David13

I was visiting in the Manti 6th ward this week and I raised my hand to sustain everyone that they mentioned.  My intention is to move into this ward, then it would be my ward, if that makes a difference.
Now they said the same as sometimes others say, "those who may or who can sustain" ...
What they mean by that?  Am I authorized, or what?
I've only been in the church a little over a year and the first week the missionaries said you can raise your hand, go ahead.  So I guess they authorized me.  However, I don't know if that authority is good out of town or not.
I will act as if it is.
dc

I first took notice of Nigel Farage when he lambasted the newly minted President of the European Union back in February of 2010 (Von Rompuy took office in Jan 2010).  And he says it like it is.  (see short video below).  Although Farage is not quite accurate in attacking Von Rompuy's appointment... after all, Rompuy was elected by the European Council (composed of the government leaders of the EU states), his speech struck a cord.  The EU has been trying to mimic the structure of the United States of America with each State leader choosing the President (in the US each State established a system by which the people gets to decide who the State chooses to be President - this does not exist in any State of the EU).  But they keep on messing up because each member state is too diverse from each other and they're forcing them to lose their individual identity in the name of multiculturalism and globalism.  For example - the EU wanted to ban certain teapots in the name of Climate Change... fine in Belgium, not fine in Britain (teapots are ingrained in British culture).  And so the British people are feeling the pinch of losing the things that make them British to a Belgian or foreign EU President.
 
 
Anyway, after decades of Nigel Farage fighting the EU over British autonomy, he finally found himself, surprisingly, with a resounding WIN.  In my opinion, Brexit is the right path for Britain in the same manner that I believe the dismantling of the Soviet Union was the right path for the Soviet States.  The United States of America is a unique conglomeration of States which is a success because of the strength of the US Constitution.
This Fox interview with Farage yesterday was brilliant - Farage expressed perfectly what I feel about the relationship between Britain and the EU:
 
 
 

"But if you carry a gun and look for reasons to play Dirty Harry than congratulations. You are part of the problem."
Here's my hypothetical conversation I'll probably have some day:
Someone: "Why do you carry a gun?"
Me: "Self defense, and to scare off bears and signal for help if I ever break down out in the middle of nowhere."
Someone: "Self defense?  Why?  What do you expect to happen standing here today?"
Me: "Absolutely nothing.  Why, do you think something might happen?  Should we move to a safer location and continue the discussion?"
Interesting personal anecdote: From age 16 to my mid-30's, I've been, not a rude driver, not an aggressive driver, but let's just say very serious driver.  It's not something I was proud of.  I'd get personally invested in things.  I tried to change this about myself and failed for a long time.  When I started carrying, I noticed my driving habits changed overnight.  Not only that, but there was a sensation of "it ain't worth it" that just kept me from going there in the first place.   I have to slam on the brakes because Dood decided to cut in front of me to make that turn?  Well, he probably had somewhere to be.  I'm 10 minutes late and the old lady was slowing down before the stupid light even turned yellow?  Meh - it'll turn green again.   Carrying me = polite, patient, safer me.  It sort of surprised me.  Still does. 
 
"There's a troubling bloodthirsty feel to the idea that anyone who trespasses automatically forfeits their life no matter what their reason is for being there.  That's not a Christian attitude."
Oh, I don't think it's troubling, and I don't judge the Christian attitude behind it, but yeah, it may be sort of bloodthirsty.  That said, most serious gun owners I know are only interested in ending the threat, not killing someone.  It just so happens that the highest chances of quickly ending a threat involve the use of deadly force.   I know tazers and pepper spray and whatnot - I've seen them fail.  When someone invents a gizmo thing that makes someone not be a threat any more, and it's as reliable as my Glock, and will scare a bear away and signal for help, I will gladly switch.  Until then, yeah, a stranger standing in my daughter's bedroom may be met with deadly force until I'm satisfied he's no threat.  (See below)
 
"I don't want to have blood on my hands and have to explain to the Savior on the Day of Judgment that I took the life of one of my earthly brethren because he might have been in my home to steal my sweet SONY TV set..."
Oh yes indeed - carrying, for me, equals running through scenarios in my head, and asking myself specifically about whether I'd want to explain my actions to my Savior and Judge.  My stuff, my wallet, my car - it ain't worth it.  My life, my family?  You bet - I'll even look my Savior in the eye, and I have good reason to believe He'll be understanding.  It's all situational.  If we're sitting there and hear someone trying to bust in, there'll be all sorts of cop calling and yelling "we're armed - just go away!".  If we come home and a door is open and a car is in the driveway, we'll drive the heck the other way and call the cops.  If my family is somewhere else and I come home alone, I'll be less hair trigger.  If we come home and see a stranger passed out, or obviously not a threat, things'll probably be fine.  
 
"While she did not take the christlike route,..."
Yeah, that's an unrighteous judgement.  We don't know whether she did or not.  Christ talked about gathering swords and self defense.  The BoM is full of people practicing self-defense.  Our restoration history is full of people practicing self-defense.  Was Joseph not being Christlike when he fired on the mob at Carthage?

Right.
At the same time, Carb's post needed a sanity check.
 

This is like debating whether to kill the gorilla or not.  It's easy to armchair quarterback after the fact... from the computer.  It's like the NFL and instant replay.  Life has no instant replay.

P.S.
This is an anti-American sentiment. 
An American is self-reliant.  He does not rely on government or police to defend his own castle.  The Declaration of Independence - the ideals that birthed the American culture - states unequivocally that MAN has INALIENABLE RIGHTS.  With these rights come the responsibility of DEFENDING these rights.  The US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS these rights - including the right of every American to stand up to threat.
This is very unique in the entire world.  This is what makes the United States of America the beacon of hope.
This is what makes it nigh impossible for organizations such as ISIS to raze the American people... ISIS may be able to cross the Southern Border, the POTUS may render the Military impotent... even then, ISIS won't survive Texas.

A person entering one's house without invitation is an invader.  He is not a victim.
An American has every right to defend his property from any and all invaders.
A woman with children facing an invader in her home does not need to invoke diplomacy first.
Let this be a lesson to ALL PEOPLE... DO NOT INVADE AN AMERICAN HOME.
This lesson goes with - DO NOT GO NEAR MAMA BEARS WITH BEAR CUBS.  YOU WILL DIE.

Your posts seem a lot more hostile than anything I posted.  And biased.  Not objective.
It's good to praise a Judge who can see thru' all the lies of modern day racism and witch hunt prosecutions.  And who can state clearly and unequivocally that there is no evidence when there is no evidence.  If the Judge says that, it means exactly that.  And then to he said Not Guilty, rather than let me convict based on "political correctness".
I am qualified to tell you what it means when a Judge says something.  I have a license to interpret what they say.
And when a Judge who is in a position to be influenced by his skin color in favor of guilt says what he said about the case, it is rather clear that the case was what you would expect based on what you admit you know.  That is, that there is a racial element to this.  That it is a "get whitey" or "get the police" witch hunt.  Or both.
Apparently you think it was something else.
And you don't seem to be able to grasp a rather simple concept that was set forth by Mirkwood.  That the one you want to be responsible should be the responsible one and not the nearest 'whitey' or policeman.  The one responsible is the one who set in motion the criminal activity that caused the death.  Period. 
It doesn't surprise me that you miss the essence of it.  Many people do that today, particularly the family who offer all kinds of ridiculous excuses for the criminal behavior that gets someone (the perp) killed. 
It's generally based on a concept (I guess) that there is a "right" to commit crimes and that then no one, police or citizen with a gun has a right or responsibility to use deadly force to stop them.
That the population must let them commit crimes.  That ain't the way it works.
dc

I can't speak for David, but, yes, in essence. The evidence was (as best we can tell from the reports) questionable.
But there is a racial component here, and the PC crowd makes talking about race (except to blame White USA, and White USAan men, especially White USAan Christian men for all the evils of the world) "immoral".
Lehi

You mean if he had gone along with the racist witch hunt and found guilt based on nothing but racism?  You mean if he had invented some evidence, like the hokey prosecutor did?
Yeah, there probably wouldn't be any laurels thrown then, no.  Is it difficult to understand that? 
dc

Speculation connected to more regulation.
Do you have to have a license or training to have a child?  Yet you can do far more harm over generations if you don't do it right. 
I'd be in favor of that.  Training for everyone.  Then I'm on board.
dc

As long as we have government-run, tax-funded welfare schools why not have firearms safety and marksmanship classes mandatory for all freshmen or sophomores?
In my sophomore year, Army Jr.ROTC was required. and one semester was dedicated to rifle marksmanhip. Tehre was a firing range in the basement.
At least that's one thing that they could do to justify their abominable costs.
Lehi

No, it's an entirely different thing.
dc

Just means she's a typical YSA girl; focused on the wallet.

This looks like a repeat post with a twist. 
Your dream does not mean anything, it was just a dream. There are plenty of fish in the sea move on. Study, get involved in some school activities. 

I'd feel safer in church if I knew EVERYBODY there was carrying a gun.  That way a bad guy wouldn't stand a chance at getting me.
People who are afraid of guns are like people afraid of the dark.  An irrational and uneducated fear.
Get a gun and get some training and get out to the gun range, learn something about reality, and you not only will not fear guns you will understand from your own knowledge why you then feel safer with your brethren armed.
Gun control means you want a good guy to be in control of a gun at any time, and not a bad guy.
As to the recent shooting in Florida, does anybody know what it was that stopped the shooter?  What was it that stopped the shooter?  Was it going out and passing more laws, then more laws, then more laws?  No?
What was it?  Oh, lo and behold ... A GUN!?
If it wasn't for the gun I suppose the guy would still be over there shooting people while the geniuses kept meeting and meeting and meeting to determine what to do about him.
dc

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it.
But it never does. 
In fact it means more people will be killed.  An example is the Orlando situation.  The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him?  Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him.
There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it.
If there were more guns there, someone could have.
In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him.  A gun that the police had to bring hours later after  so many were killed.
So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them
dc

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it.
But it never does. 
In fact it means more people will be killed.  An example is the Orlando situation.  The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him?  Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him.
There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it.
If there were more guns there, someone could have.
In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him.  A gun that the police had to bring hours later after  so many were killed.
So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them
dc

So then the conclusion is, less gun control not more, so that if anyone wants to try they can take that chance rather than like 49 did, die like lemmings. 
It's better to try and fail, rather than have no chance to try and die.
dc

Yeah, but so what.  One in the hands of a "highly trained" and capable individual who exercises their capability can also be taken by the bad guy if he gets the drop on the guy, can't it?
But it's better to die having a fighting chance and taking it, rather than just as dead weight, just as a sitting duck.
And good for you not being left out of the weapons class.  I think women need just as many guns and experience with them as any man, if they so choose.
I have certainly known enough women who struck me, from experience as a lot more capable as a partner in survival than a whole lot of men I have known.
dc

Yes, he has one.  As evidenced by his article that says, "If the same rule was applied to everybody else there would be a lot less guns in the country."  He believes that it is not his history that got him denied the purchase.  He believes - or wants us to believe - that it was because he is a reporter and Mason's hate reporters.  What an idiot.

Apparently he wrote a book about his alcohol abuse and his charge/conviction would be of record on the background check, which would cause him to be denied.
Lautenberg amendment I believe it is.
But as you may understand his political bent is that it's quite acceptable to lie about it all and that people will then believe it, that he was denied by some great conspiracy, rather than the fact that he is a drunken wife beater.
They say he admits in the book that he will probably be drinking again.
dc

Maybe the range should open a photo booth (or put cameras behind bullet-proof shields, or something) and make a little extra profit selling pics to the gang bangers.

Here in firearm-friendly Colorado Springs, going to the range is always a fun experience.  Current and former military, gang bangers shooting their pistols sideways, families where mom & dad are training their kids, and me with the Elders Quorum on an activity.  
The gang banger wanna-bes are the most fun to watch.  They like to show off, it's all about posture and poise, looking intimidating.  It's fun to watch them look sneering and dismissive at the stuff other people bring.  It's fun to watch them empty a clip and not even cut paper on their target.  They don't seem to notice - their attention is more on how cool their gun is, and how good they look handling and shooting it.