This letter is a simple yet exactly to the point as to why changes to gun laws
should be made. They are modest and timely. Why do I suspect that such a modest
proposal will be met with scorn and derision?
Great letter and thank you for your service. Now be prepared to be
blasted by the gun nuts. Who feel any regulation is evil. They are nothing more
than puppets for the NRA
I perceive that a major concern of many citizens is that if they give just one
inch, then they believe the government will take a mile. Therefore, the answer
is “NO” to almost any new gun legislation.I point out
that the government has already taken a mile decades ago. The isolated
enforcement of “no brass or ammo sergeant” has been a reality for
decades in the United States military. How can Mr. LaPierre sleep at night
knowing that the “slippery slope” has already been traversed to the
bottom?Lyndon Baines Johnson was President in 1964. There have been
8 more presidents since Mr. LBJ. The Republic and the Second Amendment remains
in force even with “no brass or ammo sergeant”.
Nor would banning assault weapons "terminate the Republic or Second
Amendment" But it would save innocent lives.
Congratulations on such a logical and reasonable letter. Expect some blowback
here in these forums, though...
Thank you for a sensible letter. A real rarity these days.
The 2nd Amendment protects guns so peoplecan join militias when the need
arises, suchas defending neighborhoods or homes againstdisasters or
against crimes.A militia is by definition a military unit.Therefore 'assault' weapons or military type gunswhich
includes military type clips, are preciselythe kind of guns protected by
the 2ndamendment.The founders recognized there would be
timeswhen government militias would not alwaysbe able to show up or
show up on time. This iswhy our constitution provides for peoplemilitias.
"The 2nd Amendment protects guns so peoplecan join militias when the
need arises, suchas defending neighborhoods or homes againstdisasters or against crimes."Is there some paranoia being
cjb..neighborhood militias now..wow..I dubs general.
Taking guns away from the law abiding citizens does not save lives. At best it
trades lives, as the law abiding citizens are now unarmed dead victims of the
criminals. At worst, it costs lives, as anarchists run amok.
@cjbI consider those militia movements like up in Idaho and Washington to
be nothing more than potential terrorist groups. Doesn't help that
they're frequently racist and neo-nazi as well.
atl, you nailed it!
To "Mike in Texas" but will it cost more lives? For example, would the
Trolley Square shooting have resulted in more deaths if there was not somebody
there with a CC permit to stop him?What about the violent crimes
that are so prevalent in nations where they have the weapons bans in place that
liberals want here? Do you want to put more people in danger just for a sense
of security?To "cjb" you are partially right. The right to
arms is so that the people, when necessary, will be able to rise up against a
corrupt government (local, state, or national) in addition for protection of an
individual and their property.
I think the issue is one of the slippery slope. Is a 20 round magazine too big?
15? 10? 5? 3? What is the logical or natural break point?I am not
saying that there can be no regulation nor that nothing needs to be done, but
there is no magic number here.
@atl134infringe = to limit or reduce.infringing is a
violation of the constitution.The militia cbj is talking is not the
militia the amendment was talking about and you full well know it. but then
again...why not?But regarding those militias, one person's
terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, right?But in any
case, this is still a free country isn't it? And I know of no
terrorists acts committed by those militias. I don't even know how many are
"neo-nazi" but I suspect most of that is an invention of liberal
hollywood and leftest elites to demonize opposing views.Just
don't come crying to conservatives when you are living under a tyrannical
government.But by then I guess the liberal people will be too
uneducated and indoctrinated to realize it.More importantly,The constitution just guarantees liberty, not freedom from tragedy or
failure and all other risks of life.Stepping on liberty is not the
answer and has never been.
When citizens abdicate their responsibility to require elected officials to
strictly obey the Supreme Law of the Land, those citizens will lose their
rights.No elected official in America has the right to pass any law
restricting Americans from owning, keeping, or carrying firearms. Elected
officials DO have the right to pass laws that punish criminals. Owning a
firearm is not a crime. Carrying a firearm is not a crime.Read the
Constitution. The PEOPLE, you and me and our neighbors, have retained the right
to own firearms. Government cannot and must not preempt that right. We have
never authorized government to pre-qualify our right to keep and bear arms.Every thinking American knows that criminals disregard laws. Every
thinking American knows that the President, members of Congress and members of
the Court do not rely on "laws" to protect them. They use guns. They
hire, or have appointed to them, people who carry guns - loaded guns. They know
that no law that they pass will ever protect them from a criminal - but they
want to take away the rights and liberties of honest Americans. Why? We cannot trust a government that does not trust its
Red: "What about the violent crimes that are so prevalent in nations where
they have the weapons bans in place that liberals want here?" Surely you
jest! Which of the following have weapons bans in place:1. El
Salvador2. Jamaica3. Guatemala4. Swaziland5. South
Africa6. Mexico7. Brazil8. PanamaThose are the
only countries in the WORLD with a higher death rate by gun violence (per
100,000 population) than ours. Quite a collection if I must say. So which ones
have liberal induced gun bans?
cjbBountiful, UTThe 2nd Amendment protects guns so peoplecan
join militias when the need arises, suchas defending neighborhoods or
homes againstdisasters or against crimes.A militia is by
definition a military unit.=======I've said it
before, I'll say it again....Anyone walking down my
street, with a gun, WITHOUT proper identification (i.e, wearing a uniform)Will be a 911 call, considered a whack-job with a gun, and
will be considered "armed and dangerous".I will invoke MY
Constitutional right to keep a bead on them until the proper authorities arrive
to disarm and take them away for disturbing the "peace".
Can I make a suggestion to all those who seem to believe that they need a gun
locked and loaded and at the ready at all times inorder to protect their saftey.
Why don't you lobby your local Fox news station to run stories every night
of the incidents that day in Utah where someone was saved from harm by a well
armed and vigilant citizen. It would be nice to have a reasonable and well
documented counterpoint to the stories every night of gun deaths inflicted on
innocents by friends and family members where the mere presence of a gun
escalates a situation into a death.
@Mike Richards,"No elected official in America has the right to
pass any law restricting Americans from owning, keeping, or carrying
firearms."Do you believe that laws restricting ownership of
machine guns, rocket launchers, or artillery are unconstitutional? If you
don't, then you've already acknowledged that there's a line drawn
on ownership of permissible weapons. The rest just boils down to details on
where exactly the line should be drawn.If you do, then you push the
bounds of constitutional originalism well past any sane breaking point.
Re: "Isolated strict weapon and ammunition control by our national
government has been a reality for decades."Yeah -- for the
military, which enjoys less-than-full Constitutional rights in a lot of
areas.And look what it has bought us -- it was like shooting fish in
a barrel for MAJ Hasan at Ft. Hood, though nearly ALL his victims were trained
and qualified to stop him.They were just denied to tools to do so.
Re: ". . . which ones have liberal induced gun bans?"Nearly
all.I have personal experience with El Salvador -- by law, only
licensed individuals may buy, sell, possess, or use guns. Licenses are person
and gun-specific, and must be renewed every 6 years. A background check is
required for licensing. A national gun registry purports to track all gun
ownership and any transfers of ownership.Hmmmmmm. Doesn't seem
to have helped much.Ask a Salvadoran, and he'll tell you the
government is restricting the wrong people, exactly as liberals want to do
here.Makes you wonder what it is about El Salvador that liberals
love so much that they want to turn America into El Salvador.
One nation under Drones with Surveilance and Air Strikes for all.
LDS Liberal. I've said it before, I'll say it
again....Anyone walking down my street, with a gun, WITHOUT proper
identification (i.e, wearing a uniform)Will be a 911 call, considered a whack-job with a gun, and will be considered "armed and
dangerous".I will invoke MY Constitutional right to keep a bead
on them until the proper authorities arrive to disarm and take them away for
disturbing the "peace".So I guess if it's a Christopher
Dorner type, you will just leave them alone. How very typical.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhen citizens abdicate their
responsibility to require elected officials to strictly obey the Supreme Law of
the Land, those citizens will lose their rights.No elected official
in America has the right to pass any law restricting Americans from owning,
keeping, or carrying firearms. ========= Your belief of
"strictly obey the Supreme Law of the Land" then allows me the right to
keep and bear biological, chemical and nuclear weapons then.Because
rifles mean nothing without ammo.And you can't improvise ammo.
BTW - from my years of military training, I know how to rapidly and
easily produce these sorts of weapons of mass destruction.Improvised using
common household items.And just like the military found in WWI, I find them far superior to shooting 9mm metal one at a time.FYI -
the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "arms", not
"firearms".but, I know you know that already.Anti
Bush-ObamaWashington, DCChristopher Dorner wasn't wearing
a uniform, so yes - he fit the type.
The author here correctly outlines the type of regulation referenced in the 2nd
Amendment and is a principle I think both sides of this issue fail to
understand. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that a well-regulated militia is
necessary for a free state. This "regulation" is not understood. To
regulate, in our modern vernacular, is to create restrictions which govern.
However, a quick study of the word and its meaning in the late 18th century will
uncover a slightly different meaning. For the militia to be regulated, it mean
it was well trained and well supplied. To require the removal of brass or ammo
was a training requirement. These soldiers were being taught to respect the
weapons they used and not treat them as souvenirs or decorations. They were
being trained. The same needs to be true for the
"regulations" imposed by Congress with respect to the right to bear
arms. This right cannot be infringed in order to maintain the security of free
state. This security refers to both external AND internal threats such as the
ones seen recently in these mass murders. (continued in next post) 1of3.
Our focus should shift toward what actually was meant by this clause in the
amendment. This demonstrates a need for training in our gun laws. Utah's
current concealed weapons laws fail to see this point, by not requiring a
proficiency exam prior to issue (which was once the case). So rather than
focusing on the restriction of weapons, which is where the current focus seems
to be, we need to focus on the training. This would include more than accuracy
and the technical specifics of using a weapon, but also include mental training
and examination. Those not passing would not be able to use weapons legally,
just as a car cannot be operated legally without completing training and passing
an examination. I am sure there will be many who claim the 2nd
Amendment is absolute and that they can carry any weapon they want, but the
Framers of the Constitution understood the need for good discipline and training
within the militia. General Washington constantly addressed this need. There
was also concern of ensuring the military and the militia was constrained
… (continued in next post) 2of3
to follow the direction of civilian authority - another one of those checks and
balances. As such, the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. But it can be
"regulated," meaning imposing training and good discipline in their use.
But this regulation is limited to ensuring these are present. They cannot
simply go and limit the right to bear arms, to do so would also eliminate
another check and balance found in our constitutional system. This check and
balance is not found explicitly, but is an artifact of the 2nd Amendment. It
refers to the security of a FREE state, showing the Founders were also
interested in balancing the power of the government against the power of the
people. The security of an unfree state can be guaranteed by an unarmed,
untrained, undisciplined militia. But a free state would require the populace
(ie militia) to be armed, trained and disciplined. So ultimately, those
trying to limit the right to bear arms should understand what is meant by
regulation and those trying to protect the right to bear arms should understand
the need for good "regulation" and embrace it. Only then, will this
argument be put to bed. 3of3
Maverick,Ah, the typical tolerance of the left – anyone who does not
agree with you is a “nut”. Tell me again, like you did in November,
how clinton getting less than 50% of the popular vote is a
“majority”. So much for your credibility.So according to
the author and Mike in Texas you can infringe on a right and not terminate it?
What part of “infringe” do you not understand?LDS
Lib,So you are being judge and jury. What if it’s an undercover
cop? Will you blow his cover?
Re: ". . . the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. But it can be
'regulated,' . . . ."Liberal sophistry.The
Second Amendment makes NO mention whatever of regulating arms. Only the
militia.The Amendment contains NO express or implied grant of
authority to government to regulate or infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
If the founders intended to protect a limited right, they knew how to do so.
Since they didn't, there's no reason to believe the right is
limited.Liberal sophistry notwithstanding, regulation IS
infringement. A regulated militia is, of course, necessary to its effectiveness,
but NOTHING in the plain language or history of the Constitution permits
regulation of the right to keep and bear arms, nor is infringement of that right
necessary to a well-regulated militia.Arguments that the
"well-regulated" clause invalidates rights guaranteed by the
"shall-not-be-infringed clause are beyond silly.They're
disingenuous and dangerous.
It will be just like the days of prohibition where the criminal element ruled
the country. But in this case the criminal element will also consist of elected
officals and their wallstreet puppetmasters.
procuradorfiscal, I think you failed to understand why the word
regulated is in quotes. Such was intended to show an emphasis on the meaning as
understood by the Founders. This, as stated, was to create training and
discipline within the militia. So you are correct the right to bear arms cannot
be infringed. My meaning was that the militia can be regulated. So while
Congress cannot ban a specific weapon, such as the AR-15, it can stipulate that
anyone purchasing one be trained on its use and show good discipline (ie mental
proficency). The fact of the matter is that I think we all would
prefer the guy next to us to be trained and disciplined, should the situation
arise where we need to use a weapon. I know I would feel better.
Mr. Gronberg, your situation was just that,an Army situation with Army rules and
regulations. These regulations did not affect at all the Second Amendment as it
applies to me. Fort Ord made the rules, not Congress. That is the big
difference. While those rules affected you while in basic training, they are no
longer in force in the Army, and haven't been for many years. So, your
letter makes absolutely no sense.Besides, you can't explain why
having a magazine with less capacity will keep some crazy fool from shooting up
another school, theater, park, mall, etc. The issue is not the capacity of the
magazine. The issue is people who have mental problems, not the capacity of
magazines. Let's address the mental illness issue. Each and every mass
shooter since I can remember suffered from some type of mental illness or
Folks, all it would really do is create more people who make their own ammo. A
law that would ultimately be a profit for the makers of reloaders. When will
you all learn that laws like these don't stop people from doing what they
want. Three things off the top of my head that Americans will always have.
Alcohol, abortion, and guns. There are many more, but for the sake of
Per "Flashback":1. "While those rules affected you
while in basic training, they are no longer in force in the Army, and
haven't been for many years. So, your letter makes absolutely no
sense."Not correct. Today I telephoned an army recruiter in
Provo. He was very familiar with "no brass or ammo". He even
remembered trainees being **padded down** at Ft. Knox in the year 2000.
Weapon and ammo discipline is still and will remain a part of the U S Army.2. "Fort Ord made the rules, not Congress."Not
correct. The U S Army and/or the Department of Defense made the rules. They
are a rather significant part of the government of the USA. Congress has had
decades to change U S Army weapon and ammo discipline--they have not. It is the
US Army and not a mob. 3. "The issue is people who
have mental problems, not the capacity of magazines."Not
correct. There is no single issue. There are **many issues**. They include a. "...people who have mental
problems...". b. Capacity of ammo magazines.Continued
Continued: c. The 2nd Amendment. The intent of the writers when
the nation was primarily rural and agricultural with only very few people d. The 2nd Amendment. The needs of a nation of 310 million that is
primarily urban and with an industrial / service economy e. The
folks who make the ammo and weapons. They are no small part of the economy.
Follow the money. f. States rights, Federal rights, local
rights, private property rights, public property rights. g. Etc,
etc.4. "Each and every mass shooter since I can remember
suffered from some type of mental illness or problem."Let me
re-word the above:Each and every mass murderer, since I can
remember, used some type of explosive.Bullets are propelled by a
controlled explosion. The 9/11 people used jet fuel. Oklahoma City bombers
used fertilizer and fuel oil.Not only do we need better mental
health programs. We also need people looking at availability of lethal tools.
These can include guns, ammo, airplanes, fertilizer and fuel oil. There are
many issues and angles to the subject.