Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Ben Franklin warned us, solution to school shootings is not disarm nation

Comments

Return To Article
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 10:08 p.m.

    Back in Ben's day a single shot firearm and handgun were state of the art. Today a firearm and even 50 sophisticated firearms are absolutely no match for a remote drone capable of spotting and unleashing high tech fury in milliseconds from several miles away. The militia concept is outdated unless the militia have spy satellites. What good will weapons be against the next generation of robot stealth machines of destruction. The gun show/milita government hating groups have no concept of the power of their hoped for imaginary opponent. The odds are best to accidentally shot themselves as opposed to stopping any government or warlord with access to the real weapons.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 7:09 p.m.

    Re: "Iraq was armed. Well, until we confiscated the citizen's guns . . . . The people of Japan were armed, Germany, France and Poland all had armed citizens.

    Anyone who considers Iraq to have been conquered, or its citizenry to have been disarmed, simply has not been there. We left with our tail between our legs, not because the job was done, but because liberals lacked the guts to finish it.

    And, the people of Japan, Germany, France, and Poland, at least in WWII times, were NOT armed in any significant numbers.

    You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

  • TwoBitsWorth Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:35 a.m.

    I remember reading an article a day or two ago that pointed out that most mass murders of this type were committed in a "no carry zone", or in other words in an area designated as one where carrying a concealed weapon is banned by the local law.

    And apparently those who committed the mass murders, either by accident, or by choice, selected these "no carry zones" in which to commit their crimes.

    This latest mass murder, in Newtown, was also in a "no carry zone, surrounded by zones that permit citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

    It appears that the murderer (murderers) were smart enough to find a zone where their victims were least likely to have any means to fight back. These killers seem to avoid zones that permit citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

    Does this not suggest that our schools are safer if they are in zones that permit concealed weapons? And if this is true, is it not a good idea to allow teachers, who are qualified and willing, to carry a concealed weapon? Can someone find the article I am talking about?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:52 p.m.

    An armed nation is unconconquerable? Iraq was armed. Well, until we confiscated the citizen's guns. Anyone with an assault rifle was considered a terrorist.

    The people of Japan were armed, Germany, France and Poland all had armed citizens. So, it's just not true.

    If you are afraid of the government's guns then you should be for a drawdown in miltary spending.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    @one vote:
    "Driving around like Rambo with a military cache is unreasonable."

    You need to perhaps reread the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't place a limit on number or kind. It says people can 'keep and bear arms.'

    "Good guys become bad guys by pulling the trigger in anger."

    The world is full of bad guys. I would venture that every young male that ever lived or ever will live at some time or another will get angry and becomes a bad guy when angry... Angry at parents, friends, leaders, teachers... you name it. Thankfully, very few get angry enough to do what this guy in Connecticut did. And the vast majority calm down and get over it. Some don't and act on that anger.

    Parents need to be aware of the temperament of their male children. And they should manage their collection of arms so that they don't fall into the hands of the angry. For sure if kids show unusual or psychotic behavior in the home parents need to pay particular attention and be aware of the eventuality of putting an angry person in close proximity with dangerous arms.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 7:53 p.m.

    Re: "Were you ever in the National Guard procuradorfiscal?"

    Actually, yes. 5 of my 34+ years of military service were, indeed, spent in the National Guard.

    But the militia of a state is NOT limited to its Guardsmen. That's only the organized militia. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment consists, by law, of ALL "the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service."

    But even that broader definition is not dispositive of the issue of who is protected by the Second Amendment. It says absolutely NOTHING that can honestly be interpreted to limit its reach to the militia. It refers to a "right of the PEOPLE" [my emphasis].

    Bottom line -- the founders were aware of the fact that an armed nation is an unconquerable nation. That's been proved time and time again, over millennia. It's because an armed citizenry can be quickly called into service in an emergency, required to bring their own arms and ammunition. It has happened many times in our history.

    And may well happen again.

    That's what scares liberals.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2012 5:01 p.m.

    The question "why they need assault weapons?" is best answered by psychology.

    Homicide and crime rates have been going down yet these gun nuts are buying guns for the end of the world scheme, or really the rebirth of cave man time. No more women rule the roost etc. This is what appeals to them about the "end of days".

    3 times as many men are killed in homicides than women. Women are not generally the gun nuts packing heat so it's definitely not that guns are securing their safety.

    The real reason that men are buying so many guns is because 1st they are gullible and 2nd they are feeling less and less "powerful" at work and in the home.

    Men are generally more aggressive than women. Wherever there is a shift to a matriarchal society there tends to be a decrease in total violence which we are already seeing. Now we just have to deal with the fringe that will do anything to feel powerful including killing children. How many men in just the last few years have killed their entire family and then themselves? It's psychological but not as uncommon as we believe.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 4:05 p.m.

    Franklin had no idea that gun culture would get so out of hand. None of his contemporaries could have seen what was coming. Had they been able to, I'd bet the second amendment would look a lot different.

  • bengel Sandy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    Mr. Samualson, you said, "Virtue! Yes! That's what went wrong: we didn't have enough virtue! Actually, there was lots of virtue on display in Newtown. Is it possible to demonstrate more virtuous behavior than Victoria Soto did? Or Dawn Hochsprung?
    No, we live in a society in which a seriously crazy guy was nonetheless able to get his hands on enough firepower to win the battle of Bunker Hill all by himself. That's the reality."

    Your comment is equivocal and hyperbolic. Offering one's life to save another's is, without question, virtuous. That Ms. Soto and Ms. Hochsprung acted virtuously does not make our society virtuous. You equivocate.

    The shooter in this case obtained firearms. The firearms he possessed would not have won the battle at Bunker Hill. Saying so is hyperbole, not reality.

    It appears the reality is a mother made a legal purchase of firearms and allowed her mentally disturbed son access to them. She paid with her life. Sadly, so did others.

    I know of nothing 100% guaranteed to prevent mentally ill or evil persons from acquiring firearms. What is needed is a reasoned Constitutional approach limiting access, insofar as possible, to responsible persons.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Dec. 21, 2012 3:12 p.m.

    AIRNAUT - I am confused. In one breath you say Glenn Beck muses over what the founding fathers were "thinking", yet in your last sentence you claim to know what side Benjamin Franklin would have sided on? Isn't that doing the exact same thing you make fun of Beck for doing?

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Dec. 21, 2012 2:52 p.m.

    I think most logical people understand that something needs to be done to prevent criminals from getting guns. The gun show loophole is one of them. I don't see why law abiding citizens would be against a law stating that gun show sellers have to be able to do a background check before selling a weapon. That is common sense. The real problem comes when private sellers sell to private buyers. I don't have a solution, but I can admit something has to be done. And I can also see the point that people have that nobody except military needs assault rifles. They are designed for offensive attack. I saw some comments stating that because bad guys have them we need them too. How often do people carry their ak-47's around with them everywhere?? The only scenario they would be of defensive benefit is if your house was invaded and you happened to have an assault rifle. And that doesn't happen very often. This is coming from me, and I have an ak and an ar-15. But I do see both sides of the arguement either way. Gun fanatics need to soften their stance and understand.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:45 p.m.

    It would be wonderful if the author's premiss was possible. But like the "poor" the criminals and mentally ill will always be with us. And, sadly so will accidents and negligence. The question is, what to do about it in order to protect our children and everyone else. No bumper sticker answer will do it.

    Are we to be saved by the better nature of our angels? Forgive me for being a skeptic.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 21, 2012 12:53 p.m.

    ‘Letter: Ben Franklin warned us, solution to school shootings is not disarm nation’

    ===========

    Oh brother --
    Who came up with this title?

    It's not what the letter writer wrote.

    But it does sound like something a Glenn Beck listeners would say.

    I love listening to Glenn Beck muse out loud about what the Founding Father were "THINKING".

    This title is a perfect example of a Glenn Beckism and his imaginiary friends,

    ...I can see Benjamin Franklin peering 200 years into the future,
    and can't help but wonder of the shock of tyranny the American government would try to assail in its citizens rights of self-defense by regulating weapons capable of shooting 5 times faster, and 100 times further -- and automatically realoding a thousand times over and over again in frations of seconds as mad-men storm public schools.

    It's better to live with such violence and morning those mowed down,
    than self deny and be betwitxed the shackles of oppression!

    Turn off your radio.

    Benjamin Franklin would have sided on the safety of those children!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 12:24 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" when the Minute Men were fighting the Brittish, they were using the most advanced guns that were available at the time. They were not using the guns that were little more than glorified cannons that their grandparents were using. There was no difference between hunting rifles and military rifles.

    You trample the constitution because you want to ignore the second half of the 2nd ammendment. It clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why do you want to infringe on the constitution and limit people's rights to bear arms?

    Read the Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller. There they found that guns are for personal use, and can be kept loaded and unlocked.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT

    The Second Amendment clearly applies to military weapons -- "A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State [my emphasis].

    ==============

    Were you ever in the National Guard procuradorfiscal?

    Because, that IS the MILITIA the Constitution is referring to.

    Monthly drill pratice,
    2 week TDY and deployments every year,
    Training, Certifications, drill, drill, drill,
    While living at home, working a regular 9-5 job, ready to fight at MINUTE'S notice.

    BTW - Our weapons were ALWAYS in a gun safe, under lock&key 24/7/365.

    You self appointed citizen soldier wann-bes waving a flag and shooting your WalMart guns are nothing more than little boys, pretending to be something you are not.

    You are not protected under the 2nd Amendment to that same extent.
    Sorry to busrt your world of make-believe bubble.

    FYI - I don't hunt or fish - but I've sworn the oath.
    I keep my weapons on the ready - to defend my Country from unregulated lone-wolf vigilanty patriotic wanna-bes who seek to take matters into their own hands. Enemies - Foreign and domestic.
    [my emphasis].

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    "@ one old man. Because criminals will always get any kind of weapon they want! No law will stop them, no law will protect you from them! The police can not protect you either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct. The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!"

    --------

    When I was growing up and had the 2nd amendment explained to me, I was always told that there were limitations to that right. We did NOT have the right to own a tank, machine gun, or bazooka. These were all banned from ownership - and you know what? The bad guys still do NOT have these weapons! The ban has worked.

    Why can't we ban semi-automatic guns? Is it too late?

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Just a thought: How many deaths have occurred simply because a gun was available? How many times have any of you been so angry you would have used a gun if you had one, or if you had one handy? I can think of day when I had those very thoughts. And I am so glad that I have chosen not to own a gun, at least not for now. How many "crimes of passion" have occurred simply because someone had access to a gun, or a cache of guns?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    @ one old man. The police can not protect you either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct. The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!

    9:01 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012

    =============

    You sound like a scared, paranoid little man you needs a false sense of security to get through life.

    Look, I'm a Military Veteran --
    if I wanted to commit a heinous crime or massacre, I could do so with or without you and your rifles.

    You 2nd ammendment yahoos forget and trample the Consitution daily by ignoring that "well regulated militia" phrase in it.

    Have your guns, have your rifles -- but you don't come anywhere NEAR the definition of "well regulated militia" and should not be given a free pass for assault type WEAPONS.

    FYI - the original Minute Men you constantly glorify, they used their farming and hunting muzzle-loaders. Not top of the line, current state of the art highest tech, high capacity, assault government issue weapons available.

    They used their family HUNTING rifles.

    If you want to be like them, the BE like them.
    And stop glorifying weaponry.

  • bengel Sandy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    A virtuous people possessing firearms are a threat to no one but aggressors. A vicious people are a threat to everyone regardless of what they possess.

    The national conversation seems to be focused on armed versus unarmed when it should be focused on virtue versus vice. Some of the loudest critics of firearms are cacophonous in their criticism of any effort to limit depictions of sex and violence in our media and entertainment. They are reluctant to recognize any correlation between depictions and deeds.

    How often has the question "You talkin' to me?" from Taxi Driver been repeated because repeating it would make one as cool and dangerous as De Niro's character? How many of our society's youth at some time have wanted to be "bad" like the bad guy/antihero du jour, who defies authority, moral codes,social norms and rules, and answers only to him/herself?

    One need not be particularly prescient to predict what such a person will do when given the means and opportunity to be violent. The discussion must include more than reducing access to firearms. It must address why our society produces people who misuse them.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:36 a.m.

    Virtue! Yes! That's what went wrong: we didn't have enough virtue!
    Actually, there was lots of virtue on display in Newtown. Is it possible to demonstrate more virtuous behavior than Victoria Soto did? Or Dawn Hochsprung?
    No, we live in a society in which a seriously crazy guy was nonetheless able to get his hands on enough firepower to win the battle of Bunker Hill all by himself. That's the reality.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    To borrow a line from my GOP buddies, "Crazy people aren't virtuous!"

    If they can find ways to get guns them I'm sure they'll find ways to be non-virtuous!

    So what's the repub solution?

    Kick the can down the road?

    We need solutions.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    And may I point out that while the militia is supposed to us, the founders also said it also supposed to be "well regulated?"

    Why do some people insist on ignoring that small, but very important, phrase?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    And yet again, the gentleman from Tooele skirts the question and fails to explain the need for possession of attack weapons rather than defensive weapons.

    The only reasons for high capacity clips are: A) a Rambo fantasy, B) very poor marksmanship C) overwhelming paranoia, D) low testosterone, or E) all of the above.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    Re: "Can ANYONE provide a rational, sane, and cogent reason for WHY it should be the right of any non-military citizen to hold such firepower in their possession?"

    Sure. We've done so time and again. Because bad guys have them.

    Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. And don't bring a bolt-action .22 to a home invasion.

    If other nations don't permit their citizens to possess military weapons, I would point out that they don't have the Second Amendment. Maybe that's why they are so often conquered and overrun.

    The Second Amendment clearly applies to military weapons -- "A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State [my emphasis].

    Suggesting the founders didn't envision semi-auto AR-15s is simply disingenuous. They intended that the militia -- that's us -- be armed with state-of-the-art weaponry. That happened to be flintlock muskets at the time.

    They didn't limit militia arms to longbows or swords. Nor may a modern Congress or President constitutionally limit our choice of weapons, ammo, or magazine size.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    So will the gentleman from Idaho be packing an AK-47 or similar weapon to the mall?

    I'm not talking about reasonable weapons. Nor about CCPs. (Although requirements for CCPs must be stiffened.)

    There is a very big difference between a defensive weapon and an offensive weapon. What is wrong with closing the gun show loophole?

    So again, I ask, WHY do you need a weapon of mass destruction in your possession?

    Why does it seem impossible for so many people to go beyond endless repetition of the same tired rants and actually offer a well considered set of thoughts?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    Mountanman,

    "The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves!"

    Not applicable in the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, unless you want loaded guns in the classroom. How many accidental shootings will we hear about then?

    What if an armed citizen opened fire in the Aurora theater shooting, hitting innocents in the crossfire?

    For every fantasy you can come up with that involves a hero citizen taking down a public shooter with his concealed carry handgun, I can come up with a hundred accidental shootings, victims of crossfire, moments of rage, curious children, suicides, etc. that are caused or made worse by ready access to legally owned firearms. Guns make some of us safer in some circumstances. They make others much less safe in other circumstances. This isn't a black and white issue.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    @ one old man. Because criminals will always get any kind of weapon they want! No law will stop them, no law will protect you from them! The police can not protect you either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct. The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    No one who demands the "right" to keep weapons of mass destruction has ever answered the question of WHY they "need" weapons like these.

    The only "reasons" that have been offered by some of them have been rambling nonsense about the "need" to "protect" themselves from some sort of diabolical government.

    Can ANYONE provide a rational, sane, and cogent reason for WHY it should be the right of any non-military citizen to hold such firepower in their possession?

    I doubt it.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    The best comment on here so far is that military high capacity weapons are not sporting rifles unless you intend on killing a "herd of Buffalos". Most countries do not allow unlimited weapons. Everyone can own guns and rifles in house and designed for hunting. Driving around like Rambo with a military cache is unreasonable. Good guys become bad guys by pulling the trigger in anger.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    Re: "Disarming nation of ability to kill 20 to 30 at a time is necessary."

    It's not only not necessary, it's simply NOT possible.

    No liberal decree will EVER have the slightest influence over the bad guys, only the good guys.

    Leaving good guys more vulnerable, and bad guys more empowered.

    One hopes feckless liberal anti-gun fanatics don't actually intend to create more havoc, chaos, death, and mayhem by their shrill, sophomoric demands, but sad experience has proven that would be the inevitable result.

  • bengel Sandy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    I don't know if the typographical error is the editor's or mine, but it should read "political correctness discourages discussion."

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    Disarming nation of ability to kill 20 to 30 at a time is necessary. Otherwise the second Amendment must be repealed. Gun fanatics will soon be in the same corner as the tea part supporters