Comments about ‘Letter: Many voices for guns’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 14 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Onion Daze
Payson, UT

"Plinking" cans trumps citizen safety.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Please lend your collaborative voice and concern to gun violence prevention."

I'd be happy to.

Contrary to your assertion, this "national problem" does NOT require a ban on "assault weapons."

The Constitution wisely guarantees the right of the people to own and use the types of weapons useful to a well-ordered militia. In other words, military weapons.

This "national problem" CANNOT be solved by limiting good-guy access to the tools necessary to defend ourselves from the bad guys -- who will ALWAYS have access to "assault weapons," meaning, of course, whatever weapon they choose to assault us with.

We cannot preserve freedom by laws limiting freedom. Since only good guys obey the law, anyway, laws banning guns will only apply to, and limit the freedom of, good guys.

How in the world could disarming good guys solve a "national problem" created by bad guys?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

I am still thinking about what can/should be banned (if anything).

But background checks on all purchasers all the time is a must.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

The constitution trumps the emotional hysteria, because it is the only way to promote citizen safety.

salt lake city, utah

I'm going to go out on a limb here with a thought I've had that has been planted and nurtured by a number of new books and articles, that I've either read or reviewed. The thought is America is stuck in a troubling place right now trying to honor it's old tradition of fierce personal independence and the realities of modern life. It was barely over a hundred and fifity years ago that 60 acres a mule and a strong work ethic was all that was required for success. Now we have an econonmy where hadly anyone has a job that doesn't rely on at least Inrastate commerce and most likely international commerce. Yet we still foster an ilusion of just leave me alone I'll take care of this. Most modern socieities have learned to trust the need for collective action. Not America. If we have a gun violence problem it's described as a good guy vs. bad guy problem..individualism..so just give the good guys more guns. In reality it's a society problem, a problem that reflects all the complexities of modern society. It's time for America to face reality.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


Should Americans have rocket launchers? Drones? Tanks? All are armaments used by our military. What a sad country this would be if everyone stockpiled these types of weapons just because the military uses them.

Hayden, ID

Waaaa Waaaa.People in America are free to own guns to protect themselves! Whine, cry, have a conniption fit and hold your breath until you turn blue. People in America are free to own guns, get over it!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That's out guaranteed right. That is the Supreme Law of the Land. That is the law that the Court upheld in 2010.

There can be no compromise.

Laws did not stop a madman from killing school children. He was underage. He was not allowed to own pistols. He was not allowed to buy ammunition. He was not allowed to take any firearm in a "gun free" zone. He broke the law. NO LAW would have kept him from killing. He proved that he had absolutely no respect for law, but now people are wringing their hands telling us that if we just had ANOTHER law, that those criminals who disrespect law would not be able to kill.

Look at the handgun killings in Washington, D.C. and in Chicago where NO ONE except the police could carry handguns. The laws were ignored. CRIMINALS aren't stopped be laws.

How many freedoms do we loose before we prove that laws do not make us safe from criminals?


Re:MikeRichards, Procuradorfiscal

How does the 2nd Amendment allow for denying access to guns for the mentally ill?

How does the 2nd Amendment allow churches, schools, workplaces to prohibit guns?

Tooele, UT

Re: "Most modern socieities have learned to trust the need for collective action."

Well, I would agree that too many modern societies have been snookered into believing secular "collective action" can somehow substitute for personal morality.

But, it can't.

Nor can we make ourselves collectively safer by legislating individual vulnerability.

Once I can no longer count on the moral scruples of my fellows to prevent them injuring me, it becomes my responsibility to protect myself and my family. Suggesting government can somehow fill that role is deranged.

Human moral decisions are made one-by-one. Individual people, who are individually responsible for those decisions, are the ones making them, not a collective. We are endowed by our Creator with agency to act for ourselves. That's why a hive mentality will never replace individual human responsibility.

No matter how often liberals try. They just can't come up with a way to completely take away our freedom of choice.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


I love the way you cherry pick....

Heere's the Ammedment in it's ENTIRITY;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As part of "A well regulated Militia," -- i.e., a State's National Guard, State and County police and sheriff forces have the right to assault rifles, not you Billy-Bob soldier cop wanna-bes.

BTW - that little word "infringed" does not mean you can have or do anything you dare well feel like.
It means "confisgated".
The government can not "confisgate" your arms from off your property,
Infringe doesn't mean the banning of future sales of assault weapns, limiting caliber or clip capacity or restricting access to those not deemed legally responsible [criminals, mentally ill, ect.] shall be unchecked or unrestricted.

Get off your high horse.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The pro-gun people want to ignore the first clause. The anti-gun people want to ignore the second clause. We can't ignore either one.

The founders wanted all free white men to be armed so they could be called to form a militia to repel foreign invaders and to suppress domestic insurrection. Look at the militias that George Washington led to put down the Whiskey Rebellion as an example. This was because the founders were adamantly opposed to maintaining a standing army.

Since the end of WWII we have maintained a standing army, which is one thing the founders would look on with absolute horror and revulsion. One could make the point that this obviates the need for a militia. That being the case, what is the reason for the second clause if the first is no longer operative?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Seeing the economic success of the Cold War,

Small arms dealers are promoting the idea of a local and individual Arms Race.

Filled with fear and terror,
Citizens are being told by the NRA that only Good Guys and Bad Guys have guns.
And that the Good Guys need to out arm, out number, and out gun the Bad guys.

The Arms Race, lead to MAD - Mutal Assured Destruction - and nearly wiped out the Human Race.

Conservatives see the solution to all of life's problems through the end of a gun.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

BTW - Mike Richards....

I'd for just once like to see you go after the shredding and trampling of the Constitution by GWBush's Patriot Act, and Citizen's United with 1/100th the zeal and rath you exhibit toward any imaginary Constitutional trampling under Pres. Obama.

Just ONCE. Please?

Tooele, UT

Re: "Get off your high horse."

While we're on the subject . . . the Constitution means what it says in real English, not what one or another disingenuous think tank wants to shape it to signify in Orwellian Newspeak.

The Second Amendment states its raison d'etre, in the well-regulated militia clause -- the people need those military arms necessary to act as a militia, when necessary. But, that clause in no way limits the right to keep and bear clause. The Amendment states a right of the people, not of a militia or a bloated, distant, central government.

Quite simply, it protects the right of the people to possess and use military arms.

There is no other honest interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled as much.

The universe of arms protected by the Second Amendment begins with those very weapons liberals currently want to ban. That it extends beyond them is clear, as well, but to suggest the Second Amendment would countenance a ban on weapons because the look military is the worst form of sophistry.

Casa Grande, AZ

Guns are just holding society back.

True defense of your home has nothing to do with guns. Otherwise having the most guns in the world per capita would have solved it.

True defense against tyranny doesn't have anything to do with guns. Otherwise in your minds there is no logic to the hysteria that the government would or COULD take your guns. Gun nuts obviously don't believe just owning those guns prevents tyranny.

Both ideas are flawed and fail.

Think differently and find new solutions. There's nothing a gun can do for self defense that less or non lethal solutions can't provide much more safely to your family yet they are never mentioned.

You're stuck in 1776.

salt lake city, utah

No one suggests that scoiety acting as a collective is a substitute for personal morality...a better word would be responsibility. Societies acting as a collective rely more than any other societies on individuals acting responsibly. And guess what they do..that's why they do better than us in education, health care, mortatlity, upward mobility etc. Why do they act more responsibly..because they decided as a society to function a certain way..and why could they make such decisions..because they see government as an extention of themselves..not their enemy. They've matured past the adolescent stage of newly discovered individual freedom. To know why America is in the situation we are in you don't have to look any further than most 16 year olds with a newly minted drivers license and the family car.

Casa Grande, AZ

There you go again, making stuff up....

"Quite simply, it protects the right of the people to possess and use military arms.

There is no other honest interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled as much."

Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative of all the Supreme Court dissagrees with you.

Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.

"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.

Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year when he told Fox News that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation.

Mad Hatter
Provo, UT

In a nutshell, the NRA leadership and extremist elements promoting unregulated gun ownership find mass carnage acceptable so to enable themselves to have the tools for mass carnage. It's just one of those things. They say, "Get over it." It's the price we pay, and to them it's OK. Shed a fear tears when a mass shooting occurs and just say "No" to any recommendations to make the community safer regardless of the attempt.

Too bad 20 little kids and 6 adults died. You just have to accept these things happening because they want it this way. Don't say they mourn the dead. They celebrate their victory in keeping reasonable gun safety legislation at bay. And they will say the necessary words the next time a massacre occurs, hold their gus up in defiance, and again say "No."

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

On May 19, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed H.R. 4332 and Executed Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

Restricitng the sale, use and ownership of fully automatic fire arms.

It IS within the Constitution to restrict Fire Arms,
and YES, it was that very same RINO Pres. Reagan who signed it into law.

So, that begs this question....

Who shifted?
Was it Ronald Reagan,
or the uber-far-right wing of today's GOP?

to comment

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