Lawmaker says just carrying a gun shouldn't be a threat
Snake. You are wrong. Nothing in the Constitution gives you the right to know
anything about that individual. Nor is feeling safe a constitutional right.Saying, "I have the right!" Believing, "I have the right!" is
great... it's cool. it's awesome. But it does not mean that
constitutionally the right exists!Free Speech, Press, Assembly, Keep &
BEAR Arms, Protection from; quartering, search & seizure, cruel &
unusual punishment, due process, trial by jury....You DO NOT have a right
to know. You DO NOT have a right to 'feel safe'.Your country,
constitution, citizenship, taxes...none of these provides for a RIGHT to know
anything about me or any other individual. Nor does it provide you a RIGHT to
clean air or a feeling of safety. If you want to feel safe..... provide for
your own safety. Do what is necessary to protect yourself.
I'd like to see the discussion address the dichotomy that exists across
this nation. Prime example: If I see a couple of teenagers walking down the
street in my home town, carrying semi-automatic rifles, I assume they are going
hunting or target shooting. I'll probably tell them good luck and to be
careful.On the other hand, if I am in East L.A. Bostom, Miami, Fairfax....
and I see a couple of teenagers walking down the street.... I have a much
different perception of their intentions. Both perceptions are probably
accurate.It is unfortunate that many who comment have no background to
understand the former perspective.JOE LIBERTARIAN: I find your
language offensive. The fact that you so easily apply 'EVIL' and
'THREATENING' to the conversation.... WHY? Those terms are
YOUR reaction. I am not EVIL if I carry a gun. Nor am I THREATENING. In
fact... I'd have to use different language to describe the man who chooses
to implement his constitutional rights... How about: 'COURAGEOUS'
You go ahead and be scared of the rational individual that has a gun. I'm
far more scared of the drunk guy in the row behind him muttering every loud and
unintelligible musing that he can think of.
Many of these comments remind me of a similar argument about smoking in public
places or on public transportation. People use to say that if you get on a bus
or enter a building or area where someone is smoking then get off the bus and
wait for the next bus right? Wrong. I have just as much right to breath clean
air as the next person. Same thing here. I have just as much right to not know
that individual is carrying a gun as he does to carry the gun. It is my right to
feel safe. A stranger with a gun on a bus does not make me feel safe in any
circumstance. Keep your toys at home locked up where they belong.
re Cernan68New York, NY---A gun like a baseball
bat also has a sporting purpose, hunting and target shooting. A gun also has a
use of self defense and defense of others.Even if this weren't
true, it shouldn't matter. Having a gun is protected under our
constitution, having a baseball bat isn't.
I am for the 2nd Ammendment, but people shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
What is scary is that no good people are on the bus with a gun. This means a bad
guy with a knife or a baseball bat or even a gun can board the bus and there is
no defense.Yes I do want permit holders and other good people on the
bus to carry guns, assuming they are ready and willing to use them to protect
themselves and the other people on the bus.Police carry guns every
day, and we all feel and we are all safer because of it.
I think it's great to have a guy with a gun on the bus. That increases my
chances of being shot in a public place so I can sue!Oh wait, I
might die from the wound. Never mind, I'm against it.
Re:"How about a teenager carrying a baseball bat?"That's an illogical analogy. Any object can be used to harm someone. But,
unlike a gun, a baseball has a purpose other than hurting & killing.
It's purpose is to play baseball.A gun, on the other hand, has one
purpose: hurting or killing. A person carrying a gun plans to either use it to
hurt someone (if he thinks someone is trying to hurt him, even if he is
mistaken) or plans to use it to improve his ability to hurt or kill someone by
practicing at a gun shooting club. Sometimes there's a reason to carry a
gun for the purpose of hurting or killing someone. For example, law enforcement
or military personnel. Not the case in this article. While not all
gun owners are psychotic gun killers, all gun killers are gun owners (or gun
possessors if they "borrowed" the gun from a family member's draw
or if they stole the gun). A person can't be a gun killer without a gun so,
if no one on the bus has a gun, then there won't be any gun killers on the
Re: "Does a person carrying a gun have a right to get on a crowded bus, or a
train, even if other passengers are nervous about a stranger with a gun in the
wake of violent shootings that have claimed the lives of children and
adults?"Absolutely not. Guns kill people so he should not risk
endangering the passengers on the bus by bringing a gun onto the bus. If he
needs to travel with a gun (e.g., he's in danger from someone, or uses guns
for "fun" and is on his way to a gun shooting club), then he should
drive his own car or pay for some private transportation. He has no right to
endanger others. Did you know that in some states it's not legal for a
police officer to carry his firearm on public transportation. For that reason,
law enforcement officers can take a tax deduction for using their car to get to
RE Truth Seeker : Here’s the facts for you about Israel and Their Guns -
FYI W/Post is unworthy as an American Fact News Source –When
the PLO and others started attacking Israel’s schools – The parents
, teachers , nurses etc became trained and armed and carried . Their schools
became known as ‘Heavily Armed Zones ‘The Police
involved the citizens in a voluntary civil guard project ‘Mishmar
Esrachi,’ which even has its own sniper teams. The Army’s Youth
Group program, ‘Gadna’, trains 15 to 16-year-old kids in gun safety
and guard procedures and the older high-school boys get involved with the
Mishmar Esrachi.The Israel’s have learned how to keep their
schools safe – On going Gun Safety and Training is key The Swiss
have the safest schools anywhere , and they also have On going Gun Safety and
Re: MoabmomThis article has nothing to do with the Boy Scouts.
Adhering to DesNews' guidelines, I have no intention of starting such a
discussion with you on it. So, aside from your obfuscation of my point, do you
have any reason to believe that what I said is so egregious that it required a
I think it is a great law. It may desensitize people to being fearful about
ordinary citizens carrying guns. Cops carry guns as do security guards and
detectives. To me the point is, as someone has pointed out we do not have a clue
what criminals are carrying. I am very comfortable with guns in the hands of
good guy citizens, whether econcealed or open carry.
Re:HarleyriderIsrael or Switzerland you say?"In Israel,
they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few
tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own
them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in
professions at risk of violence. In Israel, it used to be that all
soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on
base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006
— there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among
IDS soldiers. Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a
gun, the highest rate of rejection in the world.The second thing is
that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland
promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the
outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to
people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having
ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer."(Washington
@ Claudio said "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you
should." Does that apply to gays trying to force the Boy Scouts to change?
As for Dabakis statement about "war bullets", good grief! Fear monger
much? You can take the liberal, social justice activist out of St. Petersberg,
but you can't take the St.Petersburg, out of the liberal, social justice
activist (not even by letting him on the basketball team)
Man gets on bus brandishing a gun, I get off. Now. I encourage others to do the
I lived in SLC over 30 years ago when CCW permits did not exist. Open carry was
the rule whether on your person or in a vehicle. Concealed carry was looked upon
as somehow "sneaky" and if you were hiding a firearm, you were up to no
good. But, even then, a person on the streets of SLC with a "shootin'
iron" strapped to his hip might get stopped by police for disturbing the
peace (but only if uncooperative with requests to put the gun away).Years before while growing up in SC I have fond memories of fellow students in
grammar school bringing their Christmas present shotguns to school for show and
tell, on the school bus. Principal would meet them at the door and offer to keep
it safe until show and tell time in their class. He'd bring it down to the
class and give it to the student to tell about then take the next few minutes
to, using the student's shotgun, teach gun safety. The shotgun was
delivered back to the student when he was getting on the school bus to go
home.Don't allow the loss of our heritage.
Uh, let's see. A man walks on a crowded bus with a holstered gun on his
side. Oh, the horrors. Until, that is, someone asks and finds out he is a
plain clothes police officer, or FBI agent, or ATF agent, etc. Whew, that
makes one feel much better, right? Now, they have the added protection of
someone with a gun in case some terrorist steps on the bus to cause others
harm.Oh, but wait! What if he is just a good guy exercising his
open carry rights? One should feel scared because a plain clothes person is on
the bus with a holstered gun? One could also sigh in relief that someone is on
board who could shoot a terrorist if one were to come on board and start
shooting.One can live in fear, or one can live feeling better
protected. It is all in one's point of view.
We have a conflict of rights. People have a right to be on public transportation
without fear. People have a right to carry guns in public transportation. What
is the solution to this conflict? I don't know, but I expect that both
parties will have to yield some of their rights. People who are fearful of
others can get off and take another bus. People who want to carry open on public
transportation can recognize that open carry makes people fearful, and they can
choose to close carry on public transportation. As long as people, on both sides
of the issue, insist on 100% of their rights and that all changes should be by
the other persons, we will never have a satisfactory solution to this problem.
@one old man and FTI didn't say free speech and gun ownership should
be unrestricted. I'm saying, when someone comes around wanting to add new
restrictions, many of us are as reluctant to give ground with the Second
Amendment as we are with the First.@RanchHandI've never
voted away anyone's basic rights. Not sure what you're referring to
there.@ClintonYou may have misread my meaning. Sarcasm
doesn't always translate well into print.
ClintonGun owners always try to equate guns and gun rights to something
else, as you did with car ownership. They're not the same. If a gun owner
has a safe and a gun lock there would be no or few accidents. So many gun
owners think storing guns in a closet, a cabinet, under the bed or in a drawer
is adequate. So often the gun falls into a troubled person (e.g. Newtown) or
youth's hands (every day) and tragedy occurs. We say that's too bad,
it was an accident or unavoidable. That's simply not true. It was
careless, reckless and irresponsible. If you want to own a gun society should
expect zero tolerance if that gun falls into the wrong hands or is used
irresponsibilty. The constitutional right for a person to own a gun should not
endanger societies right to be safe from it. I'm tired of idiot,
irresponsible gun owners and the damage they do to society. If you want to own
a gun society should be safe from it's irresponsible use.
"Guns are not "bad" and there is no need to fear them. "You are absolutely correct Clinton.I have no fear of guns.
It is those who are untrained, careless or mentally unequipped to carry them
that scare me.Here is a blurb from just last month"Accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio
left five people injured Saturday"3 separate instances of
accidental shootings at GUN shows no less.And you think that I
should not be concerned on a moving bus or train?Too many people do
not take the ownership and handling of firearms seriously enough. THAT is
why I dont want to be around people I dont know carrying guns.
@FT Does your suggestion honestly seem reasonable to you? If your car is
involved in an accident and somebody dies, should you spend a mandatory 10 years
in prison and lose your ability to ever get a license or own a car again?@JoeBlow Yes, you should get used to it. Guns are not "bad"
and there is no need to fear them. Respect them, yes. Fear them, no. What you
should fear is the brainwashing by those who wish to take your guns from you in
the name of "safety." Look how well that worked out for the Jews in and
@Nate You do have the right not to be made nervous. That's what the exit
door on the bus is for. You have every right in the world to not feel nervous.
What you don't have the right to do is force somebody else, who is acting
within their rights, to accommodate your sensitivities.
NateThe are restrictions to "free speech". You can't yell
fire in a movie theater. You can't scream profanities in a public setting.
We can put restrictions on free speech just as we can put restrictions of gun
ownership. It's easier to get a gun than it is a driver's license.
That's stupid. We can be a safer, more civilized society by putting
restrictions on guns. Let's start by deciding what citizens should be able
to own guns and punish those who are careless or harmful with their use. I have
no problem with a responsible person owning an assault weapon. But if that
weapon is used in a crime, the owner should be jailed for manslaughter. Why do
we accept that accidents happen when it comes to guns? I believe that the
constitution enables an American to own a gun and I also believe society has the
right to severly punish you if you are irresponsible by excercising that right.
Zero tolerance with severe penalities will decrease casual ownership.
Nate says: "These are basic rights we're talking about."--- Hypocrisy at it's finest. Didn't you conservatives vote away
some "basic rights" of people you don't care for? Don't cry
when your own rights are infringed when you're willing to infringe upon the
rights of others.Additionally, what about the "basic right"
of a mother to feel safe when she's out with her children? I promise you,
some nut carrying a gun on a bus or train I was on would certainly NOT make me
feel safe; quite the opposite in fact.
Gun Safety needs to be taught in our schools - educate the kids on gun safety .
People who conceal carry have saved thousands and thousands of peoples lives
thru-out America. Of course this fact is never brought into the National Media
for the Sheep to see. How to stop almost All of the School Shootings
- 1) Return all schools to be run totally at the local level - get the
Feds OUT!2) Make sure that when a school is locked - No one Can Enter
without an Armed -Teacher , School Administrator, or School Employee present -
preferably at least 2 being present.3) Bring back the gun safety classes
starting in elementary and continue thru high school - The Swiss do this the
Israeli's do this - with great success 4) Encourage and Reward school
employees who wish to be trained in gun safety & carry.5) Get the kids
off of these horrible Psychotropic Meds - the use of these drugs is totally out
of control and has been proven to be the main reason behind All of the school
shootings 6) Secure the schools with high security locks , doors and
windows that don't break
@oldman because those psyche evals and training cops take are infallible like
that psycho in California and those NY cops who shot 8 innocent bystanders
Such persons may think they have the "right" to blatantly flaunt their
so-called gun rights, but they will never be able to allay the public's
heightened concerns, suspicions and worries as to the intentions of the
Easy question. Get off the bus.
Allen, the answer to both your questions is NO.But don't be
afraid.If he decides to start shooting, you probably won't
suffer more than in instant of intense pain before everything goes black and you
will have no more problems -- ever.Just think of it as a fast track
to the Celestial Kingdom.
I'm just wondering. Does Utah law require training for open carry like it
does for closed carry? Background checks?
But Dwyane, when a cop gets on a bus I can be pretty sure he has been thoroughly
screened and well trained.Can I assume that when you get on a bus
with your manhood displayed in an open holster?
So Nate, if I come down to Pleasant Grove and set up a big screen on the public
sidewalk in front of your home and start showing porn movies for you and all
your neighbors to enjoy, you'll have no objection because I'm simply
exercising my First Amendment rights?
Does a street preacher have a right to preach on the sidewalk adjacent to Temple
Square if what he is sayin is objectionable to others? It is called the
Glad they aren't bringing up big knives. Cause I carry one of them all the
If I see someone on a bus with a gun, I'm going to call the police no
I understand reasons why people want to close carry weapons, and I support that
right, but I don't understand why people want to open carry. When I was a
kid, I carried my 22 through town and across runways at the local airport to get
to my dad's farm to hunt jack rabbits. Nobody was fearful when they saw me.
But it's different today. People today are fearful when they see guns
carried by non-police and non-military.I think laws must be
interpreted in the context of today not yesterday. Some people do and will feel
uneasy when they see guns in public places. Those feelings are to be expected
and must be considered when we establish laws for the 21st century. The thing I
think is reasonable is to have open carry in our homes and vehicles but closed
carry in public places.
@FT "Currently, we treat the right to own a gun too casually."Imagine someone saying, "Currently, we treat the right to free speech too
casually," and calling for tougher regulations. This is how anti-gun stuff
comes across to some of us. These are basic rights we're talking about.
“You would have to take steps to put somebody’s safety at
risk,” he explained. “Merely open carrying a weapon doesn’t
even come close to the level of disorderly conduct.”Well, duh.
It's sad that anyone needs to be told this.
This question is an invention of government, and the proper solution is to
remove government from the equation. If all transportation were private, there
would be no issue. The owners of any transportation service could institute
whatever rules they wanted to for those choosing to use those transportation
services. Get rid of public transportation and you get rid of this question, not
to mention a money-losing boondoggle of a "service".
A man comes on to a bus with a gun. So what? He's scared. He lives his
life in constant fear and insecurity. He or one of his family members are 22
times more likely to be killed with that gun he carries. Currently, we treat the
right to own a gun too casually. The only thing I would like to see are tougher
gun laws. Starting with, if a gun you owned is used in ANY crime or accidental
death you spend a mandatory 10 years in prison and can no longer own a fire arm
again. It's not guns that kill people but the ignorance and insecurities of
people who use them or own them. As a country we need to stress the incredible
responsibilty that comes from the decision to own a gun.
When a man walked around the University Mall in Orem in 2011 carrying a rifle
and a pistol, the police received several 911 calls.The guy, however
did not break any laws as Utah is an Open Carry State.I sincerely
hope that the answer is NOT that we should just "get used to it".OCoug states that he could get off and take the next one. True. What
if the next one has 3 people sitting there with rifles?Is this the
society we want to live in? Is this what you want your kids to grow up
around?Isn't this the way it was in the wild west? Don't some common altercations become deaths simply because someone
carried a gun?Trevon Martin would have gotten into a fight, rather
than a morgue had guns not been involved.Yes, I am for people owning
guns.But do we really want more people, carrying more guns, in more
"Does a person carrying a gun have a right to get on a crowded bus, or a
train"No, that is not a right explicitly stated in the
constitution. You do not have a right to public transport. As for the gun issue,
I spent eight years in the army and 18 months in Baghdad. My biggest concern
would be accidental/negligent discharges. I've seen it with soldiers. It
happens with police. It will certainly happen with untrained civilians playing
Why do politicians like Dubakis say "I'm for the 2nd Amendment" and
then begin qualifying that statement immediately. Using terms like "war
bullets"... what are they? Is there a difference between a 40 caliber bullet
that is loaded into a automatic weapon vs. one in a single shot vs. a
semi-automatic... NOOOO! And others like him now try to use the inflamed words
"people killers" for an AR-15, as if a shot gun, hand gun, bow and arrow
don't kill people. Why do people continue to elect Dubakis and others of
his ilk? Parse words, slide in meanings when there isn't anything, play a
wolf in sheep's clothing just to deceive. To all Dubakis type
people: Have the courage to either support the 2nd Amendment as written or vote
to change it. They won't do anything in the open, just in the shadows
because they know most Americans are reasonable and believe the 2nd Amendment
isn't about hunting rights, but the rights of the hunted.
"As long as the individual isn't exhibiting offensive or violent
behavior then they certainly do have the right. "Unfortunately,
by the time we see the "violent behavior", it could be too late.Rock writes "I feel safer when good people with a concealed carry
permit are around. What really scares me is uneducated people
with the right to vote."Dont forget. Those same "uneducated
people with the right to vote" also could be carrying a gun.I
agree. I know some people that make me feel safer knowing that they are
carrying.I also know some that I dont want to be around because I know
that they are carrying.Getting a CCP requires very little effort and
NO shooting of the gun in most states, Utah included.Why are people so
opposed to more firearm training?
Evil begets evil. Displaying threatening behavior leads to threatening behavior.
Threatening behavior leads to violence. Just remember, open carry
laws do nothing to help (deaths from guns in Utah about the same as California,
about 9.7 per 100k)... but it certainly makes for a nasty, threatening world.
How can you tell if the person is a lawful gunowner? Or how can you tell if he
is a mental case about to commit a crime? Do they ask them for papers?
When the Black Panthers started carrying their guns around in Oakland,
California in the late 1960s, it inspired a new wave of gun control laws.There was an incident with a traffic stop. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale
were sitting in a car, lightly armed.They refused to give up their
firearms. Huey Newton had gone to law school for a short time and had learned
that in California it was lawful for him to be carrying loaded weapons, as long
as he carried them openly. In fact, the most dramatic incident was when the
Black Panthers, 30 of them showed up at the California State Capitol, armed with
loaded rifles, pistols and shotgun and marched right into the legislative
chamber while it was in session. In fact, they were debating a gun control law,
and the Panthers were there not to do violence, but to protest this gun control
law. This episode freaked out conservative politicians, including
Governor (Reagan) of California, who could not for the life of him imagine a
situation where a lawful American would want to carry a loaded weapon in public.
(Adam Winkler in an interview with Bob Garfield)
As long as the individual isn't exhibiting offensive or violent behavior
then they certainly do have the right. Would I feel comfortable with a stranger
carrying a gun on a bus? Probably not, but I could get off and take the next
one. That's my right.
Do they have a right? Yes. Does that mean they should do it? Nope. It's
like mom always said, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean
Well, the world has certainly turned. When I was a teenager in northern
California in the late 60's, we could get on public bus carrying our .22
rifles, ride the bus to Hayward High School, and go shooting at their indoor
range. No one said one word. Try that in California today.
We have a right not to be made nervous? James Madison must have accidentally
left that one out.
I feel safer when good people with a concealed carry permit are around.What really scares me is uneducated people with the right to vote.People who work for a living should live in fear of those who vote for a
If you are a gun owner/supporter I encourage you to read the bill. Don't
take the media's word that this is good for gun owners. Read the bill.
The more people open carry--the easier it will be for those who want to commit
mayhem to hide in plain sight. Law-abiding citizens can only carry guns without
ammo. But how can one tell from the outside if a gun is loaded or not?
@ DN 2"Bad guys carry and conceal guns and commit crimes
regardless of all the laws, so you are only talking about hassling law abiding
citizens."So you can tell immediately just by looking at the
person whether or not they are a law abiding citizen being hassled or if they
are a bad guy that is about to commit a crime, huh? You certainly have powers
the ordinary person doesn't possess.
Again the liberal elite uses buzzwords rather than common sense. Assault
weapon? As if it hasn't been clarified enough that no such thing exists.
Wearing camo clothes is threatening? War bullets? Come on.
How about teenagers carrying baseball bats? That might scare some people, will
they be ejected for disorderly conduct?This law is necessary as some
agencies (led by the chronically anti-gun rights University of Utah) have taken
to using disorderly conduct statutes as an excuse to hassle law abiding and well
behaving people carrying legal self defense weapons. In addition they have
imaginatively interpreted the Concealed Carry law so claim permit holder MUST
hide their guns, even if it is only momentarily exposed when getting something
off a shelf. Ironically, they used to argue that "honest people wear guns
in the open, not hide them" and would try to arrest someone for concealing a
weapon if a jacket momentarily concealed it.Well done, Rep. Paul
Ray, for running this bill. Those opposed refuse to accept the proof that their
hypothetical fears about permit holders have been totally wrong, ever since
1995. It is time to ignore the nay-sayers with their emotional
arguments, and look at the actual facts. Pass the bill now!Bad guys
carry and conceal guns and commit crimes regardless of all the laws, so you are
only talking about hassling law abiding citizens. That's wrong!
Simple answer is yes they do!