Gun Control

[Betsy]

Oh, no, not at all, I would have told you if I were to do that! I ain't no dummy.

[Steve]

Oh, not that I mind! I wouldn't post here if I minded others reading it...YahooBot and GoogleBot are always visiting this forum—what I say on here can be read by just about anyone. I just asked the question to show that I knew you were in a persuasive writing class! haha

[Betsy]

Yes, can't you tell just how persuasive my writing is??

[Steve]

Oh indeed, almost thou persuadest me to be a gun opponent.

[Betsy]

"With God I can move mountains" - Somebody

[John]

Betsy said:

A militiaman's job is to protect the state (or country) from foreign attacks or to fight in war. My mind is boggled when people take that to mean every citizen in the united states needs to be carrying a gun.

Actually I only take that to mean that every citizen HAS THE RIGHT to own a gun. I am not advocating that they SHOULD own one, nor that they need to be carrying it.

also:

based on your argument against gun control, you'd also probably have to say that they shouldn't be involved in banning drugs either.

There is no provision in the constitution that I know of that bans the banning of illicit drug trafficking between the states. I do feel that the FEDERAL government may be overstepping regulatory boundaries even here as well.

They did indeed CHOOSE to do away with their weapons! That is exactly what we would be doing if we voted to enact gun laws.

Actually that is NOT what we would be doing. We would be compelling people who disagree with us to comply with such a law. The A-N-L's voluntarily chose their covenant. They were not compelled by an enacted law and law enforcement officers to make the covenant.

"It's getting worse. Why? Because we keep thinking MORE GUNS MORE GUNS."

I don't think that this is why it's getting worse. I think it's getting worse because it's getting worse.

The Prophet is not going to dictate to us how to vote.

no argument

In the past, monarchies and aristocracies theocracies tried to make their societies work, by appealing to diety as the ruling power. The genius of our current system of government is that it is represented by the people, for the people.

The genius of our founders who wrote the constitution is that they firmly acknowledged the hand of God moving them in the formation of a system of government that would preserve that acknowledgement. We are living in a time when designing and corrupt persons are systematically striving to excoriate that acknowedgement. History tells us what can happen when a people turn their back and thumb their nose at God. I'm not speaking of mythological gods, but of the true and living one. Or do we really know Him to be true and living?

[Ian]

“sophomoric,” by any definition, seems appropriate; by oxford’s definition (“pretentious or juvenile”), evidenced by the tone of betsy’s response to her father; by collins’ definition (“of or relating to a person who is overconfident with his or her knowledge despite being uninformed”), evidenced by betsy’s statements thus far regarding gun policy; or by webster’s definition (“conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature”), which effectively combines the other two definitions.

i appreciate betsy’s comments. you opened my mind to some new ideas. i can imagine the government enacting a total gun ban. i imagine millions of good, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens, mournfully but dutifully handing their guns over to the government. i imagine the smiling faces of wimps and hipsters, filled with feelings of contentment and security for having finally brought some measure of peace to the land, and an end to the senseless killing. i imagine the smiling faces of criminals and gangsters, predictably choosing not to comply with the newly-enacted gun laws. their smiles turn to laughter, as the government announces a large-scale, sweeping gun buy back. what a sight to behold. all the criminals and gangsters gathered around the police stations, hanging out with police officers, laughing, having a good time. the criminals with bags full of cheap old guns, the police officers with bags full of money. after the festivities are done, having bid farewell to the police officers, the criminals travel home cheerfully, with money in their pockets, which money they can use to upgrade to better, newer guns, sold by other criminals, who also choose not to comply with the newly-enacted gun laws. this is the dawn of a new, safer world. this is our new society, a society in which only two groups of people possess guns: the government, and the criminals.

[John]

It is interesting you brought up the story of of the anti-nephi-lehis, because that story actually really helps my point. They did indeed CHOOSE to do away with their weapons! That is exactly what we would be doing if we voted to enact gun laws.

We might want to remember the rest of the story. Their lives were saved by their noble sons who went armed to battle to protect and defend them.

[Edward]

My brother is a visionary man ...

I have to say, up until just a few months ago I was a complete believer in everything Betsy said. In fact my heart still wants to incline in that direction. I hate guns. I never want to lay so much as a finger on one in my life if I can help it. They terrify me and they are a bane to our society

HOWEVER. There is another, larger issue that Ian forced me to acknowledge, and that is composed of two essential part.

1. The people of the United States MUST be allowed the right to protective weaponry in the name of national security and essential human freedom. We are blessed to live in an age when
Our country has been free from foreign invasion or terrorist takeovers. But for how long? If the day should ever come that we find this land under attack, iur nation, unlike any other, will have a citizenry with enough firepower to arm every man, woman and child. THAT is the first great reason the founding fathers made this the SECOND amendment - it is ultimately the sacred right of the Americsn people to be prepared against the host of evils and terrors that could someday threaten it. That right will be abused; it will be mocked; it will
destroy, it will corrupt. But those are the exceptions, and should the time come when this people is required to defend their homes, their freedoms, or even their very lives, this people will have the means to defend themselves against those evils.

[Edward]

2. Yes, I do feel the government has the right to deprive individuals of the right to bear arms. I do believe it can tighten the qualifications required to obtain and use a firearm. But that is the extent of its power; it cannot utterly deprive the nation as a whole from owning weapons. Ultimately it is an issue of property. One of the most important rights of the American citizen is the right to own property without fear of the government seizing it unlawfully. This must extend to defensive property as well; the government has no right to TAKE the guns that people lawfully own now. Even if you could totally stop gun production from here to eternity, that would never give you the right to take the guns people already own. That is their property, and the right to preserve it is so dacred that the original wording was "life, liberty, and property," not the pursuit of happiness.

You can control how people get guns, you can take them from those who UNlawfully abuse them, but you just can't tread on the right to own and keep them. That deprives them of their FREEDOM, and nothing is more sacred to this nation than that.

[Betsy]

Anyone else got any ad hominem attacks for me? No? Just for all your future reference- The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someones case without actually having to engage with it.

Actually, it is gratifying to see that response from Ian, because it shows that I actually challenged your intellect to the degree that you resorted to such a measure!

I am hearing the same arguments, just phrased differently. Gun control doesn't work, it will never work,(we know this because of all the times we have tried this before, right? wait..) uh, gun control would mean doing away with national defense (?That's a new one). I have already made my arguments against these, so you can refer back to my last post.

My favorite one though, is "Gun control won't work because it won't stop all the crime!"

Thank you for illuminating the most illogical of all the illogical arguments in this whole debate! Gosh darn it, how am I ever going to get all those criminals to stop being so criminally? I guess if we made it a law to not be a criminal, that should just about do it! Oh, they're still being bad, oh no...


I can imagine us all, after (hypothetically) a gun ban went through, asking each other, "was this all really worth it, just to not get shot in the face?"

[Steve]

Betsy: Second, we need to understand that what the founding fathers meant here, was that there needed to be armed MILITIAS. There is a distinction between a militiaman and an ordinary citizen. A militiaman's job is to protect the state (or country) from foreign attacks or to fight in war. My mind is boggled when people take that to mean every citizen in the united states needs to be carrying a gun.

In 2008, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in District of Columbia v. Heller and the majority determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to "keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense." It may be boggling, but at least those who interpret it in that boggling manner have support for that opinion.

I already mentioned the banning drugs issue in my original post that you attempted to address. Though guns may be used in self-defense, drugs don't provide the similar benefit for their possessors. There were 455,000 emergency room visits associated with cannabis use in 2011 alone. The constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to bear marijuana.

The seat belt argument is also strange to me. I would say the seat belt laws are more akin to laws that regulate how guns are safely stored or something like that. Seat belt laws do not ban the use of a car. They merely support its safe use. I haven't thought much about this one, but that's my initial impression of bringing up something like that in this discussion.

Betsy: You guys, America has a problem. It is not hard to see this. It's getting worse. Why? Because we keep thinking MORE GUNS MORE GUNS.

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?

Betsy: And no, this is not God's plan. I have faith in God, but not in people.

What, exactly, do you believe a government is? What does it consist of? You say you do not have faith in people, that they cannot be trusted with guns. What can they be trusted with? Can they be trusted with procreative powers? Can they be trusted with automobiles? Can they be trusted with money? Can they be trusted with a military at their command?

Betsy: The article of faith does not say "We believe the constitution to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly"

No, but we are told that the Constitution is divinely inspired. I have yet to hear that "a ban on guns" is divinely inspired.

Betsy: Government taking away one property right does not automatically mean they will take away other rights.

2 Nephi 26:22 - "...yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever." How do you know this, Betsy? When a government (that really is just a bunch of "weak people" like you and me) goes and takes away from you and me, why doesn't that suggest that they could do it again?

Betsy: I believe the Lord has already spoken out against guns, in that same Anti-nephi-lehi scripture example.

Again, these were murderers burying their weapons (Alma 24:9 - "And behold, I also thank my God, that by opening this correspondence we have been convinced of our sins, and of the many murders which we have committed.") If you found yourself killing innocent people every time you held a gun, I'd hope you'd bury it too. (Mark 9:43 - "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.") If you can convince the murderers to turn in their guns, I have no problem with your proposal.

Again, my position remains that this is simply not a prophetic priority. "Not killing" is a prophetic priority. But taking away trying to take away everyone's firearms just seems like we're chasing something to distract good people of energetic drive from pursuing the important issues. Parenting would reduce the number of deaths far more than would trying to remove guns. Perhaps the government should utilize a "child buy-back program" to reduce violence.

[Tuly]

I promised I would not leave in a disruptive manner. Again I thank you Betsy for starting this thread and again I am against gun control.

[Edward]

I am hearing the same arguments, just phrased differently. Gun control doesn't work, it will never work,(we know this because of all the times we have tried this before, right? wait..) uh, gun control would mean doing away with national defense (?That's a new one). I have already made my arguments against these, so you can refer back to my last post.

My favorite one though, is "Gun control won't work because it won't stop all the crime

But Betsy, you are saying the same thing over and over too. You keep pointing out logical flaws and showing your fancy new terminology, but explain then how gun control can be successfully implemented:

1. Successfully
2. Without infringing on the right to own and keep property
3. In a way that will prevent a black market boom on firearms
4. With an alternative solution for people to possess defensive capacity
5. So that crime will actually decrease instead of simply resorting to other alternatives to fuction

I want to stress an important point from an example used earlier from The Book of Mormon. The People of Ammon had buried their weapons of war after their conversion as a covenant never to indulge in violence of any kind ever again. It is essential to remember what they were like in their wickedness. They were thieves, raiders, murderers. They would be the ones killing people in public places, committing hate crimes, slaughtering innocent people because they were different than they. They were grated repentance on the condition that they surrender the right to bear arms ever again. So true were they to this ban that when they were themselves victims of slaughter, then would rather kneel in penitence and prayer rather than defend themselves. They did indeed exemplify non-violence, even, if you will, 'gun control' (or sword control, if you will). They were, however, an exception.

It is clear that the terms of their repentance did NOT demand a pacifist political view, nor that they preach the wickedness of weapons or the ban of all arms in the land. They were in fact grateful for Nephite protection and indeed were so thankful that they came near to losing their souls in a desire to help the Nephites fight. They actually came close to taking up their arms to help their bretheren, but the terms of their penitence could not allow it. When it was clear they could not do this thing, their sons then offered themselves - to FIGHT - on behalf of their fathers. Realize they had not been indoctrinated in the morality of weapons bans or some idealistic pacifism. They were in fact encouraged to do this by their parents, who understood that we must all fight for our liberties when required, even if they themselves were a special exception.

But the Nephite army was spread thin; they could not equip 2060 men so quickly. So what did they do? They dug up the weapons their fathers had buried. This is essential to consider. Surrendering their weapons was a sign that the Anti-Nephi-Lehis would never again engage in bloodshed. But only a generation later, those very weapons were the means by which thousands of lives were saved - by their children. Had they not been there buried in the earth, the 2060 stripling sons could never have moved into battle as quickly as they did. And note that their fathers and mothers were thankful. They did not rally to keep their arms locked away forever, they did not demand that all Nephites give up their swords and slings and arrows. They supported everything done to protect their lives and their freedoms. And because they were willing to make their arms available, countless lives were saved by those remarkable young men, who were such a massive blessing to the Nephite cause, in part because they were equipped and ready to fight almost immediately. They fought with clear consciences, with the very swords their parents had used to murder and destroy a generation ago.

Because it was never about the weapons.

I notice you seem to display little faith in humanity. Justly so perhaps, but gun control, frankly, isn't about crime. Crime will happen no matter what; gun control is totally unrelated to crime. Prohibition did nothing to stop alcohol in America; gun control would be just as unsuccessful. Forget about crime. This is about individual freedoms.

You want guns banned, or contained, or whatever - you have never been clear on the mechanics of this kind of mass-scale effort. Okay. So on what legal grounds would the government demand that people give up their property? How will the power they assume in effecting this collection of property be prevented, totally, from extending to other possession of the people? Who will have the authority to enact these laws? How will this happen, and where will the guns go? Who can have guns?

You say National Defense is a new argument to you; good. So how do you resolve the right of the people to have arms for when emergencies truly come? Would our 2060 stripling sons have weapons in store for the day they are called to defend their families and freedoms and religion? This is not about stopping crime. It's about controlling the people, which the government cannot be allowed to do. WE control the government, and we have the right to defend ourselves, even from IT if we must.

I wish I could support gun control. My heart feels it is the just thing to do. But it is not the RIGHT thing to do. There is a bigger picture than crime. Those who look at gun control as merely a band-aid to prevent violence are failing to see the fundamental issues that REALLY matter. Until those basic human rights can be preserved along with these "controls," I cannot see how it could possibly function.

[Betsy]

Perhaps the government should utilize a "child" buy-back program to reduce violence