rayb wrote:

---

Well, crud, Arbi, I guess we don't need living prophets then... or living leaders... we could just use dead ones...

--Ray

---

Thank you for the ad absurdum argument, Ray. Of course we need modern prophets! A spiritual leader is as important to us as a military leader is to his troops in a battle, even if they have fought the same foe with more or less the same weapons as before.

My main point, however, is that previous advice doesn't become invalidated just because it is old, and we now have new advice. Besides, communism is alive and well. It's not like we've gotten rid of anything; we've just added enemies. 

historian wrote:

---

The book sold moderately well until October 1959 when President David O. McKay held it up during his General Conference address and recommended that every member of the Church read it. Within hours, not a single copy could be found in Salt Lake City bookstores. Over the next two years the book rose in sales to become a national best seller and is still in print today.

---

Cat Herder wrote:

---

So, are you saying that just because a person does not own guns, does not shoot guns for sport or hunting, and believes that laws controlling who can own certain types weapons whose real sole purpose is to either impress other collectors of said weapons or to be weapons is somehow not compatible with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

If so, then I would have to be labeled exactly the same way you are labeling this candidate. I own no gun, I do not hunt, and the only times I have ever used a gun is at scout camps or the rare visit to a shooting range with friends. Do I begrudge anyone who wants to own them, hunt, shoot them, or who need them for personal protection? No. But I do believe that it is prudent to have laws that will limit what is considered a firearm for non-military, non-police possession.

I think there are more people out there that have a fairly moderate look at the issue. The right was to keep and bear fire arms, not to have private arsenals of the implements of war. I don't think the right was inferred to mean that private citizens had the right to privately own pieces of artillery (back in the day when that was perhaps the most advanced weapon technology when the Constitution came about) without a special dispensation from the government.

In other words, I personally do not see an incongruity between rule of law as determined by the voice of the people (concerning gun control) and supporting the right to keep and bear arms as private citizens. It is not an all or nothing issue as many would like to make it.

---

This brings up the argument of original intent of the writers versus a "living document" interpretation.  Based on original intent then you would have to say that the founding fathers meant all military arms because that is what they indeed intended as a result of the armed hostilities with Britain reinforced by their subsequent return.  Reading some of the more radical politicians of the day one can clearly make the argument that they definitely meant military arms and for the purpose of keeping the government itself in check.  Of course if you go with a more modern view of things as you seem to take on this then indeed you can try and argue that the founding fathers never meant tanks, mortars, machine guns etc.  The problem is that the happy medium will inevitably lead to further restrictions on gun rights because a group of people in this country who mistakenly think that this particular right is not an individual right but applies to some vague militia which is absolute nonsense if you understand history but in today's world of activist judges and crooked politicians the further eroding of those rights is definitely possible in the future.  Comparing owning a gun to the restriction on driving a car is not a valid comparrison because frankly owning a car is not a right no matter what people think but owning a gun is a right in the Constitution, one they felt was important enough to clearly spell out.  But be that as it may, the gun ownership groups fear, and rightfully so in the case Massachusettes, that by giving in to some restrictions on gun ownership that they will eventually lose them all.  When you look at the draconian restrictions in Masschusettes it is hard not to believe at least some of that argument.  The gun groups have conceded that background checks are a good thing and even were some of the most vocal supporters of getting the mental health stuff included after the incident at Virginia Tech.  But many laws limiting detacheable clips, calliber sizes, type of stock used, are basically feel good measures.  Many gun laws today have nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon or its intended use but how the gun looks.  For example, in California it is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle with a detacheable magazine that has a pistol style grip which basically eliminates the semi automatic civilian verson of the M16 known as the AR 15.  But I take that same gun and put a strait stock on it and put a pin through the clip to make it fixed and suddenly it's legal.  Basically the gun still functions the same and is just as deadly.  So government now is legislating on how a gun looks which to a non shooter nearly everything looks like a machine gun these days.  The other issue is that a criminal doesn't care anyway and will get whatever gun he wants to do whatever anyway.

What makes many gun owners nervous about Romney, to bring things back to topic, is that Massachusetts is basically the most unfriendly state for gun owners in the U.S.  Outside of Washington D.C. the laws are some of the most restrictive in America today.  Some have argued its easier to own a gun in Canada than it is in Massachusetts.  When you combine that with Mitt's comments on gun laws in the past, gun owners immediately start circling the wagons.  Gun owners as a group may be of different political persuasions but many, many folks look to gun rights as their sacred cow and will not stomach a politician they feel is not dedicated to this.  I know one issue politics drive some people crazy but for gun owners who have felt like they have been in the crosshairs ever since Reagan was shot and who are protrayed by gun control groups and politicians as nuts, it is a big deal.

Romney already has a huge hill to climb with many voters to get them past the whole "Mormon" thing.  When you add to that the mixed messages on guns, gays, etc it definitely increases the challenge for him.