But Katherine, not everybody is as responsible as you are with their cars as you
are! That's why people are killed by cars everyday. In my home I have a
tool I use to protect my family and myself from those who use guns for criminal
behavior. Everyday, law abiding citizens use guns to protect themselves from
criminals. Two days after the Sandy Hook murders, an off duty police officer was
in a movie theater in Texas when a gun man came into the theater and brandished
a gun obviously intending to commit mass murder. The officer drew her concealed
weapon and killed the would be mass murder thus saving the lives of many people.
While these events rarely make the news, it happens nearly everyday somewhere in
our country. The only way bad people with guns can be stopped is not by more gun
control laws that they will not obey, but by more good people with guns!
An excellent letter. It stands in stark contrast to the frequent, thoughtlessly
repeated nonsense against gun control that the NRA and its supporters keep
tossing out.But thinking, reasoning, and making sincere efforts are
much more difficult that just repeating the mindless mantras of extremists. We need more thoughtful people like Katherine.
A bit of clarification, Mountainman.The off -duty policeman was
working security at the theater. Shots were fired and a person was killed prior
to entering the theater."An off-duty police officer working
security at the Mayan Palace eventually cornered Garcia in a restroom, shooting
him several times until she could take his gun."
@ Joe Blow. Thank you for clarification. My source on this issue was sketchy on
the details. It is interesting and telling that hundreds of these stories are
never reported by the main stream news. They fall all over themselves to report
any misuse of a firearm but are suspiciously silent when guns are used to
I'm still waiting to see any kind of reliable documentation that shows that
"hundreds" or even "thousands" of these kinds of incidents
actually occur anywhere.
There is no Constitution guarantee to "keep and bear" an automobile.
Because of that, the State has authority to license the use of an automobile.
"Shall not be infringed" means that the State has NO AUTHORITY to
license, restrict, or even know about "arms" that we "keep and
bear". In short, we have told the government that they have no authority
over us concerning our "arms". We have the unalienable right to own
them, to keep them, to carry them.Improper USE of those arms can be
penalized, just as improper USE of speech can land us in prison; however, the
improper USE does not allow the government to pre-limit our access to or
ownership of "arms".Our liberties have been purchased by the
ultimate sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Now, many wring their
hands and tell us that we are not "worthy" to be free and independent of
government watchdogs who tell us how much sugar we can consume, what kinds of
light bulbs we can purchase and what kinds of "arms" we can keep and
bear.It's time for Americans to grow up. It's past time to
limit the government.
@ one old man. These stories are usually buried deep on the last few pages of
the newspaper. Not politically correct you see! Suggestion; Subscribe to the
"American Rifleman", they re-print segments from news reports, police
reports and eye witnesses from all around America where honest people protect
themselves with guns from criminals who have guns. There are literally dozens of
these nearly never reported experiences every month with documentation. So, yes,
they actually do occur more frequently than the left wants you to know.
Thanks for the letter Katherine, which makes a good point.By the
way, concerning this argument that it takes a good person with a gun to stop a
bad person with a gun, doesn't everyone who owns or packs a gun view
themselves as "good people"? It's only AFTER they start killing
people that they become "bad." In other words, by placing guns in the
hands of good people, we are increasing the pool of those who will potentially
use a firearm when they go bad.
@ Steve Warren. By the same logic, if a person buys a car, do we know whether of
not that person will drive drunk and kill someone? There are laws against drunk
driving aren't there? Then why do some people NOT obey laws? Because some
people drive drunk shall we confiscate all cars? Same applies to owning guns!
It is insane to assert that the state has no authority to impose any
restrictions or qualifications at all on gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment
refers to the 'right to bear arms'. It doesn't mention guns,
just arms. If someone is going to state that the 'shall not be
infringed' clause means complete, unrestricted access to whatever weapons
are desired, then everyone would have a constitutional right to own nuclear
weapons, missile launchers and fighter jets, not to mention fully automatic,
military style guns. Is there anyone posting here that believes
law-abiding citizens have a right to private ownership of those weapons? How
does one justify private ownership of assault style rifles with 50-round clips
but not surface to air missile launchers? How do you win an argument that the
government cannot infringe ownership of weapons but then agree with the
government infringing ownership of certain weapons?
The Contitution protects the rights of speech, religion, and alcohol, but we
can't yell fire in crowded theatres, offer virgins to volcanoes, or well...
we live in Utah, I don't need to show how alcohol is regulated...
Just about any thing in this world could be used to kill someone. If you stuff
a clean white handkerchief down a persons throat, he will probably die. The
same could be accomplished by holding him under water or dropping him from a
What is "insane" is someone telling us that he has the true definition
of "arms", that he can decide for the entire country what "arms"
we can keep and bear, that he has any authority to restrict us because of HIS
definition."Arms" is not limited in the Constitution to BB
guns or to toy pistols. "Arms" is open-ended. It will require a
Constitutional Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with it!
This analogy breaks down at the most fundamental level: a car is a vehicle, not
a weapon. A gun is a weapon. Period. It's primary purpose is to shoot and
damage or kill things. Some guns have only one purpose: to shoot and kill or
injure people. And Mike, the Constitution includes a phrase that
qualifies gun ownership. It ties the right to keep and bear arms directly to the
maintenance of a well-regulated militia. In the eighteenth century, the
well-regulated militia needed to provide its own weapons, since the government
didn't supply them. Hence, the second amendment.The exact text
passed by Congress is: "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."Nowhere in the Constitution do we find the
blanket right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose, even for hunting or
feeding your family.
Kent,Did you read the 2010 Court decision? It "untied" that
link. We have the absolute right to keep and bear arms regardless of membership
in a militia. That is the supreme law of the land. That decision is binding on
you and on me and on every level of government in America.Read the
decision. It is only 210 pages long. Until there is another ruling, that
ruling is the "defintion" that prevails.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah"Arms" is not limited
in the Constitution to BB guns or to toy pistols. "Arms" is open-ended.
It will require a Constitutional Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with
it!10:08 a.m. Jan. 15, 2013=================== So - You're perfectly fine supporting my right to posses
Conventional, Chemical, Bilogical, and Nuclear arms in my garage along with my
food storage?You have no problem with me strapping on an explosive
vest and riding the new TRAX line to your home in South Jordan?Just
because the "Constitution" does specifically speel out that I
can't?Mike - there is such a think called "Common
Sense".God gave us intelligence - I believe he expects us
to USE it.
Mike Richards - are you making the argument then that law-abiding citizens have
the constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment to privately possess nuclear
weapons? If you don't believe a law-abiding citizen has a
right to privately possess nuclear weapons, then aren't you defining and
then limiting a law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms?And
are you willing to answer this question with a straight-forward reply knowing
the quandary it puts you in either way?
Amendments can be changed Mike and other gun nuts. The NRA instead
of helping to self regulate the gun industry like it used to has completely sold
out to the devil and is now inviting a tyrannical military coup by self declared
militia. You're on the wrong side of the issue. And you will
will be the loosing side because the majority of Americans are sick of it and
will legally vote sooner or later to change the second amendment. All I can say is you all should self regulate or the people will do it for
you. The laws on guns are YOUR failures not ours.
My, my, don't we have a bunch of people hollering as loud as they can that
they know what "arms" means and that the Supreme Court and the
Constitution should be ignored?Look at how many are demanding that
we accept their definition of "arms". Who put them in charge? Who
asked them to define for the rest of us what "arms" mean?One
poster has even demanded an answer to his question while he ignores the words of
the Constitution. Are we really here to debate whether LDS Liberal or anyone
else is the person that the courts go to for definitions or are we here to stand
up for the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as he or anyone else wishes that
it was written.Mike Richards clearly told us that if we want to
define what "arms" means then we need an amendment to the Constitution
that does that. As he said, until that amendment is written just deal with it!
Re: "However, if I wish to use it, I must have a state license . . .
."Why didn't we think of that before?All we
have to do is require a state license for guns, and then, just like our
automobiles, no one will ever be killed by one again!It's so
L White, Mike Richards etc.As long as I keep seeing your rants about
bearing arms and acting like constitutional scholars I will continue to say
this. The second amendment also mentions a well regulated militia. Probably
because the founding fathers never intended for the United States to have a
standing army. If you have no standing army, there is more of a need for ALL
citizens to be armed and educated on how to use those arms. So why no
complaining about our military? I guess what bothers me is that you pick out the
well regulated part of the second amendment, because you don't like that
part. However, like it or not, it is just as much of the second amendment as the
parts you like to quote.
Noodlekaboodle,I beg your pardon. Do you also disagree with the
Court? J Thompson answered your statement before you even asked it. The court
told us that there is no connection between being part of a militia and the
right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms.I got a good
laugh out of your chastisement about my Constitutional scholarship. Maybe I
should return the favor and encourage you to read court decisions before chiding
others about their opinions.So many people want to tell us what
marriage is, when life begins, who has the right to live, who can speak, who can
own firearms and what constitutes a firearm. What they seem to forget is that
no one appointed them to that position. Their opinion is just that, their
opinion, no matter if their name is John Doe or Obama. He believes that he has
the right to define what the Constitution means. He is just as wrong as anyone
outside the Court. The 2nd Amendment belongs to the people, not to
the government. It is not "up" for re-definition.
MountanmanHayden, IDThere are laws against drunk driving
aren't there? Then why do some people NOT obey laws? Because some people
drive drunk shall we confiscate all cars? Same applies to owning guns!9:44 a.m. Jan. 15, 2013================= Mountanman,
you just made our case for having gun restrictions. Thanks!
To "LDS Liberal" you probably have chemical weapons in your garage, but
you just don't realize it right now. You yourself are a biological weapon,
your kids were biological weaponts (remember Nursery at Church?). As for
nuclear weapons, just try and construct one.To
"Noodlekaboodle" and others who want to get rid of guns. What good will
that do? Look at Japan and other nations that have strict gun bans. People go
around killing with other objects. Even using the example of the car from the
original letter. What good do the laws do when a criminal decides to drive
I might point out, The Missouri mobs called themselves a
"militia".And they all had their Constitional rights to bare
arms.And just like Conservatives today, they took the law upon
themselves to judge Joseph Smith for breaking the Consititional right of Freedom
of the Press.That's why no one ever went to jail for killing
the Prophet.Is that what you Neo-Cons are supporting?Missouri
L White... There we have it. Someone who believes that the 2nd Amendment
guarantees the right of law-abiding individuals to own and possess nuclear
weapons. Now that you've come out and admitted your belief, do
you realize that your government is actively working to deny your perceived
right to own those weapons? Every single member of congress and every
President, Dem and Rep, has worked to subvert the rights of individuals to own
and possess nuclear weapons.
Re: "If you have no standing army, there is more of a need for ALL citizens
to be armed and educated on how to use those arms."By the same
logic, since we have no more slavery in the United States, liberals want us to
repeal the outdated Thirteenth Amendment at the same time we repeal the
Re: "Is that what you Neo-Cons are supporting?"Hey, at my
age, I'm just happy to be called NEO-anything.But, there's
a much more recent example of what can happen when mobs run amok -- the Obama
regime.Both the Missouri mobs and the current regime could learn a
lot from the Constitution. If they'd follow it, NONE of the problems
we're arguing about today would even exist.We'd have to
find less important topics to argue over -- BYU v. Utah, maybe?
@L WhiteSpringville, UTI beg your pardon. But it is you who
disagrees with the Court. Maybe I should return the favor and
encourage you to read court decisions [Roe v. Wade] before chiding others about
"..."Arms" is not limited in the Constitution to BB guns or to toy
pistols. "Arms" is open-ended. It will require a Constitutional
Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with it!...".Great!I've always wanted a flame thrower as well as an RPG Launcher with
at least 1000 RPG's...To protect my family...of
Mr. LDS Liberal,You seem to have twisted things. I do not condone
the killing of unborn babies. I have never had an abortion. I have never
advocated that others have abortions. I respect life. I respect God. I
respect his doctrine. It does not require a judge sitting on the supreme court
to tell me that I can or cannot kill a life inside my own body. On
the other hand, you think that you have the right to tell women to have an
abortion. You think that you have the right to tell them that the life within
them has only as much worth as you or they think that it has.There
is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to destroy an unborn baby.
A court told us that a woman can choose - up to the end of the 1st trimester.
Obama tells us that we cannot save the life of a baby who survives a blotched
late-term abortion.You can defend your right to destroy life with
all your zeal. That question will be answerable to God. He doesn't have
much of a sense of humor when it comes to destroying unborn babies.
To "L White" the Supreme Court has already ruled on gun bans, and has
stated what the 2nd ammendment means. See "Supreme Court Overturns D.C. Gun
Ban; What Next?" at NPR. They state that "Americans have a right to own
and keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense and hunting."
@L WhiteFirst sir. I don't believe that all guns should be taken
away. I have a Tarus Judge and i'm very fond of that firearm. However, I
don't believe that it should be so easy to get a gun or a CWP. I have my
CWP, even though I don't normally carry. You don't even have to show
you can shoot a gun to be able to carry out in public. That's insane, a gun
is dangerous, you need to be able to show you can safely carry before you are
allowed to strap it to your waist and hide it. Second, the whole culture of
unregulated sales at gun shows needs to be changed. Anytime a firearm is
purchased you should have to go through the waiting period and have a background
check. Just like when you do when you go to a sporting goods store, gun shop,
Walmart or pawn shop. All i'm saying is that the second amendment
specifically indicates regulating guns, and there are ways to regulate, without
taking all the guns away.
The most priceless possession that we have are our children. We do not need
permission from the government to have children or a license. We do not have to
prove that we can teach children properly or that we can care for their needs.
If we mess up, we might hurt them severely, but that matter is not a matter for
the government to decide before we are allowed to procreate.God gave
us unalienable rights. We, in turn, authorized various levels of government to
administer certain duties, but we made the government guarantee that it would
not interfere with our right to keep and bear arms.There are some
people who want to let the schools raise our children, including feeding them
breakfast and lunch. There are some people who want the government to restrict
the amount of sugar that we feed our family. But, there are some enlighten
people who know that butting into the relationship between a parent and a child
is something that must only happen after the parent has proved that he/she has
harmed the child.Gun laws must deal with a crime after it is
committed, not before.
I have to laugh when -- Mike RichardsRedShirtJThompsonMountanmanwrzLWhite and the rest of the
soldier wanna-bees talk big about over-throwing the Government, the
Constitution, Tea-Parties, and their right to bare arms, and militias, etc. --
when not a single ONE of them has ever served in the Military.Mob Rules...As a veteran -- I have my weapons -- of ALL
varieties.And it's not for fighting our Government - but to protect
my family from the whack jobs who decide they're above the laws and order
of our Country. Besides - I'm duly sworn, ALL enemies - foreign
and domestic.BTW - I've fought rifle3rd world rifle carriers in
foreign lands -- I'm just as capable of doing so here.
Is there anything more offensive to society than someone who tells us that we
are his enemy and that he has fought against people like us in other parts of
the world while serving in the military?Where are the moderators
when that kind of post passes through? Does "free speech" include those
kinds of veiled threats to use his military training and his military weapons on
us "whack jobs"? Come on moderators, are you going to let
Open Minded Mormon threaten your readers?
To "Open Minded Mormon" the only people talking about overthrowing the
constitution are the liberals, like yourself. The Conservatives are talking
about upholding the Constitution. If you bothered to learn history, you would
realize that part of the reason why the Founding Fathers included the right to
bear arms was to allow the people to protect themselves from the US Government
if needs be.Are you saying that you are smarter and know the
original intent of the constitution better than the founding fathers?
Re: "I'm duly sworn, ALL enemies - foreign and domestic."Me too. But just a quick reminder -- it's the "Constitution of the
Unites States" you swore to protect. Not bloated, unaccountable,
unconstitutional government. Not some anti-American liberal agenda. Not even the
President.What you, and I, and lots and lots of others, all swore to
defend -- is the Constitution.
I'm hoping that the only practical use of your car isn't to kill
people. Although in Utah sometimes people make you wonder on that one.
I am sorry.... but I am a bit with Mountainman on this issue. Laws like the
ones they are proposing are just "feel good" experiences. The are like
the laws passed that prevent people from parking in front of an air terminal to
prevent car bombs..... no suicide bomber is willing to risk getting a parking
ticket while blowing up an air terminal..... these laws are pointless.Same with the guns. I have friends who are guns enthusiast - one of whom
just built himself a fully automatic A%-15. Now this guy is as stable as they
come. He is not a violent guy. He just grew up hunting and shooting. Yes
there are a few less ducks in the world because of him.. but he is harmless And
the only people these new laws will effect are people like him. Just as dumb
are laws like arming every teacher.... or requiring photo id's to enter
schools. A suicidal killer isn't going to care about those, he or she is
intent on dying.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahIs there anything more offensive to
society than someone who tells us that we are his enemy and that he has fought
against people like us in other parts of the world while serving in the
military?============ Um...Perhaps self-righteous
Americans trash talking our President, just about everything about our
Government and our Country... and more than 50% of each and every
other citizen of this fine country [in your case -- non-Republicans] simply
because we aren't just like you, didn't worship just like you, did not
agree with you 100% - and therfore HIS sworn enemy?Yes -- It
was just like that....
Mountanman Hayden, ID 9:44 a.m. Jan. 15, 2013Anyone with a gun can
be considered to be a "good guy" until that person uses his/her gun to
commit a crime. Then, and only then, does that person become a "bad
guy". Hence the recommendation that everyone have access to a gun. And not
only a particular type of gun, but any type of gun (and its accompanying
attachments) that person chooses to have.As for a national database
for those judged unfit to have a weapon, usually that judgement is not made
until after the person in question has used their gun to commit some horrible
act. Until then, according to the logic, everyone has a right to any type of
gun they want. And, following the same argument, there should be no background
check to ascertain who is purchasing a gun lest it be an "infringement of
their rights under the Second Amendment!"Lastly, having studies
of gun violence on a national level (which might support any anecdotal evidence
that is referenced as positive gun use to thwart crime) would provide a better
understanding for developing better gun policy. However, gun extremists oppose
I haven't heard anyone on this board who is recommending reasonable gun
policy write anything in opposition to the 2nd amendment, deny hunters and
sportsmen the rights to their guns, or suggest that people should not have the
right to have a gun in their home for self-defense.Rather, those
desiring unlimited, unrestricted gun access for everyone and the right to have
the same weapons as the police and military are stuck with the strawman argument
that the "liberal Left" wants to take away their guns. There is no talk
of that, but they continue to argue their position because they have no
realistic argument beyond "a gun in every home" and the ridiculous
"a good guy with a gun . . . " bromide of nonsense.Nothing
is going to stop a suicide terrorist bent on mayhem except preventing that
individual from obtaining the tools of their lunacy. The NRA and other
extremists of the Far Right do no service by insisting that these people also
should have easy access to all manner of weaponry because they are opposed to
any and all types of reasonable regulation.In fact, they consider it
all acceptable collateral damage.
So, if I read this letter right, we can no longer drive Ferrari's,
Lambourghini's, BMW's, Fiats, Vipers, Camaro's, Challengers,
FlashbackKearns, UTSo, if I read this letter right, we can no longer
drive Ferrari's, Lambourghini's, BMW's, Fiats, Vipers,
Camaro's, Challengers, Mustang's, etc.9:30 a.m. Jan. 16,
2013============== No, you read it worng.You
can still drive anything you want, You just need a background check, prove
you are phycially and mental capable, pay taxes, and buy liability insurance,
you also pass annual testing proving safety of both vechile and operator, and
must obey all driving laws or face having your vehicle impounded, confisgated
and you being sent to jail for breaking laws in place to assure public
safety.Nobody is taking anything away from you - if you obey all the
rules.The gun legislation we've been discussing is nothing more
than this same sort of sane regulation.
The reason to get a drivers license is ensure the collective safety of society
on the road.The reason to have to register your guns is so an overreaching
socialist government can -at some point or any point - go door to door and
confiscate your firearms. I also find it funny that people - such as the writer
of this post - have never shot a gun before and have no idea how to use one yet
they tell us what kind of gun we need. Go figure.
I find it interesting that the biggest gun-banners are the non-gun people.
People who have never shot a gun seem to want to tell us all about guns - which
ones we need and which ones we should ban. The majority of these people live in
complete ignorance regarding guns - they don't know a semi-auto handgun
from a nuclear reactor! I don't see a gun-banner who is a hunter for
example. I don't see a gun banner who is trained in fire arm use and
regularly practices at the range. All the gun banners are the crazies on the
left who want communism or at least communism - lite (socialism) as well as some
of the women and other non-gun users. By the way my wife happens to work as a
grade school secretary and she now WANTS her own 9mm and concealed permit.
Barack Obama falls into both camps - non gun user and second amendment
destroyer. New York is making gun ownership nearly impossible and all I can say
is expect the same result as your sister city - Chicago - where violent crime
went up (way up) after guns were banned.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that Mike Richards and L
White apparently believe that Second Amendment rights are unlimited absolute
regarding the type of "arm" that I am entitled to "bear", and
the manner in which I am entitled to "bear" it.Shoot, I
don't even need to go the "nuclear arms" route . . . that's
just ridiculous.On the other hand, an M240B, an SMAW, and an FIM-92
Stinger (look them up) might be fun . . . I think I'll go place my orders
now. (but I won't hold my breath; y'see, there's this
funny little thing called the National Firearms Act - Title II, which
incidentally, was upheld directly by SCOTUS in United Stated v. Miller and
indirectly in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago)
2 Mike R..."The most priceless possession that we have are our
children."I'll set aside the grammar issues above... IF we are projecting what is (subjectively) priceless; my vote is for
sanity & intelligence
To OMM (1/15 18:45)Lets hear it for the 53% trash talking the
current "regime" while 47% have their "snouts in the trough"