Published: Monday, March 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
"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.
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.
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.
One Question.Can someone tell me WHY, in all these mass shootings,
that a fully automatic weapon were not used?
"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.
Re:JoeBlowThe 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.
"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
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
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.]
Good sensible letter. And I thank you, sir, for your dedicated service to our
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
"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.
@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.
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
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.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT3:42 p.m. March 18, 2013Why
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, orthe ultra-controlling,
authoratative, uber-Nationalism of Nazi Germany.No compromising -
Black or White - All-or-Nothingism...extremeism.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments