Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Gun training’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
george of the jungle
goshen, UT

30 years ago for me to have a hunting permit, I had to take the gun safety course. I was 12 and it was fun.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Good letter, but you left out Universal Background Checks. They are essential. And also, how about a registry of persons who cannot have guns? A listing of people who have been involved in domestic violence or other threats toward other people. We need to change laws to include certain misdemeanor offenses as reasons to prohibit gun ownership. Psychiatric privacy laws need to be changed. (Although that might prevent some people from seeking help when they need it. (A real Catch-22)

As it stands now, only people convicted of felonies may be prohibited. But many of those who finally use a gun to kill have long prior histories of misdemeanor offenses that indicated a propensity toward violence.

Don't ban or confiscate guns. Just try hard to make sure that those who do obtain them are stable people.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Government is forbidden to control the firearms of its citizens. "Shall not infringe" is not "pretty please". It is a formal statement that forbids government oversight of the citizens' right to keep and bear arms. No level of government is granted authority to "check us out". No level of government is granted authority to "license us". We, the people, have retained that right to ourselves.

We have laws enough that deal with the improper USE of firearms. There must never be a law that inhibits the ownership of firearms unless the people grant the government that authority when 75% of the State ratify an amendment to the Constitution. Until then, any law passed by any level of government is a direct infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

It amazes me that so many trust a government, that they do not know, over their neighbors, whom they do know.

The "crazies" that we need to worry about are those who sit in elected office whose purpose it has become to strip us of liberty.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

OK, Mike, so in your view the Constitution absolutely and unconditionally guarantees every citizen's right to "keep and bear" arms, notwithstanding contrary interpretations from the U.S. Supreme Court. There's nothing in the Constitution that makes an exception for felons, the mentally ill, or minors, so their constitutional right to carry cannot be infringed, right?

But, as you seem to admit, the Constitution also says nothing about USING firearms. So you'd have no constitutional problem with a law that prohibits using a firearm to threaten or actually shoot another human being, even in self defense, except maybe soldiers in time of war or law enforcement officers in enforcing the law. Everybody else can "keep and bear" firearms to their heart's content, they just can't USE them to shoot another person. That makes about as much sense as saying there can be no restrictions on keeping and bearing arms.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Curmudgeon,

You seem to be arguing for a government that has power over the people. When did that happen? The government is controlled and limited by the people. At no time have the people given government authority to "grant rights" to the people nor have the people given government the right to make any law that is independent of the Constitution.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law. No other law sits above it. No court has authority to ratify any law that is not in agreement with the Constitution. IF the Court ever ruled against the Constitution, then that Court is is error - unless you believe in anarchy where "might makes right".

The Constitution prohibits governmental pre-qualification of private firearm ownership. You can read it in black and white. It is not some hidden agenda locked away in the Oval Office. It is right there in plain sight for all of the world to see. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can punish those who misuse firearms AFTER they have broken the law - not before.

The "King" is not in control; the people are.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

One Old Man, background checks would not have stopped Aurora or Sandyhook.

I agree with Mr. Jewkes that more training is good. I too would like to see permit holders have some type of minimum score on a shooting range to get a permit. One problem is, not enough range space. Even though the taxpayers funded these, the general public can't use the Sheriffs or SLC police ranges up Parley's or the Murray indoor range. They should be made available to the actual owners to use.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

If everyone is carrying, quick draw competitions should be used. Bad guys with guns are fast draws. Better lose weight and tune up for what could be your last gun battle.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

Since Constitutional literalism is the order of the day, might I offer a compromise. With 300 million guns to "keep and bear" that cat is out of the bag. However, the document mentions nothing about ammunition. I suggest the government regulate the sale of ammo and set the price at say $100 per shell, that way the Sandy Hook shooter would have had to shell out over $15,000 to get enough ammunition to supply himself for his deadly rampage.

PS. MR: WE the people are demanding this, NOT the government.

to comment

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