Archived Topic

Alma 14:11

by SpiffCoug · 12/15/2012

Sponsored Advertisementad content
N
nuk13
BroncoBot wrote:
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.


How do you get this across to people? I keep hearing people say I don't see the need for high capacity magazines. I don't see what that has to do with it. If all the 10 + round magazines had been confiscated and that kid wouldn't have had them, would he have stayed home and not hurt anybody??? It wasn't his guns or the magazines he had in them, it was, as you say B B, he wanted them dead.



I am very glad he didn't use jet fuel, that killed about 100 times as many just a few years ago.
D
Ddawg
Those of you who are for greater gun control laws should think about the future and what it holds for your family and you. The need to protect your family will be very real. I will quote Orson Pratt and Brigham Young. They are long, but worth the read and reflection.



Orson Pratt, 1879:

"What will be the condition of that people, when this great and terrible war shall come> It will be very different form the war between the North and the South. Do you wish me to describe it? Do you wish me to describer it? I will do so.



It will a war of neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city, county against county, state against state, and they will go forth destroying and being destroyed, and manufacturing will, in a great measure, cease, for a time, among the American nation.



Why? Because in these terrible wars, they will not be privileged to manufacture; there will be too much bloodshed - too much mobocracy - too much going forth in bands and destroying and pillaging the land to suffer people to pursue any local vocation with any degree of safety.



What will become of millions of the farmers upon that land? They will leave their farms and they will flee before the ravaging armies from place to place. And thus, will they go forth burning and pillaging the whole country; and that great and powerful nation, now consisting of some 40 millions of people, will be wasted away, unless they repent."



Brigham Young, 1861:

"Mobs will not decrease but will increase until the whole government becomes a mob, and eventually it will be State against State, city against city, neighborhood against neighborhood, Methodists against Methodists, and so on .....



It will be the same with other denominations of professing Christians, and it will be Christian against Christian, and man against man, and those who will not take up the sword against their neighbors, must flee to Zion."
S
Schmoe
I am, more than anything, curious to know what legislation the left will propose that would have prevented this tragedy. The ONLY think that I can think of is having good people at the school who are armed. You cannot legislate guns out of existence, you cannot keep them out of the hands of wrongdoers, and you cannot make criminals follow the law.
D
Ddawg
What's the key question here? It is - how do we protect our children, and ourselves, from bad/crazy people that want to kill them/us. That's really the question at hand.



There are bad people in society. There will be till this world ends. Bad people, and crazy people, do bad things. They always have, they always will.



Do pencils misspell words? Do forks make people obese? The answer is an obvious "No."



Look at California - where I live. We have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. We have limited magazine size, delayed gun purchasing - cooling off, waiting periods. A handgun safety certificate is required when purchasing a handgun. Handguns and semi-auto rifles MUST be Calif. legal. Some dealers won't sell guns in Calif. because our laws are so restrictive. Try to get a concealed weapons permit in L.A. County - it will never happen. The L.A. Co. Sheriff's Dept. that issues the CCW permits does not issue them. If you have a CCW permit from another state - you better not carry here. Calif. does not recognize other states CCW permits.



But, with all these laws (that Sen. Diane Feinstein wants to institute Nationally) are we better off here in Calif? Are we safer? No way. Look at the violence in our big cities.



I work in South Central L.A. Let me tell you - it is violent. Just visit Oakland, or San Bernardino - see how safe it is.
B
BoiseBYU
Schmoe wrote:
I am, more than anything, curious to know what legislation the left will propose that would have prevented this tragedy. The ONLY think that I can think of is having good people at the school who are armed. You cannot legislate guns out of existence, you cannot keep them out of the hands of wrongdoers, and you cannot make criminals follow the law.


I hesitate to venture further, because it is pretty clear where the majority is on this issue. But I believe in dialogue and learn new things often from you all. I do not think there is any legislation that would have prevented the horribleness of CT. Having armed guards at each school might be a solution. But who is going to pay for them and the extensive background checks it would take for this new near one million man army of school guards? Perhaps a tax on guns and ammo purchases? I think some reasonable measures related to gun control would reduce the risk of harm we too often see in our nation with these horrible attacks. I actually think we should require gun owners to have a license that is granted upon proof of gun competence, knowledge, control of and safety and renewed every few years. I think the potential of harm caused by these assault weapons with large clips is too much and I'd ban them. People should be able to adequately defend their home with the various other weapons like hand guns that are in the market. Like I said, I'm not trying the stir debate or convince. And I'm not trying to restart arguments already written above. But those are things I think would improve matters from where we are. I'd like to hear any other ideas people have.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
D
Ddawg
Boise -

Don't hesitate - we do need a dialogue. But, we need a dialogue that has meaningful solutions. I know you are a big gun control guy. That's not the answer. Wanna know the real answer? Going after the bad guy - directly. Not the tangential gun control laws.



I gotta rip off to a meeting right now - so here's a simple sketch.



1. Use a gun in a crime - any crime - go to jail for life. Period. Including juveniles. It's harsh. But it would work. The recitivism rate amongst criminals is very high. Violent criminals remain violent - they are bad apples.



2. Note, here in Calif., a guy commits a murder and gets sentenced to life. Know how long that life sentence is on average? About 7 years & they are back out. Not if I was king. If you use a gun for any crime - no 3 strikes and you are out. Use a gun for any crime & it is life with no chance of parole.



That's just a start .... gotta rip .......



Merry Christmas to you freaks .......
B
BroncoBot
BoiseBYU wrote:
I am, more than anything, curious to know what legislation the left will propose that would have prevented this tragedy. The ONLY think that I can think of is having good people at the school who are armed. You cannot legislate guns out of existence, you cannot keep them out of the hands of wrongdoers, and you cannot make criminals follow the law.


I hesitate to venture further, because it is pretty clear where the majority is on this issue. But I believe in dialogue and learn new things often from you all. I do not think there is any legislation that would have prevented the horribleness of CT. Having armed guards at each school might be a solution. But who is going to pay for them and the extensive background checks it would take for this new near one million man army of school guards? Perhaps a tax on guns and ammo purchases? I think some reasonable measures related to gun control would reduce the risk of harm we too often see in our nation with these horrible attacks. I actually think we should require gun owners to have a license that is granted upon proof of gun competence, knowledge, control of and safety and renewed every few years. I think the potential of harm caused by these assault weapons with large clips is too much and I'd ban them. People should be able to adequately defend their home with the various other weapons like hand guns that are in the market. Like I said, I'm not trying the stir debate or convince. And I'm not trying to restart arguments already written above. But those are things I think would improve matters from where we are. I'd like to hear any other ideas people have.

I'm afraid its too late to do much about it. I don't feel any legislation is going to help when a mentally unstable kid decides he's going to light up a schoolhouse. The problem was, despite the sensationalization by the media, an isolated event. 99.9 percent of "assault rifles" owners are responsible citizens. the damage done to this country by further limiting the 2nd amendment is not worth it.



Boise, (i'm in Boise right now BTW) you mention the cost of putting an armed citizen in every school. then mention legislation that requires a license of some sort. first, that would also he ridiculously expensive to follow those licenses and enforce those laws, and I get the feeling that those responsible for these crimes would either ignore the license or pass the test and commit crime anyway. legislation is not going to stop these crimes. period.



the real answer is to turn our moral system around. I'd much rather dump billions of dollars teaching families how to be functional. but then, our liberal friends (the same friends who are so adamant that guns are the root of killing/crime) would have no part in this unless it meant homosexuality was an accepted form of teaching, which defeats the purpose of my thought. Really, it is the disintegration of the family, corruption of our government, failure to value our ancestors,and loss of moral compass that has brought us to our current state. I don't believe much can be done to reverse this damage besides warning our neighbors and strengthening our own homes and Zion.
S
SpiffCoug
BroncoBot wrote:
the real answer is to turn our moral system around. I'd much rather dump billions of dollars teaching families how to be functional. but then, our liberal friends (the same friends who are so adamant that guns are the root of killing/crime) would have no part in this unless it meant homosexuality was an accepted form of teaching, which defeats the purpose of my thought. Really, it is the disintegration of the family, corruption of our government, failure to value our ancestors,and loss of moral compass that has brought us to our current state. I don't believe much can be done to reverse this damage besides warning our neighbors and strengthening our own homes and Zion.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ T H I S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
S
Schmoe
Offer a stipend to teachers who are concealed carry holders and who agree to carry on their person at all times at work.
G
Guest
Outlaw divorce, outlaw unwed pregnancy, force mothers to stay home until kids are over the age of 16. Enact corporal punishment in schools and at home.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
D
Ddawg
hawkwing wrote:
Outlaw divorce, outlaw unwed pregnancy, force mothers to stay home until kids are over the age of 16. Enact corporal punishment in schools and at home.


+1. Did you happen to see what was the #10 most requested Christmas gift from Santa this year by kids?



A: A Dad. (Not a joke). Tragic. We are self destructing.
A
ABYUFAN
hawkwing wrote:
Outlaw divorce, outlaw unwed pregnancy, force mothers to stay home until kids are over the age of 16. Enact corporal punishment in schools and at home.

We'll just have to disagree on the corporal punishment part. I'm not against it in principal, but I am strongly against it in practice. I would be very upset if I saw some of the idiots that hit their kids hitting my kids, and that includes their teachers. I see lots of kids that I think need a good walloping, but I see far too many lazy people just whack a kid when there are way better punishment and teaching options.
G
Guest
ABYUFAN wrote:
Outlaw divorce, outlaw unwed pregnancy, force mothers to stay home until kids are over the age of 16. Enact corporal punishment in schools and at home.

We'll just have to disagree on the corporal punishment part. I'm not against it in principal, but I am strongly against it in practice. I would be very upset if I saw some of the idiots that hit their kids hitting my kids, and that includes their teachers. I see lots of kids that I think need a good walloping, but I see far too many lazy people just whack a kid when there are way better punishment and teaching options.

These are not necessarily ideas I *want* enacted, but that would prove more effective than banning guns, they would also have the express advantage of not being strictly prohibited by the Bill of Rights.
A
ABYUFAN
hawkwing wrote:
hawkwing wrote:
Outlaw divorce, outlaw unwed pregnancy, force mothers to stay home until kids are over the age of 16. Enact corporal punishment in schools and at home.

We'll just have to disagree on the corporal punishment part. I'm not against it in principal, but I am strongly against it in practice. I would be very upset if I saw some of the idiots that hit their kids hitting my kids, and that includes their teachers. I see lots of kids that I think need a good walloping, but I see far too many lazy people just whack a kid when there are way better punishment and teaching options.

These are not necessarily ideas I *want* enacted, but that would prove more effective than banning guns, they would also have the express advantage of not being strictly prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

OK I'm fine with that (I'm easy like that today - so if anyone wants a delicious double double with me at lunch today... I'm buying at the In-n-Out in Merced, CA)
G
Guest
ABYUFAN wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
Outlaw divorce, outlaw unwed pregnancy, force mothers to stay home until kids are over the age of 16. Enact corporal punishment in schools and at home.

We'll just have to disagree on the corporal punishment part. I'm not against it in principal, but I am strongly against it in practice. I would be very upset if I saw some of the idiots that hit their kids hitting my kids, and that includes their teachers. I see lots of kids that I think need a good walloping, but I see far too many lazy people just whack a kid when there are way better punishment and teaching options.

These are not necessarily ideas I *want* enacted, but that would prove more effective than banning guns, they would also have the express advantage of not being strictly prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

OK I'm fine with that (I'm easy like that today - so if anyone wants a delicious double double with me at lunch today... I'm buying at the In-n-Out in Merced, CA)

If it weren't so snowy, I'd seriously consider taking you up on that offer :)
Sponsored Advertisementad content
D
Ddawg
ABYUFAN wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
Outlaw divorce, outlaw unwed pregnancy, force mothers to stay home until kids are over the age of 16. Enact corporal punishment in schools and at home.

We'll just have to disagree on the corporal punishment part. I'm not against it in principal, but I am strongly against it in practice. I would be very upset if I saw some of the idiots that hit their kids hitting my kids, and that includes their teachers. I see lots of kids that I think need a good walloping, but I see far too many lazy people just whack a kid when there are way better punishment and teaching options.

These are not necessarily ideas I *want* enacted, but that would prove more effective than banning guns, they would also have the express advantage of not being strictly prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

OK I'm fine with that (I'm easy like that today - so if anyone wants a delicious double double with me at lunch today... I'm buying at the In-n-Out in Merced, CA)


Let's see - Merced is a 5 hr., 300 mile drive for me. If I start right now, I'll get there at 2 pm. Drat - not today. Thx for the offer though. Very gentlemanly.
G
Guest
BoiseBYU wrote:
Wow, so.people with guns have no honor, integrity, character, or compassion. Very telling and ignorant comments.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Hawk I would not and did not say that. I said people,of high character do not necessarily buy guns and was in response to another's comment raising that point. Are ther people with high character who have guns? Absolutely. I know some. I'm sorry if I was unclear, assuming your post was directed at me, but if it was,I think you're straining to interpret my comment that way.


No offense intended, the only thing I can say is that I literally read it as I mentioned above. On rereading it now I see that I must have misread where you say that gun owners may not have the qualities listed above, somehow I read it as they do not. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
D
Ddawg
Here ya go - the Democrats answer to the CT shooting - go after everyone's guns - not the criminal that commits the act (or criminals that will commit like acts in the future).



A review of the Diane Feinstein "Assault Weapons" proposed legislation, that she plans to introduce in the next congress, is eye opening in that it demonstrates the anti-gun groups are targeting EVERYTHING... rifles, shotguns and even handguns. Below is a review of some of the key elements in her proposed legislation. They are going for broke.



1) Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns.



2) Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one "military characteristic" -- which could mean just about anything that makes a gun "look scary."



3) Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.



4) Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting, treating law abiding citizens like criminals.



5) Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining a permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local laws.



The real answer to controlling violent gun usage, is going hard after the criminal - not law abiding, tax paying citizens that own guns and have broken no laws.



1) Use a gun to commit any crime - life in prison. No get out early because of good time bonus points, over crowding woes, no conjugal visits, no work release furlough.



2) Juveniles use a gun to commit any crime - jail till 40 years old. Let them get past the stupid years, then review their jail conduct. Any assaults, shankings, or gang affiliation - they stay in jail.



3) Use a gun to commit a crime and somebody dies - death penalty.





Examine the latest mass shootings that have occurred in the U.S. ~

a. 2011 - Arizona, Jared Loughner, 22, an emotionally disturbed mental case, attacked U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, killed 6, wounded 14.



b. 2012 - Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes, 25, an emotionally disturbed mental case, attacked movie goers, killed 12, wounded 59.



c. 2012 - Clackamas Town Center, Oregon, Jacob Roberts, 22, his mother died when he was 2, had never met his father, prior to the shooting he broke up with his girlfriend, sold all his belongings, quit his job, talked about moving to Hawaii, his Aunt Tami, said he had lost his way, was depressed, and angry.



d. 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza, 20, an emotionally disturbed mental case killed killed 20 children, killed 6 adult staff members, , wounded 2, and also killed his mother. Total 28 killed, including himself (suicide). Adam was a loner, socially dysfunctional, had a development disorder, possibly Asperger's Syndrome. His mother, Nancy, felt increasingly she could not reach her son, help him, or control him.



See the connection here? All 4 of the above mass shootings involved young men, depressed and emotionally disturbed. Any serious solution must involve a hard look at, and improving our mental health system. That involves a real commitment in money and effort. The critical mental health component is not addressed in Feinstein's legislation.



With these tough "use a gun" laws that I would institute, and expanded mental health effort, watch criminal gun use activity drop - not to return. The point is, the violent people in society must be removed from society and be not allowed to prey on vulnerable, law obeying citizens. Violent bad guys are taken off the street, with no revolving door. Gone. The problem, all the liberals would cry "foul" for the criminals rights.



If critically examined - the real point of Feinstein's legislative effort is to reign in Second Amendment rights - not control crime.



P.S. I have not touched on school security. The private school (Sidwell) that Obama's kids go to have 11 armed security on their full-time staff, plus the Secret Service agents that attend school with his 2 daughters. Plus - the school (Sidwell) is hiring a 12th full time security guard. If it's important for those Obama's children to have armed security, then why not the rest of the nations children?



Banks and sporting events have armed guards. You ought to see the armed security for the Rose Parade, Rose Bowl, Superbowl, and Disneyland. Why not for our greatest treasure - our children?
B
BoiseBYU
hawkwing wrote:
hawkwing wrote:
Wow, so.people with guns have no honor, integrity, character, or compassion. Very telling and ignorant comments.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Hawk I would not and did not say that. I said people,of high character do not necessarily buy guns and was in response to another's comment raising that point. Are ther people with high character who have guns? Absolutely. I know some. I'm sorry if I was unclear, assuming your post was directed at me, but if it was,I think you're straining to interpret my comment that way.


No offense intended, the only thing I can say is that I literally read it as I mentioned above. On rereading it now I see that I must have misread where you say that gun owners may not have the qualities listed above, somehow I read it as they do not. My apologies for any misunderstanding.


No problemo! I knew it was something like that.
D
Ddawg
BoiseBYU wrote:

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.


1. Do you really think the Founding Father's would have supported child pornography? That is ridiculous. To conclude that adults, manipulating, exploiting and most of the time forcing children into the pornographic acts, so these evil adults can take pictures and profit, is an exercise of free speech? That is beyond ridiculous.



2. Yes we allow defamation claims - it can also be called libel, slander, and vilification. It is dishonest speech, whether spoken or written, we are talking about lying. A lie that is harmful. The 1st Amendment was never meant to protect lies. This is ridiculous.



3. Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire? This is not protected by the 1st Amendment because it is a lie, a cruel hoax, and creates a dangerous situation where people can be seriously injured or killed. The 1st Amendment was never intended to protect dishonesty and lies.



However, if you shout "fire" in a theatre and there is a fire - well - you are telling the truth - and that's Ok. You are protected under the 1st Amendment.



To compare the above listed scenarios which are flat out dishonest, evil, and manipulative, to someone that legally purchases a gun, abides by every law, pays their taxes, is a stand up citizen and exercises their 2nd Amendment right; it's like comparing apples to cheese pizza.
Page 4 of 6
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.