Gun Control

[micah]

Your barbed sarcasm reveals that you are more aligned with this family's general character than you might care to be. And your use of it is ironic given the content of your post.

Well, I guess the fox news comment was a bit low and was sarcastic (but barbed?). Sorry! And yet I am not sure what else you took as sarcasm in my post. I was not trying to be ironic in any other section.

1. I have not been "teaming up against Betsy". I have tried to be respectful in my disagreement with her opinion on this issue, but if you can see where I have belittled or "bullied" her, feel free to throw such words in my face. I do not believe that vigorous disagreement constitutes bullying. I do believe that verbal personal attacks do. (see quote above) I will rely on you to make me aware of specific occasions when I have wrongly resorted to such tactics. I will beg your pardon. However, I do believe that chastening is not bullying if it is offered in an appropriate spirit. But chastening is hard for the chastened. And chastening is a parents duty, is it not?

I think I do disagree here about the chastening thing, but I respect your right to do what you feel is right. I do agree that disagreement alone is not bullying. And I never claimed that you personally were bullying anyone (and I don't believe you have bullied people in this forum). However, when one throws religious quote after quote at you to try to convince you that your opinion makes you unrighteous, evil, damned, a prophet hater--that is bullying. When Ian repeatedly insinuates that Betsy is stupid, that all she does is a google search to write her paper--that is bullying. When people write posts about how they should be able to say whatever they want, and if you get hurt, that is your fault--that is bullying.

2. Your tone of disdain seems to make it clear that in your opinion, being of a conservative mind set is not just a different one from your own, but a very low one. Is this not exactly the kind of rhetoric against which you are lashing out? And has my tone ever been such?

I have not at all expressed disdain for all politically conservative viewpoints. I occasionally even hold a politically conservative view myself. What I have disdain for is ignorance (on all sides of the political spectrum, actually). I disdain ignoring reality because it doesn't fit an agenda. I disdain the fact that the political right is in the pocket of the NRA and will do everything in their power to prevent even the studying of gun violence.

3. Your assumption that this thread is not what changed my opinion is mistaken. And your assumption that I am lying about having had my opinion changed is false at best and perhaps even arrogant. Is such a thing a possibility?

Great, I will leave out my interpretation of what is happening. Again, I am extremely interested in knowing what exactly in this thread changed your mind. What argument did it for you?

4. Please feel free to hold a very low opinion of my intellect. You are not alone in the world. I frequently am reminded of it in many ways and by many people whom I admire.

Why do you think I hold a very low opinion of your intellect?

In summary, John, I do not at all feel like you are the problem with this forum. I know I have disagreed with you in several threads, but I have always found you respectful, interesting and ultimately a calming presence. You do not resort to bullying or personal attacks, and I thank you for that.

[Ian]

well, john lott also holds a phd in economics and for five years he was a fellow at the u. of chicago but he also held positions at yale law and stanford and other institutions of higher learning, which some people find impressive. david hemenway has also been repeatedly discredited, and the the liberal media latch on to him as a guru. so, i would put lott and hemenway in the same category. they fight each other incessantly and both are trying to find data to prove their case. lott is not the only pro-second-amendment researcher, not by far.

stevens and breyer were wrong about the second amendment, just as they were wrong about many other decisions. no surprise there. it’s true that some people would agree with them now, but based on historical evidence, very few people (if any) would have agreed with them when the bill of rights was ratified. granted, the constitution is hanging by a thread right now, thanks to people like stevens and breyer. this was prophesied.

i’m not opposed to amending the constitution when necessary, but i don’t think i’ll ever support an amendment to repeal the bill of rights. good luck with that. you’ll need a lot of slick talkers to convince people to support that. as elder oaks has said, the bill of rights is of “scriptural stature,” so repealing the bill of rights wouldn’t be like amending the minimum age to become a senator. also, it’s misleading to say we’ve amended the constitution on average once every eight years. the first ten amendments were all adopted at the same time just after the constitution was ratified and we’ve only amended the constitution fifteen times in the past two hundred years.

[Steve]

Mom: Steve, hopefully you will be back soon to this thread, because it has been foretold that there will be more violence in the very near future.

Well, out of respect for Mom's wishes, I'm back. And Mom, you weren't kidding. There was indeed more violence in the very near future.

Micah: This is what I have come to expect from the Huntingtons.

Sad.

-----

Micah: Just quoting a bunch of scriptures and prophets then saying they agree with you doesn’t really work. I need a clear organized argument.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(1 Corinthians 2:12-14) ↗

Micah: Please! Someone present the argument that God and the prophets are against gun control in a way that even I can understand!

For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding

(2 Nephi 31:3) ↗

Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

(2 Nephi 32:4) ↗

-----

1. Micah: Also, will someone please lay out the argument that God and the prophets are against gun control?

2. Betsy: I'll first address what I mean by gun control. It would mean that government would enact a gun ban and then a sweeping gun buy back, or something similar.

3. Micah: Even if the 2nd amendment did protect private citizen gun rights, I would advocate amending the constitution.

4. President Ezra Taft Benson: In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part of the federal government to deny the people their right to bear arms...

(President Ezra Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties)

5. Micah: I have read Steve's block quotes and I really don't see how they apply to gun control.

-----

Micah: However, when one throws religious quote after quote at you to try to convince you that your opinion makes you unrighteous, evil, damned, a prophet hater--that is bullying.

What if one throws religious quote after quote at you because one is just trying to provide additional evidence to support one's position with the most reliable sources one knows of? Is that still bullying?

Micah: What I have disdain for is ignorance...

Do you think me ignorant, Micah (ie, do you have disdain for me)? If so, what do you perceive me to be ignorant of on the topic of firearms?

Micah: In summary, John, I do not at all feel like you are the problem with this forum.

Who is the problem with this forum?

-----

Betsy: Like I said before, I read the words of the prophets. But I interpret them differently than you do.

Ok, let's hear your interpretation of the quotes I shared. That would be really helpful.

-----

James: I am much more Jungian, evolutionist, socialist, etc than I ever was before.

President Howard W. Hunter: What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness.

(Teachings of Howard W. Hunter, 66-01, p. 9)

-----

I finish with a pair of quotes and another scripture. I could just as easily paraphrase them so that they'd be received more respectfully (sad), but no. Here they are.

It is worse than useless for men to cry "peace, peace," when there is no peace or to flatter themselves that the terrible issue of war can be avoided. The decree has gone forth respecting the nations of Christendom. War in their midst is inevitable unless they take the course pointed out by the Lord which, however, they seem determined not to take. ...

Until Babylon meets with her long-promised fate, the manufacture of machines and weapons of war will be continued and peace may be looked for in vain among the nations of the earth.

(President George Q. Cannon, Sept. 21, 1861, MS 23:612)

War is one of the scourges which man, by his sinfulness, has brought upon himself. There is one way—and but one way—to avert it and that is for the people to obey God's commands, through whose power alone can this and other threatened evils be stayed. This is too simple for the great men of the earth to believe. Like their class in every preceding generation they view such a proposition as ridiculous and treat it with contempt, practically asserting by their actions that they consider their wisdom and plans as being infinitely superior to the Lord's. The day will come when they will see their folly and be constrained to acknowledge it; but in the most of instances it will be when they will not have the power to avail themselves of the knowledge.

(President George Q. Cannon, May 28, 1863, MS 26:346)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) ↗

[micah]

well, john lott also holds a phd in economics and for five years he was a fellow at the u. of chicago but he also held positions at yale law and stanford and other institutions of higher learning, which some people find impressive. david hemenway has also been repeatedly discredited, and the the liberal media latch on to him as a guru. so, i would put lott and hemenway in the same category. they fight each other incessantly and both are trying to find data to prove their case. lott is not the only pro-second-amendment researcher, not by far.

stevens and breyer were wrong about the second amendment, just as they were wrong about many other decisions. no surprise there. it’s true that some people would agree with them now, but based on historical evidence, very few people (if any) would have agreed with them when the bill of rights was ratified. granted, the constitution is hanging by a thread right now, thanks to people like stevens and breyer. this was prophesied.

i’m not opposed to amending the constitution when necessary, but i don’t think i’ll ever support an amendment to repeal the bill of rights. good luck with that. you’ll need a lot of slick talkers to convince people to support that. as elder oaks has said, the bill of rights is of “scriptural stature,” so repealing the bill of rights wouldn’t be like amending the minimum age to become a senator. also, it’s misleading to say we’ve amended the constitution on average once every eight years. the first ten amendments were all adopted at the same time just after the constitution was ratified and we’ve only amended the constitution fifteen times in the past two hundred years.

Ok, once every 13 years then, if you remove the first 10. Still the constitution has been amended multiple times.

As for Hemenway, he really has not been discredited. I know Gary Kleck and him have had some spats. The only source I found discrediting Hemenway quoted the non-peer reviewed heavily flawed article by Kates and Mauser "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Suicide." I guess you can attack JAMA and NEJM, but they really are good journals with very high standards. Also, his papers are good--they are methodologically sound. I am still waiting for you to explain what is wrong with them that would make Hemenway's conclusions wrong. Granted, we have not been able to do a randomized controlled trial. And again, he is not alone. The vast majority of medical and epidemiological research on suicide and homicide shows a correlation with gun ownership. You may not find this important, but the research base on this aspect is quite robust.

I think we are just going to have to disagree about the 2nd amendment. I agree with Stevens and Breyer--their opinion makes sense and is backed by historical context. You don't agree with them, make the unsupported claim that "very few people (if any) would have agreed with them when the bill of rights was ratified" and you go further to say that it is because of them that the constitution is hanging by a thread.

Also, I am not advocating the repeal of the whole bill of rights. Where did that come from? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you would have to repeal the entire first 10 amendments to clarify the meaning of the second amendment.

[micah]

President Ezra Taft Benson: In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part of the federal government to deny the people their right to bear arms...

Ok, so are you basing your whole argument for gun control on this one quotation by President Benson? No other quotations? I just want to make sure I am not missing anything else before I address President Benson's politics.

[James]

Steve,

Ian reported the same effect. The discussion has solidified his views on gun control. I was responding that I have the same experience with basically every topic I've been involved in. And that's not necessarily a good thing. Once k leave the website things settle into place.

personal unrighteousness huh?

[Steve]

That was a single example offered quickly to refute your claim that you read my block quotes. But I did not return to this thread to argue with you, Micah.

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

(3 Nephi 11:29) ↗

And while retrieving that source, I found:

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

(Titus 3:9) ↗

I think it no coincidence that Paul's epistle was so specific to our family's current predicament. The discussion in this thread has devolved to the point that it seems truly unprofitable and vain in my estimation. Others may continue to debate with you, but I'm not all that interested.

Regarding "gun control," my assertion is simply that the "control" must come from within, not from without. I know that gun violence—all violence—stems from wickedness or a response to it. Therefore, we should endeavor to stamp out wickedness and not worry so much about the implements. I recognize the allure of trying to treat symptoms rather than the underlying cause (ie, if there's no coughing, we must have a healthy society). I can appreciate the natural instinct to try to shield a nation from the consequences of its disobedience, as our love for the innocent who suffer, like Amulek's, can be a heavy burden to bear as we try to reconcile that love with our understanding of the greater plan. Still, we are not going to stay the Lord's hand through legislation, mandates, or other attempts to cloak our wickedness. There is one way—and but one way—to avert the violence so commonplace in our society and that is for the people to obey God's commands. That is a fact. I really think that our efforts with gun control are like pupils attempting to hide the Teacher's switch while gratifying our lust for mischief...all while the Teacher is standing in the room.

The prophets shared the way to solve our violence problem. I love the word of God.

By the way, I think this comment by George MacDonald does a good job of illustrating why I post so many quotes by general authorities:

Words for their full meaning depend upon their source, the person who speaks them. An utterance may even seem commonplace, till you are told that thus spoke one whom you know to be always thinking, always feeling, always acting.

(George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons)

[Steve]

James: personal unrighteousness huh?

Sorry, James! Not my words. Yet another reason why I simply post the quotes.

I will say that I did understand what you were saying about entrenchment. That is often the case in discussions. I think it's because we continually fall back on our natural tendencies to try to bolster our own positions. I really hope that I am inspired to handle future discussions in a more loving, productive way.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

(1 Corinthians 13:1) ↗

Steve. Guilty as charged.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ;...

(Moroni 7:48) ↗

I'll try.

[Tuly]

James - what did you mean by "Once k leave the website things settle into place." ? - I know that you are probably in the middle of finals, and I'm glad to have your input.
We seem to answer questions in this thread but not the way we want them answered or for that matter answered at all, then we feel misunderstood, frustrated and discouraged that this is not worth spending time. For all of you who keep hanging in here maybe not to change people's minds but so that we know more about you and how you deal with disagreement, difference of opinion - thank you. while I have been learning a lot about gun control and where i stand in this topic, I'm learning more about each of you who have participated in this thread and that is good to me.
John and I have disagreed with many topics but we talked about them ALWAYS and we worked them out. Now i know how he feels about many things and he knows very well where I stand in everything. Again we don't agree with everything but we know each other very well and hence care for each other and that is the best to me.

O.k. on with the topic.

[Betsy]

I know that gun violence—all violence—stems from wickedness or a response to it.

Actually, this is not true. Suicide (accomplished easily with a gun) is often committed as a result of mental illness. Even some homicides are committed where the perpetrator isn't fully aware of his actions.

Betsy: Like I said before, I read the words of the prophets. But I interpret them differently than you do.

Ok, let's hear your interpretation of the quotes I shared. That would be really helpful.

OK! I believe that the prophet are speaking in general terms to lead their people to righteousness. I believe none of them have expressly spoken out against the policy of gun control. I believe I am still a righteous person when I support gun control legislation. I believe I uphold the constitution when I support gun control. I believe the scriptures tell us to "lay down our weapons". (And when we take up those weapons again it should be done by the militia). I believe that a total lack of government intervention leads to anarchy. I believe that it is EXTREMELY IRONIC that all of you would vote for a marijuana ban, and still fight for the freedom to own an object 50 times more dangerous. America utterly lacks a reverence for this killing machine.

I ask Dad again, WHAT WERE THE ARGUMENTS THAT PERSUADED YOU THAT GUN CONTROL IS EVIL!?!?!?

But avoid foolish questions

Whose questions have been foolish? We're addressing some pretty important things here.

[micah]

That was a single example offered quickly to refute your claim that you read my block quotes. But I did not return to this thread to argue with you, Micah.

Actually, I have read your block quotes, and I still do no understand what you are saying. You have one quote from Elder Benson (note, this is almost a completely different man than President Benson), who clearly supported gun ownership (among many other things that we can get into) and then some quotes that the constitution is divine. And then a bunch of scriptures and prophetic quotes that have no clear connection to gun control at all. It really is extremely confusing what point you are making. Again, it feels like you just post as many religious quotes as you can so that we are all confused, but think, "well Steve posted what the prophet's said, so he must be right."

But now that you are challenged on it, you refuse to defend your position. I, again, am asking for a clear argument as to why God and the prophets want us to have guns. Just posting more scriptures that are not even tangentially related does not help me understand your point.

I think it is really interesting that this thread is just repeatedly saying, "Betsy is wrong," without giving logical or analytical reasons as to why. THIS is why this thread is so problematic. We have Ian here making fun of Betsy's intelligence and then spouting off heavily discounted, biased "research," the most relied of which coming from a Fox News pundit. We have Steve quoting a huge amount of religious sources with very little explanation as to how it applies at all. I have yet to see a clearly laid out argument for guns.

One possible reason for this is that there is no argument to be made. You have one quote from Elder Benson, and then quotes saying the constitution is great. You have John Lott.

But whatever! The point I firmly make is that being for or against gun control does not make you a bad person, unrighteous, unpatriotic or stupid. We can have different opinions. I have made my opinion from my understanding of what government should be, my understanding of the 2nd amendment and from the available research. You all have your own reasons for liking guns (again I really want to understand what those reasons are).

Even the apostles have different opinions, especially about political issues (again read some about Elder Benson and the first presidency and you will see what I mean).

If this is wrong, please present a clear argument as to why.

[Betsy]

I really think that our efforts with gun control are like pupils attempting to hide the Teacher's switch while gratifying our lust for mischief...all while the Teacher is standing in the room

I have no idea what this could possibly mean.

There is one way—and but one way—to avert the violence so commonplace in our society and that is for the people to obey God's commands. That is a fact.

Ok, so if this is your solution, how is this to be accomplished, in real life? The reality is that people don't follow the commandments. As individuals, we can certainly try, but we can't control the agency of billions of others. So we have to think of another solution. Again, your argument does not account for mental illness. Those who are mentally ill are incapable of keeping the commandments. We have to protect them (and us) from the catastrophic consequences of acquiring a gun.

Still a little bit miffed about how people think that since I don't read Steve's overly lengthy quotes that somehow means that I don't believe the prophets.

[Betsy]

I finish with a pair of quotes and another scripture. I could just as easily paraphrase them so that they'd be received more respectfully (sad), but no. Here they are.

There is nothing disrespectful about choosing not to spend the time reading everything (not just block quotes, but PAGES) you post. I know you view it that way, but really, try to understand that if you are working to persuade your audience you must address your audience's values. My value, like I said before, is original thought. I could just as easily claim that you are being disrespectful by not cooperating with my requests. But I won't because I respect that you can do whatever you want to do within the discussion.

However, I do read some of your quotes. I think the George Macdonald one perfectly applies to what I am asking.

Words for their full meaning depend upon their source, the person who speaks them. An utterance may even seem commonplace, till you are told that thus spoke one whom you know to be always thinking, always feeling, always acting.

Who says you, Steve, can't be the one who is always, thinking, feeling, acting?

[Steve]

Betsy: Actually, this is not true. Suicide (accomplished easily with a gun) is often committed as a result of mental illness.

And you believe that Satan has nothing to do with the mentally ill putting a gun to their head? Again, I'm really not trying to argue with you. This isn't really helping you.

Your response did not really address the specific quotes I posted, but again, that is okay at this point. I recognize that I am trying to change human nature from without, which cannot be done. I've taught correct principles, though, so I hope that someday you will understand.

Betsy: Whose questions have been foolish? We're addressing some pretty important things here.

The discussion has already provided information. At this point, it's devolved into making you and Micah upset and that's not a good environment for learning.

Betsy: I have no idea what this could possibly mean.

I know. This is because you still don't connect gun violence with the Lord's promises about the last days. You think these things are happening solely as a result of treatable causes, and that we may simply build a tower to get to heaven.

Betsy: Ok, so if this is your solution, how is this to be accomplished, in real life?

I'm so glad that you asked. I mentioned it previously (a lot), but I'll repeat it here with some additional actionable specifics: read the scriptures daily, pray always, attend the temple regularly, study the conference talks, hold family home evening, pay an honest tithe, serve others, keep the Sabbath holy, repent of all your sins, keep yourself unspotted from the world, share the gospel with others, etc. We cannot solve gun violence. The Lord can. But He has told us that He will not save us in our sins. He came to save us from our sins. As I've mentioned again and again, the greatest power—the only power—to stop violence is righteousness. And because we cannot make others righteous, through legislation or otherwise, we must keep ourselves worthy, share the gospel, and pray that the Lord and His Spirit will soften others' hearts. That is actionable, but as I've indicated repeatedly throughout this thread in the quotes you don't read, it's the only way to solve our problems and the natural man does not believe it will work.

Betsy: Still a little bit miffed about how people think that since I don't read Steve's overly lengthy quotes that somehow means that I don't believe the prophets.

I am sorry that you're miffed. You take great lengths to emphasize how important this issue is to you, but when someone posts the things they know will solve the problem, you won't read them. It's like saying "I'll do just about anything to finally solve this problem because of how passionate I am about this, but I won't read your thoughts on how to do it. They are long quotes from prophets and I don't believe they are relevant. I am more interested in what you have to say, Steve (as if what you have to say cannot include prophetic counsel)." I don't know what you believe about prophets, though. It just doesn't seem like you hold their words any higher than "general counsel" and that if you don't feel they've spoken expressly against a method, that method must be good (and/or preferable to the things they absolutely did say).

-----

Micah: Actually, I have read your block quotes, and I still do no understand what you are saying.

I know. And that is why we may be spinning our wheels here. I can only pray that other more capable messengers will be able to bring the prophets' words together in a manner that you'll understand. Meanwhile, I encourage you to search, ponder, and pray for yourself.

Micah: But now that you are challenged on it, you refuse to defend your position.

This is not true. I have been defending my position to the point of exhaustion. Others seem to understand, while you and Betsy do not.

Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.

(Alma 13:20) ↗

I encourage you to seek understanding for yourselves. By all means, I recommend starting with the references I shared. Consider the story of Jonah. Study the promises about our nation and the conditions of its destiny. Read the assurance of violence in these last days. Try to understand what the Lord said would be the cause of it. Ponder the things He has said will stay His hand. Consider ways to apply those things. I think you will better understand my position.

-----

Betsy: There is nothing disrespectful about choosing not to spend the time reading everything (not just block quotes, but PAGES) you post.

I visited your Facebook thread and read through it when you mentioned it. In that thread were posted everything from video clips with vulgar language to full articles others were told to visit and read. You posted your entire paper here in this thread and consistently told us to refer back to it for your supporting evidence. While studying this topic, you have read countless articles, book passages, statistics, and professional opinions. Yet you will not read a half dozen paragraphs posted from time to time. How should a person participating in your discussion interpret all of this? I did not read through all of the pop news articles posted because I do not value the sources. It's not a stretch to assume that this is why you did not read mine. As you state repeatedly, you value original thought (whatever that means...as if all worthy thoughts do not come from God). Do you value the original thoughts of President Howard W. Hunter or President David O. McKay? What if I completely and wholeheartedly agree with them? What if their position is my position? Is my position now invalid for lack of originality? I do not want to be original. I want to be right. I want to be true. And since truth is already established, it's going to be impossible for me to be original. I do not see the value in generating another way to say what they've already said for the sake of "originality."

It is fascinating that the one quote you finally respond to is by a great man whom I admire very much, but who is not a prophet, seer, and revelator. And though I appreciate the vote of confidence for my own words, I'll have you know that I do not recommend anyone pay particularly close attention to them. I'm riddled with flaws, as evidenced by the fact that no matter how much I try, you guys do not seem to understand my point. It is quite disappointing.

[Ian]

this is how i see it: we are endowed with the right to keep and bear arms, and the constitution protects that right. simple enough?

no, let’s complicate this. in recent years, people have come up with absurd ideas to change the plain meaning of the second amendment. usually, people try to limit this right to a military context. in other words, according to them, the right to keep and bear arms has some sort of special military meaning. stevens and breyer tried to do this. however, their opinions do not make sense and were not backed by historical context. they twisted the meaning of the second amendment to accommodate their personal belief in gun control. for instance, they defined “bear arms” to mean carrying arms, but only in the service of an organized militia. they claimed that “bear arms” referred only to military service. they had no historical evidence to support this interpretation. their definition is not found in any dictionary. their definition would necessarily mean that we all have the right to be a soldier. it’s a ridiculous theory and an affront to the English language. after stevens retired, he admitted that he would like to rewrite the second amendment, and proposed that it should be changed to read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” apparently, stevens thinks he could have done a better job of writing the constitution.

as absurd as all that is, it makes more sense to me than what i’m reading from betsy and micah. betsy tells us that she was inspired to support gun control, that she is a righteous person, and that the scriptures tell us to lay down our weapons and when we take up those weapons again it should be done by the militia. also, she reminds us, a total lack of government intervention leads to anarchy. furthermore, america utterly lacks a reverence for this killing machine. got it. now, micah is angry and confused, ranting about fox news, telling us that he knows all about elder benson being a different man than president benson, accusing me of relying on research that betsy used for her own paper, and asking absurd questions like “why do the prophets want us to have guns?” micah tells us that medical research shows correlation (even though betsy said causation) between homicide/suicide and gun ownership, and “firmly” reminds us that being for or against gun control does not make one bad, unrighteous, unpatriotic or stupid. according to micah, we all have reasons for “liking guns.”

therefore, let’s repeal the second amendment.

i thank steve for posting quotes and scriptures, which are obviously pertinent, but frankly i’m a little jealous that you seem to get all the credit lately for posting long quotes. have i lost that distinction? i’ll have to do something about that. i’ve been meaning to post president ezra taft benson’s “credo of a conservative” for a while, it’s a great read.