People need to prove themselves before obtaining a gun license

By: Janice Kopaunik

"Guns alone do no harm. Guns are a sporting tool. Firearms, like any sporting tool in the right hands, are not dangerous. In the wrong hands, many objects -- guns included -- are dangerous. An owner's lack of responsibility cannot be blamed on an inanimate object. It is not the car's fault that it ran over a young child. It is an owner's responsibility -- with respect to a car, knife, firearm, or blunt stick -- to be competent, able and proficient in its use, maintain proper upkeep and keep the item safely locked away.

People who are unable and unwilling to do these things pose a threat to society and therefore should not be privileged with the use and possession of the item, whether it be a car or a firearm.

The case of the Trolley Square shootings brings up the important issue of gun control.

The true problem with gun crime lies in the easy access to guns by unworthy individuals. Sulejman Talovic and other potential murderers have quick, easy, legal access to firearms. Talovic would have surely been given the OK for gun ownership -- he had no felonies or reported mental conditions. Gun salespeople aren't required to look much deeper than that.

The availability of guns to unfit people make guns lethal. Gun ownership was furnished in our Second Amendment rights, but should be regarded more as a privilege -- earned, and denied to the unfit. Subsequently, greater control of access to guns should be enforced..."

Aside from not caring a hoot in hell what some naive young girl thinks about the 2nd Amendment, I would offer that perhaps she might be on to something here. How's about we treat the 1st Amendment as a privilege too? Her meandering style, inability to understand simple facts, and didactic presentation make it quite clear that she should not be carrying a loaded word processor. Her profession therefore should be nothing more than a privilege that she has yet to earn, so lets call upon the Daily Utah Chronicle to ask her to put her money where her weepy gun-grabbing mouth is. Every submitted essay of hers should be held for 5 days, a cooling off period so that the editors can determine if it is worth publishing. If they decide not to, then she doesn't get a check, because no one is paid to exercise a privilege, and a poorly done one at that.

In fact, lets set up a nationwide review board for stories submitted by those who think that the Constitution offers little else than privilege. Not a one, not newspaper, internet, or television writers earn a single cent if their sobby tales of woe do not pass muster. We can then take it a step further to assure that the medium IS NOT the message by closing down any privileged news office whenever a story is generated that is not to our liking.

Hey it's only fair. If SHE gets to decide what WE can or cannot do, then there must needs be a balance. The mainstream media should prove itself worthy of exercising this Constitutional privilege.

And by the way, dearie, the Constitution LISTS our rights, it does not GRANT them. If this is beyond your ken then either ask for an immediate refund from whatever low class learning institution it was that taught you absolutely nothing of worth, or come to the realization that you shouldn't be offering advice to anyone who DOES understand simple English.