Published: Tuesday, Dec. 18 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]"The
individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of
self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful
purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the
Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. "
Well said Kathleen. As I and others have said elsewhere, this discussion is
about how to prevent more mass murders..not how to take away peoples 2nd
amendment rights (although 300million guns in America is insanity)..but I
digress. Semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines have only one
purpose and that is to committ mass killing. Gun supporters here is what you
have to defend...a citizens need to have a gun whos intent is mass killing.
I lived in Israel for a decade where every citizen over the age of 18 was armed.
Israelis carry Uzi sub-machine guns in public. A mass murder doesn't
happen there because all are armed.Only a terrorist rocket can kill innocents in
that country today.Criminals will always have assault weapons. How
can a law-abiding citizen defend himself against an assault carrying criminal?
The police arrived quickly at the Sandy Hook school, but to no avail.
I say only allow assault rifles to be sold to Military, Police or Veterans of
both.We've had the proper training.Keep them out of the
hands of the general public.
"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither."Thomas Jefferson
SalProvo, UTI lived in Israel for a decade where every citizen over
the age of 18 was armed. Israelis carry Uzi sub-machine guns in public.========= Except to forgot to mention what I just said -- ISRAEL has a 100% mandatory Military requirement.If you want an
assault weapon, enlist in the Military.And get the proper
training.It's FREE - and they'll even pay you $600 a month
for enrolling to learn it too!
Well said, Ms. Iker. Thank you for explaining the situation without the normal
knee-jerk rhetoric.@Sal--Israel is different than the US in one
major aspect: every person is required to serve in the military where they learn
respect for weapons, how to read a situation, and when to use those weapons in a
judicious manner. Americans aren't nearly as disciplined.
Whereas Israelis are protected their nation, Americans tend to protect their own
self-interests. It's a world of difference, and therefore, an inappropriate
comparison.People with guns tend to become their own police force
and worse, sometimes become judge, jury, and executioner within moments of
happening upon a situation. I would never trust myself with so much
power over life and death, and I trust my neighbors even less.
What's really frightening in all this debate is the number of people whose
paranoia leads them to try to warn sane people of the need to be ready to defend
ourselves from our own government.I'm sorry, but thinking like
that is dangerous.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."As the Constitution explains, the right to bear arms was initially meant
to arm a well-regulate militia to preserve our freedom. In those days, the
government didn't supply the weapons to the rag-tag militia it raised in
emergencies. People brought their own weapon to defend their country.Nowadays, many interpret the second amendment to mean that we need to arm
ourselves to the teeth to protect ourselves FROM government, not to help protect
government (us) from outside threats. These are probably the same people who
want to secede from the nation. Methinks they are missing the point.
Excellent comment, Kent. Thank you for a sensible post here.
Less filling...Tastes great.When the "discussion" begins
with defending your "rights"...there is no discussion.
Muzzleloading muskets WERE the "assault rifle" of colonial times. They
were the issued military arms of the day, so today's guns are no different.
If you claim that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets, then the First
Amendment freedom of the press only applies to manually operated printing
presses and freedom of speech only applies to verbal communication. Now to intent: Despite what you may think the founding fathers meant by
including the right to bear arms, the writings of the day by those same men show
that the intent was indeed to protect the people FROM a tyrannical government.
That was precisely what the American Revolution was about, you know. Gun control as practiced by most governments has nothing whatever to do with
public safety, it has to do with preventing an overthrow of their own power. It
is people control. Cuba has strict gun control. Venezuela has strict gun
control. Hussein's Iran had strict gun control. The USSR had strict gun
control. Every tyranny known has strict gun control. When the US government
decides it wants strict gun control, that's the main reason why it should
To a liberal, any gun is an assault rifle. If you want to really confuse them,
ask them how it was possible for Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Mao ste Tung to
murder millions of UNARMED citizens of their own country? They will just give
you a blank stare because they can not comprehend the obvious connections
between secular progressivism, moral relativism and these murdering dictators.
He and his family came to America from Europe in 1700. They keep their only
weapon, a rifle hung on one of the timbers, in their small cabin. The rifle is
used to kill animals to feed his family. The rifle is also there and available
should the family be threatened by animals or other human beings with ill
intent.The family moved into their lovely home in 2012. They felt
they needed a larger home with the nicer "extras" . They purchased the
large, beautiful, rare wood gun cabinet, with lovely etched glass, and locking
doors. They had numerous guns to display. Some very rare, some very powerful
that were to be used in wartime. The family, who were members of the local gun
club, were very proud to display these weapons. The family had strong feelings
about protecting themselves, especially in their lovely new home.While visiting with this family one afternoon, there was an interruption.
Following the mother's brief absence, she appeared, quite upset and angry
telling the visitors, that she had to go to the high school. again. Her son had
been giving them a great deal of trouble.Second amendment meant
...and to think of all those "2nd Amendment Remedies" Sharron Angle
types the GOP elected via the Tea-Party....Carl Wimmer flashing his pistol
at the State Capitol, ...Sarah Palin and her website targets,...and then people wonder why the GOP looses more and more credibility when a
nut guns down 20 little kids at school.
nice try, but the second amendment is subject to more weaseling self serving
interpretation than the bible.
I think gun nuts should go play paintball. What I learned is that in a room full
of guns it's very easy to get dead. And you'll have bruises all over.
Constitutional Amendments can be repealed and the second Amendment should be
You there's a great book about the decline of violence in the world and why
it has happened. As part of that discussion the book references a historical
study that showed that most of the rest of the civilized world has less violence
and fewer personal guns because of a long societal maturation process where
citizens learned to trust their democracys and governments. As trust grew the
need for citizens need to defend themselves declined (we're not talking
about nazis or communist regimes). On the other hand America went very quickly
from an infant democracy to a full grown nation with no time for
maturation..therefore much of America still thinks of itself as needing to rely
on personal defense and there is still an enormous amount of distrust of
government. This thread is a text book of such thought. In reality the
distrust and libertarianism is symptomatic of a very immature democracy..but so
be it. Fortunately America is growing up..that's why conservatism is
showing itself to be so out of touch with reality.
@MountanmanWhat about the UK. They seriously restricted citizen gun access
for all but antiques in 1997. Australia has some of the strictest gun laws on
the planet. I'm not saying we need to go as far as they did. But do you
really think the UK and Australia really fit in the same category as Mao's
China or Communist Russia or Nazi Germany?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments