In DAC 98:2, the Lord states the following:
and now | verily | i say unto you |
concerning the laws of the land |
it is my will | that my people should observe to do all things | whatsoever i command them |
and that law of the land | which is constitutional | supporting that principle of freedom | in maintaining rights and privileges | belongs to all mankind | and is justifiable before me | therefore | i | the lord | justify you | and your brethren of my church | in befriending that law | which is the constitutional law of the land |
and as pertaining to law of man |
The constitutional law of the land which supports that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges is known to us as the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. (For more information, see What the Lord has said about the Constitution and also Talking to myself.) The Bill of Rights, according to the Lord’s own words, is “justifiable before [Him]” and He justifies the church brethren “in befriending that law”.
Justifiable and justified = no sin
The word justifiable means “capable of being justified, or shown to be just.” To justify means “to pronounce free from guilt or blame.” Someone or something that is justified, then, is guiltless or blameless. While I’m at it, I might as well define befriend, which means “to act as a friend to; to favor; to aid, benefit or countenance.”
The Second Amendment reads as follows:
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.
There are two assertions made in the text itself: 1) that people have the right to keep and bear arms and 2) that this right shall not be infringed. These assertions are justifiable (shown to be just) before the Lord. Also, the Lord justifies (pronounces free from guilt or blame) anyone who is a friend to, favors, or aids BOTH assertions.
Unjustifiable and unjustified = sin
The Lord also stated that “whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.” By this we know that any of the following assertions MUST, of necessity, be unjustifiable before the Lord:
The people do not have a right to keep and bear arms. (Unjustifiable)
The people have a right to keep arms, but not bear arms. (Unjustifiable)
The people have a right to bear arms, but not keep arms. (Unjustifiable)
Keeping and bearing arms are privileges, bestowed by the government through licensing, which may be revoked at any time. (Unjustifiable)
There is nothing wrong with infringing on people’s right to keep and bear arms. (Unjustifiable)
And so on and so forth. Such assertions are all unjustifiable before the Lord. Additionally, the Lord DOES NOT justify anyone who is an enemy to, does not favor, or provides no aid to BOTH of the Second Amendment’s assertions. Such people who fight this right, promoting against it, are UNJUSTIFIED, meaning that they are in a SINFUL state.
Servants of sin
All those who seek to infringe upon this right, in any degree whatsoever, through whatever means used—whether by forcefully getting the populace disarmed through gun control legislation, or through the repeal of the Second Amendment, or by nullifying the amendment through deliberate misinterpretation, or by spreading lies and deceitful propaganda against it—are the servants of sin.
Misunderstandings everywhere
We see by the above that latter-day saints have been given the charge, by the Lord, to befriend the Second Amendment, otherwise, they will remain unjustified before Him. There is a lot of false propaganda going about, both from within and without the church, concerning the Second Amendment and it appears that many people are confused over what this right is for. So, I will attempt to lay it out for the reader, in the hope that once we understand its purpose, no latter-day saint will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument. But before I begin, I want to stress that for latter-day saints, the Second Amendment IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. This is a matter of salvation, or of remaining justified (blameless) before the Lord. All those who wish to retain a remission of their sins, then, must befriend this amendment. With that said, let’s take another look.
What this right is for
Here is the text of the amendment again:
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 following definitions come from the 1913 Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language:
regulate : To make regular.
regular (a.) : 6. Mil. a. Designating, or pertaining to, the regular army (see below) of a state: as, a regular soldier.
regular army, Mil. The permanently organized body constituting the army of a state, often identical with the standing army. Cf. REGULAR, a., 6
militia : 3. A body of citizens enrolled as a regular military force for periodic instruction, discipline, and drill, but not called into active service except in emergencies.
keep : 6. To retain in one’s power and possession.
bear : 1. To support and move; to carry; to convey. 4. To manage, wield or direct. 5. To possess and use, as a function or power; to exercise. 6. To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; to show, esp. as a characteristic feature; as, to bear a sword, badge, name.
to bear arms, To serve as a soldier.
infringe, v.i. : To encroach; to trespass.
In other words, the intention was to make the entire citizenry of the United States regular, or permanently organized as constituting the regular army of the state—to be called into voluntary, active service only in emergencies, namely, when there were threats, both foreign and domestic, to the security of American freedoms—by not infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
The American people are the people’s army
To be even clearer in writing, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically for warfare. It was codified to make sure that the American people, being armed, could wage warfare against any enemy that threatened any of their rights, whether that enemy was foreign or domestic. The call to warfare would not come from the government, for the government could not call civilians, or forcefully enroll civilians, into the government army, but would come from the people themselves when they saw their rights being threatened.
This right would serve as a protection of all the other rights that the Americans have, and as a deterrent to tyranny, whether that came from the domestic (American) governments, foreign governments, or non-governmental tyranny. The American people themselves are both the first army—or people’s army, whose sole purpose is to protect the people in their rights—they being the army that preceded the governmental armies (which protect the privileges of the government), and also the army of last resort, so that when all else fails in stopping tyranny through peaceful means, the people’s army can be called upon to save the day.
What this right is NOT for
The Second Amendment is NOT the right of self defense. That’s separate. Everyone has the right to self defense. You can defend yourself with anything that happens to be at your disposal: your hands, a rock, a stick, whatever. It also is not a right to hunt. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with hunting. It doesn’t have anything to do with collecting guns, or the sport of marksmanship, or any other past time that uses guns.
Its sole purpose is to prohibit gun control, so that Americans (the people’s army) can remain armed, to form themselves into their own little or big companies (militias), separate from the government, to fight tyranny wherever they see fit, even if that tyranny is from the government itself.
A list of reasons
Here’s a list of reasons for why the early Americans wanted this right protected.
Training expense reduced
Warfare is expensive and training soldiers is a costly, time-consuming affair. Since every citizen had the right to possess, carry and use weapons, if left un-infringed this right would guarantee that the entire population would be armed to the teeth and knowledgeable and skilled in all forms of weaponry. By having the citizenry already trained in arms, this would cut down training costs substantially, when it came time for the creation of a war-time government army.
Originally, the United States Congress didn’t have a perpetually enrolled military which was called into continually active service. It had to authorize a direct tax (by apportionment) to organize an army for a certain length of time, depending upon the war circumstances, and then enroll the already trained American citizenry, which already knew how to use weapons and already possessed weapons, into active service on a voluntary basis.
Voluntary enrollment
The voluntary nature of military service would regulate the justness of the war, for if a war were not just, no one would volunteer for it, except those who themselves were not just (mercenaries), or those who were deceived by war-time propaganda (lies). Wars of aggression, then, would not be waged by a just population, since they would not volunteer, whereas defensive wars would see large numbers of recruits and volunteers. This would serve as a constraint upon the government, keeping unjust government men from consolidating their power by waging unjust wars.
A check and balance to tyranny
The armed citizenry would serve as a check and a balance to the Congress, President, Justices and all other government levels, making sure that nobody tried to tyrannize the people by creating a large, very well armed, perpetually standing government army that could strong arm an unarmed populace into compliance and submission with unjust laws and edicts. An armed populace serves as a deterrent to would-be dictators and dictatorial oligarchies.
Direct and indirect tax limitations
Government armies are expensive to maintain, and taxes were hard to come by, for originally, taxes for armies had to come via direct taxation, which was a very difficult thing to do. The other type of tax, called indirect taxes, such as excise taxes, were hit and miss in bringing in revenue, depending on the economy and the amount of trade, whereas direct taxes, when collected, obtained a very specific amount of revenue. Therefore, direct taxation was the only practical way to support an army, nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution required apportionment when collecting direct taxes, which was intentionally difficult to do. In this way, direct taxation, which was vexatious to everyone, would serve as a constraint to the growth of the government and its army. It would be used only when it was absolutely necessary to obtain these funds. For all other government purposes, excise taxes, or indirect taxes, would be used. This would keep government nice and small, or growing in proportion to the growth of the population and economy.
Tax corruption, which lead to mercenaries
With the advent of the income tax, which is a direct tax on the people interpreted by the Supreme Court as an indirect tax, thus not needing to be collected through the difficult process of apportionment, Congress suddenly had access to an easy way of obtaining unlimited revenue, allowing for the creation of a perpetual, standing government army. This corruption of the tax laws, through the corrupt interpretation of the Supreme Court, allowed for the rapid creation of very big government and a very powerful army, opening the way for the creation of a police state, for when there is money for the creation of an armed executive branch, mercenaries—who wage war or engage in enforcement for money, regardless of the justifications, or lack thereof, involved—will be drawn to enroll.
The current state of affairs
Now we have a situation in which a bloated central government, with large coffers of stolen tax and fiat money, has created a perpetual, standing government army, and other police state forces, all armed to the teeth, with no monetary or volunteerism constraints for waging foreign or domestic wars. Decades of corrupt Congresses has created decades of corrupt laws, all of them concentrating power in the Executive branch of the central government, paving the way for the emergence of a dictator. Mercenaries abound in the land, eager to join the military or police forces. The laws continue to be corrupted, whittling away at all the other Bill of Rights amendments, encroaching everywhere they can.
There is only one thing, and one thing only, that keeps the would-be dictators from seizing complete, totalitarian control of the American people: the Second Amendment.
A bloodbath to exceed the Civil War (or War Between the States)
Everyone is well aware of the history of the French Revolution, none more so than those who conspire to overthrow our freedoms, enslave us and destroy us. (See Ether 8:25.) How did the French react to the aristocracy that they felt were the cause of their woes? By beheading every last one of them they could get their hands on. When people are enraged with their government, to the point that they take up arms against them, the only appeasement they get is from spilled blood, from the ones they label as tyrants.
The U.S. armed forces is, indeed, mighty. I am including every government official, not just the military but also the police and other agencies, as “armed forces.” Yes, they are trained. Yes, they are armed. But when facing 380 million people, a large part of which is also armed, the hundreds of thousands on the government payroll pale into insignificance.
None of the would be dictators want to attempt to enslave the American people through the use of arms, meaning through the armed forces, because it will create another, even greater Civil War, and they know there is the very real possibility of two things: 1) of them losing, and 2) of a portion of the armed forces (who are also American citizens) of defecting to the other side (to the people’s army). They also realize that should they lose such a war, the American people, still enraged, would seek them out and butcher every last one of them, just as the French did.
Thus, with this very real fear in their hearts, those who seek power consolidation and the destruction of the rights of the American people desire to first disarm the public. Once that is accomplished, then, and only then, will they unleash the armed forces on the now unarmed populace.
Deceitful propaganda
All the talk of gun control is not a reaction to the recent events, but is part of the plan to capitalize on every opportunity to disarm the populace. The conspirators do not care about the safety of school children, or the mental health of people. They only care about their agenda and they will use every means necessary to deceive the people into giving up their guns. For example:
To understand why the above video is so hypocritical, see this.
Other voices
These collectivist liars are not the only ones voicing their opinions. Some voices also understand what is at stake, though they may not be familiar with (or believe) the Book of Mormon prophecies regarding this land and the secret combination. For example, the following is from the Lew Rockwell blog :
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one’s right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one’s right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.
The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to do that today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.
The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on.
Here is another voice, in the form of a video:
and also this:
It is wonderful to hear such voices, but extremely embarrassing, for the latter-day saints have been given the commission to befriend the Bill of Rights, yet there is nary a peep from us. Our voices ought to be the loudest of them all. We ought to speak as one in our defense and promotion of the right to keep and bear arms. Our leaders ought to be right now issuing a public statement that we have received such a commission and that the church is strongly in favor of gun rights and strongly opposed to any measure that would infringe on this right. The clarion call ought to be:
NO INFRINGEMENT!
ARM THE PEOPLE’S ARMY!
and other such catchy phrases that people can get behind and promote as a movement to make the American people’s army the deadliest peaceful army on the planet, one that no one in their right mind would mess with or even think of infringing upon.
And yet we either hear nothing but silence, or we hear Mormons arguing amongst themselves, one for total infringement, one for no infringement, and another for partial infringement.
What needs to be done
The latter-day saints need to repent of this sin. We need to learn the word of the Lord concerning this commission and take it very seriously, otherwise, captivity may be our future lot. I speak not of the captivity of the entire nation of Americans—for there are many American who have befriended the Second Amendment, even if they do not understand why it is so important, and these Americans will not be brought down into captivity—but of the Mormon portion of her, of the ones who refuse to take this commission seriously, and also of all those in America who fight against this right. All such must, of necessity, come into captivity, for the Lord’s words have never been retracted, and the law of the harvest applies. If we, and our American brethren, do not embrace and support and promote this right, we will remain guilty (unjustified) before the Lord, and the enslavement that we will end up receiving will be what we deserve.
Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist
48 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
Sorry, I don’t believe the 2nd Amendment, much less the Lord, prohibits reasonable regulations. Or do you feel we should we be able to own .50 calibre, vehicle mounted machine guns? What about tac nukes?
And while it was possible for an armed citizenry to overthrow the government at the time of the Founding, how in the world can the average Joe hope to counter tanks, F16s, Tomahawk missiles, or heaven forbid nuclear weapons?
Concerning the captivity I wrote about above, I am reminded of a couple of scriptures. The first one is found in Daniel 7:21-22. It reads,
The next scripture comes from D&C 103:15-17.
Brother_Anon, I’ve heard that same argument about some regulation being necessary, otherwise, people would have nukes in their back yards. I don’t know too many gun enthusiasts who would love to have a weapon so dangerous that they themselves might be killed by its activation, or innocent others by their lack of training in its use. In other words, just as the U.S. military regulates itself, so would and should the people’s army regulate itself. Private industry cannot be forced to sell weapons to people it thinks are not qualified to operate them, nor can the government be forced to turn over its technological weapon advancements and arsenals to its citizens, so the chance of getting a hold of nukes is slim to none, unless you go through foreign powers and agents. Now, if you are concerned about how very lethal a machine gun or nuke is, and that they do so much destruction and deal so much death, then why is it okay for a government army to possess such weapons, but not for a law-abiding citizen? If it is a matter of training, then if a citizen receives the same training in the proper care and use of the weapon, what’s the beef? But if it is a matter of how lethal it is, then you should be against anyone using it, for governments do not have the constraints that average citizens do in opening fire on people and doing mass killings. Governments are naturally inclined to kill in multiples, indiscriminately, whereas individuals are naturally inclined to kill only the person who threatens them. So, I’m not sure where you are coming from on that, but I understand the fear of a neighbor having a weapon that you feel he is not qualified to use.
On the other set of questions, my mind goes back to Viet Nam, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and other conflicts. If the American people decided to overthrow their government, exactly how would the government pay for its war? Surely, not from the people it is fighting against. Also, what makes you so sure that guerrilla warfare, which worked previously in this land, would not work again? Are you really so confident in military machines that you think that supply lines cannot be sabotaged, or that the terrain in America is easy for a regimented army? My point is, that although you sound sure that the U.S. military might against American people would win, I’m not so sure, even given what they have now. Using more than conventional weaponry would not beat the Americans into submission, but would galvanize them for a really long, protracted fight, don’t you think? You can’t win a war with air power alone, and the air bases are all known. Planes must come down some time and if their bases are on fire, what is there to do? Private industry powers a whole lot of the U.S. military. If private industry is on the side of the so-called rebels, how fast do you think that the military machine will shut down? These, and many other questions must be considered. There is a reason why the laws on the books have not been fully enforced. It is because the people are still armed…and still dangerous.
I’ll add one more thing to consider. Americans (not foreigners) are in the U.S. armed forces, so if the government were to order that its full power be used on its citizens, do you not think that many soldiers would defect to the other side? So all these things must be taken into consideration.
Short of a mass uprising, I feel the government is more than capable of painting whoever is in rebellion as so Evil, most soldiers would follow orders.
In the end however, it’s not guns, or nukes, or tanks that will save or doom us. Or any type of political solution. Instead, the example set by Alma is the only solution. When the Nephite nation was a mess and he was both High Priest and Chief Judge, he didn’t attempt a political/military solution. The only thing that worked then, and the only thing that will work today, is turning hearts to Christ.
i totally agree with that. And what does Christ say? Befriend these laws. This is the very reason why I posted this. If we neglect this duty, of befriending these laws, we will cease to have the protection of Christ.
And I might add:
Latter-day saint protection doesn’t come from guns, but from obeying the Lord. If He hadn’t spoken concerning these things, that would be one thing, but as He has spoken about them, we have a duty to obey. Those who profess to come to Christ, but refuse to obey His words and instructions, well, can we really say that they have come to Christ? King Benjamin’s words come to mind:
A video I just watched about British gun control:
Here’s another good video on world history of gun control and what horrors ensued once the people were disarmed. The following video does have some graphic images, so be forewarned, but its history is important, so that it is not repeated here in this land:
Now, for those who say none of that could happen here, consider this: the horrors that these people did were inspired by the same devil which still inspires men today. Do you really think he won’t tell people under his control to do the same or worse?
I do not know whether this post will generate a lively discussion among latter-day saints, or anyone else who happens to wander in here, but just so that everyone knows my own postion, “shall not be infringed” is the standard that I use. There should be no laws which regulate the sale of firearms, whatsoever. There should be no background check. Yes, you heard that right, NO BACKGROUND CHECK. There should be no waiting period. There should be no recording of names required. There should be no tax collected on guns. Just as churches must not be taxed, as that would regulate one’s right to religious worship, so gun sales should not be taxed. The gun manufacturer, of course, can have safety regulations, as with any manufacturer. But the point of sale, between the seller and the buyer, that should be totally private, off the books, unregulated, inviolate space, un-infringe-able. People ought to be able to obtain whatever weapon they want, whether a handgun or an assault rifle. No requirements for training or anything else should be legislated. If seller wants to sell to only people who are trained, he can require some kind of private training card, or whatever, before he sells a gun to someone, but that is his choice. The law has no business in the exercise of this right.
The law should only poke its head into a person’s life when a person commits a crime. Someone convicted of a crime and incarcerated, may have this right infringed, while they remain incarcerated, but once his or her time in the slammer has been paid, they should have the ability to once again assert their God-given rights, including this one. The government should regulate crime, not how people exercise their rights.
In case someone brings up the mentally ill, or the potentially mentally ill, let me say this: unless a person has committed and been convicted of a crime, and is incarcerated, he or she has a right to go into a gun store and purchase a gun. Why, you ask? Because if you make mental illness as the standard by which you can infringe upon people’s rights to keep and bear arms, then you will find the government diagnosing everyone in the country as “mentally ill” and thus they will confiscate the weapons. It is happening even now. No, “no infringement, whatsoever” MUST be the standard. Anything more or less than this “cometh of evil” or of the evil one, for it is the devil that wants the population disarmed, that those under his power may do his atrocities.
Regarding latter-day saints, in particular, my view is this: that the latter-day saints will be held responsible by the Lord for how they treat His commandments and instructions. If we do not obey this word, concerning this right, and do not raise our voices and unite, as captain Moroni did anciently, under a single “NO INFRINGEMENT” banner, rallying Americans to this cause, if we trample upon His words that are written in D&C 98, WE will be the first Americans to go into captivity. The latter-day saints will be the first Americans enslaved by the secret combination and the last people freed from its power when we repent.
Much encroachment has already been done to this amendment, and much more will be attempted. Latter-day saints need to, as a single voice, say enough is enough and unite to arm the people. In other words, we ought to be actively seeking to educate the population on why this amendment MUST be re-enthroned in the hearts and minds of the people AND ALSO we must be actively engaged in getting everyone armed, by facilitating access to firearms and by arming the people ourselves. Perhaps that means going into the firearm selling business. Perhaps that means establishing firearm charities, in which firearms are GIVEN AWAY. Perhaps that means creating centers where people can be trained in firearm use and safety. Or all of the above, plus whatever else I left out.
The leadership of the church needs to come out, as a group (15 men) in public support for this right, and speak against any encroachment to it, whatsoever. This will, of course, make Mormons a target by those who oppose gun rights. But that is okay, for the Lord will have a tested people, who obey His laws no matter what the environment. (See the Talking to myself post.) By obedience to the Lord, we will obtain His favor, and whatever trial we are put under will be passed under His almighty power.
Again, let me be absolutely clear. My position is this: all those who oppose the Second Amendment, meaning all those who support some measure of infringement, are SINNERS, for they put themselves in opposition to what the Lord has said concerning befriending this “law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights.” None may infringe, or seek to infringe, on the gun rights of people, and remain justified before the Lord. This goes for the peaceniks in the church, as well as the warmongers among us. Anyone who seeks even the least bit of infringement, comes under condemnation, for the Lord does not and “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.”
I realize this is harsh language, but I feel like the latter-day saints have pussy-footed around this issue long enough. It is time for plain language, as we stand on the cusp of another (and perhaps the final) wave of Second Amendment encroachments.
actually with an EMP the playing field between government and guerillas would be levelled almost equally
do you feel that a militia is required to obey the commandment to befriend this law as well? or were the founders speaking of the military? personally, i would rather see my nieghbors arming themselves to defend our neighborhood than soldiers i don’t know trained in ways im not familiar with defending my neighborhood
Dallon, an EMP wouldn’t level the playing field at all. The majority of military equipment is “hardened” against it. The military has known for over 70 years that an EMP is the primary weakness they have, especially against the Chinese, and so have over the past number of years addressed that.
An EMP caused by a solar flare or other cosmic disturbance will take out the most hardened equipment
dallon j wrote:
Well, this charge was laid on the latter-day saints’ shoulders, not on the general population, so, if a latter-day saint is in the military and he is ordered to confiscate the weapons of a law-abiding citizen, should he obey his commander and break the commandment of God, or obey the commandment of God and disobey his commander? The Lord said that “he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.” And what laws of the land is the Lord referring to here? Why, the only laws of the land that are justifiable before Him, namely, the Bill of Rights. (See the post Talking to myself for more on this.) So, this commandment to the latter-day saints applies both to civilians and those in the military, or in militias.
For those who want to get involved in some organization that fights and lobbies for gun rights, may I suggest that Gun Owners of America is the best bet. They seem to have a strict “no infringement” standard. You can read about them on Wikipedia here and you can go to their web site here: http://www.gunowners.org
I do not recommend the NRA (National Rifle Association) because they appear to be in the partial infringement crowd.
The GOA has about 300,000 members, according to Wikipedia. If the LDS jumped on their bandwagon as a group, overnight that would inject another, what?, 4-5 million American members into it? Certainly that could make a difference.
EMP: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337766
I sent an email to the Gun Owners of America with this message:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Here is another very good gun rights organization, called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. You can check out their Wikipedia entry here and also visit their web site: jpfo.org
According to the Wikipedia,
Considering that this is also the scriptural definition of law-abiding (see the Talking to myself post), this organization sounds like a perfect match for Mormons.
This group is responsible for the video I embedded into the comment above, which video was called, Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control WorlWide. If you haven’t yet watched that video, I highly recommend it. It puts the whole issue in the proper perspective.
I have just emailed them the same message that I sent to the GOA.
One of the things I noticed on their web site was that they do not like to call it “gun control.” This is interesting, considering today I was pondering upon that very thing. I was thinking that gun rights advocates should not ever call it “gun control.” It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with controlling guns, but with infringing on, or taking away, people’s rights. In other words, it’s all about disarming law-abiding citizens.
I came up with some really radical, but very simple ideas on how to push back against the disarmament crowd, or the gun rights infringers, however they should be called, but I suppose my ideas are too anarchic for even this blog, which is why I’m letting people know about these other organizations.
Oh, what the heck, I’ll list my ideas on how to combat the gun rights infringers in the next comment.
Okay, before I get into my own radical ideas, I’d like to quote some of the JPFO web site, which as I read through, I’m liking more and more. They have an article on the Second Amendment which really breaks it down. I’m going to quote only the six points and not the detailed explanations that follow each point. You can go to this page to read the entire thing.
So, I got to thinking how to counteract this tide of gun rights infringement that the politicians, pundits and celebrities are trying to get the American people to voluntarily accept. I’ve decided I’m not going to write down specific, radical ideas here, just some general principles.
The three-fold goal, as I see it, is 1) to have every American educated about this right to keep and bear arms and fully aware of the enemies who are conspiring to take it away, 2) to have every American man, woman and child of age (young men and women, meaning responsible teenagers) keeping arms and 3) to have them all routinely bearing arms wherever they go.
The first goal, education, would, itself, consist of a two-pronged approach: 1) educating the masses about the real meaning of the Second Amendment and why it is important, and 2) exposing the real agenda of the lying gun rights infringers. For the first point, organizations like the JPFO could be used to educate the entire population. For the second point, every single bit of propaganda used by the collectivists to encourage people to disarm, such as this video, should be countered immediately with similar media which calls it out on its BS lies and labels those involved as people who are trying to deprive people of their rights.
In educating the masses, the people need to know that the goal is to arm the people’s army and in counteracting the false propaganda, everything false ought to be countered, without any compromising of position. For example, the goal of the Second Amendment is to create a people’s or citizens army, and so assault weapons are necessary. And this, and other positions, should not be budged on, not one inch. The right should be promoted for what it was intended for: warfare, not for anything that the gun rights infringers say it is for (hunting, etc.) This will cause the gun rights infringers to roll their eyes, to cry “crazy!” and they will put on an act, but as long as the issue goes back to the amendment’s original intent: warfare, they can’t fight against it, nor twist it into a new meaning that may be misinterpreted and misconstrued into disarmament. In other words, the fight for gun rights must remain on the ground of truth and the disarmament crowd must play ball in the area that the gun rights supporters designate. We don’t play where they say to play, they play where we say to. This attitude, of defiance and contradiction, must be met every single time propaganda goes forth.
Everyone who is in the middle must also be denounced as not supporting the Second Amendment. So, out goes the NRA. This tactic must be taken so that people in support of the Second Amendment don’t get deceived into giving up their guns by pretenders.
The second goal, arming the people, must be done contrary to what is currently being done. In other words, this is not about arming yourself, which is the current environment of gun rights. We are building a citizens army, so it is in your interest that not only you are armed, but also all of your neighbors. Every free (non-incarcerated) man and woman must be armed, not just with small arms, but with assault rifles, too. In other words, there must be a free flow of weapons into the hands of the people, and this must be done intentionally in every state of the union. In case I’m still not be understood, I mean there must be a concerted effort by the people to get every last person armed. They can decide amongst themselves what kinds of weapons to use. (I’m an anarchist, so I don’t believe in central planning.) They can also decide amongst themselves how to go about making sure everyone is properly trained in use, care and safety.
The final goal, after a region of America is fully armed, is to have them bear their arms, in public. This can be done by peacefully assembling, armed to the teeth, in very large numbers. Perhaps even protests against the gun rights infringers may be assembled, or protests about something else, in tens of thousands of fully armed people. In other words, wearing their weapons on their person. These would be peaceful assemblies, as is everyone’s right, but with simultaneous exercising of their right to bear arms.
What this would do is send a very strong message to all the communist, socialist and collectivist infringers that the time of gun right infringement is over and that Americans are peacefully taking back the encroachments to their rights. Once such displays take place, people ought to bear their arms all over the place, to get everyone used to the new environment.
In other words, everyone in American needs to re-learn to exercise this right first, and once they have regained the encroachments, and are freely bearing arms wherever they go, then they can freely exercise their other rights without any fear of anyone infringing on them. The Second Amendment protects all the other rights, so peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and all the rest, ought to be exercised while wearing a gun.
Those who seek to enslave the American people consider the prospect of Americans keeping arms as a major obstacle, but they absolutely tremble at the thought of people bearing arms, meaning of people walking down the street or going about their daily business with a weapon on their person. This part of the exercise of this right is absolutely frightening to them. Therefore, it MUST be the ultimate goal of every gun rights promoters, to get the people bearing their arms wherever they go.
Once that occurs, there will be no more encroachments to any of our rights, for the secret combination will be faced with an enlightened people, and should anyone even mention the possibility of disarmament, he or she will immediately be labeled a traitor and subversive and thrown into prison for seeking to overthrow the rights and freedoms of the people.
Concerning this scripture, I once wrote:
Now, I mention this because there are many in the land who are fearful that those seeking to disarm the American people will succeed, ushering in a new era of dictatorship. But if I can, let me calm their fears a bit, by saying that it is my understanding that disarmament will not occur, except among that portion of the population which chooses not to assert their Second Amendment rights, or which is opposed to that right. These will enter into captivity. The other, larger portion of the population, will rise up, with their weapons, against their rulers, and, as I stated previously, will defeat the masters. So the good news is that total disarmament will not occur. The bad news is that another prophesied war is coming. However, even that is good news, since it will be another Revolutionary War, freeing all slaves completely, so that every man upon this land will be a true freeman afterward, with no constraints upon his freedom from any State governments, for there will only be tribes among the people.
It may be that this season of great concern about gun rights is the necessary unsettling calm before the storm, whereby everyone chooses which side they will be on. On the one side will be those who uphold the secret combination, who allow it to get above them, or rule over them, and thus are brought down into captivity by it, to their eventual overthrow and destruction; and on the other side will be those who refuse to uphold it any longer and throw it off their shoulders, and who will fight it and ultimately destroy it and all those who pertain to it or continue to uphold it.
These latter groups of Gentiles will be the gun owners and gun promoters, who refuse to give up their weapons, and instead unite with others to oppose those who seek to enslave them by taking up arms in defense of their rights. God will bless these Gentiles, but curse the others. Mormons who find themselves on the wrong side of this battle will likewise be cursed. So, there is good and bad news, but in my view, it’s mostly good news (if you are on the right side.)
If I might make one clarification…the word “slaves” applies to all the Gentiles in the land that do not own land, which is pretty much everyone. All those who believe they own land, do not, in reality, own it. They rent it. If they ever stop paying their rent (property taxes), they will be evicted. Also, the real landlord can take possession (eminent domain) of the land any time he wants. So, the Gentiles have been established here, in the sense that they reside in this land, and set up as a free people, under this American system of government, but these are but types or shadows of the future, when they shall be established here, becoming true land owners, and set up as a free people by the power of the Father, in tribal anarchy.
will this also be the war in which the lamanites go through and destroy all gentiles who will not be numbered among them?
Wow. Just, wow. I wish you well and am glad to share the church with you, but I want nothing to do with a religion that makes politics its God.
youre a fu–in idiot. I’m grateful LDS people only represent 1% of the world’s population and generally stay in utah. maybe you can all shoot each other with your god given ar-15s
My understanding is that that comes afterward and is something separate, represented by the next verse in the prophecy.
Cogs, are you saying that you are leaving the church over this?
I think I’m going to add the Innocents Betrayed video to the post, and also the new Demand a Plan video. I don’t like changing posts after I write them, but I think those videos will be helpful. Should I do it?
Here’s another video that spells it out for people:
Add ’em
Done.
Jeremiah Stoddard wrote a comment today on The Mormon Worker blog, in which he said he was conflicted by his anarchism, his pacifism and his pragmatism over the topic of “gun control.”
Now, I have an anarchist side, as well as a pragmatist side, but I don’t have pacifist side, since my understanding is that pacifism is a philosophy of man and not given to the Gentiles by God. Instead, what the Gentiles were given were the same commandments the Nephites (not the Anti-Nephi-Lehies) received, which are recorded in D&C 98. On a family or individual level, that doctrine is not one of pacifism, but of suffering patiently with offenses, until the fourth time, at which time the individual or family becomes authorized and justified in rewarding the offender according to his works. And on a national or group level, that doctrine is not one of pacifism, but of raising up a standard of peace three times, and if, after three times an aggressor does not accept the offering of peace, then the group is justified in waging war against them.
In the first case, an individual or family may choose to forgive the offender after the fourth time, but in the second case, the Lord gives commandment to wage war, so that all those who do not take up arms against the aggressor nation, become sinners or unjustified before the Lord. (See D&C 98:23-38 for these laws.)
Pacifism, then, is not doctrinal, or is against the revealed doctrine of the Lord, as given to the Gentiles, for the gospel is about doing all things whatsoever the Lord commands, and in this case, He does not command pacifism, but instead commands a sort of “suffer-first warfare” doctrine. In other words, this is a scaled up version of a characteristic of God, of being “slow to anger.” The three offenses suffered are the slow part, and then the fourth offense triggers the justified anger part. Each part is an aspect of divinity, and this doctrine is given to us to prove us and to teach us gospel principles.
Anyway, so pacifism is a stumbling block to obedience to the commandments given by God to his Gentile people. Anarchism, though, is not. So, I wondered, what is the anarchic position on so-called “gun control” (gun rights infringement)? Doing a search on the Internet, I found this excellent article by Chris Carrera:
An Anarchist Case Against Gun Control
The anarchist in me is in complete agreement with what he (or she) says, including his or her radical ideas for combating gun rights infringement. In fact, I would imagine that every anarchist would, of necessity, come to the same conclusions.
That leaves pragmatism. I can’t really say that I’m a pragmatist, at least insofar as the gospel is concerned. Praying always, believing that one will receive, always remembering Jesus, and many other gospel principles, including all the miracles, are not things I would call pragmatic.
Anyway, I bring all this up because I’m not sure that anyone’s mind can be changed on this, except perhaps for those whose mind is not already made up, who are still considering the issue. Those for total gun rights infringement seem dead set on banning guns, and those against gun rights infringement seem dead set on no infringement, while those in the middle are equally dead set on partial to full infringement, and no amount of explaining seems to change anyone’s mind on this issue.
No amount of appeal to the scriptures (to D&C 98), to the laws of man, to history, to statistics, to anything, really, seems to change the mind of someone who is already decided, either on the one hand or on the other, or who is already decided on remaining “undecided.” So, I imagine that a post like mine will have zero effect on those who have decided this in their minds already. It may have effect on the undecided who are desirous to make a decision, such as children or young adults who have not, yet, considered these issues.
In other words, it appears to me that the lines have already been largely drawn on this issue, and that once everyone has decided on it, they remain firm. The only thing I can see that has any potential of changing a person’s mind on this issue, is if the people are brought into bondage, tortured and killed, right here, in this very “land of the free.” Short of that happening, it doesn’t look to me like anyone will budge in their beliefs.
Such hypocrisy. Someone made the following comment on one of this guy’s YouTube videos:
That advice appeals to the anarchist in me. It surely would teach Hollywood not to undermine American gun rights by promoting the anti-American agenda of gun rights infringement if we were to consciously and actively seek to undermine their profits. The Pirate Bay, anyone?
Now, that may not sound nice, for certainly not everyone in Hollywood is seeking to undermine the Constitution, but surely acting in such a manner is the law of reciprocity in action. In other words, someone breaks the law using a gun, and so they seek to take away all guns from everyone (including those who have not broken the law), so that no one can use them to commit a crime. And since certain Hollywood anti-Americans use their money and celebrity status to break the law by seeking to subvert the Constitution and American rights, we therefore seek to take away all the money and celebrity status from all of Hollywood, including from those who are pro-Americans, so that none of them can use their money and status to commit this anti-American crime.
Even though, as far as I know, The Church hasn’t really gotten into the 2nd amendment argument, they have already come out and said they do not want any guns on their properties. Even if one has a concealed weapons permit, you still are not allowed to carry on Church property.
My understanding is that several years ago some legislation was passed in Utah that allowed the Church to to opt in and be protected if they banned guns from their properties. I don’t feel like looking it up right now, but maybe someone else knows more about it.
I once visited Puerto Rico, and in the English-speaking ward there, most of the men were FBI agents and they were all packing heat in the meetinghouse, with concealed weapons. I wonder if the gun ban on church property only applies to the continental U.S., or if this is now a world-wide policy.
I know of several people in my ward here in the States that carry concealed every week. These people are not law enforcement, just concerned citizens who want to be protected just in case. Most of the people that I know that carry do not want anyone else knowing since they don’t want to be a target.
I am pretty sure no guns at church is a world wide thing since it is in The Handbook. It doesn’t mention anything about the property, just inside the walls, however being employed with the Church they have told me that firearms are not even allowed in your car in the parking lot.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I smell war in the air, as if the conditions among men have changed (and are still rapidly changing) in order to fulfill the prophecy in D&C 87:4. All my instincts tell me that a true civil war is on the horizon, not a war between the states, as we have had before. Also, that this coming war is inevitable.
That sounds fatalistic, I’m sure, but there seems to be several variables at play which refuse to budge or compromise, which makes war inevitable. On the one hand are the warmongers, who feign peace but want war and slaughter, and those who believe their lies. These people would rather have slaughter house conditions, in which the defenseless pigs and cattle are just rounded up and butchered, but if they cannot get those conditions, they are prepared to engage in warfare against armed cattle (and pigs), for their only purpose is to kill the undesirables and enslave the rest. On the other hand are the true lovers of peace, who reluctant to go to war against the butchers, but who are willing to if it must come to it. Everyone who sees the signs of war on the horizon, recognizes these two factions.
I suppose that it is possible that the butchers may back down. Their plans are generational, so set-backs are always temporary. Nevertheless, they do have a set timetable in which to accomplish their tasks, and it is all according to the stars and planets. Depending on where they see themselves in that timetable, they may feel that they still have plenty of time, or they may feel rushed for lack of time. If it is the former, perhaps they will back off. If it is the latter, their contingency plan (war) must be enacted.
And I suppose that it is possible that the pigs and cattle will give up their guns. Other people in other countries have done this. Anything is possible, right?
But it appears to me that there is a third faction, or third variable, which has not, as yet, made its appearance, which will initiate this coming war. In other words, it is this third variable which will make this all inevitable. I may be wrong on this, but my instincts tell me that the Lord is going to make some unanticipated move. He is going to take an active part or participation in the coming conflict.
I am reminded of the war laws given to the Nephites and the Gentiles, as recorded in D&C 98. Three standards of peace must be raised, then the Lord would command His people to go out to battle, and then He would fight their battles. All these laws given to us are also prophecies. They are given to us because the Lord, seeing the future, knows that we will need these laws at some point. If we never were going to be in such a situation, there is no reason to give such laws.
I have also been reminded of captain Moroni a lot the past few days. I wonder about him and his prominent place in the Book of Mormon. For example, if you take a look at the chapter headings of the Book of Alma, Mormon wrote:
That account comprises chapters 45 to 62 inclusive. That’s a lot of chapters to dedicate to warfare and to captain Moroni in particular. Why did Mormon feel the need to address warfare so much in the record, unless he saw warfare upon this land among the Gentiles?
It is quite interesting how the “war chapters” of Alma open up. The chapter heading of Alma 45 states:
It all begins with dissension in the church. Has this not already commenced among us? How about the chapter heading of Alma 46?:
Next, Amalickiah, a member of the church of God, conspired to be king, but lost the election. Sound familiar? Then the king-men appear and there is an attempt to “destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them.” Does that sound like gun control to you? Or, maybe I should say sword control? Amalickiah and the king men wanted to be rulers, right? Well, how can a tyrant rule over (tyrannize) an armed people? Was not Amalickiah’s plan to establish himself as a king with a standing army, ruling over a disarmed people, as he ended up doing later among the Lamanites? How else does one go about destroying the foundation of liberty?
So, what is the very next thing to appear on the scene? Captain Moroni with his title of liberty.
Perhaps this is all coincidence. Perhaps there is nothing prophetic in that sequence of events. Or, perhaps the Lord is going to send another captain among the people, rallying them for…war.
Captain Moroni’s title of liberty was “in memory of…our freedom.” Freedom, of course, are rights. We often talk about the title of liberty, but neglect to talk about the significance of his prayer of faith that he left upon the land, as recorded in that same chapter, nor of the significance of his prophetic naming of the land as a land of liberty, nor of the significance of the other prophetic words he uttered in that chapter, such as these:
In particular, Mormon was careful to record these words of captain Moroni, which called the people to enter into a peculiar covenant:
That means that they were to enter into a covenant to maintain their rights so that the Lord might bless them. Should they not maintain their rights, that would break their covenant; God would then consider them transgressors and they would be “trodden down and destroyed” or brought into captivity. To put that in a modern context, that’s like the latter-day saints covenanting to maintain the Bill of Rights in an un-infringed state.
Now, I will not expound this whole captain Moroni affair in this comment. I just wanted to point out that there appear to be parallels and my mind, of late, has been pondering upon these things, to the exclusion of other topics, which I feel are “less expedient” to talk about at this time.
Nevertheless, I may just be out of touch with reality, because as I have been perusing the other Mormon blogs, I’ve noticed no change among them. The standard topics continue to be discussed, as if there had been no change in conditions among men and I am left to wonder if it is I that am out of sorts. Perhaps I am just being an alarmist? Does anyone else smell a war brewing, or am I the only one?
I just came across this:
Obama Executive Orders on Guns Would Spark Mass Resistance
Here’s an excerpt:
“Pledging to resist” sounds almost like a covenant to maintain their rights and freedoms, doesn’t it? Here’s another excerpt:
Isn’t there a post on this blog about government legitimacy? And this is why any Mormon (or non-Mormon) who maintains the legitimacy of an illegitimate government (as decided by the voice of the people) and who sides with it, is going to find him or herself on the receiving side of the Lord’s wrath.
It seems like some of the replies above should have been posts…
Anyway, the comment:
“I smell war in the air, as if the conditions among men have changed (and are still rapidly changing) in order to fulfill the prophecy in D&C 87:4. All my instincts tell me that a true civil war is on the horizon, not a war between the states, as we have had before. Also, that this coming war is inevitable.”
Seems to be justified by some of the passionate videos recently put out by patriots
such as this
and this
http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/another-video-presentation-ann-barnhardt/
and this
and this
Patriots have always spoken out in the past, however, the tone of what is being said, is changing. There are now people drawing a line in the sand and warning the government that if they cross it.. guns will be a blazin…
It reminds me of the following prophecy
“Verily, I say unto you, that the day of vexation and vengeance is nigh at the doors of this nation, when wicked, ungodly and daring men will rise up in wrath and might, an go forth in anger, like as the dust is driven by a terrible wind; and they will be the means of the destruction of the government and cause the death and misery of many souls; but the faithful among my people shall be preserved in holy places during all these tribulations”
Doesn’t seem like anything new to me, rather a rehash of what was going on the last time there was a Democrat in the White House.
My big problem with your thesis LDSA is that the text of the Constitution is not scripture. Yes it is inspired, yes the Founding Fathers were guided, but as originally written the Constitution is ultimately a document created by consensus and compromise and therefore falls short of being unchangeable or unable to be interpreted in ways different than you would.
Unless of course you feel that the Lord considers blacks to be only 3/5 of a whole white male, or that only white, land owning males should vote.
The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere. We should instead be more afraid of the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, the boldness with which the Gadiantons running Wall St flaunt their power and influence, and thereby avoid not only prosecution for their crimes, but the fact that they are lauded as the only ones who can save the world from global collapse. The Republic will endure until the Lord’s work is finished. We should concern ourselves more with the disparity of wealth, the rise in poverty, and the way the rich despise the poor. You know, those things that forced the Lord to humble the Nephites and which comprise the majority of what the Lord expects from us.
Looks like the guy in the first video (James Yeager) has been intimidated a little and take that video down… he came out with part two and took a few steps back… possibly he is getting cold feed but still has strong feelings
http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesYeager
Watcher,
Regarding that prophecy: W. W. Phelps must have had a really good memory, given that 30 years had passed from the time it was claimed that Joseph received it to the time that Phelps wrote it out. Zomarah once blogged about these words, also.
Brother_Anon,
I’m not claiming that the entire Constitution is inspired of God, only the Bill of Rights. The Lord’s endorsement of the Constitution only applies to a portion of it, not the whole thing. Since He gives a law of justification concerning it, although it is not revealed scripture, it becomes binding upon us to befriend it, not because of the words written in the Bill of Rights, but because of the Lord’s words written in His revelation.
Watcher,
I suspect that many very vocal people will get cold feet. That is what the conspirators are banking on. Especially if certain individuals begin to be secretly eliminated, such as the unfortunate news about the recent murder of FPSRussia (of the YouTube channel.) But Moroni’s and Lehi’s and other holy prophets do not scare or back down, even as they are staring down the barrel of a gun (or arrow, as the case was with them.)
You are probably right, but I just didn’t feel up to it. I like to write something different each time in my posts, and it seems to me that I’ve written several times already on this topic and don’t want to be beating the same dead horse each and every time. Be my guest, if you feel so inspired, to post on this topic.
Give me about 60 minutes and I’ll throw up a post that, in my opinion, would be something new, to show you what I mean by “different.”
In the above post, I forgot to define the word “arms” in the Second Amendment. From the 1828 dictionary, there are 5 shades of meaning, the first of which applies:
“1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”
It’s amazing to me that this is coming from Missouri, of all places, the State that evicted the latter-day saints:
Missouri Senate Panel Approves Nullification of Federal Gun Laws
If it passes, will this usher in a new influx of latter-day saints into the State (only to have them exterminated again)? I’m just kidding, (and not wondering prophetically), just so you know…