Good reporting on a controversial subject, one often badly misunderstood and
poorly reported. I assume there is a story in another paper in town that tells
a much different tale.All of these are good bills, and good
ideas.For the critics who worry that background checks stopped some
people from getting a permit, I wonder if they know the number or people who are
prohibited from owning a gun, who just steal them and carry anyway. Most
criminals do not follow laws about stuff like "permits" or
"background checks" when they are intent on breaking bigger laws like
robbery or even murder.If restrictive gun laws made places safe,
Chicago and Washington DC would not be the murder capitals of the country.Thank you legislators, and concerned citizens for working to keep Utah a
safer, and more free place.
Not to be pedantic, but to say a gun "eliminates the monopoly of force from
the government and the criminal element," is not correct. A monopoly
implies one. What he meant was duopoly.
Democrats want to arm US citizens with whistles for self defense, Republicans
want Americans to have a choice how they defend themselves. Big
@Scoundrel: I didn't read that part in the Constitution that guarantees me
the right to drive or be a nurse. I did read something that guarantees me the
right to speak freely, practice religion, tote a gun -- and I don't have to
take a class or obtain a license to have those rights.
It's nice to see some open dialog taking place on this topic. I just hope
that the representation of gun owners who attend these meetings, are not
misconstrued by the bill opponents as "radical" due to their open
display of firearms. It always strikes me as funny when the very people who
oppose gun legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms scream against the
idea, until a mugger sticks a gun in their face. They suddenly understand that
force must be met with equal force in order to subdue the threat. No whistle for
Shouldn't the headline read: "Guns, Paranoia, and Extremism On Display
in the Capitol?"
"Well-regulated" is certainly part of the 2nd amendment, but it is a
little vague. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed" is a little more specific. I'd say the federal government
has a compelling interest in making sure gun owners rights are restricted, and
that is why we the people have those rights protected by the Constitution -- to
protect us from our government. I think it is OK that grenades, RPG's,
machine guns etc. are restricted. But so far, I've seen nothing in the
proposed gun restrictions that would have circumvented the tragedy at Sandy Hook
Elementary. We'll never get every kook off the street, and we'll never
get all the guns away from criminals.
Many a grown little boy now thinks he has permission to play with his guns.So many issues more important in our world could take the place of this in his
Actually, Scoundrel, the way the Second Amendment is worded, the federal
government shouldn't be passing any gun laws at all. There's nothing
in there, however, to prohibit states from passing gun laws. The Second
Amendment was required by the states (as a part of the first 10) as part of an
agreement to pass the Constitution at all, as a check on the military powers of
the Federal government ensuring that the people would retain arms without
I have an idea: let's allow everyone to own and carry in public any number
of guns, as long as it is the one that was protected when the 2 nd Amendment was
written - the muzzle-loader.
I have a consealed carry permit, I own lots of guns, and I want very few
restrictions on my guns. One I do want is that to carry consealed, you need to
have a permit and training. I am not opposed to background checks and training.
Just having some untrained dope out there packing without knowing
what his obligations under the law are and not being vetted and/or trained
worries even me. The responsibility that comes with packing a weapon
is huge. I know people that shouldn't be allowed to even own guns because
they don't have the common sense of a flea. They can buy them, and even
qualify for a consealed carry permit legally, but they shouldn't have one
because they are not capable of understanding the obligation or have the brains
to use them carefully. Requiring the consealed carry permit is
reasonable and prudent. Not requiring it is stupid and short sighted. This
should be voted down or vetoed by the Gov. Let's not stretch the meaning
of the Second Amendment or the intent like this.The
"constitutional carry" bill basically creates anarchy.
@ Scoundrel- Too many people concentrate on the Second Amendment protections at
the federal level.Remember, The Utah Constitution also safeguards
our rights in Article 1 Section 6:"The individual right of the people
to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others,
property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be
infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the
lawful use of arms"@ Flashback- No one will disagree that
training is very beneficial for people who want to carry legal self defense
weapons. However, a right is not contingent on meeting arbitrary (and
potentially abusive) qualifications. Would you demand journalists, politicians
or individuals get a government approved spelling and grammar license before
exercising free speech? Or that you must pass a religion test before you are
allowed to go to the church of your choice? Gun owners are liable
for any damage if they do anything stupid or crazy, so while you cannot restrict
their right to carry, they are held accountable for their actions. And, 90% of
the time the mere presence of a legal firearm is enough to stop a criminal
without firing a shot.
American Gun History:In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun
control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.In 1911, Turkey
established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.Germany
established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million
Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From
1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.Uganda established gun control in 1970.
>From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.Cambodia established gun control in
1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.Defenseless people
rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56
million.Armed citizens prevented Japanese attacks on our soil during
World War Two.
re: scoundrel I think you missed the part in the 2nd Amend. that
says,"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." Plus "well regulated" isn't talking about guns,
the next word is...Militia.I bet you knew this but were hoping
nobody looked up the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
"The Nazi Party actually eased gun restrictions enacted during the prior
regime." Correct except for Jews. Oh that's right Jews were not
allowed to have any guns, 6 million were killed. The Nazi army removed
registered guns, and their owners in countries they invaded.
To "Scoundrel" the phrase "well regulated" applies to the state
militia, not gun ownership. Please read the constitution befrom making comments
on what it states.To "worf" look at central and south
america. They have very strict gun laws, and higher homicide rates with guns
than the US has.
@ScoundrelAs usual the extreme left misinterprets the
constitution."well regulated" does not mean what liberals
think it means."well regulated", as the phrase was used
during time of the founding fathers, meant to work or function in proper
balance. In balance to what? The founding father wanted
the citizens to be able to act as militia in balance to the federal
government,As we can all plainly see, liberal's nonsense has
knocked that balance out of whack, and citizens are no longer able to be a
well-regulated militia if necessary.Why shouldn't a citizen be
able to own what ever they want? In the time the founding fathers
private citizen owned cannons, the most powerful artillery that was available at
the time.There was never a problem in the history of our country
with citizens owning whatever arms they wanted, no one distrusted a law abiding
citizen,until the progressives came along and wanted to disarm the
citizens and empower the the federal government.It is all about
power and control,Which the founding fathers intended to belong to
the people.The progressive left has turned that upside down, with
the intention of destroying the constitution.
Wow EDM you are brilliant! Let`s also allow only the types of free speech,
freedom of religion and freedom of the press that was available when the 1st
amendment was written. So no freedom of speech and no freedom of the press over
the internet or radio or tv since none of these things existed in 1789. Also, no
freedom of religion for any churches established since 1789...
Worf, Thank you for the history lesson. Are you aware
that you cannot possess a fraction of the weapons that our government possesses?
For example, you might possess several high-powered rifles with high-capacity
clips, while our government possesses other weapons unavailable to you - for
example, drones armed with missiles and nerve gas. Now, what,
exactly is your argument?
Gee-en, I agree. No freedom for religion post 1789. The world would
be better for it. And seriously, the 2nd Amendment has been severely
restricted for more than a century. "Protect the 2nd!" is just a joke as
an argument. If a tyrannical government comes after you, the 2nd isn't
going to protect you in the least because you can't own a fraction of what
they will have at their disposal.
On the "well regulated" issue: Even as an ardent supporter of the 2A,
I'm "tempted" to entertain this or that proposed
"reasonable" regulation.BUT -- the problem, at the end of
the day, is one of trust. The other side to this issue wants to eliminate all
citizen access to firearms. In such a context, any measure is just a sneaky,
incremental way to implement that goal. It is the proverbial "slippery
slope." Add to that the fact that most "reasonable proposals" have
this or that thing wrong with them, and that they ultimately destroy the ability
of self-defense, -- and trust and confidence is just gone.A
"well regulated militia" would be to practice more what they do in
Switzerland (or even Israel): Everyone is in the militia (actually, in the
U.S., most people ARE in the "Unorganized Militia" by law, whether they
know it or not); and everyone is required or at least encouraged to obtain,
maintain, and train with, firearms suitable to participation as militia infantry
or constabulary. To use a worn-out old quip: (Good) Gun Control is
using both hands and employing proper sight-alignment, sight-picture, breath
control, and trigger squeeze.
@ EDM: "If a tyrannical government comes after you...(etc)." U R correct ONLY from the standpoint of one individual or small group against
U.S. Federal might over long term. If U.S. Gov't upsets enough folks, they
have the mass of armed citizens, plus those who mutiny from armed forces/police.
In such civil conflict, armed citizenry could tip the balance (one way or the
other). However, are examples smaller level conflicts where local militia
mattered. E.G., Athens, Tennessee circa 1948; the Mormon/Utah Territory Militia
of mid-19th century (opposing federal tyranny and religious persecution), and
others. Again, the armed citizen won't save himeself by himself (or
herself); but may tip the balance in favor of liberty if armed. And
-- needless to say -- the well armed individual/family (and well trained) may
successfully survive and prevail against home invasion.
@EDMYou just made the argument that the government is too
powerful, and must be checked and balanced.You have just
reaffirmed what I had previously written.