Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Assault weapons ban, colossal failure in 1994’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 21 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jsf
Centerville, UT

@Noodlekaboodle. "Let's go with your tin foil hat conspiracy worst case scenario." You are naive and ignorant of history. The second amendment was so put as to guarantee the constitution. In 1938, the Nazis passed a law outlawing gun ownership for the Jewish population. How did that go for them in the next seven years. After Katrina, the police in New Orleans unconstitutionally seized all guns owned by private citizens. You think it couldn't happen? It doesn't need to be Obama, it could be the next Republican president. Obama has expanded the bad policy started under the Bush administration.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry

VST
Bountiful, UT

@jsf,

This is not Venezuela – it is the United States of America. Economically and culturally, they are two totally different countries.

You are attempting to compare apples to oranges to back up your rationalization. It will not sell.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I guess we need legislation that goes much further, then.

Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT

@jsf
You still didn't address the point of my post. Even if every man, woman and child in Centerville had a military grade weapon would they really be able to take on a military force that spends at least 600 billion a year on weapons and soldiers? Name me another COUNTRY that could match the US military. The only one that could come close is possibly China, but even they are decades behind the technology our military has. The only reason they would have a chance is they have 4x the population of the US, 1.3 billion vs 314 million. Again, if you are really that worried about the government your primary concern should be the size of our military. Because unless we are allowed to buy cruise missiles, tanks and fighter jets an armed citizenry wouldn't stand a chance.

War dog
Taylorsville, UT

People can comment all they want, bottom line is nothing will change because of the worthless politics of the country, no matter what the bad guys will always get guns. Criminals don't have history of mental illness, they are not card carrying wackos, in fact in most cases people who know killers can't believe could do it

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Utah’s suicide rate is the 10th highest among all states in the U.S.

Firearms and hanging were more common as methods of suicide among young people in Utah, accounting, respectively, for 67% and 20% of suicides at age 21 or under.

"Suicide is an important cause of death in Utah, especially for boys and men in the age group 15 to 44 years. Firearms are the most common way that suicide is committed, and having firearms present in a home is a demonstrated risk factor for suicide. Restricting access to firearms for persons at risk of suicide is one potential way to prevent suicide."
(Utah Dept of Health 1999)

"Utah leads the nation in suicides among men aged 15 to 24.

Utah also has the 11th highest suicide rate — 14.3 deaths per 100,000 people — in the nation over all age groups, according to the most recent data from the American Association of Suicidology."
(Deseret News May 2006)

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Good grief Redshirt, of course taking way guns will not solve the mental health problem. There is no logical connection between the two. You know,basic logic, action and reaction. Making assault weapons harder to get will make it much less likely that such can obtain weapons of mass murder. And if they can't obtain these weapons because they aren't available, if follows that it will be much harder for them to shoot 20 kids and 6 adults. But it is useless to try to reason with those that think like you, "for reason is not what you care for". You like NRA talking points, so much easier than thinking for yourself.

SteveD
North Salt Lake, UT

Just like the limits on free speach are imposed, the limits on the right to bear arms is imposed. Basically, safety trumps freedoms where neccessary. So we debate where to draw the line. It seems to have come down to high capacity magazines.We can suppose all kinds of scenarios and speculate when and where we may need to produce a never ending stream of fire power. Or we can argue why we never need any fire power, but the fact remains, we are a free nation and that fact is the most difficult to reconcile. Being a free nation, and arguably the most free nation, we need to err on the side of freedom.

jsf
Centerville, UT

“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
- Fidel Castro

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
- Mohandas K. Gandhi

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

jsf
Centerville, UT

You Rambo mis-logic is flawed.

Please re-read;

Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT
4:40 p.m. Dec. 21, 2012

His comment is bang-on-the-head right.

The State's individual National Guard (a "well-regulated-militia")
under the statess GOVERNOR as supremem Commander-in-Chief,
is the constitutionally defined 2nd ammendment and is the
ONLY Force that even comes remotely close to possibly keeping the FEDERAL Government and military force in check and balance.

I see that AK-47s in the hands of millions of the Taliban citizens (including children) didn't stand a snow-balls chance in you-know-where over in Afghanistan.

If you want to compare REAL life situations -- look into how well they faired before spewing your made-of-TV movie fantasies.

Rob Justice
Shoshone, ID

I fail to see what most of these comments have to do with the issue at hand. I also fail to see how a weapons ban will prevent crime. High capacity magazines or not there is no limit on how many bullets one can own, or how many magazines you can purchase. Most AR style weapons on the market to date are semi-auto weapons (meaning you pull the trigger once-it fires one bullet) so how removing these from store shelves prevent crime? The previous ban did little to nothing to stem violent crime in this county. As the british goverment is also learning removing guns does not stop criminals. Is this arguement truely about stopping crime or just about removing guns? Gun owners as does everyone know the need for responsible ownership. And would surely doubt that many gun would owners support any measure that would effectively prevent another tragedy. The problem at hand is we have drifted so far left and right we have lost sight of reason. There was a time in history when a tragedy meant communties came together to heal, not demean or crimialize one another, blame was left on the crimials.

jfarker
Temecula, CA

I am heartbroken about what happened in Newtown last week, but I am also convinced that none of the proposed 'solutions' will prevent future similar incidents because none of the solutions are absolute. WE CAN NEVER BE ABSOLUTELY SAFE IN A FREE SOCIETY! This is a basic reality that second amendment supporters acknowledge, but no one else seems to understand. I prefer not to live in a police state. I certainly don't want my children's schools to look or feel like prisons. I am willing to take the risk of everyone else having freedom of choice, but I also demand that my right to protect myself and my family be respected. Benjamin Franklin warned us that if we traded our freedoms for security we would end up with neither. I hope that we can rise above the partisanship, the name calling and the blame game long enough to discern what is in our best interest long-term. If we need to act in this matter, may it be a careful, measured response rather than a hair-trigger reaction to the latest tragedy.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "The State's individual National Guard (a "well-regulated-militia") under the statess GOVERNOR as supremem [sic] Commander-in-Chief, is the constitutionally defined 2nd ammendment [sic] is the ONLY Force . . . ."

Transparently and demonstrably false.

The Second Amendment refers only to a "right of the people." NOT of a militia, a governor, a Congress, or even a liberal messiah of a President.

As if such a simple and straightforward assertion needed interpretation, the Supreme Court recently affirmed as much.

What the "well-regulated militia" clause DOES prove, however, beyond any honest doubt, is that it applies to weapons useable by a militia, including assault weapons and normal-capacity [what liberals disingenuously call "high capacity"] magazines, not just to single-shot, bolt-action hunting rifles.

It is fantasy, indeed, to suggest that the reach of the Second Amendment extends only to a state's National Guard.

James1105
BOAZ, AL

The ignorance still runs high in the comments to this column.

Assault weapons can be VERY inexpensive compared to other American semi-automatic rifles made by Browning, Remington, etc. When I purchased by used SKS "assault rifle", I paid $75. Recently I purchased a Mosin-Nagant military rifle for $100. Should I have paid 5-10 times that much so I can have another semi-automatic gun that isn't an "assault" weapon?

Yeah, another "assault weapon" ban will be just as effective as the last one had during Clinton's years - a complete waste of time/money, etc. Great plan - blame objects instead of the people who cause these catastrophies.

DurkSimmons
Stevensville, MD

There is no denying that many people have lost their lives due to crazy people shooting guns. The question here is freedom, plain and simple. Personally, as a military veteran, I feel it's not only my right, but my civic duty to be armed, for my families protection, as well as protecting my non-gun bearing neighbors. Many of these comments are about automatic weapons, but those permits are TRULY difficult to obtain, and usually take over a year. The fact is, we are a nation that was founded with guns, was expanded with guns, and have been the strongest nation on earth because of it. We've never been invaded by a foreign force because 'they' know we the citizens of the US are armed to the teeth, period.
Most of these heinous acts could have been avoided if our mental health system wasn't in its current state. We only have one out of the 20 beds that were available 30 years ago, with a 15% rise in population, and many more social problems to deal with than we had back then, like new drugs, the internet, etc.
Durk Simmons

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments