Published: Sunday, Dec. 23 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Drew, your English teacher might be upset with this. Your last sentence seems
to contradict the rest of the last paragraph. Is that what you meant? Did you
mean to say that the Clinton era gun laws did in fact cut gun incidents?There are some very good studies that indicate that those laws did, in
fact, take a bite out of gun violence.So if that is what you mean,
then you are correct.
So, as you say semi automatic weapons have 'sporting' uses and as such
you're willing to accept the occasional shooting rampage rather than
inconvenience the 'sportsmen'? In addition you feel that we have to be
ready as citizens to do armed conflict with our own government? We're a
democracy, I though it was supposed to work better than that. Besides, as well
armed as we are, the government is still moreso. Maybe we need to quit being so
confrontational and try to do some good as a society, not as an angry mob.
No right is absolute.You can't yell "fire!" In a
crowded theater and then claim a First Amendment right to free speech. You
can't publish a newsletter advocating violent revolution. You
similarly can't run a battery recycling business in your basement and claim
your private property rights allow you to flush the toxic waste down your
toilet.The Second Amendment is not diminished if magazines holding
more than 10 rounds are banned, or if your firearms purchases require a criminal
background check.And if the NRA wants armed guards in schools, then
levy a tax on guns and ammunition sufficient to pay for it.
Those who "claim the second amendment is no longer needed" are about the
same proportion of the public as those that feel their rights violated because
they can buy belt fed machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. In the bell
shaped curve of the populace they are the radical fringes not worth a listen.
The one thing that is most apparent from this tragedy is that political
extremism is destroying this Country. When the death of innocent children is
exploited for political gain, all of society is degraded.Far too
many members of the ignorant public spend their days playing ultra-violent video
games and spending their nights watching hyper-violent movies. Yet, these same
people act surprised when one of their own massacres innocent civilians in a
violent manner.Our left-wing government and left-wing court system
have fostered this hypocrisy by teaching that all truth is relative, and there
is no real right or wrong. This creates a society of anarchists who care only
about themselves and do not hestiate to kill if it serves their nafarious
purposes. They consider it even better if they become media stars in the
process.We can no longer afford to allow ourselves to be governed by
extremists. We must return to government by moderation.
I suppose outlawing video games would become a free speech issue. That is the
basic question, is either freedom absolute? How absolute? Should we outlaw
these video games, at least to those that are 18 or even 21? Should we limit
the type of guns that can be sold? These are fundamental questions which should
be discussed. I would argue that one should not or could not ban guns completely
as one could not ban the sell of violent video games. However, by limiting the
sell or type of each does not completely eliminate that right.
JCS is exactly right when he says: "We can no longer afford to allow
ourselves to be governed by extremists. We must return to government by
moderation."Let's start with eliminating the NRA.And if we are really going to understand the Second Amendment, we must
understand ALL of it. Including the first part.
It seems to me like Drew needs to retake History 101. The vast
majority of Americans support stricter gun laws. It is the politicians'
responsibility now, to make that happen. We cannot, as JCS said, be
ruled any longer by a (very local and paranoid) minority.
one old man: "Let's start with eliminating the NRA."Why
stop with just one group?If you want to ban all extremist groups you
have to include all those left ones too. NAACP, ACLU, Sierra Club, AFL-CIO,
MSNBC, etc., etc.
The rest of the world watches violent movies and plays violent video games just
like we do, but these shootings are much, much fewer and farther between outside
of America. Blaming them is a cop out and a deflection.
The people would need predator drones, tanks and submarines not a lot of
firearms in the basement. Reality of modern warfare must come into play. Is your
neighborhood putting together a cruise missile?
at one old man 3:15 p.m. Dec. 23, 2012JCS could mean getting rod of
BOTH political parties. ROFL!?
I often hear two memorable things about people who live in small rural settings:
They don't lock their doors and they have dozens of guns around the house
for protection. Think that through.Over the years I've seen all
kinds of less lethal to non-lethal means of stopping a person yet the first
thing that comes to many's mind is to give the teacher a gun. A gun that
will be taken at some point and used to kill students. It happens to police, it
will happen to teachers.There are proven ways to keep guns out of
the hands of those that would do this. Most of the rest of the world is doing it
but the complete paranoia the NRA has incited is the only thing keeping us from
doing it. You don't want to register your guns because then someone will
come take them. I'd like to have you all committed for observation.Really, what do you do when a third of the population has acute
The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government. But is
anyone really stupid enough to think that the right to bear arms accomplishes
that task? Even if we hand everybody an assualt weapon, it won't make a
dent against tanks, jets, and missiles. The people are no longer in a positionto
prtect themselves against the government with measely little guns.It
is about time we accepted reality. People who have attained the appropriate
training and who can prove they are not a threat to other people's safety
should be allowed to carry a weapon sufficient to defend themselves against
another armed individual. Hunters, likewise trianed and proven, should be
allowed to own a gun sufficient for hunting. There is no justification for
giving guns to anyone else or for allowing guns that are not needed.
If every political candidate was identified as to their individual position on
the NRA's policies regarding gun legislation, voters would decide if they
wanted them in office making decisions on public safety issues.The
argument that the Second Amendment is at stake is specious and absurd. Hunters,
sportsment, and responsible gun owners will not be impacted by eliminating
military-style guns and ammunition from public sale.A strict
interpretation of the Second Amendment, if really looking at it from The Framers
perspective, is that "everyone has a right to a musket, ball and
powder." Although Wayne La Pierre of the NRA hasn't gotten there yet
publically, he believes that the Second Amendment states that people have the
right to any and all types of firearms, including automatic weapons and other
military-type munitions as they may see fit to own.If people can
purchase semi-automatic assault weapons with armour piercing bullets in
large-capacity clips, why not allow fully automatic assault weapons with
exploding bullets, including grenade launchers and even anti-tank rocket
launchers? The so-called "logic" of the NRA has no boundaries. Innocent deaths are simple collateral damage in the quest for profits.
By "hysteria and ignorance" do you mean the rush to buy more guns after
the Sandy Hook tragedy, or do you mean the rush to buy guns after Barack
Obama's first election win in 2008 even though he never made an attempt to
restrict your access? Perhaps you meant the NRA's lazy suggestion of adding
armed security guards at every school? Or are you referring to your bizarre
assertion that the 2nd Amendment somehow will protect us against a modern
military possessing helicopter gunships, high-yield precision warheads, and
exceptionally trained soldiers who know how to use these weapons with great
effectiveness? Gun ownership did little to help the Branch
Davidians, so I am not sure what kind of hero scenario Mr. Allen has running
through his head.
"right to bear arms" was not intended to protect the government; it was
to protect the people from the government." Now that is scary.
Practicality aside (as one poster demonstates), someone who arms themselves
today to protect themselves from the US government is exactly the kind of person
that shouldn't be allowed to have any weapon...can anyone say paranoid
I have NO problem with that --- But the Pro-gun group ALWAYS leaves
out the "well regulated militia" component of that same Amendment.The National Guard is the ONLY organization that counts as such.Target shooting Rambo wanna-bees don't.Please STOP trampling
I'm a bleeding heart pinko liberal, but I have a smidgen of right wing
paranoia to believe that an armed populace can help to keep government honest
and humble. That said, however, the population at large hasn't had parity
in arms with the government since the Whiskey Rebellion. Even with modified
AR-15s and .50 caliber rifles, the citizenry is no match against tanks, drones,
and Tomahawk missiles. Talk of armed insurrection against government tyranny is
so much "Red Dawn" fantasy indulgence.As a practical matter,
consider these examples of people trying to influence governments or affect
social order through armed violence:Randy WeaverBranch DavidiansJohn Africa/MOVESymbionese Liberation ArmyBlack PanthersIrish Republican ArmyOklahoma City bombersMontana FreemenUnabomberAmerican Civil WarPalestinian intifadaHow
effective were any of these at achieving their goals?Contrast these
with efforts to affect history nonviolently through peaceable protest and
working within the political process. Consider the Indian Salt March, the
anti-apartheid movement, the American civil rights movement, Viet Nam War
protests, Sinn Fein in Ireland, Tahrir Square in Egypt, Mothers of the Plaza,
Berlin Wall. Nonviolent civil disobedience is not without casualties but it
gets things done.
One could argue with the Civil Rights movement that King's efforts along
with the fear brought about by more militant groups such as the Nation of Islam
and the Black Panthers both contributed to change. Many were fearful of a race
war, especially after King's death in 1968. What I am saying is that the
struggle for Civil Rights in America is multi-faceted and King wasn't the
only leader and his methods weren't the only ones that I believe were an
agent for change. And yes, there are a lot of casualties in civil
disobedience and sometimes it takes a long, long time. I'm not
saying that civil disobedience isn't the correct path, it certainly is more
moral in most ways overall. But look at our own history in America. We threw
the tea in the harbor and that didn't work to get the laws changed.
Eventually, our colonists turned to the musket. Maybe in time civil
disobedience would have worked but it would have taken a lot more time,
that's for sure.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments