Quantcast
Opinion

Second amendment: Right to bear arms a fundamental personal freedom

Comments

Return To Article
  • CynicJim Taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 13, 2012 6:30 a.m.

    I am still amazed that during the Rodney King riots in LA when the rioters turned into the Korean neighborhood three armed citizens with pistols turned the entire mob away! Just three! Point taken, if you aren't blind.

  • BASavage Orem, UT
    Aug. 12, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    I have followed the right to keep and bear arms for decades. Almost all those who are against firearms in the hands of citizens use false logic which is based on the lack of knowleged about accidental death. The fact remains is that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms, it does not give it. The right for the citizenry to keep and bear arms dates back to the Roman era. It is also mentioned in the Magna Carta. Regardless of usefullness the right to keep and bear, which means not only having firearms but the ability to use, arms it is necessary for the protection of freedom.

    Every single totalitarian state starts out with taking firearms from the people. The USSR, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan in the 1930's and the list goes on. While we complain that roughly 40,000 people die from firearms each year (most are suicides and those are only 1/3 of total suicides) the rest are criminal in nature. It is a well documented fact that crimminals use guns in areas that have gun bans. More guns in the hands of citizens, less crime. Fact.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 11, 2012 1:30 p.m.

    Re: freedomingood provo, Utah
    "This is why I can't be republican people."

    So are you suggesting that the Springville man who shot an armed intruder in his bedroom is a Republican because he was unwilling to accept the roll of a victim? Those who complain most bitterly about the 2nd Amendment are the first ones to panic when the 911 operator puts them on hold while an armed intruder is kicking their back door in.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 6:39 p.m.

    The NRA and republicans just like to scare you into buying more guns. Now where is the logic in that anyway?

    You are convinced the government is going to come take away your guns - so you buy more of them.

    This is why I can't be republican people.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 6:34 p.m.

    To keep the government at bay we would need more than muzzle loaders.

    I would need that fully loaded F-16. Or to compare to the AK facination I guess I should be getting a Mig-29. Many of my neighbors will need them as well though.

    Personally I think NRA, outspoken gun lovers are looking for something to make them feel more powerfull than they really feel. Some may just love the history of guns but I find that those people are quieter about it.

    After all, scared women will buy one gun to protect themselves but never really talk about it. Gun lovers buy scary looking assault rifles that shoot the same bullets as a deer rifle and show them off to friends and family. I think they like the intimidation factor.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Aug. 10, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    @atl134

    How many times in those cases was the existence of the government of the United States directly threatened? If it was do you think Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq would be habitable by human life anymore?
    They would either be glowing or would be sealed off with bio hazard posters ringing the border.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    @UT Brit
    Yeah it's not the 1700s but we know that ragtags hiding behind rocks and trees are still effective since that's what the Vietcong, Al Qaida, and the Iraqi insurgents used and one might recall we got bogged down in all three cases.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    Limiting ammo purchases to something below 6,000 bullets, limiting clips/magazines to 10 rounds instead of 30 plus, and closing the gun show loophole, none of that does anything to stop an everyday citizen from legally purchasing a gun and acquiring ammunition so that should they need to use a gun in self-defense they'll have almost a dozen bullets to use. If you need more than a dozen bullets to protect yourself... A: you probably should have better aim than that, and B: you probably shouldn't have gotten involved in a drug cartel because seriously who else would be in that kind of position?

  • UT Brit London, England
    Aug. 10, 2012 11:38 a.m.

    @Rifleman

    Hate to tell you rifleman, this aint the 1700's. Please explain how you plan on not breathing for an extended period of time? Todays biological weapons can target people of certain genomes. I want to know how an assault rifle is going to help you when you breathe in microscopic spores that causes you to cough your lungs out in pieces. Thats what you would be facing.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    Rifleman, you are correct. However, the supreme court ruling notwithstanding, we are obsessed with making sure the second amendment is absolute and part of our heritage. So, back to the opening caveat of the amendment, we've got the bear arms thing down pat. So where is the militia?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    Re: UT Brit London, England
    "I am confident that the US government would need nothing more than a few crop dusters if an armed insurrection sprang up."

    All it took was a few rag tag American colonists with muzzle loaders to run the British Army back to where they came from. That was probably still on their minds when the Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment. The British Army walked in long straight lines and the Americans, with our inferior numbers, hid behind rocks and tress and sent them packing.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    Re: Hutterite American Fork, UT
    "It seems to indicate that the right to bear arms is conditional ...."

    Apparently not. On June 26, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers the right to individual American citizens to keep and bear arms, and that it did not apply to states or their militias. On June 29, 2010 they again ruled that "The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments".

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
    I've always wondered about this conditional statement in the second amendment. It seems to indicate that the right to bear arms is conditional on the need for a well regulated militia to protect the state, militia being composed of the arms bearing citizens. My questions include what if the militia is no longer necessary, as is the case today? People argue that we do need the militia today to protect us from the government but if that's the case then where is it? Citizens armed to the teeth do not a well regulated militia make.
    I do not know exactly the people who wrote the amendment had in mind, but I like to think they would have written it differently had they known what it turned into today.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 6:49 a.m.

    Re: There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    "I'm partial to RPG's and flame throwers as a way to "protect" my fundamental personal freedoms."

    Neither of your weapons of choice fall under the category of firearms permitted by the 2nd Amendment. Just as there are those now trying to attack the 1st Amendment there will always be those who don't agree with the 2nd.

    Fortunately for us the US Supreme Court issued two important rulings recently protecting the 2nd Amendment as it was crafted by the Founding Fathers.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Aug. 10, 2012 6:12 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal

    I am confident that the US government would need nothing more than a few crop dusters if an armed insurrection sprang up. Biological and chemical weapons would nullify any problem areas. If your sole purpose for owning assault weapons is to defend yourself against the US government, I imagine your life expectancy would be measured in hours instead days were it to happen.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 9, 2012 7:00 p.m.

    In Iraq and Afganistan the rebels fight most effectivly with our own explosives that we didn't secure.

    One of the first things Bush did in Iraq was announce a gun ban in Bagdad. Houses were stormed and guns collected. Anyone with assault style weapons were assumed to be terrorist rebels.

    I use the word rebel because I KNOW for a fact that if a foreign army invaded the US, relieved Obama as president but then refused to leave, even the most ardent Obama haters would not sit by idlely as a foreign army and government controlled our oil and natural resources. And you know it too.

    So keep your guns. I really don't care. But I do care that the NRA insists on making it easy for ANYONE to get assault weapons without reponsibility.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 6:59 p.m.

    I'm partial to RPG's and flame throwers as a way to "protect" my fundamental personal freedoms.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 5:08 p.m.

    Re: "That 'protect against unlawful government' argument is a bill of goods sold to you by the NRA . . . ."

    Spoken like a true liberal -- we're already dead, so we might as well lie down.

    Except most Americans understand that even an asymmetric threat is a genuine threat -- as bad guys in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, and many other places across the world prove every day.

    Without a credible threat of resistance, government becomes truly unlimited. And that has proven to be REAL bad, EVERY time it's been tried.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 12:10 p.m.

    Like most, the author misconstrues the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That point aside, why does the 2nd Amendment trump the 1st, the right of free assembly? The thought that you are going to fend off a tyrannical army with assault weapons is laughable. If you really want to return to the days of the Revoltution then we should disband the standing military and require all to arm themselves to ward off those evil invaders, such as the Brits seeking revenge for 1812.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 9, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    If the police raid your home, about the last thing that will preserve your life and liberty is a gun in your hand.

    I know there is this common conservative fantasy about fighting off the commies and taking down a burglar but it doesn't make much sense. Nor do most liberals want you to throw away your guns.

    I personally don't mind if you want to have guns as long as no bullets accidently come ripping through my walls. A few feet from me is my own shotgun. I just want people to be responsible with guns and in order for that to be inforced there need to be some basic laws to hold the irresponsible accountable.

    I would like a fully loaded F-16. But I need to show my pilot certificate, LOA, medical exam, insurance and an act of congress to allow it. It's not going to happen and I'm sure my neighbors appreciate it.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 6:24 a.m.

    Reality dictates otherwise. And the thing about gun lovers is that they don't want society to mandate responsibility or to put rational limits on what they do. Guns have essentially become a super right. It defies rationality.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    But why do neo nazis and radicals need military assault weapons?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 9, 2012 3:18 a.m.

    Based on your letter, Alan, you already seem to have given up reason and logic of your own free will so the melodramatic "give up all freedoms" claim rings pretty hollow.

    The flaw in your argument is that buildings, cars, bridges, et al... have legitimate purposes outside the scope of causing death. Firearms, however, are designed specifically to end life. So, when a car hits a light post and the driver dies, that is an accident, b/c the result (death) deviated from the car's engineered purpose (to get the individual from A to B). Guns, on the other hand, were created to kill. So, there are no "accidental" shooting deaths b/c the gun is effectively carrying out its purpose. To be sure, it may have killed the wrong person, but it is a misnomer to label it an accident.

    Further, until you have the right to privately own surface-to-air missiles, nukes, and Bradley tanks, you have absolutely zero chance of defending yourself against our government. That "protect against unlawful government" argument is a bill of goods sold to you by the NRA and gun shops to pump up sales.