Comments about ‘Thousands march for gun control in Washington’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 26 2013 11:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Sandy, UT

@Truthseeker 2

Save it for church. I have never ONCE appealed to scripture or an ecclesiastical leader when debating the 2nd Amendment. I certainly didn't do so on this thread. So why are you? I say over and over again that the right to defend oneself is God-given and inalienable, as I am DEFINITELY entitled to that opinion. But, that is the extent of bringing religion into it. I recognize that my church, officially, doesn't endorse my own political leanings. As they SHOULDN'T. If you have a different opinion about what God grants to His children, by all means. Just realize that your opinions aren't officially supported by the LDS Church either, especially if you think individuals shouldn't be able to arm themselves. I didn't glean that anywhere out of Elder Oaks' statement. As far as LDS individuals replacing the regular military or law enforcement agencies with some vigilante mob, I have NEVER advocated the like. Nor did anyone on this thread. So, I guess the real question is, why did you bring up these quotes from an LDS general authority, that are totally irrelevant to this issue.



First, i happened to come across the Oaks statement today, while doing a search on an entirely different subject and found it interesting.

Second, I have seen articles about leaders of other denominations taking a stance on gun control. I am not interpreting Oaks comment as being for or against gun control legislation.

Third, i have seen comments on DN by people, defending lax gun laws, who believe one day they will need to use those guns against the govt. , often based on purported prophecies of past LDS leaders. (also some draw parallels with Hitler's puported gun restrictions).

It is not irrelevant.

Iowa City, IA

Don't get mad at the gun more than you would the whiskey or beer. Common sense here folks, banning guns is not the answer, just like we go after dead beat fathers and folks driving under the influence, we've got to targer criminals and punsih offenders harder and more swift.

Taking guns, banning, or downsizing guns from responsible citizens only makes law abiding citizens sitting ducks. Just as those folks in Chicago.

MiddleofNowhere, Utah

@ There you go again,

And what rights am I asking the government to take from me by supporting the 2nd Amendment and my right to bear arms? As opposed to asking the government to repeal the 2nd Amendment and take my arms from me? If there is any logic in your statement it must need some explaining.

Castle Valley, Utah

Two For Flinching is right. Way too much hyperbole in this thread. A total gun ban is not on the table. Reasonable and rational restrictions on some types of weapons and magazines are on the table. But witness the emotion, the vitriol, the temper tantrum! And how sadly effective it is in dysfunctional environments. I'm a gun owner, but I'm siding with level-headed folks on this one. I have no fear whatsoever that the guns I own will be taken away,and I cannot find any reason for anyone needing an assault weapon.

Castle Valley, Utah


Your rationale is astounding. First, can we take God out of it because it has not been proven that he/she exists, and therefore it Is quite possible that he/she has not given you or me anything? Second, how on earth can restrictions on posession of certain types of guns (not all guns, mind you) be interpreted as a violation of the Second Amendment? The "arms" mentioned in the Constitution are muskets - you must know that. And should you agree that any restriction on the possession of "arms" refers to whatever they may be at the current time, do you really think that we many good citizens should possess nuclear weapons at home, for example?

DN Subscriber 2

1. Criminals don't obey laws, and neither do crazy people. Why are some advocating disarming the good guys, not the killers?

2. Gun bans and all the other schemes being promoted simply do NOT work! (See the CDC study that said so.)

3. Feinstein and Cuomo have both mentioned confiscation, so anyone who thinks that is impossible is not being honest, or not paying attention. Both NY and California have previously confiscated guns after demanding they be registered, so confiscation is a valid and rational fear. And registration has always preceded confiscation in other countries when tyrants seized control.

4. The Second Amendment is not just about hunting, or self defense, but about keeping We The People in a position to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."

5. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

6. Some well-intentioned people simply refuse to accept that evil people exist, and that the police have no duty to protect anyone, and that it is prudent to be able to defend yourself, and in the case of teachers, your students.

7. "Gun Free Zones" attract killers.

Sandy, UT


So much to say, where to begin? First, I believe in God, as I am entitled to. That is ABSOLUTELY my right. So no, I will NOT take God out of the equation. You may, if you wish, as that is your right. But I most definitely WILL NOT. Second, as I believe God to be very much a part of this equation, I believe that He has indeed given me the right to defend myself. I believe that is an inborn, inalienable right. Again, you do not have to believe that, but I most certainly do. And nothing is ever going to change that. Third, you are entitled to have an opinion on what weapons should be restricted. Just know that I may not agree with or act upon that opinion. For example, if you don't think I should have semi-automatic assault weapons, you can believe that all you want. However, that belief will NOT affect me. I will possess AR-15s, regardless of what you or anyone believes. Does that rationale astound you? Well, you have every right to be astounded. Just know that I don't really care, either way.

Eugene, OR

While the 2nd Amendment is designed as a check against governmental interference with the right of the individual to own and carry personal firearms, it is not the only check against the Federal government's interference. The 9th, 10th and 14th Amendment also are a checks against the Federal governmnet's interference with this fundemental right. What gives the Federal government the authority to limit the ownership of personal firearms? Can anyone point to a specific provision in the US Constitution that allows such act?

Danbury, CT

I've got news for you people who think this is some right-wing conspiracy to take away your rights and that this problem cannot be solved...there are millions of us out here who are GOP, moderate, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal - who all want some common sense on the kinds of weapons and ammunition we sell so freely in our society. The US is the oddball of the developed world, if you ask anyone from a civilized country outside the US.

Many of you are so horrified at the thought of no-limits thinking on abortion, violent movies, sexual behavior. You say you want limits on pornography, especially when applied to children. Yet, some might argue that is a limit on our First Amendment. Why should there be no limits on guns? Should everyone own a tank, a Stinger, or a machine gun? These are "arms". Why have you decided to "draw the line" outside of a hunting rifle or 6 shot handgun?

NYC has restrictive gun laws AND they have a very successful strategy for taking the guns away from criminals. Crime has dropped significantly. Fact is, we CAN and will reduce violence by getting rid of assault weapons.

Castle Valley, Utah

Kill pack, DN Subscriber 2, ThomasJefferson,

You illustrate one of my points beautifully: So many comments in this thread are nothing but emotional fear-driven rants, utterly lacking any reasonable, rational, or constructive suggestions.

"There is nothing we can or should do" is not an answer or an argument. There is a lot we can do. The current concept is simple: Limit the number of rounds that can be rapidly fired at any one time so that when someone goes crazy fewer lives might be lost. Fewer lives would have been lost in Newtown if the killer had only a muzzle-loader.

If you believe that the restrictions being discussed today are infringements of the Second Amendment, I've got news for you. A plethora of arms, from rockets to nerve gas, are off limits for home and personal use. Drawing a new line is what is being discussed.

True, drawing a new line will not prevent every crazy killer from obtaining a weapon on the off-limits side of the line. But what if it made a difference in just one tragedy, like Newtown? Wouldn't it be worth it? Why not try?

DN Subscriber 2

@ EDM- For the sake of discussion, let's consider allowing some tiny incremental infringement on gun rights.

Now, how about we slap a 7 day waiting period on freedom of speech? Or limit your choice of churches to only those which are state approved, as some might "offend" other people with their theology. Or, can we search your house with drones, spy cameras, thermal imagere and the like without a warrant?

The Bill of Rights places strict limits on the powers of government, and any agreement to surrender freedom for the illusion of some benefit is a very dangerous slippery slope indeed.

And, back to the basic story- That sure is a lot of national media attention (parroted by the incestuous wire service users) over a march that drew about a thousand people from all over the country with several weeks of high level organizing. Meanwhile, last week around 3,000 Utahns showed up to SUPPORT gun rights at our state Capitol in bitterly cold weather with only a few days of local grass roots efforts. Which is a better barometer of public sentiment, and more worthy of coverage. Yeah, Utah's even got largely ignored.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT


A lot of ill-informed comments here! Do you guys willingly act ignorant to draw attention to yourselves or are you really just this poorly informed?

Who is proposing the repeal of the 2nd amendment? Surely not the president! Have you folks even read his proposals? How are they against the 2nd amendment? You can't own machine guns and bazookas so it's not lie you should be able to purchase any gun you want. Why do repubs need semi-autos, endless amounts of bullets, and demand that background checks be avoided!?

Time to get informed!

Castle Valley, Utah

DN Subscriber 2,

Our right to own guns is not in question, and this right will not be infringed upon in any proposal on the table today. No Washington official has proposed repealing the 2nd Amendment. And no one interprets the 2nd to mean that we can buy whatever "arm" we want. Do you really think we, the public, should have random access to whatever might be considered an arm - nuclear weapons, for example?

3000 Utahns at a pro-gun rally does not mean that the general public is against reasonable gun controls. The polls say something different.

Park City, UT

I agree with one old man, we do need more of this. This country is ripe for a revolution, I think Barry and his ilk are actually asking for it. So let the pro-gays march, let the anti guns march, let the illegal immigration is ok people march. But, the other side will march too. And I'm going to bet that when we do, we'll double their numbers. Ya, the last election was about 50-50, but most who voted for BO did so so they wouldn't lose their gravy train, so they won't get off the couch. So, really, let's get after it, let's see who is really willing to defend the Constitution of the United States of America! And guess what? 100 years from now your grandchildren will be watching a play about the New American Revolution, it may not be as good as Les Mis, but it will be great for them to understand why they still have the freedoms we have now, that a bunch of fed up Patriots stood up to a guy who wanted to change everything that was meant to be by the founders of this nation.

Ivins, UT

The sign, "No guns in my school" leaves the school unprotected from attack by the lawbreakers and the left.

There are plenty of guns to go around for those crazys who refuse to obey basic laws and signs.
The only way to shut down attacker if for some law abiding armed citizen or policeman to be there to stop it. All other reasonable efforts will fail except to make the left "feel good".
Fight evil force with good law abiding force of equal strength.

It would be nice to see swift justice done to those who have broken the laws which are already on our books but it seems to a lost cause in a liberal, evil world.

to comment

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