Comments about ‘Letter: Government regulated ammunition would not terminate the Republic or Second Amendment’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 24 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

This letter is a simple yet exactly to the point as to why changes to gun laws should be made. They are modest and timely. Why do I suspect that such a modest proposal will be met with scorn and derision?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Great letter and thank you for your service.

Now be prepared to be blasted by the gun nuts. Who feel any regulation is evil. They are nothing more than puppets for the NRA

William Gronberg
Payson, UT

I perceive that a major concern of many citizens is that if they give just one inch, then they believe the government will take a mile. Therefore, the answer is “NO” to almost any new gun legislation.

I point out that the government has already taken a mile decades ago. The isolated enforcement of “no brass or ammo sergeant” has been a reality for decades in the United States military. How can Mr. LaPierre sleep at night knowing that the “slippery slope” has already been traversed to the bottom?

Lyndon Baines Johnson was President in 1964. There have been 8 more presidents since Mr. LBJ. The Republic and the Second Amendment remains in force even with “no brass or ammo sergeant”.

Mike in Texas
Cedar City, Utah

Nor would banning assault weapons "terminate the Republic or Second Amendment" But it would save innocent lives.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Congratulations on such a logical and reasonable letter. Expect some blowback here in these forums, though...

one old man
Ogden, UT

Thank you for a sensible letter. A real rarity these days.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

The 2nd Amendment protects guns so people
can join militias when the need arises, such
as defending neighborhoods or homes against
disasters or against crimes.

A militia is by definition a military unit.

Therefore 'assault' weapons or military type guns
which includes military type clips, are precisely
the kind of guns protected by the 2nd
amendment.

The founders recognized there would be times
when government militias would not always
be able to show up or show up on time. This is
why our constitution provides for people
militias.

one old man
Ogden, UT

"The 2nd Amendment protects guns so people
can join militias when the need arises, such
as defending neighborhoods or homes against
disasters or against crimes."

Is there some paranoia being demonstrated there?

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

cjb..neighborhood militias now..wow..I dubs general.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Taking guns away from the law abiding citizens does not save lives. At best it trades lives, as the law abiding citizens are now unarmed dead victims of the criminals. At worst, it costs lives, as anarchists run amok.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@cjb
I consider those militia movements like up in Idaho and Washington to be nothing more than potential terrorist groups. Doesn't help that they're frequently racist and neo-nazi as well.

one old man
Ogden, UT

atl, you nailed it!

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Mike in Texas" but will it cost more lives? For example, would the Trolley Square shooting have resulted in more deaths if there was not somebody there with a CC permit to stop him?

What about the violent crimes that are so prevalent in nations where they have the weapons bans in place that liberals want here? Do you want to put more people in danger just for a sense of security?

To "cjb" you are partially right. The right to arms is so that the people, when necessary, will be able to rise up against a corrupt government (local, state, or national) in addition for protection of an individual and their property.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

I think the issue is one of the slippery slope. Is a 20 round magazine too big? 15? 10? 5? 3? What is the logical or natural break point?

I am not saying that there can be no regulation nor that nothing needs to be done, but there is no magic number here.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@atl134

infringe = to limit or reduce.

infringing is a violation of the constitution.

The militia cbj is talking is not the militia the amendment was talking about and you full well know it. but then again...why not?

But regarding those militias, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, right?

But in any case, this is still a free country isn't it?

And I know of no terrorists acts committed by those militias. I don't even know how many are "neo-nazi" but I suspect most of that is an invention of liberal hollywood and leftest elites to demonize opposing views.

Just don't come crying to conservatives when you are living under a tyrannical government.

But by then I guess the liberal people will be too uneducated and indoctrinated to realize it.

More importantly,

The constitution just guarantees liberty, not freedom from tragedy or failure and all other risks of life.

Stepping on liberty is not the answer and has never been.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

When citizens abdicate their responsibility to require elected officials to strictly obey the Supreme Law of the Land, those citizens will lose their rights.

No elected official in America has the right to pass any law restricting Americans from owning, keeping, or carrying firearms. Elected officials DO have the right to pass laws that punish criminals. Owning a firearm is not a crime. Carrying a firearm is not a crime.

Read the Constitution. The PEOPLE, you and me and our neighbors, have retained the right to own firearms. Government cannot and must not preempt that right. We have never authorized government to pre-qualify our right to keep and bear arms.

Every thinking American knows that criminals disregard laws. Every thinking American knows that the President, members of Congress and members of the Court do not rely on "laws" to protect them. They use guns. They hire, or have appointed to them, people who carry guns - loaded guns. They know that no law that they pass will ever protect them from a criminal - but they want to take away the rights and liberties of honest Americans.

Why?

We cannot trust a government that does not trust its citizens.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

Red: "What about the violent crimes that are so prevalent in nations where they have the weapons bans in place that liberals want here?" Surely you jest! Which of the following have weapons bans in place:

1. El Salvador
2. Jamaica
3. Guatemala
4. Swaziland
5. South Africa
6. Mexico
7. Brazil
8. Panama

Those are the only countries in the WORLD with a higher death rate by gun violence (per 100,000 population) than ours. Quite a collection if I must say. So which ones have liberal induced gun bans?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

cjb
Bountiful, UT
The 2nd Amendment protects guns so people
can join militias when the need arises, such
as defending neighborhoods or homes against
disasters or against crimes.

A militia is by definition a military unit.

=======

I've said it before,
I'll say it again....

Anyone walking down my street, with a gun, WITHOUT proper identification (i.e, wearing a uniform)

Will be a 911 call,
considered a whack-job with a gun,
and will be considered "armed and dangerous".

I will invoke MY Constitutional right to keep a bead on them until the proper authorities arrive to disarm and take them away for disturbing the "peace".

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Can I make a suggestion to all those who seem to believe that they need a gun locked and loaded and at the ready at all times inorder to protect their saftey. Why don't you lobby your local Fox news station to run stories every night of the incidents that day in Utah where someone was saved from harm by a well armed and vigilant citizen. It would be nice to have a reasonable and well documented counterpoint to the stories every night of gun deaths inflicted on innocents by friends and family members where the mere presence of a gun escalates a situation into a death.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

@Mike Richards,

"No elected official in America has the right to pass any law restricting Americans from owning, keeping, or carrying firearms."

Do you believe that laws restricting ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, or artillery are unconstitutional? If you don't, then you've already acknowledged that there's a line drawn on ownership of permissible weapons. The rest just boils down to details on where exactly the line should be drawn.

If you do, then you push the bounds of constitutional originalism well past any sane breaking point.

to comment

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