Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Guns require permits’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
anti-liar
Salt Lake City, UT

"There are law enforcement officers to respond to urgent needs of our citizens when crises threaten us."

Your argument fails right there. As the saying goes, "When mere SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away." (In other words, "minutes" are too late.)

Concealed carry permits ultimately are pointless since they do not stop criminals who lack a permit from carrying a gun.

Therefore the solution once again is deterrence -- criminals knowing that any citizens may be armed and is able to defend himself or herself -- and the ability to defend oneself or others against imminent threat.

It is a citizen's Constitutional right.

And this new law is not unique in the United States. It has not caused catastrophe other places.

I am for availing oneself of training in the safe and proper use of guns.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Respectfully, to the letter writer who served our Country, thank you for your service, but I believe that you have put the government to rule and reign over the people, when the Constitution puts all liberties and all rights directly on the people, except for those rights that they people willingly authorize the government to handle. The 2nd Amendment clearly and absolutely guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms is to be kept by the people and that the government cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Every person who serves in the military swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. When personal beliefs contradict the oath that you have sworn to uphold, it seems to me that it is time to re-evaluate personal beliefs.

God has set the example for us in keeping our oath. ". . . though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away . . ."

An oath is an oath. It is not to be set aside.

We should trust fellow citizens to do the right thing more than we trust officials in the government.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "As a retired U.S. Air Force officer, I was appalled . . . ."

And you are, of course, suggesting that we should all be appalled, as well.

We're not.

A concealed-carry permit does next to nothing to assure safe and effective handling of the tools necessary for proper self defense. The idea was dreamed up by liberal anti-freedom groups to harass and hassle gun owners, and to unconstitutionally infringe the right to keep and bear arms, even in self defense.

As an Air Force officer, you undoubtedly rubbed shoulders with a number of armed men and women. I'm betting none of them ever shot you. Nor were they required to procure a permit. You simply trusted in their training and common sense to permit them to accomplish the mission for which they were armed.

Kinda like the proposed Utah law.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

One Question.

Can someone tell me WHY, in all these mass shootings, that a fully automatic weapon were not used?

one old man
Ogden, UT

"Concealed carry permits ultimately are pointless since they do not stop criminals who lack a permit from carrying a gun."

Complete and utter NONSENSE.

The writer is stating some good common sense here and is not advocating limiting weapons. What he is advocating is sensible training before they carry them. If they are adequately trained, they will have a much better chance of nailing a threat instead of nailing innocent bystanders.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:JoeBlow

The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment in 1986 have all placed limits on how automatic guns can be bought and sold, but did not make it illegal to possess them entirely.

Purchasing one requires submitting fingerprints and photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax, among other requirements. Only automatic weapons manufactured and registered with the federal government before 1986 can be bought, owned and sold.

Consevative web sites are reporting that Lanza did not use the semi-automatic Bushmaster to kill the children, which is patently false.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" --Karl T. Frederick--President of the NRA, in 1934

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

This guy is another elitist who thinks only he has the right to won a Gun if he wants to.

Let me ask you this question, In the Air Force, did you fight for our Freedoms or for the Freedoms of Oppressive Corporate American slavemasters?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

As with the letter writer - I am also a USAF veteran.

In addition to the traingin and qualify testing,
He forgot to also mention the military already requires --

extensive background checks,
physical and mental health evaluations,
RE-qualifying (it's not a life-long rubber stamp),
and all weapons are ALWAYS 100% secured in the armory or gun safes.

That's how professional handle weapons,

Only a fool allows a mental case, with a vendetta, access to ANY weapon.

[Mike, the 2nd amendment does allow for it either.]

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Good sensible letter. And I thank you, sir, for your dedicated service to our nation.

one old man
Ogden, UT

When someone writes something like "In the Air Force, did you fight for our Freedoms or for the Freedoms of Oppressive Corporate American slavemasters?" we probably should be worrying about the mental stability of that person.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

procuradorfiscal, you contradicted yourself. You talked about the letter writers training as well as those with whom he served. But the bill that was passed requires no training for pack a concealed weapon. I know people who are CWP instructors that do not require their students to shoot the guns to pass the course.

There are a lot of dopes out there that, frankly, shouldn't be allowed to carry simply because they don't have the common sense of a gnat (I'm sure some would say that about me however, I am trained and sure of my ability with a firearm).

Training and instruction is common sense to carry a weapon. One needs to know the law governing deadly force and how it applies. Not knowing that will cause problems. If I get on a jury where someone is getting prosecuted for a situation that was not a deadly force situation, they are going to jail if I have my way.

My Uberconservative friend who is a CWP instructor is fine with the current law and is not in favor of so called, "constitutional carry". I'm the same way.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Harold Nufer" and when you joined the Air Force, you swore to uphold and defend the constitution. Why do you now want to throw the constitution away to feel good?

Do the liberals even realize that most guns used in crimes are purchased illegally? Do they even realize that in countries where the general population is not allowed to buy guns that the criminals still are able to get guns?

To "Flashback" why do we have to require a test to verify that a person can shoot a gun? Do we have tests before you are able to practice freedom of speech or religion? What about the Press, they can do more damage by mishandling information than a mishandled gun can do, yet they are not regulated like guns. Should we require the press prove that it can write an unbiased story before they are allowed to publish stories?

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To "Red Shirt" did you ever consider that in many countries where gun restrictions are enforced they have far less gun deaths than we do. Lets see, we already have 300 million guns in this country. Is that not enough? evidently not. According to the NRA we need a gun on every person. If we cannot have restrictions than why not let our teenagers pack heat to school. Oh, you say we need common sense. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say to use common sense. If we can use common sense, than we can definitely consider additional restriction in the name of safety and reducing risks to the general public.

casual observer
Salt Lake City, UT

The framers of the constitution did not have an understanding of mental illness or envision modern assault rifles and high capacity magazines, just as they did not include provisions on abortions or driving cars. Perhaps we should allow the unrestricted possession and carrying of only flintlock weapons, just as the authors of the 2nd amendment intended. Most people can imagine the founding fathers seeing the proposed legislation on assault rifles and background checks and saying, "Well duh."

ECR
Burke, VA

"The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time." Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion for District of Columbia vs. Heller.

anti-liar
Salt Lake City, UT

@one old man

"Complete and utter NONSENSE."

It isn't nonsense at all. It is a point of fact, whether you deny the fact or not. The lack of a permit does not stop criminals from unlawfully using guns. Hence the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend oneself and other innocents.

What IS nonsense is relying upon law enforcement, who are minutes away, when mere seconds count -- especially given that criminals will carry with or without a permit.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "louie" did you ever notice that the countries with stricter gun laws have more violent crime after enacting stricter gun laws?

Did you notice that the US is only #11 for gun deaths in the world, and that the top 10 have more strict gun laws than the US? If you look at just homicides with guns, the US drops to #15.

Have you ever noticed that the countries that have banned guns for their citizens have more deaths and murders with axes, swords, knives, bats, and other means? Did you notice that the US was #99 on overall homicide rates in the world?

If you look at the nations where they have the strict gun control laws, it doesn't appear to be saving their people. In fact, gun laws appear to have little to no effect on overall homicide rates. There seems to be a larger cultural aspect that your ilk refuses to address.

Why restrict guns? Japan did that, now they have to restrict knives and swords. What is the next item that they will have to "protect" their citizens from? Why do you want to follow down their failed path?

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns, is like having yourself neutered because you believe the neighbors have too many kids.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT
3:42 p.m. March 18, 2013

Why restrict guns? Japan did that, now they have to restrict knives and swords. What is the next item that they will have to "protect" their citizens from? Why do you want to follow down their failed path?

==========

Because...
How many mass shootings did Japan have in the last 20 years?

And if they choose to restrict knives and swords, then that puts them even that much further ahead of us.

Face it - your "ilk" won't be happy until America has either has the unbridled freedom and lack of Government of Somalia,
or
the ultra-controlling, authoratative, uber-Nationalism of Nazi Germany.

No compromising - Black or White - All-or-Nothingism...extremeism.

to comment

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