Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: 2nd amendment purposes

Comments

Return To Article
  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    May 19, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    I like how the left controlled mass media likes to call any gun owner a racist. But they will never admit that the NRA was originally founded to fight the KKK and that the first Gun control laws were used against black people. LBJ even said when he signed the civil rights act, "I will have these n-words voting Democrat for the next 80 years." Democrats are still racist. Instead of controlling minorities with plantations, they control them through Government dependence and phony race baiting opprotunists that pretend to fight on their behalf, Like Al Sharpton. Anyone that wanted real Civil rights, they killed. People Like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 19, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    I'm not exactly sure where this letter writer is trying to lead --

    But --

    I can assure you that the Foudning Father's of 1776 did not forsee the day when "I" - a single citizen - would be able to produce weapons of mass destruct [chemical, biological, and even nuclear] with stuff that could be found at a local hardware store.

    So - NO, the "right to keep and bear arms" does not allow you have any weapon you want.

    BTW - I was in the Consitutional "Militia", and it's called the National Guard.
    And "rebellion and inserrections" is another "Constitutional" requirement given to turn on our own civilians - particularly those who think they are "armed".

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 19, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    The structure of this letter is somewhat disjointed, but it raises an important question. Specifically, will the public continue to accept policies of a decidedly left-wing administration which trample on the ideals of the Founding Fathers?

    The Second Amendment is just one part of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many others are under direct attack by the left-wing.

    The left-wing is determined to turn this Country into just another European-style post-Christian socialist state. Will the slumbering masses awaken before it is too late?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 19, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    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. When I read these words, I come away with a different understanding. First, when they were written, a 'well regulated militia' was necessary for the security of a free state. In these days of us having arguably the best standing army on earth, is this well regulated militia necessary, if so where is it,and if it exists, why do we have a standing military? I know the supreme court has weighed in on this, but the whole well regulated (not armed mob) militia requirement seems to impose conditions on the second portion of the sentence. If the militia isn't necessary, then what. One other point, we don't get to own surface to air anything as part of the second amendment. There is a line drawn somewhere, maybe we could tweak it a bit.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    May 19, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    Lines are always drawn. The tough part is deciding who gets to draw them...

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 19, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms! The really cool thing about this is if you DON'T want to own a gun, and you believe the police can protect you, you don't have to own a firearm! Its called freedom! Imagine that!

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 19, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    Any weapon I want? I am fascinated with thermo-nuclear weapons. Can I please have 10 of them? I promise I'll do my best not to wipe out too many cities.

    The biggest problem with the 2nd amendment (and really the constitution in general) is that people hold it far more sacred than those who wrote it intended. The would have wanted us to change parts of it if modern circumstances required it. The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed. It was written at a time when the most advanced technology in the world were muzzle loading rifles.

    We need to solve some serious problems. Should we allow Americans to have any weapon they want, if not what will be limited (we already do this, I can't own an F-22)? How are we going to prevent people who are a danger to others from access to weapons (this will never be 100% but we can do much better than we are now)? What do we need to do to lessen this countries violent culture?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 19, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms!

    ======

    Did I say anything about "firearms"?
    Nope.
    And neither did the letter writer --

    It is this silly, preconcieved notion that any American, can posses any weapon, and anytime, and anywhere -- THAT is just plain wrong.

    BTW --
    I'd just like to see what a country of private citizens with firearms, fighting on their home turf, can do --

    vs.

    a fully armed, and trained fighting force like the United States military.

    Hint:
    Look up: successful military campaing of AlQueda against the U.S. military.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 19, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    Airnaut. What do you think the 2nd amendment mean when it guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms? Sling shots? Come on man!

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    May 19, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    "Because it is absolutely critical that we prevent the militia from being used to oppress the people, or to overthrow the duly appointed government."

    Wow, very creative reading of a rather simple phrase.

    "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."

    According to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment. . . . For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text . . . applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes and . . . did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms."

    Historically, then, the NRA and its puppets in Congress have no leg to stand on.

    Stevens suggests adding five words to the amendment to restore the original intent of the framers of the Constitution: "when serving in the Militia."

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    Open minded,
    So why do I need ID to buy stuff at the local drug store, but not to vote?

    Hutterite,
    Jefferson opposed a standing army, and saw the militia as a counter-balance to it. The militia is required to prevent tyranny, not just foreign invasion.

    Wraith,
    They DID want us to change it – it’s called the amendment process. But they didn’t want us to hold it sacred? Do you know when Madison v Marbury was decided?

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    The Second Amendment, like the entire Constitution, was written by reasonable men to be understood by reasonable men and women. Reasonable people don't want to own large military weapons so that argument against the Second Amendment is absurd. But many reasonable people also don't want to be unarmed and at the mercy of criminals who don't feel bound by law, be they citizen, undocumented alien or government-employed.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 19, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    West Jordan, UT
    Open minded,

    Jefferson opposed a standing army, and saw the militia as a counter-balance to it. The militia is required to prevent tyranny, not just foreign invasion.

    ========

    US Constitution
    Article I, Section 8 ---

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
    suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
    governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
    States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
    and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
    prescribed by Congress;

    ------

    You show me where it sees preventing tyranny, or
    funding for an untrained, undiscipled, group of red-necks with guns in a pickup truck, without officers, rank, properly marked uniforms or vehicles, calling themselves a "Militia" -- that is a MOB, gang, Mogadishu.

    If you can show me that, then I acquiesce.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon/airnaut/LDS Liberal/LDS Treehugger...

    The Constitution does not protect your right to poses chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons. I think we all know that. People have been arrested for it.

    But were the civilians who organised themselves and stood up against their Government and their King in Concord Mass... breaking our laws? No. And it's not illegal to be armed in America to this very day (even if you're not in the National Guard).

    ===

    The US Supreme Court already ruled on your exact assertion (that the Constitution was referring to the National Guard). They ruled to the contrary to your assumption (in the case where Washington DC law limited gun ownership to military, national Guard, and Police). That law was struck down by SCOTUS and in the majority opinion they stated that the organized militia did NOT refer only the National Guard/police/military... but was a RIGHT of EVERY Citizen.

    They said we can have laws that limit that right for specific reasons (mental illness, etc) but the Constitution protects the right in general (not just for those in the National Guard).

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 19, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    Lost in DC

    No I mean that one of the things our founders were worried about is that in later years the American people would look back at them and these documents and hold them in such a high place that we would almost worship them. Today we do, we feel that these documents are so sacred we are paralyzed by them, people seem to think they are without error and the most perfect of all documents. The 2nd amendment is a perfect example. We clearly have some challenges today with weapons that the founders couldn't have conceived of. But are people even willing to discuss alterations in the 2nd amendment?

    The founders hoped we would have a country today that when faced with difficult problems would be able to come together and find a solution for them. Instead we have a country when faced with modern problems is trapped by many who feel that ideas from the 18th century are sufficient. We have lost the unique American ability to forge ahead with new ideas while holding to core ideas. As a result we have problems we don't solve.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 19, 2014 5:48 p.m.

    Did I miss anything?

    Yes, almost everything.

    Firstly, a well regulated militia is not a mob unless you think the Minute Men back in the day were a mob.

    The purpose of the militia (a force composed of non-professional fighters such as citizens as opposed to a professional full-time military) is to have a way for citizens to overthrow a government that has gone amok (not unlike our current government). Of course, a militia with 'arms' would be hard-pressed to overthrow today's government which controls a huge, regular military with things like tanks, airplanes, ICBMs, and Hillary Clinton to run it all.

    Doesn't mean the people don't need to keep and bear arms for self protection in today's wicked world... but a far cry from the original intent.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 19, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    The Wraith
    "The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed."

    Tell that to the folks who are authorized to amend the Constitution.

    "It was written at a time when the most advanced technology in the world were muzzle loading rifles."

    Nonetheless, some kind of armament is needed in case we get a despotic, dictatorial government (something like we have today). And it can happen. You can't overthrow a bad government with slingshots and machetes.

    Kent C. DeForrest:
    "...applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes and . . . did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms."

    Doesn't matter what purpose the arms were for. The Amendment unequivocally states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

    "Historically, then, the NRA and its puppets in Congress have no leg to stand on."

    They have the 2nd Amendment to stand on.

    "Stevens suggests adding five words to the amendment... 'when serving in the Militia.'"

    I guess Stevens wants a riot of gun owners (i.e., hunters) on his hands.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    May 19, 2014 8:26 p.m.

    wrz:
    "Of course, a militia with 'arms' would be hard-pressed to overthrow today's government which controls a huge, regular military with things like tanks, airplanes, ICBMs, and Hillary Clinton to run it all."

    Wait a minute, wrz... did you not know that the government can't legally use its military against its own citizens?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 20, 2014 4:51 a.m.

    "The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms"

    They have also ruled that there can be limits on
    1) what you could own
    2) who can own it
    3) where you can carry it

    Funny how people tout SCOTUS rulings to support their position and ignore them when they dont.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 20, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Mountanman says:
    "The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms! The really cool thing about this is if you DON'T want to own a gun, and you believe the police can protect you, you don't have to own a firearm! Its called freedom! Imagine that!"

    I love your hypocrisy; now if you'll just apply your logic to another of our favorite topics...

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @wrz
    "The purpose of the militia (a force composed of non-professional fighters such as citizens as opposed to a professional full-time military) is to have a way for citizens to overthrow a government that has gone amok (not unlike our current government)."

    Not unlike our current government? So you think we should consider a coup? If your goal was to make people more supportive of militias I don't think you're doing a very good job of it.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    Open minded,
    No, you won’t. It goes against your deeply held beliefs.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    IMO the 2nd amendment isn't so the citizens can overthrow the government. That would only be needed IF the government got so corrupt and abusive to the people that the people thought they had to risk their lives and the lives of their children to bring about change. There's LOTS of ways to bring about change (before it turns to armed insurrection).

    The left uses the threat of armed insurrection way more than the right. Read "The coming insurrection"... written as a handbook for European leftists and marxists for when the time comes. Also referenced by Cloward and Piven (in their theory for how to overthrow the US Government and install Marxism). Also used by the violent leftist student group "SDS - Students for a democratic society" in their "days of rage" riots in Chicago, and the "Weather Underground" (in their bombing campaign against the US Government)...

    The Right believes in the RIGHT to be armed. But as a rhetorical deterrent to any leaders that may gradually think about abusing it's citizens, or take their rights, or their liberty (because they are defenseless). When the government KNOWS citizens are not defenseless... this will never happen...

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 20, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    The only Constitutional "weapon" you radical right wing gun guys have to change the Government is the "ballot box".

    Armed inserrection and rebellion is treason,
    BTW Abrahma Lincoln did the right thing.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 20, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon,

    Re: "Armed inserrection and rebellion is treason"....

    Tell that to those "radical right wing gun guys" back in 1776 New England...
    Tell it to the Tea Party guys (the real ones, not the new ones).
    Tell it to Paul Revere and his friends.
    Tell it to the people who wrote the "Bill of Rights" and the 2nd Amendment...

    You now the history of the 2nd Amendment... right?

    Google "2nd amendment"... (Wikipedia)

    "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias"...

    "The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights"...

    "The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression"...

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    State militias were used in all of our wars until a large army was amassed mostly through a draft in World War I. A draft did enlarge the Confederate and Union armies in the Civil War, but it was still mostly fought by state militias. A "well regulated (state) militia" is not a mob. A group of individuals, who bear arms and gather together without any regulation under state or federal laws, and call themselves a militia (like the Bundy supporters)? There is your "mob."

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:43 p.m.

    "Some have argued that the Second Amendment is about ensuring we have an armed populous that can form itself into a militia. To do so would not constitute a militia, but an armed mob".

    =====

    While an armed mob is one of the possibilities, it isn't the only one. Should a natural disaster happen, people being armed can band together to help defend their neighborhoods. Whenever a home invasion happens, a family can defend themselves.

    Sure there is the National Guard and the police, and our founders provided for government protection when they gave Congress the power to establish a military. However our founders also recognized the right of PEOPLE independent of government to defend themselves by including the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 20, 2014 11:51 p.m.

    Frozen Fractals:

    "Not unlike our current government?"

    That's right. The current Administration seems bent on destroying this country bit by bit.

    "So you think we should consider a coup?"

    Yes. And it can be done most effectively these days at the ballot box.

    "If your goal was to make people more supportive of militias I don't think you're doing a very good job of it."

    My goal is to show that a militia was the prime way the British was defeated back in the day, resulting in this great country being formed. It might have to be done again some day, with a modern militia. You never know. Look what's been happening in the Ukraine these days?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 21, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    @Open Minded Mormon,

    Re: "Armed inserrection and rebellion is treason"....

    Tell that to those "radical right wing gun guys" back in 1776 New England...

    ==========

    1. They exhausted every diplomatic resource available to them.

    2. As an Englisman, Benjamin Franklin personally appealed to Parliment, but was thrown out.
    [He later said - He walked in an Englishman, and Walked out an American.]

    3. They then Declared themselves "Independant" from England BEFORE they armed themselves.

    4. Once they became a sovergin Nation, they fought to expel the foreign English.

    5. They were regimented, uniformed, & trained.

    6. They had sworn an oath, and were given rank [line of Authority] commissed as wither Officers or Enlisted.

    7. They were rag-tagged, but NOT far from being a self-proclaimed Mob like Cliven Bundy and his "gang".

    8. BTW -- "radical right wing gun guys" back in 1776 New England, were actually LEFT wing, because the right Wing were Conservatives, Torries, who wanted to maintain the status quo and keep things [conserve] they way they were....

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    May 21, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    To you anti-gun liberals. Just imagine an amendment that read, "A well regulated medical system being necessary for a free country, the right of a woman to have an abortion shall not be infringed."

    And to those of you who look to the organized government run military as an out for "militia", just remember this. The Bill of Rights was written as a list of powers the individule people/person has to prevent government from having too much power over said people. In other words, the Bill of Rights gave power to the people, not power to the government. The right and power of government to form armies and a military are contained in other parts of the Constitution.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    May 22, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    There will always be people who want to twist and change laws and rules for their benefit. The 2nd Amendment was written for our protection and rights. It is not to be changed, I believe. It is good and firm as stated. I'm grateful for it. It allows and creates a legal way to protect myself my family or friends if needed be without fear of retribution. Sometimes these rights are taken advantage of because of political feelings but it does not change the fact that the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America was written for our protection and is not to be changed in any way.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    May 22, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    wrz:

    You do not understand English grammar very well. The phrase guaranteeing the right to bear arms was qualified by a conditional clause. Just because you can pull a phrase out of context does not mean it can stand alone.