NeuroTypical

It's a mistake. Business relationships aren't about 'helping out'.

Here's the source document for those of us who like source documents: NOW IS THE TIME - The President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence What do I think about it? I think the House has a Repuplican majority.

See, you don't need your big semi-automatic weapons. You just need a cave. So why object to the law? That should be obvious, because I LIKE my dumber buddies.

Indeed. Anyone remember Bloom County?

Pretty intricate and delicate way of saying "no", isn't it. I mean, it's not the military's fault or anything, it's just the reality of the situation that massive 1st world superpowers just can't win in Afghanistan no matter how large the body counts. You just go hide in a cave and come out after the cold season, to see the only change is some of your dumber buddies aren't around any more and US is a few hundred million dollars poorer. Every time the dance is danced, it's a different ball game. But no really, the only way to quickly write off resistance to the scenario you propose, is to carve bits of reality off until it's little more than fluff fiction. You just don't get to write off U.S. citizens when thinking about military takeovers.

The next time you see your Army buddy, ask him if he thinks we won in Afghanistan.

Yeah, it's been a few centuries since George Washington crouched shivering with his unpaid, underequipped, underclothed, underfed rebel buddies. But scarcely a decade has passed since then where a similar song has not played somewhere on planet earth. Remember Lybia? Egypt's marching civilians? The Arab Spring? They call it "asymetrical warfare". It's fascinating reading about what a tiny group can get done against an overwhelmingly larger force. I know that BigBrother-esque scenarios make great fiction and often contain little plausibility. But I also know that wars, rebellions, insurrections, and a dozen other cool sounding words, succeed or fail based on a long list of factors, not just who has the biggest guns and armor.

First of all, I really do apologize for posting the picture. I'm sure whoever created it was only going for a snarky sarcastic zinger - and those don't really do much to foster a civil discussion. I just laughed and thought I'd share. But since folks really do want to talk about it: Oh, I'd think the same thing about it that I do about most other attempts to ban certain kinds of firearms or ammo. The law won't do anything besides place limits on law-abiding people. Folks need to understand the difference between valid legislation, and well-meaning but useless idealism. You can't make bad guys not-have high-capacity magazines in the U.S. You just can't. And you can't replace all of the gazillion semi-auto firearms out there with something requiring a manual action to reload. It's simply not within the power of government to do such things. Legislators and politicians find themselves in quite a bind right now. They can't really do anything, but everyone is demanding they do something. The only thing that a legislator can do, is legislate. And legislation really does nothing to address the issue. (The guy already broke laws when he stole his mom's guns, shot her, stole her car, carried arms into a school zone, and shot kids. Yeah, let's pass another law - maybe nobody will break the new law!) As for why good guys would want hi-capacity magazines, I like this Larry Correia's response:

And now, some random stinging commentary on how stupid it is to "ban" "high capacity" magazines: (sorry - couldn't resist.)

What an immature teenager. This guy isn't interested in self-defense - he's interested in provoking reactions. Like a bratty teenager flaunting his new piercing or tattoo and daring people to say something. Look, I'm one of the more enthusaistic 2nd amendment supporters around here, but I'm just barely willing to acknowledge this guy's right to do what he's doing. He makes the rest of us look bad. I don't claim him as one of mine.

The church is full of active happy believing fulfilled members, who were very very different people 7 years ago. Like my wife tells our kids: "I'm a sucker for a kid who is sorry". I believe our Father in Heaven places a lot of weight on the content of one's heart. Church discipline tends to be geared to help someone become repentant - if you show up truly repentant, it is often a great cleansing process which blesses people for years. I see no reason why this lady couldn't just come to church for a while. Eventually, she'll want to set up an appointment with the Bishop and take care of this. But maybe for a while just coming back and seeing what she thinks about it would be a good suggestion?

You're supposed to tithe on your increase. Someone dead isn't getting an increase. (I think there's a a scripture about that somewhere - something about moths.) I wouldn't call it a tithe, I'd call it leaving a portion of an estate to charity. Now, when someone gets an inheritance, that could be considered an increase. I was executor for my dad's estate, and I paid tithing on my inheritance. I've heard of one case where a couple was trying to divide their assets before death by gifting things to their children. They made it very clear that 'tithing has already been paid on this money'. Some of the kids chose to tithe anyway, some didn't. I can see some mommy somewhere trying to force their inactive kids to tithe when she dies, by doing something like this and demanding it gets called a tithe.

Following correct principles when slaughtering animals and consuming meat will bless the lives of the members in many ways just as all of God's teachings.(I think I'm saying the same thing you are...)

Whatever people decide, one thing I wish they'd keep in mind, is that unless your weed is locally grown, or at least grown in the U.S., there's a chance that every toke you take supports murderous organizations of kidnapping child sex slavers. No really - you're off enjoying your legal marijuana, and you just lined the pockets of some colombian group that is also busy smuggling 9 year old girls across borders into a life of sex and slavery. Yeah, when it gets put that way, that specific scripture or prophetic statement isn't quite as necessary, right?

Darn. I wish you had said something before my wife took the NRA self-defense in the home course. That must be why she always throws plates at me now...Anyway - hey HoosierGuy - are you willing to address my response to your post about the wild west?

AwwwwWWWWW! Congrats.

A lot depends on how good your community is on maintaining the roads. I live out in the middle of nowhere, CO, so we basically just sit at home the first day after a blizzard, then our little 2wd sedans are just fine.

Yeah, Mamma just wasn't the "let the kid cry herself to sleep and deal with it" type. We didn't take any of Applepansy's suggestions, and our first kid finally started sleeping through the night around age 4, the second one around 2. The first kid was hard - it was basically a nightly crying fit while daddy held her until she eventually passed out and slept. I'd count to 100 and restart the count whenever she moved or made noise. Once I could make it to 100, she'd stay asleep when I put her down - otherwise she'd wake up crying again and we'd be back to square one. The 2nd kid would go to sleep as long as someone would hold her hand. They tell me this is pretty common. That's rough too - because you can substitute a mannequin hand after a while, but then you gotta deal with the kid waking up in a crib with a severed hand, and ain't nobody ever grew up to be president carrying that kind of baggage. Hope you find something that works, but if you don't, take comfort that they'll eventually grow into things that allow you to sleep.

Reposting: D&C 89 seems clear enough: meat "should not be used, only in times of winter/cold/famine". So, going directly to LDS.com and looking up the chapter, here's what you'll see: Note the comma after the phrase "should not be used". Compare that with a copy of the same section, out of an original 1835 Book of Commandments: Note the absence of a comma after the phrase "should not be used". It seems to have changed places, and now appears right after "it is pleasing unto me". This changes the sentence structure, and changes the meaning of the sentence. The original text reads 'They should not be used only in times of winter/cold/famine'. In other words, anyone telling you meat is only for winter/cold/famine isn't telling you what the Lord thinks. Compare to D&C 49:18-19 "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance." See, back in Joseph Smith's day, there was indeed a sort of 'religious diet fad' of the day, advocating limiting or eliminating meats from our diet. D&C 49 explicitly counters this idea. The original Book of Commandments Word of Wisdom section explicitly counters this idea. Somewhere, as we fallible humans added verse structure and tried to publish new editions, a comma crept in, and made it harder to understand.

I'm glad you were able to stop the assault CopenKagen. I see you second guessing your decision to employ your firearm, and maybe you're right - I don't know. I'm just thinking that someone worked up enough to punch someone in the face through their helmet in the middle of traffic, is worked up enough to try to seriously injure or kill.Anyway, they tell me that tens of thousands of assaults and other crimes are stopped every year with firearms - your story is a fine example of how it works. I'm glad nobody was hurt.

You can be a member of as many different organizations as will let you join, I suppose. But it seems that you can't be a fully believing member of two organizations that contain contradictory teachings. Catholics figure the Pope is the head of Christ's church, and the Catholic church contains the authority, which is held by no other person or organization anywhere on earth. LDS figure the Prophet is the head of Christ's church, and the CoJCoLDS contains the authority. Folks who consider questions like yours, often have two groups of people they want to keep happy or not dissapoint. Is that your situation?

I'm sorry, what exactly are you trying to communicate here? Is this supposed to be some sort of response to how gun-free zones are horrible ideas? If so, I'm not seeing it.No really HoosierGuy - the US experiences mass-shootings, where 4 or more people are killed, multiple times a year. This is not fantasy talk from old western movies - this is the reality of living in the United States in the 21st century. No really - just about every single one of those occur in what they call a 'gun free zone' - defined as a building or area where guns are not allowed (as communicated in a sign or policy, or legislated into law). No really, I did actually cite about a dozen of them occuring in schools where guns are not allowed. You can google any of them. What does this have to do with old western movies? Hoosier, your fear was a top response back in the late 1980's, as Florida and other states began allowing conceal-carry permits. Your fear was the subject of much studying and data-gathering and results-presenting. It's been over 20 years. Just about every state allows conceal carry now. Your fears were never realized. Permit holders, compared to their non-permit-holding peer demographic, have lower rates of violent crime, and are less-likely to have some sort of gun-related accident.Hoosier - your fear is over 20 years old, and have been pretty well disproven for at least 15 years. No, issuing permits and allowing people to defend themselves will NOT get more people killed. If you disagree, please cite the study that says otherwise. Lots of researchers have been looking for a long time - you think they would have presented something by now. Hoosier, what state do you live in? If it's Utah, people have been carrying in restauraunts for decades. I specifically remember carrying at an Applebees back in 1998 when I lived in Utah. In 2010, a quarter of a million Utahns had conceal carry permits.No really Hoosier, you've been surrounded by law-abiding people, legally carrying concealed handguns, for two decades now. It seems you're hesitant to accept this reality, deflecting it with talk of wild-west movies. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they're not there, you know...

Happ

I won't answer for JAG, but I can answer for myself. Absolutely. The jury has rendered it's verdict - "gun-free zones" are terrible ideas that don't work. They create false senses of security. They allow mass-shooters to rack up large body counts before help arrives. Look at it this way - as you walk your first-grader through life in the U.S., they're already surrounded by law-abiding people with guns. You know that, right? The mall, the gas station, children's sports events, the grocery store - your child has been around armed private citizens for over of 20 years now. Depending on your state, maybe upwards of one in twenty random people are legally permitted to carry. They can't in schools, due to federal and state law. (Notable exceptions would include places where the rich and the elite class send their kids to school.) I guess the relevent question here is to you, HoosierGuy. Count the dead: After SandyHook (27), Oikos University (7), Chardon High school (3), Virginia Tech (33), Nickel Mines (6), Red Lake senior high (8), Columbine (15), Westside Middle school (5), Heath High school (3), Frontier Middle School (3), Lindhurst High School (4), Cleaveland school (6), and almost a hundred other school shootings where people died. The question, HoosierGuy, is why on earth would anyone want to stick their kid in a situation where if a bad guy shows up with a gun, none of the responsible adults are allowed the ability to adequately defend the children in their care?

We sing Christmas songs year 'round. Not like the normal traditional ones, but all the parodies and funny ones making fun of how overcommercialized it is.