Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Enough with the gun restrictions

Comments

Return To Article
  • NaomiA Farmignton, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    I know this is a touchy subject for so many. But I want to provide a counterpoint: how do you think the families who lost little ones in a shooting feel about their rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness feel at this moment? The ultimate aim of any Bill of Rights or Constitution is to protect the basic liberties of its constituents. So while I understand that it is important to many people to be able to own or use a gun, in my mind that right ends when it infringes on someone else's rights, in this case the right to live. I lived in England a few years ago and their death by firearm rate is in the 30's in a given year, while the death rate in America is 9,000+. The research has shown that more guns = more death by guns, regardless of mental health, age, country, or state. Guns are used most often to intimidate intimates, and not to thwart crime (including batterers, who use guns as a tool for intimidation). I'd like to see more light shed on the rights of the rest of us to a safe and free and happy life.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Re Salsero

    You ask if citizen militias need assault weapons? If you
    don't yet understand what more can I say? Once
    more, citizen Militias are expected when all else fails to
    successfully defend themselves and neighborhood
    against well armed thugs the government militias can't
    be there on time or at all. Think about and the answer
    to your question should present itself to you.

  • MelissaJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    I'm not sure you quite understand the 2nd Amendment. The very first line of the Amendment says, "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 Amendment protects your right to own a gun so you can help keep your state safe. Why in the world would you buy an assault weapon? The only people, in my opinion, who can have assault weapons are the military and the police. Not civilians like you. And just so you know, Congress is deadlocked about gun control. Right now the only way you are going to have gun control is if the state were to make a law or President Obama were to give and Executive Order. Either way you would have to comply whether it's Constitutional or not.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Jan. 18, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    Re: Lost in DC

    LDS? lib,
    the essence of your 10:57 post is basically "those who do not agree with LDS lib are not living the gospel"

    Your 11:54 comment cements that idea even further.

    Thanks

    I guess the charge, "judge not that ye be not judged" does not apply to you in your beneficent wisdom.
    ==========

    Yes, Lost, because you have so often demonstrated your absolute commitment to the principle of not judging others on the DN comment boards. Thank you for being such a tremendous example to all of us imperfect sinners who are striving to emulate you.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    cjb

    Thank you!!! for finally giving a sensible description of a local militia and the needs for it that liberals might be able to understand, if they care to try.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife

    90%??? Really? Did you read the DN and see the graph yesterday? The AP poll does not even come close to supporting your numbers. Background checks get 84% favor, but the other issues, limiting magazines, military-style rapid fire, and violent video games, were all in the low to mid 50's %. Hardly enough to overturn any amendments.

    I realize the screeners don't screen for all out fabrications, but Perhaps you could exercise some integrity on your own? Otherwise you end up with no credibility.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    A couple of things; Let me summarize the point of court decisions for Mike Richards. The second amendment says you have the "right" to bear arms and that right can't be infringed on. As long as you are allowed hand guns, shot guns, rifes...etc. a ban on assault weapons does not infringe on your "right " to bear arms.

    Secondly someone wrote how some on this thread are out in the wilderness of public opinion. Just yesterday the polls showed 90% of the population including 89% of repbulicans polled are in favor of a restriction on assault weapons, high capacity mags, and favor a general background check law. You wildnerness dwellers know this is why you lost the Presidential election badly..very badly. You're completely out of touch with the American population. If you have enough gerrymandered votes to stop this..you will pay a price in 2014.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 18, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    Two of three of these incidents would not have happened had gun owners simple secured their weapons when not in use. Under 20 dollar tripper locks would have prevented these acts. But to many of the gun lobby, insisting on this responsibility is far too much a breach of their rights. Rather than insisting on proper gun storage, the NRAs response is to hire hundreds of thousands of new armed police to protect our schools.

    Where are we as a society when we need to have heavily armed guards at every public venue... it says a lot about us as a people.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 12:53 a.m.

    Dear Lost in DC,

    Because you are lost, let me help you:

    Republicans obstructed Obama's plan to create a government-run plan that would have directly competed with private insurance - the surest way possible to curb runaway health insurance costs. This was the main reason it was proposed.

    Please give us an example of how "BO" has been less than civil in any interaction. I can't think of one. (Your acronym, incidentally, is not lost on us.....speaking of a call for civility.)

    We liberals have always been in favor of addressing the mental health crisis we suffer as a nation, but we have not been allowed to do it because our resources are too short; we cannot fund mental health care because we cannot tax the rich; this would distract them from creating jobs.

    Yes, "nut jobs" will always do damage. That is why we should restrict their access to fire power, whatever it is. Guns kill more people than fertilizer bombs, so let's start there.

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 12:05 a.m.

    cjb Bountiful, UT

    And you need semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines?

    The survivalists insist they need these weapons to fight the governent when it comes to take their guns away and trash the Constitution by eliminating the 2nd Amendment.

    And tell me, what is the excuse to prohibit studies on gun violence, stop universal background checks, reduce the breadth, scope, and mission of the ATF if the need is only for "self-protection" in the case of "home invasions . . . [where] federal and state governments were slow to respond" [in cases of severe natural disasters]?

    The American people know the purpose for all this is to fight the government at some future date based on these extremists antipathy toward a democratically-elected government they don't like. And with Obama sitting as president, this hatred has reached unprecedented levels.

    It's indeed interesting that few of these zealots have ever served their nation. They just have this fantasy of one day fighting against it.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:12 p.m.

    Re Salseros

    Some imagined threat? I read about home invasions all
    the time. Also haven't you heard how slow the federal and
    state governments were slow to respond after hurricane
    Katrina and all the looting, thirst and hunger? Isn't it better
    to be prepared? To band together with neighbors and
    defend each other when the need arises?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:53 p.m.

    For years I've heard the NRA and gun enthusiasts say "we don't need more gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books."

    Meanwhile, Republicans, at the behest of the NRA, has slowly but steadily tried to dismantle gun safety measures and made it more difficult to enforce current laws.

    How?

    A)
    Reportedly, the NRA lobbied Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to insert a provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization in 2006 that changed the position of ATF director from one appointed by the administration to one confirmed by the Senate.
    For the past six years, the Senate has not confirmed the nominees for ATF director by Obama or Bush. The current acting director also serves as the U.S. attorney for the district of Minnesota.

    B)The number of agents is no greater than it was in the 70's and takes up to eight years between inspections of gun stores because of a lack of personnel. The agency also is prohibited from creating a searchable computer database for gun ownership records, according to current and former ATF officials.

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    cjb Bountiful, UT

    So the convoluted argument goes: Since budgets have been cut and police and national guard protection is decreased, people need military style weapons to confront a possible external aggressor. Therefore, the rights of people to defend themselves and their community against some mythical force because no one else is there to protect them, due to reduced budgets initiated by the same extremist conservative elements who pushed through these budget cuts, is the primary rationale your argument?

    OK. Now we have it. The sole need to not limit such things as semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and large ammunition clips, and to eliminate background checks and studies on gun-related violence, and encourage people to arm themselves is we may need to fight some imagined aggressor who might come storming onto the beaches of California. Or black helicopters bringing foreign troops into the Montana woods?

    It's simple when the case is made in those terms. I did not know that modern warfare would be restricted to simple, infantry assaults like during the Crimean War and we would not have a military capable of defending our nation.

    And I thought we had the most powerful military force ever known.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    You act as though McDonald v. Chicago overturns or supplants District of Columbia v. Heller; quite the opposite. As ECR correctly stated, the SCOTUS majority decision in McDonald affirms Heller (including the opinion that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited), and opines that the Second Amendment and related case law (including Heller) not only applies to Federal government, but also to individual state governments.

    So, in summary:

    * Generally speaking, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense (Heller; 2008),

    * That right is not dependent on service in a militia – SCOTUS opinion holds that the "well-regulated militia" clause is *one* reason for the Second Amendment, but that it is not a prerequisite for exercising Second Amendment rights (Heller),

    * The Second Amendment does not grant an unlimited right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – this is what authorizes National Firearms Act Title II restrictions and certain other restrictions (Heller), and

    * The Second Amendment and related case law apply to state and local governments to the same extent that they apply to the federal government (McDonald; 2010).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    ECR,

    "In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia."

    "In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government."

    The extent of firearm ownership was not established by the Court. No limit of what a citizen can "keep and bear" was established by the Court. Absent any restrictions by the Court, the Constitution clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The 2010 ruling put State and local governments under the same prohibition to infringe as the Federal government.

    That is cut and dried.

    No ruling was made to limit the number of rounds that a magazine can hold.

    No ruling was made to limit the type of firearm.

    No ruling was made that limits in any way our right to keep and bear arms.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    It is sometimes said by anti gun people that there is no need
    for people to have assault weapons. However assault weapons
    are the kinds of weapons people will need whenever it becomes
    necessary for them to band together into a well regulated
    militia to protect their homes and communities.

    We can't always expect that a governments militia ( police and
    national guard ) will always be there on time when we need
    them. Especially with all the budget cuts, national and state. The
    Founders recognized this and so they ensured that people
    would have the right to form up into armed militias when necessary.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    "This is not going to end well. There is going to be a civil war. I have a gut feeling that this is where it's going to lead."

    And it is exactly this kind of comment that causes serious concern among more sensible citizens.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Have you seen the photos in the Tribune this afternoon of the guy shopping at the Riverdale J.C. Penney store wearing what looks like an NRA T-shirt and carrying an AR-15 slung over his shoulder?

    And despite this kind of behavior, gun advocates are asking the rest of us to think of them as sensible, upstanding and responsible citizens?

    It's exactly this kind of thing that throws that into serious doubt.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    This is not going to end well. There is going to be a civil war. I have a gut feeling that this is where it's going to lead.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    To "Mark B" we didn't have a failure in the NRA. What you see as failures in the system are failures of GOVERNMENT.

    To "JoeBlow" it isn't ironic. How many armed security people were present at the GOP convention?

    To "LDS Liberal" so are you against private security companies now too? They buy guns and use them every day. In fact the US government hires them to protect its diplomats from time to time.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    lost in DC
    West Jordan, UT
    LDS? lib,
    the essence of your 10:57 post is basically "those who do not agree with LDS lib are not living the gospel"

    Your 11:54 comment cements that idea even further.

    Thanks

    I guess the charge, "judge not that ye be not judged" does not apply to you in your beneficent wisdom.

    1:17 p.m. Jan. 17, 2013

    ============

    What the...?
    My 10:57 post was a cut and paste of a highly publisized statement given by the LDS Church establishing all LDS Churches and Temples as "Gun-Free" zones. I didn not say or imply anything about anyone agreeing with me or not.
    The Church's statement on the subject stands by itself.
    I provided NO opinion, and asked no one to agree with me at all.
    I mearely asked if LDS members were going to support the Church or not.

    As to my 11:54 post.
    It was a hyothetical question.
    I didn't even submit an answer!
    How could I "cement" my opinion when I didn't even suggest one?

    And --
    As for judging other....
    Conservatives are hardly the torch bearers of righteous on that account.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    Couple of things here. First, the president proposed setting aside money for schools to pay for more armed security if the school wants it. So he is doing exactly what you small gov't conservatives want. Allowing for schools at the local level to decide if they want armed guards or not. Second, In regards to the NRA maybe they should have waited to see what Obama said, before they started putting out commercials, that in light of the presidents proposals look incredibly dumb.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    "The NRA does NOT question why the President's daughters are protected by armed guards. It knows why, and has suggested to the President that ALL schoolkids should be protected by armed guards."

    Schools have that right, right now. Many schools have armed guards. NOTHING is preventing that today, unless the states have chosen to restrict guns in schools.

    Cant blame Obama on this one.

    Unless, of course, you want the federal government to pay for it. And, certainly we know the answer to that.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    Our esteemed legislators have no answers. For them, the proper response to the massacres of children is to do nothing. There is something very dark at the heart of these people...

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    LDS? lib,
    the essence of your 10:57 post is basically "those who do not agree with LDS lib are not living the gospel"

    Your 11:54 comment cements that idea even further.

    Thanks

    I guess the charge, "judge not that ye be not judged" does not apply to you in your beneficent wisdom.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    Re: "Ironic that when the Supreme Court agrees with you . . .they are wise . . . . When they disagree . . . they are "activists" . . . . not terribly self-aware.

    I'm preserving this thread for the day when the Supreme Court rules that the Obama regime's regulations are illegal and unconstitutional. I'll then trot it out to compare with what you liberals are saying then.

    The Supreme Court was not faced with the regime's illegal regulations, or with other state and federal politicians' illegal new gun control scams when it decided Heller. So suggesting it has already decided their validity is sophistry.

    But the Court has a long history of applying clear language, like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," as it's written, not as liberals try to twist and mutilate it. As it recently did in Heller.

    So, we'll just have to wait and see what it does. But, when its decision is announced, I'll be there, with all these nonsensical liberal comments.

    Just to help you out a little with your self-awareness.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Mikle Richards said, "Let's see, District of Columbia v. Heller was 2008. Read the Court's decision of 2010."

    By that reference I assume you mean McDonald vs. Chicago where the Court upheld a man's right to own a weapon and use it to defend himself in opposition to local ordinances prohibiting such. If you read that decision you will find that the Court referenced the Heller case in their decision in favor of McDonald. But no where did they weaken the language of Heller, since they were essentially dealing with the same issue. In other words, they used Heller to bolster their argument for McDonald and the Heller case makes it clear that despite the Court supported right to bear arms, "it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

    So in other words, the McDonald case strengthens the langauage of the Heller case and vice versa.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the NRA questions why the president's daughters are protected by armed guards."

    The NRA does NOT question why the President's daughters are protected by armed guards. It knows why, and has suggested to the President that ALL schoolkids should be protected by armed guards.

    Rather, NRA advertising merely points out, and asks Americans to consider, the naked hypocrisy of liberal politicians' actions and intentions, including those of the President. They'd have the effect of removing from us the choice to provide the same protections they decided to apply to their own kids, to ours.

    Liberals are good at that. Not content to make their own choices, and let others do the same, they incessantly insert themselves, uninvited and unwelcome, into our lives, by implication suggesting, only THEY are smart, compassionate, understanding, or capable enough to make our decisions, and that we should all be content to follow them, sheep-like, into whatever brave new liberal world, du jour, strikes their fancy.

    Which real people know, of course, is laughably imbecilic.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Yes Mr. Green. Let's let the slaughter continue, let's let the cops be outgunned, let's let the gun manufacturers and the NRA pull the wool over the eyes of foolish people. As for those that argue that the solution is just to find and eliminate the nuts, if we did that, all you gun nuts might find your selves in the nearest loony bin.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    The government only has those rights that we have transferred to it. We have not transferred any rights concerning firearms to the government.

    ==============

    80% of Americans want tighter gun controls.
    Harp all you want, but the PEOPLE are telling the GOVERNMENT what to do here.
    Not the other way around Mike.
    You are in an extremely remote little corner of reality here.

    You are about as all alone and wrong on this one,
    as you were with the White Horse Prophecy and Mitt Romney's election,
    and the LDS's Church's stances on "gun-free" Churches and Temples, tolerence allowing some abortions, same-sex rights and gay'lesbian Mormons, and the Church's call for immigration reform.

    You keep putting your Party politics ahead of the Church,
    that's the high road to apostasy.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal said, "As long as liberals remember that ... we ARE likely to react hyperbolically to any liberal movement toward wrong-headed, evil-minded, and illegal confiscation of our defensive arms -- we'll be fine."

    That's your idea of democracy? I get what I want because I threaten you with guns.

    I'm starting to support confiscation more and more listening to the right wing nuts. Sanity should be required to posses weapons and mass hysteria is no exception. You all have no idea how you are your own worst enemies.

    I think of the sane Swiss with their military weapons and think, "that's cool". But when I hear the crazy, lunatic right wing American fringe threatening civil war I don't think it's cool at all. You're crazy, you should not have guns. YOU convinced me.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Ironic that when the Supreme Court agrees with you conservatives, they are wise judges. When they disagree with you, they are "activists" and should be impeached. Human nature, I guess, but not terribly self-aware.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    ECR,

    Let's see, District of Columbia v. Heller was 2008. Read the Court's decision of 2010.

    LDS Liberal,

    You've often bragged about the number and kind of firearms that you own. Have you turned those weapons into plowshares or is your rhetoric focused towards others and not yourself?

    As to your comment about the police: Who gave them the authority to keep and bear arms, the people or the government? Since the Constitution prohibits the government from inhibiting the ownership of firearms, it cannot regulate the polices' use of firearms; therefore, their "right" to be armed is an unalienable right protected by the Constitution, not by the government.

    The government only has those rights that we have transferred to it. We have not transferred any rights concerning firearms to the government. Some liberals would disagree, but they tend to disagree on anything and everything that does not support their plan to take away all liberties.

    The Constitution clearly prohibits any level of government from regulating firearms. The Court agrees.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    While we're on the subject --

    I have a "Constitutional" question for any or all of the unrestiricted anything goes gun group...

    If Corporations are "People",
    and you let "People" have this unrestricted right to Right to Keep and bare any Arms they'd like....

    Stop and think --
    Using this warped and twisted logic --
    What's to stop a Mega-Huge American Corporation [considered a "Person"] from buying up their own Armies and Navies, etc., etc.?

    [Better take a few minutes -- stop, and take a long deep breath and think hard and deep as to how you're going to answer that one, and really consider who's side of Righteousness you might really be supporting.]

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal said, "As long as liberals remember that ... we ARE likely to react hyperbolically to any liberal movement toward wrong-headed, evil-minded, and illegal confiscation of our defensive arms -- we'll be fine."

    Your statement insinuates that the president is proposing such confiscation. I challenge you to show where that is true. There is nothing in the president's plan that differs from what the Supreme Court said in DC vs. Heller, namely, "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." Those who links any change in the gun laws as a threat to their Second Amendment rights are raising a red herring, it just hasn't happened. Clearly they are wrong on that account, at least according to the Supreme Court.

    And the NRA questions why the president's daughters are protected by armed guards. Do they really not understand the answer to that questions? Are they really that desparate?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    The second amendment isn't 'unrestricted'. You don't get to own nuclear arms, for example. We have to be able to have some sort of regulation; it's not a free for all.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Re: "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."

    As long as liberals remember that we are a huge majority of Americans, that we ARE likely to be reactionary toward any deranged, unnecessary, and illegal liberal move to infringe our Second Amendment rights, and that we ARE likely to react hyperbolically to any liberal movement toward wrong-headed, evil-minded, and illegal confiscation of our defensive arms -- we'll be fine.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Is it only me, or did anyone else find this ironic?

    As a condition of entry, the following items are inadmissible for safety and security reasons and will not be permitted within the security perimeter established for the 2012 Republican National Convention:

    Weapons, firearms or knives (regardless of size)
    Plastic replicas of weapons (including toy guns)
    Explosives/fireworks

    (not a complete list)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    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
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    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.

    ============

    No,
    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    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
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    We have the Constitutional right to vote.
    And
    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?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    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!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    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?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    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?

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Bergbub Midway, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 17, 2013 7:07 a.m.

    "...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."