An Inspired Constitution? (Needs a rewrite.j

[Mark Beesley]

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump. The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangeroous. An inspired  Constitution? Perhaps, but that does not mean every element therein is scripture. I am pretty sure God doesn’t consider any of His children to be worth 3/5s of other children.  We are a fallen people living in a wicked land on a fallen world, and we think guns are a good idea? And now I see where Utah is considering suing California because we’re sick of the dirty air and dirty water in the Golden State. Say What?  And Mitt wants to represent Utah? Why not? Hatch was a carperbagger too!

Do we still belive we are supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Are we supposed to submit to the Lord,  or trust in the might of our guns?

If the States were to call a Constitutional convention today, and IF any inspiration could get through, would the Constution today look like the one “insipred” in the 19th Century? If not, what would look different?

[The Nehor]

The Electoral College was designed to work with no political parties. I think the last time we tried that was President Monroe. Maybe we should try it again.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump.

Well, no, that neither was nor is its purpose:

Quote

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.

And here:

Quote

As one of The Heritage Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky, noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”

Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past.

The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”

As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.

...

Unneeded tinkering with a process that is over two centuries old could destabilize one on the steadiest political systems in the world.

As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross wrote in a Heritage Foundation memorandum:

America’s election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. America’s presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents chaos, grants definitive electoral outcomes, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned, and carefully designed system—and it works.

On Election Day, Americans should appreciate the great and long-lasting constitutional tradition bequeathed to them—including the quirky Electoral College system created by the nation’s Founders.

There have been two farily recent elections the results of which have triggered calls for the abolition of the Electoral College: the 2000 and 2016 elections.  Moreover,

Quote

 

{t}he other electoral-popular vote mismatches came in 1876 and 1888; in all four instances the Democratic nominee ended up the loser.

...

Even in the vast majority of U.S. elections, in which the same candidate won both the popular and the electoral vote, the system usually makes the winner’s victory margin in the former a lot wider than in the latter. In 2012, for example, Barack Obama won 51% of the nationwide popular vote but nearly 62% of the electoral votes, or 332 out of 538.

Looking back at all presidential elections since 1828, the winner’s electoral vote share has, on average, been 1.36 times his popular vote share – what we’ll call the electoral vote (EV) inflation factor. Trump’s EV inflation factor, based on his winning 56.5% of the electoral votes (304 out of 538) is 1.22, similar to Obama’s in 2012 (1.21).

 

Interesting stuff.

Quote

The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangerous.

Ah.  Your post is about the shooting in Florida.

Quote

An inspired  Constitution? Perhaps, but that does not mean every element therein is scripture.

Agreed.

Quote

I am pretty sure God doesn’t consider any of His children to be worth 3/5s of other children.  

Agreed.  The so-called "Three-Fifths Compromise" came about this way:

Quote

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.

...

Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. The compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position. An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

Placating slaveholders was the order of the day.  It came at a terrible cost.

Quote

We are a fallen people living in a wicked land on a fallen world, and we think guns are a good idea?

Yes, guns are a good idea.  Just like cars and trucks are a good idea.  And knives.  And fertilizer.  

All of these items have been misused by criminals, but are otherwise well-used by law-abiding folks.

Quote

Do we still belive we are supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Are we supposed to submit to the Lord,  or trust in the might of our guns?

This is a false dilemma fallacy.  There is no tension between trusting in God and gun ownership.  And nowhere has the Church taught us to "trust in the might of our guns." 

In fact, the Church's teachings and counsel on the subject of firearms (and of violence in general) are eminently sensible:

1. Section 21.2.4 of  Handbook 2 provides: "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."

2. Significantly, "the church omits any discussion of firearms from its emergency prep teachings."  That speaks rather strongly to your (apparently ironic) question "Are we supposed to submit to the Lord, or trust in the might of our guns?"

3. Elder Oaks further counseled back in 2012:

Quote

LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks cautioned Mormons against joining or supporting "right-wing groups who mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form paramilitary or other organizations."

Such groups could "undermine the authority of public officials," Oaks said Sunday at a regional Mormon conference broadcast from the Marriott Center on Brigham Young University's Provo campus, "in the event of extraordinary emergencies or even in cases of simple disagreement with government policy."

Latter-day Saints should not "substitute [their] own organizations for the political and military authorities put in place by constitutional government and processes," the apostle said.

After all, the LDS Church's food-storage program is about amassing a year's supply of food and water, Oaks reminded the thousands watching in the giant arena, not "arms and ammunition."

4. Consider the Church's response to the armed a federal building in Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 (by a group that included some members of the Church):

Quote

As armed members of a militia group continue to occupy a federal building in Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement Monday condemning the action.

Acting as one of the faces of the group before the media is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose family and supporters were involved in an armed standoff with federal agents over grazing rights in 2014. Known members of the LDS Church, Cliven Bundy and his family have often said they believe God was involved in aspects of the 2014 standoff.

In response to media inquires to the LDS Church regarding the situation in Oregon, the church issued the following statement Monday afternoon:

Quote

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.

 

5. The 12th Article of Faith states: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

6. There are numerous stories on LDS.org that pertain to hunting (in a positive light).

7. Elder Oaks once related this excellent story:

Quote

One night in Chicago, my wife, June, and I were taking a sister home from a ward meeting. I parked outside the apartment house and accompanied the sister into the lobby and to her door. June remained in the car and locked all the doors. I left the key in the ignition in case she needed to drive away. We lived on the south side of Chicago and were accustomed to taking such precautions.

Before returning outside, I looked carefully in each direction. I saw three young men walking by, so I waited until they were out of sight, and then I walked quickly toward our car.

As I paused for June to unlock the car door, I saw one of the young men running back toward me. Fortunately June saw him coming around the end of the car with a gun in his hand and didn’t unlock the door.

The young man pushed the gun against my stomach and said, “Give me your money.” I took out my wallet and showed him it was empty.

“Give me your car keys,” he demanded. “They are in the car,” I told him. “Tell her to open the car,” he replied. When I refused, he was furious. He jabbed me in the stomach with his gun and said, “Do it, or I’ll kill you.” Again I refused. He repeated his demands, again emphasizing them with his gun.

Not knowing what else to do, June waited and prayed. Then a peaceful feeling came over her, and she felt that everything would be all right.

From behind the robber, a city bus approached. The young man became distracted, and his gun wavered from my stomach. I realized that with a quick motion I could seize the gun without the likelihood of being shot.

But just then the Spirit let me know what would happen if I grabbed that gun: We’d struggle, and I would turn the gun into the young man’s chest. It would fire, and he would die. I also understood that I must not have the blood of that young man on my conscience for the rest of my life.

I relaxed and, following an impulse, put my right hand on his shoulder. “Look,” I said. “What you’re doing just isn’t right. You could get killed or sent to jail for this.”

The young robber went through his demands for the third time, but this time his voice was subdued. When I refused again, he hesitated for a moment, then ran away. June unlocked the door, and we drove off, uttering a prayer of thanks.

I am grateful that the Lord gave me the vision and strength that night to refrain from trusting in the arm of flesh and to put my trust instead in the protecting care of our Heavenly Father.

8. The Joseph Smith Translation for Genesis 9:11 reads: "And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands" (compare to the original Genesis 9:5).

9. In 1994 the Church published a series of articles on the Ten Commandments, including "Thou Shalt Not Kill."  Definitely worth a read.

10. The lesson manual for Doctrine & Covenants includes a lesson, "Renounce War, Proclaim the Gospel of Peace," that is also worth a read.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Theme

As peaceful, law-abiding citizens, Latter-day Saints renounce war and proclaim the gospel of peace but will stand unto death in defense of their God-given liberties.

Theme Analysis

As a church, Latter-day Saints renounce war and violence as a means of settling disputes.

To those who would violate their peace and freedom, Latter-day Saints first lift the standard of peace.

They bear repeated offences with patience while exploring peaceful alternatives to war.

True followers of God engage in war only when it is the last remaining way to preserve life and liberties, and they are directed to do so by the Lord.

War is justified when life, liberty, and other God-given rights are threatened with extinction by an implacable enemy.

Faithful Church members respond to their country’s call for military service not because they love war, but because defense of one’s freedoms and liberties is a paramount obligation.

11. From D&C 98:

Quote

16 Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children.

...

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;

24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred-fold.

26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;

27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.

28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;

30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

12. From Alma 43:

Quote

45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

13. From Alma 48:

Quote

14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.

...

23 Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

24 Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites.

25 Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land.

14. From Alma 44:

Quote

1 And it came to pass that they did stop and withdrew a pace from them. And Moroni said unto Zerahemnah: Behold, Zerahemnah, that we do not desire to be men of blood. Ye know that ye are in our hands, yet we do not desire to slay you.

2 Behold, we have not come out to battle against you that we might shed your blood for power; neither do we desire to bring any one to the yoke of bondage. But this is the very cause for which ye have come against us; yea, and ye are angry with us because of our religion.

3 But now, ye behold that the Lord is with us; and ye behold that he has delivered you into our hands. And now I would that ye should understand that this is done unto us because of our religion and our faith in Christ. And now ye see that ye cannot destroy this our faith.

4 Now ye see that this is the true faith of God; yea, ye see that God will support, and keep, and preserve us, so long as we are faithful unto him, and unto our faith, and our religion; and never will the Lord suffer that we shall be destroyed except we should fall into transgression and deny our faith.

15. From Alma 46:

Quote

18 And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.

19 And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part, and crying with a loud voice, saying:

20 Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

16. From D&C 134:

Quote

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

17. From D&C 105:

Quote

38 And again I say unto you, sue for peace, not only to the people that have smitten you, but also to all people;

39 And lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation of peace unto the ends of the earth;

40 And make proposals for peace unto those who have smitten you, according to the voice of the Spirit which is in you, and all things shall work together for your good.

The Church's teachings about the use of violence (of any sort, including firearms) are quite good.  We would do well to study them more often.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 16, 2018 by smac97

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump. The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangeroous. An inspired  Constitution? Perhaps, but that does not mean every element therein is scripture. I am pretty sure God doesn’t consider any of His children to be worth 3/5s of other children.  We are a fallen people living in a wicked land on a fallen world, and we think guns are a good idea? And now I see where Utah is considering suing California because we’re sick of the dirty air and dirty water in the Golden State. Say What?  And Mitt wants to represent Utah? Why not? Hatch was a carperbagger too!

Do we still belive we are supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Are we supposed to submit to the Lord,  or trust in the might of our guns?

If the States were to call a Constitutional convention today, and IF any inspiration could get through, would the Constution today look like the one “insipred” in the 19th Century? If not, what would look different?

The Constitution was also inspired to include a process to adapt it to the needs of the people over the years.  It can be changed.

As for the "3/5 compromise", are you suggesting that slaves should have counted as a whole person?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump. The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangeroous. An inspired  Constitution? Perhaps, but that does not mean every element therein is scripture. I am pretty sure God doesn’t consider any of His children to be worth 3/5s of other children.  We are a fallen people living in a wicked land on a fallen world, and we think guns are a good idea? And now I see where Utah is considering suing California because we’re sick of the dirty air and dirty water in the Golden State. Say What?  And Mitt wants to represent Utah? Why not? Hatch was a carperbagger too!

Do we still belive we are supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Are we supposed to submit to the Lord,  or trust in the might of our guns?

If the States were to call a Constitutional convention today, and IF any inspiration could get through, would the Constution today look like the one “insipred” in the 19th Century? If not, what would look different?

We have an open canon to help us deal with deviations from the Constitution, which is not an open canon. I think this is why D&C 101:77-80 aays things like: "should be maintained ...according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment..."; and  why Joseph Smith prayed for it (D&C 109:54-57).

[cinepro]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We have an open canon to help us deal with deviations from the Constitution, which is not an open canon. I think this is why D&C 101:77-80 aays things like: "should be maintained ...according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment..."; and  why Joseph Smith prayed for it (D&C 109:54-57).

As far as I can tell, the Constitution is more "open" than the LDS scriptural canon.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump. The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangeroous. An inspired  Constitution? Perhaps, but that does not mean every element therein is scripture. I am pretty sure God doesn’t consider any of His children to be worth 3/5s of other children.  We are a fallen people living in a wicked land on a fallen world, and we think guns are a good idea? And now I see where Utah is considering suing California because we’re sick of the dirty air and dirty water in the Golden State. Say What?  And Mitt wants to represent Utah? Why not? Hatch was a carperbagger too!

Do we still belive we are supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Are we supposed to submit to the Lord,  or trust in the might of our guns?

If the States were to call a Constitutional convention today, and IF any inspiration could get through, would the Constution today look like the one “insipred” in the 19th Century? If not, what would look different?

If the states tried to write a constitution today they would NEVER accomplish it.  No one is will to compromise, few care to seek the guidance of God, and everyone believes they hold the moral high ground.  The country would implode while everyone blamed everyone else for not agreeing with them. 

 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As far as I can tell, the Constitution is more "open" than the LDS scriptural canon.

We edit our scriptures. The Constitution is only rarely edited and requires a lot more rigmarole.

I am in favor of abolishing the Electoral College. Its design came from a neat pathological though justifiable fear of the people’s incompetence. It serves now only to fixate campaigns and issues on the needs of those silly swing states and the original idea of an elected intelligentsia gathering to select the President is dead and not coming back. It really never existed.

The Electoral College is an anachronism. A naive and idealistic idea that needs to die.

[mnn727]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump.

No, it was designed to make sure that all states were represented in an election.

And do we need to talk about ALL the con-men and con-women that have ran?

I see this thread being closed rather quickly.

 

[mnn727]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

 The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangeroous.

No, Crazy people make going to school dangerous.

If a drunk driver kills a car load of teenagers, we blame the driver. We don't blame the car, or, Chevy or Ford, or, even Budweiser or Jack Daniels. When the Boston Bombers set off their bombs, we blamed them, not pressure cookers or manufacturers of same. When the terrorists flew jets into the WTC and Pentagon, we didn't blame the 767 or Boeing. Why is the natural knee jerk reaction to a shooting to blame the item used? More people are killed in car wrecks than with guns, yet there are more guns than cars, but, I don't see people calling for the government to take away my truck.

Edited February 16, 2018 by mnn727

[smac97]

I thought this 2015 article might be appropriate to this thread (insofar as this thread touches on what we can do to reduce/avoid public sphere violence):

Quote

THERE’S A WAY TO STOP MASS SHOOTINGS, AND YOU WON’T LIKE IT.

There’s a Way to Stop Mass Shootings, and You Won’t Like It.

That’s right. You’re not going to like it because it’s going to require you to do something personally, as opposed to shouting for the government, or anyone to “do something!”

You ready? Here it is:

“Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.”

If every one of us did this we’d have a culture that was deeply committed to ensuring no one was left lonely. And make no mistake, as I’ve written before loneliness is what causes these shooters to lash out. People with solid connections to other people don’t indiscriminately fire guns at strangers.

I know what you’re thinking. That’s never going to work because no one is going to make the effort to connect with the strange kid sitting by himself at lunch each day. No one is going to reach out to the gawky, awkward guy at work and ask him about his weekend.

You’re probably right and that’s an absolute shame.

Because I can tell you the things that aren’t going to work in this country when it comes to stopping these heinous acts. But they seem to be all anyone says, when inevitably, another person comes forward to inflict their tortured pain on innocent people.

1. Ban All Guns! – Due to the reading of the 2nd amendment and the precedents established by recent Supreme Court cases, this isn’t going anywhere. You’d need an amendment to the Constitution and there will NEVER be 30+ states willing to overturn it. Never mind the multitude of good reasons for its existence, no amount of outrage will overturn it so let’s just stop.
2. Ban All Guns! (pt. 2) – Assuming you actually could overturn the 2nd and outlaw every firearm in the country, then you’d have to go out and get them. Famously, there are more guns than people in the U.S. You couldn’t come close to collecting them all. Further, if Prohibition and the War on Drugs have taught us anything it’s that those intent on breaking the law are going to do just that. Laws be damned.
3. Ban Scary Guns Like the AR-15! – Fully auto weapons are already banned*. Most of these shootings occur with a handgun, plain and simple, and these aren’t going anywhere. Murder is illegal, and that doesn’t seem to stop these individuals from performing these atrocious acts. Do you think if there was a ban on shotguns that would stop them?
4. Keep Them Out of the Hands of Bad People! – Felons are prohibited from owing a firearm already. But let’s not forget, the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings aren’t done by criminals and their guns were obtained legally. How can you know who is going to do something like this? You can’t.
5. Do Something About Mental Health! – Cool. Yeah. So, like, free psychologists visits for everyone? Even if you could, the people that have done this haven’t been mentally ill, by and large. And, let’s not forget that medical records are private. Would you endorse mandatory psych screening for everyone and those records being sent to the government? Maybe just those who wish to own a gun? Remember, not every person who has engaged in a mass shooting has owned the gun they performed the act with. This is a complete non-starter of an issue with an insane price tag that does nothing to actually keep a person committed to violence from putting their hands on a gun.
6. Do… SOMETHING! – Gotcha. What do you want to do? “SOMETHING!” Ok, what do you have in mind? “I DON’T KNOW! BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!” Sure. Agreed. But what? Even Obama has had to say in his latest speech how routine it’s become.

If you can’t tell by this point in the list, there is NOTHING the government or any other organization can do to prevent these events.

You can’t effectively keep drugs out of the hands of those intent on doing drugs. You can’t keep beer out of the hands of high schoolers intent on getting beer. You have a HUGE supply of weapons everywhere and concrete federal law protecting those weapons. You’d have as much luck passing regulation against tornadoes. It would be equally as effective.

So there it is. The god’s honest truth. No entity can do anything meaningful (more than is presently being done) to thwart a disaffected person hell-bent on committing such an act.

But you can.

Demonstrating concern for our fellow man by reaching out and interacting.  As preventive medicine.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As far as I can tell, the Constitution is more "open" than the LDS scriptural canon.

The OP is about inspired changes. The Constitution does allow for amendments, but these aren't required to be inspired, as say, when the Lord suffered the original to be established. Still, constitutional amendments do reflect the validity of the higher law in that they are they result from honoring and protecting the moral agency and accountability the Lord prioritized. As a result, out of 11,000 attempts, we have 27 amendments.

As far as our canon goes, it is open in that the authoritative word of God is not contained in the Bible alone (as i understand the origin of the term). Not only does the authoritative word of God include latter-day canonized scripture, but inspired pronouncements by the Lord's servants (D&C 68:4). But just stacking up the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price, I think we might find more "amendments" to the original Biblical canon than the original U.S. Constitution has for amendments. Since an open canon means we don't have to refer to canonized chapter and verse for every little thing we do to minister, the additional inspired pronouncements availed to the servants of God, including  any elder in duly authorized service, are innumerable.

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

No, Crazy people make going to school dangerous.

If a drunk driver kills a car load of teenagers, we blame the driver. We don't blame the car, or, Chevy or Ford, or, even Budweiser or Jack Daniels. When the Boston Bombers set off their bombs, we blamed them, not pressure cookers or manufacturers of same. When the terrorists flew jets into the WTC and Pentagon, we didn't blame the 767 or Boeing. Why is the natural knee jerk reaction to a shooting to blame the item used? More people are killed in car wrecks than with guns, yet there are more guns than cars, but, I don't see people calling for the government to take away my truck.

America is the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It's the guns.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

We edit our scriptures. The Constitution is only rarely edited and requires a lot more rigmarole.

I am in favor of abolishing the Electoral College. Its design came from a neat pathological though justifiable fear of the people’s incompetence. It serves now only to fixate campaigns and issues on the needs of those silly swing states and the original idea of an elected intelligentsia gathering to select the President is dead and not coming back. It really never existed.

The Electoral College is an anachronism. A naive and idealistic idea that needs to die.

The electoral college guarantees that the needs of those who don't live in cities and on the coasts of the country are also taken into consideration.  Removing it would essentially make those people voiceless.  The discord and riots that would happen by symbolically disenfranchising a huge area of the United States would be devastating.  

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

America is the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It's the guns.

How is gun ownership going down (it's height was in the late 70s and 80s) but mass shootings going up if the problem is the guns?

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is gun ownership going down (it's height was in the late 70s and 80s) but mass shootings going up if the problem is the guns?

It hasn't changed much per capita, but of course actual guns owned are going up and up with population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

And of course easy access to military grade assault rifles facilitates mass shootings.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

It hasn't changed much per capita, but of course actual guns owned are going up and up with population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

And of course easy access to military grade assault rifles facilitates mass shootings.

 

Right now the percentage is 42%. In the 70s and 80s it was higher. So it’s been going down while mass shootings go up. 

That doesn’t seem like good correlation. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Right now the percentage is 42%. In the 70s and 80s it was higher. So it’s been going down while mass shootings go up. 

That doesn’t seem like good correlation. 

It hasn't gone consistently up or down. It's pretty similar to what it was in the 70s. Of course the big difference is access to assault weapons. And of course easy access to weapons for unstable persons with violent tendencies.

The actual number of guns in the US has gone steadily up. And we have the most guns per capita of any nation - it's not even close.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

Quote

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

 

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

America is the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It's the guns.

How would you suggest we stop these school shootings?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump. The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangeroous. An inspired  Constitution? Perhaps, but that does not mean every element therein is scripture. I am pretty sure God doesn’t consider any of His children to be worth 3/5s of other children.  We are a fallen people living in a wicked land on a fallen world, and we think guns are a good idea? And now I see where Utah is considering suing California because we’re sick of the dirty air and dirty water in the Golden State. Say What?  And Mitt wants to represent Utah? Why not? Hatch was a carperbagger too!

Do we still belive we are supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Are we supposed to submit to the Lord,  or trust in the might of our guns?

If the States were to call a Constitutional convention today, and IF any inspiration could get through, would the Constution today look like the one “insipred” in the 19th Century? If not, what would look different?

So much of politics and histrionics in this post and so little of reasoned discourse.

And I agree that, given the nature of the OP,  this thread is destined not to last long.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, snowflake said:

How would you suggest we stop these school shootings?

Short of hiring full-time, armed security, place a critical mass in each school of faculty/staff who have concealed-carry permits.

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[snowflake]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Short of hiring full-time, armed security, place a critical mass in each school of faculty/staff who have concealed-carry permits.

 

Ok, any other suggestions?  This last school shooting a teacher was willing to die for their students, maybe some faculty would be willing to conceal/carry? 

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, snowflake said:

How would you suggest we stop these school shootings?

Australia used to have a problem with lots of shootings. They instituted strict gun control laws and rigidly enforced them and shootings are now very rare. 

Just a thunk.

Edited February 16, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Ok, any other suggestions?  This last school shooting a teacher was willing to die for their students, maybe some faculty would be willing to conceal/carry? 

Unless they are trained shooters that is unlikely to help. It is unlikely there will be enough time between the beginning of an attack and the bulk of the casualties occurring for the teacher to get the weapon, remove the safety, aim, and fire in time to do much good. Even that assumes they have the iron discipline to react methodically despite people dying around them and can do it in a way the shooter will not see and react to and that the armed teacher or teachers are close enough to react. Then I give them an equal chance of hitting the shooter and creating another victim.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the election of a conman like Trump. The Second Amendment was supposed to help make the nation secure; instead it has made going to school dangeroous. An inspired  Constitution? Perhaps, but that does not mean every element therein is scripture. I am pretty sure God doesn’t consider any of His children to be worth 3/5s of other children.  We are a fallen people living in a wicked land on a fallen world, and we think guns are a good idea? And now I see where Utah is considering suing California because we’re sick of the dirty air and dirty water in the Golden State. Say What?  And Mitt wants to represent Utah? Why not? Hatch was a carperbagger too!

Do we still belive we are supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Are we supposed to submit to the Lord,  or trust in the might of our guns?

If the States were to call a Constitutional convention today, and IF any inspiration could get through, would the Constution today look like the one “insipred” in the 19th Century? If not, what would look different?

When we in the Church speak of the U.S. Constitution having been divinely inspired, it is ordinarily in the context of the following scriptural passages:

 

Quote

 

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

 

(Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-10)

 

Quote

 

76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

 

(Doctrine and Covenants 101:76-80)

Thus, the scriptures don't say that every jot, tittle, comma and period in the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired. Rather, what is inspired are the fundamental principles that ensure "the rights and protection of all flesh according to just and holy principles," that safeguard representative government that is, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "of the people, by the people and for the people," and that permit everyone to act "according to the moral agency" that God has bestowed upon His children.

So, while the U.S. Constitution is, by no means, perfect, it does sustain the above "just and holy principles."