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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.