Nelson on Gun Laws

[Gadianton Slayer]

Lol. What did you expect?

“In the wake of a deadly school shooting in Florida, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson criticized U.S. laws ‘that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... have-them/

[Gadianton Slayer]

Will we see a statement like this again as all the anti-gun morons pick up speed?

[Gadianton Slayer]

They already banned guns from church buildings… so the official stance is clear.

[Lineman1012]

How May guns laws were broken at this recent shooting? Oh wait, it’s already against the law to walk into a school and start shooting people.

Only an imbecile would think adding more gun laws would help the situation.

[Gadianton Slayer]

How May guns laws were broken at this recent shooting? Oh wait, it’s already against the law to walk into a school and start shooting people.

Only an imbecile would think adding more gun laws would help the situation.

Imbecile… or evil?

[bbrown]

There are literally hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of guns in the United States owned by hundreds of
Millions of people. It’s not a Wild West show out there, the vast majority are used responsibly for hunting and sporting, far fewer for legit self defense. The legally owned guns are very very rarely used in illicit activity. Compare that to very strict gun law places like Chicago, detroit, dc. It’s “difficult” to get guns there and their violence dwarfs these, events, on a daily
Basis. More laws and more government is always the wrong answer

[Lineman1012]

How May guns laws were broken at this recent shooting? Oh wait, it’s already against the law to walk into a school and start shooting people.

Only an imbecile would think adding more gun laws would help the situation.

Imbecile… or evil?

How about useful idiot?

[Gadianton Slayer]

How May guns laws were broken at this recent shooting? Oh wait, it’s already against the law to walk into a school and start shooting people.

Only an imbecile would think adding more gun laws would help the situation.

Imbecile… or evil?

How about useful idiot?

Meh, that implies ignorance.

[Lineman1012]

I suppose you’re right. Anyone who belongs to a group such as Owl and Key would definitely know what the real agenda is and as such a member would push his influence toward fulfilling that agenda.

Ok. Evil works for me.

This brings up a problem/question: how much longer can I continue to attend the LDS church.

[Subcomandante]

Lol. What did you expect?

“In the wake of a deadly school shooting in Florida, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson criticized U.S. laws ‘that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... have-them/

Good.

This is common-sense. There are people that simply cannot be trusted with a firearm, but that should be measured using objective analysis, such as psychological batteries and universal background checks. This ensures a well-regulated militia.

[bbrown]

My question the last month or so is what is the BIG event coming or hiding in plain sight in the US? They have pushed the two most emotional and devisive buttons in this country. Guns and abortion serve to divide and enrage both sides more than anything else. It is near impossible to have a productive discussion on either of these two topics. From either side. It immediately becomes super emotional and illogical from both sides.
Abortion wasn’t enough hysteria they had to
Pull the gun control card. What is coming and how bad will it be?

[Gadianton Slayer]

This brings up a problem/question: how much longer can I continue to attend the LDS church.

I couldn’t do it, and I won’t ever recommend that someone does.

Ultimately a personal question between you and the Lord, but there are definitely logical and doctrinal reasons.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Lol. What did you expect?

“In the wake of a deadly school shooting in Florida, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson criticized U.S. laws ‘that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... have-them/

Good.

This is common-sense. There are people that simply cannot be trusted with a firearm, but that should be measured using objective analysis, such as psychological batteries and universal background checks. This ensures a well-regulated militia.

Sure, but the context of these statements is not the same as what you just described. Most, if not all, school shooters have obtained firearms illegally.

What then? A good example of what people such as Nelson would push for was seen during the prohibition… did those laws make our country alcohol free? Or did it make the issue much, much worse?

There is no logical, moral argument for those who wish to take away firearms from law-abiding citizens. The laws are already too strict as it is.

What we need is to find a solution for these mentally disabled children.

[bbrown]

The solution is plain. And simple. Repentance. Turning to the lord. We have rejected him and this is the natural consequence. What do you think the Book of Mormon is describing at the end of the nephites and jaredites? Or the Bible at the time of captivity?

[Artaxerxes]

Lol. What did you expect?

“In the wake of a deadly school shooting in Florida, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson criticized U.S. laws ‘that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... have-them/

Good.

This is common-sense. There are people that simply cannot be trusted with a firearm, but that should be measured using objective analysis, such as psychological batteries and universal background checks. This ensures a well-regulated militia.

Sure, but the context of these statements is not the same as what you just described. Most, if not all, school shooters have obtained firearms illegally.

What then? A good example of what people such as Nelson would push for was seen during the prohibition… did those laws make our country alcohol free? Or did it make the issue much, much worse?

There is no logical, moral argument for those who wish to take away firearms from law-abiding citizens. The laws are already too strict as it is.

What we need is to find a solution for these mentally disabled children.

No. Most obtain them legally. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/p ... oting.html

[mes5464]

Any thing that is more or less than the constitution of the United States comes of evil.

D&C 98:7

[Subcomandante]

Any thing that is more or less than the constitution of the United States comes of evil.

D&C 98:7

When the scripture was written, slavery was Constitutionally legal and women and minorities were not allowed to vote. So removing slavery and giving the franchise to people with greater concentrations of melanin is evil?

[mudflap]

Lol. What did you expect?

“In the wake of a deadly school shooting in Florida, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson criticized U.S. laws ‘that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... have-them/

He thinks there are laws that allow guns to go to bad guys? Was he this critical when Obama was running guns to Mexico and Benghazi? And how exactly would they write a law to stop the bad guys? Maybe they should focus on protecting the children by placing armed guards in schools, instead of spending $50B to send weapons to Ukraine.

Time and again, this admin proves they don't "care about the children". When are we going to get it?

- baby formula shortage (because we're sending it all to mexico)
- school shootings in our unprotected schools (but we can protect Ukraine with weapons)
- fuel shortages (but we can send fuel to Europe)
- no good paying jobs for the middle class (but Apple has factories in China)
- tax free medical care for illegals (but I can't afford to add my wife to my plan)
- free college for illegals (but my kid has to pay thousands)
- average age of a bridge in America is 67 years (but we can build Billion-dollar bridges in the middle east)
- more homeless vets and regular americans than ever (but we can provide housing for illegals)

"America Last" is Biden's policy.

[mudflap]

weird that our church could've produced a guy named John Browning, only a hundred years or so ago.....

[Subcomandante]

Lol. What did you expect?

“In the wake of a deadly school shooting in Florida, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson criticized U.S. laws ‘that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... have-them/

He thinks there are laws that allow guns to go to bad guys? Was he this critical when Obama was running guns to Mexico and Benghazi? And how exactly would they write a law to stop the bad guys? Maybe they should focus on protecting the children by placing armed guards in schools, instead of spending $50B to send weapons to Ukraine.

Time and again, this admin proves they don't "care about the children". When are we going to get it?

- baby formula shortage (because we're sending it all to mexico)
- school shootings in our unprotected schools (but we can protect Ukraine with weapons)
- fuel shortages (but we can send fuel to Europe)
- no good paying jobs for the middle class (but Apple has factories in China)
- tax free medical care for illegals (but I can't afford to add my wife to my plan)
- free college for illegals (but my kid has to pay thousands)
- average age of a bridge in America is 67 years (but we can build Billion-dollar bridges in the middle east)
- more homeless vets and regular americans than ever (but we can provide housing for illegals)

"America Last" is Biden's policy.

Obama was out of office a year before President Nelson began his ministry as President of the Church.

[Allison]

Not so fast, though. He said that in February 2018 and the SLT deceptively reprinted the story yesterday.

Hopefully the vaccine embarrassment/disaster for the Church has inspired some appropriate reticence to comment on headlines. It’s better when they confine themselves to teaching correct principles.

[gkearney]

So I want to know how far some of you are willing to take the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment? When the Second Amendment was penned the best that even the most skilled person with a gun could manage was a single shot every 30 seconds. The constitution's framers could not have imagined today's high-powered large-capacity firearms. So how far are you willing to extend this right?

Should citizens be permitted to own fully automatic weapons without a permit?
Fully armed and operational tanks on the streets?
What about artillery, ballistic missiles, armed aircraft, and drones?
Should you, if you wished and have the money, be able to own warships complete with naval guns of any size, ballistic submarines, and so on?

But why stop there? Does having the right to arms cover weapons of mass destruction such as chemical or biological munitions? Then of course there is the ultimate in "arms" nuclear weapons?

As a Democrat who Fred routinely threatens to want to kill on these forums, I have to say the idea that Fred might get his hands on a nuclear device and decide to take out my very liberal college town in order to "cleans the church" of all of us Democrats is, to say the least troubling.

So just how far do we let this go, is it going to be a weapons-free-for-all out there?

[mes5464]

Any thing that is more or less than the constitution of the United States comes of evil.

D&C 98:7

When the scripture was written, slavery was Constitutionally legal and women and minorities were not allowed to vote. So removing slavery and giving the franchise to people with greater concentrations of melanin is evil?

There was nothing in the constitution that legalized slavery. It didn't outlaw it but it didn't protect it.
The "all men are created equal" meant exactly that. Only extra constitutional behavior infringed this basic principle.
But, it should be pointed out that slavery and voting rights were later protected in the constitutional manor (amendment process).
However, when the Lord said these words He understood the constitution, He takes credit for it, and He still said it should be maintained and it protects the rights of all people. (D&C 101:77)

But, putting all that aside, the right to keep and bear arms is a just and holy principle and I do not define my rights by the actions of the weak, mentally ill, or evil.

[mes5464]

So I want to know how far some of you are willing to take the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment? When the Second Amendment was penned the best that even the most skilled person with a gun could manage was a single shot every 30 seconds. The constitution's framers could not have imagined today's high-powered large-capacity firearms. So how far are you willing to extend this right?

Should citizens be permitted to own fully automatic weapons without a permit?
Fully armed and operational tanks on the streets?
What about artillery, ballistic missiles, armed aircraft, and drones?
Should you, if you wished and have the money, be able to own warships complete with naval guns of any size, ballistic submarines, and so on?

But why stop there? Does having the right to arms cover weapons of mass destruction such as chemical or biological munitions? Then of course there is the ultimate in "arms" nuclear weapons?

As a Democrat who Fred routinely threatens to want to kill on these forums, I have to say the idea that Fred might get his hands on a nuclear device and decide to take out my very liberal college town in order to "cleans the church" of all of us Democrats is, to say the least troubling.

So just how far do we let this go, is it going to be a weapons-free-for-all out there?

I put absolutely no limits on the rights of defense.

[gkearney]

So I want to know how far some of you are willing to take the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment? When the Second Amendment was penned the best that even the most skilled person with a gun could manage was a single shot every 30 seconds. The constitution's framers could not have imagined today's high-powered large-capacity firearms. So how far are you willing to extend this right?

Should citizens be permitted to own fully automatic weapons without a permit?
Fully armed and operational tanks on the streets?
What about artillery, ballistic missiles, armed aircraft, and drones?
Should you, if you wished and have the money, be able to own warships complete with naval guns of any size, ballistic submarines, and so on?

But why stop there? Does having the right to arms cover weapons of mass destruction such as chemical or biological munitions? Then of course there is the ultimate in "arms" nuclear weapons?

As a Democrat who Fred routinely threatens to want to kill on these forums, I have to say the idea that Fred might get his hands on a nuclear device and decide to take out my very liberal college town in order to "cleans the church" of all of us Democrats is, to say the least troubling.

So just how far do we let this go, is it going to be a weapons-free-for-all out there?

I put absolutely no limits on the rights of defense.

So you're OK with private ownership of chemical, biological, and nuclear munitions then? I mean just say so if you are.