"There are law enforcement officers to respond to urgent needs of our
citizens when crises threaten us."Your argument fails right
there. As the saying goes, "When mere SECONDS count, the police are only
MINUTES away." (In other words, "minutes" are too late.)Concealed carry permits ultimately are pointless since they do not stop
criminals who lack a permit from carrying a gun. Therefore the
solution once again is deterrence -- criminals knowing that any citizens may be
armed and is able to defend himself or herself -- and the ability to defend
oneself or others against imminent threat.It is a citizen's
Constitutional right. And this new law is not unique in the United
States. It has not caused catastrophe other places. I am for
availing oneself of training in the safe and proper use of guns.
Respectfully, to the letter writer who served our Country, thank you for your
service, but I believe that you have put the government to rule and reign over
the people, when the Constitution puts all liberties and all rights directly on
the people, except for those rights that they people willingly authorize the
government to handle. The 2nd Amendment clearly and absolutely guarantees that
the right to keep and bear arms is to be kept by the people and that the
government cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Every person who serves in the military swears an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution. When personal beliefs contradict the oath that you
have sworn to uphold, it seems to me that it is time to re-evaluate personal
beliefs.God has set the example for us in keeping our oath. ".
. . though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away . .
."An oath is an oath. It is not to be set aside. We
should trust fellow citizens to do the right thing more than we trust officials
in the government.
Re: "As a retired U.S. Air Force officer, I was appalled . . . ."And you are, of course, suggesting that we should all be appalled, as
well.We're not.A concealed-carry permit does next
to nothing to assure safe and effective handling of the tools necessary for
proper self defense. The idea was dreamed up by liberal anti-freedom groups to
harass and hassle gun owners, and to unconstitutionally infringe the right to
keep and bear arms, even in self defense.As an Air Force officer,
you undoubtedly rubbed shoulders with a number of armed men and women. I'm
betting none of them ever shot you. Nor were they required to procure a permit.
You simply trusted in their training and common sense to permit them to
accomplish the mission for which they were armed.Kinda like the
proposed Utah law.
One Question.Can someone tell me WHY, in all these mass shootings,
that a fully automatic weapon were not used?
"Concealed carry permits ultimately are pointless since they do not stop
criminals who lack a permit from carrying a gun."Complete and
utter NONSENSE.The writer is stating some good common sense here and
is not advocating limiting weapons. What he is advocating is sensible training
before they carry them. If they are adequately trained, they will have a much
better chance of nailing a threat instead of nailing innocent bystanders.
Re:JoeBlowThe National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of
1968 and the Hughes Amendment in 1986 have all placed limits on how automatic
guns can be bought and sold, but did not make it illegal to possess them
entirely.Purchasing one requires submitting fingerprints and
photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going
through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax, among other
requirements. Only automatic weapons manufactured and registered with the
federal government before 1986 can be bought, owned and sold.Consevative web sites are reporting that Lanza did not use the semi-automatic
Bushmaster to kill the children, which is patently false.
"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom
carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I
think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" --Karl T.
Frederick--President of the NRA, in 1934
This guy is another elitist who thinks only he has the right to won a Gun if he
wants to. Let me ask you this question, In the Air Force, did you
fight for our Freedoms or for the Freedoms of Oppressive Corporate American
As with the letter writer - I am also a USAF veteran.In addition to
the traingin and qualify testing, He forgot to also mention the military
already requires -- extensive background checks, physical and
mental health evaluations, RE-qualifying (it's not a life-long rubber
stamp), and all weapons are ALWAYS 100% secured in the armory or gun
safes.That's how professional handle weapons, Only
a fool allows a mental case, with a vendetta, access to ANY weapon.[Mike, the 2nd amendment does allow for it either.]
Good sensible letter. And I thank you, sir, for your dedicated service to our
When someone writes something like "In the Air Force, did you fight for our
Freedoms or for the Freedoms of Oppressive Corporate American slavemasters?"
we probably should be worrying about the mental stability of that person.
procuradorfiscal, you contradicted yourself. You talked about the letter
writers training as well as those with whom he served. But the bill that was
passed requires no training for pack a concealed weapon. I know people who are
CWP instructors that do not require their students to shoot the guns to pass the
course.There are a lot of dopes out there that, frankly,
shouldn't be allowed to carry simply because they don't have the
common sense of a gnat (I'm sure some would say that about me however, I am
trained and sure of my ability with a firearm). Training and
instruction is common sense to carry a weapon. One needs to know the law
governing deadly force and how it applies. Not knowing that will cause
problems. If I get on a jury where someone is getting prosecuted for a
situation that was not a deadly force situation, they are going to jail if I
have my way.My Uberconservative friend who is a CWP instructor is
fine with the current law and is not in favor of so called, "constitutional
carry". I'm the same way.
To "Harold Nufer" and when you joined the Air Force, you swore to uphold
and defend the constitution. Why do you now want to throw the constitution away
to feel good?Do the liberals even realize that most guns used in
crimes are purchased illegally? Do they even realize that in countries where
the general population is not allowed to buy guns that the criminals still are
able to get guns?To "Flashback" why do we have to require a
test to verify that a person can shoot a gun? Do we have tests before you are
able to practice freedom of speech or religion? What about the Press, they can
do more damage by mishandling information than a mishandled gun can do, yet they
are not regulated like guns. Should we require the press prove that it can
write an unbiased story before they are allowed to publish stories?
To "Red Shirt" did you ever consider that in many countries where gun
restrictions are enforced they have far less gun deaths than we do. Lets see,
we already have 300 million guns in this country. Is that not enough? evidently
not. According to the NRA we need a gun on every person. If we cannot have
restrictions than why not let our teenagers pack heat to school. Oh, you say we
need common sense. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say to use common sense.
If we can use common sense, than we can definitely consider additional
restriction in the name of safety and reducing risks to the general public.
The framers of the constitution did not have an understanding of mental illness
or envision modern assault rifles and high capacity magazines, just as they did
not include provisions on abortions or driving cars. Perhaps we should allow the
unrestricted possession and carrying of only flintlock weapons, just as the
authors of the 2nd amendment intended. Most people can imagine the founding
fathers seeing the proposed legislation on assault rifles and background checks
and saying, "Well duh."
"The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in
any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation
including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons
and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of
prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding
in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in
common use at the time." Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion for
District of Columbia vs. Heller.
@one old man"Complete and utter NONSENSE."It
isn't nonsense at all. It is a point of fact, whether you deny the fact or
not. The lack of a permit does not stop criminals from unlawfully using guns.
Hence the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend oneself and other
innocents. What IS nonsense is relying upon law enforcement, who
are minutes away, when mere seconds count -- especially given that criminals
will carry with or without a permit.
To "louie" did you ever notice that the countries with stricter gun laws
have more violent crime after enacting stricter gun laws?Did you
notice that the US is only #11 for gun deaths in the world, and that the top 10
have more strict gun laws than the US? If you look at just homicides with guns,
the US drops to #15.Have you ever noticed that the countries that
have banned guns for their citizens have more deaths and murders with axes,
swords, knives, bats, and other means? Did you notice that the US was #99 on
overall homicide rates in the world?If you look at the nations where
they have the strict gun control laws, it doesn't appear to be saving their
people. In fact, gun laws appear to have little to no effect on overall
homicide rates. There seems to be a larger cultural aspect that your ilk
refuses to address.Why restrict guns? Japan did that, now they have
to restrict knives and swords. What is the next item that they will have to
"protect" their citizens from? Why do you want to follow down their
Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too
many guns, is like having yourself neutered because you believe the neighbors
have too many kids.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT3:42 p.m. March 18, 2013Why
restrict guns? Japan did that, now they have to restrict knives and swords. What
is the next item that they will have to "protect" their citizens from?
Why do you want to follow down their failed path?========== Because...How many mass shootings did Japan have in the last 20
years?And if they choose to restrict knives and swords, then that
puts them even that much further ahead of us.Face it - your
"ilk" won't be happy until America has either has the unbridled
freedom and lack of Government of Somalia, orthe ultra-controlling,
authoratative, uber-Nationalism of Nazi Germany.No compromising -
Black or White - All-or-Nothingism...extremeism.
to Red Shirt:You are incorrect on your facts about gun deaths. If
you google "gun deaths by country" and go to the Wikipedia site, your
will find that the US is about number 11 worst in the world as far the rate of
gun deaths. What's more shameful is that we five to ten times higher than
any European country. We are similar to Columbia and Mexico but worse than Peru
Harold, if you'll carefully read the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution
you'll see that no one can be denied a fire arm... here it is in part so
you can see for yourself.:'... the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed.'And that means concealed
or otherwise... It's quite simple.@one old man:"What
he is advocating is sensible training before they carry them."Where you getting this stuff? There's nothing in the Constitution, the
part about the right to bear arms, about training, sensible of otherwise.@casual observer:"The framers of the constitution did not have
an understanding of mental illness or envision modern assault rifles and high
capacity magazines..."Doesn't matter what they did or did
not have an understanding of. The framers put the words in the Amendment and
they stand... until Congress wants to do an amendment to an amendment."...just as they did not include provisions on abortions or driving
cars."That's why there's nothing in the Constitution
about these issues."Perhaps we should allow the unrestricted
possession and carrying of only flintlock..."It doesn't say
flintlock... It says 'arms.'
Thank you, Mr. Nufer, for an excellent and sensible letter. Contrary to what
some think (and say here), there is nothing in the Constitution that says
reasonable time-place-manner exceptions to the 2nd Amendment are prohibited, and
that's exactly what you support. Thank you.
There are a couple of things that strike me about this whole argument. I wonder
how many of the "unrestricted gun rights" advocates on this thread
fantasizing about defending themselves, have ever been in or even know anyone
who has been in a situation where they had to defend their lives? There are
very violent portions of our society but these groups are pretty insular. Look
at the news at night. There is at least one gun killing every night..but these
people know each other, live with one another, and more or less do business with
on another. Rarely do they step out of their circle to do violence. They may
break into your car, but it is highly improbable they will exert violence on
you. Most gun violence experienced by the general population is
self inflicted..read the obits. Secondly, the general population
knows this in their gut. Gun ownership per household has gone from 50% in the
1950's to 34% today. It's the same and shrinking population
that's keeping this fantasy argument going, and yes folks you are becoming
more and more marginalized..thus the increase in shrillness.
When dealing with gun nuts, common sense, practicality and reality go out the
The problem with gun permits is it allows government to know who has guns, and
this would be to confiscate guns.Government is not to be trusted
when it comes to protecting the 2nd ammendment (unfortunately). Therefore calls
that insist that guns be registered, or that permits are needed are not
acceptable.Unfortunate but true.
The oath to protect and defend the Constitution is just that. It is
emphatically *not* an oath to protect and defend the constitutional
interpretation of Mike Richards and Redshirt. Reasonable people can disagree on
the interpretation of that document - and do so all the time. Demanding that
your interpretation of the Constitution be held as the sole legitimate
intepretation is not reasonable.Calling out the letter's author
for failing his oath is more than just a little disgusting.
cjb: "Government is not to be trusted when it comes to protecting the 2nd
ammendment (unfortunately)."----------------Why do
you think this is true? Do you have any proof in the 200+ years of our history
that our government has NOT protected the 2nd amendment? What are you reading?
Where is your paranoia coming from? Can you give me examples?
cjbBountiful, UTThe problem with gun permits is it allows government
to know who has guns, and this would be to confiscate guns.=======
Too late.The Republican Bush "Patriot Act" does
more to infringe as to who has what than any gun registry possibly ever
could.Where's your outrage over THAT?
Re: "Only a fool allows a mental case, with a vendetta, access to ANY
weapon."You mean fools like those proposing increased background
checks?No background check will ever permit access to someone's
medical or psychiatric records. That would not only be illegal, but extremely
ill-advised, constituting yet another obstacle to obtaining needed medical or
psychiatric treatment.The leftist ACLU would never permit it.So, expanded background checks WILL allow any mental case with a
vendetta access to any weapon. The only people affected by such checks will be
law-abiding non-mental cases, without a vendetta.Tellingly, not a
single liberal "solution" would have had the slightest preventive effect
in any of the horrific cases being exploited by the left for their propaganda
value.Thus, not a single leftist "solutions" is reasonable,
sensible, practical, or has the slightest connection to common sense.So, what is the left's REAL motive in seeking to disarm law-abiding
Anti -- it's complete and utter nonsense to do nothing about the mess we
So well said, LDS Liberal.
The chief and most vital role of government is to support the protection and
lives of its law abiding citizens and NOT infringe upon their divine right to
protect themselves. Our society was founded on adherence to divine,
moral, natural law. Our Founders fought for and died to safeguard our rights of
life, liberty and property. Those we have elected have sworn with an oath, that
they would uphold our Constitution. We have entrusted our leaders not to
infringe upon our inalienable rights. I implore all of us to standup for our
divine rights!!! If we are complacent and our leaders infringe upon our
rights to protect our lives, our liberty or property… criminals become
empowered and law abiding citizens suffer and die.
Re: "Anti -- it's complete and utter nonsense to do nothing about the
mess we have now."Agreed -- but only doctrinaire, politically
motivated liberals are doing nothing.The NRA has been busy for
generations, teaching gun and hunter safety, and is primarily responsible for
low US accidental shooting rate. The NRA and conservatives have been busy
advocating, even implementing REAL common sense safety measures, like armed
security in schools -- NPR had a segment on a successful program in Stockton, CA
just this morning, and Utah has offered concealed carry classes to willing
teachers and staff.Even the general public is getting the word --
many lives were saved last Monday by a concerned college student turning in his
crazed roommate.Lost-in-the-sixties radicals, on the other hand, are
stuck on stupid, advocating only illegal and thoroughly discredited concepts
such as draconian, but useless background checks, limits on gun cosmetics, and
unconstitutional limits on the size of commonly used semi-auto magazines.Liberal feelgood anti-gun measures do literally NOTHING about "the
mess we have now."
@ Redshirt-Why even try to get through to a liberal? Facts just don't
matter to them. They think along the lines of Piers Morgan where they have to
resort to name calling and will never address the real FACTS! Sad that we
can't just devide the country in half at this point.
not sure why everyone is getting so bent out of shape over this issue, first off
you can open carry a weapon in public as long as its not loaded, Utah law says
unloaded is defined as no round in the chamber. so what is more likely to cause
more fear 1) a gun concealed out of site , or 2) one thats displayed in the open
for all to see?I took the CWP class, and let me say if you ever decide you
need to use you weapon for self defense, you better be sure your life or the
life of another was in serious danger,and even if you do decide the the us of
deadly force was needed, you can still have a civil suit filed against you by a
member of the family. I agree that some people should not carry a weapon, i
think its very important to know how to use a weapon properly, and no matter
what law is passed, criminals will still get a gun law or no law
Of course if your taking them out to potentially shoot other people for whatever