and wondering about temples.

I haven't been in a long while, but is there any security check for guns, etc. at temples?

Seems like this might have been asked before. If so, sorry for the repeat.

I think guns are encouraged in the temple.

The American founding fathers all hang in the temple, waiting for their work to get done again. They all love guns. 'murica!

One of the things that started me questioning the church was its policy on guns at BYU housing. I couldn't understand why I couldn't keep a .22 and shotgun in BYU housing? Shooting was one of the best dates to do. The ladies loved it. If the doctrine and covenants said that the constitution was inspired by god, but they wouldn't let me have my second ammendment rights on BYU housing, is the church true? This helped get the cogs turning. Me and my roommates had plenty of guns and never got caught and went shooting plenty

I don't know if it's there anymore, but there used to be that restaurant called "Heaps o' Pizza" on the corner of 150E and 800N. There was a rotting old house catty-corner from Heaps, right on the corner of 800N and 100E. The guys who lived there would occasionally fire 30 cal. rifles from the basement windows at the steps leading up to the Maeser building, kind of on the corner of 800N and 200E. They blew away several big chunks of the old cement steps. I don't know why they did it. They could have killed someone. But they never got into trouble, even though it sounded like a canon going off.

The house was an absolute shit-hole, and even though I knew people in it, I actively avoided it because it was a fire trap and smelled bad. And the guys there were batshit crazy. Little did I know that after my mission I would live in that awful place for a semester.

Excellent article about guns.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2015/10/01/five-reasons-that-the-benefits-that-flow-from-guns-far-outweigh-the-risks-inherent-in-guns/

notamormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent article about guns.

"Excellent" being, of course, highly subjective.

I found nothing "excellent" in it. Rife with fallacy and ignorance, and demonstrably false claims. Oh, well.

Agreed...excellent article. Nothing rife, fallacious, and false about the 4th amendment. The framers knew what they were doing. My grandfather fought in the American Revolution, even being wounded by a bayonet in the thigh during hand to hand combat (King's mountain), and I am proud of the constitution.

Slip of the key...meant 2nd amendment.

it is ironic when people say that they are so proud of the divine constitution (not necessarily you, but more often Mormons). But then the only things they know about it are just a couple of the amendments to fix up a screw up in the constitution.

Exmoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed...excellent article. Nothing rife,
> fallacious, and false about the 4th amendment.

Not sure what protection from unreasonable search and seizure has to do with it...?

In that article, one of the first arguments is (in summary): We shouldn't do anything about guns, because there are other ways people can kill.

Yes, there are other ways people can kill. No, that doesn't mean we should do nothing about guns.

The other arguments don't get any better.

I'm proud of the constitution, too. As we've done since our nation was founded, it might need to be amended to keep up with changes in the world. There's nothing "unpatriotic" about discussing whether changes are warranted.

Thanks for commenting...have to disagree on amending fundamental constitutional rights. However, agree that public venues should increase security measures, i.e. metal detectors, etc.

Exmoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for commenting...have to disagree on
> amending fundamental constitutional rights.
> However, agree that public venues should increase
> security measures, i.e. metal detectors, etc.

Disagreeing is fine :) Not discussing the reasons for disagreement, or where we can find common ground...not so fine :) I'm not saying you are doing that -- but a number of gun advocates do just that.

Here's something to think about with regard to metal detectors, etc.:

Why should ALL of the people be inconvenienced and subject to search ALL of the time just because a very few people are stupid about guns (and by stupid about guns, I mean for whatever reason bring them to places to cause mass harm)?
Might it not be a better solution to address not having the few be able to be stupid about guns, than to go after EVERYONE, increasing costs to businesses, searching law-abiding citizens, with measures that very likely won't stop the stupid ones from mass murders anyway?

To me, that would be like forcing everyone to be searched (unreasonably) to see if they have any heroin on them because a few stupid people use heroin.

Hey, maybe the 4th amendment does apply after all :)

I certainly respect your opinion...I categorically disagree with amending fundamental rights under the constitution. I wouldn't put a price on safety.

P.S. Metal detectors do not involve searching. Who said anything about searching.

We've already amended fundamental rights given to us in the constitution. Multiple times. And the reasons we've done so have been in response to societal shifts and cultural changes totally unimaginable and unforeseen by the landholding, privileged white men who lived and wrote that document, 250+ years ago. Why not make changes over this? Why not now? If it is truly the will of the people, then why not? Why have a process by which such amendments can be made, if it's not ever going to be forseen that this can or should become necessary?

Well said, bookratt.

Oh, and metal detectors *are* a "search." They're searching my body to see if I have any metal on me.
The Supreme Court of the US has ruled that metal detectors ARE a "search" -- they called it a "less intrusive" search than pat-downs or strip searches, but that they were still searches.

Lol..did you have to google that one Hie?

Bookratt, I am referring to the Bill of Rights, the original fundamental amendments (the first 10) have not changed. Washington made 14 handwritten copies of the BOR, i.e. one for Congress and one for each of the original 13. Roosevelt enacted a BOR day. The supreme court uses the BOR as a basis in their decisions.

Hey it's cool with me that you guys disagree with the Bill of Rights. That's just your opinion and I respect your viewpoint.

Exmoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lol..did you have to google that one Hie?

I thought that was the case, but yes -- I googled it to be sure. I like having references and checking my ideas against facts.

> Bookratt, I am referring to the Bill of Rights,
> the original fundamental amendments (the first 10)
> have not changed. Washington made 14
> handwritten copies of the BOR, i.e. one for
> Congress and one for each of the original 13.
> Roosevelt enacted a BOR day. The supreme court
> uses the BOR as a basis in their decisions.

The Supreme Court uses *all* of the amendments in their decisions. That they've never changed to this point certainly doesn't mean they never should. It just means they haven't changed to this point.

> Hey it's cool with me that you guys disagree with
> the Bill of Rights. That's just your opinion and
> I respect your viewpoint.

I'm actually fine with the 2nd amendment -- what I don't agree with is the "interpretation" that it gives a "right" to own any gun anyone wants anytime they want, or that it applies outside of a "well-regulated militia," when it clearly states that's what it applies to. However, since other people think it DOES apply outside of a well-regulated militia, an amendment clarifying what we should do NOW with regard to guns might be in order.
The people who wrote the BOR had no idea that small, cheap, readily available weapons of mass murder would proliferate in our society. "Arms" to them meant a front-loading musket, where you were lucky to get off one shot every couple of minutes. Things have changed. It's reasonable to consider changing our concept of "right to bear arms" in response.
We changed our concept of "citizen" several times by amendment (it was originally white males only). Why not our concept of "right to bear arms?"
I don't find "we shouldn't change because so far we haven't changed" a very compelling argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2015 02:51PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Wouldn't put a price on safety?

Yes you do.

Your price is 36 people dead every fucking day in this country from guns.

I think the price you are willing to pay is too high.

Holding slaves is a fundamental constitutional right from the first version of the constitution. I am rather glad that we no longer have that right, and think that it is good to amend the constitution when flaws are found in it.

Exmoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed...excellent article. Nothing rife,
> fallacious, and false about the 4th amendment.
> The framers knew what they were doing. My
> grandfather fought in the American Revolution,
> even being wounded by a bayonet in the thigh
> during hand to hand combat (King's mountain), and
> I am proud of the constitution.


If your grandfather fought in the Revolution you must be getting a bit elderly. How old are you?

Lol...he was my 5th great-grandfather. One valuable take-away from TSCC was learning about my genealogy.

My 4th great-grandfather also fought in the American Revolution and was present at the surrender of General Cornwallis to General George Washington in 1781.

My 4th great-grandfather was a distant cousin to George Washington's father's first wife, Jane Butler, the mother of George's four older half-siblings. At the time, my 4th great-grandfather was just a 20-year-old soldier. I'm not sure if he knew this genealogical fact.

The Constitution should not be messed around with. It has stood the test of time.

Two of my fourth generation grandfathers fought in the Revolutionary War, that I know of. I learned that last year doing genealogy.

I'm also cousins of George Washington, distant cousins.

Which isn't so uncommon. Every US president since then is related to George, all the way down to Obama. Most of them are distant cousins. Only past president not related was Gerald Ford, and that's because his genealogy isn't known as he was adopted.

George's 11 generation great grandparents are my 19th and 20th generation great grandparents. Two of their daughters are both my great great grandmothers through two different family branches.

There's lots of overlaps in relations once you get back that far. I'm related several ways to both George, and many others.

Genealogy is lots more fun than LDS makes it out to be. You get a crash course in history once you get started. :)

There should be in any public or semi-public building where people congregate.

At the movie theater, since the last shooting inside one of those, now my local Regis movie house checks our handbags when entering for signs of weaponry. Only in America. Well, maybe Israel too, but that's a different discussion.

The times are a'changin, and we aren't any safer for the wear and tear.

My HS senior year English teacher assigned us to write a persuasive essay. She gave us only 2 exclusions, and if anyone were to write anything whatsoever relating to these subjects, that person would get no credit. As you can probably guess, those two subjects were abortion and gun control. I soon found that there was some wisdom in staying away from those debates, because the debate almost immediately and invariably devolves into argument and irrationality, no matter which side you're on. There is no single root cause for these mass shootings. You can't just shout "GUNS!" or "MENTAL HEALTH!" or "MEN!", and expect that there won't be a counter argument come right back at you. I believe that to make this better, it will take a significant number of politicians who are willing to team with researchers, come up with sound solutions and then defy their constituents and pass some laws. Sounds unlikely, no?

I don't understand why controlling guns isn't considered. Like the comparison hie used above, herion. Herion may be illegal, but perscription narcotics are legal. However, they're heavily controlled because widespread availablity leads to addiction and overdose deaths. And narcotics actually have a purpose outside of maiming and killing people.

Obama's right. Mentally ill people are mentally ill. Violent people are violent, and they're present in all developed countries. Yet, allowing widespread access to unlimited guns and ammunition that allows a young man to maim and kill thirty people in the space of a few minutes makes no sense, by itself, without reference to mental illness.

It's in the Constitution isn't a defense, by itself. Slavery was in the Consitution too. But we changed that.

For the people defending guns, what right are they actually defending? The right to unlimited amounts of ammunition, the right to unlimited types or quantities of weapons. Why? The right to go hunting? We can't protect hunting, yet limit guns in other contexts? Like you can get painkillers if you're in pain, but you can't deal them on the streets.

The mental health thing can get very complex, much like the gun debate.

Outlaw guns? In my area every house has a closet full of them. Guns are not a perishable item. The revolvers Sam Colt built still fire today, and no one knows where these guns are. Many have been sold second, third hand etc.

In my area it is quite common to see them at yard sales, classifieds, and Craigslist.

The mental health thing could also be very bad. California has the 5150 law, and Florida has the Marchman Act which allows the forced incarceration and forced psychological "treatment" of people based solely on the accusation of a layman stating someone is acting strangely. There is no end to the abuse that could happen to the misuse of these laws, and no real check and balance to this system.

The Oregon shooter did share some characteristics with the Sandy Hook shooter. However, so do thousands (if not millions) of socially awkward kids living in peoples basements.

Everything you say is true. You cannot outlaw people's personalities, or control people based on the accusation by someone else that they're vaguely strange. That's a witch-hunt.

Therefore, you limit weapons. When people cannot easily shoot a mass of people, there aren't mass shootings. I don't see why this is hard. How to limit weapons may difficult. But you start by admitting it has got to be done.

Americans have always had the right to bear arms. And quite a lot of them, including some fairly heavy duty stuff.

A couple of decades back, you rarely heard of large scale massacres. When you heard about them, they shocked, as a result.

The gun laws are, by and large, pretty much the same as ever.

But the number of mass killings seems to be growing.

If the gun laws are not different, yet many more people are using guns to massacre people, often random groups, then what has changed within American society that has engendered this dreadful situation?

What is different?

If this can be discovered and fixed, maybe the gun laws would be irelavant?

media glorification, and the fact that youth are being raised in a selfish american culture where the most narcissistic are the most likely to reproduce.

I think that quite possibly, young men these days are expected to be wildly successful at something as well as charming enough to get dates at will. They see this on tv and social media and desperately want to be a hero-stud dude.

When reality doesn't meet the expectations put on them by society and even by their own selves, they can easily be nudged into being potential mass killers, solely out of frustration and self-loathing.

It's impossible for every young man to be what they are told they should be, so they retreat into a fantasy world, usually involving video games and role-playing games.

The world needs to ease up on the expectations of young men, as an example, stuff as seemingly innocent as youth team sports where they are pushed by parents and coaches to be the athlete of the year. They get kicked to the curb and ignored if they aren't top performers.

It's sad.

I think you're onto something here.

ETA:

And something to consider is that whether it's cultural or biological or a combination of both ( which I think the latter) that males are more likely to direct their anger and negativity outwards while females are more likely turn them inwards. That's probably one of the reasons why men are more likely to act out physically aggression vs women using relational aggression.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2015 10:05PM by Itzpapalotl.

Could a big part of the solution be as simple as not allowing the name and identity of the mass murder to be broadcast in the media? Thus removing the glory? They all seem to reference craving the fame and idolizing the previous shooters.

...and all that dissecting of the shooter's motivation and discussion with friends and neighbors about his personality and then analysis of whatever 'manifesto' he left behind.

I don't know if I just happened to be listening to a wack job radio host, but this radio guy was talking about this current shooter's mothering tactics! It was HER fault for smothering him!

The US is in desperate need when it comes to addressing and caring for the mentally ill. Especially the people in their teens and 20's. Mental health care is expensive. These people don't have the resources. It's as simple as that.

If you're young, mentally ill,lacking insurance or finances, and live in America, you and your are probably in a hopeless situation.