Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: 2nd amendment purposes’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 19 2014 10:55 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

I like how the left controlled mass media likes to call any gun owner a racist. But they will never admit that the NRA was originally founded to fight the KKK and that the first Gun control laws were used against black people. LBJ even said when he signed the civil rights act, "I will have these n-words voting Democrat for the next 80 years." Democrats are still racist. Instead of controlling minorities with plantations, they control them through Government dependence and phony race baiting opprotunists that pretend to fight on their behalf, Like Al Sharpton. Anyone that wanted real Civil rights, they killed. People Like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I'm not exactly sure where this letter writer is trying to lead --

But --

I can assure you that the Foudning Father's of 1776 did not forsee the day when "I" - a single citizen - would be able to produce weapons of mass destruct [chemical, biological, and even nuclear] with stuff that could be found at a local hardware store.

So - NO, the "right to keep and bear arms" does not allow you have any weapon you want.

BTW - I was in the Consitutional "Militia", and it's called the National Guard.
And "rebellion and inserrections" is another "Constitutional" requirement given to turn on our own civilians - particularly those who think they are "armed".

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

The structure of this letter is somewhat disjointed, but it raises an important question. Specifically, will the public continue to accept policies of a decidedly left-wing administration which trample on the ideals of the Founding Fathers?

The Second Amendment is just one part of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many others are under direct attack by the left-wing.

The left-wing is determined to turn this Country into just another European-style post-Christian socialist state. Will the slumbering masses awaken before it is too late?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. When I read these words, I come away with a different understanding. First, when they were written, a 'well regulated militia' was necessary for the security of a free state. In these days of us having arguably the best standing army on earth, is this well regulated militia necessary, if so where is it,and if it exists, why do we have a standing military? I know the supreme court has weighed in on this, but the whole well regulated (not armed mob) militia requirement seems to impose conditions on the second portion of the sentence. If the militia isn't necessary, then what. One other point, we don't get to own surface to air anything as part of the second amendment. There is a line drawn somewhere, maybe we could tweak it a bit.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Lines are always drawn. The tough part is deciding who gets to draw them...

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms! The really cool thing about this is if you DON'T want to own a gun, and you believe the police can protect you, you don't have to own a firearm! Its called freedom! Imagine that!

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

Any weapon I want? I am fascinated with thermo-nuclear weapons. Can I please have 10 of them? I promise I'll do my best not to wipe out too many cities.

The biggest problem with the 2nd amendment (and really the constitution in general) is that people hold it far more sacred than those who wrote it intended. The would have wanted us to change parts of it if modern circumstances required it. The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed. It was written at a time when the most advanced technology in the world were muzzle loading rifles.

We need to solve some serious problems. Should we allow Americans to have any weapon they want, if not what will be limited (we already do this, I can't own an F-22)? How are we going to prevent people who are a danger to others from access to weapons (this will never be 100% but we can do much better than we are now)? What do we need to do to lessen this countries violent culture?

airnaut
Everett, 00

Mountanman
Hayden, ID
The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms!

======

Did I say anything about "firearms"?
Nope.
And neither did the letter writer --

It is this silly, preconcieved notion that any American, can posses any weapon, and anytime, and anywhere -- THAT is just plain wrong.

BTW --
I'd just like to see what a country of private citizens with firearms, fighting on their home turf, can do --

vs.

a fully armed, and trained fighting force like the United States military.

Hint:
Look up: successful military campaing of AlQueda against the U.S. military.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Airnaut. What do you think the 2nd amendment mean when it guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms? Sling shots? Come on man!

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

"Because it is absolutely critical that we prevent the militia from being used to oppress the people, or to overthrow the duly appointed government."

Wow, very creative reading of a rather simple phrase.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

According to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment. . . . For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text . . . applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes and . . . did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms."

Historically, then, the NRA and its puppets in Congress have no leg to stand on.

Stevens suggests adding five words to the amendment to restore the original intent of the framers of the Constitution: "when serving in the Militia."

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Open minded,
So why do I need ID to buy stuff at the local drug store, but not to vote?

Hutterite,
Jefferson opposed a standing army, and saw the militia as a counter-balance to it. The militia is required to prevent tyranny, not just foreign invasion.

Wraith,
They DID want us to change it – it’s called the amendment process. But they didn’t want us to hold it sacred? Do you know when Madison v Marbury was decided?

No One Of Consequence
West Jordan, UT

The Second Amendment, like the entire Constitution, was written by reasonable men to be understood by reasonable men and women. Reasonable people don't want to own large military weapons so that argument against the Second Amendment is absurd. But many reasonable people also don't want to be unarmed and at the mercy of criminals who don't feel bound by law, be they citizen, undocumented alien or government-employed.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@lost in DC
West Jordan, UT
Open minded,

Jefferson opposed a standing army, and saw the militia as a counter-balance to it. The militia is required to prevent tyranny, not just foreign invasion.

========

US Constitution
Article I, Section 8 ---

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

------

You show me where it sees preventing tyranny, or
funding for an untrained, undiscipled, group of red-necks with guns in a pickup truck, without officers, rank, properly marked uniforms or vehicles, calling themselves a "Militia" -- that is a MOB, gang, Mogadishu.

If you can show me that, then I acquiesce.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Open Minded Mormon/airnaut/LDS Liberal/LDS Treehugger...

The Constitution does not protect your right to poses chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons. I think we all know that. People have been arrested for it.

But were the civilians who organised themselves and stood up against their Government and their King in Concord Mass... breaking our laws? No. And it's not illegal to be armed in America to this very day (even if you're not in the National Guard).

===

The US Supreme Court already ruled on your exact assertion (that the Constitution was referring to the National Guard). They ruled to the contrary to your assumption (in the case where Washington DC law limited gun ownership to military, national Guard, and Police). That law was struck down by SCOTUS and in the majority opinion they stated that the organized militia did NOT refer only the National Guard/police/military... but was a RIGHT of EVERY Citizen.

They said we can have laws that limit that right for specific reasons (mental illness, etc) but the Constitution protects the right in general (not just for those in the National Guard).

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

Lost in DC

No I mean that one of the things our founders were worried about is that in later years the American people would look back at them and these documents and hold them in such a high place that we would almost worship them. Today we do, we feel that these documents are so sacred we are paralyzed by them, people seem to think they are without error and the most perfect of all documents. The 2nd amendment is a perfect example. We clearly have some challenges today with weapons that the founders couldn't have conceived of. But are people even willing to discuss alterations in the 2nd amendment?

The founders hoped we would have a country today that when faced with difficult problems would be able to come together and find a solution for them. Instead we have a country when faced with modern problems is trapped by many who feel that ideas from the 18th century are sufficient. We have lost the unique American ability to forge ahead with new ideas while holding to core ideas. As a result we have problems we don't solve.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

Did I miss anything?

Yes, almost everything.

Firstly, a well regulated militia is not a mob unless you think the Minute Men back in the day were a mob.

The purpose of the militia (a force composed of non-professional fighters such as citizens as opposed to a professional full-time military) is to have a way for citizens to overthrow a government that has gone amok (not unlike our current government). Of course, a militia with 'arms' would be hard-pressed to overthrow today's government which controls a huge, regular military with things like tanks, airplanes, ICBMs, and Hillary Clinton to run it all.

Doesn't mean the people don't need to keep and bear arms for self protection in today's wicked world... but a far cry from the original intent.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

The Wraith
"The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed."

Tell that to the folks who are authorized to amend the Constitution.

"It was written at a time when the most advanced technology in the world were muzzle loading rifles."

Nonetheless, some kind of armament is needed in case we get a despotic, dictatorial government (something like we have today). And it can happen. You can't overthrow a bad government with slingshots and machetes.

Kent C. DeForrest:
"...applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes and . . . did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms."

Doesn't matter what purpose the arms were for. The Amendment unequivocally states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

"Historically, then, the NRA and its puppets in Congress have no leg to stand on."

They have the 2nd Amendment to stand on.

"Stevens suggests adding five words to the amendment... 'when serving in the Militia.'"

I guess Stevens wants a riot of gun owners (i.e., hunters) on his hands.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

wrz:
"Of course, a militia with 'arms' would be hard-pressed to overthrow today's government which controls a huge, regular military with things like tanks, airplanes, ICBMs, and Hillary Clinton to run it all."

Wait a minute, wrz... did you not know that the government can't legally use its military against its own citizens?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms"

They have also ruled that there can be limits on
1) what you could own
2) who can own it
3) where you can carry it

Funny how people tout SCOTUS rulings to support their position and ignore them when they dont.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Mountanman says:
"The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms! The really cool thing about this is if you DON'T want to own a gun, and you believe the police can protect you, you don't have to own a firearm! Its called freedom! Imagine that!"

I love your hypocrisy; now if you'll just apply your logic to another of our favorite topics...

to comment

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