President Nelson on Gun Control

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't.  She was petite. Dark haired. Orignally from the Philipines maybe? I really should remember better. She was called as the RSP of our student ward for the next year and I was called as first counselor, but I got married over the summer (91). She went on her mission sometime after that. I can't even remember if she told me about being there for the riots or if someone else did.

he thinks it could a few people, but ah! the Church is a small world!

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One apostle says this, another apostle says that.  A variety of kinds and types of debates have gone on among general authorities over the years, in addition to their personal preferences.  I have no problem with Correlation, and I can imagine the Methodist Church and Wesleyan seminaries which serve it as trying to produce standard manuals the same way we do.  All religious organizations, academic institutions, and even governments attempt to come up with systematic, uniform language and formulae.  Even journalism is dominated by manuals explaining how to properly report the news, sometimes by doing violence to accuracy -- in order to serve a supposedly higher cause.  I have my doubts.

One sociologist explained all of that as a kind of official liturgy with required ritual procedures, and I agree.  Bennetta Jules-Rosette, “The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,” American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/epdf .

It’s not just one apostle. It’s the entire leadership of the Church since Elder Packer gave that general conference address. 

That has been a quarter-century ago now. If one truly does accept the principle that Jesus Christ governs through ongoing revelation to anointed prophets, there comes a point where one must seriously consider whether such a directive is inspiration and not mere whim. 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But it is a strangely American perspective. Here in my country, the question of arming oneself just never comes up. My wife and I have never ever reflected upon whether we have a right to buy and use weapons to provide protecction for ourselves or our family. If we feel threatened, we turn to the legal authorities. We expect, we demand security.

If I remember right, you are British, correct?  That "strangely American perspective" is the very reason we are not British.  It is literally what allowed us to be American.  We have a historical distrust of government and recognize that our "demands" often fall on deaf ears.  We demand the right to protect ourselves.

14 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

but we certainly never fear for violence on the street or in our homes.

...until you do.

14 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Utah is a quiet, safe state. 

...until it is not.  Come live in Midvale, many would disagree with you. 

14 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Why do people there feel they need to do the work of the police?

Because the police can't protect everyone.  That should be obvious. 

Quote

Shouldn’t the attention be focused on fixing the problem, to create a safe society, instead of thinking ”every man for himself”. 

I believe in seeking solutions, but I also believe in the principles of self-reliance.  Government cannot solve all problems and protect all people. 

I agree with President Nelson.  There needs to be changes in gun control, but our constitutional rights and principles of self-reliance need to be protected as well. 

I don't personally own a gun.  But I respect the rights of those who do.  My dad has a concealed weapon's permit.  I always feel safer with him around.  He refuses to be a victim.  I respect that. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by pogi

[provoman]

20 hours ago, Nevo said:

I agree completely. Deranged teenagers shouldn't have access to military-style assault rifles with high-capacity magazines. Kudos to President Nelson for having the courage to say it.

Thanks for the misrepresentation of what was said.

Can you show a law that “allow a gun to go to” (President Nelson)  “a deranged teenager” (Your words).

 

I am very condident you cannot show such a law.

[Michael Sudworth]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Any thoughts on his remarks?

With the utmost respond for RMN, I think this is a case of President Nelson speaking as a man.

The scriptures clearly indicate that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document -- including the Bill of Rights.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

With the utmost respond for RMN, I think this is a case of President Nelson speaking as a man.

The scriptures clearly indicate that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document -- including the Bill of Rights.

How do you know he didn't have judge-generated restrictions on housing of mentally ill? Or the fecklessness of judges whose kneejerk response to an attempt to take a plainly dangerous person off the street? Or dishonest politically motivated medical practitioners who, for a fee, lie to judges about the true dangers of leaving the mentally ill on the street?

[Nevo]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

Thanks for the misrepresentation of what was said.

Can you show a law that “allow a gun to go to” (President Nelson)  “a deranged teenager” (Your words).

This isn't complicated.

1. President Nelson said—in reference to the Parkland shooting—"men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them."
2. Nikolas Cruz—who had a history of violent, erratic behavior, making threats, hurting animals, pointing guns at his brother's head, posting on social media that he wanted to be a school shooter—should not have had guns.
3. Men passed laws that allowed Nikolas Cruz to legally purchase guns, including a semi-automatic assault rifle that fired especially lethal high-velocity bullets that he used to kill to 17 people and wound 14 others in less than 6 minutes.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

With the utmost respond for RMN, I think this is a case of President Nelson speaking as a man.

The scriptures clearly indicate that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document -- including the Bill of Rights.

Where does the constitution disagree with President Nelson?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not just one apostle. It’s the entire leadership of the Church since Elder Packer gave that general conference address. 

That has been a quarter-century ago now. If one truly does accept the principle that Jesus Christ governs through ongoing revelation to anointed prophets, there comes a point where one must seriously consider whether such a directive is inspiration and not mere whim. 

As I said, I have no problem with Correlation (Dan Ludlow was a friend of mine before he headed Correlation), and I understand the push in that direction to characterize all religious organizations, private corporations, and governments.  Makes sense that they would attempt to regularize language and terms of reference.  Makes it easier to communicate.  I don't always agree with the notion that all members must get into lockstep with such narrow frames of reference, nor with the idea that they are matters of revelation -- requiring unquestioned fealty.  Indeed, what would be most absurd would be to suggest that my exercise of "free agency" in that instance is tantamount to apostasy.  That is not the message I get from the Brethren, and that is not the message which Hugh Nibley received from them.  I consider them far more open-minded than that.

As Elder Holland said back in 2006,

Quote

I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum. ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.  http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html .

And as I said to my friend Bill Hamblin in 2012,

Quote

I am very uncomfortable with this well-intentioned drawing of doctrinal lines and of excluding anyone who does not comply with some specific definitions, no matter how reasonable they seem.  One finds enough of this sort of exclusivism among evangelical fundamentalist christians as well as among ultra-orthodox Jews.  http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/minimal-beliefs-to-be-considered-a-mormon/#comments .

 

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

With the utmost respond for RMN, I think this is a case of President Nelson speaking as a man.

The scriptures clearly indicate that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document -- including the Bill of Rights.

Yes, and we have violated the divinely inspired Law by ceasing to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person as the Constitution said at the time.

We must repent immediately or be smitten.

Holding up a secular document that God approved of once in a general sense over the words of our prophet strikes me as a kind of political idolatry.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

Hopefully Darren10 will get on the thread to clarify. As I understand it, the NRA position is that all law-abiding US citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms. While they have supported instant background checks, they do not appear to be in favor of more extensive background checks or waiting periods for private firearms purchases.

Here in Canada, 18-year-olds can legally purchase and possess AR-15 rifles and handguns (considered "restricted firearms") provided they first pass a police background check, submit to a 45-day waiting period, pass a firearms safety course, and belong to a gun club (since a restricted firearm can only lawfully be used for target shooting). Magazines for AR-15 rifles are limited to 5 cartridges.

As I have said many times, Canadians are a civilized people.  We Americans could learn a great deal from them about how to behave.

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

School shootings happen in Canada but are rare and result in relatively few deaths. In Canada, firearm ownership is considered a privilege, not a right, and firearms really have only two legitimate uses: hunting or target shooting. In the US, there seems to be much more focus on protecting life/property and guarding against a tyrannical government.

Exactly.  The 2nd Amendment does not deal at all with hunting or target shooting.  It is strictly a military law, with all citizens of responsible age being part of the militia.

[SteveO]

As a gun enthusiast myself, I don’t object to sensible regulations.  I think this is a great opportunity to have that discussion, where the law fails, where it works, and addressing security issues.

I think that pro control advocates are, uh, “shooting themselves in the foot” though.  The CNN “townhall” was atrocious.  I get the pain and anger, but it doesn’t excuse the very caustic approach of assuming that “everyone who disagrees with me is either stupid, ignorant, or evil.”

I think that’s what bothers me the most.  That there is a disturbing amount of anger that surrounds all this that the whole debate is almost rendered moot—because we can’t get past thinking the other person doesn’t care about dead children, or is evil, or is whatever else we ascribe to another’s position.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, CA Steve said:

There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US already. I'd say the citizenry is already armed.

Of course.  The interesting thing is, the number of guns per capita has been going down over the years.  So has the murder rate, even if the absolute number of guns rises.  

The evil person in Parkland, Florida, shouldn't have had any firearm. The law that permitted him to have them is theoretically and first of all, the Second Amendment.  But past that, there are laws that should have precluded him buying or possessing any firearm at all, IF the laws had been properly executed. The man was interviewed by the FBI, and there was more than sufficient evidence in social media that he was deranged, and someone should have reported him, but either nobody did, or the authorities were too busy giving citations to little kids with unlicensed lemonade stands to bother with someone who was clearly a danger to society, and not just with guns.

As for the kind of firearm that he used in this horrendous crime, that kind of firearm is ubiquitous in civilian hands, and has been for literally decades. I don't own one (because they're not cheap, and I am), but I know several people who own AR-15 type weapons -- and I don't actually have a large acquaintanceship circle.  And for all the people who own a military-style semi-automatic rifle, you'd think we have thousands of people dying from them if the problem were as real as it is pictured.  But we don't -- but for the occasional nutjob who should have been identified in advance as a problem.

And all those making like the NRA wants to keep it possible for nutcases to own guns are just dead wrong.  I believe that one aspect of the NRA's reluctance to support some kinds of legislation grows out of the kind of open-ended restrictions favored by anti-gun activists.  A law or regulation that permits authorities to restrict gun ownership without much in the way of due process is something that I am not too keen on.  It's kind of like the "no fly list".  How you get on it, I don't know, and I don't know how one gets off it -- this is one instance where I happen to agree with the ACLU, that it grossly violates the due-process guarantee in the Constitution. I have heard of some potential regulations or laws that would make owning or even possessing a firearm, for someone who had done nothing wrong and was not a danger to self or society, impossible.  

Edited February 25, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, SteveO said:

As a gun enthusiast myself, I don’t object to sensible regulations.  I think this is a great opportunity to have that discussion, where the law fails, where it works, and addressing security issues.

I think that pro control advocates are, uh, “shooting themselves in the foot” though.  The CNN “townhall” was atrocious.  I get the pain and anger, but it doesn’t excuse the very caustic approach of assuming that “everyone who disagrees with me is either stupid, ignorant, or evil.”

I think that’s what bothers me the most.  That there is a disturbing amount of anger that surrounds all this that the whole debate is almost rendered moot—because we can’t get past thinking the other person doesn’t care about dead children, or is evil, or is whatever else we ascribe to another’s position.

Yes, and there are plenty of sensible regulations out there already.  The problem is, sensible existing regulations that could have prevented some of the recent carnage was not executed.  

And you're right about the tendency of thinking that those who disagree with us are evil and want evil things to happen.  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/24/2018 at 9:24 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

That said, the greatest effect applied by most laws arises from the voluntary compliance of the law-abiding.  If a person is so determined to break the law that he is willing to injure, to maim, and to kill large numbers of his fellow human beings, it is exceedingly unlikely that simply one more law which renders contraband that means by which he seeks to sow such mayhem and death is going to make a huge difference.

The 1986 ban on fully automatic weapons didn't work?  Fully automatic weapons are more effective than semi-automatic rifles, but mass shooters don't buy them.

23 hours ago, Alan said:

I applaud President Nelson for saying what needed to be said.

Me too, but the scriptures tell us that in the last days we are going to see a lot of evil in the world. I am more worried about things that do spiritual damage. Pornography, immorality, secular attacks do more harm and have eternal consequences.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, and we have violated the divinely inspired Law by ceasing to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person as the Constitution said at the time.

CFR 

Supreme Court justices are suppose to interpret the Constitution literally because it is a divinely inspired document. The original intent protects our country.

Edited February 25, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 But we don't -- but for the occasional nutjob who should have been identified in advance as a problem.

As I asked Kengo "The 1986 ban on fully automatic weapons didn't work?  Fully automatic weapons are more effective than semi-automatic rifles, but mass shooters don't buy them."

Edited February 25, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

On 2/24/2018 at 2:24 PM, pogi said:

“I know your hearts are heavy as is mine as we contemplate those ruthless killings in Florida this last week. I think of Alaina Petty, 14-year-old Latter-day Saint, her life snuffed out by that sniper’s bullet…. you and others to say, ‘how could God allow things like that to happen?’ Well, God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.”

Inspired words. The anti-American gun lobby has manipulated a lot of people into supporting ideas that are causing mayhem in our schools and streets.

[sunstoned]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whom are you directly quoting here? Not President Nelson surely.

If you are paraphrasing, you should not use quotation marks.

Did he say this was "the real problem" at the exclusion of all other possible causes? Not that I could tell from the very brief new report cited.

 

Conservative members flocked to support the prophet on prop 8 and the November 2015 policy that suppressed the rights of the LGBTQ community. But when the prophet made a bold statement (that is what prophets are suppose to do) that calls into question the conservative views on gun ownership, then that hits a little too close to home for some members.  Now their rights seem to be threatened.   Well now it is stand up time.  Anyone who raised their arm to the square to support the prophet needs to do so now.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Inspired words.

Our prophets always say inspired words.  "Trust no one to be your teacher … except … a man of God" Mosiah 23:14. And not only when we agree with them.

Edited February 25, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Our prophets always say inspired words.  "Trust no one to be your teacher … except … a man of God" Mosiah 23:14. And not only when we agree with them.

No one ALWAYS says inspired words.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The 1986 ban on fully automatic weapons didn't work?  Fully automatic weapons are more effective than semi-automatic rifles, but mass shooters don't buy them.

 

You just proved my point.  So what if a fully-automatic weapon is unavailable?  Has the unavailability of one type of weapon stopped mass shootings or mass killings altogether?  No, it hasn't.  The specific type of gun or of weapon used has nothing to do with the point that I was making. Ban shotguns, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) with bullets will use a rife; ban rifles, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) with bullets will use a pistol; ban pistols, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) with bullets will use a revolver; and so on.  Ban firearms altogether, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) will use knives; ban knives, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) will use bombs; ban bombs and/or their precursors, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) will use poison; and so on.  And banning firearms presupposes that no one who is not subject to the ban will use what (for him, at least) is a legal weapon for illegal, murderous purposes, and the same is true of anyone else who might be exempt from any of the other bans I have mentioned.

People who are determined enough to try to kill others will try to kill others no matter what obstacles the law attempts to erect to stop them from fulfilling their murderous designs.  Ban everything else, and a person who is determined to kill (an)other(s) will use his bare hands, if necessary.  The fault, dear Samuel the Lamanite, is not in our weapons, but in ourselves.  One who is determined enough to kill (an)other(s) will attempt to do so regardless what legal obstacles might be placed in his path.  I'm not necessarily arguing against sensible weapons-control measures: certainly, we can talk about placing stricter limits on rapid-fire weapons, on high-capacity magazines, and so on.  But no matter what weapons are or are not banned, as long as one human harbors within his heart a murderous impulse toward another, as long as anyone who could have stopped another from acting on such an impulse fails to do so, anyone in the vicinity when one decides to act on that impulse runs the risk of falling victim to that actor.

As I said earlier, whatever weapons are or are not available, it falls to someone who becomes aware of another's isolation, sadness, or anger (and who also becomes aware of any murderous or destructive plans that person might be making as a result) to make those who can intervene aware of what's going on.  That's really the only thing that's going to be effective in cases such as this.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

41 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You just proved my point.  So what if a fully-automatic weapon is unavailable?  Has the unavailability of one type of weapon stopped mass shootings or mass killings altogether?  No, it hasn't. 

A fully-automatic weapon would have killed 10X more students in Florida. It was a good idea to ban fully-automatic weapons.  It is impossible to completely stop murder, but it is possible to help reduce it.

41 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

People who are determined enough to try to kill others will try to kill others no matter what obstacles the law attempts to erect to stop them from fulfilling their murderous designs. 

In the last ten years no one has been able to kill more than four people without a rifle. Look at the Boston bombings, only three people died. The last time someone killed more than four people without a gun was in 9/11.  So no Kenngo, I didn't prove your point.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

... [N]o Kenngo, I didn't prove your point.

Then you obviously don't understand it, so this will be my last post to you on the subject.  I wish you a very pleasant good evening.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Then you obviously don't understand it, so this will be my last post to you on the subject.  I wish you a very pleasant good evening.

I do. Did you understand? Nobody is saying we can completely stop murderers, but we can help reduce the number of murders.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite