Published: Tuesday, Jan. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
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!
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.
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."
@ 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
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
@ 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!
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?
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...
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
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!
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.
Kent,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.
Mike RichardsSouth 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.
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?
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.
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!
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
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments