Gun Control
Re: Gun Control
Edward, your viewpoint is surprisingly libertarian. Oops there I go using my fancy new terminology.
Re: Gun Control
Which is funny seeing as I get super democratic about environmental issues, almost green party. But before I moved back home I was known for being excessively pro-gun control. My opinions changed after Ian explained the legal ramifications and constitutional dangers of the concept, and I think after a lot of thought I understand it much better, though part of me still wishes I was back on the control side. But I can't find a moral or legal way to justify it anymore.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: Gun Control
Steve, thank you for your comments on the real underlying issue, ultimately it is about lack of parenting.
Re: Gun Control
Maybe there are some who think that anyone who has a pro gun control stance is somehow anti-family and pro-government. This couldn't be more wrong. I understand fully well that people from broken homes are the most likely to commit crimes, and then they end up in jail, which makes their illness worse.
The thing is, I understand a successful government to be, like I said before, a facilitator of a free country, a protector of our rights, and an institution that works to fulfill the needs of the people.
Now, try to understand this one point. In the past, when mass homicides were a lot less frequent, and citizen gun ownership was fewer, the governments' role was to promote the freedom in bearing arms. This was all fine and well, until people started abusing that freedom, to the horror of all of us, in schools, where YOUNG CHILDREN WERE SHOT. Now, governments role must be a facilitator of the RIGHT TO LIVE.
But please understand, that I understand, that crime, and criminals, no matter what we do, WILL NEVER GO AWAY. But that is not the POINT of gun control. The point is that homicides will be dramatically decreased. And even if one life is saved, isn't that worth it?
The thing is, I understand a successful government to be, like I said before, a facilitator of a free country, a protector of our rights, and an institution that works to fulfill the needs of the people.
Now, try to understand this one point. In the past, when mass homicides were a lot less frequent, and citizen gun ownership was fewer, the governments' role was to promote the freedom in bearing arms. This was all fine and well, until people started abusing that freedom, to the horror of all of us, in schools, where YOUNG CHILDREN WERE SHOT. Now, governments role must be a facilitator of the RIGHT TO LIVE.
Oh my word, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES, getting KILLED is the WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO A PERSON. We are not talking about death by natural causes. When you are shot, your life is instantly taken away from you, and you have no other rights, freedoms, liberties or whatever because you are DEAD. Your life was taken without you without having a single say in the matter.Do you honestly believe that guns are the problem, Betsy? You truly believe that if we took away all the guns, we would have peace and healthy life for all? Do you also believe that physical death is the worst thing that could happen to a person? I'm just surprised by how adamant you are about this particular issue among all the problems our nation faces. Is death by gun the worst thing that's happening in this country?
But please understand, that I understand, that crime, and criminals, no matter what we do, WILL NEVER GO AWAY. But that is not the POINT of gun control. The point is that homicides will be dramatically decreased. And even if one life is saved, isn't that worth it?
Re: Gun Control
there is no evidence that gun violence is getting worse in our country, and there is no evidence that gun control would limit gun violence. if you have studied the statistics, then you already know this. so, you exploit mass killings. you also attack the constitution.
the constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do. it stands in government’s way. our government can’t infringe the right of people to keep and bear arms. how do you get around the constitution?
you say it’s an old agrarian document written by slave owners. you mock and ridicule people who defend it. you say it’s a living breathing document, that it’s time to move on, that times have changed. “Thanks to my American Heritage class I am forced to read this and try to understand that it means…. now there is a huge problem and it just might require some sacrifice of our beloved 2nd Amendment right… this is clearly not a flawless document… the article of faith does not say ‘We believe the constitution to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly’…”
actually, we believe the constitution to be the word of God. “… I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose …” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)
every modern prophet has defended the constitution. it is an article of our faith.
joseph smith:
"Hence we say, that the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun. . . . We say that God is true; that the Constitution of the United States is true; that the Bible is true."
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Comp. Joseph Fielding Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976, 147-48)
brigham young:
"I want to say to every man, the Constitution of the United States, as formed by our fathers, was dictated, was revealed, was put into their hearts by the Almighty, who sits enthroned in the midst of the heavens; although unknown to them, it was dictated by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and I tell you in the name of Jesus Christ, it is as good as I could ask for."
(Henry, D. "The Prophets on the Christ." Liahona: The Elders' Journal, 26 Dec 1908, 6:678)
john taylor:
"The Constitution of the United States has ever been respected and honored by us. We consider it one of the best national instruments ever formed. Nay, further, Joseph Smith in his day said it was given by inspiration of God. We have ever stood by it, and we expect when the fanaticism of false, blatant friends shall have torn it shred from shred, to stand by the shattered ruins and uphold the broken, desecrated remnants of our country's institutions in all their primitive purity and pristine glory."
(Taylor, Samuel W., and Raymond W. Taylor. The John Taylor Papers: Records of the Last Utah Pioneer. 2 vols. Redwood City, CA: Taylor, 1984-85, 1:228)
wilford woodruff:
"We live in a government raised up by the God of heaven. We have a constitution that was given by inspiration from God to man. I believe it is the best human form of government that was ever given to the human family. Now, I say if our rulers and governors become corrupt and attempt to trample those principles under their feet; though the nation itself might go to pieces, yet it is beyond the power of man to destroy the principles of the constitution. They may destroy one another, yet the principles contained in that instrument will live, and the God of heaven will maintain them until Jesus Christ comes in the clouds of heaven to set up His throne in Jerusalem, and to reign on the earth a thousand years."
(Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. 1854-86, 22:346)
lorenzo snow:
"We trace the hand of the Almighty in framing the constitution of our land, and believe that the Lord raised up men purposely for the accomplishment of this object, raised them up and inspired them to frame the constitution of the United States."
(Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. 1854-86, 14:301)
joseph f. smith:
"I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe in the principles which that instrument promulgates—the freedom of mankind to do right, to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, freedom to pursue their way in peace and to observe and maintain their rights, their freedom, their liberties, and justly recognize and equally preserve and defend their rights, freedom and liberty of their neighbors and of their fellow beings—and of all God's creatures. I believe that the Constitution of the United States was and still is an inspired instrument. The Lord God Almighty inspired the minds that framed it, and I believe it ought to be most sacredly preserved."
("Thrift and Economy," Improvement Era , May 1918, 21:634-35)
heber j. grant:
"Every faithful Latter-day Saint believes that the Constitution of the United States was inspired of God, and that this choice land and this nation have been preserved until now in the principles of liberty under the protection of God. . . . These principles are fundamental to our belief, fundamental to our protection. And in the providences of the Lord, the safeguards which have been incorporated into the basic structure of this nation are, if we preserve them, the guarantee of all men who dwell here against abuses, tyrannies, and usurpations. From my childhood days I have understood that we believe absolutely that the Constitution of our country is an inspired instrument, and that God directed those who created it and those who defended the independence of this nation. . . . I counsel you, I urge you, I plead with you, never, so far as you have voice or influence, permit any departure from the principles of government on which this nation was founded, or any disregard of the freedoms which, by the inspiration of God our Father, were written into the Constitution of the United States."
(Conference Report, Oct 1944, 6-13)
george albert smith:
"In these days of confusion, when the Constitution of our country is assailed, by those who have no understanding of the purpose of God regarding this great country, it behooves those who do understand to consider seriously and faithfully, the benefits that will flow to us by honoring and sustaining the government that was reared under the direction of our heavenly Father. We are a peculiar people in many ways, and in this particularly are we peculiar, in that we believe that the constitution of the United States was inspired by our heavenly Father, and he has told us that he raised up the very men who should frame the Constitution of the United States. Knowing that, we should not be led astray by the fallacies of individuals whose selfishness inclines them to attack that which our heavenly Father has prepared for the people of this land."
(Conference Report, Oct 1924, 44-46)
david o. mckay:
"If we would make the world better, let us foster a keener appreciation of the freedom and liberty guaranteed by the government of the United States as framed by the founders of this nation. Here again self-proclaimed progressives cry that such old-time adherence is out of date. But there are some fundamental principles of this Republic which, like eternal truths, never get out of date, and which are applicable at all times to liberty-loving peoples. Such are the underlying principles of the Constitution, a document framed by patriotic, freedom-loving men, who Latter-day Saints declare were inspired by the Lord."
(Conference Report, Oct 1940, 101-05)
joseph fielding smith:
"From the very beginning of this latter-day work we have been taught that the Constitution of the United States was and still is an inspired document. Such it was when it came forth from the hands of the framers. Above all peoples on the face of the earth the Latter-day Saints should uphold, defend and cherish this sacred document. It has been predicted that the time will come when it will be threatened with destruction, and when that time comes the true Latter-day Saints will rally to its support."
(The Progress of Man. Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1936, 299-300)
harold b. lee:
"May I voice a plea for all Americans to love this country with a fervor that will inspire each to so live as to merit the favor of the Almighty during this time of grave uncertainties, as well as in times to come. I would that all men could believe in the destiny of America as did the early pioneers: that it is the land of Zion; that the founders of this nation were men of inspired vision; that the Constitution as written by the inspiration of heaven must be preserved at all costs."
(Ye Are the Light of the World. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974, 181-82)
spencer w. kimball:
"The Mormon people who are citizens of [the United States of] America today are intensely loyal to its Constitution and desire in every way to promote the God-given freedoms it was designed to protect. They have had experience with the tragedy that results when those freedoms are not protected, but this only feeds their determination to do all within their power to protect these freedoms, both for themselves and others, everywhere."
(The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. Ed. Edward L. Kimball. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982. 405)
ezra taft benson:
"Every true Latter-day Saint throughout the world loves the USA. The Constitution of this land is part of every Latter-day Saint's religious faith. This is not just another nation, not just a member of a family of nations. This is a great and glorious nation with a divine mission and a prophetic history and future. It has been brought into being under the inspiration of heaven. It is our firm belief, as Latter-day Saints, that the Constitution of this land was established by men whom the God of heaven raised up unto that very purpose."
(Conference Report, Apr 1962, 103-06)
gordon b. hinckley:
"On one occasion a journalist asked me about my belief regarding the Constitution. I replied that I felt it was inspired, that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were brought forth under the inspiration of God to establish and maintain the freedom of the people of this nation. I said it and I believe it to be true. There is a miracle in its establishment that cannot be explained in any other way.”
(“Keep Faith with America”, commencement address given at Weber State University, 6 May 1999)
thomas s. monson:
"Do we fully appreciate and treasure the Constitution?"
("Celebrate America," 17 Sep 2002)
the constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do. it stands in government’s way. our government can’t infringe the right of people to keep and bear arms. how do you get around the constitution?
you say it’s an old agrarian document written by slave owners. you mock and ridicule people who defend it. you say it’s a living breathing document, that it’s time to move on, that times have changed. “Thanks to my American Heritage class I am forced to read this and try to understand that it means…. now there is a huge problem and it just might require some sacrifice of our beloved 2nd Amendment right… this is clearly not a flawless document… the article of faith does not say ‘We believe the constitution to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly’…”
actually, we believe the constitution to be the word of God. “… I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose …” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)
every modern prophet has defended the constitution. it is an article of our faith.
joseph smith:
"Hence we say, that the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun. . . . We say that God is true; that the Constitution of the United States is true; that the Bible is true."
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Comp. Joseph Fielding Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976, 147-48)
brigham young:
"I want to say to every man, the Constitution of the United States, as formed by our fathers, was dictated, was revealed, was put into their hearts by the Almighty, who sits enthroned in the midst of the heavens; although unknown to them, it was dictated by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and I tell you in the name of Jesus Christ, it is as good as I could ask for."
(Henry, D. "The Prophets on the Christ." Liahona: The Elders' Journal, 26 Dec 1908, 6:678)
john taylor:
"The Constitution of the United States has ever been respected and honored by us. We consider it one of the best national instruments ever formed. Nay, further, Joseph Smith in his day said it was given by inspiration of God. We have ever stood by it, and we expect when the fanaticism of false, blatant friends shall have torn it shred from shred, to stand by the shattered ruins and uphold the broken, desecrated remnants of our country's institutions in all their primitive purity and pristine glory."
(Taylor, Samuel W., and Raymond W. Taylor. The John Taylor Papers: Records of the Last Utah Pioneer. 2 vols. Redwood City, CA: Taylor, 1984-85, 1:228)
wilford woodruff:
"We live in a government raised up by the God of heaven. We have a constitution that was given by inspiration from God to man. I believe it is the best human form of government that was ever given to the human family. Now, I say if our rulers and governors become corrupt and attempt to trample those principles under their feet; though the nation itself might go to pieces, yet it is beyond the power of man to destroy the principles of the constitution. They may destroy one another, yet the principles contained in that instrument will live, and the God of heaven will maintain them until Jesus Christ comes in the clouds of heaven to set up His throne in Jerusalem, and to reign on the earth a thousand years."
(Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. 1854-86, 22:346)
lorenzo snow:
"We trace the hand of the Almighty in framing the constitution of our land, and believe that the Lord raised up men purposely for the accomplishment of this object, raised them up and inspired them to frame the constitution of the United States."
(Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. 1854-86, 14:301)
joseph f. smith:
"I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe in the principles which that instrument promulgates—the freedom of mankind to do right, to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, freedom to pursue their way in peace and to observe and maintain their rights, their freedom, their liberties, and justly recognize and equally preserve and defend their rights, freedom and liberty of their neighbors and of their fellow beings—and of all God's creatures. I believe that the Constitution of the United States was and still is an inspired instrument. The Lord God Almighty inspired the minds that framed it, and I believe it ought to be most sacredly preserved."
("Thrift and Economy," Improvement Era , May 1918, 21:634-35)
heber j. grant:
"Every faithful Latter-day Saint believes that the Constitution of the United States was inspired of God, and that this choice land and this nation have been preserved until now in the principles of liberty under the protection of God. . . . These principles are fundamental to our belief, fundamental to our protection. And in the providences of the Lord, the safeguards which have been incorporated into the basic structure of this nation are, if we preserve them, the guarantee of all men who dwell here against abuses, tyrannies, and usurpations. From my childhood days I have understood that we believe absolutely that the Constitution of our country is an inspired instrument, and that God directed those who created it and those who defended the independence of this nation. . . . I counsel you, I urge you, I plead with you, never, so far as you have voice or influence, permit any departure from the principles of government on which this nation was founded, or any disregard of the freedoms which, by the inspiration of God our Father, were written into the Constitution of the United States."
(Conference Report, Oct 1944, 6-13)
george albert smith:
"In these days of confusion, when the Constitution of our country is assailed, by those who have no understanding of the purpose of God regarding this great country, it behooves those who do understand to consider seriously and faithfully, the benefits that will flow to us by honoring and sustaining the government that was reared under the direction of our heavenly Father. We are a peculiar people in many ways, and in this particularly are we peculiar, in that we believe that the constitution of the United States was inspired by our heavenly Father, and he has told us that he raised up the very men who should frame the Constitution of the United States. Knowing that, we should not be led astray by the fallacies of individuals whose selfishness inclines them to attack that which our heavenly Father has prepared for the people of this land."
(Conference Report, Oct 1924, 44-46)
david o. mckay:
"If we would make the world better, let us foster a keener appreciation of the freedom and liberty guaranteed by the government of the United States as framed by the founders of this nation. Here again self-proclaimed progressives cry that such old-time adherence is out of date. But there are some fundamental principles of this Republic which, like eternal truths, never get out of date, and which are applicable at all times to liberty-loving peoples. Such are the underlying principles of the Constitution, a document framed by patriotic, freedom-loving men, who Latter-day Saints declare were inspired by the Lord."
(Conference Report, Oct 1940, 101-05)
joseph fielding smith:
"From the very beginning of this latter-day work we have been taught that the Constitution of the United States was and still is an inspired document. Such it was when it came forth from the hands of the framers. Above all peoples on the face of the earth the Latter-day Saints should uphold, defend and cherish this sacred document. It has been predicted that the time will come when it will be threatened with destruction, and when that time comes the true Latter-day Saints will rally to its support."
(The Progress of Man. Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1936, 299-300)
harold b. lee:
"May I voice a plea for all Americans to love this country with a fervor that will inspire each to so live as to merit the favor of the Almighty during this time of grave uncertainties, as well as in times to come. I would that all men could believe in the destiny of America as did the early pioneers: that it is the land of Zion; that the founders of this nation were men of inspired vision; that the Constitution as written by the inspiration of heaven must be preserved at all costs."
(Ye Are the Light of the World. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974, 181-82)
spencer w. kimball:
"The Mormon people who are citizens of [the United States of] America today are intensely loyal to its Constitution and desire in every way to promote the God-given freedoms it was designed to protect. They have had experience with the tragedy that results when those freedoms are not protected, but this only feeds their determination to do all within their power to protect these freedoms, both for themselves and others, everywhere."
(The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. Ed. Edward L. Kimball. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982. 405)
ezra taft benson:
"Every true Latter-day Saint throughout the world loves the USA. The Constitution of this land is part of every Latter-day Saint's religious faith. This is not just another nation, not just a member of a family of nations. This is a great and glorious nation with a divine mission and a prophetic history and future. It has been brought into being under the inspiration of heaven. It is our firm belief, as Latter-day Saints, that the Constitution of this land was established by men whom the God of heaven raised up unto that very purpose."
(Conference Report, Apr 1962, 103-06)
gordon b. hinckley:
"On one occasion a journalist asked me about my belief regarding the Constitution. I replied that I felt it was inspired, that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were brought forth under the inspiration of God to establish and maintain the freedom of the people of this nation. I said it and I believe it to be true. There is a miracle in its establishment that cannot be explained in any other way.”
(“Keep Faith with America”, commencement address given at Weber State University, 6 May 1999)
thomas s. monson:
"Do we fully appreciate and treasure the Constitution?"
("Celebrate America," 17 Sep 2002)
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Gun Control
Betsy, first I just have to say that I'm awfully impressed that you're still engaged in this discussion and that you're willing to help us understand your perspective. I've been on the flip side in discussions, and I know it's hard when you're sharing something that's unpopular in the forum and you feel like you're standing alone. Though we may disagree, it's really nice that you're still talking through these things.
How does a government facilitate a free country? How do people throughout history ensure that a government remains in their control? As people grow more and more wicked, do you think it's reasonable to assume that the government (again, just a bunch of people that work for us) will continue to have our best interests in mind?
I do not believe (even beyond a thousand times) that guns are the problem. I do not believe that physical death is the worst thing that could happen to a person.
I don't think that someone who is for gun control is necessarily anti-family, though I do think they are pro-government in the sense that they are putting the government above the people by relinquishing certain rights to them.Betsy: Maybe there are some who think that anyone who has a pro gun control stance is somehow anti-family and pro-government.
How does a government facilitate a free country? How do people throughout history ensure that a government remains in their control? As people grow more and more wicked, do you think it's reasonable to assume that the government (again, just a bunch of people that work for us) will continue to have our best interests in mind?
President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.: And do not think that all these usurpations, intimidations, and impositions are being done to us through inadvertence or mistakes; the whole course is deliberately planned and carried out; its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our constitutional government; then to bring chaos, out of which the new Statism, with its slavery, is to arise, with a cruel, relentless, selfish, ambitious crew in the saddle, riding hard with whip and spur, a red-shrouded band of night riders for despotism. . . .
If we do not vigorously fight for our liberties, we shall go clear through to the end of the road and become another Russia, or worse. . . .
(Church News, September 25, 1949.)
You acknowledged that men are "abusing that freedom" we've been granting, and your response to it is admittedly not unlike that implied by Edmund Burke:President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.: I have wished to bring together and call to your attention a number of matters, the close relationship of which it is easy to miss, and to indicate to you that, so assembled, they make a pattern which cannot be accounted for except on the theory that some group of minds is working out a diabolical plan for the destruction of our liberties and freedom, our divinely inspired Constitution and the Government our fathers set up thereunder, and the wiping out of our constitutional guarantees and the free lives, the security, the happiness, and the blessings we have enjoyed thereunder.
(Address given to the Utah Wool Growers Association, January 24, 1945.)
I am against allowing a wicked, fanatical man with a gun to strip an entire nation of citizens of their rights. It is disturbing to me that our first inclination in times of tragedy would be to try (emphasis intended) to take something from someone who committed no crime. When something bad happens, we want to regulate everyone. Adding an additional layer of control for a government body that often acts contrary to the job description under which I hired them doesn't sound appealing to me at all. I believe that these quick impulses are reactionary tactics used to influence Americans into quickly making rash decisions while passions are fresh. "Do you want 20 school children to die, or are you in favor of gun control?"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
(Works, 1888 ed., vol. 4, pp. 51-52.)
No. These are the costs of agency. Satan rebelled against the principle of agency. It was his plan that he would remove the tools through which we could do evil and he said, "I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost..." (Moses 4:1). Despite Satan's promises, no, truly because of the promises that his anti-agency tactics could save everyone, Heavenly Father, "caused that he should be cast down" (Moses 4:3). Consequently, "a third part of the hosts of heaven" turned away from Heavenly Father (D&C 29:36). Heavenly Father was willing for this to happen in order to preserve agency. That's how important agency is.Betsy: And even if one life is saved, isn't that worth it?
I do not believe (even beyond a thousand times) that guns are the problem. I do not believe that physical death is the worst thing that could happen to a person.
You will be taken care of. A murderer cannot thwart God's plan. This is simple and sure. I am more concerned for the murderer's heart, to be honest. We must raise righteous families. We must preach the gospel. We must defend agency.Betsy: When you are shot, your life is instantly taken away from you, and you have no other rights, freedoms, liberties or whatever because you are DEAD.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Gun Control
Oh Betsy, how wrong, how very wrong you are. You know better. You never have a say in the matter when it comes to death. Nobody does. But the worst thing that could happen is not death; NO! Because death has already been defeated. We are free from death; Christ has risen and we are free forever from it. Life may be taken now, but it will be restored to us again! Don't ignore that; otherwise, you ignore the whole point and purpose of the gospel. We have the right to resurrection after death; the freedom to progress and live with our families forever, the liberty to use our agency to gain eternal life. Death can never take that away from us. Don't you ever dare tell me that death is the end.Betsy wrote:Oh my word, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES, getting KILLED is the WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO A PERSON. We are not talking about death by natural causes. When you are shot, your life is instantly taken away from you, and you have no other rights, freedoms, liberties or whatever because you are DEAD. Your life was taken without you without having a single say in the matter.
But please understand, that I understand, that crime, and criminals, no matter what we do, WILL NEVER GO AWAY. But that is not the POINT of gun control. The point is that homicides will be dramatically decreased. And even if one life is saved, isn't that worth it?
Millions of people have been shot and they died. But every single one of them still exists. They still move towards either salvation or damnation. We are sorry when they are taken from this life in such tragic circumstances. But we as a people, the Latter-day Saints, defy the idea that death is the end. I as an individual refuse to countenance such a possibility. There is always the promise of a resurrection.
That said, our ancestors fought and died to defend the Constitution. Was that the worst thing that could have happened to them, to die for their country? Do you think they died in vain? They fought for us all, for you and me, for our freedom, our liberties, our families, our right to our religion. I am reminded of this letter by President Abraham Lincoln to Mrs. Bixby, whom he had been told lost five sons during the Civil War.
As the line goes from "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," as they died to make men holy/let us die to make men free. The deaths of all those who fought are not in vain because they died. They only died in vain if we do not continue to fight for what they died for: freedom, liberty, our Constitution. If even a thousand lives are lost for that, isn't it worth it?Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: Gun Control
I agree with Steve. Betsy thank you for continuing this important dialogue. I wonder where are those other family members that I know support gun control? - Come and support your sister.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection,... but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon 9:31
Re: Gun Control
Pacifists to the rescue!
Useful is the onion, a finer news source than Fox News.
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way- ... this-36131
The same uncle who says "we are the government" said to his mother something that stuck with me.
My grandma really wanted to see church history sites. She was yearning. My uncle was trying to convince her to go. She ended up coming up with a few silly reasons and finished with, "well, once I'm in the spirit world I will travel all I want."
"But mom, what if you can't?!"
The lesson was to live now. Don't hold back a reasonable experience now because of faith in eventual transcendence. I can't believe there is argument that death isn't the worst that could happen. That death isn't the worst that could happen is a technical issue at best. Death by murder is pure tragedy. Humans should do all they can to prevent death by murder. It also effects those of us who are still here. Those who loose their children, or who have to watch a man in black waltz in with a military style automatic assault rifle do his sin suffer for a lifetime. Hope for the spirit world and the celestial kingdom should not change our will to preserve the already short time we have in this life. I wish my grandma would have made it to New York and Israel.
as the token grey area guy I think the path to unbridled socialism should at least start with plans and actions for how to make our country a safer place. Should guns be like cars? Should we limit the types of guns available for purchase? My uncle owns a powerful auto shotgun which I was able use on some clay pigeons. It can be fired multiple times without cocking so it fires fast like a hand gun. I was overwhelmed by the power in my hands as I obliterated a clay pigeon (after having missed it the first few shots). What not instant background checks and psych evaluations? Registrations? Like with cars?
Also, if we haven't got unbridled socialism yet thengovernment should work for us, not for special interests like the national rifle association. The NRAs bribing power is a problem.
Through the mud of my feely stories the point is we need to do something and fast or the onion headline wins.
Useful is the onion, a finer news source than Fox News.
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way- ... this-36131
The same uncle who says "we are the government" said to his mother something that stuck with me.
My grandma really wanted to see church history sites. She was yearning. My uncle was trying to convince her to go. She ended up coming up with a few silly reasons and finished with, "well, once I'm in the spirit world I will travel all I want."
"But mom, what if you can't?!"
The lesson was to live now. Don't hold back a reasonable experience now because of faith in eventual transcendence. I can't believe there is argument that death isn't the worst that could happen. That death isn't the worst that could happen is a technical issue at best. Death by murder is pure tragedy. Humans should do all they can to prevent death by murder. It also effects those of us who are still here. Those who loose their children, or who have to watch a man in black waltz in with a military style automatic assault rifle do his sin suffer for a lifetime. Hope for the spirit world and the celestial kingdom should not change our will to preserve the already short time we have in this life. I wish my grandma would have made it to New York and Israel.
as the token grey area guy I think the path to unbridled socialism should at least start with plans and actions for how to make our country a safer place. Should guns be like cars? Should we limit the types of guns available for purchase? My uncle owns a powerful auto shotgun which I was able use on some clay pigeons. It can be fired multiple times without cocking so it fires fast like a hand gun. I was overwhelmed by the power in my hands as I obliterated a clay pigeon (after having missed it the first few shots). What not instant background checks and psych evaluations? Registrations? Like with cars?
Also, if we haven't got unbridled socialism yet thengovernment should work for us, not for special interests like the national rifle association. The NRAs bribing power is a problem.
Through the mud of my feely stories the point is we need to do something and fast or the onion headline wins.
Re: Gun Control
too bad we live in the united states. betsy and james have great ideas, but many of them can’t be implemented in our country.
let’s look at the second amendment. these are the words:
the first part describes the purpose of the amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
the second part describes what the amendment is designed to do: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
the first part does not limit or expand the second part. the first part is about a militia. the second part is about the people. read the words carefully. the second part does not state, “the right of the militia…,” but rather, “the right of the people…”
who has the right to keep and bear arms? the people have the right. who are the people? we are the people. who grants the right? the government does not grant the right. the constitution does not grant the right. the constitution simply prevents the government from infringing the right. the right does not depend on the government or on the constitution for its existence.
we have the right to keep arms. that means that we have the right to own guns. we have the right to bear arms. that means that we have the right to carry guns.
betsy wrote that “there is a distinction between a militiaman and an ordinary citizen.” maybe you’re confusing the word “militia” with “military.” a militia is a group of able-bodied men. that’s all it means. by definition, militiamen are ordinary citizens.
militiamen are able-bodied, ordinary citizens who may be called upon to act together for the common defense. defense against what? defense against foreign invaders, and defense against tyranny.
a militia is the stated purpose of the second amendment. however, a militia is not the only reason for the right to bear and keep arms. remember, the constitution does not grant the right. it simply prevents the government from infringing the right.
who grants the right to keep and bear arms? God grants the right. what is the reason for the right? the reason is simple. we learn it in the book of mormon. the nephites “were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary.”
remember the title of liberty: “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”
moroni was not a pacifist. he fought, and he killed when necessary, and “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”
let’s look at the second amendment. these are the words:
the second amendment is divided into two parts.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the first part describes the purpose of the amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
the second part describes what the amendment is designed to do: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
the first part does not limit or expand the second part. the first part is about a militia. the second part is about the people. read the words carefully. the second part does not state, “the right of the militia…,” but rather, “the right of the people…”
who has the right to keep and bear arms? the people have the right. who are the people? we are the people. who grants the right? the government does not grant the right. the constitution does not grant the right. the constitution simply prevents the government from infringing the right. the right does not depend on the government or on the constitution for its existence.
we have the right to keep arms. that means that we have the right to own guns. we have the right to bear arms. that means that we have the right to carry guns.
betsy wrote that “there is a distinction between a militiaman and an ordinary citizen.” maybe you’re confusing the word “militia” with “military.” a militia is a group of able-bodied men. that’s all it means. by definition, militiamen are ordinary citizens.
militiamen are able-bodied, ordinary citizens who may be called upon to act together for the common defense. defense against what? defense against foreign invaders, and defense against tyranny.
a militia is the stated purpose of the second amendment. however, a militia is not the only reason for the right to bear and keep arms. remember, the constitution does not grant the right. it simply prevents the government from infringing the right.
who grants the right to keep and bear arms? God grants the right. what is the reason for the right? the reason is simple. we learn it in the book of mormon. the nephites “were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary.”
remember the title of liberty: “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”
moroni was not a pacifist. he fought, and he killed when necessary, and “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Gun Control
Ian's is one interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There are several supreme court justices that do not agree with him. That said, sadly, the most recent majority rule on guns has ruled that that amendment applies to individuals (I believe), but this opinion can certainly change (and hopefully will). The language of the 2nd amendment is not clear and has been debated for over 200 years.
And the constitution has been amended a few times. It is not an unchangeable document. So if we must, let's amend it! Let's ban firearms for individual use (or at least severely limit, like in Germany). What will it take to get to that point? A school shooting every month? Every week? Every day? Fifty-thousand gun deaths a year? One-hundred thousand? One million? How many lives will be ended before we wake up and realize how stupid we are being? Will it get to the point where I have to wrap my daughter in Kevlar just to go to school? Guns are extremely dangerous weapons--much more dangerous and lethal than when the founding fathers were alive. There is no logical, ethical, moral or religious reason why we need to have so many dangerous weapons at our fingertips. This is insane.
It is insane that we allow our government to ban this:
because it is too dangerous, but not this:
People kill themselves and others with guns. Having guns more available means more deaths by suicide, by homicide and by accident. The literature on suicide is extremely clear about this and has been replicated many times over. There is also strong epidemiological evidence on homicide as well. Guns are killing machines with one major purpose only--to inflict grave harm or kill.
And another point, I am assuming that we all agree that the government should be able to limit access to weapons. Or are you saying we should be able to buy nuclear weapons, concentrate ricin from castor beans, grow anthrax, produce mustard gas, have cruise missiles in our back yards, or have 50 caliber machine guns mounted to our roofs? I am guessing not. If we can limit the ability to make pipe bombs (which are also arms), then why not severely limit the ability of all of us to buy these killing machines. We are already limiting many weapons, let's limit more. Let's get guns off the streets, out of our homes, out of the hands of people who use them to kill.
I am actually quite libertarian about many issues. But this is a public health issue. Children are dying. Mentally ill people are dying. Innocent men and women are dying. We have already allowed far too many people to die because of our obsession with guns. It is time we start valuing human life more than a backwards belief in a "God-given" right to have a killing machine strapped to our hip at all times.
And the constitution has been amended a few times. It is not an unchangeable document. So if we must, let's amend it! Let's ban firearms for individual use (or at least severely limit, like in Germany). What will it take to get to that point? A school shooting every month? Every week? Every day? Fifty-thousand gun deaths a year? One-hundred thousand? One million? How many lives will be ended before we wake up and realize how stupid we are being? Will it get to the point where I have to wrap my daughter in Kevlar just to go to school? Guns are extremely dangerous weapons--much more dangerous and lethal than when the founding fathers were alive. There is no logical, ethical, moral or religious reason why we need to have so many dangerous weapons at our fingertips. This is insane.
It is insane that we allow our government to ban this:
because it is too dangerous, but not this:
People kill themselves and others with guns. Having guns more available means more deaths by suicide, by homicide and by accident. The literature on suicide is extremely clear about this and has been replicated many times over. There is also strong epidemiological evidence on homicide as well. Guns are killing machines with one major purpose only--to inflict grave harm or kill.
And another point, I am assuming that we all agree that the government should be able to limit access to weapons. Or are you saying we should be able to buy nuclear weapons, concentrate ricin from castor beans, grow anthrax, produce mustard gas, have cruise missiles in our back yards, or have 50 caliber machine guns mounted to our roofs? I am guessing not. If we can limit the ability to make pipe bombs (which are also arms), then why not severely limit the ability of all of us to buy these killing machines. We are already limiting many weapons, let's limit more. Let's get guns off the streets, out of our homes, out of the hands of people who use them to kill.
I am actually quite libertarian about many issues. But this is a public health issue. Children are dying. Mentally ill people are dying. Innocent men and women are dying. We have already allowed far too many people to die because of our obsession with guns. It is time we start valuing human life more than a backwards belief in a "God-given" right to have a killing machine strapped to our hip at all times.
Re: Gun Control
"Oh, the humanity!" Is not a cliche phrase here.
Re: Gun Control
betsy wrote:But please understand, that I understand, that crime, and criminals, no matter what we do, WILL NEVER GO AWAY.
"When the world goes dark, and violence grips the land, when invaders attack, who will lend a hand?"
"Captain Pacifist to the rescue!!!"James wrote:Pacifists to the rescue!
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: Gun Control
I am surprised that you guys believe that death is the worst thing that could happen. That makes me more sad than death does.James: I can't believe there is argument that death isn't the worst that could happen.
I think many of the things we thought were important in this life won't be all that important in the next stage.James: I wish my grandma would have made it to New York and Israel.
If you'd like to talk about corruption in government, by all means! But let's not forget that it is your government that is receiving and accepting those alleged bribes. I think this topic may be best reserved for another thread, though.James:The NRAs bribing power is a problem.
Again, I ask: If guns are such a critical issue, why have the prophets not been speaking out against them? They speak out on moral issues. Several participants in this thread believe that guns are directly tied to morality. Why do the prophets not call upon the members to support legislation to ban guns? Why, instead, do they keep talking about families, personal righteousness, the Sabbath, temple attendance, etc.? Surely guns would be all over the Ensign if they are as serious a concern as you insist them to be.
I propose, yet again, that guns are not the problem. I close with Elder Neal A. Maxwell.
Should some among the human family quickly and sincerely promote unilateral pacifism? Even if it appears unlikely to become universal?
In any event, would this be a pacifism without an accompanying righteousness? The contagious pacifism of which we read in the scriptures describes those who would not make war, even in self-defense, but instead trusted in the blessings of God (see Alma 24:17-27). Can we recommend unconditional pacifism or unilateral disarmament for any people who are not otherwise righteous and therefore are unable to rely on the Lord to bless them? Would the citizens of Sodom have been spared if they had been pacifists but otherwise unrighteous? Or does unilateral disarmament constitute undue reliance upon the arm of flesh and natural man?
...
Moreover, is it intellectually honest for some to extract and to invoke certain anticipatory and prophetic language from the scriptures, such as that from the Old Testament about beating our "swords into plowshares" and "spears into pruninghooks" (Isaiah 2:4), without noting how that condition is to be achieved? For it will happen with the coming of the Messiah. These promises rest on specific premises. They will occur in a setting in which the Messiah, Jesus Christ, will usher in a millennial reign during which there will be worldwide peace.
Furthermore, if the United Nations diagnosis of 1945 is correct and war begins in the hearts and minds of men, how hopeful for the future can we be if more and more families are failing and if our educational systems are too often bereft of moral content? These two are mainstay institutions which profoundly shape the hearts and minds of men.
Poverty and conspiracy combine to create more terrorists each year than we can produce peacemakers in a generation.
...
Can there, in fact, be peace in the world if there is not peace in our homes as well as in our hearts? Can we, in fact, really expect to have peace in the world if the civil wars raging inside so many individuals do not subside? Or, if there is rampant and desensitizing sexual immorality, adultery, and all things "like unto it" tearing at the fabric of individual souls and families? Or, just when we especially need mortal minds at their best in order to deal with complexity, if enslaving and desensitizing drugs are more and more pervasive?
The vices of humanity are far more interactive than many people realize. In the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah there was rampant sexual immorality; there was also inordinate pride, idleness, and a neglect of the poor and the needy. (Ezekiel 16:48-50.) A haughty attitude towards God (who had given strict counsel on the need to care for the poor) led to the neglect of the poor and the needy. This is something those who would focus all of their attention on poverty, without any concern for adultery and homosexuality—and vice versa—would do well to ponder upon.
But some will quickly say that the requirements of generalized righteousness are too exacting and too unmanageable for mankind and, therefore, if we rely upon this ultimate solution, then nuclear war is inevitable. Something else, they say, must be done, even if the solution is secular. It is hoped for by many that treaties, for instance, may be negotiated which will rest upon shared fear; treaties which are verifiable, even if nations do not care for or trust each other.
...
James summed it up well:
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. (James 4:1-2.)
Thus true peace is tied to human righteousness—irrevocably.
(Elder Neal A. Maxwell, "Distress of Nations, With Perplexity")
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Gun Control
May I say again: when you include in the gospel plan of Christ the family, there is nothing else in all the world worth bothering with. Everything else is incidental only. Assume that you become the world leader of Socialism and in it have marked success, but through your devotion to it you fail to live the gospel. Where are you then? Is anything worthwhile which will estrange you from your friends, your Church membership, your family, your eternal promises, your faith? You might say that such estrangement is not necessarily a result of your political views, but truthfully hasn't your overpowering interest in your present views already started driving a wedge?
...
Whether from inadvertence, ignorance, or other causes, the efforts governments often make (ostensibly to help the family) sometimes only hurt the family more. There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence. The more governments try in vain to take the place of the family, the less effective governments will be in performing the traditional and basic roles for which governments are formed in the first place.
(President Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Ch. 16)
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests