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

Abraham Lincoln


If you go to lds.org and do a search among the general conference addresses using “Lincoln” as the term, you will come up with 64 articles. Of these articles, not a single one speaks negatively of him. The GA’s are not only fond of quoting one of his statements or making an example of his life, but also of extolling his virtues, essentially putting him on a pedestal. Here are some quotes to illustrate this point:

Richard C. Edgley said that Lincoln “freed the slaves.” Paul H. Dunn considered Lincoln one of the “great leaders.” Devere Harris implied that Lincoln was both “great” and had reached “the pinnacle of performance.” Royden G. Derrick said, “We revere Abraham Lincoln because of his commitment to a principle in which he strongly believed.” He also stated that he was a “patriot.” Sterling W. Sill called Lincoln “our great Civil War president.” David B. Haight implied Lincoln, known as “Honest Abe,” evidenced “public virtue.” He implied that Lincoln rose “above self-interest” and acted “in the public interest with wisdom and courage.” Joseph B. Wirthlin said that Lincoln was “one of the greatest and most eloquent presidents of the United States.” James E. Faust believed Lincoln had “special gifts” and listed him along with Moses and Leonardo da Vinci. Mark E. Petersen called Lincoln a “man of God.” He also called him “the great emancipator.” Dallin H. Oaks called Lincoln “educated,” serviceable,” and that his “use of a limited amount of information” was “wise and inspired.” Neal A. Maxwell said that Lincoln provided “spiritual leadership.” Jeffrey R. Holland called Lincoln “one of the most gifted leaders ever to strive to hold a nation together.” Marvin J. Ashton called him “the great American leader Abraham Lincoln.” Marion G. Romney said that Lincoln “demonstrated his great integrity” in leaving a sentence in his ‘The House Divided Against Itself’ speech despite knowing it would probably mean losing the Senate seat. He said that Lincoln “had the integrity to act in harmony with his convictions” despite being “ambitious” and desirous of the presidency. His integrity meant “defeat in his race for the Senate,” but, Romney said, “fortunately for the country” it later made him president. He then said, “How glorious…it would be if all of us possessed the integrity of…an Abraham Lincoln.” Thomas S. Monson called Lincoln “the revered Abraham Lincoln.” Spencer W. Kimball said that Lincoln “achieved the highest success attainable in life and undying fame to the end of time.” Gordon B. Hinckley, talking of Lincoln, said that there was “true greatness to the man” and that he laced the nation “together ‘with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God’ gave him to see the right.” Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking of the debunking of the story of “Abraham Lincoln’s walking a great distance to return a small coin to its rightful owner,” stated that “clever debunkers in their unrighteous zeal have destroyed faith in such honesty.”

One of the debunkers of the myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln is Thomas J. DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo has written, so far, two books on Lincoln (The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe) and published a score of articles about him, a list of which are found here and here. You can also listen to an audio interview he recorded here. I’m also including a videotaped speech of DiLorenzo entitled, “Why Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln,” which can be viewed in six parts:

DiLorenzo is not alone in making these claims. There are other researchers who are bringing Lincoln facts to light, such as Sam Dickson, who wrote an article entitled, Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln. (These two men fulfil the law of witnesses: in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.) Nevertheless, I will focus on DiLorenzo’s articles and research.

I am not convinced that DiLorenzo’s, Dickson’s and other’s zeal in debunking Lincoln myths is unrighteous. Eventually all truth is to be revealed, all hidden, secret things are to be uncovered and all lies exposed as falsehoods. We LDS should applaud all efforts that correct past errors, including any erroneous view of Lincoln’s actions.

Although Lincoln undoubtedly believed he was in the right, that alone is not enough to revere him, despite what Elder Derrick said above. There have been plenty of tyrants and dictators who also firmly believed in their own principles. What is important is that the actions of a man correspond to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it. It is the gospel by which we measure all things.

Many of the GAs quote Lincoln, as he said many great and memorable things, but it is best to keep in mind that Lincoln was a politician. Politicians attempt to say the things that their audience want to hear. In the case of Lincoln, he did this masterfully. This is why both Christian and atheist alike claim Lincoln as their own. So, we cannot take a politician merely at his word, we must examine his actions to determine the real value of the man. And we must compare those actions with the gospel. As Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

In examining his actions, it is important to keep in mind the opposite principles of free agency and coercion, one being of God, the other satanic. In the pre-mortal council, some spirits of Heavenly Father did not wish to follow Christ. They didn’t want to be a part of that “union.” Our heavenly house was divided against itself. Did Heavenly Father force Lucifer and his followers to remain in heaven? Were they forced to accept Jesus? Or did he freely allow them to cut themselves off and leave, which is the right of secession? As a result of 1/3 of these spirits leaving, did the government of God dissolve? Or does it still exist? Keep this in mind when you ponder on the fact that Lincoln “saved the union” (at gunpoint) and “saved the Constitution” (by denying the right of secession and by forcing the South to submit to it, upon pain of death, imprisonment and/or loss of property.)

Now, here is a summary of DiLorenzo’s points on the unlawful and immoral acts of Lincoln:

  • Lincoln saved the union geographically, but destroyed it philosophically
  • He invaded the southern states without consulting Congress (unconstitutional)
  • He declared martial law (unconstitutional)
  • He blockaded southern ports without declaring war (unconstitutional)
  • He suspended the writ of habeas corpus (unconstitutional)
  • He imprisoned without trial some 13 northern citizens
  • He arrested and imprisoned newspaper publishers who were critical of him
  • He censored all telegraph communications
  • He nationalized the railroads
  • He created three new states (Kansas, Nevada and West Virginia) without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to rig the 1864 elections and give himself more electoral votes
  • He had soldiers interfere with the elections in the north (they used colored ballots, like a blue ballot was republican, a red ballot was a democrat, and if you saw someone with a wrong color the soldiers would not let them vote) using bayonets to rig the election
  • His amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody at the time as legal
  • He deported congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio (who eventually ended up in Canada,) breaking his door down in the middle of the night using Federal soldiers without a warrant and dragged him off to military prison (this happened to 13,000 people, too)
  • Vallandigham spoke of the real reason Lincoln was doing these things: “The real purpose of these acts was national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation and strong government, no more state lines, no more state governments, and a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism.” Shortly after saying this, Valandegan was deported.

Some of the northern war crimes committed include:

  • Some 50,000 southern civilians were killed by the Federal army
  • 1 out of 4 southern white men between 20 and 40 years of age were killed
  • Randolph, Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi were burned to the ground as was Atlanta
  • When Atlanta was burned, 90% of the structures were burned to the ground and then after they were all burned out, winter was coming on, and Sherman evicted the remaining residents from their homes, the countryside having no food in it

The idolatrous worship of Abraham Lincoln is an obstacle to the transition to anarchy. As long as LDS look upon him as a national hero, even a man of God, they will always be conditioned to look upon the State as a good thing. The purpose of this post is to cast additional light upon the Lincolnite sacred cow so that LDS can more clearly see and decide for themselves if Lincoln is worthy of their adoration and if he was the champion of liberty that we’ve all been taught he was (in our government schools.)

The South has always vilified Lincoln, while the northerners and LDS have always deified him. Maybe it is time we LDS re-examined our viewpoint, based upon this new research, to determine whether we are the ones in error.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: The Anarchy of Alma

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Is anarchism compatible with D&C 134?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist