Free speech vs the Second Amendment

historian · Senior Member

Free speech vs the Second Amendment

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

This somehow remnds me of an incident last year when Presient Obama came to Phoenix to speak at a VFW convention. The streets surrounding the convention hall were packed with people protesting Obama's recent actions and statements, and with others supporting him. In the middle of all this a guy turned up with an assault weapon of some sort with a magazine inserted, slung on his back. Being in the middle of it myself, I went to have a look at the guy. It was obvious the police were watching him carefully, although I saw no movements to stop or apprehend him. They had, I was told, earlier determined that the gun was not full-auto, and thus not illegal on that count. It seems he was within his rights to carry the thing.

I think a stunt like that does nothing more than make all 2. Amendment rights advocates look bad. If he was trying to deliver a message, it was lost on me and the people I was with.

Attitudes toward guns are generally more friendly here in Arizona. A few weeks ago I was stopped after dark by a police officer concerned about me weaving on the road. He asked me if I had a gun in the vehicle. I told him no, and asked what difference that would make. He politely replied none, that he only wanted to know for his own safety. It was actually a pleasant encounter once I pointed out the pot holes I was trying to avoid and demonstrated that I was not intoxicated.

It would be interesting to learn what action, if any, was initiated by the East Palo Alto Police Dept. in response to the detective's expression of bitterness toward people who carry a gun. I think it certainly warrants a psych evaluation.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

A bit further on this subject, here in AZ there is a bill being debated now in the state legislature that would eliminate the requirement for a special permit (CCW) to carry a gun concealed. I'm supporting this as best I can by nagging my representatives and asking other to so the same. Except in cases of police and security guards, I find so-called open carry intimidating, and in some situations dangerous to the person carrying openly. For those reasons I would prefer concealed carry if I felt the need to pack heat.

DMGNUT · Veteran Member

There are LEOs out there who are Anti-Second Amendment.
As bizarre as this may seem to some folks, it's actually more common than one might think.
I live in AZ, and over the last few years, I have spent a good deal of time in gun shops.
The one thing that always disturbs me, is the growing number of shop owners telling me how many of the younger cops are actually quite vocal in their liberal, anti-gun views. To the point of even telling the shop owners how comforted they'll be once all the gun shops are closed.
I guess all I have to say about that is... In a pig's eye!
No pun intended...
Really though, I might be able to "buy into" the closing of businesses, as the result of passing some stupid law... but getting all 80 million gun owners to "hand-in" their guns, is a total load of crap, and a pipe dream to boot. And not one that would have a happy ending for the woefully out-numbered and out-gunned folks, who would even consider participating in an attempt to enforce such an ignorant law.
Anyways... just my 2 cents.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

DMGNUT wrote:

The one thing that always disturbs me, is the growing number of shop owners telling me how many of the younger cops are actually quite vocal in their liberal, anti-gun views. To the point of even telling the shop owners how comforted they'll be once all the gun shops are closed.

I would not believe such a statement until I heard it myself. I have never heard an officer say this. I've heard some other things said that I don't much care for, but never this one.

DMGNUT · Veteran Member

Maybe I should rephrase... these shop owners talk about a particular group of much younger cops (who are frequent customers), that view guns as being OK, but only in the hands of military or law enforcement.
I realize the comment from the officer in the post that started this thread is from CA. But, I think it clearly illustrates (or rather documents) the beginnings of a... "brave new?", "mind-set", in the younger generation of officers.
Who coincidentally, are also the latest product of our government's education system.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Last summer I spoke with several of our new officers. Guys with about a year. I made sure they knew what the 2nd Amendment was (just checked, they all did). I asked them if taking away people's guns was a violation of the Constitution. They all said it was.

I'll post on the various forums I'm on the day I meet the officer who says otherwise. Some of you know me personally and know my word for what it is.

DMGNUT · Veteran Member

Mirk, I feel I'm one of those people that knows you pretty well, and definitely do not doubt your experiences. I'd even go as far as saying I pretty much except your word as gospel.
I just wonder if some of the younger cops wouldn't be all together as forthcoming with senior officers from their dept, or if perhaps this is something more along the lines of AZ getting a lot more of the CA transplants (and thus, their way of thinking) than other states.
As per the post that started this thread, there is definitely a different kind of mind set in CA.
Not to imply that it has taken hold of all the LEOs over there, but on some level, it exists.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

When only the military and law enforcement are allowed to have weapons, then the State (specifically the executive branch in this country) ultimately holds the power of life and death over its citizens, and that's a scenario completely contrary to the intent of the Constitution--to limit the power of government over the citizens. That's why there are very strict laws governing how the military can be used relating to U.S. citizens.

Waco and Ruby Ridge should serve as vivid reminders of the potential for government abuse of power. An armed and informed citizenry is, imho, absolutely vital to keeping government abuse of power in check. I find it ironic that the liberal philosophy that gave us "Question authority" has evolved into "but we should trust the government to be our sole defense against our enemies."

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Going back some years now to when I lived in Massachusetts, one of the most anti-gun states in the union, I noted that certain LEOs favoured severe restrictions on gun possession, while others did not. The then Sheriff of Essex Co. teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy & Co. to promote a total prohibition of handgun possession by other that LE or military on duty. Then there was the gun store salesmen and part time cop in Upstate NY who told me the Mini-14 was only for sale to law enforcement. On the other side, when I went into the local police station in MA to apply for the necessary gun permit, the 3 cops in the reception area could not have been more courteous, encouraging and helpful. When I returned to pick up the permit, one of them advised that if I ever had to shoot a home invader outside the home, be sure to drag him inside before calling the police.

DMGNUT, you packin' heat to our stake conference today and tomorrow?

arbilad · Head Chef

While I trust Mirk about his experience, I also think that it is skewed by the fact that he works in one of the more conservative states of the union. I could definitely see this statement made in California or other more liberal states. Of course, I'm not a police officer, so I could be wrong.

DMGNUT · Veteran Member

Lund... I always carry.

Arbilad, The statement that Mirk was commenting on, was made to me by gun shop owners (in reference to younger cops) in the Phoenix, AZ area.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by law enforcement officers." Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, p.182.

I've participated in other forums where members insisted that this instruction from the First Presidency only applies in vicinities where it's illegal. The CHI makes it clear that even if it's legal, it's still not appropriate to carry in church.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

DMG's bishop and SP have a different perspective on the CCW.

I asked about that statement in one of my interviews out of curiousity. It was not in the current CHI. That was about two years ago.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

mirkwood wrote:

DMG's bishop and SP have a different perspective on the CCW.

I asked about that statement in one of my interviews out of curiousity. It was not in the current CHI. That was about two years ago.

Hmmm. The citation is from the 2006 (current edition) of the CHI. There have been no subsequent letters from church HQ giving exception to this policy. In Utah, the Church publicly supported the law to ban firearms in churches.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

This was during my TR interview two years ago. Nothing there. I asked cause I was curious. Legally speaking, as far as I know it is only applicable in Utah.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

mirkwood wrote:

This was during my TR interview two years ago. Nothing there. I asked cause I was curious. Legally speaking, as far as I know it is only applicable in Utah.

Legally speaking. But the Church's policy about its own chapels is as cited from the handbook. Perhaps this is one of those issues where local leaders have some wiggle room. I don't know for sure. But the policy is there. The exact reference is Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics, 2006 (current authorized edition) Section 19 - Church Policies, subsection 3 - Policies on Using Church Buildings and Other Property, page 182, second column, under the heading "Firearms". Might be worth checking into.

DMGNUT · Veteran Member

First, the church leadership are truly inspired men, and to my knowledge have never misspoken themselves. I therefore point out that saying something is "inappropriate", is entirely different than saying it is "forbidden". They have intentionally left the final decision in this area open, for individuals to seek inspiration on their own.

Also, it's my understanding that the above quoted passage (which is apparently no longer in the current handbooks) was intended for Utah residents only.

Having said that...

I appreciate the perspective of trusting in God for one's protection.

However, I disagree with the assumption that one should "require" God to look after their physical safety, when there are so many Prophets and scriptural references which contradict that view.

That God should provide for our earthly or temporal needs, is an old and tired argument, that can be mistakenly applied to a great many other aspects of our lives as well.

On a side note, placing back at God's feet, that which He has asked us to do, seems to be an all too common theme among LDS church members.

A perfect example is the deplorable figure of only approximately 16% of the church membership, who actually have their long term food storage... and probably believe (or rather presumptuously expect) that the Church will (or rather should) provide for them, when things in society go bad.

I don't mean to sound like I'm second guessing the Almighty, but I'm sure God will make exceptions for those who simply can't or are incapable of self defense (perhaps by providing someone like Mirk, or myself to come to their aid). But to simply disregard that which you are quite capable of doing yourself...

That is a mind set I just can't understand, and for what it's worth, don't really want to.

"...ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."

Alma 43:46-47

"Not only should we have strong spiritual homes, but we should have strong temporal homes. We should avoid bondage by getting out of debt as soon as we can, pay as we go, and live within our incomes. There is wisdom in having on hand a year's supply of food, clothing, fuel (if possible), and in being prepared to defend our families and our possessions and to take care of ourselves. I believe a man should prepare for the worst, while working for the best."

Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 263-264

"We all believe that the Lord will fight our battles; but how? Will He do it while we are unconcerned and make no effort whatever for our own safety when an enemy is upon us? If we make no effort to guard our towns, our houses, our cities, our wives and children, will the Lord guard them for us? He will not; but if we pursue the opposite course and strive to help Him to accomplish His designs, then will He fight our battles. We are baptized for the remission of sins; but it would be quite as unreasonable to expect a remission of sins without baptism, as to expect the Lord to fight our battles without our taking every precaution to be prepared to defend ourselves. The Lord requires us to be quite as willing to fight our own battles as to have Him fight them for us. If we are not ready for an enemy when he comes upon us, we have not lived up to the requirements of Him who guides the ship of Zion, or who dictates the affairs of his kingdom."

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 131, August 1-10, 1865

"We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded." Doctrine and Covenants 134:11

"There is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has the right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive, but I anticipate no such extreme, but caution is the parent of safety."

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six, 1843-44, p. 391

"Today you cannot effectively fight for freedom and moral principles, and not be attacked, and those who think they can, are deceiving themselves. While I do not believe in stepping out of the path of duty to pick up a cross I don't need, a man is a coward who refuses to pick up a cross that clearly lies within his path. No cross, no crown. No gall, no glory. No thorns, no throne."

Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 394

"Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God, ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this, ye have supposed in vain."

Alma 60:11

"Have you counted the cost if our countrymen, and especially the body of the priesthood, continue to remain complacent, misled through some of our news media, deceived by some of our officials, and perverted by some of our educators? Are you prepared to see some of your loved ones murdered, your remaining liberties abridged, the Church persecuted, and your eternal reward jeopardized?

We can, as a priesthood, provide the balance of power to preserve our freedom and save this nation from bondage."

Ezra Taft Benson, October 25, 1966, Our Immediate Responsibility, to Brigham Young University students, in An Enemy Hath Done This, compiled by Jerreld L. Newquist, Parliament Publishers, SLC, UT 1969, p. 320-21

"The fight for freedom is God's fight. For free agency is an eternal principle. So when a man stands for freedom he stands with God. And as long as he stands for freedom he stands with God. And were he to stand alone he would still stand with God. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; and because truth is eternal, any man will be eternally vindicated and rewarded for his stand for freedom."

Ezra Taft Benson, July 4, 1966, Strength for the office Battle, at New England Rally for God, Family, and Country, Boston, Mass, in An Enemy Hath Done This, compiled by Jerreld L. Newquist, Parliament Publishers, 1969, p. 55

"The time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to the extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint, from the face of an enemy against the people of God. Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall."

Ezra Taft Benson quoting Heber C. Kimball, May 10, 1966, Safety in the Face of Dangers, BYU, in An Enemy Hath Done This, compiled by Jerreld L. Newquist, Parliament Publishers, SLC, UT 1969, p. 291

In the end, I'm very pleased to have direction from church handbooks, but in the case of confusion... I'm far more pleased, to have the guidance which is provided by our Prophets and our Scriptures.

-- Edited by DMGNUT on Saturday 20th of February 2010 10:35:50 PM

DMGNUT · Veteran Member

Roper wrote:

Hmmm. The citation is from the 2006 (current edition) of the CHI. There have been no subsequent letters from church HQ giving exception to this policy. In Utah, the Church publicly supported the law to ban firearms in churches.

Another small reason it wouldn't apply elsewhere, it only supported the law in UT.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Roper wrote:

mirkwood wrote:

This was during my TR interview two years ago. Nothing there. I asked cause I was curious. Legally speaking, as far as I know it is only applicable in Utah.

Legally speaking. But the Church's policy about its own chapels is as cited from the handbook. Perhaps this is one of those issues where local leaders have some wiggle room. I don't know for sure. But the policy is there. The exact reference is Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics, 2006 (current authorized edition) Section 19 - Church Policies, subsection 3 - Policies on Using Church Buildings and Other Property, page 182, second column, under the heading "Firearms". Might be worth checking into.

I don't know Roper, I sat right there as we opened it up together and found nothing. I'm personally not concerned about it because I'm exempt. There are a couple of others I suspect are carrying, but I don't ask. I don't want to know. The bishop can deal with it if he feels there is an issue.

-- Edited by mirkwood on Saturday 20th of February 2010 11:15:04 PM

arbilad · Head Chef

Maybe I should ask my Bishop. He's an NRA licensed instructor for concealed carry classes. I suspect that it would be a matter of interest to him. Of course, I live in Colorado, not Utah.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Gunner, I'm right there with you on all of the scriptures you quoted. I believe that incidents like Columbine and Wedgwood (10 years ago, a man walked into a church near where I live, shot and killed seven people, wounded seven others, then killed himself) would have been much less of a tragedy if responsible and trained citizens could have stopped the attacks with deadly force. I'd like to carry at school and at church, but it's illegal in TX.

If your Bishop and SP have given you an individual exception to the general church policy, that's their stewardship, and I'm not about judging in this matter. My statement was to let others know that there is an official church policy that applies to all wards and stakes in the U.S. and Canada, because many people think it only applies to Utah.