An Inspired Constitution? (Needs a rewrite.j

[Gray]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

On a statistical basis, one is about as likely to be killed in a school mass shooting as they are to be killed by lightning.

Not helpful for those who are victimized

[Gray]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Most Americans don't even know the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  They think it was put there so that people have the right to hunt Bambi.  Most Americans don't even own a gun.  They know little about guns and just parrot whatever gun control lie that is told to them.  They talk about the evil AR-15 and if only we get rid of those guns, everything will be ok.  False.  Shooters will simple use another gun to accomplish the same exact result.  32 dead, 17 injured in Virginia Tech by 2 handguns. 

Great, let's ban handguns too.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, mnn727 said:

No, Crazy people make going to school dangerous.

If a drunk driver kills a car load of teenagers, we blame the driver. We don't blame the car, or, Chevy or Ford, or, even Budweiser or Jack Daniels. When the Boston Bombers set off their bombs, we blamed them, not pressure cookers or manufacturers of same. When the terrorists flew jets into the WTC and Pentagon, we didn't blame the 767 or Boeing. Why is the natural knee jerk reaction to a shooting to blame the item used? More people are killed in car wrecks than with guns, yet there are more guns than cars, but, I don't see people calling for the government to take away my truck.

Because the intent of guns is destructive and while hunting is still a sport and some even provide food for their families, far more owners  own guns because of either the power or thrill to destroy.

I do not believe all guns should be restricted, but the ones which can be only used for either target practice and mass shootings have no actual constructive purpose for which they are used, like pressure cookers, cars, trucks and planes and even hunting rifles owned by hunters.

If any of them had no other use, then it is likely there would be as much call to remove them from easy access.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

We ask why the US has mass shootings when other countries with many guns and different laws don't have them. Could it be the culture of guns that is so wide spread in the US? Nearly every movie that comes out of Hollywood ( a bastion of the anti-gun folks ) is filled with gun violence and solutions to personal and societal problems shown by resorting to a gun. Video games are not usually built around peaceful farming situations. The Romans had bread and circuses . We have our own favorite pass-times . If a Roman citizen went off his nut and ran around swinging a sword or spear , he would shortly run into a centurion . If the heroic security guard at the school had been equipped with a vest and a glock , could he saved more? Debatable I suppose.

Hollywood movies and video games are common outside of the US.  When we lived in Canada, it wasn't Canadian films that filled the shelves of our neighbours.  When in Russia, there were tons of Disney and other movies in our friends' possessions...don't remember seeing any homegrown ones then, but that has probably changed given what I see on Netflix.

BTW, if you watch Netflix and other services with international films, you can find extremely violent popular films pretty much from any country and in many the ratings aren't as strict as the US.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 Better to live free and be a little in danger than be safe and be more of a slave to the government.

How much traveling outside the US do you do?

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

America is the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It's the guns.

Other countries have their crazies too.  It's just here our crazies have access to assault weapons.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

People can't protect themselves in Europe against sexual assault.  They tell women to keep arms distance between a themselves and a potential attacker.  Now a nice handgun will work a lot better than that.

Sweden is the only European country with higher rates states than the US and that may be the way they report stats (iirc, in part because they don't count the whole incident but count as multiple attacks even if they occur during the same time period).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Start by banning assault rifles. Restore restrictions on buying guns for individuals who are at risk for this behavior. Gun control saves lives.

I believe there should be mandatory training class and the requirement to pass a test before you can buy/own/carry a gun.  Just like there is with getting a drivers license.  No one seems to complain about having to get a drivers license.  Some training with a test wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would serve as a good initial screening.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think in countries with strict gun control, the criminals who have them are too disciplined to commit mass shootings. This is part of the unspoken arrangement to keep the peace, and "everybody" gets "a peice o' da action."' One problem is solved while others are created and enabled. I think the real trick is to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without governments getting into bed with the criminal element, which undermines these aims in a less obvious fashion.

On what evidence do you draw this conclusion?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Incorrect use of a gun has more immediately negative consequences.

I think pregnancies among teens and either having the babies or using abortion as birth control are pretty immediate.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I think our current screening process seems to work:

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That thing being arming people with weapons with little to no hunting or self-defense utility but are explicitly designed for killing lots of people very fast and making sure we do not track if known dangerous people are getting them. Your average American is scary.  

True enough, but the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sport or hunting.  It is solely and only created to guarantee gun ownership by everybody -- as potential members of the town militia -- should the need ever arise for military action against a tyrant or aggressor.  Those who wrote it (and the other amendments) were copying the same guarantee which had been placed by the English Parliament in their Constitution one hundred years before, when the Catholic King of England decided to disarm the populace and rule by force.  The people rose up and defeated him and replaced him with William & Mary.  This was strongly in the minds of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al.  Especially since they had just finished winning a revolution which required every man age 16 and over to march with the town militia to kill Redcoats -- who had rapidly attempted to disarm the populace in Massachusetts, for example.  And for that purpose, the colonial militia was armed with cannon, kegs of gunpowder, and other implements of war.  Everyone had flintlock muskets and rifles, and they knew how to use them.  The notion that assault weapons are needed remains a constant theme still today.

A great deal of time has since gone by, and the militias largely replaced by organized National Guard troops and their armories.  Much the same has made the posse comitatus a mere memory.  However, since the 2nd amendment has not been removed from the Constitution, it remains the law of the land, and legislators are fearful to regulate it properly -- lest the NRA get angry.  Americans are generally well-armed, but not as well-trained as they once were, which is a major problem.  Very few serve in the military anymore, and so don't always learn the basics of gun safety.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True enough, but the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sport or hunting.  It is solely and only created to guarantee gun ownership by everybody -- as potential members of the town militia -- should the need ever arise for military action against a tyrant or aggressor.  Those who wrote it (and the other amendments) were copying the same guarantee which had been placed by the English Parliament in their Constitution one hundred years before, when the Catholic King of England decided to disarm the populace and rule by force.  The people rose up and defeated him and replaced him with William & Mary.  This was strongly in the minds of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al.  Especially since they had just finished winning a revolution which required every man age 16 and over to march with the town militia to kill Redcoats -- who had rapidly attempted to disarm the populace in Massachusetts, for example.  And for that purpose, the colonial militia was armed with cannon, kegs of gunpowder, and other implements of war.  Everyone had flintlock muskets and rifles, and they knew how to use them.  The notion that assault weapons are needed remains a constant theme still today.

A great deal of time has since gone by, and the militias largely replaced by organized National Guard troops and their armories.  Much the same has made the posse comitatus a mere memory.  However, since the 2nd amendment has not been removed from the Constitution, it remains the law of the land, and legislators are fearful to regulate it properly -- lest the NRA get angry.  Americans are generally well-armed, but not as well-trained as they once were, which is a major problem.  Very few serve in the military anymore, and so don't always learn the basics of gun safety.

So Second Amendment supporters are supporting a British tradition originally in favor of a monarch. So logically they are British monarchists. So technically they are Tory traitors to the nation. So we can have all members of the NRA arrested for treason and call it done. Good plan.

[Anijen]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Not helpful for those who are victimized

Nothing really is.

 

However, my new crusade is to ban lightning and to make lightning free zones. (please excuse my way of reacting to catastrophe, my bad humor is a coping mechanism I have always used when facing such sadness)

[Anijen]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True enough, but the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sport or hunting.  It is solely and only created to guarantee gun ownership by everybody -- as potential members of the town militia -- should the need ever arise for military action against a tyrant or aggressor.  Those who wrote it (and the other amendments) were copying the same guarantee which had been placed by the English Parliament in their Constitution one hundred years before, when the Catholic King of England decided to disarm the populace and rule by force.  The people rose up and defeated him and replaced him with William & Mary.  This was strongly in the minds of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al.  Especially since they had just finished winning a revolution which required every man age 16 and over to march with the town militia to kill Redcoats -- who had rapidly attempted to disarm the populace in Massachusetts, for example.  And for that purpose, the colonial militia was armed with cannon, kegs of gunpowder, and other implements of war.  Everyone had flintlock muskets and rifles, and they knew how to use them.  The notion that assault weapons are needed remains a constant theme still today.

A great deal of time has since gone by, and the militias largely replaced by organized National Guard troops and their armories.  Much the same has made the posse comitatus a mere memory.  However, since the 2nd amendment has not been removed from the Constitution, it remains the law of the land, and legislators are fearful to regulate it properly -- lest the NRA get angry.  Americans are generally well-armed, but not as well-trained as they once were, which is a major problem.  Very few serve in the military anymore, and so don't always learn the basics of gun safety.

Although I agree with everything you wrote I would like to add that as  gun owner I have been extensively trained, I have trained my own children fire arm safety, AND every gun owner I know has done the same.  I disagree with Nehor about the extent of classes and updating training Nehor thinks we need.

Gun safety is easy to learn and can be learned in two 8 hour classes or a couple of hunting trips with your mom and dad, or in the Boy Scouts... However to become an excellent marksman does require consistent training over and over. Plus I think the English trying to disarm the Colonists were more of the catalyst for the Second Amendment than William and Mary (but it was a factor).

The Second Amendment meant for the people not just the militia.

 

 

[Anijen]

Some humorous quotes from the unexpected:

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~ Sigmund Freud

"An armed society is a polite society." and  "There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." ~ Robert Heinlein

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: ~ St. Luke

 

From a Liberal: 

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." ~ Alan Dershowitz

 

My personal favorite is;

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~ Dalai Lama

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Anijen

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

On what evidence do you draw this conclusion?

I grew up in New York City LOL

@Calm actually I like your question so I took a closer look. I compared the rankings of countries according to corruption and gun deaths from these two sources: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

My hypothesis is that the more corrupt the government, the less gun violence we'll see. An individual country's relative corruption (RC) score : relative gun deaths (RGD) score grater than 1 would support this hypothesis. I compared and ranked those countries appearing on both lists. 

Least Corrupt Nations (top half on the list, yellow) Average RC:RGV: 1.62

Most Corrupt Nations Average (bottom half on the list, blue) RC:RGV: 2.19

So it does seem that the more corrupt countries have less gun death rates. I will try to post my chart--last time I lost the connect and had to re-post this!

Edited February 17, 2018 by CV75

[Metis_LDS]

I remember going to conference about 45 years ago and someone would say in the conference talks that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired.

I do not have a problem with that. But not being a citizen of the United States it became old hearing this after awhile.  

[Jeanne]

33 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I remember going to conference about 45 years ago and someone would say in the conference talks that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired.

I do not have a problem with that. But not being a citizen of the United States it became old hearing this after awhile.  

I can understand that.  When a little girl, the 4th of July trumped even Christmas for me.  I loved my country...grew up with a love for US History and all things pertaining to God's connection with our constitution.  I still think it is divine...because some good thinkers brought about a type of definition of freedoms that had not even been dreamed.  But did Christopher Columbus find this land because of God's direction for Israel?  Or because it would mean freedom for religion in general?  There is a difference in how I look at things now. 

[theplains]

On 16/02/2018 at 9:56 AM, Mark Beesley said:

If the States were to call a Constitutional convention today, and IF any inspiration could get through, would the Constution today look like the one “insipred” in the 19th Century? If not, what would look different?

I think most people forget that the United States is a republic form of government, not a democratic form.
There's a big difference.

As for guns, they should not allow ordinary citizens to own assault type weapons. Owing a normal gun for
self-defense is okay of course because the government allows it.

If you want to own an AK47, Uncle Sam needs men and women like you in the military.

Jim

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but cars serve a purpose other than killing things so I am more willing to tolerate them as necessary. How dangerous does something have to be before safety overrides the right to have. I am sure if you give a hundred people vials of anthrax most of them would store it responsibly but why would you do that?

Guns do have a purpose other than “killing things,” as you so simplistically put it. Ensuring protection and defense of oneself and others is a way to express that purpose. It is the purpose for which police and security guards are issued firearms. 

And a purpose, by the way, that does not apply to “vials of anthrax.”

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I remember going to conference about 45 years ago and someone would say in the conference talks that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired.

I do not have a problem with that. But not being a citizen of the United States it became old hearing this after awhile.  

You need to consider statements like that in the context of the Doctrine and Covenants passages I cited in a post earlier on this thread, passages from which such statements are derived and which refer to “just and holy principles” which apply universally to “all flesh” (meaning all people), not just United States citizens. These principles mainly have to do with allowing people their individual moral agency. 

[Metis_LDS]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You need to consider statements like that in the context of the Doctrine and Covenants passages I cited in a post earlier on this thread, passages from which such statements are derived and which refer to “just and holy principles” which apply universally to “all flesh” (meaning all people), not just United States citizens. These principles mainly have to do with allowing people their individual moral agency. 

Yes I was aware of the Doctrine and Covenants passages before posting and agree with the principles.  So preach the gospel I support that but be careful you do not preach the United States that era is now over.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Metis_LDS
formatting

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Yes I was aware of the Doctrine and Covenants passages before posting and agree with the principles.  So preach the gospel I support that but

be careful you do not preach the United States that era is now over.

I agree. And I don’t see much of U.S. nationalism preached by General Authorities or officers of the Church anymore. But to get the full message of these scriptural passages, it is necessary to consider the context, time and setting in which these revelations were given. 

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Guns do have a purpose other than “killing things,” as you so simplistically put it. Ensuring protection and defense of oneself and others is a way to express that purpose. It is the purpose for which police and security guards are issued firearms. 

And a purpose, by the way, that does not apply to “vials of anthrax.”

Ensuring protection and defense by injuring or killing things.

Vials of poisonous substances can be used to protect people if used correctly: