Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Tone down the gun rhetoric, look seriously at what is proposed

Comments

Return To Article
  • rjvdw Murfreesboro, TN
    Jan. 23, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    So true, thanks for saying what I and many others think - everyone needs to *listen* to what is being said, not just dismiss it outright because it comes from "the other side". Much more could get done if we weren't so worried about "sides".

  • Ifel Of'a-sofa Alpine, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    @ Makid...

    Yes we have speed limits, but do we limit how fast vehicles are capable of going? Drivers break the speed limit on a daily basis and few are ever punished. Is this how you expect the proposed magazine capacity law to work?

    I see what your attempt at comparing the two were, but it failed.

    I wonder how many parents would feel better if their child, were shot with a NON assault rifle and a 10 round magazine?
    Answer: ZERO

  • Clydesdale Tooele, UT
    Jan. 21, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    "The use of executive orders may be well within his rights. " Really D (for dumb) news? Show me where in the constitution you find the President has that right, because in my copy, it aint there.

  • Clydesdale Tooele, UT
    Jan. 21, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    "The argument that this would create some sort of government database used to confiscate weapons is of dubious merit." Famous last words

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    Jan. 19, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    If those who bow to power of their killing mechanisms, can carry any of those weapons around anywhere, anytime, and if they demand their be no restrictions......
    No longer should anyone need to be licensed to drive their car.
    No professional person need to be licensed. No Physician, Nurse, Pharmacist, educator, no one who now needs to be licensed.
    If you gun loving people don't want government interference with your killing mechanisms, well...
    There is nothing in the Constitution saying......

  • The Patriot Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    Never have I heard a person claim such knowledge of the US Constitution, as Mike Richards, and yet have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the document.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 19, 2013 6:08 p.m.

    Guns don't kill people. So why have one?

    I have a pocket full of bullets to throw at an attacker, I'm sure he will die of laughter.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 19, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    "I think that Mike Richards clearly challenged your authority to change the words written in the Constitution. I think that he clearly showed that neither you nor anyone else in America has the right to redefine the terms and conditions stated in the Constitution. "

    Ok... lets just stop right there. There many aspects of daily life where the constitution creates a high level low where the detail on carrying out that law is not enumerated. For example, the constitution grants everyone the right to vote. No where in there does it say that there is any requirement to have a picture ID to vote. And yet, numerous states are attempting to throw thousands of citizens off the roles of voters in many states. A recent analysis of North Carolina's proposed law would eliminate over 600,000 voters. There is nothing in the US constitution that says a state can limit by any arbitrary laws limiting a US citizens right to vote.

    So there is plenty of precedent showing laws that extend the language around the constitution. Arizona's immigration laws are another example. So lets stop pretending the government can't pass limiting or restricting certain constitutional rights.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    Taxman,

    Were you forced to post on this "heavily moderated" board, or did you choose it as the best avenue to publish your message?

    I think that Mike Richards clearly challenged your authority to change the words written in the Constitution. I think that he clearly showed that neither you nor anyone else in America has the right to redefine the terms and conditions stated in the Constitution. I agree with him that until 75% of the States ratify those changes that the Constitution stands as written, not as interpreted by those "wise men" who have self-appointed themselves to guard us against ourselves. God endowed us with those rights, no matter what those "wise men" ay think. The government does not give out "rights". It is prohibited from removing those rights.

    Why do so many people who post on the DN have so much pride that they think they are above the law and that anyone should look to them to redefine the words of the Constitution?

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 19, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards

    Obviously neither of us has much regard for free speech or we would not be posting on this heavily "moderated" board.

    Let's say I hate football because of the brain injuries (known as CTE), and I go on any board having to do with any aspect of football day after day and drone on about CTE and how there should be no football. Eventually people wanting to discuss who will win on Sunday, for example, are going to tire of my comments and ignore me.

    You think convicted felons should be allowed to have hand grenades. We get it. But they can't and we are not discussing whether regulation is unconstitutional (i.e, whether they can). We are discussing whether additional regulations are appropriate, and at what level. The title of this article is "Tone down the gun rhetoric, look seriously at what is proposed". Your constant droning regarding any regulations being unconstitutional is just as irrelevant to this discussion as my droning about CTE in a BCS championship discussion would be.

    I choose to ignore the rest of your post.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 19, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Taxman,

    Are you telling us that you have the right to limit my speech?

    Are you telling us that you are superior to the supreme law of the land and that you have been appointed by 75% of the states to be the spokesman for the people about what is allowed or what is not allowed?

    Your post clearly points out why no person is to be allowed to act "for the good of the country". Your post clearly identifies why we have a Constitution and why no one has authority to speak against it when recommending limits to our liberties.

    Some of you twist words while ignoring the prohibition placed on all levels of government to not inhibit our right to keep and bear arms.

    What is your " end-game"? What do you really want? How many liberties have you targeted? Why are you so dead-set against allowing 75% of the States to ratify ANY change to the Constitution?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    There are several obvious flaws with DNSubscriber's claim when he says: "Proof come from that fact that 2,000 times in the last year a prohibited person attempted to buy a gun in Utah, was denied by the BCI background check, and their name and address were reported to the BATFE. Exactly how many of these people who committed that felony in front of an eye witness, with the incriminating paperwork bearing their signature, and an address verified from a government photo ID were charged with a crime? Less than a handful, not even 1/4 of 1 percent."

    First, the number 2,000 is probably not valid. It may refer to a national statistic and not just Utah.

    But, assuming it was a Utah number, whose responsibility is it to prosecute those people? Shouldn't Utah take the lead through our attorney general's office or through county prosecutors?

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 19, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    What I don't understand is why people, like Mike Richards, who (admittedly) are in favor of no gun controls under any circumstances whatsoever, are participating in this discussion.

    Gun controls exist (identified mentally ill and convicted felons cannot possess weapons) today. This discussion is about whether and how those controls should be increased, NOT about whether they should exist. If you don't believe gun controls should exist at all, please reserve your comments for the time, if ever, we discuss whether they should exist at all. Then there will be fewer irrelevant, but nonetheless distracting, posts for those of us who actually want to discuss the issue at hand, to ignore.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    In defense of our constitution we release obviously guilty criminals because some evidence may have been tainted. The question is how much of the Second Amendment are we willing to compromise for the sake of public safety? Limits on assault weapons, gun show loop holes and high capacity magazines are a reasonable beginning. Colorado, Oregon, Connecticut and Trolley Square cannot hide behind anachronistic constitutional interpretations.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    The argument against 100% background checks for fear of creating a government database for eventual confiscation is absolutely valid.

    Proof come from that fact that 2,000 times in the last year a prohibited person attempted to buy a gun in Utah, was denied by the BCI background check, and their name and address were reported to the BATFE. Exactly how many of these people who committed that felony in front of an eye witness, with the incriminating paperwork bearing their signature, and an address verified from a government photo ID were charged with a crime? Less than a handful, not even 1/4 of 1 percent.

    Make no mistake, "background checks" are not about disarming criminals today, but they are all about disarming the law abiding citizens in the future.

    And, how hard do you think it is for anyone to get a fake ID so they can walk in and buy a gun and pass a background check? It is well known that illegal immigrants get fake ID packages in a matter of hours for something like $300, so background checks will not stop criminals. Not to mention that they steal most of their guns anyway.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 19, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Statement from the LDS church, "The Mormon Ethic of Civility:"

    “The Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that renders civil discussion impossible. . . . Our democratic system [should] facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing.”

    "Finally, the single word that best describes a fulfillment of the responsibilities of citizenship is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My favorite prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson, the Illinois governor who was twice the Democratic candidate for President:

    “What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? . . . A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

    (Dallin H. Oaks, "Fundamentals of Our Constitutions")

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 19, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    What does the Constitution say about what types of arms we can keep and bear? What are the guidelines from the Constitution? What restrictions does the Constitution place on citizens?

    There are no restrictions in the Constitution; therefore, there are no restrictions allowed.

    "Shall not infringe" means exactly what it says.

    No person, not Obama and not any poster, has the authority to change the Constitution to mean something other than what it says. Judges may disagree with the Constitution, but no judge has the authority to set aside a right that is guaranteed. If you want to put restrictions on our right to keep and bear any arm, you'll first have to change the Supreme Law of the Land with a Constitutional amendment.

    Foolish people argue endlessly about how high "up" is. Now foolish people are arguing points that are clearly defined by the Constitution.

    "Shall not be infringed . . . "

    If you think that you have the right to redefine the Constitution, please show us when and where you were authorized to make that change.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 19, 2013 7:07 a.m.

    You know, the funny thing is I have a semi automatic roit gun for my home defense.... and as demonstrated on FoxNews last night, if far more deadly than an AR-15. ... and yet 1) these perps choose the cool looking gun, 2) there is no mention of guns like mine in these bills.

    What this tells me is this is still about emotion, not capacity to do real harm.

    Both sides are misguided here. Just like the abortion issue, we aren't focusing on why the gun was being used - lets stop the situation from rising to the point where it comes to armed attacks ( or abortion is needed ) . Lets prevent the whole scenario from happening in the first place. People are resorting to guns to solver their problems far too often in this nation, just like they resort to abortion too often. Lets attack this problem at its source, not when it has gotten to the point of irrational behavior.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 18, 2013 10:41 p.m.

    "He (Obama) also wants funding to expand a system that tracks violent deaths, in order to provide better data on the problem. Reliable information is key when confronting any problem, and especially one as complex as this."

    "Some of these, such as an outright ban on certain military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, stand little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House and would be of dubious effectiveness anyway."

    Dubious effectiveness?

    Well, i suppose liberals apply the same argument to legalizing marijuana. Prohibition is not effective, so why waste resources to control marijuana or guns?

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:34 p.m.

    Duckhunter -
    Question - "Where did I say..."
    Answer - "owning guns ...is a constitutionally ENSHRINED right..."

    That's pretty strong language.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    Once again a poster here tells only part of the truth. Yes there were 358 American murders with rifles in 2010. And, yes, there were 745 caused by feet, hammers, knives and other things.

    But they usually seem to have completely forgotten about 1694 murders in which HANDGUNS were used.

    Handguns are subject to the same requirements as rifles when it comes to background checks. Many are sold "privately" or at gun shows where no checks are required. Trying to make it seem that handguns are better regulated is simply false. Trying to convince gullible people that handguns are not part of the problem is simply dishonest.

    Why do so many supporters of "gun rights" find it necessary to fib?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    So Duckhunter did you read LDS Liberal carefully? The national gurad is in fact the militia not a bunch wild eyed citizens brandishing ak47. How in the world do you interpret that as a "well regulated" militia.

    And by the way do you want to start dragging out advanced degrees to see who needs comprehension lessons. What I do know is that you civility lessons.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    My apology Joe Blow. I can figure out whether is misread what you were saying or commenting on another persons comment. My eyes are getting old and tired I guess. But I am still up for the fight to ban military style assault weapons and large capacity clips.

  • TMR Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 18, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    Thanks D-News for a nice opinion piece, although I do not see the merit or value in taking a shot at the President for making his case. It almost seems that criticizing the President for "style" is a way to appear objective or to soften the blow against D-News pro-gun readers. The President has made a strong case and has been very direct, but it is hardly fair to blame him for showing some grit and passion when responding to a string of senseless and tragic shootings (similar to Bush's strong statements following 9/11).

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    @Duckhunter
    Highland, UT

    The national guard isn't the milita so FAIL on your part. You need comprehension lessons.

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

    National Guard of the United States
    From Wikipedia,

    Active As state-funded MILITIA under various names beginning in the year 1636-1903
    As federal reserve forces called the National Guard: 1903–present

    Branch United States Army and United States Air Force
    Role State Militia/Reserve force

    Motto "Always Ready, Always There"

    The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of National Guard MILITIA members or units of each state and the territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia (54 organizations) under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States.

    National Guard members are the MILITIA as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.

    ...sorry, FAIL on your part.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 18, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    Mike in CC. Re read my posts.

    Mike Richards. your silence on what you think are reasonable restrictions is deafening. (and very telling).

    Most think we need "reasonable" restrictions. You seem to advocate NO restrictions. I am just looking for clarification. Maybe (hopefully) I am reading you wrong.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    @Makid If one drives a car under the influence and causes a death should the government then try and restrict the rest of us in the use of our automobiles.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    Joe Blow. You are wrong. There is no absolute constitutional right to possess firmearms. If that were true, I should be able to posses fully automatic firearms, flame throwers, morters, canons, gernades, rockets, and the like. The supreme court has suggested that certain "dangerous and unusual" weapons may be prohibited by law.

    As to this editorial, it seems to have been written to discourge any attempt to ban semi-automatic assault weapons. The rest of the editorial is mostly verbal salve to make the principle point more palatable. It reminds me of the Borg (Morg) of Star Trek fame. "Resistance is futile Locutus". Resistance is futile.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    @pregmatistforlife

    The national guard isn't the milita so FAIL on your part. You need comprehension lessons.

    @airnaut

    Lame attempt at distraction. Nothing I said had anything to do with a draft although I am not opposed to one when it is needed. Also what does you having been in the military have to do with anything?

    I am enjoying the attempts by some of you to set up strawman arguments and to deflect from the actual subject. Let me refresh you on what exactly that is.

    The constitution has recognized that we have a God given right to keep and bear arms and that has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Now like all rights that does not make it absolute but it does make the standard for limiting it quite high. Admittedly guns are dangerous things that are used to commit very heinous acts but they are also very useful tools that are used far more for legal and positive things.

    Regardless the ability to own them is a constitutional right, there is no denying that and any attempts to do so are simply deluded wishful thinking.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 18, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    To "airnaut" ok, let look at what you are proposing. You said that to reduce crime we have to limit victims, weapons, or motives. Since motives and victims cannot be limited, that leavs weapons.

    Lets see what the statistics say. You and your ilk want to get rid of "assault" rifles. So, lets see how dangerous they are.

    According to the FBI in 2010 there were 358 murders with rifles. In comparison there were 745 murders caused by hands, feet, or fists. Seems like we need to ban hands feet and fists before rifles.

    The fact is that most murders are comitted using hand guns. To buy hand guns you have a waiting period while they do background checks.

    If you want to be rational about things, get the government to clean its own house first and correct the problems with their databases, then we can talk about other ideas.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    Duck Hunter, you make my point. If the founding fathers thought a well regulated militia means every citizen (composed of the body of the people)then why aren't we all members of the national guard by inscription..kinda like Israel. Instead we have to volunteer. The concept of well regulated milita and every tom, dick, harry, and jane running around on their own don't seem to fit very well now do they. Is that what you suppose the founding fathers meant by well regulated militia? I doubt it seriously.

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    Well, the wingnut, anti-Obama fringe is most adament about having their guns available to fight the democratically-elected government they don't like and didn't vote for. Even the so-called Constitutionalists who insist that their interpretation of the Constitution is the only interpretation which is allowed, continue in their fighting the 2012 election as if it will make a difference. Now you have the NRA and reactionary extremists beating the drum of imminent threat to freedom, increasing the fear, and telling the American people that their concerns don't matter when it comes to the financial interests on the NRA and weapons manufacturers.

    Since when did the interests of hunters and sportsmen merge with the interests of the survivalists and other extremists demanding the powerful weaponsry they want for the "eventual war" with the government. The government, through our representatives and elected officials, is us. So are they promoting another civil war with neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, in a democratic society based on law (except for the laws they don't like) because they are now saying "my way or the highway"?

    Is paranoid psychosis the new characteristic of American thought?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 18, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    Duckhunter
    Highland, UT
    @pragmatistforlife

    Well let's see what the founders said about it.

    "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state,"

    "Composed of the body of the people" sounds pretty clear to me who that "militia" was. Now the langauge was simplified as the amendment was passed because the meaning of "militia" was considered to be obvious.

    This from George Mason:

    "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people."

    There's plenty more from many of the founders if you care to do just a little bit of research.

    11:32 a.m. Jan. 18, 2013

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

    So -
    You are supportting a 100% mandatory Military enlist, and re-institution of the draft?

    Great, I'm all for it.
    I served for 8 years.
    How long did YOU serve?

    If everyone did "their fair share" - then I should've only had to do 2 years.
    Like my LDS Mission.

    BTW - That would be exactly like Switzerland - and everyone has guns - just like you wanted.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 18, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    The Deseret News is wrong on this issue.

    The 1st Amendment allows speech without restriction. Penalties for improper use of speech come after that improper use, not before.

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

    Using your measure of unbridled Constitutional Freedom Mike --

    This puts you squarely in support of the entire Pornography Industry.

    Your extremeist views abandon all common-sense.
    Thanks for nothing.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    Why are gun laws so ineffective? When the assault weapons ban was passed by Congress in 1994, why did it not do what it was supposed to do? Those who support the NRA's position that the assault weapons ban was ineffective use this argument to negate any future legislation on reducing gun violence, but they fail to realize that any and all gun legislation gets reviewed and modified by the interests of the NRA and other gun rights groups.

    The reasons these laws are ineffective is that they are made so by the same organizations which they affect. The NRA doesn't want any limits on gun ownership and fights to eliminate laws which affect them adversely. If they cannot stop a regulation, they make certain to change the wording or have other wording amended into law which essentially emasculates the intended legislation.

    It's basically a conflict-of-interest issue where those groups and people affected by a law have significant influence over the writing of the law to maintain minimal effect. It's like drug companies reviewing their own studies upon which a drug's efficacy and safety is determined.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    The problem with extreme emotional is that these are devices designed to kill. Yelling and screaming and getting emotional over guns is actually dangerous.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    @ecr

    Where did I say that there can be no regulation whatsoever? I responded to someone that claimed gun ownership and driving a car were like privileges and they most certainly are not. The right to keep and bear arms is contained right in the constitution of the United States, it has its own amendment, that such a right exists cannot be logically refuted. The right to drive a car exists nowhere in the constitution so I pointed out it was a silly comparison and of no relevence.

    Now what restrictions can be put on the right to keep and bear arms is certainly up for debate. I would say restrictions can only be few but that is my opinion. You need a little help with your reading comprehesion.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 18, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    This is a violation of civil rights. You can make criminals out of people who have committed no crime. For every one person that uses a gun irresponsibly, there are thousands more that use them resposibly.

    These anti-gun people like Michael Moore and Diane Fienstein are the biggest hypocrites of all. Both have conceal and carry and both have armed security.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    @pragmatistforlife

    Well let's see what the founders said about it. An orginal draft of the 2nd amendment gives us some insight into what they considered a "well regulated militia" to be. This is actually the language in the 2nd amendment as passed by the house.

    "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state,"

    "Composed of the body of the people" sounds pretty clear to me who that "militia" was. Now the langauge was simplified as the amendment was passed because the meaning of "militia" was considered to be obvious.

    This from George Mason:

    "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people."

    There's plenty more from many of the founders if you care to do just a little bit of research.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 18, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    In order to have a fire - there needs to be 3 things:
    Fuel
    Heat
    Oxygen

    In order to have a crime - there needs to be 3 things:
    A vicitm
    A weapon
    A motive

    In order to snuff out a fire - we can simply eliminate any one of those 3 things,
    In ordet to snuff out a crime - we can simply eliminate any one of those 3 things, too.

    Banning or restricting weapons guns is just limiting the amount of fuel and how fast you can burn it.

    Ironic, they're called fire-arms for the same reason.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 18, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Duckhunter 9:48 - I'm sorry to be rehashing old comments of my own but your assertion, and the impassioned assertions of Mike Richards, that gun ownership cannot be regulated does not square with the recent (2010) ruling of the now conservative Supreme Court when in the District of Columbia vs. Heller they struck down the District's ban on gun ownership but included this statement:

    "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."

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 18, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    Mike. Do you draw the line anywhere? Do you advocate allowing any and all citizens to carry any weapon anyplace?

    If not, what restrictions would you support? Specifics please.

    7:36 a.m. Jan. 18, 2013

    ========

    This also shows once again how wrong Mike Richards
    [and all the other "shall NOT be infringed", We can do anything we want with our guns, hurmpf!]
    clearly show blantant disregard of the LDS Church's 1st presidency's perfectly legal ordinance banning weapons in all LDS churches and Temples.

    Maybe we should send out our young Missionaires packing heat along with their scriptures to Mike!
    ...shall not be infringed...can't tell me what to do, two year old mind-set....

    Get over the daily extremist, rhetoric, and hyperbole.
    Please use some God given common sense!

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    This is an excellent editorial. When addressing an issue as important as reducing violent crime in general, and gun violence in particular, reason is always superior to rhetoric, and focusing light on the subject is vastly superior to the heat that is being brought to bear by some on both sides.

    While I often lean a bit to the left on a wide array of subjects, I have mixed feelings regarding the gun control versus gun rights issue.

    For example, I feel that banning pseudo-military weapons and ammo clips that have been previously been available would be a good idea in theory, but not terribly effective in practice. Generally speaking, "prohibition-type" laws are not very effective when a demand for the prohibited good or service exists – whether it is alcohol, or gambling, or fireworks, or abortions, or guns – and they often lead to black markets for the prohibited good or service, and a rise in organized crime.

    On the other hand, I favor closing the gun registration loopholes, expanding the background check requirements, and adding certain misdemeanors (assault-related and certain property crimes) to the felonies that preclude someone from owning firearms.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    "..ban on certain military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, stand little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House and would be of dubious effectiveness anyway." I doubt the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary kids would agree with that statement. It is even more surprising coming from the Editorial Board which espouses family values.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    @makid

    Well as long as you "feel safer" then let's go ahead and infringe on peoples constitutional rights.

    Driving an automobile is not covered by a specific amendment in the bill of rights is it? I can't seem to find that one. The right to keep and bear arms on the otherhand actually has an entire amendment secifically dedicated to it in the constitution. Trying to pretend that driving a car, which is a regulated privilege, and owning guns, which is a constitutionally enshrined RIGHT, are somehow equivalent shows a severe lack of conprehension of the constitution of this country.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 18, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Sorry my last comment was directed at mike richards.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Trust me folks the point of arguing with some on this thread is simply to either hone your own thoughts or just a little recreation because when the premise of their life views is there is simply right and wrong, if you don't agree with them you are by definition wrong. Forget the fact that they need to interpret..well regulated militia..while clingling with a death grip to "uninfringed".

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    Mike R: "The 1st Amendment allows speech without restriction. Penalties for improper use of speech come after that improper use, not before.

    The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms without infringement from any level of government. Penalties for improper use of firearms come after that improper use, not before."

    -------------

    Well, I think the main difference between these two is that the improper use of our 2nd amendment can take away our greatest right - that of life. The first amendment abuse rarely does so.

    To me, that is HUGE.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Joe Blow: "kind of hard to compare the aftermath of a free speech violation to the aftermath of gun violence."

    You are right, there is no comparison. Free speech is a much more powerful weapon than any gun can ever be. Ever heard "the pen is mightier than the sword"? More people have died because some dictator used free speech to convince a bunch of people that a bunch of other people were bad and should be exterminated than could ever be killed by some madman with a gun or a bomb.

    So if we don't value our freedoms and we just want to end all kinds of violence against others, then it would be much more beneficial to society to take away the first amendment instead of the second.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Hmm, let's think about this.

    We have Speed Limits because it is shown that driving to fast can cause serious harm to ones self and others.

    We don't have a limit on ammunition magazines - even after it is shown that the more rounds one has, the more damage they can do to ones self and others.

    We require all vehicles and drivers be licensed to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle and knowledge of the laws.

    We don't require gun owners to license their guns nor gun owners to receive a license to use a gun. How do we know that all gun owners know how to use a gun safely and responsibly.

    I feel that guns and vehicles should have the same requirements. License each and yearly inspections for both. Don't need to tax guns yearly however.

    Same for gun owners and drivers, regular renewals on a 5 to 7 year time frame. Vision checks for both. Make gun owners show that they can safely remove ammunition from the weapon as well as safely load the weapon.

    If these were put into place, there will be some that complain but many others would feel safer.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    "Shall not infringe" is an absolute. It is not negotiable."

    I will ask again Mike. Are you saying that ANYONE should have the right to carry Any Weapon, Anywhere? Yes or no question.

    I fully support gun rights. As does virtually every "liberal" on this board.

    If your answer is NO, then what do you see as reasonable restrictions?

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    "This editorial condones the government's "right" to restrict us in an area that we have specifically stated "shall not infringe""

    I'm still waiting to hear which well regulated militia you belong to? Picking and choosing words from the Constitution to better suit your agenda is just as disrespectful to the Constitution as you claim your political opponents are.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    Once again in the posts here we see a clear display of why it is so difficult to find reasonable solutions.

    Some are reasonable and thoughtful.

    Others simply repeat endlessly the same mindless rants. Unfortunately, those are shouted more frequently and loudly than the ones based on thought and reason. They have big money behind them to act as an amplifier.

    We need to be very careful not to allow sheer volume to drown out the solutions to a very serious problem.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    @mime
    Please tell us how many people are killed by over the counter drugs mike, I do not recall any mass murders committed using over the counter drugs.. With regards to alcohol do you really want guns regulated at the same level? Shall we require that you go to a state owned store to buy anything larger then a 22?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    It looks like there are many to whom "freedom" means nothing. It looks like there are many who think that control starts with the government instead of from the people. It looks like there are many who want a king to lead us, perhaps thinking that freedom and liberty are to be entrusted to Washington and then parcelled out to the people.

    That's not what America is all about. We are a nation where all freedom and all liberties originate with the people. We are a nation where the people limit the scope and authority of every level of government. We are a nation that enumerated the duties of its highest level of government to restrict and restrain that government from taking away our freedoms.

    This editorial condones the government's "right" to restrict us in an area that we have specifically stated "shall not infringe". "Shall not infringe" is an absolute. It is not negotiable. Obama has no authority from the People or from the Constitution to limit the 2nd Amendment. Anything that he proposes or does to the 2nd Amendment is outside the scope of his authority.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    First of all to ECRs point the point of this article is well taken. Calm down and see what the other side says before you blast off. Secondly, to the assault weapons point. It does not target law abiding citizens only. It may impact them first but eventually it impacts all. The point is to rid the entire population of these weapons as they are discovered. You also need to remember the assault weapons used in the recent killings were all legal, and the assailants weren't criminals until they pulled the triggers.

    Secondly the second amendment guarantess your "right" to bear arms be uninfringed. As long as you're allowed hand guns, shot guns, rifles etc. an assault weapon ban does not infringe on that "right".

    Third to those crying about a breakdown in our culture caused by progressives, please look at the facts. School shootings have been recorded back to the mid 1800s. With the height being in the 1970s. School violence and shooting in general have declined since then. There is no mass deterioration. What we are talking about is a specific kind of horror.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Dear DN, It sounds as though you trust this President. I and many like me do not trust him in any way shape or form. His motives are alway to be suspected as he is only interested in pushing forward his own agenda. He is with out a doubt a Socialist bordering if not fully commited to Communism and his only agenda is Control. Control comes a little at a time.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    Mike, when it comes to the first amendment there are restrictions. They don't even necessarily make sense. A printed publication can print almost anything, but certain literature is discouraged and made difficult to view, such as the Anarchist Cookbook. When it comes to broadcast media over the air TV and radio have daytime restrictions on their first amendment, the FCC regulates what they can say. Also Mike, drugs are regulated by the feds through a national data base. When you go to the pharmacy and sign that special card reader, you are signing to confirm you have a right to receive those drugs, that information is sent to the feds, who have a data base of that info. Your listing of alcohol on this list is interesting, When you go to the bar in Utah you have to have your ID run through a scanner, that stores that information in a data base. Many times when you are in a gas station buying beer or cigarettes your ID is scanned and stored. Fact is most other amendments come with restrictions. So either we should drop restrictions on all amendments or none of them.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    @ Mike: You are absolutely right - the punishment comes after the violation. Which is why background check makes sure people with violent criminal histories are not allowed to buy guns - very similar to the way that a bartender cuts someone off when they have had too much to drink, or you can only buy so much over the counter antihistamine.

    Perhaps you should not only listen to what other people are saying, but also listen to what you, yourself, are saying.

  • SLC gal Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    All for the training on how to confront an armed attacker, but unless they teach how to turn the attackers gun onto the attacker, I'm afraid it may be a moot point. You can't reason with someone crazy enough that they'd shoot up an entire school.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    "The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms without infringement from any level of government"

    Mike. Do you draw the line anywhere? Do you advocate allowing any and all citizens to carry any weapon anyplace?

    If not, what restrictions would you support? Specifics please.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    "The 1st Amendment allows speech without restriction. Penalties for improper use of speech come after that improper use, not before."

    kind of hard to compare the aftermath of a free speech violation to the aftermath of gun violence.

    Rather than dismiss all attempts of a fix outright, how about looking at them with an open mind and judge them on the merits.

    Kind of hard to be against background checks for all gun purchases.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    The problem is our culture, not guns. Massive break downs in families, secular progressive, moral relativism permissiveness and poor parenting are the reasons we have and will continue to have ever more social problems, including mass murders. Banning guns is like forcing people to take an aspirin to cure a mass outbreak of an unknown form of cancer in our society, it way make the politicians and others feel like he did something, anything, but it will never solve the problem at all and wastes precious time as the real cancer grows and grows. If America survives, it will be because we were wise and treated the real problem and not the symptoms. While the left scoffs, we need to turn our families back into the incubators of societies future generations that they need to be ,they used to be and to teach correct principles that define proper behavior to the next generation that God has revealed. If we don't, well, we can see our future clearly.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    The Deseret News is wrong on this issue. How would they feel if Washingtion created a speech "clearinghouse" that required them to submit all articles and editorials to that "clearinghouse" before publication?

    The 1st Amendment allows speech without restriction. Penalties for improper use of speech come after that improper use, not before.

    The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms without infringement from any level of government. Penalties for improper use of firearms come after that improper use, not before.

    How many deaths occur daily from over-the-counter drugs? Should there be a "clearinghouse" that we must pass through before purchasing over-the-counter drugs?

    How many deaths occur daily from alcohol? Should there be a "clearinghouse" that every barkeeper must check with before serving a drink?

    Think about government intrusion into our lives. How many firearm deaths were caused by law abiding citizens who followed the rules in keeping and bearing arms? Criminals don't obey laws. Laws will not stop them from obtaining any weapon.

    We're not in kindergarten. We shouldn't be using kindergarten logic to solve problems.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 18, 2013 6:06 a.m.

    Thank you DN for this reasonable and common sense essay about this important issue. As you suggest, this issue is too important to let this moment pass without addressing the tragic circumstance that seems to be almost unique to the American culture. And while I disagree with your assertion that an "outright ban on certain military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines" is unreralistic, I share your beleif that people are speaking from their heart, rather than their head. And while it is important to try to weigh all the factors and come up with a comprehensive plan it is also important to do something now, while the fire is still hot, rather than let this issue get muddled down into a bureaucratic swamp and eventually die out with nothing significant changing.

    Let's be diligent in honoring the memory of the innocent victims who are now gone because in the past we have been too lazy or cowardly and didn't have political will to do the right thing. Thanks again for your essay.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2013 5:04 a.m.

    "Some of these, such as an outright ban on certain military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, stand little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House and would be of dubious effectiveness anyway. Americans must confront the legitimate argument that such laws target law-abiding gun owners and would not have much impact on serious criminals or those who, for whatever reason, intend to commit mass murder."

    Well, we see that the Deseret News is in the grip of the NRA. Look again at Sandy Hook Deseret News, and ask yourselves what would have happened had there been no reedily available assault weapon? Your assumption that weapons control will be ineffective is purly subjective. And so what do we do,just let the slaughter continue? "Little chance of passage" are not, we will be judged in this life and in the next for our positions and effort on this issue.

    Such laws target both "legitimate" and non legitimate gun owners. But your position fails to note that only assault weapons are targeted together with high capcity magazines. There is no real effect on hunters or target shooter with a assault wseapons ban. Your position is deadly wrong.