2nd Amendment Concern

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

2nd Amendment Concern

Post by lundbaek »

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.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by gardener4life »

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 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by captainfearnot »

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
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by Durzan »

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

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by harakim »

gardener4life wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 12:42 pm 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 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by gardener4life »

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
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by David13 »

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 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by gardener4life »

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 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by Alaris »

lundbaek wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 12:39 pm 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 November 8th, 2017, 6:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by David13 »

alaris wrote: November 8th, 2017, 2:53 pm
lundbaek wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 12:39 pm 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 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by Alaris »

lundbaek wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 12:39 pm 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.

User avatar
righteousrepublic
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5580
Location: Telestial Earth

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by righteousrepublic »

If the Government were to invoke an all out gun confiscation, that alone would be a declaration of war against "we the people". Wouldn't it then be the right of every home owner to defend themselves against tyranny no matter where they came from or their mental condition? An attack against our liberties and freedom automatically causes emotional duress in men, so what's the big issue?
On any given day, any person could lose it and start shooting for no apparent reason. They call it momentary insanity.
Why take a gun away from someone that could potentially save your life.


The UK now has a knife problem, since guns were taken away, so what's next...ball point pens, belt buckles or glass mugs?

User avatar
righteousrepublic
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5580
Location: Telestial Earth

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by righteousrepublic »

Who are Antifa and what is their platform?

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by gkearney »

righteousrepublic wrote: June 16th, 2018, 5:47 am Who are Antifa and what is their platform?
Antifa is a far left group. The name is dirived from the phrase anti fascist. At times they can be violent. They are loosely organized with no central leadership. Their protests are organized over the internet in they manner of flash mobs. They are at the far fringes of the left resorting to tactics that not even the Communist Party would use.

They came into the public eye during the 2016 presidential election. Being in favor of gun control is rather hypocritical for them if you think about it as stricter gun control was often imposed by fascist governments.

User avatar
righteousrepublic
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5580
Location: Telestial Earth

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by righteousrepublic »

gkearney wrote: June 16th, 2018, 7:07 am
righteousrepublic wrote: June 16th, 2018, 5:47 am Who are Antifa and what is their platform?
Antifa is a far left group. The name is dirived from the phrase anti fascist. At times they can be violent. They are loosely organized with no central leadership. Their protests are organized over the internet in they manner of flash mobs. They are at the far fringes of the left resorting to tactics that not even the Communist Party would use.

They came into the public eye during the 2016 presidential election. Being in favor of gun control is rather hypocritical for them if you think about it as stricter gun control was often imposed by fascist governments.
So as they gain members and strength, are patriots in need of arming themselves at some point?
Sounds like a bunch of communists calling Americans fascists. The kettle calling the pot black kind of tactics.
Will they bring about a more recent need for the God to enact the cleansing?

Please read what Mosiah Hancock had to say, and the similarity of the things taking place that could make this battle be at our doorsteps. Isn't Antifa trying to divide America in some ways? Or do I not quite get the big picture yet? I have to know what to look for in case something awful comes from that movement.

[According to Brother Hancock, the Prophet Joseph Smith told him,] The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands until other nations will say, “Let’s divide up the lands of the United States,” then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their fore-fathers, that the land shall not be divided. Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S. army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle. They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up—when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, “Brethren, we are glad you have come; give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God.” Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when its liberty hangs by a hair, as it were. (Life Story of Mosiah Lyman Hancock, 19-20)

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by mirkwood »

We are more likely to lose freedom of speech and religion.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by gkearney »

righteousrepublic wrote: June 16th, 2018, 8:03 am
gkearney wrote: June 16th, 2018, 7:07 am
righteousrepublic wrote: June 16th, 2018, 5:47 am Who are Antifa and what is their platform?
Antifa is a far left group. The name is dirived from the phrase anti fascist. At times they can be violent. They are loosely organized with no central leadership. Their protests are organized over the internet in they manner of flash mobs. They are at the far fringes of the left resorting to tactics that not even the Communist Party would use.

They came into the public eye during the 2016 presidential election. Being in favor of gun control is rather hypocritical for them if you think about it as stricter gun control was often imposed by fascist governments.
So as they gain members and strength, are patriots in need of arming themselves at some point?
Sounds like a bunch of communists calling Americans fascists. The kettle calling the pot black kind of tactics.
Will they bring about a more recent need for the God to enact the cleansing?

Please read what Mosiah Hancock had to say, and the similarity of the things taking place that could make this battle be at our doorsteps. Isn't Antifa trying to divide America in some ways? Or do I not quite get the big picture yet? I have to know what to look for in case something awful comes from that movement.

[According to Brother Hancock, the Prophet Joseph Smith told him,] The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands until other nations will say, “Let’s divide up the lands of the United States,” then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their fore-fathers, that the land shall not be divided. Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S. army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle. They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up—when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, “Brethren, we are glad you have come; give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God.” Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when its liberty hangs by a hair, as it were. (Life Story of Mosiah Lyman Hancock, 19-20)
If Antifa were better organized or if they had a charismatic leader I would be inclined to worry more about them. As it is they are more like a band of hoodlums than anything else. Of course that is what people said about the Nazis in the 1920s and look where that lead. So, like the radical left of the 1960's Antifa will likely burn bight for a bit before fading away. How much do you hear about the SDS or the Weather Underground (the radical group not the meteorological web site) or other such groups today? And those groups had leaders. Most of their members are today grandparents living in Florida or someplace.

It is true that once your reach the far end of the political spectrum you start to take on the qualities of the far end of the other side and this is clearly the case with Antifa whose tactics are right out of the act of the fascist leaders of the 20th century. I do worry about the rising tide of fascism both here and abroad. To not put too fine a point on it, I see fascism in much of the acts and talk of our current president for my taste.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by EmmaLee »

gkearney wrote: June 16th, 2018, 3:11 pmHow much do you hear about the SDS and the Weather Underground (the radical group not the meteorological web site) or other such groups today? And those groups had leaders. Most of their members are today grandparents living in Florida or someplace.
Those who are listening have heard a LOT about them in very recent years. And they are hardly tottering old grandparents lounging in Florida. They are very active and doing their best to continue destroying our Republic.

Just one article spelling it out (there are many more) -

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/ ... weathermen

"And what of Ayers, Dorhn, Rudd, and Jones?

Ayers took the route into education as a professor. But that certainly hasn’t replaced his activism for the cause of communism. A few years ago he traveled to the red Mecca of Venezuela, a nation which quickly fell behind a new red curtain of tyranny under Hugo Chavez. Ayres was influential enough with that American-hating dictator to meet with him and appear on the same platform. There, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share this belief that education is the motor-force of revolution… I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Does it sound like Ayres has changed a single stripe from his “college activist” days?

Mark Rudd also went into education. He feels at home there, after all, he is the man who shut down Columbia University with a student strike in the Sixties. And he is still active in the cause. During the Obama election campaign in 2008, he turned up making comments on a radical blog called Rag Blog, where he attempted to calm nervous “progressives” (a new euphemism coined a few years back to provide cover for those who didn’t want to be called communists). The Progressives were growing nervous by the cabinet appointments Obama had been making. These old terrorists are so radical that they actually consider Hillary Clinton to be from the right! Of course keeping a bunch of old Clintonistas, not to mention a Bush holdover like Secretary of Defense Gates, has caused great concern for those who thought Obama was the answer to the revolution. Said Rudd, the Obama appointments are part of a deliberate strategy to “feint to the right” and “move left.” He said, “Any other strategy invites sure defeat.” Rudd, to be sure, wanted Obama to be victorious in his goals. Now why would that be? Rudd is a dedicated communist, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, seeking to destroy the American way of life.

Jones is now a political consultant and a dedicated environmentalist. One of his clients is the Natural Resources Defense Council, a radical environmental group made up of some of the most far-out and vicious lawyers ever assembled. Some on Capitol Hill have called them a street gang. They are revolutionaries in suits. They intimidate companies with their lawsuits and delight in suing the government to get their way. Their lawsuits help stop the drilling of American oil and American logging, and more. And when they win, they fill their coffers with taxpayer money as reimbursement for their legal costs. It’s the proper place for a former underground terrorist.

Dohrn is Ayers’ wife. They went underground together in the old days of the revolution. Today she continues to spread her brand of revolution by reaching into the community of families as a clinical law professor and director of the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University. She forces children’s rights today to create tomorrow’s revolutionaries.

Still, what is the Obama connection to these dedicated revolutionaries? It’s perhaps ironic that all four former Weatherman terrorists today worked through an organization called “Movement for a Democratic Society.” That organization was the parent to another one called “Progressives for Obama.” They raised funds for Obama, promoted his candidacy, and helped to recruit activists to support him.

In more than forty years, Ayers, Dorhn, Rudd, and Jones were not heard from in the mainstream media. They had not been an issue in any presidential election. They did not openly promote or support a candidate, snubbing even John Kerry and Bill and Hillary Clinton as not being revolutionary enough for their agenda for the destruction of America. Until Barack Obama. These four are dedicated Marxist revolutionaries. Why Obama? You don’t need a Weatherman to know why."

User avatar
righteousrepublic
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5580
Location: Telestial Earth

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by righteousrepublic »

Speaking of mental disorders, is it good to play ring-around-the-rosies, or to do this when faced with an enemy bent on taking your life? Maybe being crazy has some good points.


User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: 2nd Amendment Concern

Post by gkearney »

While I’m sure a handful of 60s radicals still are true believers I was talking about the mass of their followers from that time. Those people would be in their 60s and 70s now and they are as a rule not who we see at protest rallies today.

Post Reply