Sigh...

I have been hoping that the whole gun control debate would blow over.  Not likely, now, is it?

I don't love guns. My third grade class lost a classmate to an accidental shooting, and a few years later, a nine-year-old boy in my ward died shortly after Christmas, when he accidentally shot himself with his brand-new hunting rifle.  Those two examples demonstrate the need for great respect in the handling of guns.

However, gun control laws are a violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Among the many reasons I believe the Founders included the 2nd amendment, one of the most important reasons to me is simply the idea of equal protection under the law.  For every lawmaker who demands private citizens give up their guns, I'd say to him, "You first."

Update:

Someone named David Zamos posted a comment in a Wall Street Journal article, compiling a list of quotes from founding fathers about the right to bear arms.  I think they are worth reading.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

Hypocrisy Among Class Warriors

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337123/new-liberal-aristocracy-victor-davis-hanson?pg=1

Speaking some more about class envy--the biggest irony is that it is being fed by those who are profiting from it.

Law of Consecration

The law of consecration is one of the the less-understood LDS doctrines, and one that doesn't get a whole lot of attention, save once every so often in Sunday School.  I, myself, haven't really done a lot of studying on the subject, and haven't even bothered to do so for this post, but to summarize:  the law of consecration, or the United Order, is something that Joseph Smith tried to implement in early days of the church, in which the members gave all of their earnings to the church, and in turn, every member was given according to his or her need.  The practice was discontinued, but is supposed to return when all of the members are ready for this higher law.  I think that the doctrine is often misrepresented, and I struggle with my own understanding of it.

I remember very clearly something a religion teacher taught during a class at the LDS Institute at the University of Utah, some time ago when I was a starving college student.  By way of comforting those of us who were uncomfortable with the doctrine, the teacher pointed out how the great wealth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which wealth has not gone unnoticed by the world.  (Unless I am mistaken, tithing [10% of income or increase] is the primary source of the church's wealth, followed by other types of charitable donations.  The church uses tithing to pay for church buildings, including temples, and all of the things that go into running a world-wide organization.  Tithing funds are regarded as sacred, and the church makes every effort to use this money wisely.)  The teacher went on to say, if the church is doing so well with 10%, imagine how well it would do with 100%?  For, not only would we be sharing in the wealth of ordinary folks, we'd be sharing with the likes of Jon Hunstman, Sr.

At the time, I reveled a bit in the idea that I might be better off under the law of consecration. Like I said, I was poor.  But now, I think of what that teacher taught, and I am dismayed by the greed of those of us in the class whose belief in the law of consecration was founded on the idea that we'd be able to get our hands on John Huntsman's money.  Is this not what government leaders propose every time they demand that the "rich" pay their "fair share"?

In his famous talk on pride, the prophet Ezra Taft Benson said, "Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up."  Back in college, was I not an example of "pride looking up"?  In that same talk, President Benson warned that, "When pride has a hold on our hearts, we lose our independence of the world and deliver our freedoms to the bondage of men’s judgment."  Perhaps he was not talking about the United States' progressive tax policies, but I believe that "we, the people" are doing exactly that.

1st reaction

Happy New Year--we have all been "saved" from the "fiscal cliff".  This so-called "compromise" means that productive citizens, who are by no means millionaires, will get to see their increased taxes go towards increased spending.  The tax increase will by no means put a dent in the U.S. debt; and very likely will lead to decreased revenues.

Yes, according to the press, we've all been rescued.  The House hasn't even voted on it yet.  Whatever happens, Republicans are going to get blamed, and the economy will not improve.

Good WSJ article says it better:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323820104578215400767461788.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

UPDATE:  The House passed the bill.  Yay.  Now those of us making less than $400K can breathe a sigh of relief, and feel good about "sticking it to the Man."  And then we can watch our economy NOT improve, and the debt grow at an ever increasing rate, and wait for the next round of class warfare.