2nd Amendment Concern

Discussion of principles relating to God's Law, Agency, Freedom, Liberty, the US constitution, and the Proper Role of Government.
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8350
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

2nd Amendment Concern

Postby lundbaek » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:39 am

I have long been troubled by legislation at local levels which infringe on a person's right to "keep and bear arms". I can find nothing in the US Constitution that would permit a state or city to impose any restriction on that right. Yet it happens. I see no provision that excludes a person with a record of past criminal activity or mental condition from the right to "keep and bear arms". Also, I fail to see any statement that prohibits a person who is a legal resident but not a citizen from that right. I am not complaining about some of the restrictions; It is the wording of the 2nd Amendment that I am on about. Possibly the best example of violations of people's right to "keep and bear arms" is the Norton Grove, Illinois prohibition of guns within town limits. I'm surprised that that local law was never overturned. Maybe I'm missing something.

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby gardener4life » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:42 am

I posted a note on the consequences of only elite groups being able to hold arms in another thread. You can can see it in things most hated about church where I'm referencing the Battle of Agincourt.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 100
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:20 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby captainfearnot » Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:59 pm

The courts have long held that reasonable regulation of the rights expressed in the Constitution do not amount to infringement. So we can make it illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and so long as that is deemed a reasonable regulation of the right of free speech then it's not infringing on that right.

How far the right to bear arms can be regulated without comprising infringement just depends on what is considered reasonable. In the case of Morton Grove, IL, the federal district court and the Appellate Court both ruled the ordinance banning handguns to be constitutional. However, that was before DC v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court first ruled in 2008 that that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm outside the context of military or militia. Had the Morton Grove ordinance been tested in courts since that landmark decision, it would likely have been overturned. But the town voluntarily dropped the handgun ban later that same year.

User avatar
Durzan
captain of 100
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:35 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby Durzan » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:55 pm

The militia context is where things get really interesting: Literally every single US Citizen is part of the unorganized militia.

harakim
captain of 100
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Near Lehi, Utah

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby harakim » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:57 pm

gardener4life wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:42 am
I posted a note on the consequences of only elite groups being able to hold arms in another thread. You can can see it in things most hated about church where I'm referencing the Battle of Agincourt.
Unless that thread was deleted...

gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby gardener4life » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:21 pm

Weird...

It did get a deleted. I tried to find it for reference. Anyway I'll give the short version because I'm discouraged that 2 or 3 pages of writing was deleted by some jerk. And it wasn't even offensive to anyone.

Basically there are similarities between the French approach to Agincourt and how our country operates. The Battle of Agincourt was one of the most important battles that ever happened in medieval history! Why? Because it changed the perception of how to fight and prepare for battles. Now a number of sources are going to quote how the loss was attributed to field tactics. This is way beyond that. It's interesting to look at the field tactics too but there was something really interesting in how the French lost this battle that has relevance to us today and what's happening in our country.

1) The French were in the middle of a vast power struggle between two people that wanted to be the ruler of the country at the same time. (Wow...that's happening now.)
2) Natural disasters were also enveloping the country at the time. (Wow, that's relevant to now. With us it's currently hurricanes, but with them the Black Plague had broken out before the battle but in the same time period.)
3) The French commander was mocked and ignored by his peers. I'm going off my memory but for various reasons the other French nobility and knights refused to recognize his leadership. There was disunity in the army and not just the country. They thought they didn't have to listen to him because they were nobility and he wasn't 'legitimate nobility'. He suggested there were many problems with why they shouldn't fight that day (and there were). Had they listened to him, then the French would have won this battle and not the English. But because the knights and nobility (which were the same during that time) were too PROUD to listen to him, they had a disconnect with reality and basically ran to their doom. (Close to the attitudes of many Americans; you can't tell me what to do even if it kills me!)
4) The French system was based on right to bear arms was only allowed by the royals and nobles. (Our system they are trying to take away right to bear arms). On the other side the British saw that he could overcome the famous French knight system (of knight nobility) by cheap longbow men.
5) The french system not only didn't allow normal people to bear arms their military was a bizarre system of only those blessed by God, which were royals and nobility were allowed to have the privilege of serving in the military, and owning land. (Currently our country is trying to recover because of economic strip mining of taking too much from the Middle class. This is again why this is important and relevant for our day. It also fueled the pride disconnect to common sense and reality.)
6) The long training time took much of the lifetime of a knight to be properly trained for battle. Years and years and years were thrown into the training and idea of what a knight should be, and how he had to have an established pedigree and connection to nobility. (Our system is falling behind in how many top positions are only achievable now by elitists and knowing those in power. This is also a symptom of secret combinations; else why aren't others able to get into those positions...not just power positions but it's trickling down to any position that can provide a middle class income is starting to be bought by SCs. (Not all the way there yet you could say but why is it when you see good jobs filled it's only people that have a certain look? Why aren't poor who worked hard and are educated allowed positions? Why are people so offended by even mentioning this unless its true?)

6b) connected to the idea above...the advent of the English Longbow (think automatic weapons of our day) revolutionized combat in the medieval eras. No longer were you dependent on expensive nobility led knights to defend the country...you could bring in any worthy person who was willing to work hard and put in a little elbow grease into training with the longbow for a couple of summers to be able to outfight knights that had been in training in many cases for more than half their lives. This was an equalizer in a lot of ways. But what's important to note here is that it shows how our police system is in some ways obsolete. Now I want to be careful here. Federalization of police isn't a good idea. Federalization is bad too because you would have foreigners, military, or people with no vested interest in local people serving in areas. The current police system you can argue to work as well as it has only because the police are in local communities they grew up in (more accountability) and more chance for loving and caring about those they serve (yes it falls short sometimes.) So I'm not promoting Federalization of Police.

But I do want to show how our current system of police is a bit outdated and has vulnerabilities to riots and protesting. Police could easily be swarmed and outnumbered in much the same way the English overcame the French in this battle. And they rely on a system that only uses their own people to solve; so it's not corrected yet. So far it's worked by pulling police from other towns into the town of the rights but that's a temporary fix and fragile. To give you an idea why this was so fragile. The riots a month or so ago in St. Louis, and in the Ferguson riots they had to bring in Police from all over the place. But that left other communities vulnerable too. So if the riots had broken out in those communities too that would have gone from bad to worse very fast.

The Battle of Agincourt shows that knights and police were outdated systems in some ways. (System of modern weapons that can overcome training, with only having certain elites allowed to defend a community, disunity in the country in front of foes (can't emphasize this one enough...other countries SEE our disunity and that's dangerous. This was one of the reasons the English knew they could steal French land), and rights to bear arms being fought for almost yearly currently.)

Now you do have to have police. I'm not a police basher. Police are good people and family people. But I'm trying to show our current system has a vulnerability which could be corrected by having organized and TRAINED backup volunteer pools similar to how militias were done around the 1800s and time period after the Revolutionary War. The idea is keep what's good and strengthen it's weak points but don't reinvent the wheel with something worse. (militias had some good points in that local people were known and had accountability and ties to their own areas to keep them healthy. They couldn't shat in the nest so to speak. This is still a challenge in really big cities though because the bigger a city is the less accountability and shatting in the nest can be accounted for and prevented.)

So what happened at Agincourt? You can look this up. I don't have the link but there is a youtube video floating around somewhere that goes into what I just said. A lot will only point out field tactic flaws though such as muddy ground, weather, arms types, etc. But everything above is verifiable if you can find the right sources. A key point here is after the battle of Agincourt, almost universally in the major powers of Europe there was less dependance on using exclusively knights only for battles. Yes they still used cavalry and knights but they realized the danger of overdepence on one area that can have its weak spots exploited against. I also think that as governments destabilize in the world, they will have to address issues similar to these as unrest and rioter violence grows.

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3339
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby David13 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:56 am

The problem is people are busy full time living their lives.
They work, have a family, church callings, desire some idle recreation, study, etc.
So basically, there just isn't time for it.
dc

gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby gardener4life » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:29 am

It is a sacrifice but people did do and still do volunteer firefighters in a lot of smaller communities in the U.S. They also did National Guard on weekends, which would probably be similar to how it would work. I think they could expand this for police backups especially for use around places that have a lot of unrest like Missouri, Chicago, and places where Antifa had staged trouble. They targeted those cities for a reason. Even though it was a flop this time it's not something I think that is good to ignore.

User avatar
alaris
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1633
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:54 pm
Location: Present before the general assembly

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby alaris » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:53 pm

lundbaek wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:39 am
I have long been troubled by legislation at local levels which infringe on a person's right to "keep and bear arms". I can find nothing in the US Constitution that would permit a state or city to impose any restriction on that right. Yet it happens. I see no provision that excludes a person with a record of past criminal activity or mental condition from the right to "keep and bear arms". Also, I fail to see any statement that prohibits a person who is a legal resident but not a citizen from that right. I am not complaining about some of the restrictions; It is the wording of the 2nd Amendment that I am on about. Possibly the best example of violations of people's right to "keep and bear arms" is the Norton Grove, Illinois prohibition of guns within town limits. I'm surprised that that local law was never overturned. Maybe I'm missing something.
I appreciate this thread and your comments greatly. Non citizens do not (and should not in my humble opinion) have the right to bear arms as the constitution is protection for citizens. We already know the left likes to allow unvetted immigrants into our society, and allowing such en masse with the ability to bring or buy arms - well that could spell worse disasters than those we've already faced.

That said, the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect its citizens and our god-given, not government-bestowed rights, so those god-given rights can only be taken away if the citizen does something to violate the rights of others. The legal resident guest should be the exception there - "Welcome to our country. Become a citizen if you'd like to bear arms within our borders." And adopt our way of life and assimilate to our belief in truth, justice, and the american way--right?

The purpose of the 2nd amendment again is not to bestow a right but to protect a right. The government therefore does not have any business defining what I can and cannot do to arm myself in my opinion. Now of course there's the "tank" argument where the government does not allow citizens to buy tanks. But, where should that line be drawn? The purpose of the second amendment is founded in how this country was formed - arming ourselves against tyranny. Libtards who think tyranny could never happen put the tard in libtard.

LDS who think it's a good idea to disarm citizens, I'd like to draw your minds to a sacred writ that was compiled and translated by the power of God for us in our day - The Book of Mormon.

From the Book of Mormon we learn:

  • Governments are naturally bad when left to their own devices
  • Governments are far worse when infiltrated by secret combinations
  • The US Constitution is an inspired document - Look how hard the left is fighting against it!
...and who exactly would enforce the disarming of citizens? These same government bodies? I don't know how governments are elsewhere, but I can only imagine they are at least as bad as state and federal government agencies in the USA. I can't name a single government department I'd want to emulate for healthcare let alone managing disarming the populace. Governments by nature are inefficient and corrupt - so handing them more power to disarm the population is a horrendous thought. Now let's add back in the fact that the Book of Mormon prophesies of secret combinations that will be had among us.
Ether 8:24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.
So now let's add the gadianton element - do you want the gadiantons disarming you?! Because I'm telling you now - they are there, and they in deep, and they are the ones calling for disarmament because an armed populace makes them very afraid - and their agenda requires the people to be sheeple - nice and disarmed like.

Then there's this:
1 Nephi 14:10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.
Just reading those few verses in 1 Nephi 14 alone should be enough for any saint to look to arm himself or herself to protect his or her family. Someone posted a great Ezra Taft Benson quote about this sacred duty to prepare, including to prepare to defend your family. This is the same prophet who got a nice close-up view of our government as the Secretary of Agriculture and warned us all repeatedly about secret combinations that are here now!

1 Nephi 14 also reveals who the primary target is of the mother of abominations - us. So yes, I'd like to be free to buy a tank.

** Edit **

mes5464 posted the awesome quotes in the "Why take my gun thread" viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46998

** Edit **
Last edited by alaris on Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
David13
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3339
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby David13 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:59 pm

alaris wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:53 pm
lundbaek wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:39 am
I have long been troubled by legislation at local levels which infringe on a person's right to "keep and bear arms". I can find nothing in the US Constitution that would permit a state or city to impose any restriction on that right. Yet it happens. I see no provision that excludes a person with a record of past criminal activity or mental condition from the right to "keep and bear arms". Also, I fail to see any statement that prohibits a person who is a legal resident but not a citizen from that right. I am not complaining about some of the restrictions; It is the wording of the 2nd Amendment that I am on about. Possibly the best example of violations of people's right to "keep and bear arms" is the Norton Grove, Illinois prohibition of guns within town limits. I'm surprised that that local law was never overturned. Maybe I'm missing something.
I appreciate this thread and your comments greatly. Non citizens do not (and should not in my humble opinion) have the right to bear arms as the constitution is protection for citizens. We already know the left likes to allow unvetted immigrants into our society, and allowing such en masse with the ability to bring or buy arms - well that could spell worse disasters than those we've already faced.

That said, the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect its citizens and our god-given, not government-bestowed rights, so those god-given rights can only be taken away if the citizen does something to violate the rights of others. The legal resident guest should be the exception there - "Welcome to our country. Become a citizen if you'd like to bear arms within our borders." And adopt our way of life and assimilate to our belief in truth, justice, and the american way--right?

The purpose of the 2nd amendment again is not to bestow a right but to protect a right. The government therefore does not have any business defining what I can and cannot do to arm myself in my opinion. Now of course there's the "tank" argument where the government does not allow citizens to buy tanks. But, where should that line be drawn? The purpose of the second amendment is founded in how this country was formed - arming ourselves against tyranny. Libtards who think tyranny could never happen put the tard in libtard.

LDS who think it's a good idea to disarm citizens, I'd like to draw your minds to a sacred writ that was compiled and translated by the power of God for us in our day - The Book of Mormon.

From the Book of Mormon we learn:

  • Governments are naturally bad when left to their own devices
  • Governments are far worse when infiltrated by secret combinations
  • The US Constitution is an inspired document - Look how hard the left is fighting against it!
...and who exactly would enforce the disarming of citizens? These same government bodies? I don't know how governments are elsewhere, but I can only imagine they are at least as bad as state and federal government agencies in the USA. I can't name a single government department I'd want to emulate for healthcare let alone managing disarming the populace. Governments by nature are inefficient and corrupt - so handing them more power to disarm the population is a horrendous thought. Now let's add back in the fact that the Book of Mormon prophesies of secret combinations that will be had among us.
Ether 8:24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.
So now let's add the gadianton element - do you want the gadiantons disarming you?! Because I'm telling you now - they are there, and they in deep, and they are the ones calling for disarmament because an armed populace makes them very afraid - and their agenda requires the people to be sheeple - nice and disarmed like.

Then there's this:
1 Nephi 14:10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.
Just reading those few verses in 1 Nephi 14 alone should be enough for any saint to look to arm himself or herself to protect his or her family. Someone posted a great Ezra Taft Benson quote about this sacred duty to prepare, including to prepare to defend your family. This is the same prophet who got a nice close-up view of our government as the Secretary of Agriculture and warned us all repeatedly about secret combinations that are here now!

1 Nephi 14 also reveals who the primary target is of the mother of abominations - us. So yes, I'd like to be free to buy a tank.

There is a lot more scripture and statements by the Presidents listed in one of the other topical threads.


But yes, clearly as members of the church, this is what we are to do.
dc

User avatar
alaris
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1633
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:54 pm
Location: Present before the general assembly

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Postby alaris » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:41 pm

lundbaek wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:39 am
I see no provision that excludes a person with a record of past criminal activity or mental condition from the right to "keep and bear arms".
I've been thinking more about the above part of your original post. "Reasonable" is a word that the law uses a lot if I remember my business law course correctly. I think that word is key here - laws that reasonably restrict rights that citizens have lost by reasonably attributing certain violation of laws to restricting the purchase and ownership of guns. The problem is when laws are unreasonably being associated to withdrawing gun rights. Violent behavior certainly should be associated with this. I understand there is a way for those who have had gun rights taken away to apply to have their rights restored, but violations of non-violent laws shouldn't necessarily remove gun rights.

"Mental condition" - now we are getting into sticky territory. We in the USA already have Obama-appointed judges legislating from the bench, pushing their agenda. Any sort of declaration of "mental condition" that removes the citizens right to "due process" given by the fourteenth amendment of course is something over which the gun grabbers are salivating. This is why Obama proposed using the no-fly list as a gun right removal tool - there is no due process when one is placed on or removed from the no-fly list.

There are already laws on the books addressing the ownership of firearms for "crazy people." So when libs tell you that we need to address mental illness, it's not a matter of legislation but enforcement. Is it any surprise that the government is also terrible at enforcing these laws?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and- ... y-ill.aspx

The problem is, many of these laws rely on the seller's discretion. Having the fed run a "crazy person" system would be a nightmare scenario which would poke a large hole in the 2nd Amendment and invite further legislation and abuse to restrict gun rights without due process. Plus, there are millions on the left who think Trump supporters are literally crazy. And there are millions on the right who know that liberalism is a mental disorder. The bottom line is you can't legislate away evil, and the elephant in the room that nobody is discussing is the fact that the morality of the world is and has been in decline for decades. Evil itself is what needs to be battled. Elevating ourselves and serving others and preaching repentance to the world all fights evil. However, sometimes the only way to stop evil is with the pointy end of a gun.


Return to “Principles of Liberty”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buffalo_girl, lundbaek, MMbelieve and 31 guests