Published: Thursday, Jan. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
"...millions of us who already own weapons will not want to obey rulings
like a ban on assault weapons — nor should we."Really? In
the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court shot down the
District’s ban on the ownership of firearms but also included these
comments in their ruling:"Like most rights, the Second Amendment
right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon
whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example,
concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state
analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the
sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds
support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and
The Deseret News is avoiding this meaningful moment in American history. The
President of the United States has committed the power of his office to prevent
gun violence. The NRA is using attack ads that target his daughters, the world
is watching as America attempts to prevent further gun violence - like the
killing of 20 innocent children at school, and the Deseret News is silent. As a
Police Chief, I know these are positive steps to limit the number of gun deaths
in America. Why is the Deseret News silent? Is there no one on the editorial
staff with an opinion? Common, exercise the power of the press.
And just for what sir do you need a weapon that is designed to kill many
quicklly. A band of robbers, a herd of deer? Oh wait I know to defend yourself
from the balck ops troops that are going to land in your backyard and...and
heaven knows do what. The point of an assault weapons ban, and a ban on high
capacity clips, is they have no useful purpose other than to kill many quickly
so it doesn't matter whether somone gets one legally or illegally their
posession by anyone other than the military is uneccessarily dangerous to the
You might want to reread the Second Amendment. Are you part of a well regulated
militia? Are you packing a musket? That's what was intended, not the
weapons that are on the street today being pushed by the manufacturers and the
NRA. The overreach on their positions is glaring and it is time to put this all
in perspective. Unfortunately, innocent people often have to pay
the price for the actions of others. I can't walk my dog off leash because
of other neglectful dog owners. My insurance rates are high because of other
dumb drivers. Perhaps in Heber it isn't an issue, but we are part of a
larger pie, and often have to pay the price for it. Nobody needs to be carrying
around an assault weapon or large clips. We all need to sacrifice a bit and
have to acccept common-sense limitations on our rights and freedoms as part of a
larger good, which are not in conflict with the second amendment. Frankly, that
is the only moral and reasonable thing to do and we should accept that as part
of an inevitable change that is coming.
I don't feel sorry for you. Scalia your own conservative judge says
there's plenty of room to regulate guns.You used your freedom
to buy military weapons and threaten to start a revolution if the rest of us
don't see everything your way. Too bad, you're going to be regulated
more. Try being responsible.
The guns you already possess will NOT be taken from you or anyone else. And they
will not be taken unless they are used to act out in NRA induced paranoia or
some other form of mental issue.One way to maintain your sanity
might be to turn off the hate radio and ignore the NRA.
Can someone in the "I have the right to keep and bare Weapons of Mass
Destruction" explain to us how the words "infringed", "keep and
bare arms", or "well regulated militia" completely disallows
something as mundane as background checks and registration?BTW --
1. If you are law abiding citizen - and have nothing to hid - background
checks are the surest measure to assure YOU are never questioned of having or
ownig a weapon. Only those with shady backgrounds [criminals or mentally
unstable] have something to hide and seek to reamain un-disclosed.2.
The 2nd ammendment never mentions the right free and open weapon sales - only
their possesion. So - Constitutitonally, the Government CAN limit types and
limit sales and purchases.3. I'm going evermore impatient with
these Anti-Government, Anti-Obama, Anti-America, Secede from the Union
individuals who keep tryiing to destroy our Nation. As a Veteran, I have sworn
an oath to defend our Constitution -- the Civil War Constitutionally quelched
Rebellion before, I'll fight tooth and nail to do it again if need be.
The NRA is already getting what they want. The NRA doesn't care about gun
owners, the NRA cares about gun sales. The NRA wants to create an artificial
panic that all guns are being taken away because when people panic, they buy
guns. They are an arm of the gun selling and manufacturing industry, they could
care less about their members.
Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- that has been proposed should threaten any
RESPONSIBLE gun owner.In fact, every RESPONSIBLE gun owner should be
supporting these proposals.So what does that say about those who
one old manOgden, UTNothing -- absolutely nothing -- that has been
proposed should threaten any RESPONSIBLE gun owner.In fact, every
RESPONSIBLE gun owner should be supporting these proposals.So what
does that say about those who oppose them?9:14 a.m. Jan. 17, 2013============== Agreed! one old manIt says THEY
are the ones protecting the rights of criminals and terrorists.It's
that also called "Guilt by association"?Giving aid to the
enemy?dare I say it -- Treason?
We tried it the NRA's way for, well, forever, but no one noticed or cared
that the ability to destroy increased exponentially. If more guns was the answer
to public safety, we would have known it by now by being far and away the safest
nation on earth. But it didn't work, and we are NOT the safest.
The right to live trumps the right to own any kind of weapon that can be thought
of. The president is right on this one, and thousands of lives will be saved.
Wow, Utahns? Weapoons of mass destruction? Really? No I don't own a gun,
but I'm amazed at all the responses. It was a horrible act by an
unbalanced, deranged individual. He could never get a gun, but he killed his
victim and stole it. Do you really think the criminals will be turning in guns
with large magazines? Our children are like sitting ducks for any criminal. In
our own city why do you think the Bosnian shot up Trolly Square Mall? Big sign,
Gun Free Zone!I wonder how many of our legislators who want to pass this
have a carry permit, or security guards with large capacity guns? Let's
ask Nanci/Harry/Chucky how they protect themselves? No, I don't know
the answer, I just think we have to listen to all sides and not just react when
this is what the pres wanted all along. Slippery slope? You bet!
Those who mock the Constitution and the Court keep telling us that we have to
belong to a well regulated militia to qualify to keep and bear arms. The 2010
Court decision completely clarified that, but those who mock refuse to recognize
the validity of that decision.Some tell us that if we have nothing
to hide that we should be happy to let the government rule and reign over us.
It is clear that those people detest the Constitution and everything
that it stands for. It is clear that they would rob us of all liberties and
transfer those liberties to the government. It is clear that they mock the
hundreds of thousands who fought and died to preserve the Constitution.There is no middle ground. The 2nd Amendment, upheld by the court, guarantees
every American's right to keep and bear arms. Restriction by the
government is prohibited. Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement.
Limiting the ability to buy guns and ammunition is an infringement.Either we believe in the Constitution or we fight against the Constitution.
The Constitution is clear. The decision of the Court is clear.
That makes no difference to the anti-gun advocates.
Re: "You might want to reread the Second Amendment."We have.
Many, many times. Along with the Supreme Court cases interpreting it, including
Heller, which specifically holds that Second Amendment rights are NOT tied to
militia membership. And, contrary to previous posts, Heller does NOT
hold that military-looking weapons may be banned or restricted. The Court in
Heller reads previous caselaw to hold that the Second Amendment protects those
weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes." Which certainly includes extremely popular "assault
weapons," so hated by the left.It should also be said that,
since the Second Amendment declares militias to be its raison d'etre, it
couldn't be clearer that its reach extends to those weapons that would be
useful to a militia -- military-looking weapons like AR-15s and semi-automatic
AKs -- with normal-capacity [what anti-gun nuts would call large capacity]
magazines.Anti-gun liberal hate it, I know, but they'll lose on
this issue.They have neither legal nor popular support for the
illegal actions they propose.
The crazy response to reasonable regulation actually indicates a need to
regulate more. Every year there will be more and more tragic gun deaths so
wannabe rambos can play with assault rifles.
We have the Constitutional right to vote.AndWe are also required to
REGISTER to exercise that right to vote.Conservatives don't
seem to mind that at all.In fact, they want to INCREASE regulations to
include applications, forms and even picture I.D. cards….making it harder
and harder just to vote. [100% Constituional, perfectly safe, and can't
even kill anyone.]Can one pro-gun Conservative please explain; Why this HUGE ridiculous double-Standard?
I've seen nothing in BO's proposals that call for an end to gun
violence, he just wants an end to private gun ownership. We see how well
that's worked in Chicago with their high murder rate and dependence on the
dem political machine running the city for protection - he wasnt that for all of
America. Just like dudd-frank has failed to end too-big-to-fail and Obamacare
has done NOTHING to control health care costs, his proposal are wrong-headed.
Just like putting a splint on your arm when you break your leg.If he
really wanted to end the violence, maybe he would set a better example of
civility.Maybe he would focus on the real cause of the recent
tragedies - mental health.Nah, it's too easy to demonize his
opponents and use dead children as political fodder to attack his political
foes.Tell me, how many guns did Timothey McVey use to blow up the
Oklahoma Federal Building? What was the capacity of the magazine he used?Nut jobs will find ways to commit mass killings regardless of the gun
laws you put in place - address the real issue, the nut jobs.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThose who mock the Constitution and
the Court keep telling us that we have to belong to a well regulated militia to
qualify to keep and bear arms.============ No, just those types of "arms" used by the Military, Police, and actual
real-life Militias.If I was a police officer - I wouldn't want
to be out-gunned by the criminals.You remind me of those protecting
Al Capone having the "right" to have Tommy-guns.against coppers
only having a .38 special six-shooter.Who's side are you on?BTW - The Constitution only mentions "keeping" them. Not
one word mentioning un questioned freedom of the sales and purchases or arms.I think Congress CAN and WILL put some limits and restricitions on the SALE of
them.Since the self-policing policies of the unrestricted Free Market
isnt't working very well.
Mike Richards said, " The 2nd Amendment, upheld by the court, guarantees
every American's right to keep and bear arms. Restriction by the government
is prohibited. Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement. Limiting the
ability to buy guns and ammunition is an infringement."Mike -
don't you think you are "mocking the Court" when make such
statements. If you look at the language in the Supreme Court's ruling on
the District of Columbia vs. Heller, which I so kindly provided in my first
comment, you will see that restrictions are, in fact, allowed by the
Constitution as interpreted by the Spupreme Court. Is your opuinion
more important or more powerful than theirs on this issue?. Neither the prsident
nor anyone else of any credibility is talking about mass confiscations of guns
owned by law abiding citizens. The hyperbolic reaction and follow-up of the NRA
and their surrogates is only indicative of who is the out of control reactionary
force in this issue.
Dear Brethren:Firearms in Houses of WorshipChurches are
dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of
the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their
walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.=============== Yep - LDS Churches and Temples are scarey
"Gun-Free" zones, per the 1st Presidency.Do pro-gun people
feel the insitant need to stop going to the Church or Temples?BTW -
We've been instructed to make our individual Homes places of worship, like
Temples, a piece of Heaven of Earth. That could easily mean our Homes should be
made likewise "Gun-free" zones.Follow the Prophet.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments