BYU Political Review - Latest Comments

Re: The Right to Bear Harm: Contorting the Second Amendment

anonymous — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:35:43 -0000

I am totally willing to use force to defend my God-given rights. Ever heard of a guy named Captain Moroni? Do you think what he did was murder?

Re: The Right to Bear Harm: Contorting the Second Amendment

Terrance Kutney — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:47:50 -0000

You know, saying that you will commit murder rather than give up your guns does not present a very persuasive argument for gun rights. In fact, it makes me really hope that the government will restrict your access to guns.

Re: The Right to Bear Harm: Contorting the Second Amendment

anonymous — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:15:57 -0000

The second ammendment gives us the right to bear arms and it doesn't specify the type of gun. Even though Mormonism, scientology and many other religions did not exist when the constitution was written, they are all protected under the first ammendment. In the same way, although many modern weapons did not exist when the constitution was written, they are all protected under the second ammendment. The right to bear arms is a God-given right and you can literally pry my guns from my cold dead hands.
I'm prepared to die before I give up my guns. So the question you need to ask youself is are you willing to die trying to take them from me?

Re: Rape and Utah’s Legal System

Donn Irving — Sun, 05 May 2013 19:49:34 -0000

What next? The victim need not be in the same room?

Re: The Founding Mullahs: The Islamic Roots of Common Law

Michael Jon Barker — Thu, 02 May 2013 13:06:27 -0000

So our Western system of law came from Muslim countries at least the structure did. Judeo Christian values were incorporated into it but it took hundreds of years for the barbarism of torture to be replaced with more humane punishments. The Christian inquisition, the burning of heretics and of those who pursued science continued for a long time including the sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants. It was the renaissance and the age of enlightenment that allowed Humanism to gain a foothold that allowed for a certain amount of pluralism and reduced the amount of torture. It's estimated that around 100,000 women were burned at the stake for being witches. Our own history isn't a great example of human rights and I haven't even touched how Americans and Europeans treated people of color. I think that someday Sunnis and Shia will be able to coexist and that Shariah law will become more humanized.

Re: The Founding Mullahs: The Islamic Roots of Common Law

Michael Jon Barker — Thu, 02 May 2013 13:04:23 -0000

Honor killings and female genital circumcision both predate Islam and Hinduism.

Re: Mormon Presidency: This Time for Africa

Fernando — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:59:14 -0000

Wishing him the best and I hope Mr. Yeah Samaké become the first Mormon President in Mali. He has all the integrity to win. Good Luck to you, we need more leaders like you around the world. God bless you and bless your beautiful people in Mali.

Re: Ethanol as an Alternative Fuel: A Good Deal for Politics, Little Else

Isaac — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:44:03 -0000

As someone from Iowa, which is a key recipient of government subsidies for ethanol, I still agree with this article. It doesn't look like ethanol production offers much in the way of economic benefit. What's more is ethanol production from corn causes the price of corn to rise, making dairy foods and other foods that use corn in their production more expensive. And not only that, the government subsidies applied to corn mean that we are paying taxes so that our food prices rise.

Re: Book Review: Latter-day Liberty by Connor Boyack

Scott — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:55:06 -0000

"Libertarians are not opposed to large governments because they want to fulfill whatever caprice their desires may dictate, but because they understand that in a society where men are angels, there is no need for laws or governance, and they want to enhance the angelic nature of those who share their societies. It presupposes a hopelessly idealistic view of human nature and a hopelessly simplistic view of sociology and psychology, but it is a bold and noble dream nonetheless"

NO. That is not why libertarians oppose large governments. Your characterization of libertarians as idealists is severely flawed. Libertarians believe in small government because they believe in respecting the rights of individuals, and not only that, they believe that respecting those rights results in a more prosperous and freer society. The libertarian vision of government DOES NOT require that men be angels; it is a vision of government that is not only more moral than any other we have, but more PRAGMATIC than any other we have.

Re: How Much Do You Love Your Guns?

christopher santos — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:51:05 -0000

the author needs of the article needs to read what everyone has posted and not let his emotions cloud his judgement.

Re: How Much Do You Love Your Guns?

Truman — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:49:20 -0000

Thank you for standing up for actual facts. I would like to point out an additional thing - the so-called "gunshow loophole," in which private sales of firearms require no background checks - DOES NOT EXIST. The power of the Federal Bureaucracy to enforce regulatory laws among the states is derived from the constitutional "INTERstate commerce clause." That's why all federally-licensed firearms dealers must comply with background checks on their customers; because they engage in interstate commerce with said firearms. However, as a private citizen selling a gun to another locally, I am engaging in INTRAstate commerce, which the Congress (therefore the federal government) has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over (as the 9th and 10th amendments grant all powers not delegated to congress to the individual states and citizens). If you're not happy with the constitution, that's your problem. But gun grabbers can't just label a certain type of behavior a "loophole" just because they don't like it (so long as we lived in a nation of laws, that is). So if one wants to even pretend to have a premise for this "loophole" argument, we'd have to heavily amend the supreme law of the land first. I'm quite tired of dealing with people who come to this debate with no credibility and no knowledge of what they're even talking about.

Re: How Much Do You Love Your Guns?

Abraham Contos — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:12:48 -0000

"When was the last time you needed to shoot a deer or defend yourself with one of those?" I don't hunt and even I know you don't hunt deer with a shotgun. You do, however, hunt all different kinds of fowl with one. The author obviously is not part of the gun culture and doesn't fully understand it.

Re: How Much Do You Love Your Guns?

Ron Hubbard — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:49:32 -0000

There are several problems in your article. First, unless an individual goes through a more rigorous background check from the FBI, pays an additional $200, and waits several months, they are not legally able to purchase an AUTOMATIC assault weapon. The most commonly purchased AK-47s are semi-automatic variants. Second, the AK-47 was developed after WWII and therefore was not used during WWI. Third, the Savage 311-D, while used in the Columbine shootings, is primarily used to hunt animals. It is only capable of shooting twice before needing to reload each barrel individually. While the AK might not be as effective as other hunting rifles for shooting deer, the Savage is an option for hunters when using buckshot or slugs. Last, While the United States does have the highest incarceration rate in the world, there are many more reasons for it besides manslaughter charges. Many have blamed other phenomena like the war on drugs and the mandatory sentencing guidelines directed by the laws introduced to fight that "war". Others blame policies like "three strikes" policies forcing judges to send offenders to prison for minor offenses. While I do believe more needs to be done to fix the problem, maybe better enforcement of the current gun laws, and ensuring all purchasers of firearms submit to background checks prior to purchase would be a better idea than banning guns in general.

Re: Romneycare for the Economy? Why Mitt is No Economic Superman

Peter — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 02:16:11 -0000

If you look at his resume, Romney should be a solid choice for president. The problem is that he has been really wishy washy on policy. Flip flops on a range of issues and pandering to the far right instead of proposing new, rational and balanced solutions to our problems. Policy over biography.

Re: Never Change a Winning Team

Peter — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 02:05:24 -0000

Republicans share just as much if not more responsibility for our nations fiscal problems as liberals. Under Bush, we saw national debt increase by 4.9 Trillion. The war in Iraq, a war without real practical purpose, has cost more than 800 Billion and still counting. Bush extended entitlements and cut taxes, and his failed policies left us with the worst recession since the great depression. So don't blame Democrats for all of our spending problems.

Re: Collision Course? Mormon Liberals and a Romney White House

Clyde — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:47:32 -0000

It seems to me that JS had plans for the United States that were most certainly millennial but not exactly democratic. Secretly, he held out hope for the establishment of an American-style theocracy and even Smith royal family, assuming everything went as divinely planned. (Read the Book of Abraham and let's not forget about the Council of Fifty.) He was soft on slavery and wanted to annex Canada. (Brent, being from Canada, surely you take exception to this much.) If I'm not mistaken, JS ran as an independent rather than a Democrat, so the argument for Mormon Democrats, past and present, taking pride in the JS run, well that doesn't quite follow. Though JS had no chance of winning, for what independent ever does in a two-party system, JS as President is not something Mormons of any political stripe can, or ought, to take any pride. Politically, the founder of the faith was certainly a tyrant in the making and it was probably not altogether a bad thing for American democracy at least that he suffered the fate he did. I'm sorry, but let's be honest here. In fact, what JS and Mitt have in common, I think, is only that both have given us plenty of reasons to be ashamed of being Mormon.

Re: Contra-Conceptions: Reversing the Stigma of Family Planning

Estephania — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:00:28 -0000

Im sorry, I want to contact Aaron Mcmurray, is there any way you can let me know how to contact him? Thanks

Re: No Country for Old Man

Jordan Hess — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:53:17 -0000

Great article! It's time for a new generation of leaders in Washington. Thanks for pointing out that Orrin Hatch in 2012 is Frank Moss in 1976.

Re: Never Change a Winning Team

Zosomm90 — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:19:57 -0000

I honestly don't think it is very likely that the Republicans are going to take back the senate. I think that is a major false assumption made by the Hatch campaign. One should also take a look at where all his campaign funding comes from and you would realize that he was bought out by the major banks a long time ago. He hasn't actually represented Utah for decades, he represents the interests of his largest campaign donors.

Re: Never Change a Winning Team

knowwhatcounts — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:54:23 -0000

Matthew Skanchy is a paid Hatch staffer not a volunteer. We would not be throwing the "baby" out... we would be throwing out a 78 yr. old man who needs to retire and be with his family.What do you call a Senator who has served well past the time he promised.... in his own words, "you call him home." Hatch is one of the big reasons that our country is at the dangerous cross-roads it is. He has voted for legislation when there was no hope of paying for it. His "seniority" only gives him one vote- no more. Please be wise and bring this man home... not to Utah- because that is not his home.
Liljenquist understands what it will take to solve our country's economic crisis. He is brilliant, energetic and the author of the state's most important legislation in 50 years. He has saved our state over 7 billion dollars with his pension reform.
Do you know who is in line for the Finance Committee chair after Hatch? Senator Mike Crap- a Republican conservative from Idaho who did NOT vote for Tarp.
Be wise, people of Utah. It is time for a CHANGE!

Re: Never Change a Winning Team

brent2012 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:00:41 -0000

It might be well to note that Mr. Skanchy is a PAID member of the Hatch campaign staff. Now, it's funny that he mentions Hatch being able to stand on his own record since none of him main talking points have had to do with his record, but rather Mitt Romney, Senate Finance Committee and what he could do for Hill Air Force Base. As a longtime Davis county resident, I know that it is the men and women at Hill who keep that place from closure. It is this line of thinking that has gotten us into a financial mess, and it would be foolish to keep the same line of thinking in office.

Re: No Country for Old Man

Guest — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:44:06 -0000

Nice article!

Re: Selected Planks from Joseph Smith’s 1844 Political Platform

zastrong — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:05:18 -0000

If you'll notice, the candidate running today that is closest to these views is Ron Paul. If we as Latter-day Saints truly understand and value the Constitution and Liberty, we'll support Ron Paul.

Re: Behind the Curtain: Grading NGOs

Papa Bear Walker — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:40:52 -0000

What an incredible insight! Interestingly enough, I think Professors Mike Findley and Dan Nielson are working on some RCTs that have to do with standardized accountability and effectiveness. I really think this is the future of the development sector, though a lot of it hinges on whether we can get donors on board. I think the donor side of the equation would be a fascinating realm for future research.

Re: Selected Planks from Joseph Smith’s 1844 Political Platform

Karl Nordgren — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:37:14 -0000

"It is one of the first principles of my life, and one that I have cultivated from my childhood,
having been taught it by my father, to allow every one that liberty of conscience.
I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find
with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.
Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the
manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who
refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has
but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get
along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the
merciless rage of popular fury. The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the president of the United States would not say, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you,” a governor issue exterminating orders, or judges say, “The men ought to have the protection of law, but is won’t please the mob; the men must die, anyhow, to satisfy the clamor of the rabble; they must be hung, or Missouri be damned to all eternity.” Executive writs could be
issued when they ought to be, and not be made instruments of cruelty to oppress the innocent,and
persecute men whose religion is unpopular." -Joseph Smith (TPJS page 325-326) The part I find Ironic about this statement is, "The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment"In the position of both mayor and Lieutenant General, Joseph Smith was an "officer of the Government". Considering he commissioned the destruction of his 2nd counselor William Law's press, a protection guaranteed in the constitution, Joseph by his own policy was to receive capital punishment. http://mormonstories.org/po...