Advancing laws to.."Allow concealed weapons to be carried in
bars and restaurants;"Does it make sense to carry a loaded
weapon in a Bar? Well, OK, but how about this addition to the law. (some states
probably already have this)It is illegal to carry a weapon in public if
over the legal alcohol limit. Punishment is similar to Drunk driving
penalties.Do any of you gun advocates have a problem with that? Is
it reasonable to restrict public carry to only sober people?And many
people say that we need stop gun purchases for the mentally ill.How
does anyone propose that without background checks?
The operative word is "restrict". That word is in direct violation of
our guaranteed Constitutional rights. "Shall not be infringed" is what
is guaranteed. What rights of free speech would JoeBlow or Kathleen Parker like
imposed? Which government censor would they like to check with before writing
or speaking? Keeping and bearing arms is an absolute right without
strings attached. If that right is misused, prosecution comes after a crime has
been committed, not before.
Mike, You are very clear. And I applaud that. NO RESTRICTION is
your mantra.NO strings attached.I get it. We cannot allow guns on planes. Makes no sense, but, according to your
interpretation, a restriction.Should an 18 year old high school
student be allowed to carry a loaded weapon to school? Another welcome
restriction.Should I be able to carry a semi-auto weapon into the
Superbowl? Certainly a restriction if I cant. How about onto the floor of
congress? Or into the Republican National Convention? How about a
sniper rifle to the inaugural address? Could I sit in a hotel window with my
gun loaded and aimed and until I pull the trigger, no one can do anything about
it.These are reasonable scenarios. They are not far fetched. I assure you that how you interpret the second amendment, if universally
accepted, would quickly force an amendment. And it would have overwhelming
support.It is easy to scream "NO restrictions" and "NO
strings attached" until you logically look at what that means. And ask yourself if it is reasonable. And ask yourself HONESTLY if you
believe that is what the framers meant.
Mike Richards. I don't know how anyone could be more wrong. We already
"restrict" access to certain weapons. Fully automatic rifles have been
restricted since the 1930's. The supreme court has said in so many words
that dangerous and unusual weapons can be restricted. The semi-automatic
weapons of today are in many ways more destructive and dangerous than the now
banned tommy guns of the the 30's. It has been said that free speach is
limited. "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" when there is
no fire. The guiding principal limiting freedom is the common good. And the
slaugher going on on our streets and in schools makes more than clear to
everyone except a few narrow minded folks that change is long overdue.
If this gun grab is allowed. Killings will continue.Today's hunting
guns will be tomorrows assaultGuns. Then those guns will be
confiscated.We will then be like China or the middle east whereschool children are attacked with knives, bombsand acid. Women and
weaker men will be morevulnerable in their homes, less able to defendagainst rapists and other home invaders.Guns make people safer in
their homes if theylearn and abide by gun safety rules. With a guna
frail woman is a potent threat to the strongestman or group of men.
Joe and Mike from Cedar, thank you for some sensible postings. Those are kind
of scarce around here these days.This editorial is spot on.
Could I sit in a hotel window with my gun loaded and aimed and until I pull the
trigger, no one can do anything about it. Aiming the rifle is the crime. Called
assault with a deadly weapon. But you can sit in your hotel window with a loaded
gun in the same room which is not a crime.
@cjb"We will then be like China or the middle east whereschool
children are attacked with knives"The same day as Sandy Hook a
madman went to a Chinese school and stabbed around 20 kids. At least they all
survived. Oh, and there's a huge difference between no guns allowed at all
and closing background check dodging loopholes.
@ JoeBlow,You're still posting, so you must think that the
right to speak freely is absolute and that you, not the government, determines
what you say and when you say it. Did I get that part right?Let's look at the 1st and 2nd Amendments:"Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.""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."Does government have the
right to censor your speech? Does the government have the right to infringe our
right to keep and bear arms? (The militia question has been settled by the
Supreme Court.)Even with proof right in front of you, you demand
that government infringe. What is the purpose of law if you disregard it
whenever it pleases you?
Does government have the right to censor your speech? Why, Yes they
do Mike.There are multiple instances where this occurs.Speech that incites violence can be determined by the courts to be illegal.Speech that advocates violence against government officials is illegalThreatening terrorism against the US is illegalDefamation is illegal.Seditious speech These are a few. And I understand them. And I
agree with them. And I am happy to abide by them for the good of the
country.And no, these free speech "exceptions" are not
specified in the constitution. But they have evolved in our society by Supreme
court ruling, which IS addressed in the constitution.And they make
for a better society.The first Amendment has been tweaked along the
way to accommodate a changing society.Many, including me, believe that the
second Amendment should also (and already has)
Yes, JoeBlow, Mike apparently thinks that his rights are being violated when he
can't take his assault rifle on an airplane. Poor Mike.
Yes Wonder. Lets just say for the sake of argument that Mike is
correct. That in this country, we can, without restriction, carry any weapon,
any place, any time.Can one just imagine what that would bring.Yes, we would have machine guns. And we could carry them on
airplanes.Certainly we would have had a constitutional amendment to
address it by now.And most certainly , the framers did not envision
the weapons of today.It is strange to me that so many espouse that
"without restriction" view. It scares me.
Mike Richards South Jordan, UtahCan you yell "Fire!" in a
crowded theater?Can you have a full-automatic assualt rifle?There are limits regarding the rights "guaranteed" under the
Constitution as enumerated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Also,
interpreting the Constitution in the same manner that religious fundamentalists
do Bible study only works if the group agrees upon the interpretation being
presented. There is no room for differences of opinion (i.e. interpretation)
since everyone within the group is only interested in one interpretation. Those
who see things differently are usually expelled from the group because no one
within the group wants disagreement and argument because it challenges
"faith".The major reason being made for "open,
unfettered access" to any type of firearm appears to be for
"defense" against a tyrannical, democratically-elected
government(whatever that means) considering we change our government every two
years to some extent and every four year in a major way. Usually,
those who talk about "tyrannical government" generally refer to a
government they did't vote for and don't like. So, for them, an Obama
administration represents "tyrannical" government while a Romney
government would be "not tyrannical".
How many of those who keep telling us that they have the right to restrict our
right to keep and bear arms tell us that the government also restricts our right
to speak. The conveniently forget to tell us that those "restrictions"
on speech come AFTER we have spoken, not before; but they have no qualms telling
us that they will tell us what arms we can keep and where we can carry those
arms. Isn't it nice to know that someone created a
"superclass" whose only duty is to keep the rest of us in line?The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Obama, by Congress,
or by any follower of Obama who thinks that the Constitution no longer applies.
Their fallacious arguments show only that they are willing to do anything and to
say anything to take away our rights.
Well, J Thompson, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, so I guess you'll
just have to live with it.
The problem claiming there no right is absolute right is just a leftest backdoor
to abridged and infringe on any right.and as we see by laws that the
left, the progressives, the liberals are passing around the country,that door continues to get nudged wider and wider open.There must
be an absolute line drawn.I believe unless one's actions harm
another then that right is absolute and the government must stay out.As Thomas Jefferson said:"The legitimate powers of government
extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury
for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my
pocket nor breaks my leg."The left seems to want make laws based
on fear or on controlling others.How does someone owning
"assault" weapon (not there is no such thing, any definition is
completely arbitrary) hurt you?How does someone having a large
magazine hurt you?Answer without making up any hypotheticals.Neither hurts you, so any such law would be unconstitutional.
At best, this gun control deal is a distraction from the real business of
government--like the ongoing spending spree and the 16.5 trillion dollar
official deficit. At worst, it's a power grab to keep people under
government's thumb in the name of limiting "violence." In this
country and this culture, when you restrict weapons for potential victims, the
only real impact is making it more of an open-season situation for the
predators. We will never disarm the criminals--we can't even control who
invades this homeland. We don't need the most wasteful, unaccountable,
bureaucratic, and bankrupt organization in the history of the world telling its
subjects what they can and cannot have for defense, sports, and recreation. Let
Super Nanny find another hobby.
"we can't we can't we don't" Self fullfilling
prophecies. A power grab? Who is it that is grabbing the power? Your thinking
is Fox News convoluted. Why do we bother to pass law on anthing? Your
unreasonable defeatest attitude does nothing to solve real problems, only
perpetuate them. You would just let the slaughter continue because law is not
what you care for. You want less goverment? Emigrate to Somolia.
"Who is it is grabbing the power?" Open your eyes, Mike. The Federal
government is grabbing all kinds of power and property as well, with seemingly
unlimited regulation and taxation of every facet of life. We have self-serving
politicians who want to dictate everything, and the list is endless. Where have
you been? Do you really think the alternative to this is Somalia? That sounds
exactly like something that Hitler or Stalin would have said. "If we
don't control life for y'all, you would run amok immediately and
self-destruct." Really? Do we really need the great bureaucratic and
political mind to guide our every action? Are we really that lacking in
intelligence and individual responsibility? Maybe some of us are, but I think
some of us think we can do a better job than the irresponsible government can
do. Every time.
Jay Tea. Fear, fear, fear. What was it the Roosevelt said? "The only thing
we have to fear is fear itself". True in the 30's and 40's and
just as true today. The Federal Government is not your enemy, but people like
Beck are. They make a lot of money expoiting your fear.