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

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 21 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

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 Otherwise the second Amendment must be repealed.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

bengel
Sandy, UT

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

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ 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!

Emajor
Ogden, UT

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.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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

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.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

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.

bengel
Sandy, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

ECR
Burke, VA

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?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"@ 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?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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].

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

airnaut
Everett, 00

‘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!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments