Hurry and pass gun control before we have time to read it!

[Ddawg]

This is how I really feel.

In this whole discussion of the gun control, there is a lot of side stepping the real issue at hand. That issue is the U.S. Constitution itself, which the 2nd Amendment is part of.

If certain individuals here feel strongly enough to discount and dismiss one part of the Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment. I have to ask, why stop there? Why not dismiss the 1st Amendment and free speech too.

I think a brief historical look at how LDS people view the U.S. Constitution is important. Brigham Young said: "We will cling to the Constitution of our Country, and to the government that reveres that sacred charter of freemen's rights; and, if necessary, pour out our best blood for the defense of every good and righteous principle."

Notice - he did not say we cling to the Constitution - except the 2nd Amendment.

In the D&C 101:77 "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

Continuing - D&C 101:80 "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

James Madison, considered the "Father of the Constitution" wrote - "There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them."

An integral and critical part of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. They were written after the Constitution was written and ratified. They were not an after-thought. They actually had their roots going back almost 600 years and the Magna Carta. In 1689 the British Parliament guaranteed individual rights against Royal Power with the English Bill of Rights.

The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were introduced in the 1st Congress by James Madison and were designed to limit govt. and protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They are all important. Individually, they are pieces of an integral puzzle that fit together to protect the rights of citizens against the power of an intrusive, abusive govt. Is one right more important that another? No. They all work together to support a free people.

It is interesting to note that just as the prophets from Joseph Smith to this day have taught that the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired, they have also warned that one day the Constitution would be in peril of collapsing.

I have quoted this before. It is worth re-quoting. Elder Orson Hyde was present when Joseph Smith discussed, and made his prediction of the Constitution "hanging by a thread."

Orson Hyde:
"It is said that brother Jopseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution would be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he said something like this - that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, "If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church." I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it.

The question is whether it will be saved at all, or not."

Pres. J. Reuben Clark Jr. said:
"Brethren, let us think about that, because I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back ... "

Pres. David O.McKay said:
"Next to being one in worshipping God there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States."

Reading these statements, it is evident the Constitution was divinely inspired and critical to the freedom of our citizens. It is also evident that the Constitution shall be in danger of falling, perhaps collapsing, if not saved. That it will "hang by a thread" as prophesied. I believe that time is now. Right now there is a liberal law professor calling for the abandonment of the Constitution.

Knowing these things - how could any LDS member support weakening the 2nd Amendment, which will assist in weakening the Constitution itself. I cannot understand or support any action which would weaken the Constitution.

Lovely dodge.

Dodging what exactly?

Oh I don't know, maybe your know obviously incorrect statement that all cops can bring guns to church. You know, the subject we've been discussion for like 10 pages?

You are too hilarious. You have not shown 1 single incident where an off-duty L.E. officer has been denied taking his gun inside an LDS church - not 1. You are living in fantasy La-La land.

The real issue here is the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. That's the real issue at hand.

[BroncoBot]

and that topic (guns at church) has absolutely no bearing on the 2nd amendment. which is the real issue.

[cornhole153]

This is how I really feel.

In this whole discussion of the gun control, there is a lot of side stepping the real issue at hand. That issue is the U.S. Constitution itself, which the 2nd Amendment is part of.

If certain individuals here feel strongly enough to discount and dismiss one part of the Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment. I have to ask, why stop there? Why not dismiss the 1st Amendment and free speech too.

I think a brief historical look at how LDS people view the U.S. Constitution is important. Brigham Young said: "We will cling to the Constitution of our Country, and to the government that reveres that sacred charter of freemen's rights; and, if necessary, pour out our best blood for the defense of every good and righteous principle."

Notice - he did not say we cling to the Constitution - except the 2nd Amendment.

In the D&C 101:77 "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

Continuing - D&C 101:80 "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

James Madison, considered the "Father of the Constitution" wrote - "There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them."

An integral and critical part of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. They were written after the Constitution was written and ratified. They were not an after-thought. They actually had their roots going back almost 600 years and the Magna Carta. In 1689 the British Parliament guaranteed individual rights against Royal Power with the English Bill of Rights.

The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were introduced in the 1st Congress by James Madison and were designed to limit govt. and protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They are all important. Individually, they are pieces of an integral puzzle that fit together to protect the rights of citizens against the power of an intrusive, abusive govt. Is one right more important that another? No. They all work together to support a free people.

It is interesting to note that just as the prophets from Joseph Smith to this day have taught that the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired, they have also warned that one day the Constitution would be in peril of collapsing.

I have quoted this before. It is worth re-quoting. Elder Orson Hyde was present when Joseph Smith discussed, and made his prediction of the Constitution "hanging by a thread."

Orson Hyde:
"It is said that brother Jopseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution would be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he said something like this - that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, "If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church." I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it.

The question is whether it will be saved at all, or not."

Pres. J. Reuben Clark Jr. said:
"Brethren, let us think about that, because I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back ... "

Pres. David O.McKay said:
"Next to being one in worshipping God there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States."

Reading these statements, it is evident the Constitution was divinely inspired and critical to the freedom of our citizens. It is also evident that the Constitution shall be in danger of falling, perhaps collapsing, if not saved. That it will "hang by a thread" as prophesied. I believe that time is now. Right now there is a liberal law professor calling for the abandonment of the Constitution.

Knowing these things - how could any LDS member support weakening the 2nd Amendment, which will assist in weakening the Constitution itself. I cannot understand or support any action which would weaken the Constitution.

Lovely dodge.

Dodging what exactly?

Oh I don't know, maybe your know obviously incorrect statement that all cops can bring guns to church. You know, the subject we've been discussion for like 10 pages?

You are too hilarious. You have not shown 1 single incident where an off-duty L.E. officer has been denied taking his gun inside an LDS church - not 1. You are living in fantasy La-La land.

The real issue here is the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. That's the real issue at hand.

Actually, I showed that all off-duty cops in Seattle (and could post a ton of others) are prohibited from coming into Church with a gun. And thus, that your statement--that all off duty cops can go into church--was total crap.

Though--I'm glad you find me hilarious.

[Ddawg]

You are hilarious. I still do not understand what your point is. You get your jolly's off quoting a Seattle PD manual and showing that in Seattle it's optional for them to wear a gun off-duty. So what.

I still guarantee you that any off-duty Seattle L.E. that wants to wear his gun to an LDS church does just that. When was the last time you saw the door greeters frisking people walking into the chapel? Never.

Also, you keep forgetting, it's the option of the church official to give the "Ok", and it's "OK."
By the way - there is NO LAW in Washington St. about carrying concealed weapons into a church - of any faith. So, any church guideline is just that - a guideline - not a law.

As a matter of fact mr. cornhole - here's a quote from your Washington St. Constitution:

"Washington Constitution
Article 1, Section 24 - Right to Bear Arms:
“The right of the individual citizen to bear
Arms in defense of himself, or the state,
shall not be impaired…”

Also - per the carry laws in YOUR state Einstein:
"(4). Due to state preemption, no city, town, county, or other municipality can restrict your right to keep and bear arms more than the state. (RCW 9.41.290)"

Let me fill you in on a little secret Einstein - if a city, town, county, and a municipality are restricted by law to NOT infringe on the right to keep and bear arms - I assure you a private church (which has ZERO law making ability) cannot infringe on those Constitutional rights.

No one in Washington can RESTRICT your right to keep and bear arms more than the State of Washington.

They even let you carry guns into BARS where they serve alcohol. LOL! Are you kidding? Yep. Even if you are are carrying it openly, on your hip, with NO permit - you can walk into a bar with a gun and drink it up.

"(5). Carrying concealed (with a CPL) or openly in establishments that serve alcohol is allowed in Washington, so long as it is not carried into an area designated as “no minors allowed” by the Washington Liquor Control Board. Refer to RCW 9.41.300 to view the complete list of prohibited places."

You are going to try to schlep your bilge that an off-duty L.E. officer cannot wear his weapon into a church on Sunday? You are delusional mr. cornhole.

You have no point. You got your panties all in a wad because you are anti-gun. You've tried to set up a straw man argument and it failed. But, if it blows your skirt up thinking you've accomplished something (which you haven't), continue on in your dream world.

[cornhole153]

You are hilarious. I still do not understand what your point is. You get your jolly's off quoting a Seattle PD manual and showing that in Seattle it's optional for them to wear a gun off-duty. So what.

If it's optional, then they not required to carry. If they are not required to carry, then they are not allowed under Church policy to come in. If they are not allowed to come in, your statement is crap.

I still guarantee you that any off-duty Seattle L.E. that wants to wear his gun to an LDS church does just that. When was the last time you saw the door greeters frisking people walking into the chapel? Never.

So? That doesn't change the Church's policy to not allow cops (that aren't required to carry) to enter the church with guns.

Also, you keep forgetting, it's the option of the church official to give the "Ok", and it's "OK."
You have no point.

It's only OK if you ignore the Church's policy. Please explain how that's ok?

Oh, my point, that your statement is crap, and that my original comment is still valid, is pretty clear at this point.

[Ddawg]

mr. cornhole - you are delusional. Seriously. Read the post above yours.

But, living in a make believe world can be nice - you just create your own little fantasy "La-La-Land" reality. Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

[cornhole153]

The one you posted about Washington's concealed weapons law--that has absolutely nothing to do with the Church's policy?

Are you really suggesting that the Washington statutes somehow change the church's policy? Pretty sure that even because it's legal in Washington, the church doesn't have to adopt it as policy.

Again, here's my original post--notice its about Church Policy. I never said that it was unlawful (just against church policy) to go into a church in Washington with a gun. Notice that the Washington rules are merely relevant to determine if cops are required to carry, and thus able to go into the Church with a gun under Church Policy.

"Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties."

[Mars]

/threadlock

[hawkwing]

How is 'inappropriate' a strict ban? It's also 'inappropriate' for women to wear pants to church, but nobody cares.

[cornhole153]

Oh, and the Church is private property and can deny entry to anyone it choses for any reason--like carrying a gun. Think about it--you have a clear constitutional right to make public statements contrary to church doctrine, but that doesn't mean the church can't deny you entry into the temple for doing it.

So even though the Washington law discussion is off topic, i.e., has nothing to do with Church Policy (my original post), you applied that incorrectly as well.