One members thoughts on Gun Control. They are his thoughts only….
What are yours?
Join the conversation
Podcast: Play in new window
| Download (Duration: 46:33 — 42.6MB)
A rather one-sided and extreme view of the politics.
He apparently hasn’t actually read the 2nd amendment — he didn’t address half the words in it.
The first really disappointing episode I’ve listened to.
I wholeheartedly respect this man’s opinion and frankly feel comfortable that he is a gun holder. He seems knowledgable, comfortable and responsible. People like this man are the poster child for why people should carry guns. I am SURE that not all gun owners are like him. I would render a guess that less than half of all gun owners are as smart and thoughtful as this man. That’s my concern.
Politically speaking, I agree with not having government ‘meddle’ in our lives, and who likes red-tape… so let’s consider the liberal angle of social policy: marriage, sexual preference, whether weed is legal or not, use of contraceptives, women’s rights? If you TRULY believe in less government – PLEASE ALSO UNDERSTAND there are a lot of people who don’t want the government to ‘meddle’ in THESE social areas either. All who are not Republican do not want more government – Dems want less government too, just in different areas.
I don’t anticipate anything like this but just in case, I absolutely DO NOT want ANY laws telling me that I should/must carry a gun. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. I’d rather be like the Ammonites who laid down their lives instead of someone who takes a life. I would not want to have to repent for killing someone. Even accidentally or in self defense. I would rather die and go to heaven.
I agree the amount of responsibility for all gun owners is very high. The responsibility that comes with the ability to take a life is far understated and misunderstood or perhaps not taken seriously enough by many gun owners. Taking a life is a weight to carry for the rest of your life. Some may be able to psychologically handle the idea, but I support the idea that allowing someone to purchase should require more scrutiny into the status of the buyers.
I appreciate Richie’s comment about how sure diseases take lives more often than death from a firearm, but the one who was shot doesn’t have the choice.
I just pray those who own guns can be as responsible as this man.
I agree with the anonymous commenter above.
What a strange topic to hear in The Cultural Hall. I no longer discuss gun control because there are too many megaphones on both sides to shout down anyone who differs with their viewpoint.
Can someone explain why this was an episode of the cultural hall? It wasn’t really clear how this relates to Mormon society/culture. Weird.
Its pretty clear to me – Mormon culture especially in Utah is NOT the same as the Mormon spiritual way and some idiosyncrasies are definitely NOT scriptural. I think the gun issue makes perfect sense because of just how RED Utah is – and red states are generally pushing for gun rights while blue states are generally pushing for gun control.
On a side note: I think people need to stop using scriptures to justify their political beliefs. I find many scriptures that support both red and blue political concepts. One cannot pick and choose which scriptures to site just to support their politics and ignore the rest.
I hope there will be an episode discussing the other side of the argument
Lack of research. That’s the main thing I got out of this podcast, and I’m also disappointed that they didn’t read the Second Amendment, this is what it states:
“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.”
What does “well regulated Militia” mean? The wording, and where the commas are placed, suggest that the right to bear arms should go to people in Militia. It never says anything about private citizens, so the debate goes on, should private citizens, who are not part of a “well regulated Militia” have a right to bear arms?
Given the historical period in which this was taken, I take the statement to mean: “Because there might come a time we the people need men and women who know what they’re doing with a gun to defend our liberty, owning guns is a right.” In other words, so a well regulated militia can be formed to defend ourselves, the people can have guns.
This view fits the history of the time. When the British arrived to take down the revolt of the American colonists, most of the rebels were farmers and tradesmen. It took a long time for Washington and others to pull together a disciplined force who knew how to use weapons correctly. This was most likely by design of the British imperialists. It’s a lot easier to put down a rebellion when your enemy has no ability or idea how to fight you.
Therefore, the founding fathers, when penning the Bill of Rights, were thinking of fighting off future attempts by the British or other powers to dominate the United States by arming the people. I think it’s been perverted by paranoid individuals who take it to be carte blanche to go to war against their own government, and I think people go overboard when they suggest that bearing any arm is okay, but there you go.
Besides, regardless of whether you read the amendment whole or in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is right there in the text. We are “the people”, as stated in the preamble. If they wanted to say a well regulated militia had the right to keep and bear arms, they would have said that.
Click here to cancel reply.
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Follow us on Google +
Copyright © 2013 - Avenue. All rights reserved.
Further Assistance by Robin SantillanServer 2.0
Help provided by "Most patient web guy"Back to Top