Alma 14:11

As long as folks back in Washington are attacking the Constitution - why stop with the 2nd Amendment? Why don't we do away with the 1st Amendment? We really don't need free speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press anymore do we?



If we attack the 2nd Amendment - why stop there? The Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing did they?

Ddawg wrote:
As long as folks back in Washington are attacking the Constitution - why stop with the 2nd Amendment? Why don't we do away with the 1st Amendment? We really don't need free speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press anymore do we?



If we attack the 2nd Amendment - why stop there? The Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing did they?

We have all sorts of reasonable regulation of first amendment conduct. Like we ban child pornography, allow for defamation claims, prohibit shouting fire in a theater, etc. We don't let children be bit by snakes to then exercise faith and heal the child With an exercise of that faith. I think most all of us support these sorts of regs and other like restrictions. So there are restraints in place and I am comfortable with them. I think reasonable restrictions for the second amendment can follow this precedent.

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=9812196" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



"What my young friend posted on his Facebook page.

I have his permission to share. I know I am preaching to the choir.



With the growing tragedies in our society, and people arguing on what the root cause might be. I would like to talk about one issue that I believe is on the top of that list, which is broken families/homes and how it destroys our society/culture.



(I understand that with any opinion some might have disagreements and point out that not all the evidence might be there, and as for my current one there might be some flaws however with the current news of shootings, this is my opinion.)



I believe that "Gun control" (even though it is important) is not the issue, the true issue is actually our culture and how it's diminishing values on family values and sanctity of marriage.



Children from broken homes account for:

--63% of teen suicides.

--71% of teen pregnancies.

--90% of homeless and runaways.

--71% of high school dropouts.

--75% of all drug users.

--85% of behavioral disorders.

--70% of those in juvenile detention.

--57% of all prison inmates.

(These were taken from various sites and most of these stats are outdated.)



Basically what I like to point out is that marriage is a sacred vow. Marriage is a vital source for communities and even for a nation.



If our government took policies that strengthen the values of marriages it would tremendously help our culture in today's society.



Strong marriage should lead to strong families, which can help create a culture of important values that can help our society as a whole.



This being said, we have plenty of single parents that do a wonderful job of raising children and creating a strong and respectful citizens in all nations. However sadly, statistically speaking, these "single" parents are very few in number.



(Note: I might have a plethora of spelling and grammatical errors, and this small insert might not make sense, this was just on my mind and I wrote this in a short period of time.)"

This is a very revealing list Scott. Why doesn't Bidden and his committee ban broken homes and bad marriages? That's about as logical as banning firearms. While we're at it we should ban stupid, oh oh, that would clean out Washington D C.



What's reasonable gun control? I heard Tom Sellick on a talk show where the host (R. O'donnel I think) was grilling him on that question. She said the 2nd amendment was written back when they had muzzle loaders but not for now when we have large magazines and automatics. It came to me after that that I'd rather be around a guy with a Browning .50 who only used it to go out in the desert to shoot abandoned cars than a guy with a muzzle loader that was trying to kill me with it.



I didn't think that many knew about Joseph and his pepper box pistol. I am impressed that some of you know of it. I think it jammed before he emptied it. I believe the father of the above mentioned Browning, at that time, had his slide action and revolver rifles out. It's too bad Joseph and the others didn't have them. I guess it wasn't meant to be.

Any plan to curb murder such as that committed in Sandy Hook that does not recognize that existing gun laws were a catalyst in bringing about the end result cannot be considered sincere or intelligent.



Laws that forbid the carry of defensive weapons at the school share guilt in taking those innocent lives because it was those laws that left the humanity at the school defenseless and marked as targets.



Any suggestion that more laws of the same crafting will do anything but produce more of the same results is simply dishonest if not insane.

nuk13 wrote:

I didn't think that many knew about Joseph and his pepper box pistol. I am impressed that some of you know of it. I think it jammed before he emptied it. I believe the father of the above mentioned Browning, at that time, had his slide action and revolver rifles out. It's too bad Joseph and the others didn't have them. I guess it wasn't meant to be.

You bet - you know your stuff - it was a pepperbox that Joseph had in the Carthage jail. Hyrum had a single shot blackpowder pistol, but was killed before he could use it. Actually, the LDS church has Joseph's pepperbox, and Hyrum's blackpowder pistol in their possession in SLC.



The pepperbox looked like a miniature Gatling gun with six barrels. Instead of the classic Colt six-gun where the cylinder rotates. The pepperbox rotated all six barrels - just like a Gatling. It was heavy, and not dependable in function. Each barrel had a cartridge loaded in it.



A bullet had been shot through the jail door, hitting Hyrum in the face - killing him. Joseph went to the door, opened it, pushed the pepperbox through the opening, aimed down the hall at the attackers and pulled the trigger six times. The pistol fired 3 shots and misfired 3 times.



http://www.ldsmag.com/article/8148" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BoiseBYU wrote:

As long as folks back in Washington are attacking the Constitution - why stop with the 2nd Amendment? Why don't we do away with the 1st Amendment? We really don't need free speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press anymore do we?



If we attack the 2nd Amendment - why stop there? The Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing did they?

We have all sorts of reasonable regulation of first amendment conduct. Like we ban child pornography, allow for defamation claims, prohibit shouting fire in a theater, etc. We don't let children be bit by snakes to then exercise faith and heal the child With an exercise of that faith. I think most all of us support these sorts of regs and other like restrictions. So there are restraints in place and I am comfortable with them. I think reasonable restrictions for the second amendment can follow this precedent.

Your list of first amendment regulated items were never intended to be protected by the first amendment. Pornography, defamation, and endangerment have nothing to do with the government regulating speech.



The constitution regulates the federal government, not individuals.

In the Church's Proclamation on the Family it warns the nations of the world that don't support the family and in some instances work against the divine role of f families and the roles of family members. The nation's that do this will suffer the calamities foretold by the ancient prophets.



I think we're seeing that unfold. America is it to destroy the family, it's role in society and the familial roles of men and women. Our society is losing its basis, foundation and function. People are growing up purposeless and without proper moral grounding.



So you get what we had he last week.



http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the quote:

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.



WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

I found this article to be pretty enlightening: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



"A review of the empirical evidence in the professional literature of the social sciences gives policymakers an insight into the root causes of crime. Consider, for instance:

Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.

High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.

State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.

The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.

The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.

The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang."



When I worked with troubled youth, around 98% of them came from non-traditional homes (single-parent, being raised by grandparents, parents with multiple divorces, etc.).

tww wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
As long as folks back in Washington are attacking the Constitution - why stop with the 2nd Amendment? Why don't we do away with the 1st Amendment? We really don't need free speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press anymore do we?



If we attack the 2nd Amendment - why stop there? The Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing did they?

We have all sorts of reasonable regulation of first amendment conduct. Like we ban child pornography, allow for defamation claims, prohibit shouting fire in a theater, etc. We don't let children be bit by snakes to then exercise faith and heal the child With an exercise of that faith. I think most all of us support these sorts of regs and other like restrictions. So there are restraints in place and I am comfortable with them. I think reasonable restrictions for the second amendment can follow this precedent.

Your list of first amendment regulated items were never intended to be protected by the first amendment. Pornography, defamation, and endangerment have nothing to do with the government regulating speech.



The constitution regulates the federal government, not individuals.

I'm no expert but I think the 14th made the amendments apply to the states. And the things I mentioned above are on what the govt can do to individuals in courts and under the law. And courts have said that certain types of speech and religious practices can be regulated by the govt AND this despite the first amendment saying Congress shall make NO law regarding the matter. That language seems stronger and clearer on the first amendment than the language in the second amendment. We all like these restrictions on the first amendment, at least I do, and my point is reasonable restrictions on the second amendment are ok by me too, such as what ddawg suggested above

Schmoe wrote:
I found this article to be pretty enlightening: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



"A review of the empirical evidence in the professional literature of the social sciences gives policymakers an insight into the root causes of crime. Consider, for instance:

Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.

High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.

State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.

The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.

The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.

The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang."



When I worked with troubled youth, around 98% of them came from non-traditional homes (single-parent, being raised by grandparents, parents with multiple divorces, etc.).

I agree with this. We need more parents and families raising children well. It wil not cure all problems, like mental illnesses, but it would be a quantum leap forward in terms of crime and violence.

Saw this originally on Discovery Channel, but couldn't find the whole half-hour or hour-long episode. Definitely worth a watch if you can find it, but here:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU

Schmoe wrote:
Saw this originally on Discovery Channel, but couldn't find the whole half-hour or hour-long episode. Definitely worth a watch if you can find it, but here:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU

Fascinating. Thanks

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

As long as folks back in Washington are attacking the Constitution - why stop with the 2nd Amendment? Why don't we do away with the 1st Amendment? We really don't need free speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press anymore do we?



If we attack the 2nd Amendment - why stop there? The Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing did they?

We have all sorts of reasonable regulation of first amendment conduct. Like we ban child pornography, allow for defamation claims, prohibit shouting fire in a theater, etc. We don't let children be bit by snakes to then exercise faith and heal the child With an exercise of that faith. I think most all of us support these sorts of regs and other like restrictions. So there are restraints in place and I am comfortable with them. I think reasonable restrictions for the second amendment can follow this precedent.

Your list of first amendment regulated items were never intended to be protected by the first amendment. Pornography, defamation, and endangerment have nothing to do with the government regulating speech.



The constitution regulates the federal government, not individuals.

I'm no expert but I think the 14th made the amendments apply to the states. And the things I mentioned above are on what the govt can do to individuals in courts and under the law. And courts have said that certain types of speech and religious practices can be regulated by the govt AND this despite the first amendment saying Congress shall make NO law regarding the matter. That language seems stronger and clearer on the first amendment than the language in the second amendment. We all like these restrictions on the first amendment, at least I do, and my point is reasonable restrictions on the second amendment are ok by me too, such as what ddawg suggested above

So we are down to compromising on principle for whatever feels good?



I do not like restrictions and regulations. I tolerate them to the extent that society loses its moral compass. And as I said before, I believe your assertion that pornography, etc. are first amendment restrictions is off base.



We have already crossed the line of "reasonable" restrictions on the second amendment.

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.



They were

not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.



"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.



"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death.



Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.



I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.



Your laws ignore our deepest needs,

Your words are empty air.

You've stripped away our heritage,

You've outlawed simple prayer.

Now gunshots fill our classrooms,

And precious children die.

You seek for answers everywhere,

And ask the question "Why?"

You regulate restrictive laws,

Through legislative creed.

And yet you fail to understand,

That God is what we need!



"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.



"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!



My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"



- Darrell Scott

Outstanding. Thx.

Look at the numbers below - banning military type AR weapons - how much impact will it really have?



Murders in the USA in 2010

Rifles - 358

Shotguns - 373

Unknown Guns - 2,035

Handguns - 6,009

Knives - 1,704

Other Weapon - 1,772

Hands, Fist, Feet - 745



You are 2x as likely to be beaten to death by fists, or kicked to death, as be shot by a military rifle.

Take away all of those guns that you just mentioned Ddawg, and the deaths due to feet, fists, clubs, other weapons skyrocketes. The VAST majority of those killed aren't killed simply because someone has a gun, but because someone WANTS them dead.

+1. People that want to kill find a way. The problem, and solution is much deeper than limiting a magazine to 10 rounds, and banning a particular type of weapon. Other weapons and means will be substituted. Just like Prohibition did nothing to stop alcohol consumption.

This is why I am so harsh on Obama - he talks out both sides of his mouth and he is deceitful.



"Obama Administration Slashed Funding for School-Safety Programs"



By Andrew Johnson

December 21, 2012



The Obama administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have joined in a chorus to call for action in the wake of the atrocities committed last week in Newtown, Conn. But, over the past few years, the administration and Congress actually slashed millions of dollars in federal funding for school safety. In 2011 and 2012, for example, Justice Department programs that provided $200 million to schools for training, security equipment, and police resources were not renewed."



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336318/obama-administration-slashed-funding-school-safety-programs-andrew-johnson#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;