Clear 85° | 7 day forecast

Monday, September 1, 2014 | Last updated: 9:26pm

Your views



In response to “Armed guards can’t prevent tragedy, weapons ban can” (by Nathaniel Drake, Jan. 8):

Clearly you are unable to think logically. Drugs are illegal, but you can get them on any street conner in America. Guess what criminals don’t care if the guns and magazines are outlawed, they will still be able to get them. What part of that do you not understand. A assault weapon ban is only a false since of security! We have already had a mass shooting during the first ban.

— John B.

Since apparently you fully understand the issue, maybe you can tell me what the definition of an assault weapon is. Last time I looked they were restricted to military use only. So since all we civilians have are semi automatic rifles, that are dressed up to look “scary” what makes one designed for a small varmint(.223/.556) more dangerous than a hunting rifle designed to function the same way with a more dangerous round(30-06).

Why does your call for control appear to be based on an emotional reaction rather than the review of the facts that we as Americans deserve? Where is the rest of the discussion in your article on mental health, violence in the media?

— Jim

This guy dosen’t get the ‘’shall not be infringed’’ part on the end of the second amendment to the Bill of Rights.

— Daniel S.

Obviously he does, because he mentioned infringement on the right of freedom of the press and freedom of speech which we all happily allow. The second amendment was created for an organized civilian militia, not any redneck who just wants a gun so they can feel powerful. I think Mr. Drake addressed the issue very well, and shows that the safety of a nation should trump personal, or special group, interests.

— Sarah V. (in response to Daniel S.)

Mr drake didn’t address the issue, cause the issue is a nut job was able to shoot children. While guns may be the easiest answer, they do not solve the problem and what an injustice to hone in on an “answer” that doesn’t solve the issue. Where is the conversation on mental health, access to care, medications he was taking, ability to easily enter the school, the lack of emergency preparedness in schools.

We all wish life was black and white and answers are easy but they are not. Use the god given intelligence and your new education to discuss ALL the factors involved and maybe you might come by a different multifaceted solution.

_— Jim (in response to Sarah V.) _

Yes, you are correct, he did mention the freedom of speech/press, but no where in that amendment does it say “shall not be infringed upon.” This is what the Second Amendment says verbatim:
“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.”
As ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: Do you see the comma after the word “state”? That comma stands for “and/or to include.” Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is tragically skewed, as is his. It says in simple English: “A STATE should have a well-trained military machine for its own safety and security AND the people have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms AND the GOVERNMENT shall NOT INFRINGE on these RIGHTS.”

— Dusten R Trounce


Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Arizona Daily Wildcat.

Comments powered by Disqus

ALSO ON THE WILDCAT MORE STORIES >>