Note: Due to recent anti-American voices, which seem to have reached a fever pitch, and I feel constrained, yet again, to write about gun rights infringement.
To all American gun rights advocates
I am addressing my words to everyone who is a gun rights advocate, not just to the latter-day saints (Mormons), so the intended audience is much wider than usual. Use any of these ideas as you see fit, in your fight to protect American rights.
Use the proper terms
Gun control is a misnomer, so never use it. Instead, begin a conversation with the term, so-called “gun control,” and then label it correctly as gun rights infringement. Continue to use the proper term for the rest of the conversation. Remember, so-called “gun control” is not about controlling guns, but about controlling people by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.
Gun control advocate is another misnomer. When someone says they are a gun control advocate, call them instead a gun rights infringer. (It does not matter that the word infringer is not in the dictionary, everyone will understand its meaning. Sometimes creating a new word is the best option. Shakespeare did it many times, so can you. Besides, used enough times, you can be sure it will eventually make it into the dictionary.)
When someone says that he or she is an American in favor of gun control, refer to him or her ever afterward as an anti-American in favor of gun rights infringement, or just as an anti-American gun rights infringer. The term anti-American fits, for only anti-Americans attack or seek to weaken the constitutional protections of the rights of American citizens.
When referring to behavior that undermines the Bill of Rights protections, call it un-American. That is, after all, what it is.
These terms: gun rights infringement, gun rights infringer, anti-American, and un-American, make people immediately think of criminals and communists seeking to undermine or subvert the American system and way of life. Because they themselves make the connection between infringement and crime and anti/un-American and communist, these terms have a more powerful effect upon the minds of the people hearing them. Never, ever, label someone a criminal or communist or socialist or whatever, for if you do, people’s doubt will come into play and they will not believe the rest of what you say.
Use the terms undermining and subversion liberally in a conversation when describing actions that promote gun rights infringement. No one wants their rights undermined, nor does anyone want the Constitution subverted. These are descriptive terms that paint an immediate picture in one’s mind of spies trying to overthrow the government.
Use the term subversive as a label for anyone who promotes gun rights infringement. When a person calls someone else a subversive and describes their actions as subversive behavior, those that listen to the conversation immediately think of cloak and dagger stuff, such as an enemy trying to destroy the American way of life.
These terms are effective because they are based upon word associations. The words criminal, communist, spy and enemy, all pop up in people’s mind automatically, as soon as you start using these terms. Because they themselves do the associations, or because they themselves make the connections, or think of the associated words themselves, they believe them. Now, everything you say about the person you have just labeled will be more receptive to the audience listening in, for they now will view the gun rights infringer with suspicion.
Use “no infringement” as the standard
Never call so-called “gun control laws,” gun control laws. They must always be called, gun rights infringement laws. Everything must be brought back to the central issue: the infringement of unalienable rights.
Every gun rights infringement law on the books must be regarded and labeled as illegal. Never, ever refer to them as legal. They are all illegal, unconstitutional laws, and always refer to them as such. As long as people think of these illegal gun rights infringement laws as legal, they will be accepting of so-called “legal” gun rights infringement. People need to be presented with contradictory information, before they wake up out of their sleep. They must be presented with two, opposing “realities,” one side saying, “gun control laws are legal” and the other side saying, “gun rights infringement laws are illegal.” They must understand that there is no such thing as “legal” gun rights infringement.
“No infringement” must be the standard. Partial infringement is unacceptable. A full infringement of one’s right to life would be immediate execution. A partial infringement of that same right might consist of poison administered over time so as to shorten one’s life. Full infringement of the right to property would be taking it all, partial infringement might consist of taking only half. The right to liberty could be partially infringed upon by requiring that you be confined three days out of every week. Partial infringement of the right to free speech might be that your mouth be taped shut every Monday and Tuesday. If this all sounds absurd, it is because it is. Infringement is infringement, whether it is partial or full, and it is all unacceptable, tyrannical behavior. This same principle applies to the right to keep and bear arms.
Needs have nothing to do with rights
If a person wanted to administer poison to you, to shorten your life span from 75 to 65 years old, while telling you, “Oh, but you don’t need those last ten years of life!” would you let him? Does your right to life have anything to do with your needs? Are not your years yours, to do with as you want? Does the argument that you don’t need 50% of your property, or you don’t need seven days of freedom because four days is enough, or you don’t need to speak your mind on Mondays and Tuesdays, make it alright to infringe upon these rights? Of course not! So, in like manner, no one has the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms because a person doesn’t “need” another gun, or more ammo, or a bigger and more powerful weapon. His or her needs have nothing to do with the matter.
So, toss the needs argument right into the trash from the get-go and keep the conversation eternally focused on the rights of man.
Get yourself some weapons and keep them
Get enough firearms and ammunition for every able bodied person of age in your family. Get the weapons you feel are appropriate, including so-called assault weapons. (Notice I used “so-called.”) Make sure your family is trained in their proper use and safety.
Bear your weapons
Rights that are not asserted will inevitably be encroached upon and eventually taken away. Firearms must, of necessity, be borne. In other words, when you go around town to do your daily business, go packing heat. Now, there may be an illegal law against that in your area. If so, then another strategy must be taken. But if there is no illegal law against that, start doing it, and keep doing it.
Educate your neighbors on gun rights
The best means to do that is the following document:
Just print it out as a hard copy and hand it out or snail mail it, email it, or share it online using its 120+ share functions. The video, Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control World Wide, is also an excellent teaching tool to use.
Meet with other gun rights advocates
Your local gun and ammo supply store may be able to hook you up with other local gun right advocates. This is an important step to take in order to begin the formation of citizen militias.
Begin to form and regulate a local citizen militia
In conjunction with other local gun rights advocates, begin to form a local citizen militia. It is necessary that citizen militias be “well-regulated.” That of course means that everyone needs to possess weapons, perhaps of a specific kind, and also sufficient ammo, but it may also mean that everyone should have the means to communicate with each other, perhaps through ham radio or whatnot. Each militia will decide how best to regulate itself.
When meeting together as a militia, to conduct business, bring your weapons with you. Bearing arms is the key to gun rights (and all other rights) protection.
Do not keep it local. In other words, seek to establish other “chapters” of citizen militias in the regions round about, and work to have each local militia capable of communicating and working with other militias. This is all part of being “well-regulated.”
Citizen militias are for both local and common defense, so they need to be able to co-ordinate efforts with other militias.
Let the Bill of Rights be the common thread that unites all the citizens in the various militias, so that race, color, creed, customs, dress and all other differences are set aside. The only requirement to unite with a citizen militia ought to be that one be law-abiding. Law-abiding should simply mean that a person supports a “no infringement” stance on the Bill of Rights.
Expect infiltration. G-men get antsy about the prospect of an armed citizenry, and especially about organized, citizen militias, so expect that some undercover agents may be joining your group, to spy on it or even to sabotage it or create false flags.
There is safety in numbers and weapons
When these militias grow in sufficiently large numbers, they ought to meet out in the public, packing heat, in peaceful assembly, exercising two of their rights simultaneously: bearing arms and peacefully assembling. In fact, at every public protest or peaceful assembly, of whatever group, the armed citizen militia ought to be there as a show of force, in support of the people’s rights to protest and assemble.
In areas where there are illegal laws on the books, prohibiting or restricting the right to bear arms in public, several local militias could organize peaceful assemblies using this principle*, with thousands or tens of thousands of armed militia men in attendance, as a public demonstration that illegal laws that prohibit or infringe upon the bearing of arms should not be obeyed. This ought to be done quite frequently and only in large numbers, until the police decide not to enforce the illegal laws and they are removed from the books.
*Btw, in case this comes up in the comments, yes, I am fully aware that Ghandi, who was a supporter of this principle, wrote in Chapter XXVII, “The Recruiting Campaign,” in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:
“I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: ‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.’ The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.”
Solutions for statists
These ideas of mine will appeal to those who do not look to the government to solve gun rights infringement, but for any statists who read this blog, who want to change the government via legislation, you may wish to use the Gun Owners of America lobby group as a tool. By becoming a member and giving them money, they will lobby Congress for zero infringement of gun rights. If enough people join them, and if they get enough money, perhaps they will make a difference. Here is their web site:
I suggest the GOA and not the NRA, because the NRA does not appear to have a strict, zero infringement policy. They are as likely to lobby for partial infringement, as for no infringement, which would be a waste of money.
The other thing you can do is contact your representatives and senators and tell them that if they support any infringement on gun rights, you will not vote for them. Personally, such tactics seem useless to me, but perhaps they are worth a try.
To latter-day saints
Now I would like to turn my attention to the latter-day saints who might read this blog.
The Lord has given us a charge to befriend the Bill of Rights, therefore, any LDS in a governmental position of authority cannot justifiably violate the rights of any law-abiding citizen while performing government duties. This means that latter-day saint police officers, FBI agents, CIA officials, military personnel, border patrol and any other position of government authority, takes second seat to the Bill of Rights. Should you confiscate a law-abiding citizen’s weapons (and the definition of a law-abiding citizen is one who does not infringe upon the Bill of Rights) by command of a superior, you have broken your covenant with God to obey His commandments, which includes His words about befriending these Constitutional protections.
Righteous LDS are prohibited, then, from infringing on a law-abiding citizen’s rights, by God’s laws. They still have their agency, of course, and can choose to sin, but in order to remain justified before the Lord, they must obey this instruction.
The Lord has said that if we keep His laws, we have no need break the laws of the land. This does not refer to the endless laws on the books, but to those justifiable laws that maintain rights and privileges, which are in the Constitution, which are known as the Bill of Rights. That is all He meant by that. (For more information on all of this, see these previous posts: It is a SIN to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, Talking to myself and What the Lord has said about the Constitution.)
However, the Lord has also said that we are to be subject to the powers that be until He reigns. The question must be asked, then, what are the powers that be?
The applicable gospel principle is the voice of the people, as taught by the seer Mosiah:
It is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
The voice of the people are the powers that be that the Lord referred to. We are to be subject to the voice of the people, we are to observe the voice of the people, and we are to make the voice of the people our law, to do all our business by that voice. This commandment is an actual law of the Lord and must be obeyed for justification before the Lord.
This means that latter-day saints are only justified insofar as they submit to the voice of the people. If that voice is for the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the government. If the voice ever turns against the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the people and stand with the people against their government. Those who do not submit to the powers that be according to this pattern and principle must remain unjustified before the Lord.
Mosiah also said:
And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
Therefore, if the time ever comes that the voice of the people chooses iniquity by turning against the Bill of Rights, then destruction will come upon the people, from the Lord. But as long as the voice of the people is in support of the Bill of Rights, latter-day saints can only remain free by aligning themselves with that voice. And by extension, all latter-day saints who oppose the just voice of the people will find themselves brought down into captivity.
Therefore, based on these principles, it is possible for latter-day saints to engage in every idea listed above while remaining justified before the Lord, if the voice of the people is with them. Nevertheless, even if the voice of the people has not spoken, no latter-day saint is justified in violating anyone’s rights, whether acting under government or citizen authority.
Citizen militias in Nephite times
To more fully explain why the Bill of Rights is justifiable before the Lord, it is necessary to look to the Book of Mormon. The Bill of Rights was inspired by the Spirit of freedom (see Talking to myself), meaning that it embodies principles that align with laws that the Lord Himself had given to His people who lived on this land anciently.
The Nephites were organized, from the beginning, as citizen militias. Thus, we find Nephi using the sword of Laban to create weapons of war for his people, so that everyone was armed. In the case of the Nephites, they had both a right and a duty to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, they did not have a standing army. Whenever the Lamanites would invade their lands, the Nephites would stop their daily pursuits, take up their arms, and wage war. When the war was over, they would go back to their normal endeavors. (See The Strength of the Lord.)
The Nephites had no police force, only citizen militias. So, when Korihor was going around telling lies, which was a punishable crime in Nephite law, he was arrested by citizens. It was the citizens, not a police force, that was responsible for making sure that no one’s rights were infringed upon.
Mormon dissed the Nephites of Zarahemla because when Korihor first began spreading his lies there, the citizens did not arrest him, as was their duty. Instead, they left him free to roam about and deceive the people and he was able to cause many souls to sin. Later, he entered the land of Jershon, but the Lamanites who lived there arrested him because, according to Mormon, “they were more wise than many of the Nephites.” Later he went over to the land of Gideon and was again arrested by citizens (this time by Nephites.) Finally, he was arrested yet again and brought back to Zarahemla for trial and judgment.
No pacifism among the Nephites
The Nephites were operating under commandments of God, from the beginning, from the time of Lehi and Nephi, in which they were commanded to keep and bear arms. That they both kept and bore arms as a routine is shown by the fight between Nehor and Gideon, which began as two men talking religion and ended up with each one reaching for his sword, ending in Gideon’s death. Now, Gideon was a man of God, even a teacher in the church of God, yet he was armed, as were all the Nephites.
The law of the Lord, as given to the Nephites, is the same law that has been given to the latter-day saints, as recorded in D&C 98, which was given as the pattern for all Gentile nations to follow. (See D&C 98:38.) That section starts out by talking about justification before the Lord and befriending the Bill of Rights, which, as we know, includes the right to keep and bear arms. It then ends with a “fourth offense” warfare doctrine, giving latter-day saints warfare laws by which they might remain justified before the Lord. Thus, there is no pacifism in the section, nor was there any pacifism manifested among the Nephites.
The only so-called “pacifism” manifested in the Book of Mormon comes from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who took an oath not to take up arms against their brethren (the other Lamanites). This was an exception because they had not previously entered into the same covenant the Nephites had entered into, in regard to the laws given to the Nephites, which included warfare instructions. In other words, the Nephites had to take up arms in defense of their country, according to the covenant they made, otherwise they would be guilty of breaking their covenant and sinning.
The Lamanites, though, did not have such restrictions, so after they had entered into their covenant to take up no arms against their Lamanite brethren, and had joined the Nephites, they could not break their first oath without sinning, so exception was made for them and they were excused from the typical covenant that every Nephite had to make as a citizen, according to the laws given to the Nephites, as revealed to them by the Lord.
That pacifism was not considered a so-called “higher law” by these Lamanites is evidenced by what they taught their children, for they did not teach their children to enter into the same oath that they did, but they taught them to take the Nephite oath and covenant. Thus, the children of these Lamanites, even the 2000+ stripling warriors, were not taught to be pacifists by their fathers, but were taught the same laws given in D&C 98.
Additionally, the Lamanite Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who had taken this oath, voluntarily supported the war efforts of the Nephites with their sons, with their money and with supplies, including retreating inward towards the center of the land so that the Nephite armies could battle the Lamanites, their brethren. At one point, in fact, the Lamanites became so concerned with how the war was going, and the destruction of their new Nephite brethren, that they considered breaking their oath and covenant and taking up arms to defend the Nephite nation against the Lamanites. None of this behavior can be labelled as pacifism. So, why did they lay down their weapons and never take them again? It was because of the oath they took, not because of the philosophy we call pacifism.
This shows that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies were an exception to the rule, manifested under a different set of circumstances and conditions, and to a different group of people, and was never meant to be taken as a pattern for the Gentiles. They were held up by Mormon as a standard of keeping one’s oath and covenant even unto death, and of brotherly love, but not as a standard or pattern for Gentile pacifism.
The Gentiles must obey the instructions given to them by the Lord, which are the same ones given to the Nephites, otherwise they will incur the displeasure of God upon them. Mormons, then, cannot justifiably be pacifists, in the sense of refusing to bear arms in defense of their country, like the king-men did. They may choose not to bear arms for individual or family circumstances, as explained in D&C 98, but when their people is threatened by any nation, tongue or people, if, after the third time of offering peace, the offering is not accepted by the invaders, they cannot justifiably refuse to take up arms. They must defend the nation, just as the Nephites had to.
Modern pacifism, then, is a philosophy of men, and is not of God. All Mormons who claim to be pacifists, and who claim that the scriptures justify pacifism for the Gentiles, or who lift it up as the standard for the Gentiles, or who denounce the law of God as written in D&C 98, denying gun rights, self defense and our duty toward common defense, is either in error, having not understood the scriptures, or is intentionally trying to deceive people.
Befriend the Bill of Rights
I bring all of this up to show latter-say saints that they can justifiably befriend the Bill of Rights. They can justifiably keep and bear and use arms. They can justifiably engage in warfare, self defense and common defense. They can justifiably form themselves into citizen militias. And so on and so forth. It is not sin to do these things, but righteousness, for this is all according to the word of the Lord, as given in the scriptures.
Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist
46 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
It’s a shame that the church has chosen to make their chapels gun-free zones. It’s tends to lend credence to anti-gun sentiment among the members.
A couple more thoughts:
Nephites would have arrested gun rights infringers
Had anyone among the Nephites ever promoted the removal or infringement of their right to keep and bear arms, I imagine that the Nephite citizens would have immediately arrested that person for seeking to weaken the nation. If we acted like the Nephites of old, the citizens would be arresting quite a lot of people.
Pacifism before and after church membership
Once a person has entered into a covenant with God, to obey His commandments, follow His Son and take the name of Jesus upon him, witnessed by baptism, he can no longer be a pacifist. If so, he violates his covenant made with God. But what of those who were pacifists first and then join the church?
A person who espoused a belief in pacifism typically does not take an oath, as the ancient Anti-Nephi-Lehies did, therefore, he is under obligation to remain a pacifist. In other words, all those who believe in pacifism and who order their lives according to that philosophy, have no impediment to entering the fold of God and covenanting to obey all His commandments, including those found in D&C 98, which deal with a just war doctrine.
It is the oath that was the exception for those ancient Lamanites, not a philosophy of pacifism. This is why the king-men were condemned by Mormon for refusing to take up arms, for they were breaking their oath and covenant to defend the nation, while the Lamanites were encouraged not to take up arms, for they had entered into an oath not to do so. There is no double standard here, for the gospel standard is that you keep your oaths.
Mormon Gentiles do not come under the same set of circumstances as the Lamanites, but instead their conditions are the same as the king-men. Thus, once you’ve entered into a covenant with God by baptism, you cannot refuse to take up arms, as the king-men did, and remain justified before the Lord. And no Mormon can justifiably take an oath of pacifism after having joined the church, because that would violate the former covenant. So, so-called “pacifist Mormons” have no leg to stand on to defend their belief in this philosophy of men.
Gun-free chapels
Gavin,
If there were a majority of members in support of bearing arms in the metinghouses, all that would be needed to do is to organize a “Wear Your Gun to Church Day” like the recent “Wear Pants to Church Day” that got all that media attention. If a majority of the members arrived at church armed, the bishop or his counselors or someone in a leadership position would tell the membership that the church was a gun-free zone and that they needed to leave their guns in their cars. At that point, someone would need to stand up and ask for a vote, for, all things must be done by common consent in the church. Someone else would need to second that call for a vote. A vote would then ensue. If the voice of the congregation went with allowing the bearing of arms in the meetinghouse, what would the bishop or other leaders do? It would make for an interesting predicament, given that we are to do our business by the voice of the people.
Of course, even if something like this happened, the issue of the land and business would come into play. In other words, the land and church building belong to a corporation, which has a right to evict people, it it desires, regardless of any vote. But if you kick off half the congregation because they desire to exercise their right to bear arms, do you not risk them not coming back? It would be interesting to see what kind of reaction Salt Lake City would have to such a situation.
I’m wondering whether this could be used on Dianne Feinstein? If she were citizen arrested everywhere she goes, like Korihor was, would this not help in some way? Last I checked, treason was still a felony. According to the Wikipedia:
Surely introducing legislation to forcefully disarm the citizenry would help not just “a foreign government,” but all foreign governments seriously injure the American nation.
Interesting thought. Is there even a recognized mechanism for bringing motions to a vote. Is it supposed to be done in sacrament meeting? In today’s church this has about a snowballs chance in hell of happening. But we can hope.
I have mentioned this once before on this blog, but for those who are interested, I’ll say it again, since it deals with the topic of this post.
IN THEORY, if a person were to take simple ball bearings, of whatever size, and take them to a machinist (or do the machining himself) to make them into the shape of the inertialess drive rotor, these mushroom shaped balls would now act as bullets. Were you to put them into a high-powered air shooter, a simple bb gun, or even a slingshot, the projectile would cut through the air with little to no resistance. In other words, by using ball bearings cut into this shape, you could have a virtually unlimited supply of very inexpensive, but very dangerous ammunition. These balls would travel farther and faster and straighter than any other type of bullet. Using them in conjunction with the confined burning of a propellent, just like a real firearm, of course would have them fire that much faster, making them so much more deadly.
The inertialess drive rotor opens up the possibility of there being a very deadly, armed populace, possessing inexpensive, essentially homemade weapons capable of competing with their more expensive store bought cousins.
Here’s another idea that just occurred to me, about the inertialess drive rotor. It may be possible to make “impenetrable” armor using spinning inertialess drive rotors in a series. In other words, if you were to line up a bunch of rotors, so that they filled, say, a container four by four square, and you kept them spinning by some mechanism, a projectile IN THEORY would be deflected by the spinning motion and not by just the mass of the shield. This would make very thin, “impenetrable” shields possible by using a layer of very small rotors, placed side-by-side, and spun at very high speeds. It would be much easier to obtain very high speeds using small rotors, than larger ones, of course. This is just speculation, but could be very easily tested by those who are curious.
The Avenger’s Principle
After watching the movie, The Avengers, I got to thinking that gun rights advocates could use the term, The Avenger’s Principle, to explain certain reasons why the citizenry needs both firearms and so-called assault weapons.
First of all, S.H.I.E.L.D., which stands for Supreme Headquarters International Espionage Law-Enforcement Division has a peace-keeping function. They discover an object called a Tesseract and begin to use it to create weapons that can deal with the potential threat that super-powered beings like Thor, which the year before appeared on the Earth, pose to society. The idea is that once armed with these weapons, they would act as a deterrent of any would-be bad guys. This is what their peace-keeping function was all about: deterrence. Here is an excerpt of a synopsis of that movie:
Emphasis mine.
The same principle applies to the American people’s army, which is an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry acts as a deterrent to forces within the government that might wish to use the force and power of government, and its military might, against the people themselves. For this very reason, the people need to be armed with so-called assault weapons, in order to function as a peace-keeping force.
Now, explaining this principle to adults who have already made up their minds might not make much difference, but the younger generation, who have all seen this movie, will understand and believe it.
More Avengers Principles
New Yorkers ought to take notice of this movie in particular, since it shows what cowards they have become. When the Chitauri invaded New York, the only ones who had a chance against them were the small police force, which had weapons, and the six Avengers. Everyone else was unarmed and just ran, resulting in their injuries and death.
In an ideal world, the Chitauri would have showed up and everybody on the street of Manhattan should have pulled out their weapons and started shooting up at them in a barrage of bullets. That is the proper American welcome to anyone seeking to enslave us, whether foreign, domestic, or intergalactic aliens.
This movie demonstrates with precise clarity just what an American embarrassment the city of New York has become. It ought to be disowned by the rest of America and become its own disarmed, police state country, or just detached from its island moorings and sent floating out to sea, so we don’t have to deal with them anymore. Maybe someone could start a petition to that end?
Here’s an article on New York Gun Laws:
Are New York City’s Gun Laws the Next Target?
A comment left after the article is telling:
Although I like and agree with what the commenter wrote, I disagree with this part: “I don’t care what the law says…” Apparently, New Yorker DO care what the law says, because after they go through the legal process of getting PERMISSION to exercise their RIGHT to BEAR arms, and then get turned down, they put their tails between their legs and just complain about it, instead of using the principal of, “I don’t care what the (illegal) law says,” and just arming themselves, the illegal law be damned. After all, whoever heard of having to ask permission to exercise a right?
May I suggest yet another strategy for fighting gun rights infringement? The tenth amendment states:
So, why not just have a recall election and put every gun rights infringer on the special election ballot? I suppose someone in each state would have to start a recall petition for that state, listing all the names of people both in the state and federal governments who are gun rights infringers. 50 such petitions, having sufficient signatures, would initiate 50 state special recall elections. For the federal government, it would take counting all the votes of the 50 state special elections to determine whether federal officials would be recalled. This could be called the “Recall all Gun Rights Infringers” special election.
Here’s another suggestion: When the topic of gun control comes up, jump on it in the affirmative.
You can go with it from there.
The right to keep and bear arms does not apply to government offices, only to the people. Therefore, a police officer does not have a right to keep and bear arms due to his status as a police officer, only insofar as he acts as a citizen. Crimes would go way down and police brutality would be non-existent if the police were disarmed and the citizenry were armed.
Gun control, therefore, is a true and just principle, insofar as it pertains to controlling (setting limitations or prohibitions on) the weapons used by government, which is a good thing to do. So-called gun control, as it applies to the people, is not a true or just principle, but is merely gun rights infringement. Everybody should be for gun control and against so-called gun control.
The propaganda likes to use doublespeak on the people, therefore, people are told that they are “more secure” if they are disarmed and defenseless. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t make any logic sense. It is all based upon repeatedly telling lies until they are believed.
So, let’s co-opt the terms used by those spreading the false propaganda. All gun rights advocates, then, ought to be vocal proponents for gun control, meaning limiting or banning government’s access to guns. Any argument that the gun rights infringers use against gun control for government (the police need the protection, the police would be slaughtered if they didn’t have weapons), can then be turned in favor of arming the people.
Even if you had a ‘Bring your gun to Church day,’ the Bishop couldn’t send you to your car unless it was to go home. The Church doesn’t even allow a gun to be in your car. Once you have entered the property with your weapon you are breaking policy…unless you are on one of the Hunting Preserves. Then the Church doesn’t mind guns because they are making a pretty penny off you.
A “Bring Your Gun to Church Day” would be a proper protest, then. Those participating would have to meet in front of the church property, say, on the side walk, while those unarmed would enter into the meetinghouse. I suppose it should be named, “Bring Your Gun to (not into) Church Day” to clarify the nature of the event. I wonder what the leadership would do if half of the congregation refused to enter the meetinghouse because they wanted to exercise their gun rights while exercising their right to worship and their right to peacefully assemble?
It’s kind of strange that the brethren have required that the saints must waive one of their rights in order to exercise two others.
The Book of Mormon actually speaks against this: the poor Zoramites were cast out of the synagogues that they had helped build with their own two hands because of their poverty (the coarseness of their apparel.) What is the difference between prohibiting a person from entering a meetinghouse because of what they are wearing and prohibiting a law-abiding (Bill of Rights-obeying) person from exercising a right to bear arms while on church property? The Zoramites stopped people from entering because of what they were wearing, and the LDS stop people from entering from entering because of what they are wearing (bearing a gun.)
The Zoramite synagogues were private property, right? So, they had every right to set whatever policy they chose for entrance onto the property. Yet we view what they did as iniquitous. LDS church meetinghouses are also private property, and so they also have a right to put policy in place as to who can come onto their property. Yet, we view this policy as not iniquitous. Is this a double standard?
What did Alma say to those who were cast out? “Do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?”
And what of the Nephite church teacher Gideon, who was armed while discussing the gospel? Would Gideon have been prohibited from entering our chapels unless he disarmed?
Although I am not one to encourage the politicization of church, this new anti-gun rights environment seems to call for more drastic actions. Besides, this has nothing to do with politics, in my view. These are natural rights and these are scriptural principles that were set in place by the Lord to safeguard our freedom upon this land.
I also wonder if the disarmament of the assembled saints policy will help fulfill the prophecy of the saints going into captivity by the great and abominable church? It would be a very easy thing to do to wait for a specific Sunday and a specific meeting time, such as a stake or regional meeting, and then to send armed men to surround a church meetinghouse, arresting all the disarmed, defenseless people there, and casting them into some unknown prison, using the new, illegal, indefinite detention without charge or trial laws to put the saints into captivity and torture and kill them, just as the scripture describes.
The saints, who ought to be routinely reading these scriptures and prophecies, have no excuse if these things happen to them. They ought to have the foresight, having been plainly told these things in the Book of Mormon. In fact, as Lehi said, if the people living on this land end up going into captivity, and that includes the saints, it will be because of their iniquity, because they do not keep the commandments of God, for the Lord will not allow any people on this land who obey His laws to go into captivity. This is a land of conditional liberty to us all.
Unfortunately, the conditional blessing that Lehi left upon this land also came with a conditional curse. Recently I’ve been wondering whether the land is already prepping for the prophesied curse, because “the captivity of the saints” is a topic that keeps coming up in my writings, for some reason.
This video needs to go viral. I recommend sharing it with everyone:
I thought this was pretty good, too:
Jon Rappoport, I think, said it best in this piece:
This what I want to hear Obama say about guns
When gun rights infringers say they are concerned about gun violence, they are lying. Their only concern is about gun ownership by law abiding citizens. That is why the focus of all so-called gun control talk is on the law-abiding citizen and not the criminal gangs. Law-abiding citizens use firearms to protect and defend rights, not to commit crimes. Convicted criminals have their right to keep and bear arms taken away, as well as other rights, so this so-called gun control agenda is merely a veiled attempt to criminalize every law-abiding citizen, or to criminalize a right.
I am amazed that in all this time since the Sandy Hook shooting, I have yet to hear any gun rights advocates (or the so-called neutral media pundits) say that Adam Lanza used stolen weapons to commit his crime. I’ve heard it reported that he used weapons that were registered to his mother, that she taught him how to shoot, etc. But the words “stolen” or “theft” I haven’t heard. Let’s call it as it is. He stole her guns to commit his crimes, for surely she would not have given him permission to kill her and all those people, right? The first crime was theft. Without that first crime, Lanza would have been incapable of committing the others.
So, may I suggest, to anyone who talks to would-be infringers, that this be a key point brought up time and time again?
I came across this:
How to End the “Gun Debate” Forever by Tony Cartalucci – January 11, 2013, BlackListedNews.com
His two-stepped strategy consists of
The Get Organized Locally section speaks at length about creating local citizen militias. Now where have I heard that idea before?
Here is another suggestion to get things rolling in the right direction:
We can have a National Bear Your Arms Day. Everyone who has a weapon, and wants to participate, should arm themselves during that day, as a celebration of the right to bear arms. Even better, have a National Bear Your Arms Month. Even yet better, have a National Bear Your Arms Year. Perhaps the second day of each week could be designated as the celebratory day to participate in this year long festival.
Yes, that sounds good to me. I hereby designate 2013 the National Bear Your Arms Year with weekly celebrations to occur every second day (Tuesday) of the week. During the second month (February) of the year, people can increase the number of days they bear weapons 2-fold, to Tuesdays and Thursdays. And in the second half of the year, people can double that twice, so that every day (excepting Sundays) is a Second Amendment Day. Perhaps T-shirts could be produced and sold by entrepreneurial individuals to wear on that day, as well as other paraphernalia. 😉
It’s too bad this blog caters to an open-minded Mormon crowd, which is obviously a very narrow subset of society, because I’d love to know what the so-called “gun nuts” would think of this idea…
This next idea does not come from me. I read this in a pro-gun article and I think it’s a fantastic idea. It is this: when gun rights infringers say “assault weapons,” call them instead “defense weapons.” These people are using the term “assault weapon” because they are hoping that people don’t know what that means and are envisioning a machine gun (an automatic weapon.) Obviously, an assault weapon is not a machine gun. Here is what the Wikipedia says about it:
Well this is a start:
Guns Across America
Personally, I’d rather they’d do a “bear your arms” rally and encourage people to bring whatever weapons they want, whether they are allowed by law or not. Also, I’d rather people would protest ALL gun laws, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, not just future gun laws. And I’d rather this be the beginning of the formation of citizen militias, not just a protest that is a one time event and then dies out. If each county of the nation would gather the gun-rights advocates in a group, publicly, in one location, at one time, all across the nation, those gatherings could then be used to organize each group into citizen militias, which could then plan further armed meetings, with more organization and communication between the various county citizen militias, etc. But hey, I’ll take what I can get and I applaud the effort, nonetheless. Besides, had he put that on Facebook, he probably would have been shut down…
Just another day in Utah! Shopper wears his assault rifle to J.C. Penney to protect against ‘criminals, cartels, drug lords, and evil men’
Absolutely everyone who owns firearms and who is a gun rights advocate needs to follow this guy’s example. We need to go around town BEARING arms, not just keeping them. This will do much to prevent infringement.
The man’s name is Joseph Kelley. Someone track him down. I want to ask him to contribute to this blog. 🙂
Also, I’ve created another Twitter hashtag: #citmil
It’s for tweets on the creation of citizen militias.
i would think this story would garner a lot more support for the idea of citizen militias than guns being carried around where there is no threat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/mexico-self-defense-squads_n_2519837.html?ref=topbar
I loved your ideas about the militia. I tried starting a group back in 2007 and some guy from the FBI came and gave me a talking too. Something about he didn’t want me to attract undesirable people to the area. I was on awrm.org and told everyone what happened, but nobody believed me that the FBI came to my house and my work.
zo-ma-rah, I went to that awrm.org site. I had no idea that Webring was still around. I remember using them when I first started surfing the Internet. How extensive is awrm? Are there lots of citizen militia-minded people? Or just a few?
I haven’t joined in the conversation for a while. But I would categorize it as just a few. But I have a feeling that might change if this pro-gun energy can be properly channeled. If you register and log on to their forum they have lists with the websites of militia movements in various states. There aren’t any here in my part of Idaho. I think the biggest problem with the movement is that people join expecting the revolution to start tomorrow. Then when nothing goes down they get disillusioned and quit.
Sheriff’s radio ad says 911 not best option, urges residents to take firearms classes
Encouraging people to take firearms courses is a good start, but it needs to be followed by a call to arms.
Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!!! This is news I like to hear. Apparently my initial assessment of New Yorkers being p*ssies was premature. My faith in New York has been somewhat restored. Now if they will only have the cojones to see this through…
I thought this was a really neat image. It’s the fake U.S. flag starting to shed to pieces, showing the actual U.S. flag underneath, which has been hidden underneath for many years. At least, that’s how I interpret it. To see the entire image, right-click on it and choose “view image.”
Obviously, I’m not very good at starting movements (as demonstrated by the income tax petition), but if I were, I’d use this flag (the Gadsden flag) as a modern title of liberty, writing upon its reverse side, lifting it up and rallying the people against tyranny.
http://www.newyorkdailysun.com/only-rebellion-can-save-america/1490
I dug the battle of Athens video linked in the article, Watcher.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I couldn’t find it within the article after a quick glance, but googled it and watched… pretty amazing.
I thought about posting that video in a separate post, but then decided that I have probably posted enough about this issue already. But be my guest, if you want to.
Very sad
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/25/2425376/i-uphold-all-of-the-constitution.html#storylink=cpy
This is an interesting interview with a prominent anarchist/economics guru
Later in the interview he speaks a little about misconceptions about the beliefs of anarchists
While the gun control issue may be getting more headlines right now, there is a related undercurrent of approaching financial doom
I never heard of this guy, or his newsletter. Good stuff. Thanks for the heads up.
I thought he was quite interesting and had some good stuff to say. I also thought his community that he and others are starting is an interesting sign of the times.
Another movement for us to keep our eye on is this one.
Regardless of whether it makes an impact or not is yet to be seen, but the implications of what they are attempting to do, and the education they are doing about the corrupt UCC and how it is used to globally administer slavery and to traffic in the souls of men by reducing everything to commerce and putting an economic value on each soul is, in my opinion, another sign of the times.
If nothing else, it provides a shadow of how God will over turn Babylon and how all bonds will be broken.
I’ve been reading the uncensored Christopher Dorner manifesto. It’s a doozy. This (apparently) armed-to-teeth, ex-cop, (alleged) cop and civilian killing, gun control advocate sounds to me like he means business. If they don’t apprehend this guy quick, the LAPD is going to lose more officers and not necessarily due to Dorner’s guns. Inner city gangs surely must be considering the advantages the situation affords to their organizations. Also, if paranoia sets into the police force, because they can’t find him and time drags on, cops may begin resigning. Time is on this man’s side. Psychological warfare is one-sided in this affair. He has all the psychological weapons at his disposal, the LAPD have none. All he needs to do is stay alive and hidden. What a bizarre turn of events.
LAPD, Torrance Police Shot At Innocent People In Frenzied Hunt For Former Cop Christopher Dorner
I’m surprised no one is calling for the cops to be disarmed. I mean, come on! Shooting two innocent, unarmed women (one of them in the back!) delivering newspapers?! That’s a case of mistaken identity?
Perhaps the LAPD ought to amend their announcement about Dorner being armed and dangerous and also warn the public that the LAPD is armed and dangerous! Also, don’t turn your back on the cops!…geez…
Dorner manhunt: Police fired at carriers without warning, lawyer says
Anonymous tweeted:
Sympathy for this man seems to be growing. Police brutality, rights violations and the use of deadly force on unarmed individuals has taken its toll on people’s sense of justice. Although Dorner is alleged to have targeted non-cops (the innocent family of a cop), the sympathizers see this as tit for tat, an eye for an eye, payback’s a bitch. In other words, JUSTICE. One lady tweeted:
Some are calling Dorner a hero, “the Dark Knight” and a “Chocolate Rambo.” They see this as the LAPD getting a taste of its own medicine.
If the man is able to remain hidden, I can only see the number of sympathizers growing, especially if the cops continue to shoot innocents in their search for him.
Here’s another comment left yesterday on a news article:
Perhaps the LAPD ought to be held up as a prime example of the need for police disarmament. (Another example could be “New York’s finest.”)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/download-this-gun-3d-printed-semi-automatic-fires-over-600-rounds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29
Is this some long lost relative of mine? Did my mother give birth to my twin brother and give him up for adoption without anyone knowing?
What I would do is freely allow 3D printing of the inertialess drive rotors, as well as devices for their use (including weapons.) If we are going to allow people to make their own weapons, we might as well allow them to generate their own energy and create their own transportation devices, while we’re at it.
Here is one way to address gun control and a multitude of other problems having to do with the government
https://www.facebook.com/events/211694208972279/
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001656054
I can say from 1st hand experience that the 1st amendment means nothing without the 2nd. When we jumped the BLM caravan coming out of the hills and were not in the 1st amendment zones, we had some serious back up! We were told the day before, after Davey Bundy had been assaulted that any more violations of the 1st amendment zones would be meet with firepower. There were two militia members within 200 meters of the BLM agents outfitted with some serious firepower. I believe that the agents were informed from their drones of the situation and that is why they beat it out of there.
At the I15 over passes we backed up the protesters and the cowboys with a heavily armed militia, and again without the 2nd amendment the return of Cliven’s personal property (cattle) and the exercise of the 1st amendment would not have been possible. When you are dealing with bullies you had better be prepared.