The Constitution and the LDS Faith

[Ddawg]

Okay...
And?

It does not matter that you lack understanding. You did not know or understand why the Nauvoo Legion was created. You did not know or understand the Nauvoo Legion continued to exist after their charter was cancelled. Never mind.

[Mars]

Lol

[Ddawg]

Lol

You really don't know do you? Stunning. After the Saints migrated to Utah, Pres. Buchanan sent the U.S. Army to the Utah Territory to quell the so-called Mormon Rebellion. Became known at the Utah War. Pres. Buchanan sent General Albert Sydney Johnston wit 2,500 troops to crush the Mormon Rebellion.

Guess what? Brigham Young directed Gen. Daniel Wells (commander of the Nauvoo Legion, and member of LDS First Presidency) to engage in a war of delay and destruction of property and supplies, annoy, delay, stampede animals, burn supply trains, blockade the road, keep them from sleeping - but avoid bloodshed and loss of life. The conflict lasted 14 months (1857-1858).

Flash - it was the Nauvoo Legion that engaged in the guerrilla war of delay, annoy, and deny supplies to Johnston's army that ultimately brought about a favorable solution to a potentially ugly conflict.

[Mars]

That was when the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred, at the cost of 120 civilian lives. The darkest shame in LDS history.

At the end of the "War", the same outcome happened anyway, with Brigham Young being stripped of public office.

Again, do you have a point, or are you just reciting common history without reason?

[Ddawg]

That was when the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred, at the cost of 120 civilian lives. The darkest shame in LDS history.

At the end of the "War", the same outcome happened anyway, with Brigham Young being stripped of public office.

Again, do you have a point, or are you just reciting common history without reason?

What is your point?

[snoscythe]

Even if "well regulated" trips you up, remember that, at the time the Constitution was written, that had absolutely nothing to do with government regulation as we know it.

Just to clarify a bit -- as I read the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is not to be infringed so that we can have well regulated militias. The right to bear arms is what makes the well regulated militia a possibility. Stating that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" indicates to me that they were not creating a new or novel right--they were preserving an existing right as it existed at the time.

I do not read the Second Amendment to limit the right to bear arms to those involved in a well regulated militia. I think that twists the text of the Amendment beyond reasonable interpretation.