LDS Freedom Forum

BTW, I just finished my latest AR15 build. Really sweet! I'm taking it to the range this weekend to run about 100 rounds through it to make sure its sighted in and everything is working as it should. Then maybe I should send it to Robin Hood! Who's up for us getting him a decent weapon? :))

Sandinista wrote:BTW, I just finished my latest AR15 build. Really sweet! I'm taking it to the range this weekend to run about 100 rounds through it to make sure its sighted in and everything is working as it should. Then maybe I should send it to Robin Hood! Who's up for us getting him a decent weapon? :))

Everybody but him! :))

Sandinista wrote:BTW, I just finished my latest AR15 build. Really sweet! I'm taking it to the range this weekend to run about 100 rounds through it to make sure its sighted in and everything is working as it should. Then maybe I should send it to Robin Hood! Who's up for us getting him a decent weapon? :))

I'll hang on to it for him....until he has a legal right to ownership...or leaves this life...whichever comes first.

Sandinista wrote:BTW, I just finished my latest AR15 build. Really sweet! I'm taking it to the range this weekend to run about 100 rounds through it to make sure its sighted in and everything is working as it should. Then maybe I should send it to Robin Hood! Who's up for us getting him a decent weapon? :))

I find it Ironic that he chose Robin Hood as his name and avatar.

Who was Robin Hood if not someone who stood up against tyranny via armed rebelion? Wasn't Robin Hood one of the men who forced King John to sing the Magna Carta? The same Magna Carta that is one of the cornerstones of our own constitution.

How successful would Robin Hood have been if they had bow, bowstaff, and sword control in medieval england?

skmo wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:The difference is I'm not motivated by fear.
I have a food store so that I can help my neighbours if times get tough.
I have insurance for by car so that if I make a mistake and cause an accident I can make good the other persons loss.
I have bandages in order to heal, not because I am in fear of cuts.

Like I said, in my view your logic is twisted and you appear to live in perpetual fear; which that must be an awful way to live.
I feel very sorry for you.

No need, I'm a citizen, not a subject.

My passport says I'm a "British Citizen".
The truth is I am a citizen of the British state, and am also a subject of the crown. It's not either/or, it's both.
Just like Canadians, Australians etc.

And, I would point out that you are the subject of a King.

markharr wrote:Robin Hood, you are a latter day saint right? Does having food storage, and a financial reserve mean that you are living in fear?

It actually means the opposite, that you can live without fear because you are prepared.

I agree with you.
It was skmo who said those things = living in fear.... not me.

We aren't asking you to understand the reasoning behind the second ammendment of our constitution, only to respect that we are a sovereign nation. There are things about England that seem antiquated to us, but you don't see us telling you that you have to change them.

That's true (though you seem to like telling the rest of the world ;) ).

Sandinista explained the reason for the second amendment and the subsequent American relationship with guns. I think you will find I acknowledged that. I even said I understood it.
All I was asking was how the shootings can be stopped. How the slaughter of the innocents can be prevented. And all I get is arguments for why you all need to carry guns and that I live under a tyranny and have to "kiss the Queen". If that is truly the level of debate, frankly it tells me all I need to know.
Personally, I think the devotion to guns is misplaced, but it's not my country so I'm not that bothered really. But it is heartbreaking to see, practically every week, young people gunned down by some deranged idiot with a gun.
It appears that while many on here are vociferous in their defence of gun ownership etc, they appear lost for words when it comes to addressing the current catalogue of mass shootings.
That's fine. If you don't know how to stop it just say so.
Other countries have figured it out and it works for them.

But as Latter-day Saints who are our brother's keeper, I thought it was legitimate to ask you for your views on what can be done in America. I didn't expect you (or most of you) to simply shrug your shoulders and go all Charlton Heston ("cold dead hands") on me.

Speaks volumes.

markharr wrote:

Sandinista wrote:BTW, I just finished my latest AR15 build. Really sweet! I'm taking it to the range this weekend to run about 100 rounds through it to make sure its sighted in and everything is working as it should. Then maybe I should send it to Robin Hood! Who's up for us getting him a decent weapon? :))

I find it Ironic that he chose Robin Hood as his name and avatar.

Who was Robin Hood if not someone who stood up against tyranny via armed rebelion? Wasn't Robin Hood one of the men who forced King John to sing the Magna Carta? The same Magna Carta that is one of the cornerstones of our own constitution.

How successful would Robin Hood have been if they had bow, bowstaff, and sword control in medieval england?

Oh dear me.
Robin Hood had nothing whatsoever to do with the Magna Carta.
There is very little evidence that he even existed, and certainly didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor...... which I'm sure you wouldn't approve of given it's Socialist undertones.

FYI I use Robin Hood as my online persona because I was born in Sherwood, and the avatar I use is the flag of Nottinghamshire.

Robin Hood wrote: All I was asking was how the shootings can be stopped. How the slaughter of the innocents can be prevented. And all I get is arguments for why you all need to carry guns and that I live under a tyranny and have to "kiss the Queen".

No, you didn't ask that. This is a bait and switch. What you did was ridicule Ben Carson in an over the top manner because you didn't like one of his comments. That is what started this debate, and that is why people are arguing about gun ownership in this thread.

If you want to start a thread about how to stop mass shootings or gun violence then I'm sure you will get a larger variety of responses.

Robin Hood wrote: It appears that while many on here are vociferous in their defence of gun ownership etc, they appear clueless when it comes to addressing the current catalogue of mass shootings.
That's fine. If you don't know how to stop it just say so.
Other countries have figured out how to prevent it and it works for them.

People have made many suggestions about the underlying causes. But if people can't even agree on what the causes of the problem are, how do you expect the debate to move on to solutions?

I don't believe other countries have figured out how to prevent them so much as they simply don't happen as often for cultural reasons that I have mentioned in previous posts. The unique mix of inner city gangs, massive third world immigration, and cultural diversity in the US along with the radical feminist, PC, and multicultural movements of the last 50 years have created a toxic cocktail here.

This is a re-run of my post of 20 June 2006 at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=124&p=506&hilit=yorkshire#p506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; with a bit of editing for clarity.
You might find that entire thread an interesting read.

While we were living in North East England 1976 - 1978, an escaped and extremely violent rapist and murderer was finally cornered with a woman hostage in a house on the North Yorkshire moors. He was armed with a revolver taken from one of his guards. The first police officers on the scene, poorly armed if at all, had to go house to house asking to borrow guns to begin a siege.

I own a few guns of my choice primarily for protection of life and property. My mother and I experienced a home invasion when I was a boy, and guess what persuaded the perp. to depart.

The old Danish rifle that adorns our living room fireplace commemorates my father-in-law's participation in the Danish underground (Friheds Kæmper) in WW2.

Many years ago I needed to get an AK-47 into battery in a hurry and did not know how. That could have been fatal. A few years ago I purchased one to insure that our son in the paras learned how to operate it when he came home of leave.

The Phoenix-Metro area, where we now live, has had numerous home invasions in recent years. Some have been repelled by armed home occupants.

I'm thankful that my dad taught me to use guns before I went to the military and got into a war zone.

So which is it?
"I'm sure you will get a larger variety of responses" or "if people can't agree on what the causes of the problem are, how do you expect the debate to move on to solutions"?
Bit of a contradiction there methinks.... and in the same post!

You're right, this was started by the Ben Carson comment, but I thought this was a forum where topics developed and evolved. That certainly seems to be the way it works generally. I didn't realize that wasn't allowed in this one single instance.
Sorry, my fault. We have all this freedom of speech stuff over here and sometimes I get carried away!

Robin Hood wrote:So which is it?
"I'm sure you will get a larger variety of responses" or "if people can't agree on what the causes of the problem are, how do you expect the debate to move on to solutions"?
Bit of a contradiction there methinks.... and in the same post!

There is no contradiction.

Robin Hood wrote: You're right, this was started by the Ben Carson comment, but I thought this was a forum where topics developed and evolved. That certainly seems to be the way it works generally. I didn't realize that wasn't allowed in this one single instance.
Sorry, my fault. We have all this freedom of speech stuff over here and sometimes I get carried away!

You claimed you were simply asking a question that you never asked. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with a false claim you made to try and make a point.

markharr wrote:

Of course that isn't entirely accurate. It should read that the original purpose of gun control was to protect slave owners, and klansmen from their victims.

“It shall not be lawfull for any negroe or other slave to carry or arme himselfe with any club, staffe, gunn, sword or any other weapon of defence or offence,” -The Virginia slave code of 1680 Widely considered to be the first gun control law on American soil.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... docs1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's interesting that gun control now does the same thing as back then. We are all slaves now. The only difference is we started with guns and they are trying to take them away.

Good old secret combinations

Robin Hood wrote:
You have obviously spent most of your working life living in fear.
Can't understand why people think that is freedom.
It's twisted logic.

Said the lion in the zoo to the lion on the savannah

It is becoming more and more obvious what is needed here in order to bring about meaningful change to the current situation re guns.

Have an option for kids in high school age to spend one summer at a military base, where they can be trained on how to fire weapons, drive different vehicles, as well as survivalist skills, as well as basic military drills.

For those that are older, also offer these courses over a period of one year on weekends.

This would not be an enlistment into the Armed Forces but would serve as a type of training on the basics of these things. You would receive a certification at the end of the course for satisfactory completion. As well as your arms that you used satisfactorily during the course, free of charge.

Make the use of arms, dependant on having completed these training courses. There is your "Well-regulated Militia" requirement as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not being infringed.

Robin Hood wrote:
Oh dear me.
Robin Hood had nothing whatsoever to do with the Magna Carta.
There is very little evidence that he even existed, and certainly didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor...... which I'm sure you wouldn't approve of given it's Socialist undertones.

FYI I use Robin Hood as my online persona because I was born in Sherwood, and the avatar I use is the flag of Nottinghamshire.

You are correct in stating that they don't know for sure if he existed or know for certain who he was, but he is often associated with the signing of the magna carta.

Several examples.

http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/06/how-ro ... od-forest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJAF8FmpZIU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://jacobburnslawlibrary.wordpress. ... gna-carta/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Whether he is real or not, my point is valid because he is often associated with rebelian against tyrany. The last thing that I would associate him with is the gun control crowd. If you are looking for someone to associate the gun control crowd with you should go with Joseph Stalin.

Robin Hood wrote:

markharr wrote:Robin Hood, you are a latter day saint right? Does having food storage, and a financial reserve mean that you are living in fear?

It actually means the opposite, that you can live without fear because you are prepared.

I agree with you.
It was skmo who said those things = living in fear.... not me.

We aren't asking you to understand the reasoning behind the second ammendment of our constitution, only to respect that we are a sovereign nation. There are things about England that seem antiquated to us, but you don't see us telling you that you have to change them.

That's true (though you seem to like telling the rest of the world ;) ).

Sandinista explained the reason for the second amendment and the subsequent American relationship with guns. I think you will find I acknowledged that. I even said I understood it.
All I was asking was how the shootings can be stopped. How the slaughter of the innocents can be prevented. And all I get is arguments for why you all need to carry guns and that I live under a tyranny and have to "kiss the Queen". If that is truly the level of debate, frankly it tells me all I need to know.
Personally, I think the devotion to guns is misplaced, but it's not my country so I'm not that bothered really. But it is heartbreaking to see, practically every week, young people gunned down by some deranged idiot with a gun.
It appears that while many on here are vociferous in their defence of gun ownership etc, they appear lost for words when it comes to addressing the current catalogue of mass shootings.
That's fine. If you don't know how to stop it just say so.
Other countries have figured it out and it works for them.

But as Latter-day Saints who are our brother's keeper, I thought it was legitimate to ask you for your views on what can be done in America. I didn't expect you (or most of you) to simply shrug your shoulders and go all Charlton Heston ("cold dead hands") on me.

Speaks volumes.

You mentioned you don't want "armed guards at kindergarten and even teachers packing guns". What I interpret this as is simply "security" guards at kindergartens and "concealed carry" teachers concealing their self defense firearm. THIS is EXACTLY what can be done in America to stop or avert these drugged up murderers. But does our mainstream big-pharma funded media and big government want this, to keep us safe? No way! Why would they want to give us more power (while at the same time keep us more safe) when this will give them less power and less control? They are the "all powerful spend-trillions-recklessly-without-any-accountability big government". Of COURSE they want to take our guns so they can have them all. That's what tyrants do! More guns = LESS crime. That's a fact.

In 1982, In Kennesaw, GA, they passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

Ask any burglar if they would rather rob a home that the owner has guns or a home that the owner has no guns because he believes in gun control, and every single burglar would tell you the unarmed home. Every time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

If you don't think anyone should have guns then why don't you tell Obama to remove guns from all his body guards, security guards, secret service, etc? Also when these mass shootings always happen in "gun-free zones", why do people call the police? Is it because of their badges? or is it because they have guns? Why don't we ban the police from guns and only give them knives? or maybe that's too dangerous, how about spoons? Would people call the police then? Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why we have our God given right to own defense weapons and true Americans would never give up their right to defend themselves and their family.

Why is there never a workplace shooting at the remington factory?

Robin Hood wrote:So which is it?
"I'm sure you will get a larger variety of responses" or "if people can't agree on what the causes of the problem are, how do you expect the debate to move on to solutions"?
Bit of a contradiction there methinks.... and in the same post!

You're right, this was started by the Ben Carson comment, but I thought this was a forum where topics developed and evolved. That certainly seems to be the way it works generally. I didn't realize that wasn't allowed in this one single instance.
Sorry, my fault. We have all this freedom of speech stuff over here and sometimes I get carried away!

Freedoms of speech is all but dead in the US, so it Is most definitely 6 feet under in the UK. We have free speech zones here, but at least we still can have hate speech. Although that's going the way of the Brits. Not that hate speech is a good thing; but people should have the right.

Btw, you ask what causes these sickos to do what they do? This is another part of the overall puzzle:
http://bearingarms.com/stop-mass-shooting/

Robin Hood wrote:

markharr wrote:Robin Hood, you are a latter day saint right? Does having food storage, and a financial reserve mean that you are living in fear?

It actually means the opposite, that you can live without fear because you are prepared.

I agree with you.
It was skmo who said those things = living in fear.... not me.

We aren't asking you to understand the reasoning behind the second ammendment of our constitution, only to respect that we are a sovereign nation. There are things about England that seem antiquated to us, but you don't see us telling you that you have to change them.

That's true (though you seem to like telling the rest of the world ;) ).

Sandinista explained the reason for the second amendment and the subsequent American relationship with guns. I think you will find I acknowledged that. I even said I understood it.
All I was asking was how the shootings can be stopped. How the slaughter of the innocents can be prevented. And all I get is arguments for why you all need to carry guns and that I live under a tyranny and have to "kiss the Queen". If that is truly the level of debate, frankly it tells me all I need to know.
Personally, I think the devotion to guns is misplaced, but it's not my country so I'm not that bothered really. But it is heartbreaking to see, practically every week, young people gunned down by some deranged idiot with a gun.
It appears that while many on here are vociferous in their defence of gun ownership etc, they appear lost for words when it comes to addressing the current catalogue of mass shootings.
That's fine. If you don't know how to stop it just say so.
Other countries have figured it out and it works for them.

But as Latter-day Saints who are our brother's keeper, I thought it was legitimate to ask you for your views on what can be done in America. I didn't expect you (or most of you) to simply shrug your shoulders and go all Charlton Heston ("cold dead hands") on me.

Speaks volumes.

Righteousness and everyone choosing to abide by God's laws. Until then...there's a need for swords, bows, and guns.

The difference is I'm not motivated by fear.

You can lecture us on being afraid after your country takes down their network of 5.9 million surveliance cameras. One camera for every 11 people.

http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/bsia-at ... in-the-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

markharr wrote:

The difference is I'm not motivated by fear.

You can lecture us on being afraid after your country takes down their network of 5.9 million surveliance cameras. One camera for every 11 people.

http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/bsia-at ... in-the-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We have too many cameras, you're right.
We don't have them because we're afraid, we have them because Big Brother is trying to watch us. I can only assume he is doing this because he is afraid of us. I hope he is.
We're not afraid of the government, we actually hold them in contempt. We just stick two fingers up at them (the equivalent of your middle finger) and get on with our lives.
I think the Americans and ourselves are pretty similar in this regard.
I used to live in Germany. Now that is a country with serious issues when it comes to sycophantic authority worship.

The ward heretic wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:So which is it?
"I'm sure you will get a larger variety of responses" or "if people can't agree on what the causes of the problem are, how do you expect the debate to move on to solutions"?
Bit of a contradiction there methinks.... and in the same post!

You're right, this was started by the Ben Carson comment, but I thought this was a forum where topics developed and evolved. That certainly seems to be the way it works generally. I didn't realize that wasn't allowed in this one single instance.
Sorry, my fault. We have all this freedom of speech stuff over here and sometimes I get carried away!

Freedoms of speech is all but dead in the US, so it Is most definitely 6 feet under in the UK.

You see that's your problem right there.
What makes you think that? The assumption that if freedom is being eroded in the US it must be even worse elsewhere.
This is why Americans are regarded as arrogant by the rest of the world.

Robin Hood wrote:

The ward heretic wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:So which is it?
"I'm sure you will get a larger variety of responses" or "if people can't agree on what the causes of the problem are, how do you expect the debate to move on to solutions"?
Bit of a contradiction there methinks.... and in the same post!

You're right, this was started by the Ben Carson comment, but I thought this was a forum where topics developed and evolved. That certainly seems to be the way it works generally. I didn't realize that wasn't allowed in this one single instance.
Sorry, my fault. We have all this freedom of speech stuff over here and sometimes I get carried away!

Freedoms of speech is all but dead in the US, so it Is most definitely 6 feet under in the UK.

You see that's your problem right there.
What makes you think that? The assumption that if freedom is being eroded in the US it must be even worse elsewhere.
This is why Americans are regarded as arrogant by the rest of the world.

I have lived in both places for many years. I have immediate family in both countries. It's first hand experience. Look. There are things I love about the UK (England mostly) but there are also serious problems. The UK is further down the path of lower freedom, with the US following closely.

I call it the way I see it.

More hypocricy from our government.

Senate Democrats gathered Thursday on the steps of the Capitol surrounded by about a dozen armed guards to announce a new push for tougher gun-control laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... y-demand-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;