CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Hurry and pass gun control before we have time to read it!

by SpiffCoug · 1/18/2013

Sponsored Advertisementad content
D
Ddawg
cornhole153 wrote:
Did you not read my first sentence? "Determining the cause and effect of crime is a complex issue." There are many layers. If solving crime is a simple, single issue equation - crime would have been eliminated long ago. It has not been.



That said - you have failed to answer - how do you square your desire to take away guns from law abiding citizens with the 2nd Amendment? How can you justify denying a law abiding citizen the right to protect his family, himself, and his property?


I thought you were arguing that gun control does not work, and in fact, it leads to increased crime. If that's not to case I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.



I'm no constitutional scholar, but i believe it can be amended. Also, given that guns at that time were long rifles that shot a couple rounds a minute and were relatively inaccurate, I'm not sure putting the semiautomatic weapons and concealable handguns in the hands of the citizens were the clear intent of the founders.



Finally, I believe many studies show that households with guns are less safe--so I don't get too fussed about denying families guns. Also guns aren't allowed in church, even for those with permits, so to me that is a good model of safety for my home.


I would like to know what your experience in law enforcement is. Are you a working professional in law enforcement? Are you still a college student?



Correct, there is a process to Amend the Constitution. It takes a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate to approve it. If the proposed Amendment receives the 2/3 super majority vote in both Houses, it is sent to the states for ratification. Then 3/4 of the state legislatures must approve it - within a reasonable time frame (which has never been exactly defined).



So, the question is, why don't you folks that are so bent on strict gun control - why don't you go through the Amendment process and eliminate the 2nd Amendment? The answer is, because you could never get it to pass.



So, you use regulations, city and state to do what you cannot do through proper channels. Even Pres. Obama buses the Executive Order process to try and do what cannot be accomplished through the correct Amendment process. Executive Orders are intended for the president to issue orders to the Executive branch of govt. to carry out and execute the laws that Congress has passed. E.O.'s are not so the president can legislate unilaterally, and write his own laws. That action completely flies in the face of the purpose of the model that our Founding Fathers intended - 3 branches - separate and included checks and balances to avoid dictatorship and tyranny. Misuse of Executive Orders, writing law in the Oval Office, and bypassing Congress is unconstitutional.



Gun control as you have described it does not work. John Lott conducted an extensive study of gun control and crime. He analyzed gun control efforts in the U.S. He analyzed every county in the U.S. over a 29 year period of time. He examines the effect of gun control measures, including the Brady Bill, Stand Your Ground laws, and Castle Doctrine laws. His conclusions are reflected in the title of the book - "More Guns, Less Crime."



Your assertion that the 2nd Amendment applies only to black powder muskets is ridiculous. The Founding Fathers were not idiots. They understood and embraced technology. Have advancements been made in weapons since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written? Certainly. But, show me where in the 2nd Amendment it states that any advances in technology are to be ignored, and that owning gun applies only black powder musket loaders. It doesn't.



Who said guns aren't allowed in church? That is pure bunk. We have a number of police officers in my Ward - and they pack - every Sunday under their suit jackets. I have a friend that is a police officer, and about 20 years a go he was sitting in church. A crazy dude stood up brandishing a weapon, yelling he was going to kill everyone. My friend, off duty and with his off duty pistol, shot and killed the would be mass murderer - right there in church.



So, if you want to eliminate guns in the USA, get to work on an Amendment to change the Constitution. If you choose to not have a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family - have at it. But, stop trying to disarm my family and me. We choose to be prepared and protected from the evil that resides on our society.
C
cornhole153
Ddawg wrote:



Who said guns aren't allowed in church? That is pure bunk.


The church.



http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies#21.2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Firearms



Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.
D
Ddawg
cornhole153 wrote:



Who said guns aren't allowed in church? That is pure bunk.


The church.



http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies#21.2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Firearms



Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.


Do you lack reading comprehension skills? That's a serious question. I was referring to police officers carrying concealed weapons off duty. Are you retarded? I have police in my Ward - 3 to be exact, and they carry their concealed weapons, as prescribed by law, every Sunday. Here's the more complete quote. Like a classic lefty, you conveniently left out the important part about them being police officers.


Ddawg wrote:

Who said guns aren't allowed in church? That is pure bunk. We have a number of police officers in my Ward - and they pack - every Sunday under their suit jackets.


Now, from your quote it says:

"The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."



Repeat - " ... except as required by officers of the law."



So - where's the problem?



Basically - I am done talking to you. You like to argue and stir the pot for the sake of argument. You're one of those guys that will go around and around just because you derive pleasure in being a pot stirrer.
C
cornhole153
Aaa, I was clearly talking about guns in hands of citizens--not officers (as we are not cops and we weren't talking about cops, except for your irrelevant reference to them). So yes the Church does not allow people, even those with concealed permits, to bring guns into church, which obviously was my original point. Of course the church "allows" officers on duty to carry into the church if they are required to do so--as the church really doesn't have a choice in the matter.



Even off duty police officers are not allowed to bring guns into Church unless they are REQUIRED to carry a gun off duty. Can you cite where off duty officers are required to carry firearms into church, because I can't find it anywhere.



It's also interesting that Utah requires churches that don't allow guns in their church to post this annually, and the Church is the only one to do so...



http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
C
cornhole153
Ddawg wrote:



Gun control as you have described it does not work.


I actually haven't described it--I merely pointed out that since DC's demographics have changed significantly, it's not the proof that guns restriction lead to more crime that posted on this thread thought it was.


Ddawg wrote:



John Lott conducted an extensive study of gun control and crime. He analyzed gun control efforts in the U.S. He analyzed every county in the U.S. over a 29 year period of time. He examines the effect of gun control measures, including the Brady Bill, Stand Your Ground laws, and Castle Doctrine laws. His conclusions are reflected in the title of the book - "More Guns, Less Crime."




It's kind of funny that in one thread you trashed Manti over the whole fictitious online girlfriend brouhaha and then you cite John Lott--who admitted creating a fictitious online persona to defend his study on the effect of guns laws--as a resource.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
D
Ddawg
cornhole153 wrote:



Gun control as you have described it does not work.


I actually haven't described it--I merely pointed out that since DC's demographics have changed significantly, it's not the proof that guns restriction lead to more crime that posted on this thread thought it was.


Ddawg wrote:



John Lott conducted an extensive study of gun control and crime. He analyzed gun control efforts in the U.S. He analyzed every county in the U.S. over a 29 year period of time. He examines the effect of gun control measures, including the Brady Bill, Stand Your Ground laws, and Castle Doctrine laws. His conclusions are reflected in the title of the book - "More Guns, Less Crime."




It's kind of funny that in one thread you trashed Manti over the whole fictitious online girlfriend brouhaha and then you cite John Lott--who admitted creating a fictitious online persona to defend his study on the effect of guns laws--as a resource.


Go away little boy. You like to play devil's advocate for entertainment purposes. Pour yourself another glass of Kool-aid and enjoy your fantasy world.
S
SpiffCoug
cornhole153 wrote:



Who said guns aren't allowed in church? That is pure bunk.


The church.



http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies#21.2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Firearms



Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

I should also like to point out that the Church's gun policy, as stated in the handbook, does NOT state guns aren't allowed in church. It states it is inappropriate. Inappropriate does not mean, not allowed.
M
Mars
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L6AscCVN870/TKx8pdbj75I/AAAAAAAAAXI/wDWyPeCaNsU/s1600/queen+gun.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
S
SpiffCoug
Explain to me why we're proposing new gun laws again?

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn't-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."


So, even though we don't time to actually enforce the laws currently on the books, we are going somehow going to be able to enforce these new ones?
B
BroncoBot
cornhole153 wrote:
I'm not sure putting the semiautomatic weapons and concealable handguns in the hands of the citizens were the clear intent of the founders.

I'm positive that the founders would have loved to have an AR-15 in the hands and homes of each minutemen. No doubt whatsoever.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BroncoBot
cornhole153 wrote:



I actually haven't described it--I merely pointed out that since DC's demographics have changed significantly, it's not the proof that guns restriction lead to more crime that posted on this thread thought it was.

So you're arguing that we should take guns from certain demographics?
M
Mars
BroncoBot wrote:
So you're arguing that we should take guns from certain demographics?

Specifically, cats.



http://parkinglotconfessional.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bullet-with-a-gun.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



Oh, and also criminals. Let's make it illegal for them to have guns too.
B
BroncoBot
cornhole153 wrote:

Finally, I believe many studies show that households with guns are less safe--so I don't get too fussed about denying families guns. Also guns aren't allowed in church, even for those with permits, so to me that is a good model of safety for my home.

Now this is a compelling argument. First I'd like to see the study that states that homes are less safe with guns. Not that it would change anything for me. I'm sure I could throw together a study that shows that those homes with cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives are also less safe.



I would think that attempting to procreate is inappropriate in the church, is that also a model for your home? how about cooking, the church doesn't encourage the preparing of foods at the church, do you eat out a lot? Do you require your family members to fold their arms while moving from bedroom to the living room?
C
cornhole153
BroncoBot wrote:

Finally, I believe many studies show that households with guns are less safe--so I don't get too fussed about denying families guns. Also guns aren't allowed in church, even for those with permits, so to me that is a good model of safety for my home.

Now this is a compelling argument. First I'd like to see the study that states that homes are less safe with guns. Not that it would change anything for me. I'm sure I could throw together a study that shows that those homes with cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives are also less safe.



I would think that attempting to procreate is inappropriate in the church, is that also a model for your home? how about cooking, the church doesn't encourage the preparing of foods at the church, do you eat out a lot? Do you require your family members to fold their arms while moving from bedroom to the living room?


How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.
T
tww
BroncoBot wrote:
I'm not sure putting the semiautomatic weapons and concealable handguns in the hands of the citizens were the clear intent of the founders.

I'm positive that the founders would have loved to have an AR-15 in the hands and homes of each minutemen. No doubt whatsoever.


A brief explanation of the 2nd amendment might be in order.



A few years back the liberals were trying to convince everyone that a militia was the National Guard so I researched the original intent of the founders on their odd sounding opening statement. I wondered why they felt they needed to say anything more than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." After all that is pretty clear.



I realized it must have been important to them because they tended to keep their document language short and to the point.



As I read first hand accounts from the founders I came to understand why "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," was important to them.



First, they believed the security of a FREE state was in the hands of the people because if it is in the hands of the government it is no longer a free state. That much is pretty easy.



A little trickier is "A well regulated militia." To the founders a militia consisted of all males in a state or colony that were capable of fighting. In fact, the colonies voted by assembling militias. In other words a mans voter registration card was his rifle. They literally voted with rifle in hand.



"Well regulated" refers to army regulation or regular army. So "well regulated" means that the militias, which were the male citizens, were intended out of necessity to be an equal match for a standing or regular army equipped with military issue weapons or their equivalent.



So actually the founders did intend for Americans to own and use M16 rifles.



Since I know someone will mention that we can't be running around with grenades and howitzers, the founders dealt with that as well. It was common for a man to have a rifle and powder but even a barrel of powder was unsafe to have sitting around the house. So what they did to solve this problem was build powder store houses. That way a man could have a sufficient supply at home without the danger of blowing up his house but he could always go to the store house for more.



The modern translation of this is that we probably should not keep grenades and howitzers at home but have them stored in safe keeping just like the army does in the case they ever are needed. However, the basic tools of a soldier such as rifle and ammunition should be kept close at hand.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
D
Ddawg
What really cracks me up in this 2nd Amendment discussion is that the liberal pundits always want to bring the discussion to magazines, and how many bullets they hold. They will almost always say something like: "You don't need more than 10 bullets to hunt with. It's just not necessary."



I would like any of you gun control folks to please point out where in the 2nd Amendment is states that these weapons are for hunting.



"Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."



That is the word for word text of the 2nd Amendment. I would like anyone that can point out where it states that this Amendment refers to owning weapons for the purpose of hunting.



Take your time.
B
BroncoBot
cornhole153 wrote:



How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was a home is safer when a gun isn't around. And you weren't talking about married housing, you were talking about a physical location, the church. Keep backpeddlin' and running in circles.



And if married on-campus housing defines your limitations and your standards, you've got issues. And guess who never lived in such housing... that's right, BroncoBot. Hey, if you don't want a gun in your home, that's your choice of course. But when known crooks (yeah, I'm looking at you Holder) are telling responsible people who have committed no crime to give up their guns the government has taken it too far.
T
tww
BroncoBot wrote:



How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was a home is safer when a gun isn't around. And you weren't talking about married housing, you were talking about a physical location, the church. Keep backpeddlin' and running in circles.



And if married on-campus housing defines your limitations and your standards, you've got issues. And guess who never lived in such housing... that's right, BroncoBot. Hey, if you don't want a gun in your home, that's your choice of course. But when known crooks (yeah, I'm looking at you Holder) are telling responsible people who have committed no crime to give up their guns the government has taken it too far.


How about gas or fire or airplanes or fertilizer? All used for mass murder but not banned.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
S
Schmoe
cornhole153 wrote:
cornhole153 wrote:

Finally, I believe many studies show that households with guns are less safe--so I don't get too fussed about denying families guns. Also guns aren't allowed in church, even for those with permits, so to me that is a good model of safety for my home.

Now this is a compelling argument. First I'd like to see the study that states that homes are less safe with guns. Not that it would change anything for me. I'm sure I could throw together a study that shows that those homes with cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives are also less safe.



I would think that attempting to procreate is inappropriate in the church, is that also a model for your home? how about cooking, the church doesn't encourage the preparing of foods at the church, do you eat out a lot? Do you require your family members to fold their arms while moving from bedroom to the living room?


How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.


...and alcohol, and beards, and long hair...
C
cornhole153
BroncoBot wrote:



How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was a home is safer when a gun isn't around. And you weren't talking about married housing, you were talking about a physical location, the church. Keep backpeddlin' and running in circles.



And if married on-campus housing defines your limitations and your standards, you've got issues. And guess who never lived in such housing... that's right, BroncoBot. Hey, if you don't want a gun in your home, that's your choice of course. But when known crooks (yeah, I'm looking at you Holder) are telling responsible people who have committed no crime to give up their guns the government has taken it too far.


Just rebutting your point that guns are no different than other dangerous items with an example (mass murder tool). I should have also added that all the other items have seperate (non killing) uses which guns do not.



Not sure what your point is about byu student housing but BYU's strict ban on guns inside these houses, on campus, in and ward houses makes the Church's thoughts on how safe guns are at home pretty clear.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Page 2 of 14
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.