Mormons and the 2nd Admendment, The Bill of Rights

[MiserereNobis]

30 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Without a 2nd Amendment, there is no promise you will have a 1st Amendment for very long.

Do you really think that congressmen, senators, and presidents sit around and think, "damn, if only the citizens didn't have guns we could become dictators?"

Serious question.

ETA: In other words, do you think that the American dedication to the rule of law is simply based on fear that armed citizens would revolt?

Edited May 18, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

ETA: In other words, do you think that the American dedication to the rule of law is simply based on fear that armed citizens would revolt?

Obviously not and there are plenty of places like Europe that have been relatively stable with limited rights to protection and possessing weapons. However looking at Venezuela it's hard not to feel that things can change quickly. When rule of law ceases to be followed one of the first things they do is ban guns so that their extra-legal thugs can work unimpeded. So those who point to the importance of the 2cd amendment are more fearing what could happen. Lots of people of course think this ridiculously unlikely and a silly worry. Of course these are also the people who thought a year like this one in the United States was ridiculously unlikely. Perhaps one benefit of Trump is to get us to reconsider how fragile our democracy is.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think you could make weapons illegal now unless the citizen in question is part of a legally organized militia or National Guard unit or whatever if you read the Second Amendment as I believe it was intended.

I think many would disagree with your interpretation. If for no other reason than the right to defend oneself was also an important context for the 1st amendment even if it wasn't the focus of everyone.

However I personally think that if you want to reduce gun violence in the United States there's several simple things one could do. First in the high crime areas actually start enforcing the punishment for illegal possession of a gun. Particularly in places like Chicago this is a bit of a joke. Admittedly liberals won't like that especially with the problem of over incarceration but if there's no real threat to owning or using illegally a fire arm all you are doing is punishing the honest and doing nothing to limit gun use. Second improve the economic outlook for these poor neighborhoods. Some redistributitive policies might anger the right but would significantly remove the situation that leads to the crime. Third equalize school payments so rich suburbs don't get better schools than inner cities. Again hit the place where the crime comes from. Fourthly, get rid of the drug war which is what tends to drive most of the violence. Follow a model where all drugs are available but only from doctors and you have to stay in the clinic until the drugs are out of your system. People found with drugs in their system go to forced drug treatment with mandatory GPS units keeping them in their homes in the evening. That first off saves tons of money but also sets as an example to those who tend to abuse things. Finally actually fund significant mental health treatment and care.

Do that and I bet you'll drop your gun violence rates significantly. I'm far from convinced gun ownership is as big a problem for our violence so much as poverty, poor mental health treatment, and bad incentives.

[longview]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you really think that congressmen, senators, and presidents sit around and think, "damn, if only the citizens didn't have guns we could become dictators?"

Well, yes!   The big concern is thug mentality with government agencies and departments.  Witness what happened at:  1- Ruby Ridge, Idaho (FBI);  2- Waco, Texas (BATF);  3- Bunkerville, Nevada (BLM);  etc.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I actually had this in mind...

If you want to discuss the dangers of the US military industrial complex I doubt we would disagree much.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."

-President Eisenhower

There was a large shift after the Second World War. During the 1930s the US Army had fewer soldiers then Greece. There were times in the 1800s where the US army had less then a hundred men and officers working in it (with quite a few reservists). The idea was that if conflict came we could build our military then. The Navy was kept a little stronger as you cannot put warships in the water as fast as you can give a young man a gun and some basic training. Modern warfare would not allow for the slower military buildups used during the World Wars and before. Even still.....how big does the United States military need to be?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

One can put the gun industry on the same footing as other industries while retaining the critical 2nd Amendment.  Without a 2nd Amendment, there is no promise you will have a 1st Amendment for very long.

I disagree. Most cases where the military/secret police dominates the civilian population come from a division within the society between those protected by the state and those who are oppressed by it. In Rome it was the military becoming loyal to an individual. In most banana republics the military is given privileges and wealth most civilians will never have. The best defense for democracy is a spirited dedication to democracy. If you have to shoot your leaders to maintain it or your leaders are shooting you the system is already broken, probably beyond repair. The idea that these silly militia groups could stand up to a modern military is laughable. We are past the days where a citizen militia has equal weaponry to a standing army. They don't even need to be in your time zone to take you out.

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Nephites had swords.  I bet if guns existed back then, the Nephites would have had guns.   As long as wicked people run around this world and rule it, the righteous do need to have means to protect themselves.  Being a Christian does not mean putting a bulls eye on their body and declaring to the world "Kill me, I will not resist."  Remember also Joseph Smith shot 3 guys right before he was killed.  Self defense is completely within the boundaries of Christian/Mormonism.

The Nephites needed self-defense because they were sinning. Then again, so are we so we do too. If the people were truly righteous and built Zion we would be invincible. God would either fight our battles for us or keep our enemies from attacking. In the meantime we do the best we can. Using Joseph Smith as an example seems a little silly though. Joseph shot people in self-defense and I certainly do not condemn him for it but it didn't save him. He died.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think many would disagree with your interpretation. If for no other reason than the right to defend oneself was also an important context for the 1st amendment even if it wasn't the focus of everyone.

However I personally think that if you want to reduce gun violence in the United States there's several simple things one could do. First in the high crime areas actually start enforcing the punishment for illegal possession of a gun. Particularly in places like Chicago this is a bit of a joke. Admittedly liberals won't like that especially with the problem of over incarceration but if there's no real threat to owning or using illegally a fire arm all you are doing is punishing the honest and doing nothing to limit gun use. Second improve the economic outlook for these poor neighborhoods. Some redistributitive policies might anger the right but would significantly remove the situation that leads to the crime. Third equalize school payments so rich suburbs don't get better schools than inner cities. Again hit the place where the crime comes from. Fourthly, get rid of the drug war which is what tends to drive most of the violence. Follow a model where all drugs are available but only from doctors and you have to stay in the clinic until the drugs are out of your system. People found with drugs in their system go to forced drug treatment with mandatory GPS units keeping them in their homes in the evening. That first off saves tons of money but also sets as an example to those who tend to abuse things. Finally actually fund significant mental health treatment and care.

Do that and I bet you'll drop your gun violence rates significantly. I'm far from convinced gun ownership is as big a problem for our violence so much as poverty, poor mental health treatment, and bad incentives.

Those play a part too. I think what would help more then anything is a new paradigm for law enforcement that focuses less on punitive action and more on community building. In many past civilizations the main goal of the cop was to maintain order. Now it is catching criminals. Police and the people are too often enemies.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

Well, yes!   The big concern is thug mentality with government agencies and departments.  Witness what happened at:  1- Ruby Ridge, Idaho (FBI);  2- Waco, Texas (BATF);  3- Bunkerville, Nevada (BLM);  etc.

I witnessed crazy and dangerous people getting taken down. Now some of the tactical decisions could have been better implemented with 20/20 hindsight but are you seriously arguing the government should not have stepped in?

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The firearms industry; the same who manufacture assault weapons for teenagers and terrorists.  I'm a libertarian but also a Latter-day Saint.  I don't think that championing the ownership of guns has any part of Christianity or Mormonism and, instead, seems to be unChristian.

 

 

The NRA has taken things way to far.  I am a gun owner, and I believe I have a right to do so (I am a citizen of the U.S.).  However, I also own a automobile.  To operate the automobile, I had to take a driving skills class and pass an exam.  Upon successful completion, I received a drivers license.  My vehicle must also be licensed, and must also have passed a safety inspection to be legality driven.  Why couldn't this model be applied to gun ownership?  Taking a class and passing a safety exam before receiving a gun permit is not a lot to ask in MHO.

[carbon dioxide]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. Most cases where the military/secret police dominates the civilian population come from a division within the society between those protected by the state and those who are oppressed by it. In Rome it was the military becoming loyal to an individual. In most banana republics the military is given privileges and wealth most civilians will never have. The best defense for democracy is a spirited dedication to democracy. If you have to shoot your leaders to maintain it or your leaders are shooting you the system is already broken, probably beyond repair. The idea that these silly militia groups could stand up to a modern military is laughable. We are past the days where a citizen militia has equal weaponry to a standing army. They don't even need to be in your time zone to take you out.

The Nephites needed self-defense because they were sinning. Then again, so are we so we do too. If the people were truly righteous and built Zion we would be invincible. God would either fight our battles for us or keep our enemies from attacking. In the meantime we do the best we can. Using Joseph Smith as an example seems a little silly though. Joseph shot people in self-defense and I certainly do not condemn him for it but it didn't save him. He died.

Of course a few hundred armed citizens can't stand up to the military.  Millions of armed citizens can and especially an an asymmetric war.  One does not take on a tank with a gun but eventually those in the tank do have to get out.   Plus when the citizens stand up against the government, many in the military would join the citizens.  That is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.  If enough of the citizens are armed, it works. 50-100 million armed citizens does the job. Modern armies can't compete against that unless the decide to use nukes.  Limited gun ownership defeats the purpose of it. 

God rarely fights our battles while we sit on the sidelines.  God was with the 2000 strippling warriors.  He protected them but they still had to fight.  There is nothing in the narrative if they just stood still and did nothing that they would have defeated their enemies. Joseph Smith lost the gun battle because he was outgunned.  200 on one is not a fair fight and the attackers had the advantage.  He needed more firepower. 

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course a few hundred armed citizens can't stand up to the military.  Millions of armed citizens can and especially an an asymmetric war.  One does not take on a tank with a gun but eventually those in the tank do have to get out.   Plus when the citizens stand up against the government, many in the military would join the citizens.  That is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.  If enough of the citizens are armed, it works. 50-100 million armed citizens does the job. Modern armies can't compete against that unless the decide to use nukes.  Limited gun ownership defeats the purpose of it. 

God rarely fights our battles while we sit on the sidelines.  God was with the 2000 strippling warriors.  He protected them but they still had to fight.  There is nothing in the narrative if they just stood still and did nothing that they would have defeated their enemies. Joseph Smith lost the gun battle because he was outgunned.  200 on one is not a fair fight and the attackers had the advantage.  He needed more firepower. 

In an asymmetrical war everyone becomes a monster. The military standing with the civilians would work now but not if we fall into an autocracy. They don't do the job.....they either manage to covertly kill a lot of people and pull off a revolution/coup or are crushed.

And that is not the point of the 2nd Amendment. Do you really believe the founders right after forming a new government wanted to make sure it could quickly be brought down? None of them wanted that. Except maybe Paul Revere but that guy was crazy.

Actually God fights battles for Zion people. The Nephites in the time period of that war were not a Zion people. Captain Moroni spent a lot of time condemning his people for their sins and saying this was punishment for their sins unless they straightened up. The people of Ammon were a righteous people....probably why God preserved them. The Nephites though were riddled with wickedness. King-men gave the Lamanites the opening they needed to invade and a second rebellion later ousted the Nephite government from the capitol. They were not a righteous people and the war was a wake up call for their wickedness as God told Nephi the Lamanites would be a scourge on the Nephites, a tool of his will to bring repentance.

[strappinglad]

I find Switzerland an interesting dichotomy . It is a ' neutral ' country. Every citizen ( male ?) performs military service. Most homes have an automatic weapon in them. Building codes require reinforced concrete walls for homes. They are basically saying , " You may invade us, you may even destroy us eventually, but we will make it a very painful experience. "

 Unfortunately the individual US citizen that owns a gun for self defense rarely has the training to safely defend his ' castle ' . The reports when several police officers shoot at a perp show dozens of shots fired and maybe a couple actually hit the guy in a vital spot. This from people who regularly train with their weapons. Adrenaline has a deleterious effect on accuracy.

As for the OP, as the generations come , the NEED for weapons in the house has decreased and the attitude toward gun use has changed. It has happened in the Church also.

As an aside, I wonder, given the developing problems in South Africa, if Church members are arming themselves or if they are relying on the government to protect them from the criminal element. Anyone here have any current knowledge of the situation?

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

In all fairness, it is the guns in the hands of criminals, seldom by lawful gun owners. 99% of lawful gun owners never use a gun in any unlawful mannor. Other than law enforcement or retired law enforcement carry "openly". Most other carry concealed, and those who have permits have never committed any domestic violence, nor guilty of any Federal crimes, and many other disqualifying State Laws. 

The difference between a criminal with a gun and a "law abiding" citizen with a gun is the length of time it takes to get off one shot. Guns give the allusion of power which some misinterpret as safety.  But really are just a deadly weapon. As I said if you really want one, and are very serious about its ownership responsibilities fine. I'm not a pro-gun nut neither am I a anti-gun nut. I don't believe you are either.

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I find Switzerland an interesting dichotomy . It is a ' neutral ' country. Every citizen ( male ?) performs military service. Most homes have an automatic weapon in them. Building codes require reinforced concrete walls for homes. They are basically saying , " You may invade us, you may even destroy us eventually, but we will make it a very painful experience. "

 Unfortunately the individual US citizen that owns a gun for self defense rarely has the training to safely defend his ' castle ' . The reports when several police officers shoot at a perp show dozens of shots fired and maybe a couple actually hit the guy in a vital spot. This from people who regularly train with their weapons. Adrenaline has a deleterious effect on accuracy.

As for the OP, as the generations come , the NEED for weapons in the house has decreased and the attitude toward gun use has changed. It has happened in the Church also.

As an aside, I wonder, given the developing problems in South Africa, if Church members are arming themselves or if they are relying on the government to protect them from the criminal element. Anyone here have any current knowledge of the situation?

Switzerland maybe officially neutral, but they were the bankers for the NAZIS in WW2. In modern warfare even Cheyenne Mountain is no defense after a few days.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course a few hundred armed citizens can't stand up to the military.  Millions of armed citizens can and especially an an asymmetric war.  One does not take on a tank with a gun but eventually those in the tank do have to get out.   Plus when the citizens stand up against the government, many in the military would join the citizens.  That is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.  If enough of the citizens are armed, it works. 50-100 million armed citizens does the job. Modern armies can't compete against that unless the decide to use nukes.  Limited gun ownership defeats the purpose of it. 

God rarely fights our battles while we sit on the sidelines.  God was with the 2000 strippling warriors.  He protected them but they still had to fight.  There is nothing in the narrative if they just stood still and did nothing that they would have defeated their enemies. Joseph Smith lost the gun battle because he was outgunned.  200 on one is not a fair fight and the attackers had the advantage.  He needed more firepower. 

No many won't join in a rebellion. The US put down the CSA rebellion called the US Civil War. No nukes were available let alone used. Plus George Washington thought otherwise.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[SteveO]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you want to discuss the dangers of the US military industrial complex I doubt we would disagree much.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."

-President Eisenhower

There was a large shift after the Second World War. During the 1930s the US Army had fewer soldiers then Greece. There were times in the 1800s where the US army had less then a hundred men and officers working in it (with quite a few reservists). The idea was that if conflict came we could build our military then. The Navy was kept a little stronger as you cannot put warships in the water as fast as you can give a young man a gun and some basic training. Modern warfare would not allow for the slower military buildups used during the World Wars and before. Even still.....how big does the United States military need to be?

Well, with the advent of globalism and the numerous proxy wars waged between East and West during the Cold War, we were never destined to have a small military post WWII.

Still, I was referring to the "arming of teenagers and terrorists" in my initial response.  The US is notorious for arming "freedom fighters" and other groups that serve American interests at the time--only to have them bite the hand that feeds not long after.  Many of the weapons used in Syria for example, are only there because we put them there.  Closer to home, we have examples in the form of the ATF's "brilliantly" executed Operation Fast and Furious.  I just get leery when it is suggested the Federal Government should be in charge of responsible gun distribution...

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Those play a part too. I think what would help more then anything is a new paradigm for law enforcement that focuses less on punitive action and more on community building. In many past civilizations the main goal of the cop was to maintain order. Now it is catching criminals. Police and the people are too often enemies.

Community building and policing is hugely important. However in terms of reducing gun crime there are some big tradeoffs. You see this in NYC where the community becomes rather understandably upset at the police when they do this. 

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, SteveO said:

The US is notorious for arming "freedom fighters" and other groups that serve American interests at the time--only to have them bite the hand that feeds not long after.  Many of the weapons used in Syria for example, are only there because we put them there.

Obama's Syria policy was horrible and made things far worse. However typically there aren't great choices and you're always making a series of tradeoffs. So American action in Afghanistan laid the roots for 9/11. Doesn't mean the original actions which arguably contributed to the early end of the cold war weren't worth it.

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And that is not the point of the 2nd Amendment. Do you really believe the founders right after forming a new government wanted to make sure it could quickly be brought down? None of them wanted that. Except maybe Paul Revere but that guy was crazy.

The founders were very worried about tyranny and rather cynical about government. They didn't want their new form of government brought down but a strong element worried that they might need to do something like that. Jefferson in particular often spoke of that. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

So I think you're distorting the views of the early founders. They of course had a diversity of views but many thought the populace being armed was significantly important.

i.e.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." (Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787)

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."(Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." (Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778)

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28)

A little googling finds dozens of quotes like this.

It quickly becomes clear that the early founders thought the militia was all freemen and was essential to prevent tyranny. This really isn't even controversial. We can of course disagree with these people. But let's not misrepresent their views.

Edited May 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[longview]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God would either fight our battles for us or keep our enemies from attacking. In the meantime we do the best we can. Using Joseph Smith as an example seems a little silly though. Joseph shot people in self-defense and I certainly do not condemn him for it but it didn't save him. He died.

Not always.  God sometimes fights our battles (see 2 Chronicles 20).  Other times a Captain Moroni has to arise to rally the freemen to thwart the "kingmen" (Amlicites).  Joseph was "promised" by Governor Ford of Illinois he would be given safe conduct and a fair trail.  He could have called on the Nauvoo Legion but he chose not to (see Elder Oaks' book:  The Carthage Conspiracy).

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I witnessed crazy and dangerous people getting taken down. Now some of the tactical decisions could have been better implemented with 20/20 hindsight but are you seriously arguing the government should not have stepped in?

In the case of Waco, BATF was looking for justification to increase their departmental budget (greater mission mandate).  They could have simply asked the local sheriff to knock on Koresh's door to request an inspection of the manufacturing process.  But no, they chose to barge in whole hog in a show of intimidation and thuggery.  That Koresh was to some degree "crazy" was only a secondary issue.

At Ruby Ridge, a FBI sniper shot a mother holder her baby through the screen door.  All part of Clinton administration's effort to intimidate legal gun owners.  Very heavy handed and very thuggish.

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Unfortunately the individual US citizen that owns a gun for self defense rarely has the training to safely defend his ' castle ' . The reports when several police officers shoot at a perp show dozens of shots fired and maybe a couple actually hit the guy in a vital spot. This from people who regularly train with their weapons. Adrenaline has a deleterious effect on accuracy.

The idea of extensive gun training by the police is a myth. I know of one local firing range that banned police from a certain jurisdiction because they were so bad with guns. There's even a scientific paper on this. "The Naive Shooter from a Law Enforcement Perspective: Hit Probability." On testing police were only 13% better than novices. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, longview said:

In the case of Waco, BATF was looking for justification to increase their departmental budget (greater mission mandate).  They could have simply asked the local sheriff to knock on Koresh's door to request an inspection of the manufacturing process.  But no, they chose to barge in whole hog in a show of intimidation and thuggery.  That Koresh was to some degree "crazy" was only a secondary issue.

At Ruby Ridge, a FBI sniper shot a mother holder her baby through the screen door.  All part of Clinton administration's effort to intimidate legal gun owners.  Very heavy handed and very thuggish.

I don't consider it thuggish to shoot someone during an armed standoff. I tend to agree that the tendency of police to go in with SWAT everywhere is a huge problem. But it's hardly unique to the Clinton administration and has become a problem across law enforcement. But once you raise weapons to the police, knowing they are the police then you should expect to be killed.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The idea of extensive gun training by the police is a myth. I know of one local firing range that banned police from a certain jurisdiction because they were so bad with guns. There's even a scientific paper on this. "The Naive Shooter from a Law Enforcement Perspective: Hit Probability." On testing police were only 13% better than novices. 

This is true. Most cops only rarely use their weapon except as a threat. There are exceptions who train extensively but most are not skilled.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, longview said:

Not always.  God sometimes fights our battles (see 2 Chronicles 20).  Other times a Captain Moroni has to arise to rally the freemen to thwart the "kingmen" (Amlicites).  Joseph was "promised" by Governor Ford of Illinois he would be given safe conduct and a fair trail.  He could have called on the Nauvoo Legion but he chose not to (see Elder Oaks' book:  The Carthage Conspiracy).

In the case of Waco, BATF was looking for justification to increase their departmental budget (greater mission mandate).  They could have simply asked the local sheriff to knock on Koresh's door to request an inspection of the manufacturing process.  But no, they chose to barge in whole hog in a show of intimidation and thuggery.  That Koresh was to some degree "crazy" was only a secondary issue.

At Ruby Ridge, a FBI sniper shot a mother holder her baby through the screen door.  All part of Clinton administration's effort to intimidate legal gun owners.  Very heavy handed and very thuggish.

You still seem to suggest God would fight the Nephite battles in their spiritual state. My saying that God will make Zion invincible without having to take up arms did not apply at all to them. They were riddled with wickedness. Part of Moroni's call to arms was a call to repent.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Guns give the allusion of power which some misinterpret as safety.  But really are just a deadly weapon. 

The power is not an illusion.  That power is often used for evil purposes, but it can also be used to resist evil.  Weapons do take lives, but they also save lives.

Edited May 18, 2017 by pogi