This is the most stupid bill Utah has ever done. Give me a break. What's next a
State Car, A State Color, A State Restuarant. That gives me an idea. Gene Fuller
had a restaurant here in Utah it needs to be recognized.
Kentucky Fried Chicken's first store was in Utah...
WHAT???I thought Utahns said loud and clear that they don't want
this embarrassing bill to pass!Does the Legislature listen to the
PEOPLE anymore???I'm going to find out who voted for this and
campaign against them when they are up for election.I am all FOR the
2nd Amendment rights. I understand them. I appreciate them and will defend
them. But this is just LOONY.Do we need a State TV now? (Since a
Utahn invented the electronic TV)?When do the nutty stunts on the
hill stop? It's up to us to get people in there who take their job SERIOUSLY.
This is silly but given what they seem to want to work on... I'm going to
encourage them to work on meaningless bills like this one, that way they won't
make things worse with all the other stuff they want to do.
Davis should note a number of state seals and state flags showing men hoding
guns. 2 bits was unanimous in his position, the legislature needs to listen to
him, the "people." I really don't recall a majority saying loud and
clear, on these posts, they didn't want this to pass.
Nothing wrong with the 1911 being recognized when you consider the contribution
its made to saving lives in horrible wars and being invented by a Utahn. The 1911 has a great history much like the Sherman tank, P-51 Mustang
or the B-1 bomber. It is funny though to read the
non-sensical/hysterical arguments against it though.
jsf | 1:19 p.m.What I was refering to when I said "the
people" didn't seem to like it... was the response this topic got when it
was discussed in this forum last Thursday (see "Kill handgun
designation" 2/3/2011. There were 24 comments, only ONE of the 24
supported the bill (that was cjb | 6:36 a.m.)... the rest were against it or
stated they thought it was an utter waste of time. one was neither for nor
against the bill... just went off on gun rights rhetoric but didn't take a stand
on the actual bill).I thought 23-to-1 was sort of an indication that
most people didn't like the bill.That's what I was talking about...
not that just I thought it was a bad idea.I made the broad
assumption that the number of comments to at least a small degree reflected how
DMN readers in general feel on the topic.We actually had
traditionally left AND right leaning posters almost unanimously AGAINST this
bill. At least from the people who commented on it.
This bill is so childish that it beggars an explanation. While I don't care
what other states think bout Utah, it is difficult not to join in the ridicule.
What happen if I have a Winchester and will never own a Browning? Do I lose my
Utah citizenship? Legislators should not charge for the time spent on their
Having the Browning M1911 semiautomatic as our state firearm puts us on record
as paying more than just lip service to the 2nd Amendment.Thank
goodness the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that the 2nd Amendment is a
personal right that refers to individuals and not the state. People who don't
like will just have to learn to grit their teeth and live with it.
Do we really not have anything more important to do?I don't have
that much of a problem coming up with a state gun. But I do have a problem that
the legislature attacked this issue before solving/addressing any of the more
pressing ones, economy, education, infrastructure, immigration, etc.
But if you look at all the articles and posts clearly its not all the people of
utah. One set of limited comments is not a valid statistical population. There
have been multiple submited letters posted over the last few weeks with multiple
for and against comments. Not hardly just the 24 comments you cite. Is your
beef just the gun or any state designation. What is your opinion about the 2009
designation of the State Ship. If the M1911 represents to you gun violence,
then what does the USS Utah represent? The guns on that ship killed many. Is
the acknowledgement of the Navajo Code talkers a waste of time? They carried
the M1911, and their code work ended up killing a lot of Japanese soldiers.
When is the legislature allowed to acknowledge anything?
On one side, I'm about as pro-gun as can get, yet this bill was such a grandiose
waste of time.On the other hand, whatever keeps those fools on the
hill from passing more restrictions on my freedom.....Can we get an
official designation of State Jello Color?How about we argue about
paint color on roads?Maybe we need designated Osmond-listening zones
in downtown areas.Anything that will take up their time sounds good
Re: 2 bits | 12:52 p.m. Feb. 9, 2011 "I am all FOR the 2nd
Amendment rights. I understand them. I appreciate them and will defend them. But
this is just LOONY."If you understood the 2nd Amendment, 2
bits, you surely would have known that it gives individual citizens a singular
right. Exactly which "rights" (plural) were you thinking of, and
exactly how are you proposing to defend "them"?Folks like
2 bits who have such a problem with a state firearm should have voted for Peter
Corroon for governor. He would have vetoed this bill. Unfortunately Corroon
couldn't even carry Salt Lake County in the election.
The Legislature spends a lot of time on message bills, honoring people in the
gallery and other things that a part-time legislature meeting two months a year
has little time to do. Those few tokens like Sea Gulls and Sugar Beats used to
mean something in an atlas or almanac and give a state some flavor, but now we
add to and switch them around so much they have begun to lose meaning. I for
one support Jason Chafetz on his desire to eliminate wasted time in the Federal
House and wish our State House Members would do the same thing.Rifleman: Whether one supports having a "State Gun" and deciding
what that gun should be has nothing to do with how much they support the Second
Amendment. If that's how we are going to define someone or figure out what
we/they stand for then we are in trouble.
Re: Democrat | 9:09 a.m. Feb. 10, 2011Not so Democrat. People that
have a problem with the 2nd Amendment also have a problem with designating a
state firearm. The problem with the comment above from 2 bits is that he
obviously doesn't have a clue what singular right the 2nd Amendment gives
individual citizens.If Peter Corroon had been elected governor the
question would be moot because he would have vetoed the bill. Problem for him
was that he couldn't even carry Salt Lake County.
Rifleman: I can't speak for 2bits, you might be right. But I think a person
can be for the Second Amendment and against a particular State gun designation
or vice versa. I don't think the two are philosophically connected. That said,
doubtless many people would line up on illogical yet predictable sides of the
issue because that seems to be where we are headed in this country.Personally, had I been a legislator I would never have sponsored this or voted
it out of committee. But I probably would have sponsored a floor amendment to
change it to a Browning rifle or a hunting rifle more germane to Utah's cultural
history of hunting. Next year someone will want to change it to the M16 and it
will be like the sugar beat-onion debacle all over again.
I always find it interesting when people profess support for the 2nd Amendment
and then proceed to limit it with the word "but". Thank goodness the
US Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals and
not the state.Why, Democrat, would you chose a hunting rifle when
the M1911 represents a firearm that is 100 years old and is still carried to
this day by many law enforcement agencies around the nation?You do
realize I'm sure that the 2nd Amendment encompasses much more than just hunting?