Published: Monday, Jan. 21 2013 9:17 p.m. MST
In NM a 15 year old child took his parents gun from their closet and killed
them.Last month, 20 children were murdered in elementary school.In Colorado, a man purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition online and moved
on to kill Americans watching a movie.If you bring cash to a gun
show, no background check is required for any gun purchase.More
Americans have been killed due to gun violence than in all the wars since
1968.Columbine.Ft. Hood.Gabriel Giffords.Trolley Square.Something has got to change.
Who has the authority to "inhibit" us from keeping and bearing arms?
The President clearly does not. Look at his job description in the
Constitution. (Article II)Congress clearly does not (except to
propose amendments to the States. Look at their list of responsibilities in the
Constitution (Article 1)The Court clearly does not. Look at its
list of authority in the Constitution (Article III)The States have
that responsibility. The Amendment process requires that 75% of the States
agree to change the Constitution. (Article V) Until the
Constitution is amended, it remains as written as the Supreme Law of the Land.
As the Supreme Law of the Land, no other law has authority over it. No law can
contradict it.The laws that most people, most Congressmen and the
President want passed cannot be passed because those laws contradict the
Constitution. Those laws would be superior to the Supreme Law of the Land.
That is impossible - unless we abandon law and rely on government edict for our
Supreme Law of the Land.King George learned that we do not tolerate
government edict. Has Obama learned nothing from history?
It is interesting that the same people who want to reduce gun violence favor
violence of those yet to be born. As for gun laws already illegal to use gun to
kill people. And how many murdered people come back because of gun laws? They
won't reduce crime and may make crime go up as guns won't be in the
hands of safe people.
"Banning large-capacity magazines and non-military possession of assault
rifles...None are a threat to law-abiding citizens."Unless you
live in a rough neighborhood where the gangs have them, or you happen to be the
unlucky one who encounters a thug in a 'good neighborhood', say in a
school or a theater, then the ban is a threat to the law abiding citizens.Historically, those with some kind of tactical advantage, like superior
weapons, win the vast majority of battles.These guns are like
gossip, now that they are out there is no way to take them all back. Better to
have them for defense, in the hands of good guys, than pretend if we give up
ours they (bad guys) will give up theirs.The second amendment
rocks!Too bad the government is broke, or we could have a public
service campaign to educate gun owners on keeping legal arms away from children
and mentally ill family members. That would be constitutional, and it would
help, as it did with smoking.
Several times more people are maimed and killed by baseball bats than guns.To be consistent, are you proposing a ban on all weapons that maim and
kill people?A truly rational beginning would be to address mental
health issues and violent attitudes.
Why is it that after the obligatory expressions of sympathies when something
like the Connecticut shooting happens that the Democrats next words are
“now we must take away your rights”? The Mayor of Boston
has called for a ”national” policy on guns. Guess what?
We already have one. And this is it: “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. “What
don't you get about "shall not be infringed"?
Re: Pagan: You're right, something has got to change. We need to get rid
of "gun-free zones" and encourage more concealed carry by responsible,
stable, law-abiding adults. Almost all of these terrible attacks occur in
gun-free zones. That's not a coincidence.Dr. Metcalf is a
good, decent man, but he's wrong on this issue. His proposals will only
put the good guys at a disadvantage to the bad guys, which invites more attacks
against the good guys.
The worst attack on children in the U.S. was not perpetrated with a gun. It was
done with dynamite. The worst attack on a school in Canada was not done with a
gun. It was done with gasoline.Laws only affect law-abiding people.
So many comments filled with so many false arguments and so little common sense.
Yes, a REALISTIC solution is needed.But they are not coming from the
The worst attack on children in this country was perpetrated by the Govt. Waco!
Guns don't kill people?Ok.Tell me how your hunting
trip for a bear goes...when you only bring a bat.
Good letter. As for constitutional concerns, I'm fully in favor of
well-regulated militias. I guess that would be the National Guard today.
Mr Richards, your favorite Justice Scalia has even interpretted that the 2nd
Amendment does not give you unlimited rights to carry any weapon of your choice
into sensitive areas such as schools, churches, etc. In other words, common
sense restrictions do not infringe on your right to bear arms. Let's drop
the archaic arguments, talk sense and take steps to keep military style weapons
from the unfit. I reject that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals rights that
supercede the right to live and live in safety.
@ugottabkidn: gun laws on the books in Conneticut and througout the US
didn't keep the young and restless Mr. Lanza from carrying the weapon of
his choice into a sensitive area such as a school.Until someone -
anyone - can give me a satisfactory solution to the conundrum "when guns are
outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", I insist on the legality of owning
guns. I've been following the 2nd Amendment debates for 30 or more years,
and I still haven't heard a direct logical refutation of the above
statement. I begin to suspect there might not be one.By the way, it
is clear, once you understand the difference between "militia" and
"military", that the writers of the Constitution envisioned a trained
and armed citizenry, much like Switzerland has today, rather than a standing
army (including the various state National Guard units) like the US has today.
On the whole, I think we'd all be better off if that's what we did
Ok liberals, lets look at one of the top killers of children, and tell us what
to do about it.According to the NPR article "Traffic Accidents
Top Cause Of Fatal Child Injuries" each year car accidents kill 260,000
children between 10 and 19 years old each year. Yet you don't want to ban
high capacity vehicles or mandate stricter laws for obtaining a drivers
license.If you want to talk guns, why go after the semi-automatic
"scarry" looking guns? More homicides are comitted with handguns than
rifles, according to the FBI. In fact more people are killed using hands,
fists, and feet than with assault rifles.Your liberal policies are
like giving people with brain tumors asprins for their headache. Yes you did
something that is supposed to work, but it does nothing for the underlying
Although I agree with the premise (ban the purchase of assault-type weapons and
large capacity ammunition clips), I get the distinct impression that any new
legislation effecting gun control will be the equivalent of "closing the
barn door after the horse is gone."It is my understanding there
are now somewhere in the range of 300 million guns already manufactured and
distributed throughout the U.S.A.Many of those 300 million could
very well be assault-type weapons with high capacity ammunition clips.You will never be able round them all up.
There are posters who continually try to deflect attention away from the
Constitution by telling us Justice X said this or Justice Y said that. The
Court has nine justices who examine appeals. They render a ruling according to
the votes of the entire Court based upon the Supreme Law of the Land. If individual justices could change the Constitution, we would have a
Constitution much like the South African Constitution, because that is what
Justice Ginsburg prefers.Seventy-five percent of the States are
required to ratify any changes to the Constitution. Congress passes laws that
conform to the Constitution. The President enforces that Constitution. The
Court measures every appeal against it.The problem that we have is
that Congress thinks that it can pass any law that it wants. The President
thinks he can sign and enforce a law whether it conforms to the Constitution or
not and the Court thinks that it has the right to change the Supreme Law of the
Law without first requiring that 75% of the States ratify changes to the
Constitution.The people must demand that all branches of the
government restrict itself to authorized duties.
KDaveMoab, UTThe worst attack on children in this country was
perpetrated by the Govt. Waco!9:41 a.m. Jan. 22, 2013========== Perpetuated by ultra-religous gun-nuts, holed up in an
Anti-Government compound, who'd rather kill themselves and die to be with
God than put down their pride, and comply with the law.See any
similarity with what happening in today's topic of discussion?
Eric SamuelsenProvo, UTGood letter. As for constitutional concerns,
I'm fully in favor of well-regulated militias. I guess that would be the
National Guard today.10:38 a.m. Jan. 22, 2013============== Agreed!The National Guard of the US. is
a reserve military force composed of National Guard MILITIA members...under
federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United
States. MinuteMenNationalGuard members are...the MILITIA as
defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. The NationalGuard soldiers and airmen hold a
civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a NationalGuard member. The NationalGuard was established as a federally funded reserve
component of the nation's armed forces with the NILITIA Act of 1903 under
Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code. Title 10 of the US Code
states:(a) The militia of the UnitedStates consists of all
able-bodied males [added females]...and those citizens or those delaring intent
to be come US citizens (i.e, Private Huerez)- (b) The militia are —
(1) the organized MILITIA, consists of the NationalGuard and the Naval MILITIA;
Anyone declaring anything else is trampling the Consitution and
America's rule of law.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments