The original 2nd ammendment talked about "A well regulared militia being
necessary to free states" "the right to bear arms shall not be
infringed. Where does it say you can own any weapon you like? Arms at the time,
consisted of a single shot musket. In the old west in dodge city, and tombstone,
there were gun control laws. When a well regulated militia becomes an
unregulated populace of gun loonies, something needs to be done. Noone is going
to take your deer rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Millitary style weapons, and
bullets are what is being dicussed. If you want to own millitary style weapons,
then join the millitary.
@LDS LIBERAL"Wise words indeed.Conservatives should
turn of their radios and read the scriptures."I took your advice
and found this in the BOMSee Alma 43:45-47
Agreed. Great comment."Remember too - when Peter drew his sword
to defend the Son of God, Jesus rebuked him, and told him to put it
away.Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.Amla and Amulek were forced to watch women and child thrown into the fires.Amulek knew Alma had the power of God within him, and asked him why he
didn't do anything to stop the horror.Alma told him that the
wicked must be allowed to do their wickedness. [Also a plug for that whole
Free Agency and not Forcing others to do the right.]Wise words
indeed.Conservatives should turn of their radios and read the
scriptures."Great life to live by if you actually believe in it
and from comments I read about you bragging about how many guns you own,
it's clear that you do not. If you don't believe in guns and
don't want anybody to have them , then you can start by getting rid of your
own. If you don't like guns then don't own any. It's really that
zoar63Mesa, AZThey will just buy them on the black market.
When the 18th amendment was passed which had mandated prohibition on alcohol,
gangsters, such as Chicago's Al Capone, became rich from a profitable,
often violent, black market for alcohol. The federal government was incapable of
stemming the tide2:44 p.m. Jan. 20, 2013========= You've just made a perfect case for the legalization os
Marijuana.Is that what you intended to convinced us of?
@Maudine"President Obama's proposals and executive orders
are designed to make it more difficult for the rapists, murderers, terrorists,
and individuals with certain clinical mental illness diagnosises from being able
to purchase guns or use their loved ones' guns to kill their loved ones and
then go on shooting rampages with said guns. Someone who, for
whatever reason, cannot legally buy and own a gun in their state of primary
residence should not be able to go to a gun show or answer an ad or cross state
lines and buy one. Nor should someone else be able to buy it for them."They will just buy them on the black market. When the 18th amendment
was passed which had mandated prohibition on alcohol, gangsters, such as
Chicago's Al Capone, became rich from a profitable, often violent, black
market for alcohol. The federal government was incapable of stemming the tide
20 children are dead. Your guns did not protect them.
Soon Glenn Beck will convince the latter writer that the President is trying to
take away our freedom to "sweet talk."
Those having militia guns should register their milita and reason to want
Is there a national reading comprehension problem? Nobody has said they are
taking your guns!
Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah9:37 a.m. Jan. 18, 2013And
how does this relate to Xenu and the coming of thetans to Teegeeack (earth) and
the ensuing global conflict and the R6 implant? There must be a connection to
your narrative and how it merges with the current need to fight tyrannical
Dave DPocatello, ID"How are we going to defend ourselves from
evil that exists in this world? With BB guns or sweet talk?"NO!
I will defend myself the same way the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and Jesus did: By
teaching true principles of PEACE,--------Agreed. Great
comment.Remember too - when Peter drew his sword to defend the Son
of God, Jesus rebuked him, and told him to put it away.Those
who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.Amla and Amulek were
forced to watch women and child thrown into the fires.Amulek knew Alma had
the power of God within him, and asked him why he didn't do anything to
stop the horror.Alma told him that the wicked must be allowed to do
their wickedness. [Also a plug for that whole Free Agency and not Forcing
others to do the right.]Wise words indeed.Conservatives
should turn of their radios and read the scriptures.
"How are we going to defend ourselves from evil that exists in this world?
With BB guns or sweet talk?"NO! I will defend myself the same
way the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and Jesus did: By teaching true principles of PEACE,
living my life with non-violent resistence, and letting whatever happens,
happen. Our president is doing very little to limit your right to bear arms.
Please calm down.
To one old man 9:56 a.m. Jan. 18, 2013Is it apostasy to quit
attending because you are so disgusted with what you hear there?-------------------------It sounds like you are facing the issue
my husband and I faced about 25 years ago (when the more "conservative"
members of our Ward, men and women both, couldn't undertand how my husband
could "let" me go to law school, or why I would want a career instead of
just raising children). We kept attending -- we realized the problem was
theirs, not ours, since we were doing what our Heavenly Father directed us to
do. Our Bishop gave us some very good counsel -- the Gospel is true; the people
often aren't, and the ones who werre causing trouble for us would
ultimately have to answer for their actions. He then called me to teach Gospel
Doctrine, to force them to deal with me.My advice? Keep attending.
Keep speaking out. Don't let the actions of others affect your spiritual
growth and nurture. Don't let their actions control yours. Keep yourself
in line with Gospel standards, and just ignore the people who try to tear you
Another, thing, If they want to change the law, they need to do it legally
through the proper channels. Executive orders that violate the constiutional
rights of law abiding American citizens are ILLEGAL. Soon they are
going to be saying that they don't need congress at all and that they can
just issue executive orders for anything. This is does not help the
mentally ill also. They will just use other ways in the future. Chainsaws,
Cyanide, or home made pipe bombs. Whats going to happen when one of them decides
to run a bunch of pedestrians down? Are we going to let them take our vehicles
away? give me a break.
It's a concrete fact as from my previous post, That anything proposed in
congress that takes away the constiutional rights of law abiding citizens is
extremism. That's the reality that none of you will accept. The
man broke no law except the law in your imagination by carrying a gun in the
store. It it makes you unconfortable, leave. Who are you to have a
monopoly on when people can oppose anything or not? That is authoritarianism
sir. When have I ever said anything about opposing the religous
rights of muslims? Show me a date.Yes I have signed the petition to
seceed. And if that makes me a traitor in your eyes, I really don't care
because i'm not doing this to make friends.
What country are most of the posters citizens of? Look at what some are
saying. They think that they have somehow been appointed to be America's
"wise men". They think that they have the right to reject the
Constitution and replace it with one of their own.The Constitution
is the voice of the people. It required 75% of the States to ratify it. The
Constitution can be changed but it requires the 75% of the States ratify any
amendment. There is not some panel of "wise men" appointed to change
the Constitution.This very thread shows why we have a Constitution.
There are many in America who would seize power "for the good of the
country". This very thread shows the importance of requiring 75% of the
states to ratify any changes to the supreme law of the land.
Lots of moralist, judgmental opinions on both sides. It's not clear whether
it's funny or sad.
Fortunately 2nd annendment rights will probably not be taken away, at least this
go round. Supporters of the second amendment need to also be supporters of ...
the government Is some times the solution ... . We need to ensure that all of
the mentally ill get the treatment and support they need and the government is
best situated to see that this happens.
Perhaps what is needed for individual states to enact more draconian measure to
reduce gun violence and the Second Amendment wouldn't even be an issue.
There is nothing to prevent states from passing legislation, even banning the
possession of guns, since they have ultimate authority.Since the
argument isn't at all about the Second Amendment and is all about
eventaully fighting a tyrannical government sometime in the future, let's
stop all the silliness and address the concerns of those survivalist-types
caught up in a frenzy of psychotic paranoia and who fear the coming of the black
helicopters. However, this cannot be rationally discussed in this thread
because we are now dealing with a mental health issue.The conspiracy
people see a threat under every rock. It is difficult to argue with their
reality because it is so vastly different from mainstream America. Perhaps they
are harmless until they feel threatened; then they will come out shooting like
they claim. They just don't understand the uneasyness they generate in the
larger population when they talk about going to war against America.
Do these guys even listen to what they're saying? It's all crazy
talk. From the fearful rhetoric that basic gun rights are being taken away to
the extreme crazies involved in the conspiracy nonsense regarding the Sandy Hook
massacre, there is absolutely no talking with these folk. And the
argument elucidated on Fox News that these guns are necessary to fight a
tyrannical government is really the last gasps of angry, extremist
conservatives. They spend their time shouting about the Constitution and the
2nd Amendment and are the same people signing petitions for their states to
succeed from the union. They rant that nobody loves America like they do and
yet propose an agenda to destroy America. Apparently, Democracy is not for them
when they can't have everything their way. They are afraid of change and
want to take "their" America back. To what, no one knows.The idea that the Founding Fathers envisioned a country where the people would
have to rise up against themselves is beyond absurd. A "well-regulated
militia" was not intended to violently contest election results.
I sometimes wonder why a letter like this one, filled with obvious misstatements
and misrepresentations, would get published. Doing so only encourages others
who believe similarly weak minded allegations do continue to spew such dribble.
UtahBlueOh I recognize there are Christians throughout the Middle
East, but I said missionaries. Most Middle East countries with stable
governments don't allow missionaries because they see them as a threat to
their power. Then there are the countries without stable governments, which
don't allow missionaries either, for the same reason, only they are more
likely to stop them with bullets than arrests.OMM also specified a
most violent city. Your cities were hardly the most violent cities in the Middle
East.I stand by what I said.OMM I don't think that
protecting children, by carrying arms, makes people any less Christian. I oppose
child (and human) sacrifice in all forms. I also respect the Amish
beliefs on what is best means for protecting their children, I just don't
happen to be Amish nor do I choose the same way. I would be honored to be able
to protect them, by bearing arms, if needed.My reading of the Bible
tells me that God does support His people taking up arms in their own (and
family's) defense, in the defense of others, and in His causes.
Idological, missinformed statements like this are just as bad as those made by
the left wing nuts. Fact are facts and neither extreme side seems to care about
facts. Obama has not proposed anything that would violate the second
ammendment, not one single thing. But, what worries me is the proposals he is
making will do nothing to curb gun violence. And coupled with his statements
about "doing what ever is neccessary", he has shown he is willing to
violate the second amemndment. So after these laws are passed, (If they are)
along with the last 50 or so and they still do nothing about the gun death
rates. Then What?
Anti Bush-ObamaWashington, DCI like how people like to throw the
word "Extremist" around without having a clue as to what it even means.
Here is the definition of it. ex·trem·ist (k-strmst)n.One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially
in politics.============== You mean like:Signing
petitions to sucede when your guy does win?Insisting on having .223
assault rifles with high capacity clips?making ZERO exceptions for
aboration [life, health, rape, incest, ect.]not allowing ANY muslims their
religous rights.walking into a JCPenny's with an AR-15 over one
shoulder and a Glock on your hip?like making up stories that Sandy Hook
was staged so Obama could come take your guns?All not very
"normal"All for politcal reasons.There's a very
clear reason why the Far-Right-Wing is being called -- Extremeist!
ex·trem·ist (k-strmst)n.One who advocates or resorts to
measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.Me - personally -
lying is beyond the norm.... but then again in politics.... perhaps it is the
I like how people like to throw the word "Extremist" around without
having a clue as to what it even means. Here is the definition of it. ex·trem·ist (k-strmst)n.One who advocates or resorts to
measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.From the
definition, conserving 2nd amendment rights is not extremism. It's those
anti-american new world order democrats who want to eviscerate the constiution
who are the extremists by definition.
Christian 24-7 - again, not really sure where you get your information. But for
example, there are about 110,000 Christians living in Tehran, Iran. Yes, they
are a minority, and as such, suffer the safe challenges any minority lives
under. But they are there... and growing. In 1996 there were only 75,000.In Saudi Arabia.. there are about 1.2 million Christian, mostly
foreigners, working in the my industry. No they are not allowed churches... no
churches are allowed. But they are their, they meet at designated places, like
Embassies and consulates to worship. Saudi Arabia is the extreme... but
blanket statements like yours really show.I go to Dubai and Saudi
Arabia all the time, they know I am Christian... even Mormon.... we even talk
about our faiths. Your comment is just silly. It comes down to respect. As
long as you show respect, there is nothing to fear. And tell me,
if Muslim missionaries started knocking on doors... how do you think that would
go in many parts of our own country?
The Real Maverick,"Is asking persons to pass a background check
really an infringement upon our freedoms?"______________________________No more so than any public law that
needs to be obeyed. Carried to the extereme, it can become an argument for total
anarchy. The only law then will be the law of the jungle.
Have conservatives abandoned all rational thought? Can they think for
themselves? Are they so caught up in regurgitation the vitriol against the
President that they no longer think before they attack?Is a .08
percent cut to defense ($60 billion annually to our nearly $700 billion bloated
defense budget) really going to "decimate" our military?Is
asking persons to pass a background check really an infringement upon our
freedoms? Does one really need to have endless amounts of ammunition and
semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves and to hunt?Again, has
the radical right completely abandoned all rational thought? Do they really hate
President Obama so much that they would speak out against common sense? Time for
the GOP and its followers to wake up and smell the hot chocolate.
Christian 24-7Murray, UTI don't recall ever hearing about
the entire Amish community raising up taking up arms and AR-15s or AK-47s after
their massacare.I can only supppose THEY make the better
Christians.I will pray for you, and the rest of the radical,
extremeist Mormons on these boards.~Peace
"It appears that there is no regard for our Second Amendment or the proper
role of our federal government as defined by our Constitution."______________________________It's exasperating to read
irrational statements like that. The Second Amendment and the proper role of the
Federal government is PRESCISElY what the President is speaking in regards to.
Inverting the argument and jumping to wild conclusions about a perceived
sinister intent to abrogate freedom underscores why we're having this
debate. If the availability of certain types weapons and complacency with the
status quo is unreviewed, it helps perpetuate a growing menace to public safety
that outweighs the benefits of leaving things as they are.Thank
heaven the President is addressing a problem we've ignored at our own peril
for far too long. That's the worst nightmare of a gun manufacturing
industry whose pursuit of profit outweighs its sense of public
responsibility.We've seen these
OMM, Yes there are places where gang rule is the law and the "God men or
women", or missionaries, or nuns, are respected and not bothered, after the
gang members totally follow them and check out what they are doing and make sure
they won't be a threat to their dominion. But if the "God men and
women" were to ever get enough followers to even look like they could be a
challenge to the control and power of the gang, they would find themselves
looking at the wrong end of a gun, just like everyone else in those
neighborhoods. I feel for the people who live under the threat of
those regimes. It is a far cry from freedom.And if you think that
your way always works on this earth, go try it in the middle east, where they do
think Mormon missionaries are a threat to their power. Be sure to tell everyone
you love good-bye and that you love them before you go.
Mike Richards:I guess I'm not surprised that you, the epitome
of righteousness, would extol Captain Moroni, who sought and obtained "power
to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death,"
who killed 4,000 such dissenters who resisted conscription, and who imprisoned,
without trial, their leaders who were not killed. And I'm sure you do not
see the irony in the fact that the remainder of the dissenters "were
compelled to hoist the title of liberty." So much for liberty
and agency. Desperate times call for desperate measures, right?Let's see, who was it who originally wanted to compel people to be good?
This letter isn't about second amendment rights or defense budgets, this is
a letter about fear. Reread the first sentences of the first two paragraphs -
they are litanies of things of which the author is afraid. It's fair to
ask if those fears are realistic and if the author's implied solutions
(more guns, more defense spending) would actually address the source of her
fears.FDR's great quote that "we have nothing to fear but
fear itself" doesn't end there - he added "nameless, unreasoning,
unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into
advance." Overreacting to real world problems is as harmful as ignoring
them. Governed by fear - whether its of criminals or terrorists - we will make
mistakes, we will overreact, we will harm ourselves and others. According to the FBI, crime rates and low and falling. Terrorists aren't
flooding across our borders. There are criminals and there are terrorists, but
turning those real world dangers into some cosmic asteroid threatening life
itself is a paralyzing and unreasoning fear which prevents us from doing what is
Roland KayserCottonwood Heights, UT@Mike Richards: You seem to be
very intent on the original intent of the founding fathers. [Agreed.
I believe all these 1776 purity extremeists - would still support slavery, and
strip away women's rights, given the chance. And yet ironically -
aren't these the same one's constantly meddling with and trampling the
Constitution by ammending it when they don't get their way?]================one old manOgden, UTI'm beginning
to wonder if Mike Richards is one of those in my high priest group whose hateful
comments make it very difficult to attend church on Sunday.[Agreed.
I'd also bet Mike Richards has pushed more AWAY from Christ, than brought
One old man.... you need to keep attending to counter the high priest crazies.
Not leave. It has been long enough that the bircher types have cast a negative
cloak over our church and its members. We don't all hate. We are not all
paranoid. We are not all anti-US Government. It amazes me that these so called
patriots hold their own representative government in such disdain. We need men
of peace in the high priest meetings.... not people who hold their neighbors in
disdain. Mike Richards..... just try... once..... to not attack
people or their ideas. Give it a try. Put something positive forward.And who said anything about disarming the police, military or anyone
else. For crying out loud, you really need 100 round clips to defend your
house? Perhaps instead of "spray and pray"... these people actually
learn how to use their weapons. I have no problem with gun
ownership... I have guns. I like guns. But the rhetoric now days makes gun
owners look like.... whats the word Mike.... "whack-jobs". Using scriptures to try to justify your disdain of others.... really.
@Mike Richards: You seem to be very intent on the original intent of the
founding fathers. You know that they almost single one of them was adamantly
opposed to maintaining a standing army don't you? You know that this
country never maintained a standing army until after WWII don't you? How do
you reconcile support for a standing army with support for the wishes of the
I'm beginning to wonder if Mike Richards is one of those in my high priest
group whose hateful comments make it very difficult to attend church on
Sunday.Is it apostasy to quit attending because you are so disgusted
with what you hear there?
@mikeplease tell us where OMM made the case for disarming the police or
military mike. you do know we can all read their post as well as yours right?
By all means, OMM, let's disarm the police and the military. Let's
let them deal with things as if they were Nephi or Ammon. Let's disregard
Captain Moroni who raised the banner of liberty and demanded that the government
supply men, arms and supplies to enable him to do his job. Let's disregard
King David who demanded that men, arms and supplies be sent to help do the job
that he had to do. Let's just focus on you and your solution. Let's
all gather around the campfire and sing your peace songs; you, who tell us that
you were part of a rifle company in the military; you, who (incorrectly) told us
that you swore and oath to defend the government of the United States when you
should have told us that you swore and oath to defend the Constitution; you, who
talks about using force against the "wack-jbs". You go ahead and change
your story whenever it is convenient.
I'd bet you're not a part of a 'well regulated militia', are
you? Talk about disregarding the second amendment. Besides, you're not
allowed to own ballistic missiles, so the line is drawn somewhere. And, even
with the proposed changes, you'll still have your 'terr'ist
Open Minded, that is one GREAT comment! Thank you.
I spent 2 years in one of the world's most violent cities as a LDS
missionary.We heard gun shots ringing out almost ever night.My companions and I during that time stopped 4 rapes, 2 burglaries, and
witnessed 2 beatings to which he gave affidavites to the police....not to
mention almost getting beat up ourselves numerous times.We NEVER
carried a weapon.and I have know doubt I'm alive today because we
didn't.Was I scared? Yes at times, in the beginning.But I grew more and more confident as time went on - and it wasn't just
becuase the "Lord" was protecting me, it's because I soon realized
the odds were always in my favor.Using the scaredy-cat insecurity
right-to-bare-arms answer to all problems, The LDS Church should be
sending 60,000 missionaries out with semi-automatic glocks and .38 specials
along with their Scriptures.Like that young man in Tiannanmen
Square, who stood up to the tank, and even placed a flower in the
cannon.He bravely stood his ground, and won the battle.Faith,
Hope, and Charity.THAT'S the answer.Not more and more,
and everyone packing assault rifles.
Is this letter part of the solution or part of the problem?May I
submit that it is the latter?
Why on earth does the Deseret News continue to publish silly letters like this
on a daily basis? Kim, have you ever read the Constitution or the Second
Amendment? I would assume not. Are assault gun owners today part of a well
regulated militia? Are they packing muskets? I think not. Assault rifles have
no place on the street, unless carried by law enforcement, and not in the hands
of the delusional yahoo down the street who thinks he's Boss Hog or part of
some possee protecting us from terrorists. As part of a greater good we all
have to sacrifice, and the safety of all must trump the desire of some to pack
an uzi. Keep your handgun, keep your hunting rifle, and please quit whining.
It's the only moral thing to do.
Amen, to Ultra Bob. The movie Lincoln makes that specific point, that a
civilized society is required to make tradoffs, and that an infringment on one
liberty is many times simply a tradoff for a greater and more valuable liberty.
Air quality standards, CDC standards, and in this case a restriction on killing
capacity. To the DN..come on, on one page you print a resaonably
written editorial, and then below it print another hyperbolic rant that even you
know makes no sense (referencing your editorial). If you hadn't all ready
printed a dozen of these maybe, but come on.
Civilization is a process where we voluntarily give up some, perhaps lesser,
rights and freedoms in exchange for other rights and freedoms that are more dear
to us. The problem with civilization is that as we gain more people and pack
them in tighter the need for this exchange becomes more important and mandatory.
The unlimited, unregulated, non-infringed right to own and use a
device, made expressly for killing, when compared to the safety, security and
peace of mind for the general public must be limited, regulated and infringed.
A scalpel needs to be taken to all federal agencies - DOD included. Unnecessary
and overlapping programs need to be either eliminated or consolidated. The
Department of Defense does not get a free pass to have whatever they want. Hard
questions need to be answered and hard decisions need to be made. The agency I
work for has been slashed. Vacant positions have not been filled, programs have
been eliminated and/or consolidated and we are more lean, efficient organization
after being slashed. We still accomplish our mission, but for far less taxpayer
money. How many aircraft carriers do we NEED, not WANT? How many
Army and Air Force bases do we need in the European theater? Couldn't
those troops be just as effective stationed in the United States? Is that
four-hour plane ride worth the billions we spend every year? Hard decisions to
be made by rational, knowledgeable people is what we need, not silly rhetoric.
President Obama's proposals and executive orders are designed to make it
more difficult for the rapists, murderers, terrorists, and individuals with
certain clinical mental illness diagnosises from being able to purchase guns or
use their loved ones' guns to kill their loved ones and then go on shooting
rampages with said guns. Someone who, for whatever reason, cannot
legally buy and own a gun in their state of primary residence should not be able
to go to a gun show or answer an ad or cross state lines and buy one. Nor should
someone else be able to buy it for them. These are common sense
@ Kim: Let's suppose you want to buy a car. The dealership shows you two
options. Option one is a classic - it has been around for a number of years and
reflects the best technology from when it was built. It is also big and bulky,
it lacks many of the modern conveniences that cars come with, it gets lousy
mileage, and costs lots of money. Option two is hot off the assembly line.
While smaller and sleeker it is still sufficiently large to meet your capacity
based needs, it is chock full of all the latest technology, it has a higher
safety rating than option 1, it gets excellent gas mileage, and costs about half
of option 1. Do you buy the classic because it is the classic and
costs more, or do you buy the car that actually meets your needs?According to top military personnel, this is the situation the military faces.
The question you need to ask yourself is do you want an expensive
military or a strong, safe military? Because we can have the second without
spending all the money required for the first.
Kim, I don't understand your letter at all. Where on earth are you getting
the idea that the president wants to reduce military spending to the point of
only using "sweet talk" against terrorists? And what proposal has the
president given that would restrict 2nd Amendment rights to the point of only
allowing "BB guns"? You need to read more newspaper articles.Your hyperbole is what's wrong with this country. You're outraged,
but you don't know why. You are making things up to fuel that outrage, but
you don't know that you are completely wrong. You have a wealth of
information at your fingertips, but you choose to ignore it.Unbelievable.
Oh please... even after anything Obama proposes this nation will have a defense
budget more than 4x that of 2nd place China and still have the highest gun per
person ratio in the world. You people are paranoid...
We spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, and most of the
other big spenders are our allies. Spending a little bit less is not going to
make us vulnerable. We could cut our defense spending by 80% and still spend
more than China,the number two spender. Not that anyone is proposing cuts of