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
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.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that an individual's
right to keep and bear arms is unconnected to service in a militia.The rants made by those who disregard the that ruling show that they think
that they are above the law and that they have somehow obtained authority to
define the law.There is no connection between being a member of a
militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Let's all repeat that until we
understand it. There is no connection between being a member of a militia and
the right to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Michael Richards fails to include in his reading of the Constitution Article
8.18, which grants Congress the power to pass any law deemed necessary and
proper to carrying out its enumerated powers. Without this so-called
"elastic clause," James Madison said, the Constitution would be a dead
letter. Who decides what is necessary and proper? The Supreme Court, eg., the
Court has viewed the interstate commerce clause as very broad indeed. Firearms
regulation could easily fall within the domain of interstate commerce.
I suspect that if a town had a militia which met, strategized, drilled, and
practiced marksmanship once a month, for the protection of the town in
emergencies, to prevent looting, those towns would be the last target of crazed
shooters. Seems like the presence of guns and people trained to use them would
diminish the likelihood of shots being fired at all in that town.What are y'all in Murray doing the last Saturday of each month? We can
make it a branch of CERT training.
RedShirt -- another distortion of facts. That 260,000 number is WORLDWIDE.Yet if anyone suggests comparing gun violence in the U.S. with gun
violence in other countries, you and your NRA friends cry foul.Let's look at some REAL American statistics:In 2008 and 2009,
5740 Americans between the ages of 1 and 14 died of gunshot wounds.3892
were murdered. 1548 died by suicide. 300 were victims of accidental
shootings.The only data I could find for traffic deaths came from
2003 when 2136 Americans aged 1-14 died in auto accidents.The truth
can be really inconvenient, can't it?
Mr. Irony Guy,My, but you have a different understanding of English
than I do. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 is part of the "one
sentence" that makes up all of Section 8. Even I, a moderately old lady,
knows that you can't give meaning to a dependent clause if you take it out
of the sentence that it depends on. In other words, Clause 18 is referring to
the "foregoing powers" listed in the preceding seventeen clauses found
in that one sentence. Maybe a visit with an English teacher would
help you clear up the confusion. Don't feel badly, you're not the
only person who has made that mistake and you probably won't be the last
person either; but, live and learn. There is no reason to constantly make the
same mistake over and over. There is no reason to pretend that something is
true when it is so easily shown that you have misunderstood the meaning of a
sentence and the grammar that holds that sentence together.Our
forefathers understood English. They knew what the words meant. They knew how
to use it properly. They didn't make silly grammatical mistakes.
To "one old man" we can go to strict US numbers.In the US
for 2012 there were 35,900 deaths. During that same time there were 31,328
deaths that used fire-arms. But that includes suicides which would have occured
with or without the gun. If you get it down to murders comitted with guns,
there was less than 10,000.So, tell us, what is the bigger problem,
people dying in car accidents or gun related murders?Your auto
statistics are highly questionable because it does not count the age when kids
drive, you know, that 14 to 18 age range where the kids are driving.You can also look at the statistics for gun deaths, and very few are with
"assault" rifles. Most are with handguns. Why go after rifles when
most murders are committed with hand guns?
The second amendment could have been written this way: "Since we have to
have an army, we'd better preserve the right of the people to arm
L WhiteSpringville, UTMr. Irony Guy,Even I, a moderately
old lady, knows that you can't give meaning to a dependent clause if you
take it out of the sentence that it depends on. Our forefathers
understood English. They knew what the words meant. They knew how to use it
properly. They didn't make silly grammatical mistakes.2:53 p.m.
Jan. 22, 2013============= That's why they used
words like "infringed" -- i.e., can not be confisgated by the
Government.and"well regulated militia"to which
each and every pro-gun-nut completely disreagards.BTW, speaking of
English lessons - That's what "tramplng the Constitution"
means. Twisting and disregarding, reading bits, and ignoring pieces -- to suit a
twisted agenda.It's called taking things out of context.If you plan to defend the 2nd Amendment and not make mistakes in grammar
- read and defend ALL of it.Please?
What a terrible tragedy when people tell us that it is perfectly acceptible to
destroy 4,075 unborn children in America, one-hundred-thirty-five kindergarten
classrooms full everyday, but it is unthinkable that 330,000,000 Americans who
mostly obey the law should have the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
They have twisted and turned the Constitution into a pretzel when they
continually links militia with the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't
matter to him them the Court ruled on that matter. It doesn't matter that
their argument was popped four years ago. It sounds good to them, so they say
it. Meanwhile, everyday in America another 4,075 unborn babies are destroyed.
Where is their weeping and wailing for the most innocent among us?The founding fathers didn't have to tell us not to destroy our children.
They would never have thought that a nation would become that decadent, but they
did know that conspiring men would take every opportunity to enslave the
citizens by taking away their right to keep and bear arms. That they saw
coming. They just didn't see people who would rip apart the unborn.
Peanut Gallery expressed realism well. Thank you to all to try to reason with
those who think that having more gun laws will solve problems. It is a
frustrating challenge (to try to reason with them).
Pagan: What is your source of "More Americans have been killed due to gun
violence than in all the wars since 1968" If you want to look at
some truly staggering, sobering, brutal numbers and patterns, examine these
historical facts. Governments have murdered/killed/starved to death more people
in the 20th century than all of the wars of the 20th century combined. Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 1-1.5 million killed, Soviet Union
1929-1945 20 million killed Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe
1933-1945 20 million killedChina, Nationalist 1927-1949 10 million
killedChina, Red 1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976 20-35 million
killedGuatemala 1960-1981 100,000- 200,000 killedUganda
1971-1979 300,000 killedCambodia (Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 2 million
killedRwanda 1994 800,000 killed. Prior to/during each
of these genocides, governments step by step disarmed the citizenry to allegedly
keep them safe & control crime. Governments murdered four times
as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic 20th
century wars combinedgun control agenda + globalist/one world order
agenda = not a good future for the defenseless