The Alabama guy rose up against tyranny and shot a bus driver and took a little
@22oz44ozglass1. A total ban on guns would be unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has ruled with regards to the types of statutes Chicago and D.C.
had. The Supreme Court has not declared assault weapons bans or other regulatory
measures to be unconstitutional. I believe that it is possible that you could
have enough regulation that effectively guns would be impossible to acquire and
that would be unconstitutional (sorta like some states currently trying to
regulate abortion into nonexistance). 2. Executive orders cannot be used
to restrict magazine size, institute assault weapons bans, require universal
background checks, or a lot of other things. That's why Obama's 23
executive orders don't touch those things.3. Maybe, but since I have
no interest in owning a gun myself it'd be low on my priorities list. 4. I'm not quite sure since Congress can pass all the unconstitutional
bills it wants and they don't get kicked out for it, just the bill gets
struck down by the court. So for the president... he'd have to be ordering
enforcement measures that aren't allowed.
Nate, no one is proposing banning 'weapons' but military style weapons
that are no necessary for personal defense. Your name calling is right in line
with the paranoia that has accompanied the selective interpetation of the 2nd
Amendment. By the way a proposal in Congress in this day and time means nothing.
Join us Nate, please.
Beverly, Burbank is not concerned with your rights nor enforcing the law. He
likes to enforce laws he likes and ignore ones that he doesn't like. Part
of the oath he took as a police chief stated that he'd enforce the laws and
uphold the Constitution. He does neither.
@markYou're right about the news story. I conflated the Georgia
mother with someone else. The Georgia woman used a .38 revolver. The interesting
thing about her story is that it took 5 shots to stop the assailant. Feinstein
wants magazine sizes no larger than seven. What happens when there are two
intruders?So that you don't feel cheated, here's another
news story: "RIT Students Accosted By Gunmen in Their Home." In this
one, Raymond uses his AR-15 to scare away two armed intruders. My favorite
excerpt: "The two men fled the apartment. Nothing was taken and no shots
were fired." The presence of a scary-looking weapon was all it took."[N]o real hunter hunts deer with an AR15."I'm
not advocating that. I'm pointing out that there are semi-auto rifles *not*
covered by Feinstein's ban. The differences between them and so-called
"assault rifles" are only cosmetic. The term is meaningless, except to
scare the ignorant. Just like all your talk about "hunting humans," when
the topic is self-protection.(So you would prefer a shotgun.
That's fine -- I would too. It's a free country.)
Nate, I found your story about the 15 year old using an AR15 against an
intruder. The story that I found on the mother in the attic said she used a
handgun. So out of the two examples you provided only one had someone using an
assault weapon. Hardly seems like this rises to your claim of people defending
themselves "all the time" with one if these types of weapons. Still, I
only asked for one example, so I'll concede that point. But it
raises another question. My first choice for a home defense weapon is a shotgun,
as it is seen by many of the gun people I have talked to. In the expample of the
15 year old using the AR15, he only hit one of the intruders only injuring him
(maybe thankfully for the boy, so he didn't have the burden of killing to
deal with, as justified as it would have been) and both of the intruders got
away (later arrested at the hospital). A shotgun would have accomplished the
same thing. And perhaps put the intruder down. That's what I want for
defense, knock down power.
To all those who support/agree with part/all of Obama, Biden &
Fienstien's gun control objectives & rhetoric I pose these questions
due to the vast subjectivity, nebulousness & lack of agreement on specifics
inherent to the current objectives & rhetoric of Obama et al & others
calling for "reasonable" or "common sense" gun control. 1.At what specific point of infringing upon the rights of lawful gun
owners will you stand up and say-Obama/Congress you have gone too far, you have
overstepped your bounds?2 What specifically in terms of executive
orders would you find as too extreme and as 1st a violation of the 2nd Amendment
of the Constitution & more specifically the separation of powers inherent to
our system of government?3. In the event that Obama's gun
control measures did reach your threshold of a president overstepping his bounds
through executive fiat, would you take a stand to have his orders repealed?4. What would you consider an impeachable offense in terms of gun
control & the 2nd Amendment?Please be serious as these are
crucial questions that MUST be honestly answered before a real honest, good
faith Constitutionally compliant designation & implementation of so called
"reasonable" gun control can take place.
Nate, I'll try to find the stories you are referencing. While the D News
will not allow links, you can post head lines. I know you said
comparable. I chose to ignore it. There is no hunting rifle comparable to an AR
15. Hunters, real hunters mind you, do not hunt with a weapon like an AR 15. No
hunter needs a hundred round magazine. No hunter, again, real hunter, needs a
semi auto. An AR15 is not a hunting weapon, it is a weapon expressly created for
combat in its automatic form. In its semi auto form it is a weapon expressly
created to inflict maximum damage, on the most amount of targets, in the least
amount of time. There is no comparable weapon that is a hunting weapon. Just
because you want to pretend this is not true, does not mean that I have to
believe your fantasy. I'll say it again, the AR15, and other
assault rifles, er. . . assault like rifles, are the preferred weapon of those
seeking to hunt humans in large numbers. Maybe if that's your idea of
hunting. . .But no real hunter hunts deer with an AR15.
@mark "...bolt action...lever action..."There's a
reason why I said comparable. The differences between a so-called "assault
rifle" and a semi-automatic hunting rifle of the same caliber are only
aesthetic. Both fire one shot when the trigger is pulled, eject the spent
cartridge, and chamber another one."You should be able to
provide many [examples], right?"You know the difficulty of
posting links here. But if you went to YouTube and searched for "boy uses
dad's ar-15 to shoot intruder", you can find a recent new story.You could also Google "mother defends kids ar-15" for a recent
story about a mother who was cornered in the attic with her children and fought
off her attacker with an AR-15.While handguns are more common in
self-defense, showing the intruder a scary-looking rifle is often enough to send
him running. You never read about these incidents in the NY Times, but pro-gun
websites are replete with them. Branch out a little, and do some reading.
Martin, then we should also have an additional tax on all cars since over three
time more people are killed and injured every year by cars than by guns. We
should also have a tax on knives, hammers, crow bars, baseball bats, etc since
they are used in the over 4 thousand non gun related homicides every year.
Don't forget liability insurance in case one of your knives, hammers, crow
bars, baseball bats, etc is used by someone else in one of those 4 thousand non
gun related homicides. And don't forget funeral and medical insurance for
those 26000 deaths a year caused by falls. Oh, I forgot we already have
Obamacare for that.
Seems to me that everyone's talking about political outcomes that have very
little to do with reality. How about we propose something that might pass
constitutional muster and still have a good chance of reducing gun violence?1. Bullet tax. Model this after the tobacco tax; the states get to decide what
to do with the proceeds, from victims funds to gun safety programs. 2.
Liability insurance. If you own a functioning firearm, you should be required to
have a liability policy on it, or be fined when it's discovered that you
don't. Insurance companies being what they are, the more guns you have, you
might get a volume discount. Point is, if your firearm is used to injure or kill
someone, your policy would take the hit.3. Dramshop-style law. If your
firearm is used to injure or kill someone, if you weren't the one pulling
the trigger, you should still face some responsibility for the firearm being out
of your control, negligence at the least. With rights come
responsibilities. These three proposals, taken together, would certainly add
some responsibility to a conversation that has so far lacked it.
"While these guns may look scary to liberals, they're no more dangerous
than any comparable hunting rifle."Bull. The AR-15 is not a
hunting rifle. It literally is an M16 that does not have full auto capability.
The M16 is a military weapon. I have hunting rifles. One is bolt
action. One is lever action. Neither of them hold a magazine. Neither of them
will hold a 100 round magazine. Neither of them are auto loaders. Neither of
them are semi automatic. While it is true both of them would kill humans there
is absolutely zero chance that somebody using either one of them would be able
to cause the carnage of, say, the theatre shooting in Colorado. The
AR15 is a much more dangerous weapon then either of my hunting rifles. It is
made to inflict maximum damage in as quick as possible. It is the choice of
those hunting humans. "People defend themselves with these
weapons all the time. "I'm aware of no such incident.
I'm not saying it hasn't happened, though, but can you give us an
example? You should be able to provide many, right? Seeing as it happens all the
Oh my gosh Wanda B Rich, that is an absolutely amazing quote. Thank you very
much. Gods of stone and steel. The whole thing is breath taking. we train a man
in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s
counterfeit of true patriotism, Wow! Just wow! That is a stunning quote.
But I wonder how many Mormons will read the words of their prophet
and adjust their thinking. My guess, not many.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah"...They think that they
can ignore the Constitution when it says "shall not be inhibited".The best way to handle a bully is to look him in the eye and tell him to
his face that only immature people resort to bullying."=======
Mike - where in the Constitution does it say: "shall not be
inhibited"?In kindergarten, I learned the best way to handle a
bully was to tell them:"Sticks and Stones my break my bones, but name
will never hurt me."BTW Mike - the real "bullies" carry
OK - a back ground check.Anyone saying they want to use their weapon
in open rebellion against America, use to intimidation others, or create fear
and terror upon fellow citizens by walking around malls, schools, and movie
theaters -- shall be denied a weapon. Anyone convicted of a felony
or fire-arm misdemanor shall be denied a weapon.Anyone with a
diagnosed mental illness, (including depression or thoughts of suicide), shall
be denied a weapon. Anyone willing to shoot and kill someone over a
stolen television set, shall be denied a weapon.I get it -- That's why pro-gun-nuts don't want back ground checks, many of
them would never pass the minimum criteria.
When asked about realistic options for reducing gun violence in the nation,
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA has only one response: Too bad, So sad. We need more
guns on the street.
With reportedly more than 300,000,000 guns in the US civilian population any
solution must be reality based. "Outlawing" guns is a fantasy even it it
were constitutional. Military grade weapons should be restricted along with
lessening the probability that mentally disturbed people have access to weapons.
Nothing will be perfect, but lets start some place.
@ugottabkidn "military style assault weapon"The keyword here
is "style". Feinstein's bill goes after guns that are styled to
look like military weapons through the addition of plastic pieces which have
little or nothing to do with function. While these guns may look scary to
liberals, they're no more dangerous than any comparable hunting rifle.People defend themselves with these weapons all the time. They are
especially popular with women, because of their lightness, balance, and easy
recoil. "...naivete."Be careful how you accuse
others; you might be accused of the same thing. We see you here repeating
left-wing propaganda terms as if they actually meant something.
Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution wrote of the 2nd
Amendment:"The right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has
justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of
rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance ,
enable the people to resist, and triumph over them. There is
certainly no small danger, that indifference many lead to disgust, and disgust
to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this
clause of our national bill of rights." (Sec 1001, pages 708-9)This comment clearly states that the citizens having weapons is "a strong
moral check against arbitrary power of rulers." The last 4 words of this
Amendments read the right "shall not be infringed." Yet that is exactly
what you want to Congress and the 50 Legislatures to do. The
current move to put more control on guns, gun clips, and ammunition fits well in
the advance warning of Justice Story when he wrote "thus gradually undermine
all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."
GZE "No one in any position to have an impact on this decision has
ever said they wnat to ban guns."False-US Senator
from California, Dianne Feinstein, has said she wants all guns banned. Seems to
me that she is a person in position to have an impact.Anti
Bush-Obama"In this country, we have a mental health problem
disguised as a gun problem and tyranny problem disguised as a security
problem."My nomination for BEST POST!
The tyranny is coming in the form of heavily armed citizens planning a coup
d'éta.In Iraq we consider anyone with these type of
military weapons a terrorist, especially if they are actually talking about the
need to attack the government.So explain how the NRA nuts are not
Congratulations, Matt Erickson, for a well thought-out letter. You understand
the reason that the people, not the government, are in charge of "guns".
Take a few minutes and read the comments from those who oppose the
Constitution. See what their reasons are. They think that they or the
government can make decisions for you. They think that they can ignore the
Constitution when it says "shall not be inhibited". They put themselves
above the law and above the citizens in this country who believe in the law.Some tried to bully you or to belittle you for standing up for your
rights. That is a favorite tactics of the Left. Bullies bully. They try to
intimidate. The best way to handle a bully is to look him in the eye and tell
him to his face that only immature people resort to bullying.We have
the right to keep and bear arms to protect us from the government and from those
who would take away our rights.You know more about the Constitution
than those who use condescending language to pat you on the back with one hand
while stabbing you in the back with the other.
Matt,You can own all the assault rifles you want, but an important
questions need to be asked of you (and your parents). How are you going to
insure your rifle won't end up in the hands of someone who is bent on mass
killing? Do you have a safe? Do you store your ammunition away from the rifle?
Have you been to any kind of firearms training course to handle the assault
rifle in a safe manner? How will you dispose of the assault rifle when you no
longer need/want it? If your assault rifle is to protect your home
and family, it won't be as effective as you think during a surprise attack.
The element of surprise always favors the aggressor. You are far better off to
have a pistol for that type of protection, and even then, the element of
surprise is far more daunting than most gun packers are willing to admit. These are common sense questions that every assault rifle (and any other
sort of weapon) needs to ask themselves.
There were shootings in Atlanta , Texas, Arizona and other places. Is this
conflict resolution NRA style. Law abiding citizens become outlaw when they
point weapon at a person and pull trigger, non times out of ten. HOw many recent
deaths in defense of freedom against tyranny?
If this is what is being taught to young people in the Boy Scouts, there are
much greater problems in the Boy Scout leadership than wheather or not to allow
Gay people in the Boy Scouts. Matt. Your rights, and
mine, are determined by the needs of people living in today’s world. Not
some guys who lived 250 years ago. You and I are a part of the
government, and yes the government can do just about anything we want it to do.
The most important job of government is to protect us from
ourselves. You can verify this yourself by analyzing the laws made by our
government to see how many laws apply to Americans versus the numbers of laws
that apply to foreigners. While there are no perfect laws, the
greater part of your security, freedom and rights come from the laws that limit
the actions of others, like ourselves. And the laws work best when people work
with their government and not against it.
Am I the only person a bit concerned by the tone of this young man's
letter. I sounds as if he's been indoctrinated by adults who have been
indoctrinated by too much hate radio.
In this country, we have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and
tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.
Matt,I appreciate your youthful enthusiasm and passion for the issue.
Don’t let the critical comments here grind you down, but use them to
educate yourself further.Since you bring up the Constitution,
militia, and repulsing government tyranny, it is worth noting that the word
“militia” appears in the Constitution five times besides the Second
Amendment. Article 1, Section 2 (three mentions) gives Congress the authority
to organize, arm, train, and discipline the militia and gives Congress the power
to call the militia to suppress insurrections. Article 2, Section 2 (one
mention) makes the President the Commander in Chief of the militia. The Fifth
Amendment (one mention) puts the militia in the same category as the federal
armed forces when it comes to justice.It is hard to reconcile these
constitutional provisions with the argument that the militia exists to oppose
federal government tyranny when the Constitution explicitly puts the militia
under the control of the federal government with the express duty to suppress
insurrection.Please keep reading and learning and write again when
you have a stronger argument.
"just bow down the the obama administration and give them all our
guns"You misspelled "complete a background check on all gun
Matt, ask your dad if he can give 1 example of someone who has defended
themselve with a military style assault weapon. By the way I commend your effort
if not your naivete.
one voteSalt Lake City, UTIs Glenn Beck going to lead the uprising
against tyrannical government form his new amusement park?11:19 a.m.
Jan. 31, 2013============ Ta - "Independance,
USA"A virtual Right-Wing Epcot Center.Maybe
he'll have a fully automatic "shooting gallery" of Democrats.the haunted house of "Liberals"the Fiscal Roller Coaster, Throw the sick, the poor and the needy under the bus - and balance the budget
for prizes, and the Romney Roll-O-Plane that'll spin you around until
you puke!P.S. ...don't forget spending time in the Fun
house of Founding Fathers.Have a great time folks! 'cause the
Prophet of Doom and Gloom said the end is near!
Guns are not going to be banned. No one in any position to have an impact on
this decision has ever said they wnat to ban guns. Only the Supreme
Court can decide if something is unconstitutional. Once new laws are
implemented, or old laws are reinterpreted, they will have their say.
Is Glenn Beck going to lead the uprising against tyrannical government form his
new amusement park?
Guns are designed for killing--whether varmints, bears or people. For all of
you against regulation of firearms by the federal government, why is it that gun
owner rights should trump the right to life? Without the federal government
Utah would likely be a third world country with a wall around it.What is the benefit of an arms race between the “good guys” and
the “bad guys?” In Mexico 120,000 deaths have been reported from
gun violence in the last few years, twice as many as the 60,000 estimated deaths
from the civil war in Syria. From robberies to kidnappings to gang and drug
wars, and from just plain thrill killings, no one is safe in Mexico. Is that
the kind of society you want for yourself and your family?
lds liberal"Just so you know - If I saw anyone walking down my
street with a weapon - and NOT in uniform, THEY would be considered a
Terrorist."For obeying the law? Anybody with your mindset is a
Totally Agree!Killing Machines are protection.I've
ordered my flame thrower and RPG launcher/ammo to complement my cache of Killing
Machines...of course, all to protect me and my family from tyranny.
"We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing
for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to
the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles,
fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When
threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in
the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s
counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;'That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.'
(Matt. 5:44–45.)"- Spencer W. Kimball, 1976Mormon attitudes toward guns brought this quote to mind. It seems we
haven't learned anything in the 36 1/2 years since this statement was made.
If anything, we've become more militant and more paranoid.
Yes let just bow down the the obama administration and give them all our guns
and all our rights. After all they would never think of abusing their power if
they are the only ones with guns. Let just bow down to the holy obama
administration and let them do whatever they want to us. Let let them incite a
race war and pat us down without due process. Let just throw out the constiution
because it is the only way these people will be happy. Of course they can still
have their constiutional rights because they are "divine" and holy"
so the law shouldn't apply to them. They can have their rights and treat
the law abiding citizens like slaves which I most certainly feel like.
Matt, it's great that you wrote to the newspaper to express your views.
Good for you. But I don't agree. You say "everyone should be able to
bear arms." I don't think you really mean that. Surely you agree that
a convicted violent criminal should be allowed to go straight from prison to a
gun shop, do you? And, I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think you
should personally be allowed to buy a gun. You're too young. Sorry.
I love the question " If nobody had guns, how would we protect
ourselves?" The answer, of course, is that we wouldn't need to. At
least not from people with guns, since your question poses the scenario wherein
no one has them. This isn't going to happen, of course, but then it's
important to remember that no one is trying to take all your guns away.
You'll still have something to use when all them terr'ists you're
worried about show up.
Also, why is talking about shooting soldiers and cops socially acceptable?
(tyrannical gov't is such a convenient phrase, but in reality if one were
overthrowing such a gov't, that's who they'd be fighting)
Why the personal attacks on this scout, and his leader? Yes our young are
impressionable, and probably have values that reflect their parents'
values. That is where they learn values. Don't all you anti-gun
wing-nuts teach your children to be anti-gun wing-nuts just like you?Attacking children for their views is definitely against my values.
The irony is Boy Scout Troop 1340 meets the Contitutional requirement of "A
well regulated Militia" better than these assault toting, Anti-Governement
soldier wann-bes he's learning this garbage from.From the
criteria of Organization, uniforms, weekly meetings, and leadership postitions
-- right down to the Shotgun and Rifle merit badge requirements and training.Any Boy Scouts is more a member of a militia than say; Mountanman, Mike
Richards, RedShirt or JThompson.Matt - no one is coming to take away
your guns. Who ever tells you that is lying to you.The government is
not some boogy-man to hate and dispise - it is US the people, it is YOU.You might want to brush up on your Citizenship in the Nation merit badge. And BTW - who do you consider a Terrorist anyway?Can you describe
one for me? - or did someone tell you anyone from the Middle East is to be
considered dangerous and trying to kill us?Just so you know - If I
saw anyone walking down my street with a weapon - and NOT in uniform, THEY
would be considered a Terrorist.
"It should be unconstitutional to ban guns."Who is proposing
this?Using your logic, my dear scout, why can't we buy machine
guns, grenades, drones, tanks, and aircraft carriers?WE NEED TO
PROTECT YOURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND TERRORISTS! What you are
suggesting is no regulation.
So why identify yourself as a scout? Did you scout leader tell you all that?
It's a nice recitation of right wing gun nut talking points but a well
regulated militia is the national guard, not an armed scout troop.
The US has the highest gun per person ratio of any nation in the world. The
Supreme Court has already ruled that total gun bans are unconstitutional. Not
every gun is an assault weapon so even if those were banned there'd still
be plenty of guns. The Supreme Court and Scalia noted that gun rights
aren't universal, i.e. that regulations can still exist on guns.
This is frightening, especially coming from a scout. Assault weapons in
everyone's hands are not guaranteed by the Constitution - sorry! Since you
cite the Second Amendmet, did you completely misunderstand the part about the
well regulated militia? I don't see anything about everyone packing uzis.
I would encourage you to expand your horzons beyond the Deseret News. Get
information from many sources. Travel around the country and the world. Adope
a gay scout into your scouting group. Be open minded and your positions will
change in time.
Keeping them at home. But when carrying them around you get situations like the
recent Arizona shooter who was a gun freak that freaked out and pulled the
trigger in anger. If you want to be guarded form the Federal government start
making a defensive drone so you cannot be annihilated from three miles away
while you are loading your twenty round clip.
@MattGreat letter! You are right: everyone has a natural right to
protect his own life, and the Constitution guarantees it.@Beverly
"Who is instilling this thought in his mind?"Thomas
Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1788, "I hope, therefore, a bill of
rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal
government...." Maybe Matt got the idea from him.
When a "scout age" young man talks about needing a gun to protect
himself against America, something is wrong. Who is instilling this thought in
his mind? When the Salt Lake Police Chief supports the ban on Assault rifles,
and is recognized on the National News for his thoughtfulness and courage; and
nothing is reported about it in the Deseret News, something is amiss. What has
created this misunderstanding in this young man's mind? Why is the National
news of the Salt Lake Chief's position not newsworthy in Salt Lake?
Agreed that keeping guns from the criminally insane would be a technical
violation of theconstitution, but its one I can live with.In
this world there isn't perfect anything, so youhave to find a way to