Published: Sunday, March 24 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
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?
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
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”.
Nor would banning assault weapons "terminate the Republic or Second
Amendment" But it would save innocent lives.
Congratulations on such a logical and reasonable letter. Expect some blowback
here in these forums, though...
Thank you for a sensible letter. A real rarity these days.
The 2nd Amendment protects guns so peoplecan join militias when the need
arises, suchas defending neighborhoods or homes againstdisasters or
against crimes.A militia is by definition a military unit.Therefore 'assault' weapons or military type gunswhich
includes military type clips, are preciselythe kind of guns protected by
the 2ndamendment.The founders recognized there would be
timeswhen government militias would not alwaysbe able to show up or
show up on time. This iswhy our constitution provides for peoplemilitias.
"The 2nd Amendment protects guns so peoplecan join militias when the
need arises, suchas defending neighborhoods or homes againstdisasters or against crimes."Is there some paranoia being
cjb..neighborhood militias now..wow..I dubs general.
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.
@cjbI 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.
atl, you nailed it!
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.
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.
@atl134infringe = 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.
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
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
Salvador2. Jamaica3. Guatemala4. Swaziland5. South
Africa6. Mexico7. Brazil8. PanamaThose 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?
cjbBountiful, UTThe 2nd Amendment protects guns so peoplecan
join militias when the need arises, suchas defending neighborhoods or
homes againstdisasters 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".
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.
@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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments