Mormons and the 2nd Admendment, The Bill of Rights

[probablyHagoth7]

On 5/17/2017 at 9:57 PM, The Nehor said:

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. 

Amen.

On 5/17/2017 at 9:57 PM, The Nehor said:

...Joseph shot people in self-defense and I certainly do not condemn him for it but it didn't save him. He died.

I don't believe it was self defense. He knew full well his time was at hand. Lamb to the slaughter.

I firmly believe he took action against the attackers to demonstrate a point, largely to spare the lives of those he loved, including those who accompanied him to the end. And that his exit out the small jail window, to the welcoming blast of a larger mob outside, was a final diversionary act to accomplish that end.

Agreeing to surrender to the mercy of an uncharitable community amounted to him jumping on a grenade to deflect the blast, which granted the saints time to eventually gather and retreat from the States, largely in peace. No greater love. 

Knowing that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter, had Joseph been alone on 6/27/1844, as he had been in previous times of danger, I don't believe he would have drawn a weapon.

Thoughts?

Edited May 20, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Rain]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 

Is the opinions concerning guns changing among members of the Church?

Is this change due to current climate of gun violence? 

 

 

My grandpa and his dad were very poor. They hunted for food. For awhile that was my dad too.

Dad was in the military for awhile. When he came home he became a dispatcher for the police while trying to start his own business that never did very well. I remember in that time frame target shooting etc. I remember eating deer quite often. 

Then sometime in the neighborhood of 1978, give or take several years, dad heard at conference or stake conference or something that hunting for food was good, but hunting for sport was not respecting the creations God had given us. Something along those lines anyway. I remember dad saying that because of this he was choosing to only hunt for food.

Looking back now I see that target practice became less of a thing for us and disappeared. Hunting for food did as well, but that could be because before I graduated from high school dad graduated from college, got a professional job and finances for food were no longer as tight. I don't know if dad owns a gun anymore, but I do know that he didn't keep at least 1 or 2 that he had.

So I very clearly saw at that time how the church affected gun ownership and attitudes about it in my childhood, but I don't see the same thing going on today. 

In my last ward in Utah some members were very strong gun ownership minded. Some were very against it. Most of us were more in the middle, but while I saw things going on in this ward I was reading the same things from people across the states from nonmembers. 

So yes I think opinions are changing. Some may be because of gun violence. Some because of reactions to gun violence. Some because of more information/attention on it. I just don't see that it affects LDS any differently than anyone else - I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Rain

[thesometimesaint]

Yes; the Founders did know it was treason to rebel from England. It was "We must, indeed, all hang together, or, most assuredly we shall all hang separately"  for Benjamin Franklin.

Thomas Jefferson was not thrilled about the treason of Aaron Burr.against the US.

SEE https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4852-treason-aaron-burr-thomas-jefferson-and-the-constitution

George Washington wasn't thrilled about a bunch of yahoo's with guns rebelling against the US Government.

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

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

I've lived most of my life west of the Mississippi River, but did travel extensively the Eastern Seaboard of the US. I'm a bit of a history buff, but don't claim to be an expert.

Venezuela is a sad case, and getting worse, but more gun down there won't help.

[longview]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Now I fully agree that congress has a huge problem delegating responsibility to bureaucrats partially to avoid having to take tough controversial stands. Although even though I'm very sympathetic to your point there again I think in practice it gets to be more complicated. That's because so much of the regulation is technical and we have unfortunately a largely uneducated congress in terms of knowing technical facts.

The Tenth Amendment will greatly simplify the situation.  Dismantle 90% of federal agencies and departments and return a FEW of the functions to the states.  Any remaining essential guidelines can be embodied in various standards organizations (some that compete with each other).  Market forces can result in companies specifying safety minimums, quality of materials, and any other desired attributes.  Any misrepresentations can easily be adjudicated in lower courts with less burdens and costs.

[MiserereNobis]

43 minutes ago, longview said:

Market forces can result in companies specifying safety minimums, quality of materials, and any other desired attributes.

Cowboy capitalism doesn't really work out all that well for the consumer...

[longview]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Cowboy capitalism doesn't really work out all that well for the consumer...

Golly sakes!   Why demean the cowboy?  A pejorative used to denigrate the American "can do" optimism and energy.  Typically slapped on us by the snide leftist intellectuals of Europe.  Those who have read my defense of capitalism will know what I mean.

[thesometimesaint]

The cowboys were largely Europeans that came to America to herd cattle. They weren't Capitalists. The closest example we have today is to the assembly line worker for the Capitalist in Bangladesh.

[longview]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The cowboys were largely Europeans that came to America to herd cattle

Gaucho - Wikipedia  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaucho

According to the Royal Spanish Academy's authoritative Dictionary, in its historical sense a gaucho was "a mestizo who, in the 18th and 19th centuries, inhabited Argentina, Uruguay and Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, was a migratory horseman, and adept in cattle work" In Argentina and Uruguay today a gaucho is, according to the same source, simply "A country person, experienced in traditional livestock farming". Because historical gauchos were reputed to be brave, if unruly, the word is also applied metaphorically to mean "Noble, brave and generous"

The gaucho in some respects resembled members of other nineteenth century rural, horse-based cultures such as the North American cowboy (vaquero, in Spanish), the Chilean huaso, the Peruvian chalan and morochuco, the Venezuelan or Colombian llanero, the Hawaiian paniolo, the Mexican charro or the Portuguese campino.

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

They weren't Capitalists.

Sure they were!  They took risks.  They invested in breed stocks and staking grazing space and taking care of many details.

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The closest example we have today is to the assembly line worker for the Capitalist in Bangladesh.

No, I would not equate assembly line workers with cowboys.  Bangladesh is ensconced in an oppressive moslem state.  All systems, both democratic and totalitarian (like the USSR and Red China), have to use some degree of capitalism in order to function.  Even the "underground economy" is sometimes winked at by dictators in order to meet the needs of some sectors of society.

Edited May 21, 2017 by longview

[thesometimesaint]

The Cowboys/Gauchos didn't own the cattle. They didn't own the land. They moved the cattle over public lands to places where the railroads were. They got paid after the fact.

Here are some interesting history about Islam in America. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/the-founding-muslims.html

[clarkgoble]

On 5/20/2017 at 11:32 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Yes; the Founders did know it was treason to rebel from England. It was "We must, indeed, all hang together, or, most assuredly we shall all hang separately"  for Benjamin Franklin.

Thomas Jefferson was not thrilled about the treason of Aaron Burr.against the US.

SEE https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4852-treason-aaron-burr-thomas-jefferson-and-the-constitution

George Washington wasn't thrilled about a bunch of yahoo's with guns rebelling against the US Government.

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

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

I've lived most of my life west of the Mississippi River, but did travel extensively the Eastern Seaboard of the US. I'm a bit of a history buff, but don't claim to be an expert.

Venezuela is a sad case, and getting worse, but more gun down there won't help.

One can clearly oppose particular examples of treasonous activity while thinking in certain circumstances it's justified. 

The problem in Venezuela is that there are no trustworthy police to protect the individual from roving gangs. Thus if you are unarmed you are going to be repeatedly victimized.

Edited May 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 5/20/2017 at 0:23 AM, The Nehor said:

Okay, Mason believed the people needed to defend themselves rather then be defended by the military, not a defense against their own government.

Madison was talking about the same thing. Hamilton also believed people should be armed to defend themselves from aggressors such as the natives.

Federalist 46 doesn't appear to be talking about that. Rather it's directly talking about opposition to the federal government. By states, it's true. But that most emphatically is against their own government. So I think it's you who are twisting their views a fair bit. Madison also clearly sees the arming of the freemen, which constitutes the militia, as the guard against the federal government. The two checks on federal tyranny are thus independent states and an armed citizenship.

 

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The two checks on federal tyranny are thus independent states and an armed citizenship.

Then the solution is for everyone to have guns and to fight another Civil War to bring back old-school federalism? Good luck I guess.

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then the solution is for everyone to have guns and to fight another Civil War to bring back old-school federalism? Good luck I guess.

Now your getting it.

Seriously though, I think there is a happy medium between strict gun-control litigation and from my cold dead hands attitude. Scalia, in my opinion had as good a solution as anyone, which allowed for gun regulation, but at the same time recognising the 2nd amendment right.

 

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then the solution is for everyone to have guns and to fight another Civil War to bring back old-school federalism? Good luck I guess.

That seems a false dichotomy. Either I have to accept the silly nonsense of contemporary "militias" or say there was nothing to it. As I've said a few times, one can be against most treasons while see limited circumstances where it was just. It just seems very hard to say this wasn't on the mind of the founders when it was discussed in depth in one of the more important texts of the founding.

The usual justified counterargument is to note that what Madison argued is no longer true given advances military strength. That is our standing army (even conceding the National Guard and related organizations to the State) is so strong that the individual states couldn't ever wage war with it. Madison's argument was that the federal government's standing army could never be stronger than the militia and states which seems demonstrably false.

Edited May 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

One can clearly oppose particular examples of treasonous activity while thinking in certain circumstances it's justified. 

The problem in Venezuela is that there are no trustworthy police to protect the individual from roving gangs. Thus if you are unarmed you are going to be repeatedly victimized.

While we have our Constitution that's a slippery slope I'd rather not go down.

Then it is just a matter of who gets that first shoot off first. Not my idea of a pleasant place.

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

While we have our Constitution that's a slippery slope I'd rather not go down.

Then it is just a matter of who gets that first shoot off first. Not my idea of a pleasant place.

Venezuela hasn't been a pleasant place for quite some time. 

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Venezuela hasn't been a pleasant place for quite some time. 

True.

[Stargazer]

On 5/17/2017 at 10:20 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

My advice is this, anyone who wants to get a carry permit needs to look inward and know if they could use it. Many people are killed or injured with their own guns, when they hesitate in a crisis. Also absolutely no one should carry until they fired at least 500 rounds in target practice. 

I'd like to see a little more than just "Many people are...".  Quite frankly, I can't recall having heard any report of a person killed or injured with their own gun after hesitating in a crisis.  Not in civilian life anyway, and it wouldn't be because the media isn't more than willing to report on such a thing, if it happened.  Please provide a number, if you would.  I'm sure it's happened at least once, but that's hardly a meaningful statistic.

I don't know about your 500 round thing.  Hard for me to relate to it, since I've fired so many rounds downrange in my 65 years.

[Stargazer]

I've lived in Olympia, Washington -- although I awaiting my British visa so I can immigrate there -- for over 30 years.  Not urban, not rural.

I have a CCP and have had for many years.  My late wife had one, too.  About fifteen years ago we were at a restaurant with two other couples from our ward, just a friendly get-together, and I suddenly realized that every single one of us except one was armed.  The only one who wasn't was the wife of my friend Tom, who preferred her 30-30 and disliked carrying a pistol.  Obviously she wasn't carrying a levergun at that moment.  I knew their armed status because I knew them all quite well, and all of us had permits and tended to "exercise our rights".  About five years later the Elders Quorum held a "shootout" at the local gravel pit, and invited the High Priests group along, including the bishopric.  Oh, man, you should have seen it.  In priesthood the next day the bishop conducted priesthood opening exercises and joked about the Ward Militia!  We had everything: pistols; revolvers; hunting rifles; AR-15s; AKs; SKSs; muzzleloaders; and I don't know what else.  And that was just the ones who showed up.

And the interesting thing about all this was that nobody talked much about guns.  But the ward was armed to the teeth, I tell you.  I don't think this has changed.

And do you think this is evil?  I shouldn't think so...

Luke 22:36,38 Then said he unto them, ...  he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Apparently 2 swords in a group of twelve men is sufficient.  This is not saying that 12 is too many.

[thesometimesaint]

I'll defend your right to have a gun in the US. All I ask is that you be very careful with it.

[Anijen]

On 5/20/2017 at 6:08 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Cowboy capitalism doesn't really work out all that well for the consumer...

What is cowboy capitalism?

 

[Anijen]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've lived in Olympia, Washington -- although I awaiting my British visa so I can immigrate there -- for over 30 years.  Not urban, not rural.

I have a CCP and have had for many years.  My late wife had one, too.  About fifteen years ago we were at a restaurant with two other couples from our ward, just a friendly get-together, and I suddenly realized that every single one of us except one was armed.  The only one who wasn't was the wife of my friend Tom, who preferred her 30-30 and disliked carrying a pistol.  Obviously she wasn't carrying a levergun at that moment.  I knew their armed status because I knew them all quite well, and all of us had permits and tended to "exercise our rights".  About five years later the Elders Quorum held a "shootout" at the local gravel pit, and invited the High Priests group along, including the bishopric.  Oh, man, you should have seen it.  In priesthood the next day the bishop conducted priesthood opening exercises and joked about the Ward Militia!  We had everything: pistols; revolvers; hunting rifles; AR-15s; AKs; SKSs; muzzleloaders; and I don't know what else.  And that was just the ones who showed up.

And the interesting thing about all this was that nobody talked much about guns.  But the ward was armed to the teeth, I tell you.  I don't think this has changed.

And do you think this is evil?  I shouldn't think so...

Luke 22:36,38 Then said he unto them, ...  he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Apparently 2 swords in a group of twelve men is sufficient.  This is not saying that 12 is too many.

I live in Nebraska, my former Bishop was from Pocatello Idaho. One Sunday, while in Bishopric meeting we had lull in time, we were both early and we were waiting for the other counselor and executive secretary. He started speaking of the boy scouts, which digressed to merit badges, which digressed to the shooting merit badge, which finally digressed  to him stating; my old ward actually had a small shooting range in the basement of the church building? I found that odd, but very cool at the same time.

Anyone from an Idaho ward or branch that can verify this. I do not doubt my Bishop I just think it is really cool and would like verification.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Anijen

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, Anijen said:

What is cowboy capitalism?

 

SEE Cowboy capitalism is a term used, primarily by its critics, to describe the free market elements of the American (and, less often, the “Anglo-Saxon”) economy. It has been contrasted both with socialism and with modern European “comfy” capitalism.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/21/2017 at 6:07 PM, clarkgoble said:

The usual justified counterargument is to note that what Madison argued is no longer true given advances military strength. That is our standing army (even conceding the National Guard and related organizations to the State) is so strong that the individual states couldn't ever wage war with it. Madison's argument was that the federal government's standing army could never be stronger than the militia and states which seems demonstrably false.

It is not necessarily false.  The US military (which includes the national guards as they basically have been federalized) does very well against standing armies on the battlefield.  It does not do so well against asymmetrical warfare.   We lost in Vietnam.  We have fought a long war in Afghanistan.  We had lots of trouble after Saddam fell in Iraq.  If a situation occurred where the government  was to take on the armed population it would not be a war like in the civil war where each side lined up on a battlefield and fired at each other.  There would be no battlefield lines or front lines. The whole country would be the battlefield. Every square yard of it.  Plus you would see large scale defections by the military to the people.  After all, a good portion of the soldiers are not going to fight against their own kindred or people.  It would not be long before more advanced weapons would be in the hands of the people.  None of this would happen without an armed population to begin with.  It is easy for a government to oppress an unarmed population.  I can't think of one society or nation in the last 100 years that was both well armed and oppressed by their government at the same time.  I think there is a reason for that.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'll defend your right to have a gun in the US. All I ask is that you be very careful with it.

Don't worry, I'm very careful!