Comments about ‘Letter: A realistic solution to gun control is needed ASAP’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

In NM a 15 year old child took his parents gun from their closet and killed them.

Last month, 20 children were murdered in elementary school.

In Colorado, a man purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition online and moved on to kill Americans watching a movie.

If you bring cash to a gun show, no background check is required for any gun purchase.

More Americans have been killed due to gun violence than in all the wars since 1968.


Ft. Hood.

Gabriel Giffords.

Trolley Square.

Something has got to change.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Who has the authority to "inhibit" us from keeping and bearing arms?

The President clearly does not. Look at his job description in the Constitution. (Article II)

Congress clearly does not (except to propose amendments to the States. Look at their list of responsibilities in the Constitution (Article 1)

The Court clearly does not. Look at its list of authority in the Constitution (Article III)

The States have that responsibility. The Amendment process requires that 75% of the States agree to change the Constitution. (Article V)

Until the Constitution is amended, it remains as written as the Supreme Law of the Land. As the Supreme Law of the Land, no other law has authority over it. No law can contradict it.

The laws that most people, most Congressmen and the President want passed cannot be passed because those laws contradict the Constitution. Those laws would be superior to the Supreme Law of the Land. That is impossible - unless we abandon law and rely on government edict for our Supreme Law of the Land.

King George learned that we do not tolerate government edict. Has Obama learned nothing from history?

Dietrich, ID

It is interesting that the same people who want to reduce gun violence favor violence of those yet to be born. As for gun laws already illegal to use gun to kill people. And how many murdered people come back because of gun laws? They won't reduce crime and may make crime go up as guns won't be in the hands of safe people.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

"Banning large-capacity magazines and non-military possession of assault rifles...None are a threat to law-abiding citizens."

Unless you live in a rough neighborhood where the gangs have them, or you happen to be the unlucky one who encounters a thug in a 'good neighborhood', say in a school or a theater, then the ban is a threat to the law abiding citizens.

Historically, those with some kind of tactical advantage, like superior weapons, win the vast majority of battles.

These guns are like gossip, now that they are out there is no way to take them all back. Better to have them for defense, in the hands of good guys, than pretend if we give up ours they (bad guys) will give up theirs.

The second amendment rocks!

Too bad the government is broke, or we could have a public service campaign to educate gun owners on keeping legal arms away from children and mentally ill family members. That would be constitutional, and it would help, as it did with smoking.

Thinkin\' Man
Rexburg, ID

Several times more people are maimed and killed by baseball bats than guns.

To be consistent, are you proposing a ban on all weapons that maim and kill people?

A truly rational beginning would be to address mental health issues and violent attitudes.

Woods Cross, UT

Why is it that after the obligatory expressions of sympathies when something like the Connecticut shooting happens that the Democrats next words are “now we must take away your rights”?

The Mayor of Boston has called for a ”national” policy on guns.

Guess what? We already have one. And this is it:

“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. “
What don't you get about "shall not be infringed"?

Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Pagan: You're right, something has got to change. We need to get rid of "gun-free zones" and encourage more concealed carry by responsible, stable, law-abiding adults. Almost all of these terrible attacks occur in gun-free zones. That's not a coincidence.

Dr. Metcalf is a good, decent man, but he's wrong on this issue. His proposals will only put the good guys at a disadvantage to the bad guys, which invites more attacks against the good guys.

Woods Cross, UT

The worst attack on children in the U.S. was not perpetrated with a gun. It was done with dynamite. The worst attack on a school in Canada was not done with a gun. It was done with gasoline.
Laws only affect law-abiding people.

one old man
Ogden, UT

So many comments filled with so many false arguments and so little common sense.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Yes, a REALISTIC solution is needed.

But they are not coming from the NRA.

Moab, UT

The worst attack on children in this country was perpetrated by the Govt. Waco!

Salt Lake City, UT

Guns don't kill people?


Tell me how your hunting trip for a bear goes...

when you only bring a bat.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Good letter. As for constitutional concerns, I'm fully in favor of well-regulated militias. I guess that would be the National Guard today.

Sandy, UT

Mr Richards, your favorite Justice Scalia has even interpretted that the 2nd Amendment does not give you unlimited rights to carry any weapon of your choice into sensitive areas such as schools, churches, etc. In other words, common sense restrictions do not infringe on your right to bear arms. Let's drop the archaic arguments, talk sense and take steps to keep military style weapons from the unfit. I reject that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals rights that supercede the right to live and live in safety.

Jon W.
Murray, UT

@ugottabkidn: gun laws on the books in Conneticut and througout the US didn't keep the young and restless Mr. Lanza from carrying the weapon of his choice into a sensitive area such as a school.

Until someone - anyone - can give me a satisfactory solution to the conundrum "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", I insist on the legality of owning guns. I've been following the 2nd Amendment debates for 30 or more years, and I still haven't heard a direct logical refutation of the above statement. I begin to suspect there might not be one.

By the way, it is clear, once you understand the difference between "militia" and "military", that the writers of the Constitution envisioned a trained and armed citizenry, much like Switzerland has today, rather than a standing army (including the various state National Guard units) like the US has today. On the whole, I think we'd all be better off if that's what we did have.

Deep Space 9, Ut

Ok liberals, lets look at one of the top killers of children, and tell us what to do about it.

According to the NPR article "Traffic Accidents Top Cause Of Fatal Child Injuries" each year car accidents kill 260,000 children between 10 and 19 years old each year. Yet you don't want to ban high capacity vehicles or mandate stricter laws for obtaining a drivers license.

If you want to talk guns, why go after the semi-automatic "scarry" looking guns? More homicides are comitted with handguns than rifles, according to the FBI. In fact more people are killed using hands, fists, and feet than with assault rifles.

Your liberal policies are like giving people with brain tumors asprins for their headache. Yes you did something that is supposed to work, but it does nothing for the underlying cause.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There are posters who continually try to deflect attention away from the Constitution by telling us Justice X said this or Justice Y said that. The Court has nine justices who examine appeals. They render a ruling according to the votes of the entire Court based upon the Supreme Law of the Land.

If individual justices could change the Constitution, we would have a Constitution much like the South African Constitution, because that is what Justice Ginsburg prefers.

Seventy-five percent of the States are required to ratify any changes to the Constitution. Congress passes laws that conform to the Constitution. The President enforces that Constitution. The Court measures every appeal against it.

The problem that we have is that Congress thinks that it can pass any law that it wants. The President thinks he can sign and enforce a law whether it conforms to the Constitution or not and the Court thinks that it has the right to change the Supreme Law of the Law without first requiring that 75% of the States ratify changes to the Constitution.

The people must demand that all branches of the government restrict itself to authorized duties.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Moab, UT
The worst attack on children in this country was perpetrated by the Govt. Waco!

9:41 a.m. Jan. 22, 2013


Perpetuated by ultra-religous gun-nuts, holed up in an Anti-Government compound, who'd rather kill themselves and die to be with God than put down their pride, and comply with the law.

See any similarity with what happening in today's topic of discussion?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT
Good letter. As for constitutional concerns, I'm fully in favor of well-regulated militias. I guess that would be the National Guard today.

10:38 a.m. Jan. 22, 2013



The National Guard of the US. is a reserve military force composed of National Guard MILITIA members...under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States.

NationalGuard members are...the MILITIA as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. The NationalGuard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a NationalGuard member.

The NationalGuard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces with the NILITIA Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code.

Title 10 of the US Code states:

(a) The militia of the UnitedStates consists of all able-bodied males [added females]...and those citizens or those delaring intent to be come US citizens (i.e, Private Huerez)-
(b) The militia are — (1) the organized MILITIA, consists of the NationalGuard and the Naval MILITIA;

Anyone declaring anything else is trampling the Consitution and America's rule of law.

J Thompson

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconnected to service in a militia.

The rants made by those who disregard the that ruling show that they think that they are above the law and that they have somehow obtained authority to define the law.

There is no connection between being a member of a militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Let's all repeat that until we understand it. There is no connection between being a member of a militia and the right to keep and bear arms.

to comment

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