LDS Freedom Forum

I got this from Ralph Hughes...

Letter to Senators Kyle and McCain

I understand that the United Nations is holding another gun control conference from June 27 - July 7 to discuss plans for our disarmament. One can find out what they have planned by going to the website of IANSA, the umbrella lobby group for all the anti-gun groups at the United Nations. They have posted their agenda for all to see. The United Nations has previously tried to impose mandatory gun controls for member nations. In 2001, delegates from more than 140 nations met together to hammer out various firearms restrictions. But at that time, it was our very own John Bolton, who said that our country would not support any language that conflicted with the constitutional right of our citizens to keep and bear arms. Primarily because of Bolton's efforts, the 2001 meeting ended without any binding measures or restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms. But the UN is at it again. And that's why it's essential that you support S. 1488, the Second Amendment Protection Act. This bill -- introduced by Sen. David Vitter -- will "withhold funding from the United Nations if the United Nations abridges the rights provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution." . I would appreciate hearing whether you plan to cosponsor this bill. Thank you.

The UN continues trying to meddle with America's internal affairs and attempting to undermine our freedoms and our U.S. Constitution. We really should "invite" it to relocate to Beijing or Moscow or some such place more compatible with its goals.

Please consider sending similar letter or email to your senators. even if they are the same as mine.

Ralph Hughes

I hate being the opposition, but hey its needs be in all things. Here we have gun laws, they are very very strict. Almost impossible to buy a gun. It works well. I dont see the big issue with why everyone must have a gun. Im pro-gun myself, i think shooting is a fun sport. Here is i register with a gun club, take an extensive training and safety course and then attend my shooting club regularly, I may then own a gun that is compatible with my sport. What would be wrong with having laws like that. Its not as you need a gun other to harm someone or something. So big deal if guns get banned? Im not realy pro UN either, but big deal if they pass a non binding motion to ban the sale of arms. The condem israel on an almost daily basis, they do lots of things, non of which are legaly binding. ANyway, someone explain to me why (other than its in the constitution) why you need a gun?

I'm going to guess myself that it has to do with historical trends and history repeating itself ...

how many dictatorships are preceded by disarming the people.

to be honest...I cant think of any. They are usually set up with the seizing of the capital by force. Which has nothing to do with and armed citizenry. Because believe it or not the people insitgating th coup, the being forced out, the people on the streets and your average public servant are all citizens.

In fact just off the top of my head, the most recent (or should I say say most recent and infamous because charles taylor has recently been toppled) dictator...Saddam Hussein made it a requirement that everyone own at least a gun with the recomendation being 2 AK-47's and a shotgun. That doesnt sound like a dictatorship that was formed by disarming the citizenry to me.

and also, whats so bad about having a world government? if you look at the UNDHR I think it is the equal if not the superior to the US constitution and declaaration of independence. Sure it needs reform, but if a world government means peace, freedom of religion for all and equal oppurtuniy, whats wrong with that....and in regards to how would australians feel about an influx of chinese..(posted on another thread). Well depends how many there were. 5percent of Australians are asian. There are 20million australians, there are 1.3billion chinese, so that would pose a problem..say it was possible to support such a mass migration , if they were willing to assimilate and adopt out principles then i wouldnt have a problem with it. Comparing an influx of chinese to Mexicans getting into the US are totally diff in anycase, america has three times the mexican population. It could easily absorb them if needs be and If a super highway equaled the playing field economicaly then none would go there anyway because they wouldnt ned to and your prob would be solved.

There are a lot of people who seem to think that a world government is a good idea. Among such people I note certain common traits.

Each has his/her own ideas on how the world should be run. The ideas run the spectrum from theocracy, autocracy, plutocracy, thru any and all other -ocracies to democracy. Considering the influence and control Satan has over the world today, we'd probably end up with a satanocracy (definition on request). (And please don't ignore what the Founding Fathers of the USA had to say about democracy, and why they created a constitutional republic.)

Most have had little if any real experience living and working in other countries and dealing on a daily basis with different ethnic, linguistic, legal, ethical, religious, cultural and political preferences and backgrounds.

Some view world government as an oppportunity to become part of the decision-making process that would shape our world. According to an editorial in the national newspaper "The Wanderer" of November 18, 1993, Bill Clinton reportedly spoke in an interview "...of coming to the conclusion, while still a young man, that it was necessary for him to gain access to the inner circle of this group in order to become part of the decision-making process that shapes our world."

Others see it as an opportunity to raise their standard of living thru the enforced transfer of wealth in their direction.

"Among the nations of the world today, there are precious few common bonds that could help overcome the clash of cross-purposes that inevitably must arise between groups with such divergent ethnic, linguistic, legal, religious, cultural and political environments. To add fuel to the fire, the concept woven into all of the present-day proposals for world government (the U.N. foremost among these) is one of unlimited goverenmental power to impose by force a monolithic set of values and conduct on all groups andincividuals whether they like it or not. Far from insuring peace, such conditions can only enhance the chances for war." (An Enemy Hath Done This", p. 160)

Imagine a world run by the likes of the United Nations. My own sentiments are well expressed in a The New American article http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/pu ... 3071.shtml

Imagine a governing body including people like the current and recent rulers of countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Red China, the USSR and even Russia today, North and South Korea, among others.

Government is best kept at the local level, or at the level closest to the people.

While we were living in North East England, an escaped extremely violent rapist and murderer was finally cornered with a woman hostage in a house on the North Yorkshire moors. He was armed with a revolver taken from one of his guards. The first police officers on the scene, poorly armed if at all, had to go house to house asking to borrow guns to begin a siege.

I own a few guns of my choice primarily for protection of life and property. My mother and I experienced a home invasion when I was a boy, and guess what persuaded the perp. to depart.

The old Danish rifle that adorns our living room fireplace commemorates my father-in-law's participoation in the Danish underground (Friheds Kæmper) in WW2.

Many years ago I needed to get an AK-47 into battery in a hurry and did not know how. That could have been fatal. A few years ago I purchased one to insure that our son in the paras learned how to operate it.

The Phoenix-Metro area, where we live, has had numerous home invasions in recent years. Some have been repelled by armed home occupants.

I thankful that my dad taught me to use guns before I went to the military and got into a war zone.

We can see these gun-grabbing efforts coming to fruition now. Joe Biden was just quoted as saying, "This is just the beginning..." That statement only serves as foreboding for us: For we know that they won't stop until the American people are disarmed. If we don't dump these authoritarians, then we're going to be squeezed through an unbearable tyranny.

tnerb wrote:ANyway, someone explain to me why (other than its in the constitution) why you need a gun?

That word is your first problem....it matters not whether we feel we NEED a gun, that is simply irrelevant to even begin the conversation. You, nor anyone else has any right or business to determine what someone else NEEDS. To do so, is to exercise unrighteous dominion, and violates his inalienable right to choose for himself.

uglypitbull wrote:

tnerb wrote:ANyway, someone explain to me why (other than its in the constitution) why you need a gun?

That word is your first problem....it matters not whether we feel we NEED a gun, that is simply irrelevant to even begin the conversation. You, nor anyone else has any right or business to determine what someone else NEEDS. To do so, is to exercise unrighteous dominion, and violates his inalienable right to choose for himself.

+1
Like
Amen

+1
Like
Amen

I understand CO has passed some strict gun laws. How's that sit with the population?

buffalo_girl wrote:

+1
Like
Amen

I understand CO has passed some strict gun laws. How's that sit with the population?

A bunch of sheep! Even my brother-in-law seems indifferent. He seems to believe he will not be affected. My boss is a big gun owner and he sees the writing on the wall but he is doing what most people talk about, hunker down. I for one believe that the hunker down idea is folly. I believe that we should be organizing to defend ourselves but even my very pro 2nd amendment ward is unwilling to do anything to prepare. The general consensus I get is, "wait for the brethren to tell us what to do".

We have arms manufacturers moving out of the state right now.

Honestly, I think civil war should have broken out in CO over these laws.

Honestly, I think civil war should have broken out in CO over these laws.

Seems like the 'alternate' US capital is underground in CO. Fitting to ensure a disarmed population prior to the elite running to their foxhole.

buffalo_girl wrote:

Honestly, I think civil war should have broken out in CO over these laws.

Seems like the 'alternate' US capital is underground in CO. Fitting to ensure a disarmed population prior to the elite running to their foxhole.

It just got worse in CO.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/state-grants ... ew-powers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mes5464 wrote: It just got worse in CO.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/state-grants ... ew-powers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might be time to shift states to the west one more time mes5464.......

It just got worse in CO.

'
Downright evil.

Didn't Sheriff Mack take his refusal to abide by the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court where he won?

http://sheriffmack.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During his tenure, federal officers informed the sheriffs of the state [Arizona] that they would be required to enforce the so-called "Brady Bill" and run background checks at their expense under the law. In 1994, Mack and six other sheriffs from across the country, challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Bill and ultimately, fought it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where they won a monumental decision for freedom.

Three years later, in a landmark 5-4 split decision based on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mack won his case.

Richard Mack is LDS and still very active in regard to this issue.

The first video on the following page is Sheriff Mack:

http://cspoa.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.countysheriffproject.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

buffalo_girl wrote:

It just got worse in CO.

'
Downright evil.

Didn't Sheriff Mack take his refusal to abide by the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court where he won?

http://sheriffmack.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During his tenure, federal officers informed the sheriffs of the state [Arizona] that they would be required to enforce the so-called "Brady Bill" and run background checks at their expense under the law. In 1994, Mack and six other sheriffs from across the country, challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Bill and ultimately, fought it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where they won a monumental decision for freedom.

Three years later, in a landmark 5-4 split decision based on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mack won his case.

Richard Mack is LDS and still very active in regard to this issue.

The first video on the following page is Sheriff Mack:

http://cspoa.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.countysheriffproject.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sheriff Mack is LDS?

Sheriff Mack is LDS?

Yes. He seems to keep that fact out of the limelight. It doesn't seem to be the first issue on his list.

from an interview:

Richard Mack: Well, I spent nearly twenty years in law enforcement. I started off at the very ground level in Provo, Utah. I started working as a cadet, that’s the official term, the most popular term for it is Meter Maid…

Dean Becker: OK.

Richard Mack: …and I was working my way through college at Brigham Young University and by the way, I am LDS, I’m a Mormon, a registered republican and I totally believe in the legalization of drugs, which might be contrary, a little bit, to what other people believe, especially my own family and church. But, the argument there, and I’ll get back to some of my background too, but the argument with, over the discussion or the debate that I have with anybody and everybody about decriminalization or legalization of drugs, especially marijuana is, I don’t want people; I don’t want my children; I don’t want your children; I don’t want strangers or any other Americans, misusing drugs or abusing drugs. I don’t want that. I hate drug abuse with a passion.

But what we have to realize is what we’ve been doing is wrong, immoral and counterproductive and has not served the public need. When I was a police officer, I believed that it was our job to work our way out of a job. Make things so peaceful and it’s not our job to protect people from their own stupidity.

http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/2284" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

uglypitbull wrote:

mes5464 wrote: It just got worse in CO.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/state-grants ... ew-powers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might be time to shift states to the west one more time mes5464.......

Or southwest, Arizona is reputed to have the most gun-friendly laws in the US. :ymcowboy:

mes5464 wrote:

buffalo_girl wrote:

+1
Like
Amen

I understand CO has passed some strict gun laws. How's that sit with the population?

A bunch of sheep! Even my brother-in-law seems indifferent. He seems to believe he will not be affected. My boss is a big gun owner and he sees the writing on the wall but he is doing what most people talk about, hunker down. I for one believe that the hunker down idea is folly. I believe that we should be organizing to defend ourselves but even my very pro 2nd amendment ward is unwilling to do anything to prepare. The general consensus I get is, "wait for the brethren to tell us what to do".

We have arms manufacturers moving out of the state right now.

Honestly, I think civil war should have broken out in CO over these laws.

Well honestly, there were cases where faithful members of the church broke the law to live the gospel. Karl Maeser, later the first headmaster of Brigham Young Academy (Later BYU) broke the law (it was illegal to be a church member in germany at the time) and was baptized in secret by the missionaries, before he moved to the U.S., and then immigrated to Utah. Alma Sr. baptized in secret, as it would be potentially punishable by death under King Noah to believe the words of Abinadi, and Alma was pretty much considered a most wanted criminal at the time for protesting Noah's decision. Not to say that we should go around selecting laws to excuse ourselves in breaking as a first resort, but there are cases where breaking the Law was the right thing to do. It's a matter of really relying on the Lord's direction, if anything. The important thing to remember though is that regardless of how the situation turns out, I am pretty sure that only with Extra Strength provided by God can the church prevail, much less still exist right now.

Looks like you have a County Sheriff & a Commissioner in El Paso County willing to take a stand about the NDAA as of a year ago. Maybe you should get in touch with these people and see if there is an organization of people in CO willing to help their county representatives comprehend the obligation to honor the Constitutional Oath of Office which they took.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CountySheri ... ture=watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tnerb wrote:to be honest...I cant think of any. They are usually set up with the seizing of the capital by force. Which has nothing to do with and armed citizenry. Because believe it or not the people insitgating th coup, the being forced out, the people on the streets and your average public servant are all citizens.

Many people incorrectly attribute the Nazis with disarming their enemies in order to sieze power. This is wrong. Actually, the Weimar Republic before them did that, ironically enough, in part it was done to keep the Nazis from coming to power. However, after Kristallnacht, the Nazis used the disarmed status of people to secure their position and the quell rebellion.

One addition to the movie version of "Lord of the Rings" which I would like to believe Tolkien would have agreed with was a line given to Eowyn:

The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them.

A resurrection of this thread might be worthy of consideration, as indicated by the discussion on the topic "Loss Of Gun Rights More Devasting Than Bullet Wounds."

79scholar wrote:I'm going to guess myself that it has to do with historical trends and history repeating itself ...

how many dictatorships are preceded by disarming the people.

Actually if history were to be any indication, most dictatorships are brought in by the people.