Just_A_Guy

No Guns in Sacrament Meeting—We Mean It This Time!!!

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think driving is a privilege, not a right. 

But it's interesting to me. If I'm wrong, fine. I'm not a lawyer. But my mental state, including being intoxicated or high, shouldn't effect my rights to free speech. Now don't get me wrong-I don't have the right to incite a riot or tell a crowd to beat you up. But if I'm drunk and decide to engage in a peaceful social protest-that should be fine. 

One of the problems with being drunk or intoxicated - is that the individual is unable to discern themselves what is a peaceful social interactions both in regards to themself and concerning others.   Impaired judgment is the very definition of drunk or intoxicated.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think driving is a privilege, not a right.

Which I suppose is my point. Your right to free movement is not necessarily legally infringed when you're intoxicated, but a given expression of that right may be. Likewise, you may still have the right to keep and even bear arms when intoxicated, but that does not necessarily mean you can or should be allowed to carry publicly when you are not in a physical or mental state to exercise that right in a responsible manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I can open another can of worms?  As we talk about gun (firearm) laws and legislation - I have suggested that those using certain known judgmental and mind altering substances be required to prove enough sobriety to be allowed to own and operate firearms - What about mental illnesses.  Are there objections for individuals with known mental issues being required to maintain and prove levels of competency in order to own and use firearms?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Because if I'm intoxicated I still have free speech rights, 

Boy howdy ain't that the truth.  You ever see this guy on Facebook after a bender?  You'd think they'd pass a law against that...

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Are there objections for individuals with known mental issues being required to maintain and prove levels of competency in order to own and use firearms?

Certain mental issues, yes.  Other mental issues, no.

We probably don't have good data for this, what with hippa privacy issues and all.  But does it not make common sense that folks in the throes of paranoid schizophrenic delusions have higher rates of violent crime than, say, the vietnam vet with PTSD with whom I go hunting and shooting?  Or the ADHD mom in her '40's with two kids, and a protective order against an abusive ex?

If there's a proven scientific link between this or that mental issue, and violent crime, let's talk.  Until then, yes, I object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Traveler said:

So I wonder - if I, with a near perfect driving record can be made to and required to have yearly expert approval for my hypertension in order to maintain a motorized vehicle - why not to the same for those that use substances that are known to impair cognitive functions to have yearly expert approval for firearms?

Excellent question.  I believe that is an abuse of power for you to be required to get yearly approval to travel using your motorized vehicle; I don't think the government should have the authority to require it until after there is evidence of your personal capacity limitations specifically as it pertains to driving; I feel similarly about weapons ownership.

Even if I didn't believe that, the possession of a deadly weapon is different than the use of a deadly weapon, you are not impeded from owning a vehicle, only from using it on public roads; I think it would be reasonable for ones's weapons use to be limited as it pertains to employment as a public or private security guard (or similar), but private ownership does not inherently indicate that the weapon would ever be used.  Some wealthy people own unused sports vehicles, no one will take those vehicles away just because they don't have a license to drive them.  Until there is evidence of abuse of a right, I don't think that right should be impeded; otherwise, we are just playing 'minority report', but with even less data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utah:

76-9-701.  Intoxication

(1)A person is guilty of intoxication if the person is under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or any substance having the property of releasing toxic vapors, to a degree that the person may endanger the person or another, in a public place or in a private place where the person unreasonably disturbs other persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utah:

76-9-102.  Disorderly conduct.

(1)A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:

(a)the person refuses to comply with the lawful order of a law enforcement officer to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or

(b)intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:

(i)engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;

(ii)makes unreasonable noises in a public place;

(iii)makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place; or

(iv)obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic in a public place.

Edited by mirkwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Traveler said:

I doubt you would be allowed to testify in a court of law if you were drunk or high.

 

The Traveler

I quite enjoy cross-examining inebriated people.

On the other hand, about a month ago one of my witnesses turned up high.  Not a good day . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2019 at 8:18 PM, person0 said:

That is an entirely inaccurate assumption.  Show me the statistics that establish that. . .

Sorry,  I have been busy lately and couldn't answer earlier, but there are plenty of sources that say this.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/statistical-life/201701/the-true-odds-shooting-bad-guy-gun

http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/184209741.html

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&sxsrf=ACYBGNSvBXmUAYlUm5tsltb7T2gF-EvlSQ%3A1568478406545&ei=xhR9XeTrIJDS-gSRqZngBg&q=chances+of+accidentally+shooting+vs.+defending+oneself&oq=chances+of+accidentally+shooting+vs.+defending+oneself&gs_l=psy-ab.3...7773.9502..9833...0.0..0.718.3336.5-4j1......0....1..gws-wiz.xxco7kHZxow&ved=0ahUKEwjk5omy3dDkAhUQqZ4KHZFUBmwQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

I'm just pointing these out to answer your question and to point out a possible reason for the ban of guns in sacrement meeting.

As for me, I am for strong background checks, but I'm not really anti-gun.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scott said:

What's a weak background check?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scott said:

Sorry,  I have been busy lately and couldn't answer earlier, but there are plenty of sources that say this.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/statistical-life/201701/the-true-odds-shooting-bad-guy-gun

This articles analysis is inaccurate.  The article suggests that there are approximately 250 attackers shot each year by a 'good guy with a gun' and approximately 500 accidental deaths each year from a gun.  He then goes on to argue that point and throw in a few other numbers to try and make it sound like what he is saying is valid and reasonable.  However, the writer himself destroys hi entire argument with this one statement:

Quote

Also, many people may protect themselves without shooting the bad guy.  It's impossible to estimate this protective effect . . .

The author openly admits that he does not have enough evidence to support his claims.

9 hours ago, Scott said:

The primary argument from the second article is shown from this statement which is repeated throughout:

Quote

Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

So, once you remove that which is irrelevant (suicide and illegal use of a weapon), then you are left with a similar statistic to the one from the first article, essentially, 4 unintentional shootings to 1 self defense use.  The author, however, does not define 'use'; I would assume use means a pull of the trigger as that would most match the first article, and also because, as the author from the first article admits, it is impossible to estimate the protective effect of the defensive use of a firearm that does not result in a shot being fired.  I would further argue, the defensive use where a shot is fired but where the target is missed is also not measured.  Just because someone misses their target does not mean that use of a firearm for defense was unsuccessful; an attacker may still flee if a shot is fired and missed; neither article addresses any data that may be available related to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the data and research (on either side) doesn’t change the church’s position for the members to not carry weapons at church. It’s simple, they are prohibited. After praying I felt the spirit confirm that this is how God wants it at this time in his houses of worship.

For me this is no different than many other church statement or handbook rules. There are many things in the church that I can point to research done by man to support or not support a church doctrine or position. 

I think many members (not all) are struggling with this because it challenges their political viewpoint on gun rights. Just like I have seen many members struggle with the statements made by the church leadership on abortion, immigration, same sex attraction, etc.

I have tried to step back and ask myself the following. Are my political views first and my religious beliefs second or are my religious beliefs first and my political viewpoint subservient to those beliefs. 

God is not a conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. These are things of man.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, raven2 said:

I think many members (not all) are struggling with this because it challenges their political viewpoint on gun rights. Just like I have seen many members struggle with the statements made by the church leadership on abortion, immigration, same sex attraction, etc.

I like your post raven, and surely there are some who fall in that camp.  I'm struggling, not because it challenges my political viewpoints, but because it seems counterintuitive to various realities I've come to understand.  Like how a gun free zone only disarms good guys.  And how once someone has decided to start killing until something stops him, he'll keep killing until someone stops him.  And how when you compare every single demographic, to the conceal-carry members in that demographic, you find the permit holders have lower rates of violent crime.  

But absolutely, the people using the "p" word are prophets and apostles, serious folks who do their homework and their knee work before just willy-nilly doubling down on a controversial policy.  I'd be foolish to dismiss that out of hand.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I like your post raven, and surely there are some who fall in that camp.  I'm struggling, not because it challenges my political viewpoints, but because it seems counterintuitive to various realities I've come to understand.  Like how a gun free zone only disarms good guys.  And how once someone has decided to start killing until something stops him, he'll keep killing until someone stops him.  And how when you compare every single demographic, to the conceal-carry members in that demographic, you find the permit holders have lower rates of violent crime.  

But absolutely, the people using the "p" word are prophets and apostles, serious folks who do their homework and their knee work before just willy-nilly doubling down on a controversial policy.  I'd be foolish to dismiss that out of hand.

Thanks for the response. I am trying to get to a point that I trust Heavenly Father more than my own knowledge or concerns. (Still lots to learn on this.) 

Of course this idea is nothing new with the followers of Heavenly Father throughout the generations of humanity or even our pre earth life as well. 1/3 of all of our brothers and sisters didn’t trust him enough out of fear, pride, etc to even make it to mortal life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also said "don't eat that fruit", knowing full well that we were gonna eat the heck out of it.  The whole plan kinda factored in our willful disobedience.   (Not saying you're wrong, just saying the first thing that pops into my mind.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raven2 said:

I think many members (not all) are struggling with this because it challenges their political viewpoint on gun rights. Just like I have seen many members struggle with the statements made by the church leadership on abortion, immigration, same sex attraction, etc.

I have tried to step back and ask myself the following. Are my political views first and my religious beliefs second or are my religious beliefs first and my political viewpoint subservient to those beliefs

I agree completely. Politics naturally makes us go into an intense tunnel vision mode where either your for us or against us. Any challenge or comment that questions a particular political movement’s  status quo is immediately met with hostility.

In this case, you either think all guns need to be confiscated or that we all need to have mounted mini guns on all our roofs. The idea of a middle ground is just absurd. 

So when the church says “no guns at church”, members go into political panic mode. I’ve actually forced my self to stop watching political news on YouTube because I found myself on occasion slipping down that road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scott said:

One that doesn't take in account mental stability or lack thereof.

What is the exact line where one should be deemed mentally unstable?  Who makes that determination?  Can such a designation be appealed and/or rescinded and what would be necessary to do so, and how long would it take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, raven2 said:

I think many members (not all) are struggling with this because it challenges their political viewpoint on gun rights.

I'm sure you are right about that as it pertains to the general membership of the Church.  Admittedly, I have been one of the more vocal in this thread arguing against the change, however, I do not base it on my political views.  My political views certainly favor private gun ownership, and like @NeuroTypical, I am uneasy because of the realities of gun free zones.  However, I find myself mostly confused because of my understanding of the Doctrines of the Restored Gospel, and the words of Christ where He directly sustains the constitution of the United States and indicates that He established it.

The constitution includes the 'right to bear arms', and that it 'shall not be infringed'.  'Bear', meaning to carry or to be equipped. 'Shall not', as in nearly identical verbiage to the Lord's when dictating/inscribing the 10 commandments. Too many people argue about the reasoning behind why the right to bear arms exists, but the reasoning is ultimately irrelevant.  The Lord prohibits His Latter-Day Saints from consuming alcohol, there are two reasons for this given in D&C 89 (conspiring men and the weakness of some saints).  Ultimately, those reasons are irrelevant, because the Lord Himself forbids it.  Likewise, the reason that every American's 'right to bear arms shall not be infringed' is irrelevant, because the whole point is, that in order to be certain that reason is 100% fulfilled, the right must not be infringed.  So, my quandary is this, if the Lord Himself established our constitution, why then is a policy being implemented that conflicts with with the rights and principles established in the constitution?  If it is my God given right to carry a weapon, why would the Church specifically and intentionally infringe upon a right which they teach to have been established by God?

I await the upcoming General Conference because, as we have seen recently, many decisions have been enacted and then followed up with an official announcement declaring the change to be directed by revelation.  I suppose we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, raven2 said:

All the data and research (on either side) doesn’t change the church’s position for the members to not carry weapons at church. It’s simple, they are prohibited. After praying I felt the spirit confirm that this is how God wants it at this time in his houses of worship.

For me this is no different than many other church statement or handbook rules. There are many things in the church that I can point to research done by man to support or not support a church doctrine or position. 

I think many members (not all) are struggling with this because it challenges their political viewpoint on gun rights. Just like I have seen many members struggle with the statements made by the church leadership on abortion, immigration, same sex attraction, etc.

I have tried to step back and ask myself the following. Are my political views first and my religious beliefs second or are my religious beliefs first and my political viewpoint subservient to those beliefs. 

God is not a conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. These are things of man.    

There is a bit of a conundrum.  First is that we can understand that G-d inspired our constitution here in the USA - including the second amendment as a "fit" for our time.   But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not just a church for those member that live under the constitution of the United States of America - it is for all the Saints of these Latter-days.  There is not one church for the United States and another church for England, France, South Africa or anywhere else.

We are told that if we have faith and believe - that all things will turn out for our good.  I do not believe that such means that no one will be killed by a nut job at church by a gun or any other weapon (church history clearly points out that such is not at all the case).  Rather that if such were to happen - it would turn out for the good of those that believe and have faith.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to show up to Sacrament Meeting naked, and when the faithless heathens complain, I'll just cite Matthew 6:28-30. If God didn't approve, He would clothe me as He sees fit. 

Edited by NightSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now