Swords Into Plowshares

[The Nehor]

Our last defense against tyranny is a military unwilling to oppress its own people. Luckily we, for the most part, have that. Joe Schmoe with his rifle is not going to hold off tyranny.

This country is in the process of ripening in iniquity. That's why there's so many mass killings. And in the not too distant future (if not sooner) the economy of this nation is very likely going to collapse. When that happens, there is going to be horrific chaos with social upheaval, rioting, food shortages, looting, plunder and armed preditory mobs. In addition, robbery, theft and all manner of violent criminal activities will become commonplace. And sadly, the downward slide into full wickedness will accelerate to brakeneck speed. And now, with this unimaginable national disaster looming at the very doors, many naive and uninformed people are clamoring to have removed from the US citizens the last constitutional line of defence against violent anarchy on one had, and govenmental tyranny on the other. What a mess. Only God can save us now...

Every generation since the beginning of the LDS faith has had prophets of doom forecasting the collapse of everything. One generation is bound to be right but I see no special reason ours should be it.

[Calm]

Are we going to side with the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart (all supposedly in the name of the second amendment), or the victims and survivors of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook shootings?

False dichotomy.

I might even be in favor of confronting the video games and entertainment industry about the amount of gun violence depicted in their products.

Good, because it is more about culture than the number of guns available as should be obvious from the example set by Switzerland in the past and their rate of homicides due to guns and homicides in general in comparison to gun availability.

The money that is spent on gun control would be for the more part (save for that spent on illegal commerce) better spent on education and the altering of the mind set for violence in our country. Prohibition of alcohol didn't stop drinking or deaths by alcohol consumption or related deaths, changing the attitude toward smoking---not making it illegal or removing the availability---is what has decreased deaths from smoking.

There is a Public Service Announcement out there on Youtube that includes numerous actors questioning what it is going to take or how many have to die or something along those lines until laws are enacted to control the availability of guns, etc. There is another privately made Youtube vid that takes that ad and next to each actor puts up a movie role that has them using guns in extremely violent settings, showing the use of guns as attractive and powerful and all that is to be desired. When I see an actor giving up a violent role and all the money and fame that comes with it because of the use of guns, then I will be impressed by their commitment to gun control. Same with Hollywood in general.

Our own Church history should warn us about the dangers of being unable to resist a tyrannical government.

Look what happened after the Nauvoo Legion turned over its guns at the request of the Illinois government with its promises of protection. Edited January 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

I am not LDS but I feel strongly about the 2nd amendment.

In all truth, If the 2nd ammendment were infringed, I would consider it an act of high treason and respond accordingly either standing alone or alongside whatever red blooded Americans that would stand on the principle that we would not see our republic handed over to tyranny.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Nice to see you, Mudcat. Warm regards to you, to Mrs. Mudcat and to all of the little Mudkittens.

[teddyaware]

Are you a prophet of doom and gloom? Because that's an awfully pessimistic view. Granted, there are many many problems in our country, and some of it may have been prophesied, but that's still no excuse to just sit back and let it happen. Let's not make it a self-fufilling prophesy. Let's roll up our sleeves and take action. There are good people out there that are trying to make positive changes all around us. And at least we are having this conversation, which is a good first step.

I wasn't intimating that we should just sit back and let the destruction of the US happen without righteous opposition. What I did say I was that only God can save us now. That means that we should redouble our righteous efforts in the Lord, while simultaneously continue to petition him to deliver us from evil.

But unfortuately, as a nation I believe we are rapidly approaching the point of no return. Why do I believe this to be so? You see, way back in the General Conference of October 1988, President Benson prophetically warned the people of the United States -- as well as the people of the entire world -- that the great world-wide secret combination, propheside by Moroni in Ether 8 and set up by the devil himself "to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries," was, even then (almost 25 years ago now), gaining increasing influence and control over the United States and the world. And so I quote from President Benson's October 1988 General Conference address, "I Testify..."

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

As I said, almost 25 years have passed since that momentous prophetic announcement, and I can tell you that things in this country -- and in the world -- are much worse now, in almost every way than they were back then. I am very informed on the subject matter that lies behind President Benson's solemn warning, but I hesitate to go on in explaination because doing so will stir up a hornets nest of negative emotional outbursts, and I'm not in the mood. Suffice it to say that President Benson prohesied truthfully. Sadly, this nation is now being ruled by a band of lawless, modern-day Gadianto Robbers, and we have been brought to the precipice of financial and moral destruction by cunning, conscious design. Fasten your seatbelts

,

Edited January 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[Kenngo1969]

Are we going to side with the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart (all supposedly in the name of the second amendment), or the victims and survivors of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook shootings? Because they tend to be the ones making the strongest and most persuasive case for stricter gun control laws. See here.

...

Proof (or, heck, even simple evidence) is lacking that the NRA, Wal-Mart, or their supporters are in favor of the kinds of things that have taken place at Columbine, Sandy Hook, et cetera.

[Kenngo1969]

... Look what happened after the Nauvoo Legion turned over its guns at the request of the Illinois government with its promises of protection.

An excellent point, that.

[Calm]

An excellent point, that.

Perhaps, but I don't see private citizens standing up to the military no matter how loose gun laws are. I agree with the previous poster that stated it is having a military that desires to protect the freedom of its citizens that is important to protect against tyranny these days.

Only if the government and economy collapses and anarchy ensues will any private gun ownership play into protection of greater freedom. Technology and the size of the military has seen to that difference of outcome from 1776.

Edited January 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[go_utes01]

Perhaps, but I don't see private citizens standing up to the military no matter how loose gun laws are. I agree with the previous poster that stated it is having a military that desires to protect the freedom of its citizens that is important to protect against tyranny these days.

Only if the government and economy collapses and anarchy ensues will any private gun ownership play into protection of greater freedom. Technology and the size of the military has seen to that difference of outcome from 1776.

Not sure this is true. If there was widespread uprising against a tyrannical central government, I could imagine state National Guards and other military members not being so willing to follow unrighteous commands to slaughter their fellow citizens.

[Kenngo1969]

... Only if the government and economy collapses and anarchy ensues will any private gun ownership play into protection of greater freedom. Technology and the size of the military has seen to that difference of outcome from 1776.

That may not have happened on a large scale yet, but it has happened, more than a few times, on a small scale. Any time civil unrest or natural disasters have outstripped law enforcement's capacity to respond to them, people in the area have been faced (at least potentially) with the prospect of defending themselves, their loved ones, and their possessions against the sort of lawlessness that can ensue from such events

[Calm]

Not sure this is true. If there was widespread uprising against a tyrannical central government, I could imagine state National Guards and other military members not being so willing to follow unrighteous commands to slaughter their fellow citizens.

Thus it is the military being profreedom that would make a difference.

[omni]

This country is in the process of ripening in iniquity. That's why there's so many mass killings. And in the not too distant future (if not sooner) the economy of this nation is very likely going to collapse. When that happens, there is going to be horrific chaos with social upheaval, rioting, food shortages, looting, plunder and armed preditory mobs. In addition, robbery, theft and all manner of violent criminal activities will become commonplace. And sadly, the downward slide into full wickedness will accelerate to brakeneck speed. And now, with this unimaginable national disaster looming at the very doors, many naive and uninformed people are clamoring to have removed from the US citizens the last constitutional line of defence against violent anarchy on one had, and govenmental tyranny on the other. What a mess. Only God can save us now...

Didn't I see you on that Doomsday Preppers show:)

[Calm]

That may not have happened on a large scale yet, but it has happened, more than a few times, on a small scale. Any time civil unrest or natural disasters have outstripped law enforcement's capacity to respond to them, people in the area have been faced (at least potentially) with the prospect of defending themselves, their loved ones, and their possessions against the sort of lawlessness that can ensue from such events

True, I hadn't thought of (in that response) the temporary anarchy that can set in with natural disaster such as was reported, IIRC, with Katrina (though much of the tales of horror was false according to later reporting). However, that is not about what is usually referred to as "tyranny" in regards to the government and that was what I was responding to...the claim that private gun ownership will prevent the government from going truly tyrannical, I don't see that as likely. Trying to talk the military into supporting a tyrannical despot government and failing because of the freedom lovers in the military is much more likely to stop such antics, imo, than any threat of private citizenry if the military is on the side of the tyrant. Edited January 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[pogi]

Didn't I see you on that Doomsday Preppers show:)

I had a good chuckle at that one!

[go_utes01]

Thus it is the military being profreedom that would make a difference.

And an armed citizenry providing the impetus.

[Calm]

And an armed citizenry providing the impetus.

Surely it would be the attitude of the citizenry that would make the difference one way or the other, whether armed or unarmed.

An unarmed civilian standing in their way might have even a greater impact than a civilian or a number of civilians with guns pointed in their direction.

Edited January 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[go_utes01]

Surely it would be the attitude of the citizenry that would make the difference one way or the other, whether armed or unarmed.

An unarmed civilian standing in their way might have even a greater impact than a civilian or a number of civilians with guns pointed in their direction.

This is not the situation I was imagining. An unarmed citizenry may not have the courage to ever standup to a tyrannical government - and a compliant citizenry would likely not cause a swing in military support. But, whatever, the Founders believed it was an important freedom to protect in order to stand up to a tyrannical government. If people now believe that the Framers were wrong or did not foresee well the future and an armed citizenry is not necessary to stand up to a tyrannical government (as you propose), the Framers provided a method to amend the document. That is the brilliance of the Constitution.

[Nathair/|\]

Perhaps, but I don't see private citizens standing up to the military no matter how loose gun laws are. I agree with the previous poster that stated it is having a military that desires to protect the freedom of its citizens that is important to protect against tyranny these days.

Only if the government and economy collapses and anarchy ensues will any private gun ownership play into protection of greater freedom. Technology and the size of the military has seen to that difference of outcome from 1776.

Guerrilla and Special Operations tactics can be highly effective against a modern military, as the Mujahideen demonstrated against the Soviets.

[Calm]

An unarmed citizenry may not have the courage to ever standup to a tyrannical government

Not to belabour a point, but if an individual thinks that having a gun makes him powerful enough to stand up to the military...even if he stands with numerous other civilians....I've got to wonder about his mental state. I think the courage to stand up to a tyrannical government better come without the necessity of having a gun or it will crumble in the face of superior weaponry if it is even halfway sane.

[Calm]

Guerrilla and Special Operations tactics can be highly effective against a modern military, as the Mujahideen demonstrated against the Soviets.

And Red Dawn.

[go_utes01]

Not to belabour a point, but if an individual thinks that having a gun makes him powerful enough to stand up to the military...even if he stands with numerous other civilians....I've got to wonder about his mental state. I think the courage to stand up to a tyrannical government better come without the necessity of having a gun or it will crumble in the face of superior weaponry if it is even halfway sane.

I think that is silly. I think it is obvious that being armed would enbolden citizen-militias in the face of a tyrannical, overreaching government. There is a reason that would-be tyrants move to disarm the citizenry. If they believed that an unarmed citizenry would be more sympathetic and would lead to the loss of their control over the military, they would never call for disarming the citizenry. History proves this point repeatedly.

[Saints Alive]

Incorrect. The Founders of this country were afraid of standing armies. Thus they created militias that the government could call up at need.

And what were the militias of the founders day? They were private citizens, largely armed with their own guns.

[Saints Alive]

Are we going to side with the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart (all supposedly in the name of the second amendment), or the victims and survivors of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook shootings? Because they tend to be the ones making the strongest and most persuasive case for stricter gun control laws. See here.

And I'm not necessarily against the second amendment. But with gun ownership should come accountability and responsibility. I have no issue with wild-animal hunting as a sport. But nobody needs an assault rifle for that. I might even be in favor of confronting the video games and entertainment industry about the amount of gun violence depicted in their products.

But we as a country cannot continue to let these violent shootings happen and pretend that guns aren't a part of the problem. I realize that may make some people uncomfortable and run counter to their pre-conceived, ingrained ideas. But if we do nothing, it will only be a matter of time before another Aurora or Sandy Hook or Columbine happens again.

The second amendment wasn't written so that people could hunt, it was written so that private citizens could defend themselves.

[DavidB]

Not to belabour a point, but if an individual thinks that having a gun makes him powerful enough to stand up to the military...even if he stands with numerous other civilians....I've got to wonder about his mental state. I think the courage to stand up to a tyrannical government better come without the necessity of having a gun or it will crumble in the face of superior weaponry if it is even halfway sane.

The US 2 Amendment comes from the English Bill of Rights

[Saints Alive]

By the time he is pointing that gun at you, or yours, it's a little too late. It wouldn't be a fair trade to me to watch one my grandchildren die, even if I killed the bad guy.

Add in that you are much more likely to kill a family member than you are the bad guy.

I hear this all the time but have never seen an official reference so... CFR on this statement.

[wolfcall]

they say soldiers of god for a reason after all it cant just be rainbows and happy endings when your rights are imposed upon.