NeuroTypical

Senior Moderator
  • Posts

    15895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    246

Everything posted by NeuroTypical

  1. Hi and welcome dekalei!
  2. The major problem as I understand it, is if this nation ever ends up drafting women and forcing them to fight to protect men, all the good men of courage and principle will decide their social contract with the US government has ended, and they'll either disappear into the hills or maybe seek to depose the government and replace it with something worthy of their allegiance. Kind of a bigger problem than just not having as capable a military as one might otherwise have.
  3. My kids and I did some Krav here, taught by our local cops. I don't know anything about Akido, but I basically have Vort's opinion about Tae Kwon Do. It can be hugely character building, teach civility and humility, keep you in great shape, but it's about as useful in a fight as celtic dancing.
  4. So Vort, which swear words were you hard-pressed to resist uttering, when installing the sprinkler system?
  5. At my house, the harder the wind blows, the less snow I have to shovel. It ends up bare sidewalk/driveway, except for two small 2-4' snow drifts.
  6. And he-said/she-said cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. "My gun was safely secured. Someone took it from it's place of safe security and used it to do X. Prove me wrong". That's all anyone will ever need to say in any trial ever. And the proof will almost never be available. I just don't see such a law as doing anything to help. Yes, I understood you. And I suppose it hasn't been tried on the national level, just various state levels. Something to note - Colorado did indeed ban sale of high capacity magazines this year. Result: * The vast majority of Colorado's sheriffs joined with dozens of companies and organizations to sue to get the law overturned. * Most Colorado sheriffs are refusing to enforce the law because, well, it's unenforceable. "I owned this magazine before the sale ban went into effect. Prove me wrong." Cops aren't bothering to enforce the law, because proving noncompliance is basically impossible. * Two state senators were recalled before their terms expired, in the state's first senator recalls in history. A third resigned shortly after the recall petition was certified by the court. The state govt went from a comfortable democratic majority, to a hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth one democratic senator majority. The practical impact here, is even if your idea to ban sales did work, you won't find an elected official anywhere in the US, who will come within a mile of trying to pass this law. Because he'll be turned on by his constituents and recalled.
  7. Cool! I've never been summoned to a thread before. Gives me the big head. I agree with everything you say here in principle. I would worry that agenda and spin and politics could wedge itself into the reporting requirements, and I can guarantee they'll all be present in the interpretation, but yes indeed, actually knowing what we're talking about would be a great first step. Problematic. I'm in favor of holding parents/guardians responsible when their minor children use their guns. But how do define, and how you gain consensus of what "properly secured" means? A gun for home protection must be accessible within seconds to be useful, which means mandating something be unloaded, or secured with trigger locks, or in a state of dis-assembly, or with ammo stored separately - any of those basically make a gun useless for home defense. I've heard all these definitions advanced by the peanut gallery.Would "stored in a gun safe" be enough? What if the gun safe is a small 10 lb metal box by the bedside that can be defeated easily by a drill and a crowbar? That's fine for keeping the kids safe, but something easily stolen - such things are targeted by burglars. Is there going to be some new govt bureaucracy created to license and inspect and certify someone's firearm setup? Again, folks have advocated such things. How would such a liability law be enforced? Kid shoots himself with a gun, the owner claims it was in a gun safe. Was it really in a drawer? Did the kid have the combination? Was it stored safely, but the kid got it from it's place of safe storage and used it anyway? I'm not sure I see a way to make such legislation valid and relevant. I'm wondering if there aren't such laws on the books already. Civil lawsuits measure levels of negligence when awarding damages, don't they? Sounds like something which falls to state legislatures. I'm not really opposed to common sense legislation about this. Well, whatever, but I have to ask what on earth you think this would accomplish? With the majority of gun injuries/deaths being suicides, firearms used in the commission of crimes, and maybe minor children accidents, who cares if permit holders can hit what they aim at? Another way to put it - what makes you think legal uses of firearms leading to unintentional negative consequences is a problem in the first place? I mean, I'm sold on your notion that good data might clarify this, but how many "permit holder accidentally shoots good guy behind bad guy" stories have you ever encountered? I don't think I've ever encountered a single one. Our efforts here are better spent on keeping kids from dying by pulling down tv's on top of themselves (Almost 100 deaths per year, if I remember the statistics correctly.) Unconstitutional. Not to mention ineffective, as it would basically guarantee that bad guys will be better armed than good guys. I have a lot of ready snark here. Statements like "yeah, because it worked so well last time?" Basically, it was tried already, and didn't work. The % of "banned" clips used in crimes did not go down. Something I have come to grips with, which color my attitude towards solutions such as you propose: Definition of law-abiding: Someone who obeys the laws. Definition of lawbreaker: Someone who breaks the laws. Logical conclusion: Pass as many clip bans and gun bans as you like. By definition, the good guys will disarm, and the bad guys will remain armed. Because, see, good guys obey laws and bad guys disobey laws. It's what they do. Someone who is going to shoot you, isn't going to care that it's illegal for them to have a certain capacity clip. These all seem utterly self-evident to me. It's illogical (borderline insanity) to expect any other result. Isn't it? Thanks for the civil tone! I hope I'm responding in a similar tone.
  8. First of all, MOE, thank you. I probably disagree with a substantial amount of the things you're proposing, but I appreciate your even tone, and your practical description of issues that always plague such discussions. Yeah, anatess wins the thread. You're correct. I've known it too for a while. So at the end of the day, I can only do two things:1. Support efforts to strengthen the family in my own home and with those I may be able to influence. 2. Argue against misguided gun control opinions and suggestions and mindsets to keep people from doing more dumb things that don't work, like we did in Colorado this year. Well what do you know! Wikipedia: "On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen." Well, ok. That's one invalid argument out of my toolbox - thanks for letting me know. Wow smudge - do you see how these links support my point?Worst mass shootings section: #1 - Virginia Tech (gun free zone - no guns allowed) #2 - Sandy Hook (gun free zone - no guns allowed) #4 - McDonalds CA (California has severe restrictions on concealed carry - tantamount to a gun free zone) #5 - University of Texas (gun free zone - no guns allowed) #12 - Navy yard (gun free zone - no guns allowed) Look at the largest bubble on the map - Washington DC - the bubble with triple the amount of recent deaths than most other bubbles. Home of some of the strictest gun control laws anywhere in the US. The jury is pretty much out on this subject - the vast majority (not all of them, but the vast majority) of mass shootings, occur in areas where guns aren't allowed. This is what happens when the US tries gun control - the good guys obey the law, the lawbreakers break the law. So when a bad guy shows up with a gun, by definition, the good guys are all unarmed. You want to reduce media-frenzy mass shooting events? Get rid of gun free zones. That means you allow good guys to carry guns in schools. That means the solution is, despite your emotional response screaming otherwise, more guns in schools. It seems like you still don't get it. When you are comparing the US and the UK, you are making an invalid, useless comparison. It's apples and oranges. It's like looking at people from a country suffering from the plague, and telling them "Well, we don't have the plague here in the UK, have you tried being more like us?" I mean, if you're trying to win, or score a "we're better than you because we have low gun violence", I guess you can keep score that way. But if you're going to come into a thread about a Colorado problem and make a bunch of points, it would be nice if any of them would help Colorado. By the way - Utah is one of the very few states that actually allows private citizens and teachers with permits to carry in schools. Utah's Firearm Laws expressly prohibit public schools from making or enforcing any rule restricting firearms. So yeah, no gun free zones at schools in Utah, no mass shootings of schools in Utah. And Idaho is a state where the school administrator can grant exemptions to specific people so they can carry. About half of the states in the US allow teachers to carry under certain conditions. I'm not aware of any mass shootings in those schools.Honestly smudge, you and I want the same thing - more safety for innocent people, less shootings, less violent gun crime. Congratulations on living in the UK, where this is not much of a problem. But if you're going to make suggestions about what the US should do, please come to grips with the fact that your advocated solution of "gun control" just plain simply won't work here.
  9. Pick his deal, make with the buying. Hot Topic | 30% Off Entire Site
  10. And I live in the USA, where things are very different. Culture, rules, constitution, history, status as citizen instead of subject, and we have a huge, HUGE gun problem that you don't have. So perhaps if you could seek to understand why we're not in the same situation as you, maybe that would help you "honestly understand why so many americans are against gun control".
  11. Um Smudge? Did you even read the news articles? The reason this guy only managed to kill himself, was because there was a good guy with a gun in the school. When the shooting started, the good guy ran to face the shooter. When faced, the shooter quit shooting other people, and shot himself.Without that gun in that school, the only guy with a gun would have been the bad guy, who was actively trying to kill people. Can you explain why having this 18 yr old man go through safety classes would have stopped him from deciding to go shoot up a school and kill people? So, this guy legally bought a legal gun and ammo. He had no prior record, and could have passed an appropriate background check. He could have stored his legally purchased firearm in a gun safe, and then taken it out of the gun safe when it was time to go shoot up that school.Since the things you propose wouldn't' have stopped this shooter, and since the guy in the school with a gun did, I can't say I'm too impressed with your notion that education and gun control would have been more effective than that armed resource officer.
  12. I like avoiding spending money too.We have a subscription to Netflix, which can be accessed by the Wii, or our computers. Any of them can be hooked to the TV through either an HDMI cable, or an AV cable. A family in our ward gave us an outdated surround sound system several years ago, it will either plug into the TV (if we're using the Wii), or the computer. TV doesn't need wifi.
  13. On Friday (close to the 1 year anniversary of the Sandy Hook school shooting), there was a shooting at a High School in Colorado (home of the big Aurora theater shooting). The shooting made international news: BBC: Gunman dead after Centennial, Colorado, school shooting CNN has a pretty decent article on it: Colorado's school shooting -- over in 80 seconds Key things from where I'm standing: * Bad guys with guns, are stopped by good guys with guns. * Having someone armed in this High School, probably prevented a bunch of deaths. * Colorado's recent stupid unenforceable bad-idea gun laws, which have resulted in 2 senator recalls and one senator resignation, which most of the state's elected sheriffs are refusing to enforce, of course did absolutely nothing to prevent the shooting. * Interesting tidbit you're not finding in most news outlets: Some of his peers are describing the shooter as "very outspoken on his political views", and "very proud of being a socialist".
  14. TV's are supposed to have wifi now? Yeesh. Just last week, we threw away America's third-to-last non-digital TV. It was working because Obama gave me a free converter, but eventually the controls on it died.
  15. Here's my opinion on the matter, written down many years ago: It's an understandable question. One thing that helped me was the intellectual understanding that the offender is loved by God, even though they did what they did. I worked at understanding how God could do that. I worked at understanding the lives of those who offended me, and how they might have come to such a state. I cultivated a feeling of tenderness towards their griefs and stresses. (In no way did that justify their offenses, it just helped me understand them better.) Another thing that helped me was the understanding that I don't know what is in someone's heart. I can't write their destinies and say I know they will offend again. I can only predict future behavior based on past behavior and current expressed attitudes. It can indeed be difficult to forgive - especially in situations where the offender wasn't caught, hasn't faced any negative consequences, seems to be enjoying the fruits of their offense, or continues to offend others. Learning to accept these people as your neighbors, and loving them with your best approximation of how God loves them can seem almost impossible. But forgiveness really has nothing to do with the other person at all. It's an internal process that cleanses you of feelings that take you further away from the pure love of Christ. If someone seems to like hitting me with bricks, and just yesterday he did it, of course I'm going to stay away from him. After all, he might hit me with a brick! Nothing good ever came from getting hit with a brick just because someone likes it. I'm not interested in standing around him so he can work on hitting a little less each day. It doesn't matter if he says he's sorry after he hits me with a brick. The fact that he got hit with bricks as a kid doesn't change my mind. It doesn't matter that apart from this brick hitting thing, he's a good buddy. I don't want to get hit with a brick, and there's no good reason why I should. So I avoid this person. Now, if I hear that the person has joined "brick hitters anonymous", and he's gone a year without hitting anyone with a brick, and he and I can have lunch at a crowded McDonalds without any bricks appearing - then I might re-evaluate my position. But not until then. I've found this line of reasoning applies to friends, boy/girlfriends, spouses, parents, in-laws, aquaintences, people at work, people at church, and just about any other human being for that matter. I tried to explain it a little before - Learning to accept these people as your neighbors, and loving them with your best approximation of how God loves them. I said my heart and soul feels clean - free of grudges, desires for vengence, misplaced guilt, etc. But the more I think about it, I know I have forgiven these people because I am truly able to love them like I know God loves me. Kind of the catharctic moment in my life was when I got on my knees and was finally able to pray for the person that raped someone I dearly loved. I tried, but couldn't do it for a number of months. I kept wanting to pray that the law would find him. That he would understand the pain he had caused. That the rest of us could be protected from him. Those were all fine things to pray for, but I hadn't forgiven him, and I wanted God to do something to him to give justice. I knew I had forgiven him when I was able to pray that he could find happiness and rest in God. When I examined my heart, and found tenderness for him there, and sorrow that he was taking himself away from God - that's when I knew I had forgiven. If I should ever see him again, I would protect my family from him. But I've forgiven him.
  16. Please allow me to argue a little here - I'm not understanding. If you've forgiven your ex-SIL, and forgetting is part of forgiveness, then how come you keep away from her and keep kids away from her? It's almost like you remember something about her actions that give you reason to protect yourself and innocents within your stewardship...Shouldn't you just forget what she did, and send the kiddos her way?
  17. This applies, because humans stink at perfectly recording important things, and it seems like you're having issues because you haven't internalized this knowledge. The short answer to your question is "we don't know which one Jesus said - and other than personal revelation, we'll never know."Maybe this will help. Think about how scripture is made, and how, by definition, scripture is flawed and imperfect. 1. Jesus said something to people. (We can assume it was the correct thing, put the correct way, communicated clearly.) 2. People heard and understood the words (very error prone processes involving running sounds sent by the ear, through our brains, which add and subtract things, assign meaning based on our cultural understanding, and even change things into other things based on our filters, beliefs, desires, agendas, and life's baggage. 3. Someone tried to remember the words and write them down accurately. (Always a problem. Did God make the hearers perfect? Did He make the writers perfect? Doubtful. 4. Those records go on to be copied, retranslated, and updated with language changes (i.e. different English versions. In all of these processes, changes and errors creep in. Did you believe that everything on a printed page, with chapter and verse assigned, came directly from the mouth of God to your eyes, unaltered and perfect? Too many fallible humans and the junk we carry around with us for that to happen. Scripture tells us about this notion. In those last two, Moroni and Jacob start and end their respective books by basically saying "I'm doing my best here guys, work with me!" Let's also look at the various English translations out there: Depending on which English translation, you've got the notion of carried packs, or burdens, or soldiers, or occupation forces, even a lack of the notion of "mile". Depending on the translation, someone is forcing you, compelling you, demanding of you, making you, impressing you, or constraining you. Those all mean different things, which one was right? We'll never know. We do not even have any original manuscripts for any of the books of the Bible. At best, we possibly have sixth or seventh generation copies, and most manuscripts are probably further away than that. The earliest NT manuscripts we have date between A.D. 150 and A.D. 300. That's 100-250 years after the originals. Yes, only the JST has the notion that you should only go one mile if they demand one mile, and two if they demand two. But it's also missing the notion of soldiers or packs or servants. Who is right? Who is wrong? It's a confusing mish-mash. antispatula, you are at the top of the roller coaster. Think about what you believe and why you believe it. As you move through these next few years of your life, prepare to learn about things that will challenge both.
  18. It's important to understand what forgiveness means and what it doesn't mean. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting, or being a doormat, or ignoring known dangers, or exposing kids to sources of harm. In some situations, there can be a bit of "you're someone else's problem now" in forgiveness.
  19. I don't agree - there are times when children are better off in a broken home!Well, Abuse, addiction, adultry - when one or more of these three get out of control, it's a fair dealbreaker in my opinion. But if you put 1000 random American families in a room, the majority don't suffer from one of those out of control "broken home" situations. Would you agree? Remember, I'm saying "pretty much always" - not "always". Did you read my post? Where I said: Your story is, to a certain extent, a result of the choices of your parents. Well scrappingmom is here still making choices. She has the ability to influence to a great extent, her kiddo's story.
  20. Well, I can't speak to other posters, just me and my opinions. I don't think I have a double standard at work.I honestly don't care much about what grown adults do to each other. When dependent children are involved, I'm much more full of opinion. I don't care which is the unhappy spouse, it's pretty much always in the best interests of the children, that the marriage remain intact until they're up and out. My opinion, however, is not "kids are better off in an unhappy home than a broken home". My opinion is "the adults in the situation should get over themselves and act in the best interests of their children". Sometimes this is something you can't do alone. I'd recommend joint marriage counseling. Stuff like this: "Ok, so I'm an emotional codependent. I'll be working on that with a professional every Tuesday at 3. Please come with me. You need to come and work on your stuff too if you want the marriage to not fall apart. If not, well, I guess we'll both be writing letters to our kid."
  21. antispatula, I'd suggest you learn a little about how records are preserved, how cultures and languages shift and change over time, and how the translation process works.If this item is truly the root of your being deeply bothered, learning about how mortals write stuff down over time should solve your problem. If your being bothered has some other source, you'll still be bothered. Are you sure this issue is the source of your being bothered?
  22. Me too. Miley would make a lousy Pope.
  23. There is a good place for antidiscrimination laws. Medical care, utilities, access to housing, government employment - nobody should be able to cut off someone's electricity because they're [black/gay/mormon/wife-beater/stupid/etc].However, freedom to conduct your affairs as you see fit, as long as it does not impinge on your neighbor, is a core issue. This cake maker (note - baker. Not road maintenance guy, not public park administrator, not banker) wants to worship his God through his artistic creations. There are no shortage of businesses willing to sell cakes to gay couples. By targeting this specific baker, the "love & tolerate" crowd is on the verge of becoming the "love & tolerate & use government force to put differently-minded people out of business" crowd. It's wrong. It's also something that is pretty much always done by whoever is in charge.
  24. I don't see any melodramatic cumulation to anything, just more change and new chapters. Change is constant. For example - same sex marriage. "They" are winning, and "We" are losing. One thing we predicted years ago, was that "they" wanted more than just the right to get married. They also wanted to remake society and force people to change. We opined about a future situation where a wedding cake maker would be forced to make cakes for gay weddings, and they assured us such things would never happen. Well, the oppressed have become the oppressors: Judge orders Colorado cake-maker to serve gay couples It's not the end-times apocalypse. It's just the pendulum of history swinging like it always has.
  25. It doesn't?Consider the case of a repentant child molester. He's paid his price to society through jail time and parole and the felony conviction which will follow him for the rest of his life. He's released himself from the burden of his sins through the atonement. But even though he's clean, he has destroyed a family or two, and a handful of people out there must live their lives burdened by the permanent scars he caused. If he were to be given a calling with the youth, this handful of people would be further hurt. And imagine what the church's enemies would do with the information that the church stuck a convicted child molesting felon in primary with the kiddos. And further imagine what would happen if this man, who despite being washed clean through the blood of the Lamb, still retains his awful leanings/tendencies/urges that caused him to molest in the first place, and he molests one of the primary kids in his stewardship. It's not about forgiveness, it's about protecting innocents from known sources of harm. You can forgive someone and still keep an eye on them. Forgiveness does not always equal forgetting. It does not mean turning a blind eye to a known danger. Yes, repentance changes people. But it does not remove their agency, nor does make them perfect. Perhaps you should reflect a bit more on what forgiveness means, and what it does not.