Comments about ‘National Rifle Association says Congress will not pass weapons ban’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT

The story should be about how the will of the elected representatives of the people was just openly influenced and changed by a powerful, monied lobby. We should be screaming mad about how our society is taken hostage by big pharma/tobacco/guns/industry/banking or whatever.

Cool Cat Cosmo
Payson, UT

People may complain about lobbying groups (like the NRA for example), however the truth is that these groups exist because people support them. Congress pays heed to what they say because many times they represent a large part of their constituency, and so since they want to get re-elected, they try to keep that constituency appeased.

I am a part of that constituency, and I support gun rights, the second amendment, and the NRA. If congress, the president, or anyone else thinks that I and the others like me are going to lie down and cower in submission when they threaten to unconstitutionally take away our rights, the which have been bought with blood, they are sadly mistaken.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I guess we will find out soon if Congress is owned by the People or by special interests like the NRA.

Salt Lake City, UT

It'll be compromised away. Look for the high capacity clip limit and requiring background checks on all gun purchases to be the main final target of the legislation.

Colorado Springs, CO

@Cool Cat: Some rights are worth being taken away. Those such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. Those such as insinuating one has a bomb and intends to blow up a plane. And, yes, those that take away our rights to AK-47s, which have absolutely no purpose for public use!

Bountiful, UT

Innocent people are not protected by disarming innocent people.

I should not have to give up my right to have the weapons suitable
for home defense and for the militia because others misbehave.

The governments militia i.e. police and national guard can not
always be counted on to be there for you.

Like it or not, the second ammendment is still part of the

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Of all groups Mormons ought to understand what happens when you surrender your weapons.
The Nauvoo Legion was disarmed and they lost the Prophet and their city.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.
The more our politicians want us identified and disarmed, the louder we must protest.
Just like the right to assemble and the right to speak out, the right to bear arms is an anti-tyranny measure.
I hope we never have to use it, but we must be able to do so if required.

Mcallen, TX

Do we have a president or a king?

Salt Lake City, UT

The second amendment does not allow for a lack of regulation just a lack of a total gun ban like those that some cities had.

Mcallen, TX


You don't like the rights of the people, or the NRA? Then I suggest packing your bags.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Did I miss something, who is trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms? The extremely conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has even said that the second amendment is not absolute. The overstating of this proposed legislation would be somewhat comical if this wasn't such a serious matter. This is not 1776, the framers had no way to see what kinds of weapons the average person would be able to obtain in 2013. That's why they left the language strong enough that the right to bear arms couldn't be taken away, but flexible enough it could interpreted to meet the current needs of American society.

Bountiful, UT

If any bill is to be passed by Congress, I ask that a provision be
inserted into the bill allowing hunters and target shooters and
other gun users use silencers.

Every time a gun is shot without hearing protection, the
shooter and those around him or her suffer hearing loss.

the truth
Holladay, UT


It all depends on what mean by "not absolute", but it is in black and white that this right shall not be infringed.


Exactly how can you regulate a right? Especially with out infringing on that right?

And do NOT use the "well regulated militia" as an excuse. 'Regulated' as it was used circa 1789 meant functioning or working.

In other words, the intention of the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be able to act military if ever necessary. The Final and Ultimate check and balance. It is unwise to take that right away, or regulate (in today's vernacular) it away.

It seems the answer to every problem to the left is to punish the innocent, the law abiding,

common sense tells you that fixes NOTHING!.

The answer is education, from gun education to moral education.

That has always been the answer.

Not to have big government have more and more control control over you.

The left seem to be today's 'kingmen', they want a king to control and dictate their lives and to take care of them from cradle to grave, they do not want true freedom.

True freedom requires a moral education.


The strawman argument put forth by "Say No to BO" and others that somebody wants to disarm somebody else is dishonest and laughable.

We are talking about where we should draw the line here people, nothing else. Does anybody think small nukes should be available US citizens to posses and carry? What about anthrax and other chemical weapons? What about hand grenades and launchers?

Nobody is trying to disarm everybody and I believe most people understand this. How about we quit the demonization and dishonesty and have an adult-like discussion about where we should draw the line for a change?

Ogden, UT

Man does that pesky Constitution get in the way of Liberal, Socialist, communist thinking.

Cosmo said it dead perfect.

One Old man Read Cosmo again as to what special interest is. It is not always abortion rights supporters.

Xscribe: How about we decide what we have use for. It is not up to you to decide what I want or do not want. Again if Liberals do not want it no one else should either.

Fred44 Please explain where the language of the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment is flexible. Again liberals.

Finally all of your read Cosmo again.

Springville, Ut


The NRA membership is approx. 4 million. That amounts to just over 1% of the total US population.

"Congress pays heed to what they say because many times they represent a large part of their constituency, and so since they want to get re-elected, they try to keep that constituency appeased."

Your idea is right, but your numbers are off, which is the flawed logic that both you and our elected officials make all the time with regards to lobbying. 1% should not be able to prevent debate on legislation the majority wants to talk about.

Thornbury, Vic

It is incredible to see the NRA tail wag the dog

Ivins, UT

The general population has the advantage of gun ownership. Gun owners are not a minority in most parts of the country. The NRA stands up for the rights of this great cross section of Americans and the reason they are "big and powerful" is because they stand up for gun owners issues with regards to efforts on the left (a minority) to regulate and disarm the majority.

There is a limit in this high tech society as to what people should be free to own and use.
A 47 types may be a target. Most gun banners do not even understand how to describe what they want to ban and use the wrong descriptions and words in legislation so watch out folks. There are zillions of these military type weopens out there. What is the government going to do about it is the question. Many NRA members have no use for such weopens and they have no practical use except for law enforcement to meet the bad guys with equal force. And, this may be the ultimate reason law abiding gun owners want the too. Go NRA, you understand how to defend our second amendment rights.

Ivins, UT

Most pistols owned by the American public and used for conceal carry and other lawful purposes have the possibility of large capacity clips (15 rounds or so) and also for the regular 10 round ones. This comes awfully close to the Military Assault type weopens which operate in the same manner if semi automatic. Semi automatic is what many of todays shotguns, rifles, and postols are.
Because of this, banning of semi automatic weopens, like some are suggesting who do not know firearms terminology is a slipery slop when it comes time to propose legislation. That is why we have the NRA to represent us and protect our rights.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Truth "not absolute" are not my words that would be Justice Scalia's words. To the best of my knowledge there is no one proposing that anyone's right to bear arms be infringed upon. But no where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to bear any and all arms that an individual would choose. I believe that the language as in most places in the constitution was chosen very carefully.

mohokat I would suggest that you maybe do a little reading from those who wrote the constitution. They in now way had the ego to believe they could foresee every potential situation 200+ years into the future. To that end they provided checks and balances and gave the executive, legislative and judicial branches different powers and responsibilities. These checks and balances allowed them to write a living document flexible enough to meet the needs of future generations.

I find it amusing when the far right wants to attach a literal interpretation to parts of the constitution while ignoring literal interpretations of other parts. They want to be the ones to decide what that interpretation looks like, and then call other people names who may disagree.

Funny stuff

to comment

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