Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Government regulated ammunition would not terminate the Republic or Second Amendment

Comments

Return To Article
  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    March 28, 2013 7:54 p.m.

    Continued:

    c. The 2nd Amendment. The intent of the writers when the nation was primarily rural and agricultural with only very few people

    d. The 2nd Amendment. The needs of a nation of 310 million that is primarily urban and with an industrial / service economy

    e. The folks who make the ammo and weapons. They are no small part of the economy. Follow the money.

    f. States rights, Federal rights, local rights, private property rights, public property rights.

    g. Etc, etc.

    4. "Each and every mass shooter since I can remember suffered from some type of mental illness or problem."

    Let me re-word the above:

    Each and every mass murderer, since I can remember, used some type of explosive.

    Bullets are propelled by a controlled explosion. The 9/11 people used jet fuel. Oklahoma City bombers used fertilizer and fuel oil.

    Not only do we need better mental health programs. We also need people looking at availability of lethal tools. These can include guns, ammo, airplanes, fertilizer and fuel oil. There are many issues and angles to the subject.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    March 28, 2013 7:52 p.m.

    Per "Flashback":

    1. "While those rules affected you while in basic training, they are no longer in force in the Army, and haven't been for many years. So, your letter makes absolutely no sense."

    Not correct. Today I telephoned an army recruiter in Provo. He was very familiar with "no brass or ammo". He even remembered trainees being **padded down** at Ft. Knox in the year 2000. Weapon and ammo discipline is still and will remain a part of the U S Army.

    2. "Fort Ord made the rules, not Congress."

    Not correct. The U S Army and/or the Department of Defense made the rules. They are a rather significant part of the government of the USA. Congress has had decades to change U S Army weapon and ammo discipline--they have not. It is the US Army and not a mob.



    3. "The issue is people who have mental problems, not the capacity of magazines."

    Not correct. There is no single issue. There are **many issues**.

    They include

    a. "...people who have mental problems...".

    b. Capacity of ammo magazines.

    Continued

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 27, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    Folks, all it would really do is create more people who make their own ammo. A law that would ultimately be a profit for the makers of reloaders. When will you all learn that laws like these don't stop people from doing what they want. Three things off the top of my head that Americans will always have. Alcohol, abortion, and guns. There are many more, but for the sake of levity........

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Mr. Gronberg, your situation was just that,an Army situation with Army rules and regulations. These regulations did not affect at all the Second Amendment as it applies to me. Fort Ord made the rules, not Congress. That is the big difference. While those rules affected you while in basic training, they are no longer in force in the Army, and haven't been for many years. So, your letter makes absolutely no sense.

    Besides, you can't explain why having a magazine with less capacity will keep some crazy fool from shooting up another school, theater, park, mall, etc. The issue is not the capacity of the magazine. The issue is people who have mental problems, not the capacity of magazines. Let's address the mental illness issue. Each and every mass shooter since I can remember suffered from some type of mental illness or problem.

  • crmeatball South Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal,

    I think you failed to understand why the word regulated is in quotes. Such was intended to show an emphasis on the meaning as understood by the Founders. This, as stated, was to create training and discipline within the militia. So you are correct the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. My meaning was that the militia can be regulated. So while Congress cannot ban a specific weapon, such as the AR-15, it can stipulate that anyone purchasing one be trained on its use and show good discipline (ie mental proficency).

    The fact of the matter is that I think we all would prefer the guy next to us to be trained and disciplined, should the situation arise where we need to use a weapon. I know I would feel better.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 25, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    It will be just like the days of prohibition where the criminal element ruled the country. But in this case the criminal element will also consist of elected officals and their wallstreet puppetmasters.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. But it can be 'regulated,' . . . ."

    Liberal sophistry.

    The Second Amendment makes NO mention whatever of regulating arms. Only the militia.

    The Amendment contains NO express or implied grant of authority to government to regulate or infringe the right to keep and bear arms. If the founders intended to protect a limited right, they knew how to do so. Since they didn't, there's no reason to believe the right is limited.

    Liberal sophistry notwithstanding, regulation IS infringement. A regulated militia is, of course, necessary to its effectiveness, but NOTHING in the plain language or history of the Constitution permits regulation of the right to keep and bear arms, nor is infringement of that right necessary to a well-regulated militia.

    Arguments that the "well-regulated" clause invalidates rights guaranteed by the "shall-not-be-infringed clause are beyond silly.

    They're disingenuous and dangerous.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Maverick,
    Ah, the typical tolerance of the left – anyone who does not agree with you is a “nut”. Tell me again, like you did in November, how clinton getting less than 50% of the popular vote is a “majority”. So much for your credibility.

    So according to the author and Mike in Texas you can infringe on a right and not terminate it? What part of “infringe” do you not understand?

    LDS Lib,
    So you are being judge and jury. What if it’s an undercover cop? Will you blow his cover?

  • crmeatball South Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    to follow the direction of civilian authority - another one of those checks and balances. As such, the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. But it can be "regulated," meaning imposing training and good discipline in their use. But this regulation is limited to ensuring these are present. They cannot simply go and limit the right to bear arms, to do so would also eliminate another check and balance found in our constitutional system. This check and balance is not found explicitly, but is an artifact of the 2nd Amendment. It refers to the security of a FREE state, showing the Founders were also interested in balancing the power of the government against the power of the people. The security of an unfree state can be guaranteed by an unarmed, untrained, undisciplined militia. But a free state would require the populace (ie militia) to be armed, trained and disciplined.
    So ultimately, those trying to limit the right to bear arms should understand what is meant by regulation and those trying to protect the right to bear arms should understand the need for good "regulation" and embrace it. Only then, will this argument be put to bed. 3of3

  • crmeatball South Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Our focus should shift toward what actually was meant by this clause in the amendment. This demonstrates a need for training in our gun laws. Utah's current concealed weapons laws fail to see this point, by not requiring a proficiency exam prior to issue (which was once the case). So rather than focusing on the restriction of weapons, which is where the current focus seems to be, we need to focus on the training. This would include more than accuracy and the technical specifics of using a weapon, but also include mental training and examination. Those not passing would not be able to use weapons legally, just as a car cannot be operated legally without completing training and passing an examination.

    I am sure there will be many who claim the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that they can carry any weapon they want, but the Framers of the Constitution understood the need for good discipline and training within the militia. General Washington constantly addressed this need. There was also concern of ensuring the military and the militia was constrained … (continued in next post) 2of3

  • crmeatball South Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    The author here correctly outlines the type of regulation referenced in the 2nd Amendment and is a principle I think both sides of this issue fail to understand. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state. This "regulation" is not understood. To regulate, in our modern vernacular, is to create restrictions which govern. However, a quick study of the word and its meaning in the late 18th century will uncover a slightly different meaning. For the militia to be regulated, it mean it was well trained and well supplied. To require the removal of brass or ammo was a training requirement. These soldiers were being taught to respect the weapons they used and not treat them as souvenirs or decorations. They were being trained.

    The same needs to be true for the "regulations" imposed by Congress with respect to the right to bear arms. This right cannot be infringed in order to maintain the security of free state. This security refers to both external AND internal threats such as the ones seen recently in these mass murders. (continued in next post) 1of3.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 25, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    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.

    =========

    Your belief of "strictly obey the Supreme Law of the Land" then allows me the right to keep and bear biological, chemical and nuclear weapons then.

    Because rifles mean nothing without ammo.
    And you can't improvise ammo.

    BTW - from my years of military training,
    I know how to rapidly and easily produce these sorts of weapons of mass destruction.
    Improvised using common household items.

    And just like the military found in WWI,
    I find them far superior to shooting 9mm metal one at a time.

    FYI - the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "arms", not "firearms".
    but, I know you know that already.

    Anti Bush-Obama
    Washington, DC

    Christopher Dorner wasn't wearing a uniform,
    so yes - he fit the type.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 25, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    LDS Liberal.

    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".

    So I guess if it's a Christopher Dorner type, you will just leave them alone. How very typical.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 25, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    One nation under Drones with Surveilance and Air Strikes for all.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    Re: ". . . which ones have liberal induced gun bans?"

    Nearly all.

    I have personal experience with El Salvador -- by law, only licensed individuals may buy, sell, possess, or use guns. Licenses are person and gun-specific, and must be renewed every 6 years. A background check is required for licensing. A national gun registry purports to track all gun ownership and any transfers of ownership.

    Hmmmmmm. Doesn't seem to have helped much.

    Ask a Salvadoran, and he'll tell you the government is restricting the wrong people, exactly as liberals want to do here.

    Makes you wonder what it is about El Salvador that liberals love so much that they want to turn America into El Salvador.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Re: "Isolated strict weapon and ammunition control by our national government has been a reality for decades."

    Yeah -- for the military, which enjoys less-than-full Constitutional rights in a lot of areas.

    And look what it has bought us -- it was like shooting fish in a barrel for MAJ Hasan at Ft. Hood, though nearly ALL his victims were trained and qualified to stop him.

    They were just denied to tools to do so.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    March 25, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    @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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 25, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:18 a.m.

    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".

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    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?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 24, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    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.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 24, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    @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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    March 24, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 24, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 24, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    atl, you nailed it!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    @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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 24, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 24, 2013 12:37 p.m.

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

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 24, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    "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?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 24, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    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
    March 24, 2013 11:26 a.m.

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

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 24, 2013 9:13 a.m.

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

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    March 24, 2013 9:02 a.m.

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

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    March 24, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    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”.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    March 24, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    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

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    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?