People need to understand the Second Amendment correctly

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 26, 2012 10:51 p.m.

    "It is my hope that any legislation to come out of the recent tragedies are not based on hysteria and ignorance"

    Hysteria and ignorance are the foundational principles of liberalism so actually it is VERY predictable what legislation proposals that will be forthcoming from Barack and Harry.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2012 7:38 p.m.

    A militia with semi automatic guns no exists? The automated drones and Blackhawks could take out the fantasy wannabe soliders in 15 minutes.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 3:38 p.m.

    Look up the word "amendment." To amend means to change! A John Wayne mentality in an Adam Lanza world will not work. President Nixon clearly stated, "You can't solve today's problems with yesterdays ideas." I hope that the nation will finally wake up and do something meaningful to stop the on-going death of over 10,000 people murdered every year with guns in America. Hopefully the loss of 20 innocent children will not have lost the tender lives for nothing.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 24, 2012 3:23 p.m.


    People should not fear the government. Government should fear the people. And therefor you have a vote not an AK47..rational people vote paroind people pack.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 1:50 p.m.


    You said - "There are proven ways to keep guns out of the hands of those that would do this."

    Assuming you are talking about school shootings, what are these, "proven ways?"

    For the record, did you know that the assault weapons ban signed by President Clinton in 1994 was still in effect when the Paducah, Jonesboro and Columbine shootings happened?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    Question #1 – Let’s say the federal government successfully bans all civilian use and possession of assault weapons. Let’s say the federal government successfully bans, or at least restricts, all civilian use and possession of glock handguns. Let’s say the federal government is able to ban anyone from carrying a firearm into schools, places of worship and many other similar buildings, with signs posted everywhere letting people know.

    Let’s say all these things happen and there’s another tragic shooting like the ones in Tucson, Aurora or Newtown.

    Then what?

    Question #2 – Michael Moore made a very good point in his documentary “Bowling for Columbine,” which is that media hysteria contributes to hysteria among regular citizens. For an example, he cites the Y2K fiasco, in which the media continued to beat the drum that come January 1, 2000, computers and power grids across the country would shut down. Did they?

    Does the media's wall-to-wall 24/7 coverage of events like the Newtown shooting cause unnecessary and irrational hysteria?


    People should not fear the government. Government should fear the people.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    One could argue with the Civil Rights movement that King's efforts along with the fear brought about by more militant groups such as the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers both contributed to change. Many were fearful of a race war, especially after King's death in 1968. What I am saying is that the struggle for Civil Rights in America is multi-faceted and King wasn't the only leader and his methods weren't the only ones that I believe were an agent for change.

    And yes, there are a lot of casualties in civil disobedience and sometimes it takes a long, long time.

    I'm not saying that civil disobedience isn't the correct path, it certainly is more moral in most ways overall. But look at our own history in America. We threw the tea in the harbor and that didn't work to get the laws changed. Eventually, our colonists turned to the musket. Maybe in time civil disobedience would have worked but it would have taken a lot more time, that's for sure.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    I'm a bleeding heart pinko liberal, but I have a smidgen of right wing paranoia to believe that an armed populace can help to keep government honest and humble. That said, however, the population at large hasn't had parity in arms with the government since the Whiskey Rebellion. Even with modified AR-15s and .50 caliber rifles, the citizenry is no match against tanks, drones, and Tomahawk missiles. Talk of armed insurrection against government tyranny is so much "Red Dawn" fantasy indulgence.

    As a practical matter, consider these examples of people trying to influence governments or affect social order through armed violence:
    Randy Weaver
    Branch Davidians
    John Africa/MOVE
    Symbionese Liberation Army
    Black Panthers
    Irish Republican Army
    Oklahoma City bombers
    Montana Freemen
    American Civil War
    Palestinian intifada

    How effective were any of these at achieving their goals?

    Contrast these with efforts to affect history nonviolently through peaceable protest and working within the political process. Consider the Indian Salt March, the anti-apartheid movement, the American civil rights movement, Viet Nam War protests, Sinn Fein in Ireland, Tahrir Square in Egypt, Mothers of the Plaza, Berlin Wall. Nonviolent civil disobedience is not without casualties but it gets things done.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    I have NO problem with that ---

    But the Pro-gun group ALWAYS leaves out the "well regulated militia" component of that same Amendment.

    The National Guard is the ONLY organization that counts as such.
    Target shooting Rambo wanna-bees don't.

    Please STOP trampling the Constitution.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 24, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    "right to bear arms" was not intended to protect the government; it was to protect the people from the government." Now that is scary. Practicality aside (as one poster demonstates), someone who arms themselves today to protect themselves from the US government is exactly the kind of person that shouldn't be allowed to have any weapon...can anyone say paranoid schizophrenic.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 3:51 a.m.

    By "hysteria and ignorance" do you mean the rush to buy more guns after the Sandy Hook tragedy, or do you mean the rush to buy guns after Barack Obama's first election win in 2008 even though he never made an attempt to restrict your access? Perhaps you meant the NRA's lazy suggestion of adding armed security guards at every school? Or are you referring to your bizarre assertion that the 2nd Amendment somehow will protect us against a modern military possessing helicopter gunships, high-yield precision warheads, and exceptionally trained soldiers who know how to use these weapons with great effectiveness?

    Gun ownership did little to help the Branch Davidians, so I am not sure what kind of hero scenario Mr. Allen has running through his head.

  • Salsa Libre Provo, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 1:54 a.m.

    If every political candidate was identified as to their individual position on the NRA's policies regarding gun legislation, voters would decide if they wanted them in office making decisions on public safety issues.

    The argument that the Second Amendment is at stake is specious and absurd. Hunters, sportsment, and responsible gun owners will not be impacted by eliminating military-style guns and ammunition from public sale.

    A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, if really looking at it from The Framers perspective, is that "everyone has a right to a musket, ball and powder." Although Wayne La Pierre of the NRA hasn't gotten there yet publically, he believes that the Second Amendment states that people have the right to any and all types of firearms, including automatic weapons and other military-type munitions as they may see fit to own.

    If people can purchase semi-automatic assault weapons with armour piercing bullets in large-capacity clips, why not allow fully automatic assault weapons with exploding bullets, including grenade launchers and even anti-tank rocket launchers? The so-called "logic" of the NRA has no boundaries.

    Innocent deaths are simple collateral damage in the quest for profits.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 12:54 a.m.

    The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government. But is anyone really stupid enough to think that the right to bear arms accomplishes that task? Even if we hand everybody an assualt weapon, it won't make a dent against tanks, jets, and missiles. The people are no longer in a positionto prtect themselves against the government with measely little guns.

    It is about time we accepted reality. People who have attained the appropriate training and who can prove they are not a threat to other people's safety should be allowed to carry a weapon sufficient to defend themselves against another armed individual. Hunters, likewise trianed and proven, should be allowed to own a gun sufficient for hunting. There is no justification for giving guns to anyone else or for allowing guns that are not needed.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2012 6:38 p.m.

    I often hear two memorable things about people who live in small rural settings: They don't lock their doors and they have dozens of guns around the house for protection. Think that through.

    Over the years I've seen all kinds of less lethal to non-lethal means of stopping a person yet the first thing that comes to many's mind is to give the teacher a gun. A gun that will be taken at some point and used to kill students. It happens to police, it will happen to teachers.

    There are proven ways to keep guns out of the hands of those that would do this. Most of the rest of the world is doing it but the complete paranoia the NRA has incited is the only thing keeping us from doing it. You don't want to register your guns because then someone will come take them. I'd like to have you all committed for observation.

    Really, what do you do when a third of the population has acute paranoia?

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 6:12 p.m.

    at one old man 3:15 p.m. Dec. 23, 2012

    JCS could mean getting rod of BOTH political parties. ROFL!?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    The people would need predator drones, tanks and submarines not a lot of firearms in the basement. Reality of modern warfare must come into play. Is your neighborhood putting together a cruise missile?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 23, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    The rest of the world watches violent movies and plays violent video games just like we do, but these shootings are much, much fewer and farther between outside of America. Blaming them is a cop out and a deflection.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    one old man: "Let's start with eliminating the NRA."

    Why stop with just one group?

    If you want to ban all extremist groups you have to include all those left ones too. NAACP, ACLU, Sierra Club, AFL-CIO, MSNBC, etc., etc.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 4:31 p.m.

    It seems to me like Drew needs to retake History 101.

    The vast majority of Americans support stricter gun laws. It is the politicians' responsibility now, to make that happen.

    We cannot, as JCS said, be ruled any longer by a (very local and paranoid) minority.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    JCS is exactly right when he says: "We can no longer afford to allow ourselves to be governed by extremists. We must return to government by moderation."

    Let's start with eliminating the NRA.

    And if we are really going to understand the Second Amendment, we must understand ALL of it. Including the first part.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 2:54 p.m.

    I suppose outlawing video games would become a free speech issue. That is the basic question, is either freedom absolute? How absolute? Should we outlaw these video games, at least to those that are 18 or even 21? Should we limit the type of guns that can be sold? These are fundamental questions which should be discussed. I would argue that one should not or could not ban guns completely as one could not ban the sell of violent video games. However, by limiting the sell or type of each does not completely eliminate that right.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    The one thing that is most apparent from this tragedy is that political extremism is destroying this Country. When the death of innocent children is exploited for political gain, all of society is degraded.

    Far too many members of the ignorant public spend their days playing ultra-violent video games and spending their nights watching hyper-violent movies. Yet, these same people act surprised when one of their own massacres innocent civilians in a violent manner.

    Our left-wing government and left-wing court system have fostered this hypocrisy by teaching that all truth is relative, and there is no real right or wrong. This creates a society of anarchists who care only about themselves and do not hestiate to kill if it serves their nafarious purposes. They consider it even better if they become media stars in the process.

    We can no longer afford to allow ourselves to be governed by extremists. We must return to government by moderation.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    Those who "claim the second amendment is no longer needed" are about the same proportion of the public as those that feel their rights violated because they can buy belt fed machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. In the bell shaped curve of the populace they are the radical fringes not worth a listen.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    No right is absolute.

    You can't yell "fire!" In a crowded theater and then claim a First Amendment right to free speech. You can't publish a newsletter advocating violent revolution.

    You similarly can't run a battery recycling business in your basement and claim your private property rights allow you to flush the toxic waste down your toilet.

    The Second Amendment is not diminished if magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned, or if your firearms purchases require a criminal background check.

    And if the NRA wants armed guards in schools, then levy a tax on guns and ammunition sufficient to pay for it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    So, as you say semi automatic weapons have 'sporting' uses and as such you're willing to accept the occasional shooting rampage rather than inconvenience the 'sportsmen'? In addition you feel that we have to be ready as citizens to do armed conflict with our own government? We're a democracy, I though it was supposed to work better than that. Besides, as well armed as we are, the government is still moreso. Maybe we need to quit being so confrontational and try to do some good as a society, not as an angry mob.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    Drew, your English teacher might be upset with this. Your last sentence seems to contradict the rest of the last paragraph. Is that what you meant? Did you mean to say that the Clinton era gun laws did in fact cut gun incidents?

    There are some very good studies that indicate that those laws did, in fact, take a bite out of gun violence.

    So if that is what you mean, then you are correct.