• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by volgadon

  1. There are many large cities in the US that have excellent mass transit. San Francisco with the Bart system, Portland has excellent rail systems, New York with subways.

    I think Utah is working towards that with the numerous trax systems that have been put into place. Now with the frontrunner going down to Utah Co. It's a move in the right direction but it takes lots and lots of money.

    Some cities might have good transport, but plenty of places don't, Utah itself has a very, very long way to go (even Egypt has better systems), and don't even get me started on inter-county and state options.

  2. I will also add that good public transport systems and infrastructure allow those unable to have personal transport the ability to get around, to and from work, shopping, cultural and recreational activities, political meetings, etc., thus increasing their freedom and advancing the interests of society as a whole. At least that is what civilised places attempt to do. So, yes, a step forward any way you look at it.

  3. Not necessarily. Private transportation will always be better - individual control of an essential resource provides more freedom and prosperity. Which is why I said bullet trains is a step backwards for the US. A step forward is for the US to leverage private transport with green energy.

    Sure, there are one or two advantages to personal transport, but most of the need for them is obviated in civilised nations with good public transport systems. Next time you are stuck in traffic forever, please tell me how that "freedom" is going for you. I came from a nation with good public transport, I've been to others with even better, so coming to this nation which lacks a very good system is a step backwards, away from civlisation and progress, in that regard (as well as others, which we won't go into here). It limits my abilities, and, indeed, my prosperity.

  4. I have been Mormon all my life. I wear a cross. The cross I wear was found during low tide on the banks of the Don River in Russia. It is pretty old. It was given to me by someone while I served there. I don't wear it obviously, but I do wear it every day, the same way someone might wear a CTR ring. To me, it is a symbol of Christ and a reminder of my mission and the things I did there.

    Thank you for posting the link to the book; I may have to read it. I have heard a lot of the history before (in a history of Christianity class at BYU, actually), but it would be interesting to read the details.

    Wait, you served in the Rostov mission? That is where I served! I even spent seven and a half months in Rostov itself. A long seven and a half months...

  5. Perhaps not an unimpeachable source, but Wikipedia states:

    The term "assault weapon", as used in the context of civilian rifles, has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" who wrote:

    “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

    Look here. http://cdm16040.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/2807/filename/2787.PDF

    Google books is also useful for searching the term, as you can limit the range of years searched.

    Assault weapons would have been heavier calibre things.

  6. "Assault Weapon" is a term invented by the gun control advocates and media. It is technically meaningless.

    Nonsense. You'll find the term used in military circles at least as far back as the early 1940s. It was even used in operational documents from WW2. The term makes technical sense, as there are weapons intended for defensive purposes, and weapons for assault.

  7. hi there

    i am a new member of the church. i actually been to christian school for 8 years and had finish bible several times , but i have been inactive for 3 years(i still pray but not often and not read bible)

    i have been baptize to the church about 2 months ago. i have been reading Book of MOrmon to 2Nephi18 how ever i felt it is quite hard to understand because sometime it has cross reference to bible. i lost almost all my knowledge about bible already (i can still remember some concept) i got often confuse about law of Moses , and the house of Israel, Isaiah etc.

    so i pray and i feel that i need to study bible first. the old testament , then book of mormon and then the new testament.

    but my sister missionary told me that i should start with the book of mormon and use the bible as a reference in sometime.

    what should i do? i feel like i should start with bible so i will have strong start. but the sister said that the president teach that knowing the book of Mormon is more important.

    not sure what to do,, i couldnot go with both option cause it is too much to study in one time :confused:

    Go with the answer you got to your prayers.

  8. the armed guard at colimbine was not able to stop the carnage


    If a guard was not able to stop the carnage, then how would it differ if he was outside locked out.

    There is no fool-proof defense. However, if entrance is denied, you have far greater chances of stopping the carnage before it begins.

  9. When I carry, I'm not up and around wandering around looking for trouble. In fact I'm trying to avoid it. Most of the time I'm going about my business and completely ignoring my gun.

    When you cannot keep the assailant where you can control the situation according to your plan, you've as good as failed.

  10. There is a VAST difference between arming someone so that they can defend themselves should other measures fail, and having someone go out and be a security guard. In fact that seems to be the major disconnect in this entire discussion. When I carry, I'm not up and around wandering around looking for trouble. In fact I'm trying to avoid it. Most of the time I'm going about my business and completely ignoring my gun. It's never even come out of its holster in any type of confrontation (cleaning and practice are another matter).

    The Israeli philosophy of defense is to deny the assailant entry to the school. Once entrance is gained you stand a poor chance of neutralising the assailant in a timely manner, IE, before a large number of people are killed. Focusing on outward defense and initial response is far more efficient than arming teachers. You kind of have to "look for trouble" in order to prevent it, which is why dedicated personel are needed.

    I've never seen an armed teacher in class in Israel. Not only did I go to school in Israel (as did all my siblings), my mom was a school teacher for over 20 years. The only exceptions are field trips. Even then, a teacher will only be assigned a gun if there are no professional guards hired, or if none of the students' adult relatives volunteered. Field trips present far more vulnerable targets than schools, hence the exception. The group itself, as it is mobile, must be armed. There simply is no alternative, as we've learned from bitter experience over the years.

    In case you are inclined to dismiss this as the mere ramblings of some anonymous bloke on the internet, I spent two years in the IDF as a security guard, so I have some idea of what I speak.

  11. Israel has teachers carry, they don't have teachers killing people, and there's almost no school violence there.


    My entiore elementary through high school years were spent in Israeli schools. Teachers only carry guns on field trips, not in class or in school. They also generally do so only when a trained guard or volunteer is not available to go with the class. Something else to keep in mind is that most adults in Israel have some sort of military training, which is not, I think, the case in the USA.

    As for no school violence, baloney. There is plenty of violence between students, and some between students and teachers, but none like in Sandy Hook. You'd have to look to other factors than guns for that.

  12. Just seems to be too many variables that could go wrong with arming teachers. That's why I made note of utilising security guards and maybe a checkpoint entry - no one enters except through that checkpoint with valid ID. It's an alternative, at least.

    That is what we do in Israel. Far better solution than arming teachers. Half of the point is to deny entrance to the shooter. You can't expect the teachers to be patrolling the facilities when they have lessons.

  13. I have to agree too. I do know that many times people are asked to pick an article from the Ensign and then give a talk on it. But I don't think it meant to read the entire article. I think it was meant to use it as a reference and build your talk around it.

    It is easy to jump to that conclusion when a member of the bishopric asks you to talk about Elder So-and-so's talk...

  14. Can anyone tell me why it seems when a talk is being given the Ensign is being read almost verbatim? I understand using the Ensign as a source of information, but if most of the people you are speaking to have also read the article what is the point in the talk?

    I agree. It is a fad which appears to have started in the US a few years ago. I've never seen it anywhere else.

  15. They did not need to go nuclear to defend themselves either from their hatefull neighbors. As even supported by:

    Israeli General Matityahu Peled, is quoted in Ha'aretz (19 March 1972) with the following statement,

    "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war."

    This quote, to put it mildly, is baloney. Never mind that it wasn't in Haaretz, but to take it just like that reveals a deep ignorance of those years. Egypt's intentions were hardly secret. What the general staff did discuss was the opportunity to strike before Egypt and its allies were able to solidify and strengthen their position.