“For they had rather sacrifice their lives than even to take the life of their enemy and they have buried their weapons of war deep in the earth BECAUSE OF their great LOVE towards their brethern.” Alma 26:32

“Has there been so great love in all the land? Nay, there has not, even among the Nephites, for they would take up arms against their brethern, they would not “allow” themselves to be slain.” Alma 26:33

While the True Love of Christ, true Charity, is very very rare, it is nonetheless possible & does happen.

I respect your honesty and frankness in the matter and your apparent willingness to reconsider your position. KUDOS TO YOU. (and no, I’m not just spouting that off b/c you happen to be keeping your mind open with respect to *MY* view… I actually have struggled with man-made global warming, myself being strongly pro-environmentalist until about a year ago when I was faced with new evidence I was not aware of… I have had to become less-convinced that man is the cause and more open to the fact that maybe our current view on the environment is being pushed on us by biased sources). Long explanation there, sorry; just didn’t want you to think that I only appreciate when others keep their views open to my “take” but that I also try and keep mine open to theirs when faced with facts/arguments that I hadn’t yet heard…. IWO, the search for truth is a two-way street.

All that being said, a number of government agencies have conducted numerous studies about this relationship you mention between increased violence and increased numbers of guns and have shown it to be just a flat-out misconception. For example, the FBI puts out an annual report showing the statistics and they have time and time again concluded that an increase in legal guns has no relationship to an increase in violent crime. An additional report was generated by a special commission created by the Congress in about 1994 when we passed the 10-year Assault Weapons Ban. Pro-gunners agreed to a 10-year ban on the conditions that it would expire after 10 years as well as that the Congress would commission a report to study what happened to violent crime over the years that a large number of guns were removed from the streets. The conclusion the report came to was that there is no correlation as violent crime had already begun to decrease prior to the ban and continued to decrease after the ban expired.

As additional consideration, most states publish annual reports similar to the FBI one I already mentioned. They compile graphs showing trends between the # of violent crimes and the # of licensed guns (or in states such as Utah where licensing doesn’t exist, then the # of concealed-carry permits issued). I haven’t seen most, only a few — Utah being the primary one. And the reports that I have seen draw similar conclusions that the FBI draws.

For my final thought, consider states who are typically “anti-gun” and compare them to state who are typically “pro-gun”… then compare which states experience the highest degree of violent crime (per capita, of course). Upon consideration I think you’ll agree that “pro-gun” states generally experience significantly less violent crime than “anti-gun” states. I am not suggesting this trend is necessarily a cause-and-effect b/c I have no real idea which came first in those states (for example, does Utah experience low crime b/c of high gun ownership… or do we feel no need to restrict guns b/c we have a low crime rate?) — I only suggest that it’s something to consider… and when coupled with the FBI/State/Congressional reports I mentioned, it seems to create a pretty strong argument, IMO.

Sorry, no links to the reports. Google and keep looking I’m sure you’ll find them… I’ve run out of lunch time and have to get back to the attic where I’m building storage to free up room for the new baby! :)

Keep searching… you’ll figure it out — the best reward comes to those who fight for it! :)

Instead, consider this article, citing evidence showing no correlation between the two factors (gun ownership and violence). See also here, here, and here. I have plenty more references should you desire them. Suffice it to say, I think that the evidence is against the gun control lobby’s favorite argument, namely, that gun ownership means increased violence.

That aside, I think the fundamental issue is one of liberty. If the criminals are going to be armed with guns, it would be asinine for a law-obeying citizenry to disarm themselves. Guns exist in our society for a number of reasons (not just to cause death, as gun control advocates like to claim), and they will therefore always be within reach of those who wish to use them for evil purposes. I reject any policy that would make me give up a weapon with which I may defend myself from a would-be aggressor who himself is armed.

However, this perspective is not one I had considered. I am also LDS, and I have just discovered this blog after #ldsconf. I’ll subscribe to your blog and think more on this topic. I think it is important from a preparedness aspect.

I also admire those who pursue the Oriental art of self defense. However, it has long been my understanding that those who boast of their capabilities and prowess are doomed to experience defeat at the hands of one who quietly acts before being acted upon. Simply stated, I prefer to dispatch my enemy quickly before he gains too close a proximity to my body to inflict the wounds of death. Of course, if he is likewise armed, the knowledge of evasive tactics and superior marksmanship may be required.

Michael made no mention of individual names or personalities and he did not label anyone as being “sissy” because it is not his nature to do so. Michael generally always uses collective pronouns when he is offering his opinionated rantings and ravings. Michael also hopes he is not among “the rest of mankind.”

While I am certain some will consider this advice to be too drastic and dangerous, I learned long ago not to take the counsel of the fearful.

State Imperative – Confiscation of Privately Owned Weapons
by Tim Case

13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.
14 There also came aup a land out of the depth of the sea, and so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off and went upon the land which came up out of the depth of the sea.
15 And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off; and there went forth a curse upon all people that fought against God;
16 And from that time forth there were wars and bloodshed among them; but the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.
17 The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.

To have influence with God so much that His Word protects you would be a great thing to be able to do. However, great faith is required as is noted there. I also like the description of how Nephi and Lehi ended a war in Helaman chapter 5 where it was thru their faith and the intervention of the Lord that their lives were spared from execution from their enemies and the war was ended. I believe that to be a type of things to come when those who will not lift their sword against their neighbor must needs flee to Zion from all nations as is described in D&C 45:

67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.
70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.
71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy.

It appears that at some point a gathering will take place during times of violence in which our missionaries will need the faith of Nephi and Lehi and Zion will stand as it did in the time of Enoch as a place where people will not have to be too concerned with self-defense as the Glory of the Lord will be so terrible to the rest of mankind.

I long to follow the path of Enoch on these issues. Michael may accuse me of being mired in semantics and debate and not spiritually preparing myself I suppose, which he is free to do. You can take my comments however you like.

~ Heinrich Himmler; Reichsfuhrer-SS

Individualism and Self Defense
by Michael Gaddy

There are present in America today a very large number of citizens who believe protection of themselves and their loved ones from violent physical attack, robbery, rape and general mayhem is the sole responsibility of others. Most of these ignorant folks believe that employees of the state should be responsible for protection of the individual in our society. This view is elitist and based on false assumptions.

Depending on others for personal protection masks the belief by many that they are of a higher station in life; that those of a lower social level and therefore inferior in stature and value should be responsible for their personal protection. They believe their lives and property to be more important than the lives of members of law enforcement and the military.

Many are unaware that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the police have no obligation to protect the individual in society. The court ruled as late as June 27th 2005, in Castle Rock v Gonzales, that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection for herself, or her children, even though she had obtained a restraining order against her husband Simon. Simon Gonzales subsequently abducted their three children, murdered them, and was killed by police after shooting into the police station window. Ms. Gonzales called the police after the children were abducted, but, the police, believing Simon Gonzales to be non-violent, did nothing. Perhaps, had the police enforced the restraining order, the children would be alive today?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled the police have no obligation to defend the individual. Beginning with South V. Maryland in 1856 and several subsequent rulings on the subject, the court has ruled, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” Emphasis added. Yet, the state and its myriad civilian supporters persist in the belief the individual in society should be disarmed, stating the police are there, should anyone need protection.

Today’s economic problems have revealed the true purpose of most law enforcement personnel in our country: revenue collection. Apprehending killers, rapists and robbers does not contribute to the coffers of law enforcement and their governing bodies; they are, in fact, costly to the agency involved. Unconstitutional law enforcement checkpoints, where a great majority of DUI citations, license, registration, and insurance violations are issued, are vital to the state in the collection of revenue. In today’s economic times, many departments have detailed officers from personal crime assignments to activities that are revenue producing. This takes the law enforcement emphasis away from protecting citizens. To the police, manning checkpoints or speed traps is much more important than answering a prowler call or a call concerning a restraining order’s enforcement.

The court has ruled that any “protection” provided by law enforcement will be of a collective nature rather than an individual one. Therefore, as individuals, we must come to grips with the reality of protecting our loved ones, and ourselves, with little to no dependence on those in law enforcement. For that reason, we must never allow the state to remove from our possession the tools required for that critical task.

Even on the collective level, law enforcement has proved to be relatively ineffectual in protecting those who pay their salaries. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Rader and Coral Eugene Watts managed to take the lives of at least 177 innocent people without ever firing a shot. The police were only able to investigate after the fact in these cases. I’m sure that was of little consolation whatsoever to the victims, or their families.

So ineffectual are the members of law enforcement and the military, they have repeatedly been unable to protect those whose lives are in their hands 24 hours a day. John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar al-Sadat and many others in history are proof positive the state cannot protect those they are tasked with protecting.

Depending on the military for personal protection would definitely be a misplaced trust. Need I say more than 9/11? Billions and billions for defense of the country and, according to the questionable government account of what was basically an act of mass murder, 19 men with box cutters brought down the icons of the American financial network and the headquarters of the U.S. Military, killing thousands in the process. All this was accomplished at the reported cost of a few hundred thousand dollars.

Rumors abound concerning the military being used by the state to seize firearms and control American citizens should there be civil unrest or natural disaster. The actions of the National Guard in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans are certainly indicative of what we can expect from the military as relates to personal protection. If anyone still maintains any doubt the military will be deployed to American streets in the event of civil unrest or national emergency, check this out.

The military has morphed from the “protection of our country” paradigm to one of the enforcement arm for the state. In fact, the military has failed miserably in abiding by its prime directive: “upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic.” Arguably, the military has become the tool of the Constitution’s domestic enemies.

Effective personal protection can only be obtained through the efforts of the individual. Private firearms ownership, proper training, perfect practice, and the mindset to use them all are vital. To believe otherwise is elitist, ignorant of reality, and could eventually prove fatal.

March 13, 2009

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest

The Anti-Nephi-Lehies collective decision was, more importantly, known by Heavenly Father who recognized the greater results of their laying down their lives for their friends would result in more Lamanites repenting and converting to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than those whose lives had been lost. Consequently, it should be obvious to most that the Lord in His infinite wisdom saw an opportunity to offer Eternal Life to many more than would have otherwise been the case.

The Secret Combinations most responsible for attempting to destroy the Constitution of the United States are fully aware that most Americans are armed and dangerous. They also unwisely believe those sovereign folks are loosely, if at all, organized. When it comes to usurping the power of the people or tyrannically attempting to dislodge their freedoms and liberties granted them by their Creator who is the Lord of this land, Jesus Christ, they will quickly realize that right always trumps might. The higher laws of justice will always prevail over the puny understanding of those whose souls are corrupted by the temptations of power and greed whether they be individuals or governments.

It is my contention that many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spend far too much time mired in semantics and debate rather than engaging themselves in quietly preparing spiritually to withstand the destruction which is going to come to this land in the very near future. You may discount that notion all you care to, but it is coming because, as a nation, we are demanding it.

Reading over commentary from modern prophets on these verses, I find that these verses have only to deal with revenge and retribution. You can peruse the comments here (navigate to the verses on the left column). Here’s one example, by George Q. Cannon:

This revelation continues in this strain, and it is well worthy of our attention, especially at the present time. It shows unto us most clearly, my brethren and sisters, that there is no room for revenge in the heart of a true Latter-day Saint. God designs that we shall be a peaceful people, a people who shall love and cultivate peace, a people who shall seek by every means in their power to avert war and to avert bloodshed, to proclaim peace, and to entreat people for peace; and God has said to us most emphatically that He would fight our battles, that He would defend us against our enemies. He does not intend that the Latter-day Saints shall be a people shedding blood. … Therefore, I repeat, that of all people now living upon the face of the earth we are most urgently required by our God to be lovers and cultivators of peace, and to seek not for that revenge which gratifies human passion, which is not of God, and which is opposed to the Gospel of Jesus, and to the sentiments that Jesus invariably inculcated and endeavored to enforce upon His disciples. We have shown this repeatedly. How many times would we have been stirred up to indignation, if we had allowed human feelings to prevail, at the abominable falsehoods which have been circulated in our midst, fabricated by men whose only object has been to bring down vengeance upon this people, to excite the ruling powers against us; to stir up congressional action against us, to create a public opinion against us, to make it justifiable to slay us, to deprive us of every right? How often has this been the case? How easy it would have been for us if we had followed the influences that seem natural to human beings under such circumstances, to have avenged ourselves upon them. But had we done so we should have forfeited the protecting care of our Father and our God. When we attempt to do this, we put ourselves outside of the pale of His protection. We could not ask of Him (as we could do if we were to observe His commandments) that protection and that deliverance which is necessary at times to extricate us from the imminent perils with which we are threatened. And it is by this principle, following this policy, adopting this peaceful, godlike course, that this people have been preserved and blessed up to the present time. It is a spirit which we should cultivate, cultivate it in all our associations, in our intercourse with one another, in our intercourse with the world, and even with those who are most embittered against us. It is not for us to revile against the reviler; it is not for us to bandy vulgar epithets with those who indulge in this mode of warfare; but it is for us to put our trust in God, to leave our cause with Him. For we cannot defend ourselves by earthly weapons. We are too feeble. We are not strong in numbers. We are not strong in wealth. We are not strong in worldly things. We have not these advantages to aid and sustain us. If we are sustained we must be sustained by the overruling providence and power of God our Eternal Father, and not by any earthly power. Therefore our path of safety is the path which God has pointed out for us; not to be a revengeful people, not to be a recriminating people, not to be an abusive people, but to be a meek people, a forbearing people, bearing patiently, but of course not sitting down idly and supinely, and permitting contumely to be heaped upon us without exerting the powers God has given us to dissipate falsehoods. But this can be done in the spirit of meekness, not in the spirit of revenge, not in the spirit of reviling, not in the spirit of hostility and hatred. This spirit is antagonistic to the spirit that Jesus possesses, and which we all ought to possess to be like Him—to be filled as He was with those desirable attributes which were so acceptable to the Father. (George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, 25:272-3)

In a spirit of peace and meekness we are to renounce war and proclaim peace. But these verses seem to deal only with refusing to seek revenge, not defending yourself if you have done others no harm and can stop a threat while it is occurring. This similarly explains Jesus’ commandment to turn the other cheek, in my opinion. He was not saying “let anybody who wants to, beat you up”, but rather “if they happen to do it, don’t try and get payback”. Self-defense, done with the proper spirit, is not, in my opinion, irreconcilable in the slightest with the commandments we are given here.

It’s as Bane said earlier: you should not seek to kill the threat (or escalate the violence used), but rather to stop the threat in its tracks. These verses would apply to the situation if you felt angry for the assault and thus escalated your response to administer your own “justice”.

I’m not trying to say that the principle of self-defense is not a legitimate principle, especially when family members are to be protected. However, as always, there are scriptures that seemingly contradict what has been said in other areas of scripture. Particulary problematic for the pro-self-defense crowd are a few verses in D&C 98:

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;
24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.
25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.
26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;
27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.
28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;
30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.
32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

The Lord continues on with this sort of language:

39 And again, verily I say unto you, if after thine enemy has come upon thee the first time, he repent and come unto thee praying thy forgiveness, thou shalt forgive him, and shalt hold it no more as a testimony against thine enemy—
40 And so on unto the second and third time; and as oft as thine enemy repenteth of the trespass wherewith he has trespassed against thee, thou shalt forgive him, until seventy times seven.
41 And if he trespass against thee and repent not the first time, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.
42 And if he trespass against thee the second time, and repent not, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.
43 And if he trespass against thee the third time, and repent not, thou shalt also forgive him.
44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee.
45 And if he do this, thou shalt forgive him with all thine heart; and if he do not this, I, the Lord, will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundred-fold;
46 And upon his children, and upon his children’s children of all them that hate me, unto the third and fourth generation.
47 But if the children shall repent, or the children’s children, and turn to the Lord their God, with all their hearts and with all their might, mind, and strength, and restore four-fold for all their trespasses wherewith they have trespassed, or wherewith their fathers have trespassed, or their fathers’ fathers, then thine indignation shall be turned away;
48 And vengeance shall ano more come upon them, saith the Lord thy God, and their trespasses shall never be brought any more as a testimony before the Lord against them. Amen.

Bearing it patiently seems to be the theme of the Lord’s law here.

But their unique case—given their previous sins and actions—is not applicable, I believe, to the average innocent individual who has been commanded (through ancient and modern prophecy) to defend himself and his family:

And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion. (Alma 43:47)

Another related principle is the commandment to provide for your family:

But if any aprovide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

By refusing to defend yourself and thus put your life in jeopardy, you are putting your family in a precarious situation to be potentially father/husband-less, and thus without any financial support. One might even go so far as to look to the Proclamation which declares that children are entitled to being brought up by a mother and a father; if either is threatened, they should then defend the structure and sanctity of their family (as Bane indicated earlier) so as to ensure this entitlement continues to be fulfilled.

John the Baptist took on the Nazarite covenant as did Sampson. Jesus did not follow that path. Does that mean that Sampson and John were greater than the Savior? Of course not.

They took on their special covenants for a wise purpose in God. The people of Ammon took on a special covenant for a wise purpose in God. That is all. Part of their covenant was that they would never shed blood again.

The covenant we take on today is different. Part of that for us is the oath and covenant of the priesthood. I believe Connor is implying that part of that covenant is to protect our families. I tend to agree with the general idea. But I’m not so sure I agree with the details.

And, since 2 people can read this passage in 2 different ways, I think you were stretching pretty far to classify the other way as a “gross distortion”… especially since so many presidents of the Church have classically been ardent defenders of self-defense.