Civil Disobedience

[JojoBag]

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 

 

In light of the 12^th Article of Faith, where would the Church stand when it comes to civil disobedience? Where is the line drawn when it comes to laws that are patently wrong? I know the stand on things like homosexual marriage and other morally bankrupt laws, but what do you do if laws are enacted or are judicially created out of thin air that prohibit you from freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution?

 

I have no doubt in my mind that within the next year there will be attacks in the form of legislation against the Church's tax exempt status because of its stand that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Additionally, you have the wannabe dictator, Barry, doing everything he can to disarm law abiding citizens.

 

There are two major precedents of civil disobedience within the church that I can think of. First was Joseph Smith refusing at times to be arrested, and when he was, members coming to his rescue and freeing him. Second is the Saints continuing to practice polygamy for 28 years in spite of it being outlawed in July 1862. Brigham Young had to hide from the government to keep from being arrested.

 

What would you do if an unconstitutional ban on all weapons was enacted? There are states that have enacted firearm registration laws in which an overwhelming majority of gun owners refused to comply with. What if the chapels and temples were shuttered because the Church refused to permit homosexuals to be married there? What if Obama were to go ahead and implement Executive Order 13603 signed into law in 2012? If you don't know about EO13603, it allows Obama to confiscate all food, all means of food production, transportation, and just about everything else required to survive, AND implement slavery. Yes, slavery. Read the order.

 

I believe this is where all the false flag mass shootings are headed. It gives Obama a casus belli to declare martial law and implement EO13603.

[Jamie123]

This from the Wikipedia page on EO13603:

 

Contrary to a few initial claims otherwise, the Order appears to update long-existing directives that have been issued as far back as the Truman Administration and makes no claim to allowing the federal government to confiscate private property or declare martial law.^[4][5] In particular, this executive order removes the name of the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the previous orders, and replaces it with references to branches of the Department of Homeland Security, to bring the previous orders up to date with changes in the structure of the Federal Government.^[5]

[Guest]

Didn't we already address this in another thread?  Look at the Declaration of Independence.

[Blackmarch]

In light of the 12^th Article of Faith, where would the Church stand when it comes to civil disobedience? Where is the line drawn when it comes to laws that are patently wrong? I know the stand on things like homosexual marriage and other morally bankrupt laws, but what do you do if laws are enacted or are judicially created out of thin air that prohibit you from freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution?

 

I have no doubt in my mind that within the next year there will be attacks in the form of legislation against the Church's tax exempt status because of its stand that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Additionally, you have the wannabe dictator, Barry, doing everything he can to disarm law abiding citizens.

 

There are two major precedents of civil disobedience within the church that I can think of. First was Joseph Smith refusing at times to be arrested, and when he was, members coming to his rescue and freeing him. Second is the Saints continuing to practice polygamy for 28 years in spite of it being outlawed in July 1862. Brigham Young had to hide from the government to keep from being arrested.

 

What would you do if an unconstitutional ban on all weapons was enacted? There are states that have enacted firearm registration laws in which an overwhelming majority of gun owners refused to comply with. What if the chapels and temples were shuttered because the Church refused to permit homosexuals to be married there? What if Obama were to go ahead and implement Executive Order 13603 signed into law in 2012? If you don't know about EO13603, it allows Obama to confiscate all food, all means of food production, transportation, and just about everything else required to survive, AND implement slavery. Yes, slavery. Read the order.

 

I believe this is where all the false flag mass shootings are headed. It gives Obama a casus belli to declare martial law and implement EO13603.

Most things can be worked around.. however should something become law that is in direct opposition to something that is vitally important to the saints that absolutely can't be worked around then we will break the law and deal with the consequences.

a total ban on weapons would not be enough to break laws for. weapons are 0- very low on the importance to our spiritual health and relationship to christ and god list. were that to happen and I felt that I needed weapons i would go into metalurgy and machining and get the tools necesary for creating guns and create the parts needed but leave them unassembled in a vault. If i felt I needed to be armed all the time I would take my walking staff with me everywhere.

[omegaseamaster75]

 

What would you do if an unconstitutional ban on all weapons was enacted?

My guns would be lost in a boating accident

[omegaseamaster75]

This from the Wikipedia page on EO13603:

Wikipedia, yeah I always go there when I want facts

[NightSG]

a total ban on weapons would not be enough to break laws for. weapons are 0- very low on the importance to our spiritual health and relationship to christ and god list.

 

 

Losing the ability to "provide the necessities of...protection" for my children isn't important?

[Blackmarch]

Losing the ability to "provide the necessities of...protection" for my children isn't important?

are guns the only thing that can provide protection in the universe?

[NeuroTypical]

were that to happen and I felt that I needed weapons i would go into metalurgy and machining and get the tools necesary for creating guns and create the parts needed but leave them unassembled in a vault. If i felt I needed to be armed all the time I would take my walking staff with me everywhere.

 

Different strokes, I guess.  When my wife and I helped put a guy behind bars for five to life, some things dawned on us.  When he got out, we worried he might come looking for a little payback.  He knew where we lived, he had been in our house before, he knew our children.  We live out in the middle of nowhere, cops are 5-15 minutes away or longer.  

 

Between my bad back and my wife's heart condition, we didn't think walking around with a stick would help much if prison-hardened dood in the prime physical shape of his life showed up on our doorstep.  So we both got permits, got armed, got training, and got practice.   And yeah, since bad guys don't usually announce their intention to get revenge like that, we didn't leave the things disassembled in some remote vault.

 

Blackmarch, I'm glad you know what works for you and you go with it.  You do realize, don't you, that other people may make very different decisions, that have equal validity, right?

[NightSG]

are guns the only thing that can provide protection in the universe?

 

Can you name another easily portable means of defending effectively against a criminal, who by definition doesn't follow laws, armed with a gun?

[Blackmarch]

Different strokes, I guess.  When my wife and I helped put a guy behind bars for five to life, some things dawned on us.  When he got out, we worried he might come looking for a little payback.  He knew where we lived, he had been in our house before, he knew our children.  We live out in the middle of nowhere, cops are 5-15 minutes away or longer.  

 

Between my bad back and my wife's heart condition, we didn't think walking around with a stick would help much if prison-hardened dood in the prime physical shape of his life showed up on our doorstep.  So we both got permits, got armed, got training, and got practice.   And yeah, since bad guys don't usually announce their intention to get revenge like that, we didn't leave the things disassembled in some remote vault.

 

Blackmarch, I'm glad you know what works for you and you go with it.  You do realize, don't you, that other people may make very different decisions, that have equal validity, right?

absolutely. If felt i needed a gun then i'd have a gun- but guns are not allowed in all places my prefernce for self defense would be something that would be relevent to being usable in more areas and there are generally a greater number of hostile situations that don't require a gun, or where a gun is less effective. IF i knew I was going, into an area where that wasn't adequate i'd probably switch out.

However the question was dealing with the law supposing if firearms were totally and completely banned by the gov- when you break the law you are in danger of justice being meted out- and if the law should catch up to you you'd most likely be imprisoned where no amount of guns you have will do you good, and you cannot do anything to defend your family. - a situation none of us in the us are in.

In your situation would you risk the SWAT and consequent potential harm to your family just because someone might come back to finish a job... now that risk might be worth it for you. I don't have any problem with that. I highly doubt I'd be reporting any neighbors who didn't get rid of their firearms were such a law be made either (but murphologist in me says sooner or later somone will).

However when someone asks what the church on whole will do as a church will do, the priorities are going to be food and shelter, then the spiritual welfare of its members- and the church is not going to put them in a situation that will tear families apart or bring the government down on them unless it absolutely has to. Just having guns taken away, doesn't merit that. Now if it was having guns taken away, the military was gathered and on the move to wipe out towns, and more than that - then ya i could see something other being obedient to the law being issued by the 12 apostles.

BUT always a big but. the church is lead by revelation.

Those who are quick to take arms need to be prepared to be commanded to put them away, bend over and take it.. even if everything else in the universe is screaming that to be the most colossal mistake ever made.

And conversely those who slow to take up arms have to be prepared to recieve a command to take up arms, possibly against their very neighbors.

both are possible God has done both before.

[JojoBag]

Can you name another easily portable means of defending effectively against a criminal, who by definition doesn't follow laws, armed with a gun?

 

Well, according to DSH, you can always throw sticks and stones at some guy who is blazing away with an AK-47.  You might get lucky and bend the front sight if you hit it hard enough.

[Blackmarch]

Can you name another easily portable means of defending effectively against a criminal, who by definition doesn't follow laws, armed with a gun?

Ya- have the holy spirit. He's more than just a comforter. second to that i'd say your brain, thirdly your physical shape, fourthly physical training

I do have a question- why do you think the criminal is going to give them time to get their weapon out?

Now barring the HG , I'd highly recommend martial arts, i'd also recomment getting military training where you train in what to do when you are in a disadvantaged situation. If you have time for a gun you probably have time do a few things that can end up being effective at keeping you alive, otherwise your banking on the criminal on giving you time so you can kill him.

while you're at it I suggest training for nuclear attacks, conventional attacks, planted bombs, biological attacks, sniper attacks (really the smart way to use a gun), CPR, First aid, how to deal with fires, chem attacks, anti-booby traps. etc etc...

Build your home to have secure areas, set up your yard so it works in your defense. Teach your kids how to live safely, and good safety behaviors etc...

Many big city gangs reinforce their safehouses so that swat actually have to use some significant machinery to actually get into the house... maybe take a page out of their book?

Generally criminals bank on victims being scared, the defender generally has to bank on the criminal being hesitant or not wanting to kill.

 

In the end if someone wants you dead they'll accomplish it at an hour you least expect or are prepared for, and no amount of guns will help you (and unless that someone is pretty stupid..... which admittedly is the gap that does allow guns to be a defense in many cases).

.... while on the subject why don't we arm missionaries?

Edited December 9, 2015 by Blackmarch

[Guest]

are guns the only thing that can provide protection in the universe?

 

When the other guys have guns, pretty much yes. 

 

I think it would take a civil war to actually remove guns from America's citizens, no matter what the liberal media would have you believe. 

[Guest]

Ya know what they say:  God made man.  But Mr. Colt made 'em all equal.

 

Actually, I'd give more credit to John Moses Browning.

[NeuroTypical]

"I do have a question- why do you think the criminal is going to give them time to get their weapon out?"

 

1.  Criminals often seek targets of opportunity.  Someone who looks like they might be capable of defending themselves are passed over, for that lady with her head in her iPhone as she waits for the bus.

 

2. Most criminals just want what they want - money, sex, respect of their peers - and they want to do as little as possible to obtain it.  Most criminals don't go into a situation thinking "I've got the drop on this guy and can kill him if he's armed" (see #1)

 

3. Training and experience trumps youthful bravado and adrenalin, regardless of what the crminial is planning to "give" their victim.

 

 

 

"If you have time for a gun you probably have time do a few things that can end up being effective at keeping you alive, otherwise your banking on the criminal on giving you time so you can kill him."

 

True enough.  My family's plan for dangerous stuff is "Don't be there in the first place.  If you're there, run away.  If you can't run away, hide.  If you can't hide, fight."  Before my gun goes into play, I've already tried deterrence, avoidance, and evasion.  But if all else fails, a firearm is the great equalizer.  

 

 

 

"while you're at it I suggest training for nuclear attacks, conventional attacks, planted bombs, biological attacks, sniper attacks (really the smart way to use a gun), CPR, First aid, how to deal with fires, chem attacks, anti-booby traps. etc etc..."

 

Agreed.  I've been government CERT trained for all that, I'm on the medical response team at my work and we get training a few times a year.  

 

 

 

"In the end if someone wants you dead they'll accomplish it at an hour you least expect or are prepared for, and no amount of guns will help you"

 

Horse hockey.  Obviously false on it's face.  Totally refuted by oodles of examples every year in the U.S. 

 

 

 

".... while on the subject why don't we arm missionaries?"

 

Probably for the same reason the handbook says we shouldn't take our guns to church.  It would be inappropriate.

Edited December 9, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[mirkwood]

I will carry a firearm with me for the rest of my mortal life.  I have some real enemies out there who would think nothing of gunning me down given the opportunity.

[NightSG]

2. Most criminals just want what they want - money, sex, respect of their peers - and they want to do as little as possible to obtain it.  Most criminals don't go into a situation thinking "I've got the drop on this guy and can kill him if he's armed" (see #1)

 

For the most part, the guy who walks up and sticks a gun in your face is an amoral coward.  He wants to take your stuff by force, and wants to stack the deck in his favor.  He's also generally not terribly bright, or he'd have found a much lower risk way to make a lot more money.

He's going to want you to reach into your clothes or purse, (unless you carry your wallet taped to your forehead) so you'll have a chance to draw.  Once your gun is clear of the holster, you should be firing faster than he can respond.  He's not expecting effective resistance, or he would have picked a softer target.  Therefore, you're putting him completely outside his OODA loop, and you need to use the delay while he reorients to the change in the situation.

It's the same reason we practice disarms in martial arts; if the guy was expecting that sort of resistance, there's no way he'd be holding a gun on you from within hand-to-hand range.  If he really expected you to be armed and resist effectively, he'd look for an easier victim.

[NeuroTypical]

Meh - dood can have my wallet.  And my wife's wedding ring.  And our fancy phones.  And our car keys.  Money and headache and stuff isn't worth what my family would have to go through if I drew my firearm and used it.  And if I ended up killing dood (which is the picture being painted here), it's not worth what the loved ones in his life would go through.  Even thugs have mommies.  Other folks may make other decisions, but I'm unwilling to shoot someone to stop a robbery.   Now, if dood gives the slightest indication that he's going to use that gun, then all bets are off.  Many folks will say that him waving it around is an indication he's going to use it.  That's fine with me.  I choose differently.

 

Fun story:  Subway sandwich shop near my work, right next to the freeway offramp.  Subway employee working night shift, dood walks in points a gun at him and demands all the money in the register.  Employee follows company policy and fully complies, filling dood's bag.  

 

Dood doesn't immediately leave, but stands there, still pointing gun at employee, rambling about how "I oughta shoot you right now".  

 

Employee (a six-foot tall 210 lb martial artist of Korean descent with an interesting upbringing) waits for his moment, throws his entire weight against dood (maybe 5'5", maybe 170 lbs, who squeaks and drops the gun and the bag).  Employee picks up the gun and, swearing loudly, fires two rounds at the retreating form of dood.  

 

Cops show up and congratulate employee for keeping his head and acting appropriately, both in the initial stages of the robbery, and after the threats of imminent bodily harm appeared.  Employee is still employed there, last time I checked.  He's always good for a fun story.

[Guest]

What would Australians do?

Edited December 10, 2015 by anatess

[unixknight]

Render unto Caesar...

 

We're subject to the law, but I would say the time to make an exception is when the demands of the law conflict with the Gospel.  Gun ownership is not a spiritual principle.

 

That being said, The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and any law that contradicts it is no law at all.  So in the case of a gun confiscation program it could be argued that disobediance to such a program is fine because the highest law in the land isn't being violated by being a gun owner.  That's sticky ground though, and a matter of personal judgement.

[NightSG]

Meh - dood can have my wallet.  And my wife's wedding ring.  And our fancy phones.  And our car keys.  Money and headache and stuff isn't worth what my family would have to go through if I drew my firearm and used it.

 

I make it a point not to trust people who are in the process of stealing from me.  Especially if what I'm trusting them not to do is hurt or kill me.

[NeuroTypical]

What does trust have to do with it?

[LeSellers]

What does trust have to do with it?

In the movie Undercover Blues, the hero gets mugged while walking his baby. The thief gets the watch and the wallet. Then he indicates he's going to do physical harm to the man and the little girl. The (unbeknownst to the mugger) highly trained spy/agent says something like, "I thought we had an agreement: you'd commit a felony and I'd go on my way."

He then beat the snot out of "Muerte" (who gets called "Morty" for the rest of the show), using the folding baby stroller, while holding the little one the whole time.

"Trust" is in that understood agreement: "You commit a felony, and I go on my way."

Lehi

Edited December 11, 2015 by LeSellers

[zil]

In the movie Undercover blues, ...

Dude! You are so dating yourself.  (Says the woman who has a VHS tape of this movie on the shelf under her TV.)