www.utahstatesman.com/news/741129.html?mkey=884478

Editor,

Amendment II: "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."

The constitution guarantees the right to own firearms. However, the second amendment should not by used as an impediment to critical thinking about where the limit should be set. Citing the constitution, many argue that they have the right to possess any weapon that fits their fancy. To adherents of this school of thought I pose the question; where do we draw the line? At grenade launchers? At mines? At surface-to-air missiles? Or what about nuclear weapons?

While these are very extreme examples I only ask the question to point out that there has to be a limit set somewhere. So what do we do? Short of placing Charlton Heston on a terrorist watch list, I believe that we should not only reinstate the assault weapons ban, but this time shut the loopholes and expand its authority.



Richard Fetters
[email protected]    

What a retard!

Another limp wristed, panty waisted socialist.
Fuck em, we won !!

Hey Fatters -

The Constitution sets the limit of what "arms" means.

Read it, learn it, know it.

Idiot.

You don't even know the meaning of the words "critical thinking."

Sounds like some ivory-tower armchair socialist. Somebody from UT here should write a rebuttal....

Quoted: Actually, the Constitution itself does not set such a limit.  It only states that it cannot be exceeded.   Infringed means to exceed the limit.  Nowhere does the Constitution state what that limit is.  Some presume that means no limit, others presume it means its up to separate legislation to define that limit.

"Shall not be infringed" is clear. There is no ambiguity or clarification needed.

Also, the editorial writer is obvioulsy a liberal, socialist college professor.

Ok here is a question...where should WE set the limits? The WE I'm talking about is the people who actually know what WE are talking about as far as weapons go. IMO anything but explosives IE if you want to own a M79 fine all you have to fill out is a 4473. But you have to have a license for the HE rounds.

Yes I know the antis wouldn't go for it,I just asking what you think.

I guess we shouldn't tell him it is legal to own grenade launchers and SAMs.

Also, the editorial writer is obvioulsy a liberal, socialist college professor.

+1 You beat me to it.
[email protected].edu

My response to that type of attitude:

I should have the right to own any weapon with which I could, as an individual, protect myself, my family, my property, and in concert with others, my state and my nation.   It would include knives, swords, sticks, pistols, rifles, machineguns, sub machineguns and the like.

Any weapon with which I could NOT defend myself/my home, like a surface to air missile or a nuke, would be beyond what would be practical.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Actually, the Constitution itself does not set such a limit.  It only states that it cannot be exceeded.   Infringed means to exceed the limit.  Nowhere does the Constitution state what that limit is.  Some presume that means no limit, others presume it means its up to separate legislation to define that limit. "Shall not be infringed" is clear. There is no ambiguity or clarification needed. Also, the editorial writer is obvioulsy a liberal, socialist college professor. Do you know the real definition of infringed.  I would bet not since you didn't read the second paragraph of what I wrote.  Being educated is better when you are going to debate or argue a point.  That point is just as I have stated.  Your definition and the real definition might not coinincide.  The writer of the letter is obviously using the real definition even if it is not our desired definition.  I understand that it means setting limits.  The difference therefore between me and the opposition is that I want my candidates deciding where those limits lie.

Infringe v.t.
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
Webster's 1828 American dictionary of the English language
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, violated, by contravention. The right is absolute and total according to the 2nd amendment. There is no option for government to abridge this right, at all. The limit is what the term ARMS may be interpreted to mean. That may be open for debate but it surely includes any weapon carried by a single man. Planerench out.

I think a person has to register on schools news website then they can write a letter.... USU also has a 2nd amendment org that does a pretty good job at defending the 2nd... Also I am pretty sure that Fetters is a student as far as I can tell from the name search I did on the www.usu.edu directory. Of course there are many professors who also feel as good old Rich does.

People who feel the 2nd is not firm but feel that the 1st is ironclad have weak kung fu.  They are vulnerable.  It's not apparent in the letter so find out if he has this weakness.

My favorite debate was when a guy told me that 'some' guns should be banned because they are that much more dangerous.  He said it was proper in the same way that yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is illegal.  I then asked him if it would be constitutional under the 1st to attach a federal felony to anyone that uttered the word 'fire', ever.  If the word 'fire' banned, or it's usage controlled.  

Air Rifles for EVERYONE!  TO ARMS!

Hatchet,
Can't you submit a letter? aren't you a USU grad

I've thought about it... But, I am sure there will be about 3 to 5 letters sent in the next day or so from the USU 2nd Amendment members.