Guns are protection

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    The Alabama guy rose up against tyranny and shot a bus driver and took a little kid hostage.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 11:33 p.m.

    1. A total ban on guns would be unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has ruled with regards to the types of statutes Chicago and D.C. had. The Supreme Court has not declared assault weapons bans or other regulatory measures to be unconstitutional. I believe that it is possible that you could have enough regulation that effectively guns would be impossible to acquire and that would be unconstitutional (sorta like some states currently trying to regulate abortion into nonexistance).
    2. Executive orders cannot be used to restrict magazine size, institute assault weapons bans, require universal background checks, or a lot of other things. That's why Obama's 23 executive orders don't touch those things.
    3. Maybe, but since I have no interest in owning a gun myself it'd be low on my priorities list.
    4. I'm not quite sure since Congress can pass all the unconstitutional bills it wants and they don't get kicked out for it, just the bill gets struck down by the court. So for the president... he'd have to be ordering enforcement measures that aren't allowed.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Nate, no one is proposing banning 'weapons' but military style weapons that are no necessary for personal defense. Your name calling is right in line with the paranoia that has accompanied the selective interpetation of the 2nd Amendment. By the way a proposal in Congress in this day and time means nothing. Join us Nate, please.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    Beverly, Burbank is not concerned with your rights nor enforcing the law. He likes to enforce laws he likes and ignore ones that he doesn't like. Part of the oath he took as a police chief stated that he'd enforce the laws and uphold the Constitution. He does neither.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 5:03 p.m.


    You're right about the news story. I conflated the Georgia mother with someone else. The Georgia woman used a .38 revolver. The interesting thing about her story is that it took 5 shots to stop the assailant. Feinstein wants magazine sizes no larger than seven. What happens when there are two intruders?

    So that you don't feel cheated, here's another news story: "RIT Students Accosted By Gunmen in Their Home." In this one, Raymond uses his AR-15 to scare away two armed intruders. My favorite excerpt: "The two men fled the apartment. Nothing was taken and no shots were fired." The presence of a scary-looking weapon was all it took.

    "[N]o real hunter hunts deer with an AR15."

    I'm not advocating that. I'm pointing out that there are semi-auto rifles *not* covered by Feinstein's ban. The differences between them and so-called "assault rifles" are only cosmetic. The term is meaningless, except to scare the ignorant. Just like all your talk about "hunting humans," when the topic is self-protection.

    (So you would prefer a shotgun. That's fine -- I would too. It's a free country.)

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Nate, I found your story about the 15 year old using an AR15 against an intruder. The story that I found on the mother in the attic said she used a handgun. So out of the two examples you provided only one had someone using an assault weapon. Hardly seems like this rises to your claim of people defending themselves "all the time" with one if these types of weapons. Still, I only asked for one example, so I'll concede that point.

    But it raises another question. My first choice for a home defense weapon is a shotgun, as it is seen by many of the gun people I have talked to. In the expample of the 15 year old using the AR15, he only hit one of the intruders only injuring him (maybe thankfully for the boy, so he didn't have the burden of killing to deal with, as justified as it would have been) and both of the intruders got away (later arrested at the hospital). A shotgun would have accomplished the same thing. And perhaps put the intruder down. That's what I want for defense, knock down power.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    To all those who support/agree with part/all of Obama, Biden & Fienstien's gun control objectives & rhetoric I pose these questions due to the vast subjectivity, nebulousness & lack of agreement on specifics inherent to the current objectives & rhetoric of Obama et al & others calling for "reasonable" or "common sense" gun control.

    1.At what specific point of infringing upon the rights of lawful gun owners will you stand up and say-Obama/Congress you have gone too far, you have overstepped your bounds?

    2 What specifically in terms of executive orders would you find as too extreme and as 1st a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution & more specifically the separation of powers inherent to our system of government?

    3. In the event that Obama's gun control measures did reach your threshold of a president overstepping his bounds through executive fiat, would you take a stand to have his orders repealed?

    4. What would you consider an impeachable offense in terms of gun control & the 2nd Amendment?

    Please be serious as these are crucial questions that MUST be honestly answered before a real honest, good faith Constitutionally compliant designation & implementation of so called "reasonable" gun control can take place.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Nate, I'll try to find the stories you are referencing. While the D News will not allow links, you can post head lines.

    I know you said comparable. I chose to ignore it. There is no hunting rifle comparable to an AR 15. Hunters, real hunters mind you, do not hunt with a weapon like an AR 15. No hunter needs a hundred round magazine. No hunter, again, real hunter, needs a semi auto. An AR15 is not a hunting weapon, it is a weapon expressly created for combat in its automatic form. In its semi auto form it is a weapon expressly created to inflict maximum damage, on the most amount of targets, in the least amount of time. There is no comparable weapon that is a hunting weapon. Just because you want to pretend this is not true, does not mean that I have to believe your fantasy.

    I'll say it again, the AR15, and other assault rifles, er. . . assault like rifles, are the preferred weapon of those seeking to hunt humans in large numbers. Maybe if that's your idea of hunting. . .

    But no real hunter hunts deer with an AR15.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    @mark "...bolt action...lever action..."

    There's a reason why I said comparable. The differences between a so-called "assault rifle" and a semi-automatic hunting rifle of the same caliber are only aesthetic. Both fire one shot when the trigger is pulled, eject the spent cartridge, and chamber another one.

    "You should be able to provide many [examples], right?"

    You know the difficulty of posting links here. But if you went to YouTube and searched for "boy uses dad's ar-15 to shoot intruder", you can find a recent new story.

    You could also Google "mother defends kids ar-15" for a recent story about a mother who was cornered in the attic with her children and fought off her attacker with an AR-15.

    While handguns are more common in self-defense, showing the intruder a scary-looking rifle is often enough to send him running. You never read about these incidents in the NY Times, but pro-gun websites are replete with them. Branch out a little, and do some reading.

  • usraptor Woodland Hills, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Martin, then we should also have an additional tax on all cars since over three time more people are killed and injured every year by cars than by guns. We should also have a tax on knives, hammers, crow bars, baseball bats, etc since they are used in the over 4 thousand non gun related homicides every year. Don't forget liability insurance in case one of your knives, hammers, crow bars, baseball bats, etc is used by someone else in one of those 4 thousand non gun related homicides. And don't forget funeral and medical insurance for those 26000 deaths a year caused by falls. Oh, I forgot we already have Obamacare for that.

  • Martin Blank Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 6:03 a.m.

    Seems to me that everyone's talking about political outcomes that have very little to do with reality. How about we propose something that might pass constitutional muster and still have a good chance of reducing gun violence?
    1. Bullet tax. Model this after the tobacco tax; the states get to decide what to do with the proceeds, from victims funds to gun safety programs.
    2. Liability insurance. If you own a functioning firearm, you should be required to have a liability policy on it, or be fined when it's discovered that you don't. Insurance companies being what they are, the more guns you have, you might get a volume discount. Point is, if your firearm is used to injure or kill someone, your policy would take the hit.
    3. Dramshop-style law. If your firearm is used to injure or kill someone, if you weren't the one pulling the trigger, you should still face some responsibility for the firearm being out of your control, negligence at the least.
    With rights come responsibilities. These three proposals, taken together, would certainly add some responsibility to a conversation that has so far lacked it.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 3:59 a.m.

    "While these guns may look scary to liberals, they're no more dangerous than any comparable hunting rifle."

    Bull. The AR-15 is not a hunting rifle. It literally is an M16 that does not have full auto capability. The M16 is a military weapon.

    I have hunting rifles. One is bolt action. One is lever action. Neither of them hold a magazine. Neither of them will hold a 100 round magazine. Neither of them are auto loaders. Neither of them are semi automatic. While it is true both of them would kill humans there is absolutely zero chance that somebody using either one of them would be able to cause the carnage of, say, the theatre shooting in Colorado.

    The AR15 is a much more dangerous weapon then either of my hunting rifles. It is made to inflict maximum damage in as quick as possible. It is the choice of those hunting humans.

    "People defend themselves with these weapons all the time. "

    I'm aware of no such incident. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, though, but can you give us an example? You should be able to provide many, right? Seeing as it happens all the time.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 3:26 a.m.

    Oh my gosh Wanda B Rich, that is an absolutely amazing quote. Thank you very much. Gods of stone and steel. The whole thing is breath taking. we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism,
    Wow! Just wow! That is a stunning quote.

    But I wonder how many Mormons will read the words of their prophet and adjust their thinking. My guess, not many.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:26 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    "...They think that they can ignore the Constitution when it says "shall not be inhibited".

    The best way to handle a bully is to look him in the eye and tell him to his face that only immature people resort to bullying."


    Mike - where in the Constitution does it say: "shall not be inhibited"?

    In kindergarten, I learned the best way to handle a bully was to tell them:
    "Sticks and Stones my break my bones, but name will never hurt me."

    BTW Mike - the real "bullies" carry assault rifles.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 31, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    OK - a back ground check.

    Anyone saying they want to use their weapon in open rebellion against America, use to intimidation others, or create fear and terror upon fellow citizens by walking around malls, schools, and movie theaters -- shall be denied a weapon.

    Anyone convicted of a felony or fire-arm misdemanor shall be denied a weapon.

    Anyone with a diagnosed mental illness, (including depression or thoughts of suicide), shall be denied a weapon.

    Anyone willing to shoot and kill someone over a stolen television set, shall be denied a weapon.

    I get it --
    That's why pro-gun-nuts don't want back ground checks,
    many of them would never pass the minimum criteria.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    When asked about realistic options for reducing gun violence in the nation, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA has only one response: Too bad, So sad. We need more guns on the street.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    With reportedly more than 300,000,000 guns in the US civilian population any solution must be reality based. "Outlawing" guns is a fantasy even it it were constitutional. Military grade weapons should be restricted along with lessening the probability that mentally disturbed people have access to weapons. Nothing will be perfect, but lets start some place.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    @ugottabkidn "military style assault weapon"

    The keyword here is "style". Feinstein's bill goes after guns that are styled to look like military weapons through the addition of plastic pieces which have little or nothing to do with function. While these guns may look scary to liberals, they're no more dangerous than any comparable hunting rifle.

    People defend themselves with these weapons all the time. They are especially popular with women, because of their lightness, balance, and easy recoil.


    Be careful how you accuse others; you might be accused of the same thing. We see you here repeating left-wing propaganda terms as if they actually meant something.

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution wrote of the 2nd Amendment:

    "The right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance , enable the people to resist, and triumph over them.

    There is certainly no small danger, that indifference many lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Sec 1001, pages 708-9)

    This comment clearly states that the citizens having weapons is "a strong moral check against arbitrary power of rulers." The last 4 words of this Amendments read the right "shall not be infringed." Yet that is exactly what you want to Congress and the 50 Legislatures to do.

    The current move to put more control on guns, gun clips, and ammunition fits well in the advance warning of Justice Story when he wrote "thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    "No one in any position to have an impact on this decision has ever said they wnat to ban guns."


    US Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, has said she wants all guns banned. Seems to me that she is a person in position to have an impact.

    Anti Bush-Obama

    "In this country, we have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and tyranny problem disguised as a security problem."

    My nomination for BEST POST!

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    The tyranny is coming in the form of heavily armed citizens planning a coup d'éta.

    In Iraq we consider anyone with these type of military weapons a terrorist, especially if they are actually talking about the need to attack the government.

    So explain how the NRA nuts are not terrorists.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    Congratulations, Matt Erickson, for a well thought-out letter. You understand the reason that the people, not the government, are in charge of "guns".

    Take a few minutes and read the comments from those who oppose the Constitution. See what their reasons are. They think that they or the government can make decisions for you. They think that they can ignore the Constitution when it says "shall not be inhibited". They put themselves above the law and above the citizens in this country who believe in the law.

    Some tried to bully you or to belittle you for standing up for your rights. That is a favorite tactics of the Left. Bullies bully. They try to intimidate. The best way to handle a bully is to look him in the eye and tell him to his face that only immature people resort to bullying.

    We have the right to keep and bear arms to protect us from the government and from those who would take away our rights.

    You know more about the Constitution than those who use condescending language to pat you on the back with one hand while stabbing you in the back with the other.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 3:15 p.m.


    You can own all the assault rifles you want, but an important questions need to be asked of you (and your parents). How are you going to insure your rifle won't end up in the hands of someone who is bent on mass killing? Do you have a safe? Do you store your ammunition away from the rifle? Have you been to any kind of firearms training course to handle the assault rifle in a safe manner? How will you dispose of the assault rifle when you no longer need/want it?

    If your assault rifle is to protect your home and family, it won't be as effective as you think during a surprise attack. The element of surprise always favors the aggressor. You are far better off to have a pistol for that type of protection, and even then, the element of surprise is far more daunting than most gun packers are willing to admit.

    These are common sense questions that every assault rifle (and any other sort of weapon) needs to ask themselves.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    There were shootings in Atlanta , Texas, Arizona and other places. Is this conflict resolution NRA style. Law abiding citizens become outlaw when they point weapon at a person and pull trigger, non times out of ten. HOw many recent deaths in defense of freedom against tyranny?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    If this is what is being taught to young people in the Boy Scouts, there are much greater problems in the Boy Scout leadership than wheather or not to allow Gay people in the Boy Scouts.


    Your rights, and mine, are determined by the needs of people living in today’s world. Not some guys who lived 250 years ago.

    You and I are a part of the government, and yes the government can do just about anything we want it to do.

    The most important job of government is to protect us from ourselves. You can verify this yourself by analyzing the laws made by our government to see how many laws apply to Americans versus the numbers of laws that apply to foreigners.

    While there are no perfect laws, the greater part of your security, freedom and rights come from the laws that limit the actions of others, like ourselves. And the laws work best when people work with their government and not against it.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    Am I the only person a bit concerned by the tone of this young man's letter. I sounds as if he's been indoctrinated by adults who have been indoctrinated by too much hate radio.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 31, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    In this country, we have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    I appreciate your youthful enthusiasm and passion for the issue. Don’t let the critical comments here grind you down, but use them to educate yourself further.

    Since you bring up the Constitution, militia, and repulsing government tyranny, it is worth noting that the word “militia” appears in the Constitution five times besides the Second Amendment. Article 1, Section 2 (three mentions) gives Congress the authority to organize, arm, train, and discipline the militia and gives Congress the power to call the militia to suppress insurrections. Article 2, Section 2 (one mention) makes the President the Commander in Chief of the militia. The Fifth Amendment (one mention) puts the militia in the same category as the federal armed forces when it comes to justice.

    It is hard to reconcile these constitutional provisions with the argument that the militia exists to oppose federal government tyranny when the Constitution explicitly puts the militia under the control of the federal government with the express duty to suppress insurrection.

    Please keep reading and learning and write again when you have a stronger argument.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    "just bow down the the obama administration and give them all our guns"

    You misspelled "complete a background check on all gun purchases".

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Matt, ask your dad if he can give 1 example of someone who has defended themselve with a military style assault weapon. By the way I commend your effort if not your naivete.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 31, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    one vote
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Is Glenn Beck going to lead the uprising against tyrannical government form his new amusement park?

    11:19 a.m. Jan. 31, 2013


    Ta -
    "Independance, USA"

    A virtual Right-Wing Epcot Center.

    Maybe he'll have a fully automatic "shooting gallery" of Democrats.
    the haunted house of "Liberals"
    the Fiscal Roller Coaster,
    Throw the sick, the poor and the needy under the bus - and balance the budget for prizes,
    and the Romney Roll-O-Plane that'll spin you around until you puke!

    ...don't forget spending time in the Fun house of Founding Fathers.

    Have a great time folks! 'cause the Prophet of Doom and Gloom said the end is near!

    Jan. 31, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    Guns are not going to be banned. No one in any position to have an impact on this decision has ever said they wnat to ban guns.

    Only the Supreme Court can decide if something is unconstitutional. Once new laws are implemented, or old laws are reinterpreted, they will have their say.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    Is Glenn Beck going to lead the uprising against tyrannical government form his new amusement park?

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Guns are designed for killing--whether varmints, bears or people. For all of you against regulation of firearms by the federal government, why is it that gun owner rights should trump the right to life? Without the federal government Utah would likely be a third world country with a wall around it.

    What is the benefit of an arms race between the “good guys” and the “bad guys?” In Mexico 120,000 deaths have been reported from gun violence in the last few years, twice as many as the 60,000 estimated deaths from the civil war in Syria. From robberies to kidnappings to gang and drug wars, and from just plain thrill killings, no one is safe in Mexico. Is that the kind of society you want for yourself and your family?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    lds liberal

    "Just so you know - If I saw anyone walking down my street with a weapon - and NOT in uniform,
    THEY would be considered a Terrorist."

    For obeying the law? Anybody with your mindset is a facist.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    Totally Agree!

    Killing Machines are protection.

    I've ordered my flame thrower and RPG launcher/ammo to complement my cache of Killing Machines...

    of course, all to protect me and my family from tyranny.

  • Wanda B. Rich Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    "We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

    'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    'That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.' (Matt. 5:44–45.)"

    - Spencer W. Kimball, 1976

    Mormon attitudes toward guns brought this quote to mind. It seems we haven't learned anything in the 36 1/2 years since this statement was made. If anything, we've become more militant and more paranoid.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    Yes let just bow down the the obama administration and give them all our guns and all our rights. After all they would never think of abusing their power if they are the only ones with guns. Let just bow down to the holy obama administration and let them do whatever they want to us. Let let them incite a race war and pat us down without due process. Let just throw out the constiution because it is the only way these people will be happy. Of course they can still have their constiutional rights because they are "divine" and holy" so the law shouldn't apply to them. They can have their rights and treat the law abiding citizens like slaves which I most certainly feel like.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Matt, it's great that you wrote to the newspaper to express your views. Good for you. But I don't agree. You say "everyone should be able to bear arms." I don't think you really mean that. Surely you agree that a convicted violent criminal should be allowed to go straight from prison to a gun shop, do you? And, I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think you should personally be allowed to buy a gun. You're too young. Sorry.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    I love the question " If nobody had guns, how would we protect ourselves?" The answer, of course, is that we wouldn't need to. At least not from people with guns, since your question poses the scenario wherein no one has them. This isn't going to happen, of course, but then it's important to remember that no one is trying to take all your guns away. You'll still have something to use when all them terr'ists you're worried about show up.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Also, why is talking about shooting soldiers and cops socially acceptable? (tyrannical gov't is such a convenient phrase, but in reality if one were overthrowing such a gov't, that's who they'd be fighting)

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Why the personal attacks on this scout, and his leader? Yes our young are impressionable, and probably have values that reflect their parents' values. That is where they learn values.

    Don't all you anti-gun wing-nuts teach your children to be anti-gun wing-nuts just like you?

    Attacking children for their views is definitely against my values.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    The irony is Boy Scout Troop 1340 meets the Contitutional requirement of "A well regulated Militia" better than these assault toting, Anti-Governement soldier wann-bes he's learning this garbage from.

    From the criteria of Organization, uniforms, weekly meetings, and leadership postitions -- right down to the Shotgun and Rifle merit badge requirements and training.
    Any Boy Scouts is more a member of a militia than say; Mountanman, Mike Richards, RedShirt or JThompson.

    Matt - no one is coming to take away your guns. Who ever tells you that is lying to you.

    The government is not some boogy-man to hate and dispise - it is US the people, it is YOU.
    You might want to brush up on your Citizenship in the Nation merit badge.

    And BTW - who do you consider a Terrorist anyway?
    Can you describe one for me? - or did someone tell you anyone from the Middle East is to be considered dangerous and trying to kill us?

    Just so you know - If I saw anyone walking down my street with a weapon - and NOT in uniform,
    THEY would be considered a Terrorist.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    "It should be unconstitutional to ban guns."

    Who is proposing this?

    Using your logic, my dear scout, why can't we buy machine guns, grenades, drones, tanks, and aircraft carriers?


    What you are suggesting is no regulation.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    So why identify yourself as a scout? Did you scout leader tell you all that? It's a nice recitation of right wing gun nut talking points but a well regulated militia is the national guard, not an armed scout troop.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    The US has the highest gun per person ratio of any nation in the world. The Supreme Court has already ruled that total gun bans are unconstitutional. Not every gun is an assault weapon so even if those were banned there'd still be plenty of guns. The Supreme Court and Scalia noted that gun rights aren't universal, i.e. that regulations can still exist on guns.

  • Bergbub Midway, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    This is frightening, especially coming from a scout. Assault weapons in everyone's hands are not guaranteed by the Constitution - sorry! Since you cite the Second Amendmet, did you completely misunderstand the part about the well regulated militia? I don't see anything about everyone packing uzis. I would encourage you to expand your horzons beyond the Deseret News. Get information from many sources. Travel around the country and the world. Adope a gay scout into your scouting group. Be open minded and your positions will change in time.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Keeping them at home. But when carrying them around you get situations like the recent Arizona shooter who was a gun freak that freaked out and pulled the trigger in anger. If you want to be guarded form the Federal government start making a defensive drone so you cannot be annihilated from three miles away while you are loading your twenty round clip.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 7:47 a.m.


    Great letter! You are right: everyone has a natural right to protect his own life, and the Constitution guarantees it.

    @Beverly "Who is instilling this thought in his mind?"

    Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1788, "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government...." Maybe Matt got the idea from him.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    When a "scout age" young man talks about needing a gun to protect himself against America, something is wrong. Who is instilling this thought in his mind? When the Salt Lake Police Chief supports the ban on Assault rifles, and is recognized on the National News for his thoughtfulness and courage; and nothing is reported about it in the Deseret News, something is amiss. What has created this misunderstanding in this young man's mind? Why is the National news of the Salt Lake Chief's position not newsworthy in Salt Lake?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 2:38 a.m.

    Agreed that keeping guns from the criminally
    insane would be a technical violation of the
    constitution, but its one I can live with.

    In this world there isn't perfect anything, so you
    have to find a way to make due.