That passage is not in the Constitution - it is in the Gettysburg Address.
It is a shame Stan.The people have clearly spoken, but our state and
federal legislators would rather bow to the NRA lobby than to the will of the
people.We have the best government that money can buy.(and please. Don't tell me about the constitution. Background checks
are not in conflict with the Second Amendment. The Supreme court said so.)
But, but, THE PEOPLE don't have enough money to make them pay attention.
There is no such thing as we the people, and never has been. There has always
been disagreement over what the best course of action. I remember one way that
the founding of our great nation was described is, a great compromise. We
don't have a pure/direct democracy by design. We are guaranteed a
republican form of government. We pick representatives to make the decisions in
our behalf. Mike Lee is doing a great job that he signed up to do, which is
protect and defend the Constitution, from enemies both foreign and domestic.More gun control laws will not do anything to make us safer. More laws
controlling guns will only take away our dwindling freedoms.We are
all safer when law abiding citizens have arms to protect themselves and others.
Elected officials are not responsible to the people. They are responsible to
those who fund their campaigns, first and foremost. And that's not you and
Some believe in mob rule. We have a law that supersedes all other law in
America. That law is the Constitution. No law that contradicts the
Constitution is legal. Gun control by government is against that law. Laws can
be passed to punish people who have misused guns; but, under the Constitution,
no law can be passed that "infringes" on our right to keep and bear
arms.Any elected official who votes for gun control is breaking the
law. Any citizen who encourages an elected official to break the law is as
guilty as the elected official.When people get out of their "mob
mentality mode" and apply the law as it is written, they will see for
themselves that they and their neighbors do not need Uncle Sam breathing down
their necks to maintain our personal liberty. There is only one reason that
Washington wants to limit the people's access to guns and that reason is to
keep the people from opposing the government from dictating to the people. That
is the very reason why we have the 2nd Amendment.
We don't live in a country of majority rule. Our founders were very
concerned about the potential of tyranny by the majority. For that reason,
rather than create a direct democracy, our founders created a republic, based on
elected representatives and a constitution that limits the power of those
representatives. Mike Lee is doing a fine job of protecting the rights of
lawful gun owners. Wider background checks sounds like a good idea, which is
probably why polls show a strong majority in their favor. However, Mike Lee and
others recognize that to implement background checks over private sales would
require a gun registry. The polls don't include any questions asking how
the public feels about a national gun registry.Also, the argument that a
large number of gun sales happen without background checks because of current
law is false. The Washington Post has called the president's statement that
40% of gun sales happen without a background check exceedingly misleading, and
applied three Pinocchios to the statement. We already know that no recent mass
shootings would have been affected by a change in the background-check law.
Well, at least SOME of our reps understand the Constitution. What part of
"shall not be infringed" don't you get?The Supreme Court says
background checks are OK? The same SC that OK'd Dred Scott, allowed
socialism into our gov't in 1936, allows mothers to kill their unborn
babies, allows gov't to take private property from one person and give it
to another (Kelo), and, most recently allowed the abomination of Obamacare to
stand? That Supreme Court?As Bugs Bunny used to say "It is to
laugh".80% want more gun control? Really? Since the Obamanation was
elected (now reelected) there have been 70 million background checks done. AT
least 70 million new guns. That doesn't tell me 80% want more gun laws.
Mike Richards, no, sorry. 'Well regulated militia' means, you know,
regulated. Gun control is NOT unconstitutional. Mandatory gun confistication
"Gun control by government is against that law"Mike, Please.
YOu spout that day after day after day.The Supreme court has the
task of clarifying the meaning of the constitution when laws are challenged.Do you disagree?The Supreme court has held that is is
CONSTITUTIONAL to place some restrictions onWho can own themWhat weapons they can ownWhere they can carry them.Do you
discount EVERY supreme court ruling, or just those that you disagree with.Tell me how you can conclude that there can be NO RESTRICTIONS on the
Second Amendment when the Supreme Court has said differently.What
logic do you use?
For the benefit of your understanding Stan, “money makes the world go
round”.If you would have government by, for and of the people,
you have to change the way we elect and compensate our government.
Mike Richards,Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A strict observance of
the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is
not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our
country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a
scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with
life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus
absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."Or as SCOTUS Justice
Robert Jackson wrote, "There is danger that, if the court does not temper
its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the
constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."The law was
written for man, not vice versa. We should not be tempted towards a
fundamentalist worship of it.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahSome believe in mob rule. =========== Mike - The Consitituion does not support
your twisted interpretaion allowing ANYONE [children, criminals, and mentally
insane] free and unfettered access to any and all weapons.What next?
- Do you seriously believe we [including criminals, terrorists and mentally
insane] can all have chemical, biological and dirty nuclear bombs in our
garages, malls, and school grounds -- so long as we don't USE them?C'mon - where's you common sense man?BTW - Your
"militia" is the very difinition of mob rules.Joseph and
Hyrum Smith were murdered by a self appointed "militia", who thought
they were defending the Consitutional rights of Freedom of the Press.They were a MOB - with No Commanding Officer, No Chain of Command, No
Authority, No Orders, No training, and No Accountability.Just like
you and the rest of the pro-gun commentors here.M-O-B
Representatives/senators don't have to do what the people want. Of course
doing so can cause electoral problems if Utah wasn't a state that'd
vote for anyone with an R next to their name. As for the gun
regulations... even Scalia considers it constitutional and he's the most
conservative justice on the Supreme Court. There is nothing unconstitutional at
all about what is being proposed.
Reason and good sense notwithstanding, probably most fundamental to the gun
controversy is the irrational fear-induced ideology of some that
"government" is conspiring against them. What they openly contend are
mostly distracting rationalizations. To argue over the particulars of the likes
of the 2nd Amendment, safety and freedom when the real issue stems from deluded
thinking is a waste of time, recalling the biblical adage of straining at gnats
while swallowing camels.
@RPM9"Mike Lee and others recognize that to implement background
checks over private sales would require a gun registry. "We have
had background checks for years now when buying from a dealer. Do we have a gun
registry? Why would that change if we had universal background
checks?I dont understand the logic. Please explain.
Like Mike Richards, there are many that only interpet the Constitution how they
perceive it will effect them personally. You and I are to be ignored because we
don't know what's good for us. Mike Lee will see to that as witnessed
by his dismal record of communication to his constituents.
Question,Since privacy laws prevent access to medical records, how will
the background checks screen out the insane? Aren’t doctors proscribed
from violating Dr./patient confidentiality and divulding that their patient has
a problem?Eric,No, sorry. In 2nd amendment context,
“well regulated” means trained and competent, not restricted.
To "Stan Jacobson" many of the people are ignorant of the laws currently
on the books.We already have laws that cover what has been proposed.
How about we enforce the laws that are currently on the books.Or,
how about we see what Police Officers are saying.Most police
officers say that the best thing to do would be to make gun crimes have stiffer
punishments. The Police say that the WH proposed laws will make things worse,
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWe have a law that supersedes
all other law in America. That law is the Constitution. No law that contradicts
the Constitution is legal.========== Good grief
Mike...Using your micro pin dot sized narrow interpretation of the
"Constitution", Traffic laws are illegal. Drugs laws
are illegal.Prostituion and Gambling Laws are illegal.You need
pull up - use some common sense - and see the forest from the trees.You're so down in the weeds reading the letter of the law, you've
completely missed the spirit of the law.It's an insult to the
Founding Fathers and the document they produced.Just like the Pharisees
and the Scriptures.Missed it...
@Mike RichardsOh the irony. When it's about gay marriage we should go
with the will of the majority. But when it's guns we should stick to the
constitution. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
@JoeBlowWhy will a universal background check law likely lead a gun
registry?The law would have very little teeth without it.For gun dealers, they know they can be audited at any time by the ATF to show
that they have a 4470 form (background check form) for every gun they have sold.
So, they are highly motivated to comply.For an individual, unless
the ATF has the ability to audit any gun owner at any time to determine if a
lawful transfer has occurred, there will be little motivation to comply. Without
a registry, no auditing ability. For an individual, they know the ATF will
investigate transfer of a firearm only if a trace on the serial number is
initiated because the gun was used in a crime.
To "LDS Liberal" actually, the Traffic Laws, Drug Laws, Prostitution,
and Gambling are all state issues, that is how they fit withing the
Constitution. Read the 10th Ammendment.
Bob Bennett needed to go. He became corrupted by his office.
Yes the 10th amendment that is abhorred by so many that believe the states
shouldn't have any rights.
Re:repm9Enforcement of existing gun laws?LolCongress has steadily decreased the ability of law enforcement--ATF-- to
enforce existing gun laws.For example:Congress (ie Republicans) have
not allowed the confirmation of an ATF Director for the past 7yrs. Prior to
2006 the ATF Director did not need congressional confirmation. AndThe 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act laid out special rules
for gun dealers. ATF can inspect gun dealers once each year without a federal
court order, but they inspect only about one in five because there aren't
enough investigators. Thousands of dealers have not been inspected in five years
or more.When the agency finds violations at gun stores, Congress
generally only allows ATF to issue a warning or revoke; it has very narrow
suspension or fining authority. Since 2003, Congress passed a
provision that forbids ATF from releasing gun-trace data and what violations
they find at gun stores. Congress has even told ATF it cannot require stores to
take an inventory.In 2009 752 inspections, or about 7% of the total,
turned up missing guns - some 18,000-plus in all, according to ATF data.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR to
the PEOPLE.========== Yes the 10th amendment that is
abhorred by so many that believe the "PEOPLE" shouldn't have any
After reading some of the posts today, I wonder if the school system failed or
if the students were unteachable.Does the FEDERAL level of
government have the right to set your property tax rate?Does the
FEDERAL level of government have the right to set the speed limit in your
city?Does the FEDERAL level of government have the right to dictate
rights to you?Does the FEDERAL level of government have the right to
restrict those rights that you reserved to yourself, rights outside the
jurisdiction of any level of government?The 1st Amendment is such a
right. You can be prosecuted AFTER you have cried "fire" in a theater,
not before.The 2nd Amendment is such a right. You have the absolute
right to keep and bear arms, independent of membership in a militia and
independent of government oversight of any kind. That is a guaranteed right
that is outside the authority of any level of government to infringe.Too many people insist that the Constitution is outdated and that government
is the source of our rights. By so doing, they reject every American principle
that makes us free.
@Mike Richards"The 2nd Amendment is such a right. You have the
absolute right to keep and bear arms, independent of membership in a militia and
independent of government oversight of any kind."That's
false. Even Scalia disagrees with you.
@Mike Richards"The 2nd Amendment is such a right. You have the
absolute right to keep and bear arms, independent of membership in a militia and
independent of government oversight of any kind."======Mike - You refuse to answer my question...Once and for all -- By YOUR interpretation;My right to keep and bear chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons in my garage? Y/N
If there's one thing this Country definitely needs more of it's laws
I’m very proud of Sen. Mike Lee for standing up for freedom and the
Constitution. This is in contrast to Sen. Orrin Hatch, who is afraid to take a
stand on this critical issue.
LDS Liberal,Once and for all, is the Constitution the Supreme Law of
the Land or are we supposed to throw away our God given liberties and bind
ourselves to your law? Are we to give away our rights because you have decided
that "shall not be infringed" really means "shall be
infringed"?Once and for all, why do you continually propose that
the Supreme Law of the Land become an "Inferior Law of the Land"? Once and for all, why do you continually tell us how much you believe in
personal freedom and in the same breath demand that we do exactly as you tell us
to do?Once and for all, when exactly was the 2nd Amendment amended
by the vote of 75% of the States to mean the opposite of what it says?
re: one old man 1st pageBut, but, corporations are people too. Or,
so a certain former GOP Candidate for POTUS would have the gullible &
LDS? lib,Since when do liberals care about the constitution? They
don't and you know it.No one has answered my question about
doctor / patient confidentiality.