Comments about ‘Letters: No regard for our Second Amendment rights’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

We spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, and most of the other big spenders are our allies. Spending a little bit less is not going to make us vulnerable. We could cut our defense spending by 80% and still spend more than China,the number two spender. Not that anyone is proposing cuts of that magnitude.

Salt Lake City, UT

Oh please... even after anything Obama proposes this nation will have a defense budget more than 4x that of 2nd place China and still have the highest gun per person ratio in the world. You people are paranoid...

Ogden, UT

Kim, I don't understand your letter at all. Where on earth are you getting the idea that the president wants to reduce military spending to the point of only using "sweet talk" against terrorists? And what proposal has the president given that would restrict 2nd Amendment rights to the point of only allowing "BB guns"? You need to read more newspaper articles.

Your hyperbole is what's wrong with this country. You're outraged, but you don't know why. You are making things up to fuel that outrage, but you don't know that you are completely wrong. You have a wealth of information at your fingertips, but you choose to ignore it.



@ Kim: Let's suppose you want to buy a car. The dealership shows you two options. Option one is a classic - it has been around for a number of years and reflects the best technology from when it was built. It is also big and bulky, it lacks many of the modern conveniences that cars come with, it gets lousy mileage, and costs lots of money. Option two is hot off the assembly line. While smaller and sleeker it is still sufficiently large to meet your capacity based needs, it is chock full of all the latest technology, it has a higher safety rating than option 1, it gets excellent gas mileage, and costs about half of option 1.

Do you buy the classic because it is the classic and costs more, or do you buy the car that actually meets your needs?

According to top military personnel, this is the situation the military faces.

The question you need to ask yourself is do you want an expensive military or a strong, safe military? Because we can have the second without spending all the money required for the first.


President Obama's proposals and executive orders are designed to make it more difficult for the rapists, murderers, terrorists, and individuals with certain clinical mental illness diagnosises from being able to purchase guns or use their loved ones' guns to kill their loved ones and then go on shooting rampages with said guns.

Someone who, for whatever reason, cannot legally buy and own a gun in their state of primary residence should not be able to go to a gun show or answer an ad or cross state lines and buy one. Nor should someone else be able to buy it for them.

These are common sense regulations.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

A scalpel needs to be taken to all federal agencies - DOD included. Unnecessary and overlapping programs need to be either eliminated or consolidated. The Department of Defense does not get a free pass to have whatever they want. Hard questions need to be answered and hard decisions need to be made. The agency I work for has been slashed. Vacant positions have not been filled, programs have been eliminated and/or consolidated and we are more lean, efficient organization after being slashed. We still accomplish our mission, but for far less taxpayer money.

How many aircraft carriers do we NEED, not WANT? How many Army and Air Force bases do we need in the European theater? Couldn't those troops be just as effective stationed in the United States? Is that four-hour plane ride worth the billions we spend every year? Hard decisions to be made by rational, knowledgeable people is what we need, not silly rhetoric.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Civilization is a process where we voluntarily give up some, perhaps lesser, rights and freedoms in exchange for other rights and freedoms that are more dear to us. The problem with civilization is that as we gain more people and pack them in tighter the need for this exchange becomes more important and mandatory.

The unlimited, unregulated, non-infringed right to own and use a device, made expressly for killing, when compared to the safety, security and peace of mind for the general public must be limited, regulated and infringed.

salt lake city, utah

Amen, to Ultra Bob. The movie Lincoln makes that specific point, that a civilized society is required to make tradoffs, and that an infringment on one liberty is many times simply a tradoff for a greater and more valuable liberty. Air quality standards, CDC standards, and in this case a restriction on killing capacity.

To the DN..come on, on one page you print a resaonably written editorial, and then below it print another hyperbolic rant that even you know makes no sense (referencing your editorial). If you hadn't all ready printed a dozen of these maybe, but come on.

Midway, UT

Why on earth does the Deseret News continue to publish silly letters like this on a daily basis? Kim, have you ever read the Constitution or the Second Amendment? I would assume not. Are assault gun owners today part of a well regulated militia? Are they packing muskets? I think not. Assault rifles have no place on the street, unless carried by law enforcement, and not in the hands of the delusional yahoo down the street who thinks he's Boss Hog or part of some possee protecting us from terrorists. As part of a greater good we all have to sacrifice, and the safety of all must trump the desire of some to pack an uzi. Keep your handgun, keep your hunting rifle, and please quit whining. It's the only moral thing to do.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Is this letter part of the solution or part of the problem?

May I submit that it is the latter?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I spent 2 years in one of the world's most violent cities as a LDS missionary.

We heard gun shots ringing out almost ever night.

My companions and I during that time stopped 4 rapes, 2 burglaries, and witnessed 2 beatings to which he gave affidavites to the police....not to mention almost getting beat up ourselves numerous times.

We NEVER carried a weapon.
and I have know doubt I'm alive today because we didn't.

Was I scared? Yes at times, in the beginning.

But I grew more and more confident as time went on - and it wasn't just becuase the "Lord" was protecting me, it's because I soon realized the odds were always in my favor.

Using the scaredy-cat insecurity right-to-bare-arms answer to all problems,
The LDS Church should be sending 60,000 missionaries out with semi-automatic glocks and .38 specials along with their Scriptures.

Like that young man in Tiannanmen Square,
who stood up to the tank, and even placed a flower in the cannon.
He bravely stood his ground, and won the battle.

Faith, Hope, and Charity.

THAT'S the answer.
Not more and more, and everyone packing assault rifles.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Open Minded, that is one GREAT comment! Thank you.

American Fork, UT

I'd bet you're not a part of a 'well regulated militia', are you? Talk about disregarding the second amendment. Besides, you're not allowed to own ballistic missiles, so the line is drawn somewhere. And, even with the proposed changes, you'll still have your 'terr'ist huntin' guns'.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

By all means, OMM, let's disarm the police and the military. Let's let them deal with things as if they were Nephi or Ammon. Let's disregard Captain Moroni who raised the banner of liberty and demanded that the government supply men, arms and supplies to enable him to do his job. Let's disregard King David who demanded that men, arms and supplies be sent to help do the job that he had to do. Let's just focus on you and your solution. Let's all gather around the campfire and sing your peace songs; you, who tell us that you were part of a rifle company in the military; you, who (incorrectly) told us that you swore and oath to defend the government of the United States when you should have told us that you swore and oath to defend the Constitution; you, who talks about using force against the "wack-jbs". You go ahead and change your story whenever it is convenient.

salt lake, UT

please tell us where OMM made the case for disarming the police or military mike. you do know we can all read their post as well as yours right?

one old man
Ogden, UT

I'm beginning to wonder if Mike Richards is one of those in my high priest group whose hateful comments make it very difficult to attend church on Sunday.

Is it apostasy to quit attending because you are so disgusted with what you hear there?

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Mike Richards: You seem to be very intent on the original intent of the founding fathers. You know that they almost single one of them was adamantly opposed to maintaining a standing army don't you? You know that this country never maintained a standing army until after WWII don't you? How do you reconcile support for a standing army with support for the wishes of the founders?

Durham, NC

One old man.... you need to keep attending to counter the high priest crazies. Not leave. It has been long enough that the bircher types have cast a negative cloak over our church and its members. We don't all hate. We are not all paranoid. We are not all anti-US Government. It amazes me that these so called patriots hold their own representative government in such disdain. We need men of peace in the high priest meetings.... not people who hold their neighbors in disdain.

Mike Richards..... just try... once..... to not attack people or their ideas. Give it a try. Put something positive forward.

And who said anything about disarming the police, military or anyone else. For crying out loud, you really need 100 round clips to defend your house? Perhaps instead of "spray and pray"... these people actually learn how to use their weapons.

I have no problem with gun ownership... I have guns. I like guns. But the rhetoric now days makes gun owners look like.... whats the word Mike.... "whack-jobs".

Using scriptures to try to justify your disdain of others.... really. What's next.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT
@Mike Richards: You seem to be very intent on the original intent of the founding fathers.

[Agreed. I believe all these 1776 purity extremeists - would still support slavery, and strip away women's rights, given the chance. And yet ironically - aren't these the same one's constantly meddling with and trampling the Constitution by ammending it when they don't get their way?]


one old man
Ogden, UT
I'm beginning to wonder if Mike Richards is one of those in my high priest group whose hateful comments make it very difficult to attend church on Sunday.

[Agreed. I'd also bet Mike Richards has pushed more AWAY from Christ, than brought TOWARD Christ.]

Salt Lake City, UT

This letter isn't about second amendment rights or defense budgets, this is a letter about fear. Reread the first sentences of the first two paragraphs - they are litanies of things of which the author is afraid. It's fair to ask if those fears are realistic and if the author's implied solutions (more guns, more defense spending) would actually address the source of her fears.

FDR's great quote that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" doesn't end there - he added "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Overreacting to real world problems is as harmful as ignoring them. Governed by fear - whether its of criminals or terrorists - we will make mistakes, we will overreact, we will harm ourselves and others.

According to the FBI, crime rates and low and falling. Terrorists aren't flooding across our borders. There are criminals and there are terrorists, but turning those real world dangers into some cosmic asteroid threatening life itself is a paralyzing and unreasoning fear which prevents us from doing what is needed.

to comment

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