American LDS and Guns

[Vanhin]

I guess non-American LDS are welcome to chime in as well. :)

Our scriptures affirm that the U.S. Constitution exists through divine intervention. In other words, it's practically scripture to Latter-day Saints. Here it is from the Doctrine and Covenants:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80)

The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, affirms the right of the People to keep and bear arms. This is an American heritage, which I believe our founders established for a wise purpose, and appears to be approved by God in our scriptures along with the rest of the Constitution as it stood in 1833.

So, my question is this. What do the latter-day saints here make of the right of the People to keep and bear arms? Is it important to protect that right, and why (or why not)?

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited December 2, 2009 by Vanhin

[NeuroTypical]

What do the latter-day saints here make of the right of the People to keep and bear arms?

Hi Vanhin!

My wife and I both have concealed carry permits, and matching his-and-her Glocks, does that help?

You might be interested in this poll thread. The question is "Does someone in your home own a gun or other means of self defense?", and around 65% of the 100+ people who ansered said Yes. I was surprised to see that many affirmative answers.

I love threads on this subject - I hope everyone contributes.

LM

Edited December 2, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[jmcic]

i dont own a gun but then again i live in the middle of nowhere but i think people should have the right to own one

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think LDS doctrine has a position on the desirability of an armed populace, here or abroad. LDS scripture may sanction some past civil insurrections (especially the American Revolution), but I should think that the twelfth article of faith would be more generally applicable to us today.

For myself: I dislike guns and strongly doubt my ability to use one properly. But I'm glad to know my neighbor has one (as long as he follows due safety procedures). And I rather prefer that any neighborhood crooks believe that I might be armed, whether I am or not.

[beefche]

I believe in the right to defend myself and loved ones from harm. I am a pro-gun person and think that we have the right to choose for ourselves whether we want to own a gun or not. I fully support the 2nd amendment (which was actually for protecting ourselves against the gov't).

I do believe in the sanctity of life and the only time I would ever use my gun on someone is if I fear that person is trying to kill me. A gun isn't for show or to wave at someone in hopes they won't take my purse. They can have my purse, but they can't have my life.

[Dravin]

Keep in mind that though the Consitution may have been established for a wise purpose, that doesn't mean it is perfect. For instance, I don't think the 3/5ths compromise sprang from divine princple. Personally I like the 2nd admendment, but I think it is incorrect to simply assume it springs from divine princple and that the NRA has God in their corner because God inspired the Consitution and the Consitution has the 2nd admendment in it.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Dravin

[beefche]

So, Dravin, do you support 2nd amendment? Do you not support it? Do you support it with more amendments?

[Maya]

We have quite a few rifles. they are registeres adn we also have a weapon couboard of seal with special lock. We did not tell our kids about them before they were over 15 or so. We almost never used them. My DH got them from his father.

One of them was not registered, but then the police had a special week during which all those who had a gun that was not registerred could come and register it, so my dh went to register it. His father had died and he had got his gun... It was good they had this possibility to "repend" and register.

[Vort]

I guess non-American LDS are welcome to chime in as well. :)

Our scriptures affirm that the U.S. Constitution exists through divine intervention. In other words, it's practically scripture to Latter-day Saints.

This is simply not true. The fact that the US Constitution is divinely inspired does not mean that it is scripture. It is not, or else you would have to concede that human slavery is a divine institution (as disproven in v. 79 of the scripture you quoted).

So, my question is this. What do the latter-day saints here make of the right of the People to keep and bear arms? Is it important to protect that right, and why (or why not)?

Yes, I think it's important. It is not tops on my list of priorities, but I do think it should be defended.

[Dravin]

So, Dravin, do you support 2nd amendment? Do you not support it? Do you support it with more amendments?

I support it, to wit:

Personally I like the 2nd amendment...

Now it may be God's will and desire that we have access to guns, he may have directly inspired the 2nd amendment to that end. I just don't think it is a given that because it is in the Constitution such is the case. For instance, originally only Representatives were directly elected, does this mean that we have a doctrinal duty to repeal the 17th amendment? Some people want to eliminate the electoral voting system as establish in the constitution, do we have a doctrinal duty to resist this?

[Vanhin]

I think the right to self defense, and to defend others, is a fundamental right that can be supported by scripture. I think that in order for us to safeguard our freedom from both foreign invasion and from local tyranny, it is fundamentally important for the citizens to be armed.

I cannot agree with governments that disarm the citizens, or infringe on their right to arm themselves in any way. So, I have a huge problem with countries and laws that requires people to "register" or otherwise jump hoops to arm ourselves.

I think history has proven that the best safeguard against tyranny is an armed militia - which by definition is all able bodied citizens (usually males) capable of military service.

Yes, the following is true:

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. (D&C 134:5)

I think an encroachment on the freedom of conscience would justify rebellion, and I think the following verse from the same section is also true:

We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded. (D&C 134:11)

As someone responsible for the safety of my family, and by extension, the safety of our republic, I would not be caught dead without being armed sufficiently to accomplish my responsibility. Until the Savior comes again, that is, when weapons of war will be converted for other useful purposes. (Isa. 2:4)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Wingnut]

Hi Vanhin!

My wife and I both have concealed carry permits, and matching his-and-her Glocks, does that help?

You might be interested in this poll thread. The question is "Does someone in your home own a gun or other means of self defense?", and around 65% of the 100+ people who ansered said Yes. I was surprised to see that many affirmative answers.

I love threads on this subject - I hope everyone contributes.

LM

Your link is broken.

[Vanhin]

This is simply not true. The fact that the US Constitution is divinely inspired does not mean that it is scripture. It is not, or else you would have to concede that human slavery is a divine institution (as disproven in v. 79 of the scripture you quoted).

I already supported my statement from our actual scriptures. You are welcome to come to terms with it any way you like.

Regards,

Vanhin

[NeuroTypical]

Your link is broken.

Thanks - all fixed.

[Dravin]

I already supported my statement from our actual scriptures. You are welcome to come to terms with it any way you like.

Regards,

Vanhin

You supported a thesis of defneding oneself being acceptable, even diserable but you did not support that the U.S. Consitution (in which form?) is considered scripture by the Church..

I did find this though:

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” 6 also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Divinely Inspired Constitution

The first statement can be read either way. It does support though that just because something is in the Consitution it isn't de facto scripture/doctrinal. Of course he doesn't mention where he feels the 2nd admendment falls.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Dravin

[Misshalfway]

I have a neighbor who is very passionate about NRA platforms. She is trying to encourage me to get a gun and put it in a safe under my bed. I am not choosing this path yet, but I am considering it. I don't live in a place with high crime rates and I am not a hunter so I am trying to find a place in my lifestyle where it makes sense because it feels like a wise thing to do.

My problem with the idea that restricting guns will decrease gun violence. I am fairly sure it will only make things worse.

[john doe]

I think that a government that fears its citizens is a better situation than a citizenry that fears its government. I believe this is one of the top reasons for keeping the amendment.

During the Cold War there was a belief, accurate or not, that a foreign power would think twice about attacking a country in which a vast majority of the citizens were armed and willing to defend themselves from invasion.

My experience has been that criminals will attack the weak rather than risk injury or death by attacking the strong. I believe that guns can help the cause of defending yourself and your family with the right kind of training and knowledge.

While I have not hunted in years, it is a good way to thin wildlife herds to manageable levels and put meat on the table at the same time.

Those would be my arguments to defend and keep the 2nd amendment. The 'guns kill' mantra doesn't really wash with me. I think if someone is determined to kill others, they will find a way to do it. A gun just happens to be an easy, less-messy, and convenient way to do it. I do believe in responsible gun ownership, though. A gun owner has a huge responsibilty to make sure that they use and store them properly so that they do not fall into the hands of criminals, children, or inexperienced people.

[Wingnut]

I already supported my statement from our actual scriptures. You are welcome to come to terms with it any way you like.

Regards,

Vanhin

Vort's right. "Inspired" is not the same as "revealed." I can give a talk in sacrament meeting that has been inspired, but it doesn't mean it's scripture. As someone else (maybe Vort?) pointed out, if you accept the United States Constitution as scripture, then you accept that a black man or woman is only 3/5th of a "real" person. I think some would take issue with that, don't you?

[nbblood]

I fully support the 2nd Amendment. However, I think that many gun owners get wrapped around their right to keep and own guns and fail to adequately recognize the tremendous responsibility that is inherent in owning and possessing guns. In other words, using them safely and appropriately so no collateral damage is done through their use, keeping them from being used by children without supervision (which results in tragic accidents sometimes), keeping them from falling into the hands of criminals (this includes responsible private sales IAW regulations). This is a short list of the many responsibilities.

I own many guns of many types. I use them mostly for recreational purposes (recreational shooting, hunting). Could I defend myself with these weapons? You bet! I also have a 2 1/2 year old and another on the way. I do not take lightly the fact that my guns are in the same house they are. I take measures to ensure they don't find a new "toy" to play with and a horrible accident occurs.

I also previously had a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and owned and operated a business from my home in which I sold firearms. I complied with all regulations. I would do the same in a private sale. I simply would not sell a firearm to somebody without knowing who they were or without a recent NCICS background check. I also secure my weapons in my home to avoid (as much as possible) theft/burglary of my weapons. Additionally my home is secured with a home security system.

I am absolutely NOT in favor of further restriction. But I do strongly urge gun-owners to acknowledge their trememdous responsibility and act accordingly. I enjoy responsibly using my guns. I don't want that taken away from me.

[Vanhin]

You supported a thesis of defneding oneself being acceptable, even diserable but you did not support that the U.S. Consitution (in which form?) is considered scripture by the Church..

I know my hint was subtle, and I wish now that I had been more clear. I did not say, nor mean that the Constitution was "scripture", as in the books of the Standard Works. I said, "practically scripture" to LDS, but what I meant was "practically scripture to some LDS".

I recognize not everyone feels like that about it, that's why I opened it up for discussion.

I did find this though:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Divinely Inspired Constitution

The first statement can be read either way. It does support though that just because something is in the Consitution it isn't de facto scripture/doctrinal. Of course he doesn't mention where he feels the 2nd admendment falls.

There is nothing Elder Oak's comments that I don't agree with. However, our scriptures do establish the Constitution as divine, and the primary reason God "established" it, was because no man should be in bondage to another.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:79-80)

To me, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, is in harmony with this purpose during this pre-Millennial age, as the final check and balance against tyranny.

The Constitution, that God said that He established, included the provision of further amendments, to rectify things like slavery. I am one of those LDS who think that the U.S. Constitution is practically scripture, because God established it himself.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Vort's right. "Inspired" is not the same as "revealed." I can give a talk in sacrament meeting that has been inspired, but it doesn't mean it's scripture. As someone else (maybe Vort?) pointed out, if you accept the United States Constitution as scripture, then you accept that a black man or woman is only 3/5th of a "real" person. I think some would take issue with that, don't you?

I accept the Doctrine and Covenants as binding scripture for sure. And God said He established the Constitution. Take it up with Him.

Regards,

Vanhin

[hordak]

I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment but think the problem with this, and most the "divisive issues" in our nation is it seems to be argued allot from the extremes with emotion rather than logic.

What does confuse me on the issue is that states like California can severely limit the individuals right even though it's protected by the Constitution. However when North Dakota (IIRC) tried to place stricter restrictions on abortion it was shot down as unconstitutional.

[Misshalfway]

This may be the first time in history I disagree with you, V. And it's not that I completely disagree. I think my feelings of reverence concerning the US Constitution are just less extreme. I can't go so far as to say the thing is scripture and I hesitate to say that most LDS people think so. I am sure there are some but I am not sure such generalizations are what God had in mind.

If everything inspired by God were the equivalent to revelation or core doctrine then lots of religious movements in the world would be true. I think this is just evidence that God isn't confined by the limits of the church organization as He works for his wise purposes throughout the globe.

[Vanhin]

This may be the first time in history I disagree with you, V. And it's not that I completely disagree. I think my feelings of reverence concerning the US Constitution are just less extreme. I can't go so far as to say the thing is scripture and I hesitate to say that most LDS people think so. I am sure there are some but I am not sure such generalizations are what God had in mind.

If everything inspired by God were the equivalent to revelation or core doctrine then lots of religious movements in the world would be true. I think this is just evidence that God isn't confined by the limits of the church organization as He works for his wise purposes throughout the globe.

That's the thing. I'm not equating it with "scripture" like the Standard Works. I would be the first to argue that it is not that.

But I think it is pretty darn close, since God established it for a specific purpose, and made specific mention of it in our actual scriptures. We can thank the Constitution that God established, for securing our God given freedoms, not just in this country but all around the world. I argue that we can thank the Constitution for the abolishment of slavery in this country, because it was flexible enough to accommodate the existing culture and it's advancements. We can thank the Constitution, that God established, for a land that allowed the restoration to occur.

Maybe I am wrong, and I stand alone in this belief, but I reverence the Constitution of the United States, because God established it, and it has been a document with freedom as it's central principle. Until the Savior comes, I don't think there is a better form of civil government than what the Constitution establishes.

I mourn the day that we lose those rights it protects prematurely.

Regards,

Vanhin

[bytor2112]

I accept the Doctrine and Covenants as binding scripture for sure. And God said He established the Constitution. Take it up with Him.

Regards,

Vanhin

Amen brother. However, not so sure about some of the amendments. Like 16 (income tax) and 26(18 to vote).