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

ABYUFAN wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

I think it's just that a lot of people understand the benefits of guns in the hunting context. The idea that guns are benificial for self protection (especially from the government) is a just more difficult for some to accept, given their personal experience, history, and the statistics.



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

You're right. History says that Great Britain would have loved to have had the 13 colonies unarmed.... :bug:



Thier "Personal history" often includes the fact that they themselves believe in guns for them, just not others...and your statistics are nothing more than cherry picked numbers assembled to try to fortify your position. You're not open minded, you wand others to beleive what you beleive, and assembe numbers to fortify what you happen to beleive

Haven't all of the modern 1st world democracies survived after banning guns?



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

SpiffCoug wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

I think it's just that a lot of people understand the benefits of guns in the hunting context. The idea that guns are benificial for self protection (especially from the government) is a just more difficult for some to accept, given their personal experience, history, and the statistics.



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

Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?

Comprehend or perceive? Again, all of the first world modern democracies that banned guns have survived. See UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, etc.



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

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

I think it's just that a lot of people understand the benefits of guns in the hunting context. The idea that guns are benificial for self protection (especially from the government) is a just more difficult for some to accept, given their personal experience, history, and the statistics.



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

You're right. History says that Great Britain would have loved to have had the 13 colonies unarmed.... :bug:



Thier "Personal history" often includes the fact that they themselves believe in guns for them, just not others...and your statistics are nothing more than cherry picked numbers assembled to try to fortify your position. You're not open minded, you wand others to beleive what you beleive, and assembe numbers to fortify what you happen to beleive

Haven't all of the modern 1st world democracies survived after banning guns?



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

Why limit it to democracies? China is surviving without freedom of speech or the press, perhaps we should do away with those as well. It's a question of which liberties are you willing to give up?



2 weeks ago someone turned off the electricity to my house at 8:30 at the breaker box to my house (it now has a lock on it) You know what being vulnerable feels like? I hitched my big black dog up to her leash and walked out front to the breaker box to turn it on, and a big SUV full of punks flew up into my driveway either to scare me or something, but they saw the pooch and left. I didn't need a gun then, but believe me, I would have liked one.

cornhole153 wrote:

Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?

Comprehend or perceive? Again, all of the first world modern democracies that banned guns have survived. See UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, etc.



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

Thanks again for stating your purpose is not to control guns or get them out of the hands of criminals, but to have them banned all together.



Question, do any of those countries have any gun-related deaths? Because I can't understand how they could if guns are banned an all.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?

Comprehend or perceive? Again, all of the first world modern democracies that banned guns have survived. See UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, etc.



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

Thanks again for stating your purpose is not to control guns or get them out of the hands of criminals, but to have them banned all together.



Question, do any of those countries have any gun-related deaths? Because I can't understand how they could if guns are banned an all.

Violent crime is also significantly worse in those countries too. I thought even one life was too precious to lose. So keeping guns in the hands of citizens saves lives.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?

Comprehend or perceive? Again, all of the first world modern democracies that banned guns have survived. See UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, etc.



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

Thanks again for stating your purpose is not to control guns or get them out of the hands of criminals, but to have them banned all together.



Question, do any of those countries have any gun-related deaths? Because I can't understand how they could if guns are banned an all.

Very few.



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

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?

Comprehend or perceive? Again, all of the first world modern democracies that banned guns have survived. See UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, etc.



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

Thanks again for stating your purpose is not to control guns or get them out of the hands of criminals, but to have them banned all together.



Question, do any of those countries have any gun-related deaths? Because I can't understand how they could if guns are banned an all.

Very few.



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

But how? I mean you're not allowed to have guns. Shouldn't the number be zero?

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?

Comprehend or perceive? Again, all of the first world modern democracies that banned guns have survived. See UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, etc.



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

Thanks again for stating your purpose is not to control guns or get them out of the hands of criminals, but to have them banned all together.



Question, do any of those countries have any gun-related deaths? Because I can't understand how they could if guns are banned an all.

Very few.



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

They also have a five year longer life expectancy, perhaps we need to ban red meat and sodas as well? It's all for "Safety" right?



Wouldn't banning smoking make us "safer" as a population than banning guns?

Maybe this would be a better approach? This talk is about drugs, but I think the analogy to guns works as well.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/love-of-the-right?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May I recommend, as we look at drug abuse or other social problems gun violence, that we focus on the cause rather than the symptoms.

Using guns for mass murder is a symptom of a greater social ill. THAT ill is NOT the gun itself. It's the person pulling the trigger.

If we as parents and friends advise our youth that drugs guns are bad, evil, and immoral, and yet we do not try to understand why our youth turn to this evil substitute for reality, then the drugs guns themselves become the issue and not the symptom of the greater issue of unhappiness. We need to know why our loved ones want to run from their present life to the unknown yet dangerous life of drugs violence . What causes a strong, lovely, vibrant young person to allowa chemical violence to control his or her behavior? What is there at home, school, work, or church that is so uncomfortable that an escape seems necessary?

Until we attack the problem at the CAUSE of these mass murders, we can attempt to leglislate all we want and we will always fall short. The goverment keeps trying to cure the symptoms while leaving the disease itself alone. The degredation of the family is one of these families that we are not trying to reverse.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. The Obama administration has placed an order for 7,000 M-16's with "selective fire" for the Dept. of Homeland Security. That means with the flip of a small lever on the lower, the shooter can switch from semi-auto to full auto. It's a machine gun DHS wants. They specified 30 round magazines in the order.



Why? Because in the request Homeland Security wrote: "because they are suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”



Good for "personal defense in close quarters" eh? Dianne Feinstein's new gun ban legislation specifically exempts govt. and govt. officials from the ban. So, having weapons that are good for personal defense is "Ok" if your a govt. official, but not if your part of the debris called U.S. citizens.



By the way - Mayor Bloomberg who is completely anti-2nd Amendment surrounds himself with 5 armed guards. Hypocrisy? You bet.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Maybe this would be a better approach? This talk is about drugs, but I think the analogy to guns works as well.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/love-of-the-right?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May I recommend, as we look at drug abuse or other social problems gun violence, that we focus on the cause rather than the symptoms.

Using guns for mass murder is a symptom of a greater social ill. THAT ill is NOT the gun itself. It's the person pulling the trigger.

If we as parents and friends advise our youth that drugs guns are bad, evil, and immoral, and yet we do not try to understand why our youth turn to this evil substitute for reality, then the drugs guns themselves become the issue and not the symptom of the greater issue of unhappiness. We need to know why our loved ones want to run from their present life to the unknown yet dangerous life of drugs violence . What causes a strong, lovely, vibrant young person to allowa chemical violence to control his or her behavior? What is there at home, school, work, or church that is so uncomfortable that an escape seems necessary?

Until we attack the problem at the CAUSE of these mass murders, we can attempt to leglislate all we want and we will always fall short. The goverment keeps trying to cure the symptoms while leaving the disease itself alone. The degredation of the family is one of these families that we are not trying to reverse.

Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



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

hawkwing wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?

Comprehend or perceive? Again, all of the first world modern democracies that banned guns have survived. See UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, etc.



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

Thanks again for stating your purpose is not to control guns or get them out of the hands of criminals, but to have them banned all together.



Question, do any of those countries have any gun-related deaths? Because I can't understand how they could if guns are banned an all.

Violent crime is also significantly worse in those countries too. I thought even one life was too precious to lose. So keeping guns in the hands of citizens saves lives.

Yes, all life is precious and the US far exceeds all these countries in gun deaths--it isn't even close. The US also has far higher rates of homocide, so I'm not sure where you are getting your data.



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

How far does the left's hypocrisy extend? Take a look at David Brock - founder of Media Matters - a rabidly left "media watchdog group". Set up in 2004 as a tax exempt, non-profit organization.



David Brock lives and works in Washington DC. There are gun laws in Washington DC. A staffer at Media Matters has revealed that David Brock had his aide (Haydn-Price Morris) use Media Matters money, go out of state and pay cash for a high capacity Glock semi-auto pistol (so it couldn't be tied to a Media Matters purchase).



Brock's aide, unlicensed to carry the concealed weapon, carried that weapon everywhere he went with Brock. In Washington DC (public events), across the country, and into Calif. He committed numerous felonies while doing so.



From the rabid leftie David Brock, to Mayor Bloomberg and his army of armed guards, to Dianne Feinstein who has a difficult to get CCW permit in San Francisco, to Obama and his lifetime guaranteed 24/7 Secret Service - arrogant hypocrites all.

cornhole153 wrote:



Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



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

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"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."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

cornhole153 wrote:

Maybe this would be a better approach? This talk is about drugs, but I think the analogy to guns works as well.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/love-of-the-right?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May I recommend, as we look at drug abuse or other social problems gun violence, that we focus on the cause rather than the symptoms.

Using guns for mass murder is a symptom of a greater social ill. THAT ill is NOT the gun itself. It's the person pulling the trigger.

If we as parents and friends advise our youth that drugs guns are bad, evil, and immoral, and yet we do not try to understand why our youth turn to this evil substitute for reality, then the drugs guns themselves become the issue and not the symptom of the greater issue of unhappiness. We need to know why our loved ones want to run from their present life to the unknown yet dangerous life of drugs violence . What causes a strong, lovely, vibrant young person to allowa chemical violence to control his or her behavior? What is there at home, school, work, or church that is so uncomfortable that an escape seems necessary?

Until we attack the problem at the CAUSE of these mass murders, we can attempt to leglislate all we want and we will always fall short. The goverment keeps trying to cure the symptoms while leaving the disease itself alone. The degredation of the family is one of these families that we are not trying to reverse.

Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



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

Now you're being deceitful and twisting things. The LDS Church Handbook does not state that it has a "strict ban on guns" as you post.



It says:

"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."



It says "inappropriate". And as I have posted before, off duty law-enforcement officers bring their guns to church all the time. Good to see you acknowledge that it's Ok for off-duty police to carry their guns to church.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



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

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"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."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



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



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

Ddawg wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
Maybe this would be a better approach? This talk is about drugs, but I think the analogy to guns works as well.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/love-of-the-right?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May I recommend, as we look at drug abuse or other social problems gun violence, that we focus on the cause rather than the symptoms.

Using guns for mass murder is a symptom of a greater social ill. THAT ill is NOT the gun itself. It's the person pulling the trigger.

If we as parents and friends advise our youth that drugs guns are bad, evil, and immoral, and yet we do not try to understand why our youth turn to this evil substitute for reality, then the drugs guns themselves become the issue and not the symptom of the greater issue of unhappiness. We need to know why our loved ones want to run from their present life to the unknown yet dangerous life of drugs violence . What causes a strong, lovely, vibrant young person to allowa chemical violence to control his or her behavior? What is there at home, school, work, or church that is so uncomfortable that an escape seems necessary?

Until we attack the problem at the CAUSE of these mass murders, we can attempt to leglislate all we want and we will always fall short. The goverment keeps trying to cure the symptoms while leaving the disease itself alone. The degredation of the family is one of these families that we are not trying to reverse.

Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



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

Now you're being deceitful and twisting things. The LDS Church Handbook does not state that it has a "strict ban on guns" as you post.



It says:

"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."



It says "inappropriate". And as I have posted before, off duty law-enforcement officers bring their guns to church all the time. Good to see you acknowledge that it's Ok for off-duty police to carry their guns to church.

Unless they are required to carry while off-duty, it is in fact inappropriate, and illegal to bring their guns to church.



This is of course is besides the point--that the church essentially bans guns.



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

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



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

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"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."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



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



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

See, you don't care about truth, you care about your position. The Church's exact policy was quoted in my response, and you dismiss it entirely. and synopsize a third party statement to support your contricved position.

Also, according to yoru position, if an armed shooter walks into a church, in your mind the police officer should excuse himself from the meeting, go at least to his car, and perhaps to his home, and then, eventually return to the church and room before he responds? :roll:



Irrespective of your response. This is my last post on the subject, you think the world will be a better place by eliminating choice. I've seen your type before...

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



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

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"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."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



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



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

Hmmm. What I see there is the Church's intent to comply with the laws of the State of Utah.



Church policy, from the handbook does not prohibit firearms. But the Church does comply with the law.

cornhole153 wrote:



This is of course is besides the point--that the church essentially bans guns.



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

PS Please reread this and try not to laugh..... "Bans guns?"



You know, of course that the official activity arm of the Church for 12 to 16 year old boys is the Boy Scouts of America? And you undoubtedly know that BSA has two separate merit badges that promote safe operation of guns - right? The Church "Essentially" bans guns by not allowing them in the building? That's a whopper. You've proven my point. Truth is nothing to you, you've got a position, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead

... :skeptic: :roll: