Deleted

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by freedomforall »

brianj wrote: August 6th, 2017, 8:25 pm
CelestialAngel wrote: August 6th, 2017, 8:02 pm I'm still taking the concealed firearms permit class this coming Saturday but I only want it with hopes Hth at it will allow me to have my katana in its sheath in my trunk. Does anyone know if the permit would cover my butt for that? I'm calling BCI tomorrow to ask just to double check.
Unless they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or they are arresting you, the police have no right to look in your trunk. You don't need any permit to have any item you are legally allowed to possess in your trunk, and even if you had a trunk full of contraband the police can't look inside without probable cause or your permission.
Accept at a checkpoint. They call it an inspection. If you refuse an inspection and drive off, they call the police and then arrest for a violation of law. They laugh at your rights under the Constitution.

Entire Family ARRESTED for Refusing ILLEGAL Search!


UPDATE: 9.5.15: Family ARRESTED For Refusing ILLEGAL Checkpoint


brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by brianj »

I know of no legitimate legal reason why someone operating a motor vehicle can refuse to provide a drivers license to police. The guy in Freedomforall's video was told that if he handed over his license and registration they would issue a ticket then he could be on his way. Had he done so he could have argued against the constitutionality of these checkpoints in court. But instead he refused to provide his license even after repeated and very patient requests.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by freedomforall »

brianj wrote: August 7th, 2017, 7:54 pm I know of no legitimate legal reason why someone operating a motor vehicle can refuse to provide a drivers license to police. The guy in Freedomforall's video was told that if he handed over his license and registration they would issue a ticket then he could be on his way. Had he done so he could have argued against the constitutionality of these checkpoints in court. But instead he refused to provide his license even after repeated and very patient requests.
There are two aspects to the equation behind the Constitution, 1) hearing about our Constitutional rights (privileges), and 2) actually standing up for those rights. The man was standing up for his rights even against opposition. Those cops didn't give a rat about the Constitution as evidenced by their remarks. "Another Constitutionalist?"
The Constitution guaranties free movement from place to place to be free from searches, inspections, seizures or whatever. So when anyone is halted from that free movement and told to be inspected (which is actually a search)...it is clearly against the Constitution.
This is why we are told to learn the Constitution as meant by our Founding Fathers. For those that don't know their rights, they have none. They give away their freedom every time the cops tell them to drop their pants and do it.
If you think one can argue in court as to what is Constitutionally sound, tell that to the Judge over the Bundy's. Judge Navarro won't even allow the Constitution in her courtroom. The defense can't talk about it either. Courts today are under the law of the sea, not of the land...no due process, sometimes no jury, no quick trials and no Constitution.


Guy stands up to judge and Judge admits he has no rights


Guy Stands up to MD Judge 2 of 2


User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by David13 »

freedomforall wrote: August 7th, 2017, 8:56 pm
brianj wrote: August 7th, 2017, 7:54 pm I know of no legitimate legal reason why someone operating a motor vehicle can refuse to provide a drivers license to police. The guy in Freedomforall's video was told that if he handed over his license and registration they would issue a ticket then he could be on his way. Had he done so he could have argued against the constitutionality of these checkpoints in court. But instead he refused to provide his license even after repeated and very patient requests.
There are two aspects to the equation behind the Constitution, 1) hearing about our Constitutional rights (privileges), and 2) actually standing up for those rights. The man was standing up for his rights even against opposition. Those cops didn't give a rat about the Constitution as evidenced by their remarks. "Another Constitutionalist?"
The Constitution guaranties free movement from place to place to be free from searches, inspections, seizures or whatever. So when anyone is halted from that free movement and told to be inspected (which is actually a search)...it is clearly against the Constitution.
This is why we are told to learn the Constitution as meant by our Founding Fathers. For those that don't know their rights, they have none. They give away their freedom every time the cops tell them to drop their pants and do it.
If you think one can argue in court as to what is Constitutionally sound, tell that to the Judge over the Bundy's. Judge Navarro won't even allow the Constitution in her courtroom. The defense can't talk about it either. Courts today are under the law of the sea, not of the land...no due process, sometimes no jury, no quick trials and no Constitution.




FFA
You might want to renew your studies of the Constitution first by reading it more closely and paying attention to all the words there, then attend and pass successfully a law school, and maybe a state bar exam. It will help your Constitutional arguments a great deal. They are a bit skimpy, or staccato as is.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by freedomforall »

David13 wrote: August 7th, 2017, 9:40 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 7th, 2017, 8:56 pm
brianj wrote: August 7th, 2017, 7:54 pm I know of no legitimate legal reason why someone operating a motor vehicle can refuse to provide a drivers license to police. The guy in Freedomforall's video was told that if he handed over his license and registration they would issue a ticket then he could be on his way. Had he done so he could have argued against the constitutionality of these checkpoints in court. But instead he refused to provide his license even after repeated and very patient requests.
There are two aspects to the equation behind the Constitution, 1) hearing about our Constitutional rights (privileges), and 2) actually standing up for those rights. The man was standing up for his rights even against opposition. Those cops didn't give a rat about the Constitution as evidenced by their remarks. "Another Constitutionalist?"
The Constitution guaranties free movement from place to place to be free from searches, inspections, seizures or whatever. So when anyone is halted from that free movement and told to be inspected (which is actually a search)...it is clearly against the Constitution.
This is why we are told to learn the Constitution as meant by our Founding Fathers. For those that don't know their rights, they have none. They give away their freedom every time the cops tell them to drop their pants and do it.
If you think one can argue in court as to what is Constitutionally sound, tell that to the Judge over the Bundy's. Judge Navarro won't even allow the Constitution in her courtroom. The defense can't talk about it either. Courts today are under the law of the sea, not of the land...no due process, sometimes no jury, no quick trials and no Constitution.




FFA
You might want to renew your studies of the Constitution first by reading it more closely and paying attention to all the words there, then attend and pass successfully a law school, and maybe a state bar exam. It will help your Constitutional arguments a great deal. They are a bit skimpy, or staccato as is.
When you fall prey to the establishment and think like the establishment, then the Constitution no longer applies. So these snide remarks are moot.

Read "The United States Has Two Constitutions" by Jerome Horowitz, a former Attorney at Law then come back and say these things.

Also look up the law of the sea, or Navy.

I apologize if I offend anyone. Not my intent. Before defending the blue line and crooked judges, you might want to seek out what really takes place in America.

The Hammond's were put back in prison under "double jeopardy" and this is fact. Look up what double jeopardy is. Clearly against the Constitution.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by David13 »

freedomforall wrote: August 8th, 2017, 3:22 pm
David13 wrote: August 7th, 2017, 9:40 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 7th, 2017, 8:56 pm
brianj wrote: August 7th, 2017, 7:54 pm I know of no legitimate legal reason why someone operating a motor vehicle can refuse to provide a drivers license to police. The guy in Freedomforall's video was told that if he handed over his license and registration they would issue a ticket then he could be on his way. Had he done so he could have argued against the constitutionality of these checkpoints in court. But instead he refused to provide his license even after repeated and very patient requests.
There are two aspects to the equation behind the Constitution, 1) hearing about our Constitutional rights (privileges), and 2) actually standing up for those rights. The man was standing up for his rights even against opposition. Those cops didn't give a rat about the Constitution as evidenced by their remarks. "Another Constitutionalist?"
The Constitution guaranties free movement from place to place to be free from searches, inspections, seizures or whatever. So when anyone is halted from that free movement and told to be inspected (which is actually a search)...it is clearly against the Constitution.
This is why we are told to learn the Constitution as meant by our Founding Fathers. For those that don't know their rights, they have none. They give away their freedom every time the cops tell them to drop their pants and do it.
If you think one can argue in court as to what is Constitutionally sound, tell that to the Judge over the Bundy's. Judge Navarro won't even allow the Constitution in her courtroom. The defense can't talk about it either. Courts today are under the law of the sea, not of the land...no due process, sometimes no jury, no quick trials and no Constitution.




FFA
You might want to renew your studies of the Constitution first by reading it more closely and paying attention to all the words there, then attend and pass successfully a law school, and maybe a state bar exam. It will help your Constitutional arguments a great deal. They are a bit skimpy, or staccato as is.
When you fall prey to the establishment and think like the establishment, then the Constitution no longer applies. So these snide remarks are moot.

Read "The United States Has Two Constitutions" by Jerome Horowitz, a former Attorney at Law then come back and say these things.

Also look up the law of the sea, or Navy.

I apologize if I offend anyone. Not my intent. Before defending the blue line and crooked judges, you might want to seek out what really takes place in America.

The Hammond's were put back in prison under "double jeopardy" and this is fact. Look up what double jeopardy is. Clearly against the Constitution.


We weren't "defending" the establishment, we were merely interpreting it. It's essential that you use their thinking, their words, their laws to start with to get anywhere with them. That's why I suggest you study the law first. I know there are many lawyers in this world. In all good probability I know, and have known far more of them than you ever will. And yes, they all have different opinions.
dc

And there are no snide remarks there at all. That's your reading into it. It's just legitimate advice.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by freedomforall »

David13 wrote: August 8th, 2017, 4:51 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 8th, 2017, 3:22 pm
David13 wrote: August 7th, 2017, 9:40 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 7th, 2017, 8:56 pm
There are two aspects to the equation behind the Constitution, 1) hearing about our Constitutional rights (privileges), and 2) actually standing up for those rights. The man was standing up for his rights even against opposition. Those cops didn't give a rat about the Constitution as evidenced by their remarks. "Another Constitutionalist?"
The Constitution guaranties free movement from place to place to be free from searches, inspections, seizures or whatever. So when anyone is halted from that free movement and told to be inspected (which is actually a search)...it is clearly against the Constitution.
This is why we are told to learn the Constitution as meant by our Founding Fathers. For those that don't know their rights, they have none. They give away their freedom every time the cops tell them to drop their pants and do it.
If you think one can argue in court as to what is Constitutionally sound, tell that to the Judge over the Bundy's. Judge Navarro won't even allow the Constitution in her courtroom. The defense can't talk about it either. Courts today are under the law of the sea, not of the land...no due process, sometimes no jury, no quick trials and no Constitution.




FFA
You might want to renew your studies of the Constitution first by reading it more closely and paying attention to all the words there, then attend and pass successfully a law school, and maybe a state bar exam. It will help your Constitutional arguments a great deal. They are a bit skimpy, or staccato as is.
When you fall prey to the establishment and think like the establishment, then the Constitution no longer applies. So these snide remarks are moot.

Read "The United States Has Two Constitutions" by Jerome Horowitz, a former Attorney at Law then come back and say these things.

Also look up the law of the sea, or Navy.

I apologize if I offend anyone. Not my intent. Before defending the blue line and crooked judges, you might want to seek out what really takes place in America.

The Hammond's were put back in prison under "double jeopardy" and this is fact. Look up what double jeopardy is. Clearly against the Constitution.


We weren't "defending" the establishment, we were merely interpreting it. It's essential that you use their thinking, their words, their laws to start with to get anywhere with them. That's why I suggest you study the law first. I know there are many lawyers in this world. In all good probability I know, and have known far more of them than you ever will. And yes, they all have different opinions.
dc

And there are no snide remarks there at all. That's your reading into it. It's just legitimate advice.
I used to think like "we" but having read material that I posted for consideration, the establishment is not for "we the people". President Benson stated we need to stand up for freedom and this freedom thing is not limited to what is learned in law school or passing the bar.
We have been having changes made on a regular basis so as to not alarm the normal person. We shrug our shoulders and say "oh, well" and then continue on. But these changes to freedom stack up at some point until we find ourselves obeying whatever we're told to do by the establishment, which includes the blue line (cops). They don't even know the laws they're supposed to be enforcing. How many will arrest another cop for wrong doing? How many get ticked for wrong doing? How many will arrest crooked judges for not allowing due process. Gavin Seim has proven over and over again just how lawless cops are. Did you see the video where Gavin offers $500.00 for a good cop?
No, law school and passing the bar is not in any way, shape or form a good way to know our rights. Did you know that a defense attorney for the Bundy's here in Oregon was tased and put to the floor by Federal Marshals?

Marcus Mumford, Ammon Bundy's attorney, describes being tased in courtroom


Bundy Attorney Attacked By U.S. Marshals After Acquittal



Want more proof to consider?



Find out why this cop quit his job. Or ignore truth and keep thinking the establishment does right by people.


freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by freedomforall »

As for the personal ownership of weapons, this is a highly contentious political issue in the United States and various other places in the world. As far as I know, the LDS church does not have any doctrine on the subject either way.

The church has always held that the constitution and the rights established therein are inspired by god including the right to bear arms. As for the BYU-Idaho comment, it is an institution of higher education they can establish what rules they deem necessary to keep their student body safe it was not a statement of the LDS beliefs. Other non-religious and religious institutions have similar rules regarding weapons.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... and-on-war

Anyone recognize this guy? While researching self defense I came across this website.

https://mormonhub.com/forums/profile/10403-skalenfehl/

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by freedomforall »

Jesus carries a weapon...a tongue, sharper than a two-edged sword.

Doctrine and Covenants 33:1
1 Behold, ... open ye your ears and hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, whose word is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow, soul and spirit; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Seek the Truth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: Is Jesus against carrying weapons?

Post by Seek the Truth »

CelestialAngel wrote: July 28th, 2017, 8:19 am So every Mormon man should have a weapon?
Every sentient being should be able to fend for themself and take care of themself. Owning a weapon is part of the process.

Post Reply