Nelson on Gun Laws

[Subcomandante]

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

Umm I miss your point with Osamabama being out of office for a year before.....

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.

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.

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?

Mass shootings have been a problem under both Democrat and Republican leadership. This is not a recent phenomenon, this has been going on for the last 20-25 years.

The main difference between the United States and most of the rest of the first world is that once the other countries had mass shootings, there was a virtually immediate response and voilá! No more mass shootings.

It is very clear that something needs to be done, and Nelson is right that too many people that shouldn't have guns, have them, and are using them to kill massive amounts of people.

Even Martin Armstrong admits something has to be done. From one of his posts today on Armstrong Economics:

The problem here is he was crazy. I do not see any problem with having to prove you are of sound mind to buy ANY gun. In this case, it appeared that his family would have said NO. Perhaps it should require family consent but perhaps a mental examination as well. There should be a waiting period and perhaps a mental examination by three separate doctors in a blind test to certify that he is of sound mind.

Outlawing guns or even assault weapons will not address the issue. Someone can always get them from the black market. In this case, the shooter was clearly crazy. That type of person would more likely than not try to buy a weapon at a gun store. I think the mental exam and family consent are more important than anything else. The Swiss have a militia-type system and most men must be trained and can keep their guns at home. Yet they have no real crisis in guns.

This I think would be VERY sensible. This is precisely what happens in Switzerland which has a significant amount of guns yet very little gun crime.

[larsenb]

So, one more attempt to see if you can respond to what I actually said:

Do you not see that the right to protect and defend ones self is an unalienable natural right? And . . . . if not, why not?

No, 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."

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.

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.

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.

No I don't expect you to answer my questions. It would go against your stye . Not worth my time interacting w/you . . . . or anybody else's time, as well.

Edited ad-on: And as I mentioned, I've already answered your questions in previous immediate posts.

[LDS Watchman]

No, 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."

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.

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.

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.

No I don't expect you to answer my questions. It would go against your stye . Not worth my time interacting w/you . . . . or anybody else's time, as well.

Edited ad-on: And as I mentioned, I've already answered your questions in previous immediate posts.

You most certainly did expect me to answer your questions, which I did.

And no, you didn't answer mine. Because according to you, they were "silly." But yet it's my fault that the conversation hasn't been productive.

And you're right, it's not worth your time to interact with me if you aren't going to answer my questions or engage in actual discussion, and make ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my points.

[larsenb]

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.

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.

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.

No I don't expect you to answer my questions. It would go against your stye . Not worth my time interacting w/you . . . . or anybody else's time, as well.

Edited ad-on: And as I mentioned, I've already answered your questions in previous immediate posts.

You most certainly did expect me to answer your questions, which I did.

And no, you didn't answer mine. Because according to you, they were "silly." But yet it's my fault that the conversation hasn't been productive.

And you're right, it's not worth your time to interact with me if you aren't going to answer my questions or engage in actual discussion, and make ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my points.

I've addressed your points. You've ignored them.

[LDS Watchman]

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.

No I don't expect you to answer my questions. It would go against your stye . Not worth my time interacting w/you . . . . or anybody else's time, as well.

Edited ad-on: And as I mentioned, I've already answered your questions in previous immediate posts.

You most certainly did expect me to answer your questions, which I did.

And no, you didn't answer mine. Because according to you, they were "silly." But yet it's my fault that the conversation hasn't been productive.

And you're right, it's not worth your time to interact with me if you aren't going to answer my questions or engage in actual discussion, and make ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my points.

I've addressed your points. You've ignored them.

No you didn't. You just kept saying my questions were too silly and didn't warrant an answer.

The reason you won't answer them, is not because they are silly. It's because if you answer that a 6 year old and a downsyndrom person don't have a right to carry around semiautomatic firearms, then you would have to acknowledge that a person's mental capacity does come into play and that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.

Which of course you don't want to do, because it would weaken your position.

[Thinker]

Wow, Nelson is really liberal. Why doesn't he want laws banning crazy people? Guns don't, independently decide to shoot people. Crazy people do that. Does he think crazy people are so law abiding that more gun laws will make a difference? Gun-free zones encourage crazy people to shoot people. In that way, more gun laws would make a difference. Law abiding people disarm themselves... easy killing for crazies.

Well summarized.

Assault rifles are used by most shooters.
Knives kill much more people than rifles.
Yet no talk of restricting knives.



Those pushing MORE anti-gun laws don’t really care about addressing the real problem of shooters - (mind-altering medication, broken homes, fatherlessness), they are virtue signaling. Media authorities have deceptively framed it, pretending it’s all the guns’ faults because they work for those who know they need to disarm Americans to control them more.

I wish more would see through media lies & manipulation.

[mike_rumble]

"The Swiss have a militia-type system and most men must be trained and can keep their guns at home. Yet they have no real crisis in guns."

It's true that most Swiss men keep their guns at home, but they do not keep their ammunition at home. That is stored in a local armoury where gun owners can draw it from in times of emergency.

[lundbaek]

When I lived and worked in Switzerland (at the Zurich airport) in the late 1960s, Swiss men kept their guns and 20 cartridges at home.

[nightlight]

"The Swiss have a militia-type system and most men must be trained and can keep their guns at home. Yet they have no real crisis in guns."

It's true that most Swiss men keep their guns at home, but they do not keep their ammunition at home. That is stored in a local armoury where gun owners can draw it from in times of emergency.

No thanks

[blitzinstripes]

"The Swiss have a militia-type system and most men must be trained and can keep their guns at home. Yet they have no real crisis in guns."

It's true that most Swiss men keep their guns at home, but they do not keep their ammunition at home. That is stored in a local armoury where gun owners can draw it from in times of emergency.

A gun without ammo is nothing more than an expensive and poorly designed CLUB.

"Hey, there's a burglar in my house. Gotta run to the armory and grab my ammunition. I'll be right back."

[blitzinstripes]

Or better yet...."Man, the people are really upset and protesting over these WHO lockdowns. It's getting crazy, now the government has mobilized the military to suppress the protests. I sure hope they let us go to the armory and retrieve our weapons so we can stand up and fight back."

Let me know how THAT works out for you.

[Subcomandante]

Or better yet...."Man, the people are really upset and protesting over these WHO lockdowns. It's getting crazy, now the government has mobilized the military to suppress the protests. I sure hope they let us go to the armory and retrieve our weapons so we can stand up and fight back."

Let me know how THAT works out for you.

With or without guns, the main response from a government will be "Brrrrrrrt"

Unless, of course, through persuasion, you get the police and the military on your side.

[blitzinstripes]

Slight chance is better than no chance. Guerilla armies actually have a pretty good track record for long term resistance efforts.

[mike_rumble]

When I lived and worked in Switzerland (at the Zurich airport) in the late 1960s, Swiss men kept their guns and 20 cartridges at home.

The "20 cartridges" triggered my memory and I believe you are right (at least for the 1960's). Maybe one of our members is Swiss and can give us the current situation regarding firearms and ammunition in that country.

[Benjamin_LK]

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.

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....

IIRC wasn’t Joseph shot with musket balls?

[Benjamin_LK]

Wow, Nelson is really liberal. Why doesn't he want laws banning crazy people? Guns don't, independently decide to shoot people. Crazy people do that. Does he think crazy people are so law abiding that more gun laws will make a difference? Gun-free zones encourage crazy people to shoot people. In that way, more gun laws would make a difference. Law abiding people disarm themselves... easy killing for crazies.

Well summarized.

Assault rifles are used by most shooters.
Knives kill much more people than rifles.
Yet no talk of restricting knives.



Those pushing MORE anti-gun laws don’t really care about addressing the real problem of shooters - (mind-altering medication, broken homes, fatherlessness), they are virtue signaling. Media authorities have deceptively framed it, pretending it’s all the guns’ faults because they work for those who know they need to disarm Americans to control them more.

I wish more would see through media lies & manipulation.

There still are shooting massacres with handguns.

[Benjamin_LK]

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.

Vain interpretation?

my forefathers would put a bullet in you for over taxing their cereal.

Outcry? Lol no bro, there would be blood.

You are a subject. Keep your slave creeds south of the border

The last straw wasn’t taxes, it was the British taking away colonial guns.

[Thinker]

...Assault rifles are used by most shooters.
Knives kill much more people than rifles.
Yet no talk of restricting knives.



Those pushing MORE anti-gun laws don’t really care about addressing the real problem of shooters - (mind-altering medication, broken homes, fatherlessness), they are virtue signaling. Media authorities have deceptively framed it, pretending it’s all the guns’ faults because they work for those who know they need to disarm Americans to control them more.

I wish more would see through media lies & manipulation.

There still are shooting massacres with handguns.

I stand corrected…

”The most commonly used weapon was a handgun or multiple handguns, which were used in 1,344 incidents. A rifle or multiple rifles were used in 107 incidents.” https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/sa ... ould-know/

[Serragon]

80+ Catholics murdered while attending church in Nigeria.

Shocking that their strict gun control laws did not prevent this. Shocking that reliance on corrupt government did not protect them.

Also shocking that a motive for this incident can't be obtained.. A country that is majority Muslim.. 80 Christians mass murdered while worshipping. Must be "bandits" as ABC is speculating.

[TheDuke]

most popular gun ........ pistol ..............most popular pistol ................ 9MM ............Biden anti-9MM

[gruden2.0]

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/

Did he by chance provide a revelation specifying who should and shouldn't have them?

The Prophet Zeniff actually armed his people. The people who followed Capt. Moroni's banner brought their own armor, I assume they had their own weapons as well.

[TheDuke]

error

[TheDuke]

It is really hard to get useful laws. I have been pushing to get pressure cookers outlawed ever since the Boston marathon years back but they just keep selling them. You can get them on line (along with nails) without so much as a background check! Scary. Maybe we should limit the pressure on the pressure cookers (same as clip size) and then limit the pressure relief (like bump stocks). I don't even want to start on the danger of nails. and if you do nails you must also do screws. In fact, I think anyone going into Home Depot should be background checked! Of course there are those that will say "pressure cookers don't kill, it is chefs that kill".

Zeniff was not prophet in any way, just an "overzealous man" who led to many deaths on two trips, lets not add his to the prophet list, he was never on it.

[gruden2.0]

Assault rifles are used by most shooters.
Knives kill much more people than rifles.
Yet no talk of restricting knives.

It's been a while since I've seen the statistics, but in England where they've banned firearms, people still kill each other with other means. If people are that angry and deranged, they will find something to use to carry out their intentions.

One interesting tidbit I saw about the recent school shooter is that he (or whatever pronoun applies) came from little money, killing his/her/their grandmother over a cell phone bill. Yet this person had approximately $5,000 in firearms and ammo. Things that make you go hmmm....

[gruden2.0]

Zeniff was not prophet in any way, just an "overzealous man" who led to many deaths on two trips, lets not add his to the prophet list, he was never on it.

He wrote more scripture than Nelson has...
And he had possession of the plates, so he had some type of calling, whether he did it well or not.