearms industry; the same who manufacture assault weapons for teenagers and terrorists.  I'm a libertarian but also a Latter-day Saint.  I don't think that championing the ownership of guns has any part of Christianity or Mormonism and, instead, seems to be unChristian.

 

 

The firearm industry is arming teenagers and terrorists...?  Try again.  The largest arms dealer in the world is the US Government.  You want less guns in the world, focus more effort on regulating that first.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There has been a shift. My dad told me that when he was a teenager NRA meetings and gunshows were about hunting and you would get pistols and hunting rifles and cleaning knives and they were filled with seminar about responsible use and safety. Now they seem like a military surplus store with buyers trying to get the most bang for their buck and get the most deadly weapon they can. I am not sure what triggered the shift but I suspect there were a lot of factors involved.

I think the AR-15 is the change. People who might not want to tinker with Linux will tinker with an AR-15 which offers almost unlimited customizability. So the rifle became a gadget even as computers became far less gadget like. I think that explains most of it.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Around 80% of firearms used in mass shootings in the last three decades were obtained legally (whether the users could legally have them is not that relevant) which is one of the main stats used by the gun control lobby.

I confess I don't see how that is irrelevant.

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see how that is irrelevant.

I was actually unclear there and my bad. I meant that most were obtained legally but I am less convinced of the relevance as to whether the shooter could legally have them as the weapon was procured legally and got into hands they may not have been legally allowed to use them. Clear as mud?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

The firearm industry is arming teenagers and terrorists...?  Try again.  The largest arms dealer in the world is the US Government.  You want less guns in the world, focus more effort on regulating that first.

Military use of firearms is protected by the Second Amendment.  

[SteveO]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Military use of firearms is protected by the Second Amendment.  

I actually had this in mind...

Edited May 18, 2017 by SteveO

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The 2nd Amendment is only applicable in the US. As we in the US become more urban the necessity to hunt becomes less and less. If you want to own a gun and can legally possess them, take the necessary courses, and beyond scrupulously follow the rules. Be my guest. That being said with guns being a major cause of death in our country being openly armed in public isn't such a good idea.

The Founders were not concerned about the citizens being armed to hunt Bambi.  They were also not worried about animals organizing together and taking away our liberty.  If anything living in an urban area might be more of a reason to own a gun.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I own guns.  I hunt and target shoot.  Why have special constitutional protection for the gun industry?  Need to repeal the Second Amendment and put gun owners and the industry on a footing with other industries.

One can put the gun industry on the same footing as other industries while retaining the critical 2nd Amendment.  Without a 2nd Amendment, there is no promise you will have a 1st Amendment for very long.

Edited May 18, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The firearms industry; the same who manufacture assault weapons for teenagers and terrorists.  I'm a libertarian but also a Latter-day Saint.  I don't think that championing the ownership of guns has any part of Christianity or Mormonism and, instead, seems to be unChristian.

 

 

The Nephites had swords.  I bet if guns existed back then, the Nephites would have had guns.   As long as wicked people run around this world and rule it, the righteous do need to have means to protect themselves.  Being a Christian does not mean putting a bulls eye on their body and declaring to the world "Kill me, I will not resist."  Remember also Joseph Smith shot 3 guys right before he was killed.  Self defense is completely within the boundaries of Christian/Mormonism.

Edited May 18, 2017 by carbon dioxide