President Nelson on Gun Control

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  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. 

Bare hands to kill 17 or more students? Not even Captain America can do that

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[longview]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

. . . count slaves as 3/5ths of a person . . .

You misunderstand.  It was a compromise to enable ratification of the Constitution.  (1)  it was done to DECREASE the power of the slave state;  (2)  slaves could not vote but the overseers would vote in place of the slaves (false representation);  (3)  therefore the slave states had fewer representatives to send to the US House.  It was hoped that slavery would peter out on its own.  Sadly the contenders hardened their positions in the years preceding the Civil War.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

"We believe that the Constitution was brought about by God to ensure a nation where liberty could abound and where his gospel could flourish. Joseph Smith said, “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard—it is founded in the wisdom of God—it is a heavenly banner.” (Petersen, Prologue, p. 75.)"  see:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/04/if-they-will-but-serve-the-god-of-the-land?lang=eng

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

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.

86 dead. 458 injured.  No rifle.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

23 dead.  Over 500 injured.  No rifle.

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

8 dead.  48 injured.  No rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack

12 dead.  56 injured.  No rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack

32 dead.  Over 300 injured.  No rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings

etc, etc, etc.

Not advocating for or against anything here other than that the world really needs people to live the gospel.

Edited February 26, 2018 by ksfisher

[Rich Hansen]

11 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. 

I think Robert's comments are very reasonable.

You have a habit of zealously playing the authority card and implying that those who disagree with you are less faithful and in opposition to church leaders.

No doubt my grammar is deficient.  Feel free to correct that as well.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

I already told you that my foregoing response would be my last to you on the subject.  Again, I wish you a very pleasant good evening.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

86 dead. 458 injured.  No rifle.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

Not advocating for or against anything here other than that the world really needs people to live the gospel.

Sir none of the attacks happened in the United States. President Nelson was talking about US laws. Most of the attacks were made by organized terrorists.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Sir none of the attacks happened in the United States. President Nelson was talking about US laws. The attacks were made by organized terrorists, not one person. Big difference.

I guess they don’t count then.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I guess they don’t count then.

Suicide bombing is not a problem in here in the US. There are no terrorists organizations in the US making bombs. The problem in the US are assault weapons.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

86 dead. 458 injured.  No rifle.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

23 dead.  Over 500 injured.  No rifle.

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

8 dead.  48 injured.  No rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack

12 dead.  56 injured.  No rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack

32 dead.  Over 300 injured.  No rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings

etc, etc, etc.

Not advocating for or against anything here other than that the world really needs people to live the gospel.

Not to mention that many of these incidents occurred where gun laws are even more stringent than they are in the United States (which, all denials to the contrary, rather proves my point).  And anyone who is so inclined might mention to Samuel the Lamanite that someone skilled in a martial art and/or in hand-to-hand fighting could easily kill a large number of people who lack such skill in rather short order.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I guess they don’t count then.

In the last suicide bombing attempt the guy couldn't even kill himself. To repeat, suicide bombings are not a problem in the US.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/us/new-york-possible-explosion-port-authority-subway/index.html

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Not to mention that many of these incidents occurred where gun laws are even more stringent than they are in the United States.

Sure, but what about their border security? I think many of those countries have open borders. 

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Sure, but what about their border security? I think many of those countries have open borders. 

I can only refer you to my previous reply, wherein I informed you that said reply would be my last post to you on the subject.  Once again, I wish you a very pleasant good evening.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

I am very worried about gun violence, but we are in the last days. In the last days perilous times shall come. 2 Timothy 3 says evil men "shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived".  Doctrine and Covenants 45:33 says men will kill one another.  

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Not advocating for or against anything here other than that the world really needs people to live the gospel.

Yes. I am more worried about immorality, pornography, and secular attacks on religious freedom. The scriptures teach that a spiritual death is worst than a physical one. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

CFR 

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

CFR of what? That slavery partial personhood was part of the Constitution or are you asking me to CFR my sarcastic statement?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

You misunderstand.  It was a compromise to enable ratification of the Constitution.  (1)  it was done to DECREASE the power of the slave state;  (2)  slaves could not vote but the overseers would vote in place of the slaves (false representation);  (3)  therefore the slave states had fewer representatives to send to the US House.  It was hoped that slavery would peter out on its own.  Sadly the contenders hardened their positions in the years preceding the Civil War.

I know the compromise was probably necessary. It was also not done specifically to decrease the power of the slave states. The slave states would not join in unless it was there. The slave states wanted slaves to count in full for voting and other states wanted them not to count at all. It did not weaken the slave states. It gave them more political power than they deserved.

4 hours ago, longview said:

"We believe that the Constitution was brought about by God to ensure a nation where liberty could abound and where his gospel could flourish. Joseph Smith said, “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard—it is founded in the wisdom of God—it is a heavenly banner.” (Petersen, Prologue, p. 75.)"  see:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/04/if-they-will-but-serve-the-god-of-the-land?lang=eng

Yes, a great collection of genius under the inspiration of God wrote the Constitution but it is not scripture. It is not infallible. Our scripture is not infallible but the Constitution is considerably more fallible than scripture.

 

An interesting point though. The Second Amendment, if read literally and assuming the militia clause is just a reasoning and not a restriction on who can bear arms, does not include provisos for restricting arms from anyone. So, by a strict interpretation that kid had every right to a gun. I don't see any rationale from denying weapons to the mentally ill, those who threaten violence, former violent felons, or even terrorists. So if the Constitution is truly divine and the Second Amendment as written is the will of God then we really have no legal right to have done anything to prevent this atrocity.

Now, if you will excuse me while doing constitutional research for this post I realized that those privates bunking in my spare room are constitutionally forbidden from quartering in my home. Gotta go kick them out.

[rockpond]

On 2/24/2018 at 3:47 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I noticed from your quotation of rockpond that he used the outmoded (in authoritative LDS discourse) term "free agency." yet the quoted portion from President Nelson uses the correct scriptural term, which is simply agency, or, in some usages, moral agency. I'm curious: At any point in his talk, did President Nelson use the phrase "free agency," or was that merely rockpond injecting his own outmoded vernacular into the paraphrase?

 

 

Only the first quote block in the OP was quoting me.  Not sure where the rest came from.  I'm quite aware that we have dropped the use of the term "free agency".

Edited February 26, 2018 by rockpond

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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."

The 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act (FOPA) did not "ban" machine guns, as such. It merely forbade any further fully automatic weapons from being registered, and all then-registered weapons could no longer be transferred to a non-licensed person without ATF approval. So the number of fully automatic firearms in private civilian possession is fixed at the number that were then registered at the time the law came into effect.  Prior to the FOPA, it was possible to obtain new machine guns legally.  By the way, registered fully automatic weapons are generally referred to by the shooting community as NFA weapons, after the original National Firearms Act of 1934.

Thus the only avenue for a mass shooter to obtain such a weapon is as a result of theft, or smuggling.  Unless he or she is already a person licensed to own such a weapon of course.

Since there have been virtually no criminal events involving registered NFA weapons, it would be slightly moronic to expect an outright ban and confiscation of privately-owned machine guns to have any impact on crime.

 

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

On 2/24/2018 at 6:51 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Some are asking: When law enforcement repeatedly fails to respond to advance reports, as it collectively did in the Florida case, do not responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves for protection of themselves, their families and others?

 

In fact, this is our religious belief. 

"We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded." (Doctrine and Covenants 134:11). 

 

[Gray]

President Hinckley:

 

Quote

"A way must be found to keep the mentally ill from senseless acts of violence," President Hinckley said. "You cannot have an indiscriminate allowance of firearms without abuses. All of us cannot be held hostage by a few whose minds are sick and who lack judgment and reason."We cannot live and work in a bunker mentality," he said. "The very nature of our lives is based on our freedom to go and come while doing our work."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/692491/LDS-leader-says-limit-gun-access.html

[longview]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now, if you will excuse me while doing constitutional research for this post I realized that those privates bunking in my spare room are constitutionally forbidden from quartering in my home. Gotta go kick them out.

ha ha ha   

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

An interesting point though. The Second Amendment, if read literally and assuming the militia clause is just a reasoning and not a restriction on who can bear arms, does not include provisos for restricting arms from anyone. So, by a strict interpretation that kid had every right to a gun. I don't see any rationale from denying weapons to the mentally ill, those who threaten violence, former violent felons, or even terrorists. So if the Constitution is truly divine and the Second Amendment as written is the will of God then we really have no legal right to have done anything to prevent this atrocity.

Ridiculous statement.  The Constitution guarantees the right to private ownership of property.  It would be irrational for society not to test the ability of driver license applicants.  People who fail cannot drive on public streets (even if they actually own vehicles).  This is done for the greater safety of pedestrians and other drivers.

You are demanding a very verbose Constitution.  Not necessary.  It is an outline of important principles and guidelines and restrictions on the Federal government, reserving most of the powers and rights of the people to the states and primarily individuals.  Leaving few and well defined responsibilities to the Feds.  With the separation of powers and checks and balances to guard against wicked tendencies of carnal man.  Read the masterful statements of King Mosiah II in chapter 29 concerning the replacement of Monarchy with a system of judges.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, a great collection of genius under the inspiration of God wrote the Constitution but it is not scripture. It is not infallible. Our scripture is not infallible but the Constitution is considerably more fallible than scripture.

The Constitution is the GREATEST experiment in ALL of human history.  There has been nothing like it before.  It has enabled the most amazing explosion of creativity and prosperity ever experienced anywhere (I think of it as the Second Renaissance).  Sadly there are too many people (like you and Gray and other fellow travelers) that have fallen for the narcotic of socialism and expressed deeply disturbing hostility to basic rights listed throughout the Constitution.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

The Constitution is the GREATEST experiment in ALL of human history.  There has been nothing like it before.  It has enabled the most amazing explosion of creativity and prosperity ever experienced anywhere (I think of it as the Second Renaissance).  Sadly there are too many people (like you and Gray and other fellow travelers) that have fallen for the narcotic of socialism and expressed deeply disturbing hostility to basic rights listed throughout the Constitution.

People who advocate for restrictions on assault weapons are by definition socialist. Obviously!

[longview]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

People who advocate for restrictions on assault weapons are by definition socialist. Obviously!

You have expressed many positions on socialism besides just the "gun issue."    

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, longview said:

You have expressed many positions on socialism besides just the "gun issue."    

Besides the gun issue, eh? I'm pretty sure you couldn't ID socialism if it mugged you in broad daylight, but that's neither here nor there.

[pogi]

20 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Bare hands to kill 17 or more students? Not even Captain America can do that

Chuck Norris could.

Gary Ridgway (The Green River killer) did.  Convicted of 48 murders, presumed to be responsible for 90 +.  All by strangulation, usually with his bare hands.