Nelson on Gun Laws
- nightlight
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 8407
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Biden goes on anti-gun tirade, suggests there’s ‘no rational basis’ for 9mm pistols
https://nypost.com/2022/05/30/biden-goe ... m-pistols/
They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life,” Biden said. “A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.
“So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” the president went on
https://nypost.com/2022/05/30/biden-goe ... m-pistols/
They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life,” Biden said. “A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.
“So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” the president went on
- InfoWarrior82
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10861
- Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
nightlight wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 12:00 pm Biden goes on anti-gun tirade, suggests there’s ‘no rational basis’ for 9mm pistols
https://nypost.com/2022/05/30/biden-goe ... m-pistols/
They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life,” Biden said. “A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.
“So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” the president went on
If he doesn't know the purpose of the 2nd amendment... (which I think he does, but is lying) then he has no business being the president.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4367
- Location: The land northward
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Biden blunders, Hillary's lies exposed, inflation rages, no eggs, no baby formula. Build back better is hell. Hunter's laptop is true, Hillary's Russia allegations are not. 2020 voting was a lie. Corona was a hoax, the vaccines are killing us.Dems don't know what women are, promote medical experiments on children. Billions sent to Ukraine....a red wave is imminent.
And then a series of improbable events happen....a Supreme Court draft about abortion is leaked. A shooter in New York, who happened to know a Federal agent. Another shooter in Texas, this time a high school drop out who suddenly has thousands of dollars to spend on guns, and the police allow him to go for 1hour and 22 minutes before confronting him. The week of the NRA convention.
Yep it is all legit. The technogarchs laugh at us as they wish is all to die.
And then a series of improbable events happen....a Supreme Court draft about abortion is leaked. A shooter in New York, who happened to know a Federal agent. Another shooter in Texas, this time a high school drop out who suddenly has thousands of dollars to spend on guns, and the police allow him to go for 1hour and 22 minutes before confronting him. The week of the NRA convention.
Yep it is all legit. The technogarchs laugh at us as they wish is all to die.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
That settles it for me. Anyone who does not see that the right to protect and defend oneself is a natural right, lives in a very, very strange world. Dialogue with someone with such strange views is a complete waste of time.Atticus wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:29 pmNo, I don't think it is. Certainly not in all cases and with no limits.larsenb wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:15 pmSo, one more attempt to see if you can respond to what I actually said:Atticus wrote: ↑May 28th, 2022, 6:53 amI think that generally speaking the ability to defend one's self is a right that should be protected, but I don't know that it's an unalienable natural right. . . . .larsenb wrote: ↑May 27th, 2022, 11:43 pm . . . .
No, you don't understand me correctly. The unalienable natural right is the right to protect and defend yourself and those close to you. Do you not see that as an unalienable natural right?
Your examples are silly and not worth a reply. Of course you already know that and should be able to answer your own question.
Do you not see that the right to protect and defend ones self is an unalienable natural right? And . . . . if not, why not?
Before I tell you why, I would like you to answer my question about the child and mentally handicapped person being allowed to have a semiautomatic firearm in order to "protect and defend themselves and those close to them."
And once again, I think you should be able to answer your own silly questions. I've already explicitly stated my views on the matter, but don't have much expectation of your being able to understand my position, even though you could easily read my posts and discover what it is. The whack-a-mole metaphor comes to mind after having a few go-arounds with you.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Yes, I guess describing how you carry on could be described as getting personal. You don't leave one much choice, when logic or reasonableness doesn't provide an explanation.Atticus wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:40 pmI think you're trying to split hairs and make this personal.larsenb wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:26 pmNo, you were not restating what I said. And no, the right to protect and defend oneself is not the same as the ability to protect and defend oneself.Atticus wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:06 pmHow did I misconstrue what you were saying? I was simply restating what you said. At least that was my intent. I don't see a difference between "the right to protect and defend yourself and those close to you" and "the ability to defend one's self."larsenb wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 2:54 pm
I said nothing about "the ability to defend one's self", or that this ability is a "right".
One of the hallmarks of good communication and dialogue is showing those you are interacting with the respect of, at the very least, accurately understanding what they are saying. This can be affirmed by feeding back to them what you think they said. If they agree with your assessment, that's a strong indication you have understood them.
Now, if someone continually misconstrues or conflates what someone has said, this is almost proof-positive they aren't really serious about communication or dialogue, i.e., they have some other agenda, usually a negative one regarding the topic(s) at hand.
And it follows, that if you have deliberately misconstrued what someone has said, any examples you may come up with to "make a point", are irrelevant to the discussion. They simply further confuse the issue and can be regarded as red herrings.
If you believe that this is a natural right that cannot be taken away, then doesn't this naturally apply to children and mentally handicapped people? And in the context of this discussion the issue at hand is the right to own and carry guns, including AR-15s, for the purpose of self-defense.
This type of misunderstanding seems to be the crux of the difficulty you are having in dialoguing/communicating with your respondents on this board. You seem to let yourself be swayed too much by the assumptions you make.
I was trying to restate what you said. I'm sorry my word choice wasn't good enough for you and you thought I was intentionally misconstruing what you asked.
At least I answered your question. How about you answer mine?
And it's not that your "word choice wasn't good enough for" me, it's that your 'restatement' ignored what I said and injected your own assumptions, which were not correct. At this point, I think your misconstruing what I said may not have been intentional . . . . instead it is simply how you process (or don't process) information.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 554
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
The opinions of a partisan few in black robes don’t matter to me, as they have been wrong for over a century (Roe v Wade be a glaring example of a BS “ruling” that your myopic mind seemingly ignores or agrees with) and clearly you did not rebut my explanation that they don’t other than regurgitating the common big government education line, “yEs ThEy Do hAvE tHE aUThoRitY, thEY aRe thE govErNMEnt” drivel.Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 8:17 amFeds clearly have the authority to regulate commerce across state lines. It's in the interstate commerce clause, and has been backed up by many Court decisions over the years.Niyr wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 7:31 amNeither his nor your views on the Constitution are from a constitutional perspective. You brag about evil things.Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 12:50 am I think Atticus has made his points quite admirably here from a Constitutional point of view.
This is what I refer to when I say that people have the Constitution and its vain interpretations of the Constitution.
It is clear that states have the right to regulate the sale of arms within their territories and for sales that cross state lines, the federal government has that regulatory power.
There's another country with multiple cultures, much like America. However, in order for them to buy weapons, they too must go through many loops and ladders.
That country is Switzerland. The paragon state for many Americans that call themselves "Second Amendment Defenders."
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzer ... zerland-12
Adopt Swiss's laws and many here would have an outcry.
It’s clear you take the gadianton view of expanding federal power where it shouldn’t be. As I said in my previous post, feds don’t actually have authority to regulate across state lines, regardless of what they’ve been doing for decades. Regulating commerce between the People is not enumerated in that clause.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 554
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Completely false and you would know that if you did some actual research instead of relying on your gadianton education. Your hatred for America would make them proud.Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 8:21 amSlavery in fact was perfectly constitutional for the first nearly 80 years of the existence of the Constitution. There was even clauses in there that distinguished free people from slaves, and slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the Three Fifths Compromise.Niyr wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 7:28 amI know it well. More than you, that is clear. More lack reading comprehension from you. Nowhere does it say to regulate arms or regulate a militia. Also, you keep ignoring shall not be infringed.Atticus wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 1:06 pmYou have to read the entire Constitution, not just one line from one amendment.Niyr wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 12:31 pm
What part of the 2nd Amendment gives authority to the feds to regulate? That’s what you’re attempting to say just because you hyper focus on the word “regulated .” Congress isn’t named as having an additional enumerated power delegated, so certainly no authority is given to them to regulate.
This is from Article 1 of the Constitution, which lists the powers of Congress:
Congress shall have power...
...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So as you can see Congress and the State governments have power to regulate the militia.
Furthermore, the state governments have power to regulate commerce within their states and Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce. Which means they can regulate what is bought and sold, which includes which types of weapons can be owned and by whom.
“ And as has been pointed out multiple times now, the federal and state governments are have been regulating the sale of firearms for a very long time now. ”
So was slavery.. doesn’t make it constitutional. Any federal gun law is an infringement.
Also, you probably think regulating commerce means they can regulate anything, which is ignorant and false. Parties are clearly named within the Constitution. The regulating commerce power is clearly defined as between the federal government and foreign nations and the other is between the states, not between the people, which they have done unconstitutionally. Between the states was to keep what was being done with the Articles of Confederation where states would tariff goods from other states passing though it to another state.
It was so constitutional, that an amendment had to be passed to ban the practice. In addition, previous to the amendment being passed, an internal war was fought over this practice.
Compare this with other countries that banned slavery literally from day one.
Anyway, some real education for you. The Constitution worked to rid slavery from the union with the date to ban slave importation. Also the 3/5 Compromise you cite had to do with lessening the South’s congressional representation.
Ask Frederick Douglass, a freed slave. Take a read about his take on the 3/5 Compromise “[It] is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. ... Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of 'two-fifths' of political power to free over slave States. ... Taking [the clause] at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote."
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 554
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
By advocating for government to do more and receive more power it was never given by the Constitution. Oh, that’s not enough, it’s still happening. We need even more government. Still no? We need government to govern even harder. Harder still. Sprinkle a little more government on top of that. Maybe a little more and that should do it this time for sure I promise with pinkies.spiritMan wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 4:32 pmDo you not understand that people's mental state is in flux?Atticus wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 4:25 pmWhen did the church teach that it was tyranny to regulate firearms and to attempt to keep them out of the hands of those who are mentally unfit to use them responsibly?
A person can buy a gun in 2020 pass a mental health test, be perfectly 100% healthy. And in 2022 be bat@#$ crazy, take the gun and go murder a bunch of people.
How are you going to stop that?
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2294
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
And how would that well regulated (by the government) military work if the aggressor was the government itself?Atticus wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 6:48 amGreat point about Switzerland.Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 12:50 am I think Atticus has made his points quite admirably here from a Constitutional point of view.
This is what I refer to when I say that people have the Constitution and its vain interpretations of the Constitution.
It is clear that states have the right to regulate the sale of arms within their territories and for sales that cross state lines, the federal government has that regulatory power.
There's another country with multiple cultures, much like America. However, in order for them to buy weapons, they too must go through many loops and ladders.
That country is Switzerland. The paragon state for many Americans that call themselves "Second Amendment Defenders."
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzer ... zerland-12
Adopt Swiss's laws and many here would have an outcry.
I have seen gun enthusiasts point to Switzerland many times as an example of a nation where violent crime is extremely low, while everyone owns a gun. But these same people would lose their minds if the US government regulated guns the way Switzerland does.
Switzerland is actually a good example of all of the able bodied men actually being part of a well regulated militia, who are ready at a moments notice to fight as an organized unit.
Our Constitution intentionally limited the power of the federal government and provided the people with the means (arms) where with they could protect themselves and absolve such government, if the need were to arise.
Which is why it's so laughable that you keep claiming that the government reserves regulatory oversight in the matter. As if you think the big bad wolf gets to dictate to the three little pigs, what form of construction is acceptable to their homes.
Of course to a constitutionalist and a patriot, there's simply no need for further explanation. Its you damned liberals (whether you admit it or not) that will argue this point till they are blue (pun intended) in the face.
The advent of a massive and over reaching federal government is EXACTLY what our founding fathers feared most. They roll in their graves when they hear boot lickers like you, trying to hand over our freedoms in exchange for "security".
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2294
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset...The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms...The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.'”
– Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Yeah. It's like that.
– Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Yeah. It's like that.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 554
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Even in the absence of a 2nd Amendment, there is still the 9th Amendment and in that absence there is still no enumerated power in the Constitution for the feds to regulate any rights of the People, much less regulate arms.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
So you expect me to answer your questions, but won't answer mine, and then turn around and blame me for the conversation being unproductive. What a crock of crap.larsenb wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 1:58 pmThat settles it for me. Anyone who does not see that the right to protect and defend oneself is a natural right, lives in a very, very strange world. Dialogue with someone with such strange views is a complete waste of time.Atticus wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 3:29 pmNo, I don't think it is. Certainly not in all cases and with no limits.
Before I tell you why, I would like you to answer my question about the child and mentally handicapped person being allowed to have a semiautomatic firearm in order to "protect and defend themselves and those close to them."
And once again, I think you should be able to answer your own silly questions. I've already explicitly stated my views on the matter, but don't have much expectation of your being able to understand my position, even though you could easily read my posts and discover what it is. The whack-a-mole metaphor comes to mind after having a few go-arounds with you.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Nothing like a good old fashioned ad hominem attack, when you can't actually defend your position.blitzinstripes wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 3:42 pmAnd how would that well regulated (by the government) military work if the aggressor was the government itself?Atticus wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 6:48 amGreat point about Switzerland.Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 30th, 2022, 12:50 am I think Atticus has made his points quite admirably here from a Constitutional point of view.
This is what I refer to when I say that people have the Constitution and its vain interpretations of the Constitution.
It is clear that states have the right to regulate the sale of arms within their territories and for sales that cross state lines, the federal government has that regulatory power.
There's another country with multiple cultures, much like America. However, in order for them to buy weapons, they too must go through many loops and ladders.
That country is Switzerland. The paragon state for many Americans that call themselves "Second Amendment Defenders."
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzer ... zerland-12
Adopt Swiss's laws and many here would have an outcry.
I have seen gun enthusiasts point to Switzerland many times as an example of a nation where violent crime is extremely low, while everyone owns a gun. But these same people would lose their minds if the US government regulated guns the way Switzerland does.
Switzerland is actually a good example of all of the able bodied men actually being part of a well regulated militia, who are ready at a moments notice to fight as an organized unit.
Our Constitution intentionally limited the power of the federal government and provided the people with the means (arms) where with they could protect themselves and absolve such government, if the need were to arise.
Which is why it's so laughable that you keep claiming that the government reserves regulatory oversight in the matter. As if you think the big bad wolf gets to dictate to the three little pigs, what form of construction is acceptable to their homes.
Of course to a constitutionalist and a patriot, there's simply no need for further explanation. Its you damned liberals (whether you admit it or not) that will argue this point till they are blue (pun intended) in the face.
The advent of a massive and over reaching federal government is EXACTLY what our founding fathers feared most. They roll in their graves when they hear boot lickers like you, trying to hand over our freedoms in exchange for "security".
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4367
- Location: The land northward
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
That video is Canadian Castro announcing he is taking guns from his political opposition starting now.
They will buy back assault weapons and no longer allow sell or transfer of assault rifles or handguns.
Remember he locked his mother's country down and mandated untested injections. When the workers rebelled, he arrested them, confiscated their property and seized their bank accounts.
They will buy back assault weapons and no longer allow sell or transfer of assault rifles or handguns.
Remember he locked his mother's country down and mandated untested injections. When the workers rebelled, he arrested them, confiscated their property and seized their bank accounts.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4367
- Location: The land northward
- ori
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1228
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
What was your intent in sharing this quote? I'm puzzled by (1) its meaning and (2) your intent in sharing it.nightlight wrote: ↑May 29th, 2022, 10:42 pm Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:
“They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... amendment/
I think I understand the superficial meaning of the quote: he (Stevens) wants the 2nd amendment repealed, since he thinks that a national standing army is no longer posing a threat. If he meant anything deeper than this interpretation, I'm missing it. However, I personally don't think there is not a threat. I think many people think a standing army is still a threat. I think a standing army is still a threat. If there is a deeper meaning in his quote, what do you think it is? And what did you want readers of your post to understand when reading the quote?
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 567
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Facebook and YouTube have the power and ability to censor conservative viewpoints... can surpress unpopular opinions about vaccination concerns...can claim Russian collusion in election fraud...but remarkably loose all power when it comes to a mass shooting threats...not only that....what are the odds...what are the odds nobody saw or read that post on social media and never notified the authorities.....and to me the funniest most ubsurd thing I read....the children shot were so unrecognizable that they had to use DNA evidence from the parents to identify the child....like these bullets exploded there heads clean off.... Do you realize how many bullets in the head you would have to receive in order for this statement to ring true? Joseph Smith was shot multiple times and was still rerecognizable...even if this was true the shooter just decided to keep unloading rounds into the skull...there are clothing and other methods to identify....This whole narrative stinks if you ask me....gkearney wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 10:26 am One element in all of this that I have not yet seen mentioned is that the shooter posted his intentions some 30 minutes prior to the event on his Facebook page. So why is it that Facebook does not have some sort of system in place to flag such threats and notify the police prior to the act? It strikes me that a computer program could be devised to do this. I would say that Facebook is in some ways culpable in all of this as they had prior knowledge that a crime was likely to be committed.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 209
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Umm I miss your point with Osamabama being out of office for a year before.....Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 7:14 amObama was out of office a year before President Nelson began his ministry as President of the Church.mudflap wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 6:47 amHe 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.Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑May 25th, 2022, 10:04 pm 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/
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.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 209
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Well actually when it was written, it clearly states that "all men are NOT equal."mes5464 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 7:31 amThere was nothing in the constitution that legalized slavery. It didn't outlaw it but it didn't protect it.Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 6:23 amWhen 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?
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.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 209
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
I would be willing to be kearney already has on hand the components of each of the items they listed off.Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 8:46 amYes.
These things are for defense against corrupt governments, who have access to said weapons.
People who will kill the innocent are going to find a way, the only real solution is arming the innocent beforehand.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 209
- Subcomandante
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4411
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
President Nelson was in no position to make pronouncements on behalf of the whole Church as he was still not President of the Church in 2017. That honor was held by President Monson.Yeliab wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 5:43 amUmm I miss your point with Osamabama being out of office for a year before.....Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 7:14 amObama was out of office a year before President Nelson began his ministry as President of the Church.mudflap wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 6:47 amHe 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.Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑May 25th, 2022, 10:04 pm 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/
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.
With President Monson, the Church was already criticizing policies held by then-candidate Trump. Not so much because the Church has gone left or woke, but because most of the world outside of the United States abhorred (and continues to abhor) Trump.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 209
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
ROFLMBO, now the Trump card..... it was Trumps fault for all the mass shootings that have occurred under MAJORITY democrap leadership. It's Trump's fault, Biden cut off our own oil flow, it's Trump's fault, our grocery store shelves are sitting empty while tens of thousands of containers of food, goods and products are sitting on shipping docks. It's Trump's fault that the latest school shooter got his gun(s) under Biden's rule and reign, it's Trump's fault Russia is invading Ukraine, it's Trump's fault every major democrat state in the nation with the strictest gun laws have the highest incident of Murder and violent crime perpetrated by those with guns they got illegally...need I continue?Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 6:18 amPresident Nelson was in no position to make pronouncements on behalf of the whole Church as he was still not President of the Church in 2017. That honor was held by President Monson.Yeliab wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 5:43 amUmm I miss your point with Osamabama being out of office for a year before.....Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 7:14 amObama was out of office a year before President Nelson began his ministry as President of the Church.mudflap wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 6:47 am
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.
With President Monson, the Church was already criticizing policies held by then-candidate Trump. Not so much because the Church has gone left or woke, but because most of the world outside of the United States abhorred (and continues to abhor) Trump.
- mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29570
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
Re: Nelson on Gun Laws
Yeliab wrote: ↑May 31st, 2022, 5:48 amWell actually when it was written, it clearly states that "all men are NOT equal."mes5464 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 7:31 amThere was nothing in the constitution that legalized slavery. It didn't outlaw it but it didn't protect it.Subcomandante wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 6:23 amWhen 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?
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.
https://youtu.be/n09Vf8t4UpQ?t=329