Gun Control

All registered users can post here.
Betsy
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Betsy »

User avatar
Ian
Site Admin
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Ian »

i know some members of the NRA personally. they are more kind, honest and honorable than you are.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
User avatar
Steve
Moderator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Re: Gun Control

Post by Steve »

Betsy: You have fallen prey to the classic NRA fear mongering tactic that "they're coming for yer guns!"
I hope you'll not allow your prejudice against the NRA to interfere with your ability to detect the dangers of our current course. What about the dozens of prophets quoted in this thread and others? Are they fear mongering? Are their warnings entirely unfounded? You'll note that I have not cited the NRA in this thread, and yet your counter to those who challenge your position on firearms is to introduce the media's reporting on the National Rifle Association. Why not address the specific quotes we already shared and explain why each of those men is wrong?

Also, I'm not sure any group of men and women should be called "a bunch of idiots."
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world.     ~George MacDonald
Betsy
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Betsy »

Are you considering joining the NRA Ian?
Betsy
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Betsy »

In other news:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... _dt_tw_top
On Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Constitution does not grant citizens the right to carry concealed firearms outside the home. The decision, Peruta v. San Diego, is likely to be the last word on this litigation: It was issued en banc, meaning the plaintiffs’ only remaining hope is a Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court, which makes a habit of avoiding gun cases these days. Even if the justices did take the case, it’s difficult to see how they could justify reversing Thursday’s ruling: The majority’s 41-page decision lays out a compelling, comprehensive analysis that that even fervid defenders of the right to bear arms should have trouble dismissing.
Back in the days of writing the constitution, carrying in public was more a sign of neurosis. So I am glad to see that the true spirit of the constitution is being sought for.
Betsy
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Betsy »

Also:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/ ... index.html

(CNN)A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that there is no Second Amendment protection for concealed weapons -- allowing states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms.

The en banc opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could set up a new showdown on gun rights at the Supreme Court.
At issue was California's law on concealed weapons, which requires citizens to prove they have "good cause" to carry concealed firearms to get a license. Plaintiffs challenged guidelines in San Diego and Yolo counties that did not consider general self-defense to be enough to obtain a license.
The 9th Circuit held 7-4 in the case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, that the restrictions on concealed carry are constitutional, ruling that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not provide a right to carry concealed arms.
"The historical materials bearing on the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments are remarkably consistent," wrote Judge William Fletcher, going back to 16th century English law to find instances of restrictions on concealed weapons. "We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."
Fletcher also cited the most recent Supreme Court cases on gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which were major victories for gun rights activists, in making his case.
The Heller decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, solidified a Second Amendment right of the public to keep guns, but it specifically noted the right was not absolute, and Fletcher pointed out that Scalia cited restrictions on concealed weapons as a historical example.
The court was careful to make the ruling narrow. The opinion does not say concealed weapons are unconstitutional, nor does it make any decisions about openly carrying weapons in public.
The case was a blow for gun rights advocates, and sets up the fight on gun rights for the Supreme Court to consider, says UCLA law professor and gun law expert Adam Winkler.
"This case raises the next great question for the Supreme Court: Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to carry guns in public? And if so, what kind of licensing can states use to permit people to carry concealed weapons?" Winkler said.
The Supreme Court would not necessarily have to take up the case. The ruling does not create a substantive divide among different circuit courts in the U.S., one of the major factors the court considers in weighing which cases to take.
Four judges dissented from the ruling, with the main dissent by Judge Consuelo Callahan arguing that California's laws taken together amount to a substantial restriction on citizens' right to bear arms for self defense, as protected by the Second Amendment.
Whether the court does or does not take the case, the early 2016 death of Scalia looms large over it. Scalia authored Heller, the most substantial gun ruling in modern history of the court. And Republicans in the Senate have refused to consider President Barack Obama's nominee for replacing Scalia on the court, meaning the eight justice panel can split 4-4.
Without a ninth justice, Winkler said, it's unlikely the court would take up the case, even with Scalia's allies on the issue Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas still on the court.
Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, was chosen in large part for his moderate record. But one of the most substantial conservative arguments against Garland has been that his record on guns is too liberal, though his written record on the issue is limited.
The case was argued by Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration and one of the top litigators for conservative causes at the Supreme Court in recent years.
Ever since the Supreme Court decided the Heller decision and a follow up case two years later, the Supreme Court has declined to take another major second amendment case, a frustration Clement cited in a 2013 filing with the court.
In the years since Heller had been decided many expected a "major consideration" or extant firearms laws, Clement wrote. "Instead, jurisdictions have engaged in massive resistance to the clear import of those landmark decisions, and the lower federal courts, long out of the habit of taking the Second Amendment seriously, have largely facilitated that resistance."
California state Attorney General Kamala Harris said the decision "is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities.
User avatar
Steve
Moderator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Re: Gun Control

Post by Steve »

The majority’s 41-page decision lays out a compelling, comprehensive analysis that that [sic] even fervid defenders of the right to bear arms should have trouble dismissing.
That is excellent, objective reporting. :)

So let me get this straight: In the space of a single hour, you've posted that it's "fear mongering" to suggest that many in the government are against gun ownership, followed almost immediately with a post announcing the 7-4 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that will "[allow] states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms."
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world.     ~George MacDonald
User avatar
Ian
Site Admin
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Ian »

from a marketing standpoint, betsy is struggling to keep her messaging consistent. sometimes she calls it gun safety, sometimes she calls it gun control. sometimes she wants background checks, sometimes she wants gun confiscation. sometimes she wants to preserve the constitution, sometimes she wants to change the constitution. sometimes she agrees with the prophets, sometimes she disagrees with the prophets. this is bad marketing and it's hurting her brand.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
User avatar
Steve
Moderator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Re: Gun Control

Post by Steve »

Betsy: Back in the days of writing the constitution, carrying in public was more a sign of neurosis. So I am glad to see that the true spirit of the constitution is being sought for.
I think I know why "concealed carry" was probably not a frequent topic of discussion in the 18th century.

Image

Using this as a reason for why the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be infringed is questionable.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world.     ~George MacDonald
User avatar
Ian
Site Admin
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Ian »

The Revolutionary War was fought; and the colonists gained their independence from the despot, George the Third. I say George the Third because there were many Englishmen who were in sympathy with the American colonies. William Pitt, a member of Parliament, was one of them. You will remember reading in school about Pitt's reply to Walpole when they were discussing the rebellion of the American colonies. Walpole made an accusation against Pitt, accusing him of being a young man and said that Parliament should not listen to him. As I remember, Pitt arose and said: "Of the irretrievable crime of being a young man, I shall neither palliate nor deny." And then he said, "Were I an American, as I am an Englishman, I would never lay down my arms. Never! Never! Never!"

After the Revolutionary War was over and nine years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Founding Fathers met in the same Old State Hall to frame the Constitution of the United States.

The French historian, Francois Pierre Guillaume Guizot, while visiting in the United States, asked James Russell Lowell, "How long will the American Republic endure?" Lowell's answer was: "As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue dominant."

And what were those ideas? Two fundamental principles were: Freedom from Dictatorship and Freedom of the Individual! This goes right back to our free agency, which is as precious as life itself....

All Americans should be on guard against the scheming of those who would take from us the freedom so dearly bought. Edward F. Hutton gives us this warning:
Why do our people possess more autos, more radios, more washing machines, more of so many things, than the people of any other country? After all, we are plain, ordinary human beings. Why then do we have many more of God's blessings? One impelling reason I think lies in the simple fact that we have believed in the rights of man and have lived under a government of laws as distinguished from a government of men. We have enjoyed the safeguards of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, whose word, until recently, we believed was immutable and inalienable. The protection, the confidence, the assurance provided by the Bill of Rights opened up the faucets of human ambition and let loose an avalanche of new incentives. Men were free to inquire, to reject, to choose, to risk, to create!

Till twenty years ago, the Bill of Rights, generator of the genius of America, was taken for granted. For two decades now it has been under attack . . . by those who assert, though without proof, that they can improve upon our system of government. The plan seems to be to impose upon the people political control of the daily activities. Under Communism you lose your liberties immediately and perhaps your life. Under Socialism, you lose your liberties a little more slowly but just as surely.

Today the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy. If it could speak, I believe it would have this to say: I am your Bill of Rights. Don't take me for granted. As man brought me to life, I can be slain by men, and will be slain unless you, the plain people of America, organize to defend me.

I am freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. I am the privacy and sanctity of your home. I am your guarantee of trial by jury, and I am the custodian who guards your property rights. I am your signed lease to spiritual, mental, and physical freedom.

My existence depends on how vigilantly you watch those who administer your government. Put every law proposed in Washington into the crucible of my ten commandments. Your question must always be: "Not what does a law give me, but what does it take away from me?"

We, the plain, humble, God-fearing people, made this republic what it is. Let us unite our voice in defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

-- Edward F. Hutton, Pathfinder Magazine, June 27, 1951
I love the Stars and Stripes! I love the people who make this country great, and I believe in their loyalty. In its leadership is the greatest responsibility that ever came to a nation. We pray to God to guide our president and congress. I know that they and we do not want war, but there are things that are worse than death—one is to be deprived of our liberty!

President David O. McKay, Man May Know for Himself: Teachings of President David O. McKay, 1967 Deseret Book, pp. 353-357
so let it be written... so let it be done.
User avatar
Steve
Moderator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Re: Gun Control

Post by Steve »

Thanks, Ian. I think Betsy's comments in this thread would have made William Pitt, James Russell Lowell, Edward F. Hutton, and President David O. McKay a little sad.
Betsy: My stance has grown to be pretty pro gun control. As in, I didn't think it was needed so much in the past but now there is a huge problem and it just might require some sacrifice of our beloved 2nd Amendment right... (link)
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world.     ~George MacDonald
Betsy
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Betsy »

The pure nonsense coming from both of you is really helping my point. Thanks guys. I appreciate the work you're putting into this.
User avatar
Steve
Moderator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Re: Gun Control

Post by Steve »

I speak today as an American citizen who believes as he believes in Deity, that God inspired the framing of our Constitution and the setting up of our form of government thereunder, — an American citizen who believes that the preservation of this government under our Constitution as it now stands is necessary that liberty and free political and religious institutions may not disappear from the earth.

(President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., General Conference, October 1939; emphasis added)
We alone know by revelation as to how the Constitution came into being, and we, alone, know by revelation the destiny of this nation. The preservation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can be guaranteed upon no other basis than upon a sincere faith and testimony of the divinity of these teachings.

(Elder Harold B. Lee, General Conference, October 1952)
"You want to be loved by everyone," says the devil, "and this freedom battle is so controversial you might be accused of engaging in politics." Of course the government has penetrated so much of our lives that one can hardly speak for freedom without being accused of being political. Some might even call the war in heaven a political struggle—certainly it was controversial. Yet the valiant entered it with Michael. Those who support only the popular principles of the gospel have their reward. And those who want to lead the quiet, retiring life but still expect to do their full duty can't have it both ways.

Said Elder John A. Widtsoe:

"The troubles of the world may largely be laid at the doors of those who are neither hot nor cold; who always follow the line of least resistance; whose timid hearts flutter at taking sides for truth. As in the great Council in the heavens, so in the Church of Christ on earth, there can be no neutrality." (Ibid, p. 440.) ...

"Wait until it becomes popular to do," says the devil, "or, at least until everybody in the Church agrees on what should be done." But this fight for freedom might never become popular in our day. And if you wait until everybody agrees in this Church, you will be waiting through the second coming of the Lord. Would you have hesitated to follow the inspired counsel of the Prophet Joseph Smith simply because some weak men disagreed with him? God's living mouthpiece has spoken to us—are we for him or against him? In spite of the Prophet's opposition to increased federal aid and compulsory unionism, some church members still champion these freedom destroying programs. Where do you stand?

(Elder Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference, April 1965)
I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.) ...

As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil.

(President Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference, October 1988)
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world.     ~George MacDonald
User avatar
Steve
Moderator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Re: Gun Control

Post by Steve »

Betsy: The pure nonsense coming from both of you is really helping my point.
I assume that you're not referring to the words of prophets quoted incessantly by Ian and me. Speaking of, what are your thoughts on the things they've said in this thread?
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world.     ~George MacDonald
User avatar
Ian
Site Admin
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Gun Control

Post by Ian »

betsy is pretending to ignore you. she also pretends to support rape victims, but she isn't supporting people like kimberly corban.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest