Joe Blow: what's the use of trying to argue with you. They were not
prosecuted, and they didn't get guns. Because of background checks? I
suppose so. So I guess what we have now is working, but the legal eagles are not
following up and charging them.You know just kind of like Fast &
Furious when they let guns walk!
Absolutely amazing that we have so many people who are traitors to Freedom.Where is Captain Moroni?
@joeblow, No I do not believe that there should be any gun in any place but just
the fact that the four did not agree that the second amendment insures the
individual right to own firearms, proves that they are in FACT ideologes.There are already many restrictions on firearms and that should be enough, I
just do not trust our government to hold freedom first, especially the
idological liberals that want to decide what the law abiding citizens should
Re: Joe BlowThat argument about the 2nd amendment you make can also
be applied to the First. Do you really think that the founders would have said
that the 1st amendment protects the rights of some of the pornography and stuff
of today if they could have seen it in the 21st century? They didn't even
have basic photography back then.Steve D did make a very important
point though. The question becomes, just how far can a court go in
"ammending" the rights, without going to a constitutional vote of the
President, Congress, States, and the people, which is the way the Constitution
is supposed to be ammended. Just remember you liberals, someday a very activist
conservative Supreme Court could undue all of the Roe V Wade type decisions that
have been forced on us.
"15,000 were caught trying to buy guns illegally."Why?
Because of background checks perhaps? There were 15000 people who
did not get guns on the day they wanted.Did they eventually get
guns? Sure. Just go to a gun show or the want ads.Are you
suggesting that those 15000 people should be allowed to buy guns?
@JoeBlow:"They [supreme court] interpret and clarify the constitution
meaning in today's world."If SCOTUS has the final say, why
stop short of total denial of arms ownership... which would authorize the
government to round up and destroy all arms? My reading of the 2nd Amendment
'shall not be denied' leaves little or no room for quibbling."Who can keep and bear arms"Of course, felons have some
constitutional rights restricted. So it's not beyond the realm of
possibilities to restrict gun possession/ownership."What kind of
arms that you can keep"Army tanks, missiles, and the like are
not 'arms.'"And where you can bring your arms."The 2nd Amendment implies use of arms for a militia. Accordingly,
there'd seem to be no need to bring arms to an airport... unless
you're conducting militia training there."Maybe you or I
disagree with their rulings."The 2nd Amendment disagrees with
their ruling."And it IS Constitutional to restrict where guns
may be carried."OK, but you should be able to 'keep'
arms.My point is simply that it's the job of the Congress to
modify the Constitution... not the SCOTUS.
15,000 were caught trying to buy guns illegally. How many did holder prosecute?
45! Wow! And that's not counting the over 2,000 guns illegally taken to
Mexico with the saction of the U.S. government. Has anyone been prosecuted for
that? Even though a couple of our border guards were murdered and 100's of
Mexicans and yet we want to make sure law abiding people have to jump through
hoops and maybe loose their guns.
These gun measures are useless in contgrolling shooting incidents, crime, and
gang violence.They merely put stumbling blocks in the way of law abiding
people. Criminals and weak minded people just do not care about the laws that
are on the books. They do what suits them best.Guns are available to
the worst of them if they want them bad enough. This legislation is only put
forward to make the unwary feel good about themselves. Enforce the laws that
are on the books and let our justice system do their job in punishing and
jailing offencers first. Also our President should clean up on
Chicago's gang violence of which he is aware. Jail them.
Steve,Like it or not, the SCOTUS's decisions affect how the
constitution is interpreted.Maybe they are a bunch of
"ideologues". Maybe you or I disagree with their rulings.That does NOT change the fact that today, it is legal and constitutional to
have some restrictions on the second amendment.Based on SCOTUS
rulings, it IS CONSTITUTIONAL, by definition, to deny felons the right to carry
guns.And it IS Constitutional to restrict where guns may be carried.Seriously, are you suggesting that all Americans should be allowed to
bring loaded guns onto Airplanes and into courtrooms?Do you
seriously believe that the framers would, based on the realities of today, think
that what they wrote means any gun, anyplace, in the 21st century?
@ JoeblowWRZ is right, he never said anything about the SCOTUS decision.
They are a bunch of ideologues anyway. The fact that four of them decided that
the strongest language in the bill of rights (Shall not be infringed)didn't
mean what it said proves they don't care about the constitution, just their
idology.That being said I agree with you that the Utah religouslature
should be consistent and employ logic instead of their ideology.
WRZYou may want to review some supreme court cases. They interpret
and clarify the constitution meaning in todays world."This means
no one, repeat, no one can be denied the right to keep and bear arms. "Not according to the Supreme court. THey ruled that there can be
restrictions onWho can keep and bear armsWhat kind of arms
that you can keepAnd where you can bring your arms.May want to
brush up on some of the rulings. Suggest you start with Heller ruling.
"the majority of people in Utah do not want the government controlling
us"Unless it is related to Alcohol, Tobacco, pornography, Gay
Marriage, Gambling Maybe your statement should read,
"the majority of people in Utah do not want the government controlling us,
but they are happy for the Government to control those other people in the
The issue isn't at all complicated. Just read the 2nd Amendment to the US
Constitution... For those who might not be familiar it goes something like
this... 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.'This means no one, repeat, no one can be denied the
right to keep and bear arms. If people in the government don't think
that's such a hot idea the answer to that is also not at all complicated...
Amend the 2nd Amendment. So, who's derelict in this whole issue? The US
Congress. Their inaction shows members of Congress agree to and approve of what
the 2nd Amendment says.
I guess Jim Mattheson will do what he did with the healthcare. When I called his
office they said he was reading the law and couldn't tell me. He voted
against it, but when push came to shove and when they needed his vote he voted
in favor. Truth is no one read the bill. But with this he has to know that the
majority of people in Utah do not want the government controlling us.But
maybe he wants to pursue other possibilities instead of government.
Yeah, for the Democrats in Congress this could be a case of "be careful what
you wish for, you may get it."
It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong.How
different would history be, had the Jews not been disarmed in 1938?
If you get elected to a position that requires you to make decisions that could
be hard, then it shouldn't be surprising when those decisions arise. And
lose your seat? Well, yeah. That's always a possibility.