Duncan Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Some are asking: When law enforcement repeatedly fails to respond to advance reports, as it collectively did in the Florida case, do not responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves for protection of themselves, their families and others? I think the Teenagers are doing a pretty good job! without weapons even!
bcuzbcuz Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Some are asking: When law enforcement repeatedly fails to respond to advance reports, as it collectively did in the Florida case, do not responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves for protection of themselves, their families and others? Your statement is in the third person but I assume you are stating your opinion. But it is a strangely American perspective. Here in my country, the question of arming oneself just never comes up. My wife and I have never ever reflected upon whether we have a right to buy and use weapons to provide protecction for ourselves or our family. If we feel threatened, we turn to the legal authorities. We expect, we demand security. The police are not successful in everything they do, but we certainly never fear for violence on the street or in our homes. I have three rifles. For hunting. The rifles are locked in a cabinet and each has its own trigger lock. The bolts are kept separate. All ammunition is stored in a third, separate location. When I go hunting it takes at least a half an hour to collect all the necessary pieces (not to mention the trouble I have in finding all the keys). For those weapons to be used for protection is ludicrous. The hallways in our house are too narrow to be able to freely swing such a rifle around quicky and the weapons are so powerful that a bullet would travel through my walls and at least three neighbouring houses. I would be a greater danger than any intruder. We also have laws that forebid using a weapon for self protection In my case, if someone wants to steal our stuff, they’re welcome to it. It’s just stuff. Utah is a quiet, safe state. Why do people there feel they need to do the work of the police? Shouldn’t the attention be focused on fixing the problem, to create a safe society, instead of thinking ”every man for himself”. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US already. I'd say the citizenry is already armed. 300 million guns won’t do me any good if I’m unarmed and if I’m in a gun-free zone. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Your statement is in thphe third person but I assume you are stating your opinion. But it is a strangely American perspective. Here in my country, the question of arming oneself just never comes up. My wife and I have never ever reflected upon whether we have a right to buy and use weapons to provide protecction for ourselves or our family. If we feel threatened, we turn to the legal authorities. We expect, we demand security. The police are not successful in everything they do, but we certainly never fear for violence on the street or in our homes. I have three rifles. For hunting. The rifles are locked in a cabinet and each has its own trigger lock. The bolts are kept separate. All ammunition is stored in a third, separate location. When I go hunting it takes at least a half an hour to collect all the necessary pieces (not to mention the trouble I have in finding all the keys). For those weapons to be used for protection is ludicrous. The hallways in our house are too narrow to be able to freely swing such a rifle around quicky and the weapons are so powerful that a bullet would travel through my walls and at least three neighbouring houses. I would be a greater danger than any intruder. We also have laws that forebid using a weapon for self protection In my case, if someone wants to steal our stuff, they’re welcome to it. It’s just stuff. Utah is a quiet, safe state. Why do people there feel they need to do the work of the police? Shouldn’t the attention be focused on fixing the problem, to create a safe society, instead of thinking ”every man for himself”. I have experienced the various LA riots with the phones out and the police completely busy with other emergencies even if I could call them. And then you see twenty or more plumes of smoke on the horizon, and they are getting closer. At times like that, thinking of your self as a member of a militia drafted on the spot is not too far fetched. Some people are not just after "stuff". 4
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: President Nelson said: "God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.” What is the NRA position? that laws should allow guns to go to people who shouldn't have them? Just a guess, but I'm thinking the NRA would dispute your characterization of their position. One would certainly think so, but the NRA practice is to oppose any meaningful legislation on guns, including restrictions on the mentally ill. The vast majority of NRA members are in favor of tighter background checks, including the placement of the names of the mentally ill and domestic abusers on a national list of those who should be denied permission to purchase guns. Yet Wayne LaPierre and the national NRA oppose that. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/nra-chiefs-bogus-background-check-claims/ . 2
Duncan Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I have experienced the various LA riots with the phones out and the police completely busy with other emergencies even if I could call them. And then you see twenty or more plumes of smoke on the horizon, and they are getting closer. At times like that, thinking of your self as a member of a militia drafted on the spot is not too far fetched. Some people are not just after "stuff". My brother was a missionary in LA during the riots! 1
sunstoned Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 3 hours ago, Nevo said: Hopefully Darren10 will get on the thread to clarify. As I understand it, the NRA position is that all law-abiding US citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms. While they have supported instant background checks, they do not appear to be in favor of more extensive background checks or waiting periods for private firearms purchases. Here in Canada, 18-year-olds can legally purchase and possess AR-15 rifles and handguns (considered "restricted firearms") provided they first pass a police background check, submit to a 45-day waiting period, pass a firearms safety course, and belong to a gun club (since a restricted firearm can only lawfully be used for target shooting). Magazines for AR-15 rifles are limited to 5 cartridges. School shootings happen in Canada but are rare and result in relatively few deaths. In Canada, firearm ownership is considered a privilege, not a right, and firearms really have only two legitimate uses: hunting or target shooting. In the US, there seems to be much more focus on protecting life/property and guarding against a tyrannical government. I think an enhanced background check, waiting period and firearms safety course are great ideas that are past due in this country (U.S.). It seems that these measures are proving themselves to be effective in Canada. I wish our law makers would clue in. 3
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, Duncan said: My brother was a missionary in LA during the riots! Yeah it's tons of fun! I was around for the Watts riots as well. It's sad that people get so frustrated that that sort of thing happens, but one must defend one's family. 2
sunstoned Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: In this latest instance, there were many reports to local, state and federal law enforcement about the perpetrator in advance of the mass killings. These were ignored. Follow-up on any one of them might have prevented it. The citizenry did its job; the government in the form of law enforcement failed miserably. Maybe the local law could have done more, but the real problem as I see it (and apparently the was Pres Nelson sees it) is that our lawmakers have used their "free agency has been used to pass laws that let people who should not have guns obtain them."
Duncan Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah it's tons of fun! I was around for the Watts riots as well. It's sad that people get so frustrated that that sort of thing happens, but one must defend one's family. he said it was his mission president's worst time of his mission! figuring out where everyone was, keep up to date with what areas are safe, what happens now, fielding calls from concerned parents, worrying about parents who didn't call..........! 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I noticed from your quotation of rockpond that he used the outmoded (in authoritative LDS discourse) term "free agency." yet the quoted portion from President Nelson uses the correct scriptural term, which is simply agency, or, in some usages, moral agency. I'm curious: At any point in his talk, did President Nelson use the phrase "free agency," or was that merely rockpond injecting his own outmoded vernacular into the paraphrase? There is nothing at all wrong with use of the phrases "free agency" or "free choice." These are legitimate Mormon concepts and phrases, and are certainly far easier to understand than just "agency," which has a host of different meanings -- making it quite opaque, unless the context helps clarify the intent. Delbert L. Stapley, "Using Our Free Agency," Ensign, (May 1975): 21, online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/05/using-our-free-agency?lang=eng .
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: One would certainly think so, but the NRA practice is to oppose any meaningful legislation on guns, including restrictions on the mentally ill. The vast majority of NRA members are in favor of tighter background checks, including the placement of the names of the mentally ill and domestic abusers on a national list of those who should be denied permission to purchase guns. Yet Wayne LaPierre and the national NRA oppose that. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/nra-chiefs-bogus-background-check-claims/ . California probably has some of the most restrictive checks and other policies in the nation and we have seen how well they work, especially in San Bernardino. Getting tougher on background checks will help catch some, but I don't think it is the answer. I am personal friends with the people who lived next door to the shooters, by coincidence. They had no clue what was going on, said they seemed like a nice little family- not friendly particularly but certainly not obvious "terrorists" by any means and all those guns were legally purchased our very tough despite gun laws and a 10 day waiting period on any firearm sale. The nice little family gave up their baby and went on a suicide mission. What can stop people like that? That doesn't mean the laws should be liberalized, but the fact is that they will not stop everything, not even close in my opinion. I think there needs to be a defensive element as well. There are just too many out there that are not going to disappear because someone passes a law. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html 3
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 25, 2018 34 minutes ago, Duncan said: My brother was a missionary in LA during the riots! I was there in L.A. during the riots and some of my Black friends sat cowering in their homes, guns in hand, ready to start shooting if anyone kicked in their door. If something can go wrong, it will, and citizens must have the right of self-defense. 5
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, Duncan said: he said it was his mission president's worst time of his mission! figuring out where everyone was, keep up to date with what areas are safe, what happens now, fielding calls from concerned parents, worrying about parents who didn't call..........! The worst part that most don't get was that the phones were out city wide. No dial tone. How do you call the cops, and how could they respond to all the calls if you could get through? I was commuting to work and counted 40 fires visible from the Santa Monica freeway driving across town on both sides of the freeway. VERY scary stuff. It was safe on both sides of LA but if you had to drive through the middle it was pretty dicey 2
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I was there in L.A. during the riots and some of my Black friends sat cowering in their homes, guns in hand, ready to start shooting if anyone kicked in their door. If something can go wrong, it will, and citizens must have the right of self-defense. It was horrible. And then there was some white retribution against black people afterward as well. Just crazy times, and very scary. There were vacant lots all over town for years afterward and each one was a reminder of what had happened there. Edited February 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: There is nothing at all wrong with use of the phrases "free agency" or "free choice." These are legitimate Mormon concepts and phrases, and are certainly far easier to understand than just "agency," which has a host of different meanings -- making it quite opaque, unless the context helps clarify the intent. Delbert L. Stapley, "Using Our Free Agency," Ensign, (May 1975): 21, online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/05/using-our-free-agency?lang=eng . I don't deny that its usage was once common in Church discourse. But Delbert L. Stapley died long before Boyd K. Packer pointed out in a 1992 general conference talk that the phrase "free agency" is not scriptural. It has not been seen in authoritative Church speeches or writings since then. Edited February 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 54 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Maybe the local law could have done more, but the real problem as I see it (and apparently the was Pres Nelson sees it) is that our lawmakers have used their "free agency has been used to pass laws that let people who should not have guns obtain them." Whom are you directly quoting here? Not President Nelson surely. If you are paraphrasing, you should not use quotation marks. Did he say this was "the real problem" at the exclusion of all other possible causes? Not that I could tell from the very brief new report cited.
Rain Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 56 minutes ago, Duncan said: he said it was his mission president's worst time of his mission! figuring out where everyone was, keep up to date with what areas are safe, what happens now, fielding calls from concerned parents, worrying about parents who didn't call..........! One of my college friends spent part of her first night in the LA mission on the mission president's roof looking over the city. 1
Duncan Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 25 minutes ago, Rain said: One of my college friends spent part of her first night in the LA mission on the mission president's roof looking over the city. oh wow! remember her last name? my bro was there 91-93
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't deny that its usage was once common in Church discourse. But Delbert L. Stapley died long before Boyd K. Packer pointed out in a 1992 general conference talk that the phrase "free agency" is not scriptural. It has not been seen in authoritative Church speeches or writings since then. There are a great many words and phrases commonly used in LDS discourse which are not scriptural, but which are nonetheless accurate and useful. We use them because they are meaningful to us, even if Correlation has declared them verboten. Some such words and phrases are easier to understand than the "official" lingo, including, for example, the word "Mormon." The same applies to honorific words and phrases used in prayer: Not everyone is capable of using such words & phrases, but do the best they can with ordinary words. Their prayers are just as readily heard by God the Father as are those delivered with greater formality. It is all dependent on our own free will and choice. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: There are a great many words and phrases commonly used in LDS discourse which are not scriptural, but which are nonetheless accurate and useful. We use them because they are meaningful to us, even if Correlation has declared them verboten. Some such words and phrases are easier to understand than the "official" lingo, including, for example, the word "Mormon." The same applies to honorific words and phrases used in prayer: Not everyone is capable of using such words & phrases, but do the best they can with ordinary words. Their prayers are just as readily heard by God the Father as are those delivered with greater formality. It is all dependent on our own free will and choice. Correlation is not anathema to me, and it has never been. It functions under the direction of the prophets and apostles with the purpose, in part, to preserve the purity of the doctrine. It strikes me that it serves that purpose to use the scripturally accurate term agency or phrase moral agency without the modifier that became attached to it through decades of folk usage, especially as I consider the matter in light of Elder Packer's sermon that I linked to. Edited February 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Correlation is not anathema to me, and it has never been. It functions under the direction of the prophets and apostles with the purpose, in part, to preserve the purity of the doctrine. It strikes me that it serves that purpose to use the scripturally accurate term agency or phrase moral agency without the modifier that became attached to it through decades of folk usage, especially as I consider the matter in light of Elder Packer's sermon that linked to. One apostle says this, another apostle says that. A variety of kinds and types of debates have gone on among general authorities over the years, in addition to their personal preferences. I have no problem with Correlation, and I can imagine the Methodist Church and Wesleyan seminaries which serve it as trying to produce standard manuals the same way we do. All religious organizations, academic institutions, and even governments attempt to come up with systematic, uniform language and formulae. Even journalism is dominated by manuals explaining how to properly report the news, sometimes by doing violence to accuracy -- in order to serve a supposedly higher cause. I have my doubts. One sociologist explained all of that as a kind of official liturgy with required ritual procedures, and I agree. Bennetta Jules-Rosette, “The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,” American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/epdf . 1
Rain Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Duncan said: oh wow! remember her last name? my bro was there 91-93 I don't. She was petite. Dark haired. Orignally from the Philipines maybe? I really should remember better. She was called as the RSP of our student ward for the next year and I was called as first counselor, but I got married over the summer (91). She went on her mission sometime after that. I can't even remember if she told me about being there for the riots or if someone else did.
provoman Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 “Well, God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.” My thoughts are “For exemple? What laws allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them?” 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Nevo said: I agree completely. Deranged teenagers shouldn't have access to military-style assault rifles with high-capacity magazines. Kudos to President Nelson for having the courage to say it. What matter is it that its a "military style assault rifle"? It actually is not military grade. Should a deranged teen have access to any gun? The real key is "deranged" Samuel Adams would say no. He said "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 Criminals, psychopaths, and "deranged" people whether teens or not are not peaceable citizens in the book of pretty much anyone. They do not have a right to a gun. A pistol is far more dangerous in the hands of a criminal or mentally ill person than a "military-style assault rifles with high-capacity magazines" is in the hands of a peaceable or law abiding and responsible citizen. Edited February 25, 2018 by carbon dioxide 1
Recommended Posts