Comments about ‘Letters: Sensible regulations’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hayden, ID

But Katherine, not everybody is as responsible as you are with their cars as you are! That's why people are killed by cars everyday. In my home I have a tool I use to protect my family and myself from those who use guns for criminal behavior. Everyday, law abiding citizens use guns to protect themselves from criminals. Two days after the Sandy Hook murders, an off duty police officer was in a movie theater in Texas when a gun man came into the theater and brandished a gun obviously intending to commit mass murder. The officer drew her concealed weapon and killed the would be mass murder thus saving the lives of many people. While these events rarely make the news, it happens nearly everyday somewhere in our country. The only way bad people with guns can be stopped is not by more gun control laws that they will not obey, but by more good people with guns!

one old man
Ogden, UT

An excellent letter. It stands in stark contrast to the frequent, thoughtlessly repeated nonsense against gun control that the NRA and its supporters keep tossing out.

But thinking, reasoning, and making sincere efforts are much more difficult that just repeating the mindless mantras of extremists.

We need more thoughtful people like Katherine.

Far East USA, SC

A bit of clarification, Mountainman.

The off -duty policeman was working security at the theater. Shots were fired and a person was killed prior to entering the theater.

"An off-duty police officer working security at the Mayan Palace eventually cornered Garcia in a restroom, shooting him several times until she could take his gun."

Hayden, ID

@ Joe Blow. Thank you for clarification. My source on this issue was sketchy on the details. It is interesting and telling that hundreds of these stories are never reported by the main stream news. They fall all over themselves to report any misuse of a firearm but are suspiciously silent when guns are used to prevent murders.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I'm still waiting to see any kind of reliable documentation that shows that "hundreds" or even "thousands" of these kinds of incidents actually occur anywhere.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There is no Constitution guarantee to "keep and bear" an automobile. Because of that, the State has authority to license the use of an automobile. "Shall not be infringed" means that the State has NO AUTHORITY to license, restrict, or even know about "arms" that we "keep and bear". In short, we have told the government that they have no authority over us concerning our "arms". We have the unalienable right to own them, to keep them, to carry them.

Improper USE of those arms can be penalized, just as improper USE of speech can land us in prison; however, the improper USE does not allow the government to pre-limit our access to or ownership of "arms".

Our liberties have been purchased by the ultimate sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Now, many wring their hands and tell us that we are not "worthy" to be free and independent of government watchdogs who tell us how much sugar we can consume, what kinds of light bulbs we can purchase and what kinds of "arms" we can keep and bear.

It's time for Americans to grow up. It's past time to limit the government.

Hayden, ID

@ one old man. These stories are usually buried deep on the last few pages of the newspaper. Not politically correct you see! Suggestion; Subscribe to the "American Rifleman", they re-print segments from news reports, police reports and eye witnesses from all around America where honest people protect themselves with guns from criminals who have guns. There are literally dozens of these nearly never reported experiences every month with documentation. So, yes, they actually do occur more frequently than the left wants you to know.

Steve C. Warren

Thanks for the letter Katherine, which makes a good point.

By the way, concerning this argument that it takes a good person with a gun to stop a bad person with a gun, doesn't everyone who owns or packs a gun view themselves as "good people"? It's only AFTER they start killing people that they become "bad." In other words, by placing guns in the hands of good people, we are increasing the pool of those who will potentially use a firearm when they go bad.

Hayden, ID

@ Steve Warren. By the same logic, if a person buys a car, do we know whether of not that person will drive drunk and kill someone? There are laws against drunk driving aren't there? Then why do some people NOT obey laws? Because some people drive drunk shall we confiscate all cars? Same applies to owning guns!

Salt Lake City, UT

It is insane to assert that the state has no authority to impose any restrictions or qualifications at all on gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment refers to the 'right to bear arms'. It doesn't mention guns, just arms. If someone is going to state that the 'shall not be infringed' clause means complete, unrestricted access to whatever weapons are desired, then everyone would have a constitutional right to own nuclear weapons, missile launchers and fighter jets, not to mention fully automatic, military style guns.

Is there anyone posting here that believes law-abiding citizens have a right to private ownership of those weapons? How does one justify private ownership of assault style rifles with 50-round clips but not surface to air missile launchers? How do you win an argument that the government cannot infringe ownership of weapons but then agree with the government infringing ownership of certain weapons?

Salt Lake City, UT

The Contitution protects the rights of speech, religion, and alcohol, but we can't yell fire in crowded theatres, offer virgins to volcanoes, or well... we live in Utah, I don't need to show how alcohol is regulated...

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Just about any thing in this world could be used to kill someone. If you stuff a clean white handkerchief down a persons throat, he will probably die. The same could be accomplished by holding him under water or dropping him from a tall building.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What is "insane" is someone telling us that he has the true definition of "arms", that he can decide for the entire country what "arms" we can keep and bear, that he has any authority to restrict us because of HIS definition.

"Arms" is not limited in the Constitution to BB guns or to toy pistols. "Arms" is open-ended. It will require a Constitutional Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with it!

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

This analogy breaks down at the most fundamental level: a car is a vehicle, not a weapon. A gun is a weapon. Period. It's primary purpose is to shoot and damage or kill things. Some guns have only one purpose: to shoot and kill or injure people.

And Mike, the Constitution includes a phrase that qualifies gun ownership. It ties the right to keep and bear arms directly to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. In the eighteenth century, the well-regulated militia needed to provide its own weapons, since the government didn't supply them. Hence, the second amendment.

The exact text passed by Congress is: "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."

Nowhere in the Constitution do we find the blanket right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose, even for hunting or feeding your family.

J Thompson


Did you read the 2010 Court decision? It "untied" that link. We have the absolute right to keep and bear arms regardless of membership in a militia. That is the supreme law of the land. That decision is binding on you and on me and on every level of government in America.

Read the decision. It is only 210 pages long. Until there is another ruling, that ruling is the "defintion" that prevails.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

"Arms" is not limited in the Constitution to BB guns or to toy pistols. "Arms" is open-ended. It will require a Constitutional Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with it!

10:08 a.m. Jan. 15, 2013


So -
You're perfectly fine supporting my right to posses Conventional, Chemical, Bilogical, and Nuclear arms in my garage along with my food storage?

You have no problem with me strapping on an explosive vest and riding the new TRAX line to your home in South Jordan?

Just because the "Constitution" does specifically speel out that I can't?

Mike - there is such a think called "Common Sense".

God gave us intelligence -
I believe he expects us to USE it.

Salt Lake City, UT

Mike Richards - are you making the argument then that law-abiding citizens have the constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment to privately possess nuclear weapons?

If you don't believe a law-abiding citizen has a right to privately possess nuclear weapons, then aren't you defining and then limiting a law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms?

And are you willing to answer this question with a straight-forward reply knowing the quandary it puts you in either way?

Casa Grande, AZ

Amendments can be changed Mike and other gun nuts.

The NRA instead of helping to self regulate the gun industry like it used to has completely sold out to the devil and is now inviting a tyrannical military coup by self declared militia.

You're on the wrong side of the issue. And you will will be the loosing side because the majority of Americans are sick of it and will legally vote sooner or later to change the second amendment.

All I can say is you all should self regulate or the people will do it for you. The laws on guns are YOUR failures not ours.

L White
Springville, UT

My, my, don't we have a bunch of people hollering as loud as they can that they know what "arms" means and that the Supreme Court and the Constitution should be ignored?

Look at how many are demanding that we accept their definition of "arms". Who put them in charge? Who asked them to define for the rest of us what "arms" mean?

One poster has even demanded an answer to his question while he ignores the words of the Constitution. Are we really here to debate whether LDS Liberal or anyone else is the person that the courts go to for definitions or are we here to stand up for the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as he or anyone else wishes that it was written.

Mike Richards clearly told us that if we want to define what "arms" means then we need an amendment to the Constitution that does that. As he said, until that amendment is written just deal with it!

Tooele, UT

Re: "However, if I wish to use it, I must have a state license . . . ."

Why didn't we think of that before?

All we have to do is require a state license for guns, and then, just like our automobiles, no one will ever be killed by one again!

It's so simple!

to comment

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