Comments about ‘Gun advocates question legislative ethics initiative’

Yes yes yes to guns. Let's put them everywhere... rent a gun sounds logical... let's not find out if any of our leg. reps have guns or get money from the nra...

no no no... guns guns guns!! love those guns!!!!

makes me feel.... well masculine!!!

hahahahahahhahahahah ban'em

What next, do they reveal whether they have boxers or briefs, hybrid or gasoline, pepsi vs coke, byu or utes, and on and on.....WHAT difference does it make! Where do folks come up with these ideas. Sheeesh

We already know who gets money from the NRA that is public knowledge. What we do not have a right to know for any reason are the guns that law abiding citizens have in their homes, offices, bathrooms, cars, etc... This is a gun control measure in a poor disguise. As a general public we do not have a right to ask our public servants to post for public view information that would put their person, family, or property in harms way and this measure would do exactly that.

According to the NTSB and the CDC more people were injured or killed in vehicle incidents in 2006 and 2007 than those injured or killed with firearms and those figures included the high profile gun incidents.

Let’s stop harassing law abiding citizens and start focusing on the felons in this state who are not playing by the rules. FBI statistics clearly show states and cities with less gun control laws experience lower rates of violent crimes. Liberate law abiding citizens and lock up their opposites who prey on the rest.

David Irvine is not a former GOP House member anymore than Paul Rogers is a former senator. David Irvine is a registered lobbyist and paid hired gun for several special interests. Bernick, you know this but continue to refer to him as a former rep. It wouldn't be such a problem but yet every other former legislator turned lobbyist you call a LOBBYIST.

So ethics reform is tied to the second amendment? The sad truth is that some legislators will do anything to avoid losing their Jazz tickets and free meals at La Caille and other expensive restaurants. That any legislator gives credence to this ridiculous claim is truly frightening. When democracy rests in the hands of the village idiots we all need fear.

We all WISH the legislature would overturn the whole ethics initiative in a half a second. But as you certainly know, it's politicaly unfeasible for the legislature to overturn any law put in place by a citizens' initiative. You know very well that if this initiative passes, we'll be stuck with all its flaws. Stop making claims to the contrary.

I love guns, and I love legislators with guns. But this is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard from a supposedly pro-gun group. What is the point to this?

Legislators are looking for any excuse to avoid having honest and open and responsible representation in Utah. We citizens must define the morals and ethics because our elected officials have a different idea about them. They seem to think they shouldn't be held accountable for their misdeeds and corruptible habits. This gun disclosure thing come right out of the figment of his imagination. A sick mind and a sick claim.

It's also about time that the news media in Utah be revamped and legislate for truth in news laws. The news media should be the voice of the people and stop bowing to the corporate and government controls. A good reporter would have rebuked this claim long before he even printed it. Or at least put a different spin on this travesty of corruption.

And they wonder why they are called Gun Nuts.

I own firearms and use them responsibly. These paranoid reactive groups make us all look like kooks when they over-dramatize and misrepresent issues.

Are our legislature so afraid of ethics, that they need to scare gun owners in an attempt to derail it being forced upon them?

Common sense would dictate a simple solution to the ptoblem: remove the offending language from the petition and start over. I know I'd sign it then. I won't now.

Let's ask them if they has carbon dioxide detectors, or smoke detectors. Do they have ready access to a fire extinguisher? Do they know how to dial 911? do they use condoms? Do their kitchen knives have sharp tips? Do they have a swimming pool or own a baseball bat?

Why not come right out and ask them if they exercise their rights under the Second Amendment? Now let's be explicit as to the First Amendment as well! Who wants a politician who respects the Constitution? We should know who they are!

If I were them I would do the following:

1. Transfer my guns to a relative
2. Respond that I don't own guns but that I
have in the past (Let's be honest folks)
3. Transfer the guns back to me

That should keep everyone guessing

Once a law is enacted, any group can use that law to further its aims. The supporters of the initative aren't interested in guns, but they will have opened the door to others. As soon as the law is enacted, any group can interpret that law to further its goals. Best to keep the door shut by changing the wording of the proposed law.

People should not have to disclose if guns are in the house. This can make the house a target for criminals who want to steal guns or put criminals on notice that if they want to attack the family that they are armed so then the criminals will take greater precautions.

I agree with ethics reform. But this has little or nothing to do with ethics and is a bad idea.

I can't believe people are using a concern over guns to avoid ethics reform. Makes absolutely NO SENSE.

This is an outrageous case of the gun-rights advocates trying to help out their friends in the legislature.

The ultra-conservative legislature gives the gun-rights people anything they want. So, now the gun-rights people are working to assure that the legislature gets what it wants--no real ethics reform.

Wow--it's amazing that a similar thing didn't happen with school vouchers.

Oh, wait a minute, that will come in the near future.... Count on it.

We need some balance in the legislature folks, and soon.

And, I am a conservative republican.

Do you people realize there are more murders in the US because there are more guns gratuitously owned by people who have no reason for owning one?

What's wrong with you gun advocates?

First, crime in NY is and has been out of control for years and years, so your comments don't even deserve space here. Second, criminals will ALWAYS have a way to get a gun and to use it. Law-abiding citizens, with no criminal record, should be allowed to own as many guns as they want, and licensing should become obsolete. To ask law-abiding citizens to be licensed and reports filed with the FBI on them is like making a 5-year old have a driving license - he doesn't need it! Do you know that in order to have a concealed carry permit that a person has to be registered with the Bureau of CRIMINAL Investigation?! CRIMINAL if you want to LEGALLY be registered to carry a weapon. If you aren't registered, you can still carry a weapon, but then you might actually BE a CRIMINAL!

It is intellectually dishonest as well as factually dishonest to equate eliminating the second amendment and Jazz tickets as reform. Why? One is a constitutionally protected (at least in 2009) right and one is a luxury item that does not have to be reported. If we want ethics reforms lets stop beating around the bush and do it. This is gun control and it is not acceptable.

The FBI's own research from 2005 show more deaths and injuries from car accidents than with firearms. Overall the FBI found that non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. Additionally in states like Florida where RTC was passed the crime rates fell faster than the national average. Why? The criminals know where they will not get killed and still are able to break the law i.e. New York, D.C., Chicago, etc...

My point is you do not provide transparency and reform by shredding the Constitution or by misrepresenting your position as Mr. Irvine has done. It is not paranoia to insist that Constitutional rights be preserved.

So Bernick gives a former legislator turned lobbyist a pass on the ethical questions involved in THAT career choice, quotes him directly, but doesn't bother to get a direct quote from anyone on the other side of the issue?

If anyone wants to know why traditional media is dying in this nation it is because we are tired of having such overt biases passed off as "news" or even half way fair commentary.

So Irvine thinks the gun peoples' position is crazy. Fine. What do the gun people say in response?