Comments about ‘Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 26 2013 10:02 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

Thank you DN Subscriber 2
@ Kalindra also if you go to google and and that directive was to All freeman

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Those who remember the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment, all conveniently seem to forget the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment certainly permits the regulation of firearms - that was stated explicitly in Justice Scalia's majority opinion in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case. I quote from the court 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."

There is nothing in President Obama's gun proposals that is remotely unconstitutional.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Feinstein said it will pass because the people support it. If the people support it, why is it in question?

Of course, the people opposed obamacare before the dems ram-rodded it through with back room deals, bribery, and graft, so we know they have a history of forcing bad legislation on us despite our screaming NO!!! at the top of our lungs. Hopefully the repubs can stand firm and protect us from the dems.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

The Militia Act of 1792 was a two part series of laws conscripting able-bodied males into militias and empowering the federal government to use the militias as a defense against foreign invasions, Indian attacks, and armed rebellions (bear in mind Shays Rebellion 5 years earlier).

It was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which folded the militia system into the National Guard.

Beyond the fact that it is no longer in effect, I see nothing in it empowering the private arming of individuals. It is a draft that does not arm individuals to protect them from the government, but has as a stated purpose the suppression of armed rebellion. This is entirely consistent with a reading of the Second Amendment as intended to pertain to well-regulated militias rather than a nation of Wyatt Earps.

Wanna use the Act to justify shooting guns? Join the National Guard. Wanna use your weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government? The Militia Act of 1792 makes *you* the enemy and gives the governmnent the right to raise troops to crush you.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments