Ideas for fighting gun rights infringement

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:

REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session, February 1982, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

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:

gunowners.org

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

It is a SIN to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms

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 |

whatsoever is more or less than this | cometh of evil |

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

Nephite History: A Harbinger For Our Time

1,532 words

© Anthony E. Larson, 2007

Nephite History: A Harbinger For Our Time

Part 3 of 4

The true predictive power of the Nephite record becomes apparent as we focus on the period of time recorded near the end of Helaman and move forward into 3 Nephi. As we do so, we find that their history reads like our recent newspaper headlines.

The many stunning similarities between Nephite and American history now include the advent of institutionalized terrorism. Their war with the Gadianton robbers plunged the Nephites into a new kind of battle for freedom, just as has happened in our recent history.

Gone were the old struggles between two historic enemies-the Nephites and the Lamanites in Helaman’s time, the East and the West in our time. The Gadianton robbers, like today’s terrorist counterparts, were an entirely new element – a third column, if you will – that fought an entirely new kind of war against both sides.

The modern terrorists are easily recognizable in the reflection of the robbers.

“And they [the Gadianton robbers] did commit murder and plunder; and then they would retreat back into the mountains, and into the wilderness and secret places, hiding themselves that they could not be discovered, receiving daily an addition to their numbers, inasmuch as there were dissenters that went forth unto them.” (Helaman 11:25.)

As with the terrorists in our time, the Gadianton robbers had no formal government with which the Nephites or Lamanites could negotiate, nor were they located in a country with recognizable borders. Instead, they sought refuge in “the mountains,” “wilderness” areas and “secret places,” just as do today’s terrorists.

In their time, as in ours, things went from bad to worse in short order.

“And thus in time, yea, even in the space of not many years, they became an exceedingly great band of robbers …

“Now behold, these robbers did make great havoc, yea, even great destruction among the people of Nephi, and also among the people of the Lamanites.” (Helaman 11:26, 27.)

The destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 certainly qualifies as “great destruction” by terrorists in our time. Also evident in this verse is the fact that, as in Book of Mormon times, our recent history consists of nations that once divided themselves into two camps – East and West – both on the receiving end of terrorist tactics, which include threats, destruction and warfare.

So, we took the initiative, just as our Nephite cousins did.

“And it came to pass that it was expedient that there should be a stop put to this work of destruction; therefore they [the Nephites] sent an army of strong men into the wilderness and upon the mountains to search out this band of robbers, and to destroy them.” (Helaman 11:28.)

Americans, united in their resolve to defeat terrorism in the wake of 9/11, sent armies into “the wilderness” and “upon the mountains” of Afghanistan and Iraq in order to put a “stop” to the terrorists’ “work of destruction.”

But just as happened in Nephite times, our war against terror has not gone all that well. These and the following verses could be torn from our recent headlines!

“But behold, it came to pass that in that same year they were driven back even into their own lands …

“[In the next year] they did go forth again against this band of robbers, and did destroy many; and they were also visited with much destruction.” (Helaman 11:30.)

As often as we launch initiatives against the terrorists, they strike back with numerous attacks as in Spain, England and Russia, for example.

“And they were again obliged to return out of the wilderness and out of the mountains unto their own lands, because of the exceeding greatness of the numbers of those robbers who infested the mountains and the wilderness.” (Helaman 11:31.)

The equivalence in these verses brings us right up to our present, where our struggle against the terrorists has bogged down, necessitating a “surge” of more troops.

“… And the robbers did still increase and wax strong insomuch that they did defy the whole armies of the Nephites and also of the Lamanites; and they did cause great fear to come upon the people upon all the face of the land.” (Helaman 11:32.)

That terrorist-instigated death, destruction and kidnapping in our time has had the same effect is beyond dispute.

“Yea, for they did visit many parts of the land, and did do great destruction unto them; yea, did kill many, and did carry away others captive into the wilderness ….” (Helaman 11:33.)

The Nephite record gives the name of the Gadianton robbers’ leader as Giddianhi.  Terrorism also has a name in our time: Osama bin Laden.  The Nephites called their nemesis the Gadianton robbers. In our complex world they are known by several names: the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hezsbollah and Hamas, to name only a few.

The bad news for us, because we could suffer the same fate, is that no Nephite army could prevail against the robbers.

“For so strong were their holds and their secret places that the people could not overpower them; therefore they did commit many murders, and did do much slaughter among the people.

“… the Nephites were threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.” (3 Nephi 1:27.)

We, in our time, are faced with an equally intractable foe and a prolonged struggle to free ourselves of such intimidation and violence, to defeat an enemy who has sworn our “utter destruction.”

It is unlikely that events in our time will play out exactly like those of Nephite times.  Still, the similarities are striking and well worth keeping in mind because they give us a cognitive lens that we can use to bring into focus the events of our time.

Eventually the toll taken by Gadianton terrorism became so great that two historical enemies, the Nephites and the Lamanites, combined efforts to eradicate their common foe.

“… the Gadianton robbers had become so numerous, and did slay so many of the people, and did lay waste so many cities, and did spread so much death and carnage throughout the land, that it became expedient that all the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites, should take up arms against them.”  (3 Nephi 2:11)

The implication of the parallel histories thesis is that much the same thing will happen in our time.

The struggle in Nephite times drug on for years and was a painful, prolonged affair that seemed impervious to solution. To make things worse, the Nephites and their leaders apparently argued among themselves about how to defeat this powerful enemy.

“And in the fifteenth year they [the robbers] did come forth against the people of Nephi; and because of the wickedness of the people of Nephi, and their many contentions and dissensions, the Gadianton robbers did gain many advantages over them. (3 Nephi 2:18, italics added.)

The problem may be equally difficult in our time.

Battle after battle, the Nephites could not prevail over the robbers until their leader, governor Lachoneus, hit upon a remarkable if not extreme solution.

“Yea, he sent a proclamation among all the people, that they should gather together their women, and the children, their flocks and their herds, and all their substance, save it were their land, unto one place.

“And he caused that fortifications should be built round about them, and the strength thereof should be exceedingly great.  And he caused that armies … should be placed as guards round about to watch them, and to guard them from the robbers day and night.” (3 Nephi 3:13,14.)

Then, Lachoneus appointed a “chief captain” of the armies, named Gidgiddoni, who implemented the final steps in the stratagem to draw the Gadianton robbers out of hiding, making them vulnerable.

“… we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us ….” (3 Nephi 3:21.)

We may yet be forced to adopt draconian measures, as the Nephites did, to defeat this enemy. Recall that every attempt to bring the robbers to justice met with failure until the Nephites hit upon a seemingly harsh and radical strategy as enunciated by Lachoneus and Gidgiddoni. After two pitched battles, one of which was the greatest known to that point in Nephite history, the Gadianton robbers were finally annihilated.

The Nephites’ success over terrorism is heartening, but their prolonged struggle portends the same for us. It suggests that we will overcome terrorism in our time, too, but not without tremendous sacrifice.

Make no mistake. This eventuality, too, will play out in our time much like it did in Nephite times. We are not carbon copies, but we are unmistakable reflections.

This comparison also makes an open-and-shut case for the theory that the Book of Mormon is as much prophecy as history. We and our Nephite cousins are nearly indistinguishable. Therefore, the history of one becomes the prophecy of the other.

No wonder Mormon felt compelled to write his marvelous book. In his place, any of us who love the gospel and the work would want to do the same.