Gun Control

[Ian]

Ian used the logic that the Constitution = scripture....

i did not use that "logic" and i disagree with that statement.

i agree with elder oaks (a constitutional scholar), that it is not necessary to "defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural." i also agree with elder oaks that "the United States Constitution’s closest approach to scriptural stature is in the phrasing of our Bill of Rights," and, "The Declaration of Independence had posited these truths to be 'self-evident,' that all men 'are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,' and that governments are instituted 'to secure these Rights.' This inspired Constitution was established to provide a practical guarantee of these God-given rights (see D&C 101:77), and the language implementing that godly objective is scriptural to me."

[John]

Music to my ears. (Pardon the cross-reference)

[Ian]

i don’t think anyone would disagree that the constitution “can still be amended.”

president j. reuben clark is recognized as one of the foremost constitutional scholars of the past century. he stated: "It is not my belief nor is it the doctrine of my Church that the Constitution is a fully grown document. On the contrary, we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world."

betsy reads that part of the quote (unless it’s too lengthy) and gets very excited. let’s change the bill of rights to meet the changing needs of our advancing world!

but president clark continued: "We know that greed and avarice and lust for power and dominion over men are always with us, and will be until the millennium shall come. We know that these curses of men never sleep nor die, that they alter their ways of vice to evade the control of law and order. We know that sometimes they reach such size and influence that their handling may require changes not only in legislation but on rare occasion, in the Constitution itself. But all changes must be made to protect and preserve our liberties, not to take them from us. Greater freedom, not slavery, must follow every constitutional change. So we do hold that in all that relates to its great fundamentals—in the division of powers and their full independence one from the other, in the equal administration of the laws, in the even-handed dispensing of justice, in the absence of all class and casts, in the freedom of the press and of speech and of religion—we believe that in all such matters as these our Constitution must not be changed." (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., 1938, Vital Speeches of the Day, 4:177, emphasis added)

president clark spoke frequently about the “great fundamentals” of the constitution. the bill of rights is one of the great fundamentals. he stated: "The Constitution of the United States is a great and treasured part of my religion… The overturning, or the material changing, or the distortion of any fundamental principle of our constitutional government would thus do violence to my religion…" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Stand Fast by Our Constitution, 7)

i don't want to change the bill of rights. i want to defend the bill of rights. we've been urged by the first presidency, “to reflect more intently on the meaning and importance of the Constitution, and of adherence to its principles.” what principle of the constitution is more important, than the principle of freedom?

[Steve]

Welp, that about wraps things up here in the Gun Control thread. We all can see that we should not support efforts to strip this people of their inalienable rights. Looks like we'll have to focus on the real solutions that will foster actual peace and harmony in this nation. Glad we could finally recognize this together. Any last questions or comments before we turn off the lights and send the crew home?

[Ian]

hey hold on, i haven't found time yet to debunk betsy's phony statistics!

[micah]

hey hold on, i haven't found time yet to debunk betsy's phony statistics!

They're not phony. But maybe, just maybe, if you say it enough, it will come true.

[Ian]

if we define phony as "intended to deceive or mislead," then yes, they're phony.

[micah]

Steve, the debate is not over. I do not believe that owning a gun is an unalienable right. I do not believe that the second amendment should be used to allow unfettered access to firearms for self-defense. I do not agree with DC vs. Heller and pray for the day that the supreme court looks at this issue again with different justices (by the way, the supreme court seems to be backing away from DC vs. Heller, much to Scalia and Thomas' dismay.) I really am trying to avoid this discussion because of the bullying tactics you guys are using. This is not a discussion, it is you guys belittling Betsy every chance you can, trying to say she is not righteous, and calling out her statistics and facts "phony" without any back up. This discussion is of little use. Your minds are not open to seeing truth. We disagree on a very basic philosophical level. I do support Betsy in her fight of the good fight, though.

My belief is that that constitution is inspired, but not scriptural. Whatever the intent of the founders in the 2nd amendment (likely to prevent the US from using a standing army to stifle dissent, but whatever), I strongly believe it is no longer applicable. You guys disagree and believe that God has given us the right to own an object that is only used to kill or threaten.

Here is Elder Oak's take. Forgive me if you have already quoted this:

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.” 7

That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He faulted the Constitution for not being “broad enough to cover the whole ground.” In an obvious reference to the national government’s lack of power to intervene when the state of Missouri used its militia to expel the Latter-day Saints from their lands, Joseph Smith said,

“Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. … Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.”

[micah]

if we define phony as "intended to deceive or mislead," then yes, they're phony.

Actually, they're not. They are not deceiving or misleading. They are facts, supported by multiple scientific research studies including meta-analysis. Please show me how they are incorrect and I will listen to you. Until then, remember that you are not an authority and you calling something phony is extremely weak and pitiful.

Also, the more you resort to name-calling and ad-hominem, the weaker you really look. Just remember that. I know you are likely disappointed that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the constitution, but you don't have to keep stooping so low. I don't know if this is from your training or just your personality, but it is really not becoming.

[Ian]

yes, we quoted elder oaks earlier today. we also quoted j. reuben clark earlier today, in fuller context. you may want to read elder oaks' article in its entirety. elder oaks went on to state that the bill of rights is "scriptural," in his opinion.

[micah]

yes, we quoted elder oaks earlier today. we also quoted j. reuben clark earlier today, in fuller context. you may want to read elder oaks' article in its entirety. elder oaks went on to state that the bill of rights is "scriptural," in his opinion.

I see you quoted parts of it, but interestingly you did leave out the part about reverence. And he does not say that the bill of rights in its entirety is scriptural. Also interestingly, Elder Oaks does not mention the 2nd amendment, although does touch on several others.

Either way, the weakness in the constitutional argument for gun control is multi-fold. For someone to agree with your point, they must believe the following:

1. The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right to own guns.
2. The 2nd amendment is scripture, meaning that it is inspired by God, and therefore it was God's true will at the time or writing.
3. The right to own guns is still important today and it is still God's will that we have the right to own guns.
4. We cannot or should not amend the constitution to change the 2nd amendment.
5. The 2nd amendment does not allow for any restrictions on the right to own guns (such as severely limiting ownership like in Germany or Japan)
6. The 2nd amendment applies at the state level and not just the federal level

I do not believe any of those 6 points (except possibly #6).

So, yeah, if you believe all 6 of those points, then your argument is sound.

Again, I think we are stuck, which I am really ok with. I feel like I understand your points, I just don't agree with them.

I think what is true is that this is a complicated issue that has divided people for a long time, and it continues to divide people. If the answer were so easy, this would not be up for debate. Extremely smart, intelligent (and even some righteous) people have had divided opinions on this. I would count Ian, Steve and Betsy among this group of smart and righteous people.

We all have different values and put importance on different aspects of this debate. For me, I highly value public health and preventing death and disability when possible. I do not value being able to fight off the USA's drones, machine guns and guided rockets with my AR-15, if the USA every becomes tyrannical. I do not value living in so much fear that I demand that I am able to pack a concealed weapon around to "protect" myself. And, honestly, I do not value an originalist interpretation of the constitution.

If you guys are really going to convince me that you are right, you are going to have to change these values, which I can say will not happen through a web forum. Conversely, I understand that I will not change your values. Even if I could irrefutably prove that guns would kill millions of people needlessly, I do not believe this would change your point of view, because of how highly you value your interpretation of the constitution (among your other values).

[Ian]

reading that post, i'm almost convinced that this is a "complicated issue."

[Betsy]

Looks like we'll have to focus on the real solutions that will foster actual peace and harmony in this nation.

Gun control is actually a terrific way to foster peace and harmony. God commands us to be peacemakers, not warlike.

[Steve]

My position has little to do with what a person chooses to believe about the Constitution. I personally believe that the right to bear arms is important for our nation, but not necessarily for Germany or Japan. I trust that the Bill of Rights is sound until the Lord says it (or any part of it) is not. I personally believe that the prophets would have discussed firearms with tremendous frequency if gun control were even in the top 100 most important issues of our day. I personally believe that there's little need for me to try to convince you of anything that I'm saying. As Elder Hales stated in the most recent general conference:

Be careful about taking advice from your peers. If you want more than you now have, reach up, not across!

(Meeting the Challenges of Today’s World, October 2015) ↗

Speaking of this most recent general conference, Elder M. Russell Ballard stated:

Through the centuries, prophets have fulfilled their duty when they have warned people of the dangers before them. The Lord’s Apostles are duty bound to watch, warn, and reach out to help those seeking answers to life’s questions.

I've not yet heard them warn us about gun ownership despite their duty to do so if they are as dangerous as you and Betsy say. I did hear them issue another warning, though! From the very next sentence in Elder Ballard's talk:

Twenty years ago, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” In that inspired document, we concluded with the following: “We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

(God is at the Helm, October 2015) ↗

Micah, what will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets? If your answer is firearms, that is incorrect. If you believe that removing firearms from the equation will somehow prevent the consequences God promised would accompany the disintegration of the family, you are mistaken. It's not complicated at all. It's extremely simple. Do you believe these things are true or not?

[Steve]

Betsy: Gun control is actually a terrific way to foster peace and harmony. God commands us to be peacemakers, not warlike.

Satan's rebellion does sound more and more reasonable in this light, doesn't it?