Comments about ‘Letters: Enough with the gun restrictions’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Burke, VA

"...millions of us who already own weapons will not want to obey rulings like a ban on assault weapons — nor should we."

Really? In the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court shot down the District’s ban on the ownership of firearms but also included these comments in their ruling:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Eden, UT

The Deseret News is avoiding this meaningful moment in American history. The President of the United States has committed the power of his office to prevent gun violence. The NRA is using attack ads that target his daughters, the world is watching as America attempts to prevent further gun violence - like the killing of 20 innocent children at school, and the Deseret News is silent. As a Police Chief, I know these are positive steps to limit the number of gun deaths in America. Why is the Deseret News silent? Is there no one on the editorial staff with an opinion? Common, exercise the power of the press.

salt lake city, utah

And just for what sir do you need a weapon that is designed to kill many quicklly. A band of robbers, a herd of deer? Oh wait I know to defend yourself from the balck ops troops that are going to land in your backyard and...and heaven knows do what. The point of an assault weapons ban, and a ban on high capacity clips, is they have no useful purpose other than to kill many quickly so it doesn't matter whether somone gets one legally or illegally their posession by anyone other than the military is uneccessarily dangerous to the public.

Midway, UT

You might want to reread the Second Amendment. Are you part of a well regulated militia? Are you packing a musket? That's what was intended, not the weapons that are on the street today being pushed by the manufacturers and the NRA. The overreach on their positions is glaring and it is time to put this all in perspective.

Unfortunately, innocent people often have to pay the price for the actions of others. I can't walk my dog off leash because of other neglectful dog owners. My insurance rates are high because of other dumb drivers. Perhaps in Heber it isn't an issue, but we are part of a larger pie, and often have to pay the price for it. Nobody needs to be carrying around an assault weapon or large clips. We all need to sacrifice a bit and have to acccept common-sense limitations on our rights and freedoms as part of a larger good, which are not in conflict with the second amendment. Frankly, that is the only moral and reasonable thing to do and we should accept that as part of an inevitable change that is coming.

Casa Grande, AZ

I don't feel sorry for you. Scalia your own conservative judge says there's plenty of room to regulate guns.

You used your freedom to buy military weapons and threaten to start a revolution if the rest of us don't see everything your way. Too bad, you're going to be regulated more. Try being responsible.

one old man
Ogden, UT

The guns you already possess will NOT be taken from you or anyone else. And they will not be taken unless they are used to act out in NRA induced paranoia or some other form of mental issue.

One way to maintain your sanity might be to turn off the hate radio and ignore the NRA.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Can someone in the "I have the right to keep and bare Weapons of Mass Destruction" explain to us how the words "infringed", "keep and bare arms", or "well regulated militia" completely disallows something as mundane as background checks and registration?

BTW --
1. If you are law abiding citizen - and have nothing to hid - background checks are the surest measure to assure YOU are never questioned of having or ownig a weapon. Only those with shady backgrounds [criminals or mentally unstable] have something to hide and seek to reamain un-disclosed.

2. The 2nd ammendment never mentions the right free and open weapon sales - only their possesion. So - Constitutitonally, the Government CAN limit types and limit sales and purchases.

3. I'm going evermore impatient with these Anti-Government, Anti-Obama, Anti-America, Secede from the Union individuals who keep tryiing to destroy our Nation. As a Veteran, I have sworn an oath to defend our Constitution -- the Civil War Constitutionally quelched Rebellion before, I'll fight tooth and nail to do it again if need be.

Poplar Grove, UT

The NRA is already getting what they want. The NRA doesn't care about gun owners, the NRA cares about gun sales. The NRA wants to create an artificial panic that all guns are being taken away because when people panic, they buy guns. They are an arm of the gun selling and manufacturing industry, they could care less about their members.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- that has been proposed should threaten any RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

In fact, every RESPONSIBLE gun owner should be supporting these proposals.

So what does that say about those who oppose them?

Everett, 00

one old man
Ogden, UT
Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- that has been proposed should threaten any RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

In fact, every RESPONSIBLE gun owner should be supporting these proposals.

So what does that say about those who oppose them?

9:14 a.m. Jan. 17, 2013


Agreed! one old man

It says THEY are the ones protecting the rights of criminals and terrorists.
It's that also called "Guilt by association"?
Giving aid to the enemy?
dare I say it -- Treason?

Mark B
Eureka, CA

We tried it the NRA's way for, well, forever, but no one noticed or cared that the ability to destroy increased exponentially. If more guns was the answer to public safety, we would have known it by now by being far and away the safest nation on earth.

But it didn't work, and we are NOT the safest. The right to live trumps the right to own any kind of weapon that can be thought of. The president is right on this one, and thousands of lives will be saved.

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

Wow, Utahns? Weapoons of mass destruction? Really? No I don't own a gun, but I'm amazed at all the responses. It was a horrible act by an unbalanced, deranged individual. He could never get a gun, but he killed his victim and stole it. Do you really think the criminals will be turning in guns with large magazines? Our children are like sitting ducks for any criminal. In our own city why do you think the Bosnian shot up Trolly Square Mall? Big sign, Gun Free Zone!
I wonder how many of our legislators who want to pass this have a carry permit, or security guards with large capacity guns? Let's ask Nanci/Harry/Chucky how they protect themselves?
No, I don't know the answer, I just think we have to listen to all sides and not just react when this is what the pres wanted all along. Slippery slope? You bet!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Those who mock the Constitution and the Court keep telling us that we have to belong to a well regulated militia to qualify to keep and bear arms. The 2010 Court decision completely clarified that, but those who mock refuse to recognize the validity of that decision.

Some tell us that if we have nothing to hide that we should be happy to let the government rule and reign over us.

It is clear that those people detest the Constitution and everything that it stands for. It is clear that they would rob us of all liberties and transfer those liberties to the government. It is clear that they mock the hundreds of thousands who fought and died to preserve the Constitution.

There is no middle ground. The 2nd Amendment, upheld by the court, guarantees every American's right to keep and bear arms. Restriction by the government is prohibited. Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement. Limiting the ability to buy guns and ammunition is an infringement.

Either we believe in the Constitution or we fight against the Constitution.

The Constitution is clear. The decision of the Court is clear. That makes no difference to the anti-gun advocates.

Tooele, UT

Re: "You might want to reread the Second Amendment."

We have. Many, many times. Along with the Supreme Court cases interpreting it, including Heller, which specifically holds that Second Amendment rights are NOT tied to militia membership.

And, contrary to previous posts, Heller does NOT hold that military-looking weapons may be banned or restricted. The Court in Heller reads previous caselaw to hold that the Second Amendment protects those weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Which certainly includes extremely popular "assault weapons," so hated by the left.

It should also be said that, since the Second Amendment declares militias to be its raison d'etre, it couldn't be clearer that its reach extends to those weapons that would be useful to a militia -- military-looking weapons like AR-15s and semi-automatic AKs -- with normal-capacity [what anti-gun nuts would call large capacity] magazines.

Anti-gun liberal hate it, I know, but they'll lose on this issue.

They have neither legal nor popular support for the illegal actions they propose.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The crazy response to reasonable regulation actually indicates a need to regulate more. Every year there will be more and more tragic gun deaths so wannabe rambos can play with assault rifles.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

We have the Constitutional right to vote.
We are also required to REGISTER to exercise that right to vote.

Conservatives don't seem to mind that at all.
In fact, they want to INCREASE regulations to include applications, forms and even picture I.D. cards….making it harder and harder just to vote. [100% Constituional, perfectly safe, and can't even kill anyone.]

Can one pro-gun Conservative please explain;
Why this HUGE ridiculous double-Standard?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

I've seen nothing in BO's proposals that call for an end to gun violence, he just wants an end to private gun ownership. We see how well that's worked in Chicago with their high murder rate and dependence on the dem political machine running the city for protection - he wasnt that for all of America. Just like dudd-frank has failed to end too-big-to-fail and Obamacare has done NOTHING to control health care costs, his proposal are wrong-headed. Just like putting a splint on your arm when you break your leg.

If he really wanted to end the violence, maybe he would set a better example of civility.

Maybe he would focus on the real cause of the recent tragedies - mental health.

Nah, it's too easy to demonize his opponents and use dead children as political fodder to attack his political foes.

Tell me, how many guns did Timothey McVey use to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building? What was the capacity of the magazine he used?

Nut jobs will find ways to commit mass killings regardless of the gun laws you put in place - address the real issue, the nut jobs.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah
Those who mock the Constitution and the Court keep telling us that we have to belong to a well regulated militia to qualify to keep and bear arms.


just those types of "arms" used by the Military, Police, and actual real-life Militias.

If I was a police officer - I wouldn't want to be out-gunned by the criminals.

You remind me of those protecting Al Capone having the "right" to have Tommy-guns.
against coppers only having a .38 special six-shooter.

Who's side are you on?

BTW - The Constitution only mentions "keeping" them.
Not one word mentioning un questioned freedom of the sales and purchases or arms.
I think Congress CAN and WILL put some limits and restricitions on the SALE of them.
Since the self-policing policies of the unrestricted Free Market isnt't working very well.

Burke, VA

Mike Richards said, " The 2nd Amendment, upheld by the court, guarantees every American's right to keep and bear arms. Restriction by the government is prohibited. Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement. Limiting the ability to buy guns and ammunition is an infringement."

Mike - don't you think you are "mocking the Court" when make such statements. If you look at the language in the Supreme Court's ruling on the District of Columbia vs. Heller, which I so kindly provided in my first comment, you will see that restrictions are, in fact, allowed by the Constitution as interpreted by the Spupreme Court.

Is your opuinion more important or more powerful than theirs on this issue?. Neither the prsident nor anyone else of any credibility is talking about mass confiscations of guns owned by law abiding citizens. The hyperbolic reaction and follow-up of the NRA and their surrogates is only indicative of who is the out of control reactionary force in this issue.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Dear Brethren:

Firearms in Houses of Worship

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.


Yep - LDS Churches and Temples are scarey "Gun-Free" zones, per the 1st Presidency.

Do pro-gun people feel the insitant need to stop going to the Church or Temples?

BTW - We've been instructed to make our individual Homes places of worship, like Temples, a piece of Heaven of Earth. That could easily mean our Homes should be made likewise "Gun-free" zones.

Follow the Prophet.

to comment

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