Comments about ‘My View: How to promote freedom in Utah’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

When I saw the title: ‘My View: How to promote freedom in Utah’

I thought it was going to say something about a balance of power, or a system of checks and balances.

Meanwhile - We live in the closest Totalitarian, One-Party system of Government in the dwindling Free World.

Eden, UT

The founding fathers strongly supported competitive elections, and the idea that our fellow citizens would serve in office. What has evolved, in Utah, is a single party with career politicians. This political one-way street is hurting everyone in the State - including republicans. Guns, Gold, and God is the mindset. You need to have a gun to protect yourself from the federal government, you need gold to barter with when the federal government falls apart, and you strongly believe that God's wrath will befall those without Guns and Gold. This foolishness makes Utah look like a bunch of backwoods conservatives that are not part of the National mainstream.

Huntsville, UT

Reading this, I was left with the distinct impression that things the author saw as "wrong" (same sex marriage, for instance) should be prevented, even though it was an "individual right", while things he saw as "right" (assault weapons, for instance) should be allowed.

This entire piece comes across as hypocritcal and self righteous.

lehi, UT

We do have competitive elections in Utah, and we even elect liberal Democrats in some areas. The fact that we live in a state where the majority of the people are religious conservatives, impacts the way we vote as a whole, but does not alter the political process. I would actually love to see more balance and diversity in Utah, but not at the sake of individual rights. Connor's article is about protecting our inalienable rights. Whether you believe God gave them to us or not is beside the point. The government does not have the authority to take our rights away. Our 2nd amendment right IS there to protect us from a tyrannical government, and one only needs to look at history to understand its importance. And buying gold is simply a smart way to hedge against the eroding value of the dollar, thanks to a government that has grown ridiculously huge and is incapable of slowing down their astronomical spending. I, for one, am happy not to 'look' like the national mainstream - a movement that continues to tear down the constitution and the principles our Founding Fathers built this country on.

one old man
Ogden, UT

After reading this, I'm frankly not sure exactly what he's pushing.

Sounds like just some more political fooferaw to me that can be taken any way any reader wants to take it. That's one of the most essential skills any politician must have. The ability to talk and talk and talk -- and actually say nothing.

lehi, UT

While, in fact, the author believes that government has no right to deny anyone marriage, so you are mistaken in your assumption. And yes, it is an individual right to own a 'black' gun, or an assault rifle - as antagonists love to call them. The fact remains that less than 1% of violent crime is committed with these types of weapons (were not used at Sandy Hook by the way as the media originally reported). Just consider this for a moment... why is our government so focused on banning guns that are used in such a small number of crimes? Interesting that they are the very same guns that the Department of Homeland Security has recently bought a billion rounds of ammunition for (these are for domestic use, in situations of 'civil unrest'.

lehi, UT

Maybe read it again? It is pretty clear to me that Connor is calling for 'a recurrence to fundamental principles' in order to protect our individual liberty and ensure a free government.

American Fork, UT

Adding assault rifles and large clips to the list of items the second amendment doesn't necessarily guarantee you can have, like tanks or ballistic missiles, doesn't necessarily curtail our freedom somehow. The line is drawn somewhere; maybe we can move it a bit closer to sanity.

La Verkin, UT

I have held for a long time that unless we base our decisions on principles of truth (or fundamental principles) as this author states, our decisions will take us further and further from what we really want - even when made with the best of intentions. When we, instead, make decisions on knee-jerk or emotional response of the moment, we ignore the possible negative consequences they will create. Our legislators are supposed to be a "deliberative" body, which takes time to decide and uses thought and principles to make the good choices that will give us a better future instead of a worse one (which is what politicians give us when all they care about is emotional response or the next election.)

UT Brit
London, England


"Our 2nd amendment right IS there to protect us from a tyrannical government"

As I have mentioned in other stories how much use is an AR-15 against an Abrams tank? Can an AR-15 help you dodge shells fired from an A-10? Can it protect you from gas that can turn your body into a pile of sludge?

Lets not forget the weapons your government is developing such as lasers that can blind a large amount of people at once, railguns and tungston rods launched from space that will hit with enough force that no warhead is needed.

Time has moved on since the second amendment was written and the US population has not kept up with the arms the US military has in its stockroom.

Salt Lake City, UT

Good conceptual article. The fact that it has not taking sides in some of the controversies du jour simply means it is taking about general principles. It seems as though the commenters are filling in their own definition of unalienable rights. At least the editorial stimulates discussion. Utah, by consensus one of the best run states, is less of a one party state than Massachusetts, NY, Vermont, Rhode Island, Minnesota, DC although it's not a state, California and most of the large US cities.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

La Verkin, UT

Our legislators are supposed to be a "deliberative" body, which takes time to decide and uses thought and principles to make the good choices that will give us a better future instead of a worse one (which is what politicians give us when all they care about is emotional response or the next election.)

9:17 a.m. Jan. 25, 2013


The Columbine massacre was 14 years ago.
They had plenty of time, and have done NOTHING.

To which, the occurances have been increasing - not decreasing.

The Conservative policy of "Do Nothingism" - is not working.
Time to reevaluate, and try something else.

Yes - I know it's "Progressive".
But Eternal Progression and Perfection is something I believe in.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It amazes me that conservatives feel they can independently add words and meanings to documents like the Declaration of Independence.

There is no such thing as the “right to own private property”.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT


La Verkin, UT

Actually, Ultra Bob, the original draft of the Declaration included property as an unalienable right. It was removed after much discussion because it may have been construed that people have a right to have property they have not earned. It IS an unalienable right to control or own the property you create or earn. Also - LDS Lib, I disagree with your characterization of Conservative principles as "Do Nothingism" (I would characterize it more as "stop doing harm and taking away rights in the name of progressivism"), I disagree with "Conservatives" on many issues, but when it comes to guns and the misuse of same, I agree with them that ownership and use of guns is not the problem. Vehicles are involved in the death and maiming of thousands every year but we don't blame the vehicles - we blame the drivers that misuse them and try to educate or take the right to drive away from those who exhibit a disregard for law or other's safety. That may be a better blueprint than taking away guns from the citizenry. Remember Trolley Square? One man with a gun stopped a planned slaughter.

Salt Lake City, UT

Amendment 3, passed in Utah in 2004 changed the definition of marriage in the Utah state constitution from two people...

to one man, one woman. Again, that was in 2004.

Thereby eliminating any change of gay marriage in Utah.

This letter is selective in what rights people have, and who should have them. Claiming 'freedom' only when they fit one demographic while not considering others.

This is not 'freedom'. This is a letter about what the author wants. Not giving any consideration to anyone else.

Oh, yeah and don't play video games.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

La Verkin, UT

Vehicles are involved in the death and maiming of thousands every year but we don't blame the vehicles - we blame the drivers that misuse them and try to educate or take the right to drive away from those who exhibit a disregard for law or other's safety.


OK then,
let's compare --

You are agreeing that assault gun owners should:

Pass written comprehensive testing,
Pass practicle use range testing,
Pass extensive background checks,
Pass physical and mental evaluation checks,
and test and recertify every year?

...and keep all weapons and ammo secured in a gun-Safe, or Armory?
Because that is what is REQUIRED for the ALL Military and Police who use these exact same weapons.

And as for the vehicle analogy you guys keep bringing up --
Property Tax,
Mandatory Insurance,
Safety inspections,
Back Ground checks...

The point is, there is room for compromising --
but YOU guys have got to start bringing something to the table.

So far all we hear is MORE Guns, and even LESS Retrictions,
and the American people far and wide, aren't not buying that one anymore.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

A long disquisition but nothing we don't all already know and agree on, Mr. Boyack. What exactly is your point? (except for "the right to property" -- there's no such right in any framing document or law).

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "LDS Liberal" if "Progressives" are continually improving things and advancing, why is it that their policies are just the failed policies of socialism and communism? Should we rename them "Repeatists" because they only seek to repeat the mistakes of the past while thinking they can do it better this time?

I would rather be part of the group that is seeking to conserve and preserve our freedoms.

Your tests for purchasing assault rifles is insane. All that will do is drive people to buy the same caliber hunting rifle with all the same capabilities.

Why not figure out some way to improve communities and mental health issues that face us? We don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem, and your ilk wants to treat the symptoms and not the cause.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Those who mock the Constitution don't want to have a "measuring stick" that can be used to show that their demands are out-of-line. They don't believe in "founding principles". They believe that government, not God, is the source of liberty. They want to rule over us. They want to reign. They want to take from the producers and transfer that wealth to themselves and to their friends.

Human history has not changed. There has always been those who reject agency, those who demand that they have the right to change OUR laws without our consent, those who think that there is a privileged class in America and that they are that class.

God gave us agency with accountability. The left demands to control our agency without accountability. Whose plan is that? Who is its father? How many of us living on earth today rejected that plan and that plan's author?

America is free because we accepted the responsibility to govern ourselves and to limit the power and scope of all levels of government. Those enemies to our freedoms are vocal, but their premise is backwards.

Returning to the fundamentals assures good and proper government.

to comment

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