Mass violence & gun control

[mirkwood]

God gave me the rights and ability to defend myself.  I will do so under whatever circumstances are placed in front of me.  Pretty simple really.  If someone else chooses to lay down and die I can't change that...unless I am present, at which I point I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 You have every right to beg, plead, attempt to reason, and hug your intruder into submission. You have absolutely no right to force me or your neighbor to do the same. 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.11?lang=eng#p10

Quote

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

God gave me the rights and ability to defend myself.  I will do so under whatever circumstances are placed in front of me.  Pretty simple really.  If someone else chooses to lay down and die I can't change that...unless I am present, at which I point I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening.

Thank you.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

 You have every right to beg, plead, attempt to reason, and hug your intruder into submission. You have absolutely no right to force me or your neighbor to do the same. 

You are correct - you can do as you choose.  My intent is to warn you, from historical knowledge how to keep your family alive.  I thought that was your actual intent.  Like a driver ed teacher I had when talking about defensive driving.  You can be dead right.  The opperative word here is "dead".   The most important thing is not to kill the bad guy - I believe the most important thing is keeping my family alive.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

, at which I point I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening.

Exactly. Thing number two thing that anti-gunners fail to comprehend is that no one wants to shoot someone, even if they break into your house and threaten your family. It's not a fun thing to think of. 

However the bottom line is if you don't want to get shot, don't break into peoples homes. There. Problem solved. 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by MormonGator

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Second: Someone that has or is currently serving honorably in the military.

So, no guns for the disabled, JWs, Amish, etc. 

I'm sure that will go over well.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, NightSG said:

So, no guns for the disabled, JWs, Amish, etc. 

I'm sure that will go over well.

Anti Gunners are nice people who are full of compassion. I really do admire that about @Traveler. 

However, "nice" and "full of compassion" needs to be balanced with "common sense" and not fall into naivety about the real world. 

[Traveler]

12 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

God gave me the rights and ability to defend myself.  I will do so under whatever circumstances are placed in front of me.  Pretty simple really.  If someone else chooses to lay down and die I can't change that...unless I am present, at which I point I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening.

 

Thank you for responding.  However, I am not sure that things are always simple.  I agree that if shots are being fired one must act instantly.  But I am concerned, especially in a hostage or situation where innocence bystanders are involved that the first shot of defense is fired at the moment that the most lives can be saved.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, NightSG said:

So, no guns for the disabled, JWs, Amish, etc. 

I'm sure that will go over well.

I do not understand why someone that refuses to take up a gun or even serve in an organization where someone takes up a gun by design - would take up a gun?  Yours is a strawman argument that I do not think can or will hold any water.

 

The Traveler

[NightSG]

43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just thought to add a thought - even as I have understood scripture - you are better off getting G-d's help than on your own using a weapon.  --My opinion.

Of course I am, but I'm even better off with the trigger finger and tool-using brain He gave me, and the gun He gave us John Moses Browning to make.

Don't you think He can do everything better than you?  So why not just pray for Him to do it all while you lay in bed all day?

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You are correct - you can do as you choose.  My intent is to warn you, from historical knowledge how to keep your family alive.  I thought that was your actual intent.  Like a driver ed teacher I had when talking about defensive driving.  You can be dead right.  The opperative word here is "dead".   The most important thing is not to kill the bad guy - I believe the most important thing is keeping my family alive.

Your personal experience is no more the certain pattern for every such incident than any other person's personal experience.  But you don't seem to respect other people's right to choose, nor believe that other people are even capable of training and preparing themselves for self defense; you even advocated taking away that right from those you personally deem unfit.

It is this elitist attitude that I reject.

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for responding.  However, I am not sure that things are always simple.  I agree that if shots are being fired one must act instantly.  But I am concerned, especially in a hostage or situation where innocence bystanders are involved that the first shot of defense is fired at the moment that the most lives can be saved.

Meanwhile, my training prior to getting my CCW included a hostage situation.  My shooting test was the same as was used for local police officers at the time.  I got a better score than they are required to get.

[mirkwood]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Thank you for responding.  However, I am not sure that things are always simple.  I agree that if shots are being fired one must act instantly.  But I am concerned, especially in a hostage or situation where innocence bystanders are involved that the first shot of defense is fired at the moment that the most lives can be saved.

 

The Traveler

So am I, but that does not equate to lay down and die.  I won't and neither will you if I (or someone like me) is there.

[NightSG]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not understand why someone that refuses to take up a gun or even serve in an organization where someone takes up a gun by design - would take up a gun?  Yours is a strawman argument that I do not think can or will hold any water.

I don't know about JWs, but at least some Amish will defend their families if directly attacked, and all I've ever encountered would hunt, and defend their livestock from predators.

Then there's still those lazy cripples, who can't serve in the military because they refuse to get up and walk...

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Anti Gunners are nice people who are full of compassion. I really do admire that about @Traveler. 

However, "nice" and "full of compassion" needs to be balanced with "common sense" and not fall into naivety about the real world. 

I have not said that I will not defend myself or others with a gun - I have said that I intend to be very smart about it and not get myself or someone else killed in the process.  Not that I could not live with it but for me it is a last resort and I intend to win or save as many lives as I can.  For me it is not about killing the bad guy - it is all about saving the innocent.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Traveler said:

 For me it is not about killing the bad guy - it is all about saving the innocent.

like I mentioned before, it's that way for gun owners too. No one, absolutely no one (except sociopaths) looks forward to killing someone, even in self  defense. 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have not said that I will not defend myself or others with a gun - I have said that I intend to be very smart about it and not get myself or someone else killed in the process.

And you have also said that others should not have this right you claim for yourself.  When you say that, you should just expect a whole lot of people to not like it.

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

So am I, but that does not equate to lay down and die.  I won't and neither will you if I (or someone like me) is there.

Okay - I will ask you.  You are in your home and you are armed.  Someone has broken into your home (perhaps several that are armed the point being that you do not know how many).  What do you do?  I doubt it is to shoot the first bad guy you encounter.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

And you have also said that others should not have this right you claim for yourself.  When you say that, you should just expect a whole lot of people to not like it.

I do not think a 5-year-old should have the right to bear arms.  By your logic, everyone (including infants) should have your same right to fire a gun whenever they think they are threatened?

 

The Traveler

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not think a 5-year-old should have the right to bear arms.  By your logic, everyone (including infants) should have your same right to fire a gun whenever they think they are threatened?

You know full well you weren't talking only about 5-year-olds.  And you know full well that any intelligent adult (so I'm going to take above post as saying that you think I'm an idiot) when talking about gun ownership and use is not talking about children, they are talking about legal, mentally competent adults.  It should not need saying, but there, I've said it:  those of us in favor of private gun ownership mean that mentally competent adults who have not been convicted of violet crimes (add other legalese nonsense that ought to be obvious here) should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to own and use firearms.

You're the only one who's come up with a list of more stringent, and unnecessarily strict requirements for who can own a firearm, which conveniently includes you and excludes those who are in need of a self-defense tool even more than the people who meet your requirements.  Yet for some reason, you are uncomfortable expressing your elitism in plain words, which just baffles me.  You also appear to want to avoid confirming what you've previously said and instead set up your own strawmen to argue against.

What you have said, in previous posts herein, amounts to: "You (zil) should not be allowed to defend yourself from violent attackers with anything more than begging and prayers; whilst I (Traveler) should be allowed to use a gun if I so choose."  I just can't figure out why you don't like it when I put it like that.

Edited November 8, 2017 by zil

[Guest Godless]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The trouble with claiming that mainstream progressives don’t want to completely ban gun ownership, @Godless, is that—whether by good-faith ideological evolution or by just plain deceit from the get-go—progressives have a way of building on the foundation of past gains, to reach for stuff that they used to swear they didn’t want.  They did it with gay rights/religious freedom, they did it with race relations/affirmative action/reparations, they did it with economic policy/redistributive socialism, they did it with health care reform.  

When they swear they *won’t* do it with gun control, pleading with us to agree to “common sense” measures while talking (when they think I can’t hear them) about the joys of England and Australia—I can’t help thinking of Lucy Van Pelt, inviting Charlie Brown to take yet another shot at kicking that old football.

Statements like this make it clear to me just how much conservatives underestimate the number of liberals who own or aspire to own guns. Yes, I have no doubt that gun ownership is higher among conservatives, but an absolute ban would divide the left in ways that gay marriage, health care, and economic reform never did.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

You don't believe that both are true? A "living document" is one that is adaptable, not hidebound. The Constitution has provisions for its own modification -- that is, it is "living".

What you suggest above is the worst possible solution: That the Constitution be interpreted, not as it was intended, but as we want to read it today. This is a path of no return, and it leads to slavery. There is no other possibility. When the judges can freely reinterpret what was codified in law, not according to the intent of the lawmakers, but according to their own sense of propriety, then the First Amendment gets "interpreted" as meaning that religion is against the law and that people have the right to say only what the government allows them to say.

Is that really what you want, that "interpretation" becomes an openly cynical code word for oligarchy?

I think most Americans right now are not completely one side or the other.  I'd say almost any American that isn't for the original idea and letting Americans own the same weapons as the military may be standing in more of a grey area, if not completely on the side of the living document idea.

Me?

I can see both sides of it.  I can see the benefits of both, which is probably why when discussing things like this it can appear I am two minds of it.  Yes, I understand why the Founders put it in and I agree it is a good thing.

I also see why it can be a bad thing (if Trump or George Soros, or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could afford to own personal nuclear weapons...should we allow them to have their personal nuclear arsenal?   Just for starters...).

One could also say that the Civil War changed the entire fabric of the United States.  It changed our entire perspective upon many aspects in the Bill of Rights.  Whereas before we were more for independent states acting in unity, we have become more of a Federal entity where states are merely dividing lines. 

I suppose I'm very multiple personality when it comes to the ideas of whether it is living and breathing, or being opposed to it.  Broad personal example.

I'm a historian.  I love reading about the past.  Some of it is thinking it would be great to live in a certain time period.  That period of 1790 onwards is one of those periods.  To live that time period to right before the Civil War (a period of around 70 years) would be a fantastic time to live in my mind.  There was a lot of freedom, pride in the US, a far more moral populace in general, and many other aspects.  I like the morality of that time period (during which, I believe Joseph Smith said the inhabitants were already as wicked as those in the time of Noah, which says a lot about just how wicked we are today).  I like MANY things about that time period.  That could be applied to the time of the Roman Republic, or other periods of history.

Then I come back to reality and realize, there's no air conditioning (believe it or not, this is a pretty big one for me).  Police as a concept isn't the same as what we see today.  There are no phones, radios, or cars or airplanes.  Medical procedures that are standard and can save lives today are non-existent than...what we may see as a general medical practice of minor effect would have been a life saving miracle back then (this is actually another HUGE one for me).  Our laws have changed and many would say adapted in relation to modern technology.  If the Constitution were not a living and breathing document, what would happen.

In addition, I also believed the Founders had an intent for the Bill of Rights, but also did intend to have the Constitution as a living and breathing document that could adapt as time went on (and when we see the Bill of Rights as the first example of that...well...).  It was this that built resilience into it.  In essence it was built for revolution, but a revolution that would not require the populace to have guns.  Every few years they could overthrow their ruler, but in a peaceful manner instead of violent.   They could even change the laws.  At more drastic extremes they could change the very face of the Constitution via amendments.  It has changed in interpretation in ways that I think has been good.  For example, originally states had state religions.  A state COULD have and enforce a religion and religious practices if it so desired.  Many did not, but a few did.  What would I do if I lived in a strict Presbyterian society?  Would I want anyone living in Utah forced to be a Mormon if the did not want it...and what would happen to those who were excommunicated or otherwise?

I can see the benefits of both.  Which is probably why I facilitate more towards a middle ground in many instances rather then a specific one side or the other.  Both parties (despite what they say) basically are in a middle ground, but both act upon the constitution like it is a breathing and living document.  There are very few who are truly hardcore Constitutionalist in our time, from what I see...or at least that's my opinion.

Some of the difficulties we see today, I see more as cultural changes and differences.  I am unsure if the society that our Fore Fathers had would even work with the culture that resides in the US today.  We are far more wicked, agnostic or atheistic, and violent than they were.  Even Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (famous individuals which many love to try to utilize in arguments of separation of church and state) talked about the need for Americans to be moral people and the necessity of a grand or great Creator in regards to our nation.  Many of the other Fore Fathers acknowledged that the Constitution was written for a Christian people that had Christian morals, that without those Morals the Constitution would not be of any force.

I think we've come to that point, and it is possible that the original Constitution as they viewed it would be of no real force today.  In that light, it has changed, and luckily for us is still working currently.  However, in many ways I think the differences of then and now are more to our cultural changes (and many times for the worse) and how we interpret and do things rather than any massive change to the overall design of the Constitution.  It's our interpretations and such that have changed and caused the changes.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

As a parent I have often told my small (young) children to quit talking - I did not believe that they had to right to say whatever they wanted whenever they wanted.  Have you ever told your children to be qiet? 

 

The Traveler

So, you're saying that if you tell your children to be quiet you are telling them that they have no inalienable right to speak?  C'mon Traveler, we can't have a serious discussion if you keep on moving the goalposts.

So, one more time.  Serious discussion.  Do you believe that the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are inalienable?  Yes or no.

[anatess2]

mormonhub is going psycho again.  duplicating posts and what-not.  Time for a better server.

Edited November 8, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Godless said:

Statements like this make it clear to me just how much conservatives underestimate the number of liberals who own or aspire to own guns. Yes, I have no doubt that gun ownership is higher among conservatives, but an absolute ban would divide the left in ways that gay marriage, health care, and economic reform never did.

I'm not sure about that.  If abortion and gay marriage didn't pull the black, hispanic, and Catholic votes out of the democrat party, I doubt gun ownership would.  The Republicans are currently going through a shake-up.  A revolution, as you will.  This has yet to happen with the Democrats.  I mean, you have blatant in-your-face election fraud hoisted against Bernie Sanders and even THAT can't make him and his followers "divide the left".

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I suppose I'm very multiple personality when it comes to the ideas of whether it is living and breathing, or being opposed to it.

Who in his right mind (other than a monarchist) would be opposed to it?

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are very few who are truly hardcore Constitutionalist in our time, from what I see...or at least that's my opinion.

I think that you do not have any idea what it means for the Constitution to be a "living, breathing document".

Hint: It does not mean that we reinterpret the Constitution to fit our present fancies.