Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: On guns, one scare tactic deserves another

Comments

Return To Article
  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    March 16, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    Background checks on all purchases. Seems logical. Reasonable. The NRA likes to say guns dont kill people. People kill people. They are right! People kill people, usually with guns! If guns dont kill people why dont we just send people to war,without guns? Let those people kill people The statement is absurd! The fear being spread by the NRA has made the prices of guns and ammo, skyrocket. The delusion, and paronoia is common. I own guns. But i dont see the need for a gun that shoots 100 bullets in a minute. Sure they are fun to shoot. But a 10 rnd clip seems reasonable. Logical. Duck hunters have a plug in their guns so they can only have 3-4 rounds. Where is the outrage?? As far as home protection is concerned a shotgun is a better option than an assalt rifle. A lot more damage will be caused per shot. The NRA's arguments are trivial, and unfounded.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    March 12, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    Banning Guns will solve nothing. Guns are not alowed in airports (as it should be ) 911 over three thousand passed away because of razor knifes. If one is willing to takena.life. they will find a.way. And that is sad. Human lofe is worth nothing to some

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 12, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" cleansing the temple showed that Jesus was not a pacifist. The temple cleansing was to get rid of the wickedness that had entered the temple, and has nothing to do with capitalism. Jesus actually taught us that he was here to make us free and let us choose, choice is capitalism. See Matthew 25:26-30.

    Plus, look at the prophecies of his second coming. He will come and will destroy the wicked, not exactly a passifist thing to do.

    Forgiving the Romans was not a passifist thing. Jesus had a mission to accomplish, and this was the path ahead.

    Jesus was not a passifist. See Luke 22:36 where he tells his followers to sell what they can to buy a sword. Why would a passifist tell his followers to buy swords?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 12, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "Open Minded Mormon" I don't think you understand the scriptures very well.

    ==========

    Jesus was a passifist.
    He didn't stir the people into inserrection.
    He didn't tell them to cleanse the corrupt government.
    I didn't tell them to collect weapons and threaten the Romans.
    He told them to turn the other cheek, give them their cloack, and love and forgive those who would harm you.
    Pretty much the very difinition of passifist.

    and FYI - the Temple had nothing to do with the Romans or the empire.
    In fact - it was a veiled slap at "capitalism".

    BTW - He even forgave the Romans for crucifying him - "they know not what they do".

    As a fellow Mormon and supposedly one of His followers - we should know better.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 12, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    The liberals here have shown their extreme ignorance of guns. Lets look at guns in terms that are easy for everybody to understand.

    Guns are responsible for deaths as much as spoons are responsible for obesity.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" I don't think you understand the scriptures very well. 2000 years ago the Jews were praying for somebody to liberate them from Rome. They were not sent a liberator, they were sent the Savior. He didn't teach or tell them how to overthrow Rome. He taught them how to free themselves from sin and gave them a higher law. He was nto a pacifist, just look at how he cleansed the temple 2 times. Passifists don't go around whipping people, overturning tables, and letting animals free.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    March 11, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    @truthseeker;

    The point is, the government has come after guns that had been legal before that, but they usually instead just make it too difficult to keep/regain those firearms.

    So yes, the government will hardly just grab everyone's firearms. What they have done and will most likely continue to do is make it increasingly difficult and expensive to own them, until hardly anyone can afford a firearm/the training required/ etc., and then they'll have effectively banned guns from the vast majority of the population (at least the law-abiding part).

    As for the question of whether an armed citizenry might be able to stand up against the might of a tyrannical government, the odds are not in the citizens' favor. Perhaps Anti-Bush-Obama is right.

    John Adams once said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Most would agree that our nation is increasingly irreligious and instead prefers moral ambiguity. Thus it would seem that President Adams was correct, and the efficacy of our Constitution therefore neutered by our nation's desire in recent decades to reinvent our own moral compass.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 11, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    Just forget it you guys. Gun confinscation was caught on tape and even reported by the liberal mass media. If these guys even still refuse to accept that then let them live in their delusion. They deserve a tyrannical government and everything that a tyrannical government brings. The constiution wasn't meant for people like this anyway. If they want a dictator so badly, they can have one so they can learn just how they are not going to get their utopia and that the leadership will still live in palaces while the populace starves.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 11, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    re:CoolCat
    Sorry, "nrawinningteam" just not a credible source. Sources have to be credible, otherwise we would all believe 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration, the Holocaust and moon landing were hoaxes, Obama is a secret Muslim, not an American citizen, and other fables.

    The assault weapons ban was originally enacted in CA in 1989, but then revised in 1999 to specify makes/models of assault weapons. From the Dept of Justice, CA State Attorney General site:

    "Persons who lawfully possessed assault weapons as defined by SB 23 prior to 1/1/2000 were required to EITHER
    1) REGISTER them with the DOJ between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2000, or
    2)render them permanently inoperable,or
    3)remove them from California, or
    4)relinquish them to a police/sheriff's department, or
    5)prior to 12/31/2000, sell them to a California licensed firearms dealer who possesses a valid assault weapon dealer permit.

    "The California Senate approved a $24-million expenditure to speed the confiscation of guns from people who have been disqualified from owning firearms because of criminal convictions or serious mental illness."
    (LATimes 3/2013)

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Crazy postions on gin violence will result on more crazy people with excess weaponry.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 11, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    2,000 years ago,
    the religous zealots expected over throw the evil tyranical governemnt.

    They prayed for deliverance.

    God himself came to save them,
    he gave them the answer as to how to win.

    He told them to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and to love their enemies.
    And that those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.

    Jesus was a pacifist.
    He told his followers to follow his example.

    The same rules/laws apply today.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    "2nd amendment was basically intended to permit citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. ... I don't plan on revolting but, I do intend to retain my option to do so."
    If a tyrannical goverment decides to take your gun, it is going to get your gun. Period.

    Watch the news. We're tracking terrorists by satellite and killing them with drones. You may picture yourself as a hero standing against tyranny. You can stockpile supplies in a bunker, and think you can outlast the greatest military in the world. But you WILL lose.

    So yes, buy a gun for your personal protection, but mellow out and give up on the idea that you need the gun to rise up against the government. There is no scenario in which you win that fight.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 11, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    Guns, Gold, and Grub.

    AM radio whips up the fear, and then sells them the answer.

    Snake Oil salesmen have been around forever.
    They all use the Same 'ol schtick...

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 11, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    Addendum:

    CA doesn't confiscate registered weapons UNLESS the owner is prohibited from owning it under CA law ie. is a felon, mentally ill etc.

    Re:usemybrain
    "The bill was proposed Thursday by Rep. Rory Ellinger, D - St. Louis County. It was co-sponsored by three other representatives from the St. Louis area, all Democrats.

    Lawmakers say this bill goes so far that it does not have measurable support from hardly anyone in either party."
    (Reported by KY3)

    You can say it came from Fox News or WND etc., cite the sources, you just can't provide the entire link.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    March 11, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    The Proof you asked for:

    Confiscation of firearms following Hurricane Katrina:

    On youtube, search for “Hurricane Katrina Door to Door Firearms Confiscation” and watch the September 8th 2005 ABC news report documenting it, specifically starting at time 1:09 of the clip.

    On examiner dot com search “Five years later, no accountability for post-Katrina gun grab”; it’s the first one that comes up, Aug 27 2010, showing that “gun seizures were initiated without warrant or probable cause...”

    Proof of SKS/”Assault Rifle” Confiscation:

    Google “california orders statewide confiscation,” it’s the first link, nrawinningteam dot com. You can look at copies of the original orders to confiscate these weapons, often without any reimbursement and potential felony charges.

    A related link with more examples of California’s gun-grabbing ways: Google “Letters from Dan Lungren received by gun confiscation victim”; and click the first link, also nrawinningteam dot com. You’ll find even more examples of these types of travesties.

    STILL don’t believe it? Well, then you really are just turning a blind eye to our eroding 2nd Amendment rights.

  • usemybrain Taylorsville, UT
    March 11, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    @ Dave: The truth is it happened and tyrannical governments do exist, even if by outrageously poor judgement. And I'm not sure everyone got their gun back. Do you really think after gathering hundreds of guns that a few won't get "lost"?

  • dave Park City, UT
    March 11, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    usemybrain,

    I came up with the same results. There is not one credible source in the results. Click on the "news" tab and nothing. This seems to be fabricated

  • usemybrain Taylorsville, UT
    March 11, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    Google California Demands All SKS
    Rifles Be Turned In

    Google john lott obama guns

  • usemybrain Taylorsville, UT
    March 11, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    Missouri HOUSE BILL NO. 545

  • dave Park City, UT
    March 11, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    That is correct although what you omit is critical to the truth.

    People were able to get their guns back. Both state and federal laws were changed to assure that the confiscation cannot happen again.

    Like Wayne LaPierre said: "What we've seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves."

  • usemybrain Taylorsville, UT
    March 11, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    I googled each topic and they do check out. DN won't accept the links in comments.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 11, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Lew Scannon

    "Let's see, when a bunch of people think the government might start banning or confiscating guns, they run out and buy as many as they can. When we have a disaster like Newtown or Columbine, gun purchases spike. Is it just me, or does this seem like knee-jerk paranoia in full swing. Last time I checked, paranoia was a major symptom of several mental illnesses. I think we've got a problem in this country, and it isn't the threat of increased gun control."

    So what do you call the DHS buying up 700 million rounds of ammunition? Do you call that rational? It just proves to me that they do have a desire to disarm the populace.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 11, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    They did run door to door gun confinscations during Katrina. They even got them on video doing. To say that didn't happen is beyond ignorant.

  • dave Park City, UT
    March 11, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    To those that assert that the letter writer wrote the truth. Please cite credible sources. I can't find them.

    Remember: Forums and newsletters are not credible sources.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    @DougS

    "2nd amendment was basically intended to permit citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Right now, people in Washington are very concerned that the people are becoming fed up with their spending, taxing and regulating ways. I don't plan on revolting but, I do intend to retain my option to do so."

    I have a feeling if Democrats were doing and saying stuff like this while a hypothetical Romney Presidency was occurring a lot of conservatives saying this kind of thing now would be calling them terrorists.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    @cjb

    "How many people in Iraq survive when bombs are used to blow up people?"

    Not exactly sure how guns are supposed to stop bombs...incidentally we regulate bombs.

    "How many of those Chinese kids would have survived if the attacker really had wanted to kill those kids? They got lucky this time."

    How do you know he didn't?

    @Another Perspective
    "Therefore If society decides to take away guns, it will accomplish nothing."

    I still don't understand how you people are interpreting "expanded background checks" and "magazine capacity limits" or even grandfathered assault weapons bans as taking away guns.

    At a Congressional hearing one of the pro-gun people was arguing that women need guns to defend themselves. Lately, Republicans have gone after Democrats claiming this is some sort of war on women but not a single one of those examples in the list used to argue that women need guns to defend themselves involved a woman using an assault weapon to do it which is rather notable since the hearing was primarily about the idea of a new assault weapons ban. Seems like people use other guns as their chosen form of defense.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 11, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    @doug
    Do you really want to start instituting the same kind of regulations on guns as we do these other things already. Shall we require everyone that Owens a gun be required to carry insurance on each gun, have yearly inspections and license renewal, a license to operate the gun that must be renewed every four years etc? You are really not helping your cause with this line of reasoning.

  • BlueHusky Mission Viejo, CA
    March 11, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    I remember when news media considered their highest calling to be objective, accurate reporting of news and unbiased reporting of opinion. Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave at the shenanigans of the likes of Limbaugh, Fox News, et al. Now the print media is doing it. The Orange County Register was an unabashed Libertarian-Republican propaganda rag. I heard they have changed somewhat, but I canceled my subscription a few years ago.

    During the Republican primary, Romney backed himself into so many untenable positions, he could not extricate himself from his own nonsense. What amazed me is that he was actually surprised when he lost the election! Still the Republican party blunders on, heedless of fact and common sense.

    So sad. So dangerous.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    March 11, 2013 5:50 a.m.

    2nd amendment was basically intended to permit citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Right now, people in Washington are very concerned that the people are becoming fed up with their spending, taxing and regulating ways. I don't plan on revolting but, I do intend to retain my option to do so.

    For those of you concerned about deaths by gun - please consider also, deaths by vehicle, deaths by disease, and even hospital deaths by malpractice... What legislation/regulation do you propose to eliminate those?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 10, 2013 9:54 p.m.

    @truth

    Funny how other people seem to have no problem finding a way to provide references and evidence to support their positions do you have a different word count restriction then the rest of us?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 10, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    @idel
    You are right there was an local guns confess plan by some local officials acting outside the law. That type of illegal behavior should be stopped when it happens as was the case on this situation but it hardly speaks to a government plan to pass laws to take away guns.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    March 10, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    Let's see, when a bunch of people think the government might start banning or confiscating guns, they run out and buy as many as they can. When we have a disaster like Newtown or Columbine, gun purchases spike. Is it just me, or does this seem like knee-jerk paranoia in full swing. Last time I checked, paranoia was a major symptom of several mental illnesses. I think we've got a problem in this country, and it isn't the threat of increased gun control.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    Truth: pardon our skepticism. Cite where and when these things became "truth"?

  • ibulleti Layton, UT
    March 10, 2013 7:32 p.m.

    Blue, break out Google and search "gun confiscation New Orleans". Even paranoid people have enemies.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    March 10, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    It has been reported and documented on Foxnews and AM radio so it MUST be true!

    Just like how Obama was born in Kenya and the ACA contained death panels and Obama wanted to turn us into a Communist state and how Romney was going to fix everything by killing Big Bird....

    Solid documentation and everything on Fox and the radio is 100 percent true...

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 10, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    EVERYTHING the letter mentioned is true,

    and has, in fact, actually all happened.

    and he has only given the tip of the iceberg.

    Once again the comments in this forum prove how disconnected the left is with the truth and reality.

    The left will NOT believe the truth unless if conforms to their world view, or it is reported on their liberal news works.

    If you want the actual proof just do a search on internet and read the trusted sites, it is all there,

    these comments do not give enough space for it, but the truth is out there, just look for it yourself,

    it is the comments here from liberals and left that is the true fiction.

    Not one of you, has given any contrary evidence, your opinions not withstanding.

  • Another Perspective Bountiful, UT
    March 10, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    Re EMajor

    My point was there are many ways to kill people, many of them more dangerous than any gun (such as a bottle of gasoline or a bomb) . Therefore If society decides to take away guns, it will accomplish nothing.

    It will only make good people, especially the weak, more vulnerable.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 10, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    What utter nonsense.

    While we expect great latitude for on-line comments, Deseret News ought to have higher standards for the letters it chooses to print. When a letter writer is presenting "facts" (not just an opinion) that can be determined to be true or false, letters containing untruths, outlandish claims etc. ought not be published. One would expect DN to have high standards of truth, no?

    CA has had an assault weapons "ban" (which now includes certain SKS rifles) at least since 1989. The law "grandfathered" in assault weapons but required them to be registered within a certain period of time (I believe a year following the ban). Registered assault weapons have not been confiscated.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    March 10, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    @Cool Cat Cosmo

    You are absolutely wrong. It is perfectly legal to own an assault weapon in California if you owned it before passage of the Roberi-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and it is registered. Lawfully registered guns have NOT been confiscated in California.

    @DN Most newspapers do not publish letters that contain obvious verifiable inaccuracies like this. Perhaps you should consider subscribing to those standards.

  • George Bronx, NY
    March 10, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    @cool cat
    all right cool cat if they happened and are documented then please provide evidence to support the claims the author makes about president Obama in chicago and to his fellow democrats. Surely if they are documented it will be no problem for you tell tell us where, right?

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    March 10, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    And by the way, the things the author states are indeed documented and occurred, whether you choose to believe them or not. Newsflash, but the mostly-liberal leaning media usually ignores these types of stories (shocker!)

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    March 10, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    While I support the second amendment, we already have way too much of the emotional & sensational in this issue. I hope that we can stop demonizing one another and be more sensible (versus polarizing) about the issues our nation faces, but I'm afraid that is a tall order indeed.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    March 10, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    cjb,
    "How many people in Iraq survive when bombs are used to blow up people?"

    You are taking that argument to absurd lengths. Bombs kill our troops in Iraq. Our troops have guns. Lots of them. Big ones, too.

    What was your point?

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    March 10, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    I suppose a lot of gun confiscations have taken place--from criminals. After all, as gun lovers know, guns don't kill people, criminals do. Not wanting guns to be blamed for so many deaths, I would think defenders of the 2nd Amendment would be the first to support gun confiscations from criminals.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 10, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Re Atl134

    How many people in Iraq survive when bombs are used to blow up people? How many people here would survive if the criminally insane used cars to mow down groups of school children? How many of those Chinese kids would have survived if the attacker really had wanted to kill those kids? They got lucky this time. There are plenty of Chinese kids who have been killed in school attacks. Google it.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 10, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    How about we develop a defensive weapon that would immobilize an attacker but not do no permanent harm. Such as a weapon that fired a stun agent as a projectile, a gas, or a beam of electrons. Further, the active agent of the stun would have a distinctive marker in it to identify the gun and it’s owner.

    I don’t know how, just do it.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 10, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    Responsible newspapers do not spread unfounded fear and hyteria, even on their editorial pages.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    March 10, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    I agree w/this letter writer.

    We should eliminate all laws, rules, and regulations on guns.

    And for that matter, everything.

    No more speed limits, no more divers' licenses, no more drinking or smoking laws, no more laws against child labor, no more laws against slavery or cruel and unusual punishments, and no more 40 hr work week. In fact, lets cut all police departments and privatize them.

    Then, anyone and everyone could buy bazookas, machine guns, and nukes. Any rules against this will result in allowing on the crazy people to get them. Do you and your children really want to be caught flat footed?

    Then, we can give more oil and gas subsidizes and tax cuts to the very rich.

    Awwwww what a paradise we shall live in!!!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 10, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Merciful goodness. One more poor soul duped by the NRA's nonsense and fear mongering.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    @cjb
    "If guns didn't exist, people who attack schools would use swords or knives as they do in China"

    The same day as Newtown someone in China did go into a school and stab 20ish kids around the same age in China. All of them survived.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    I still don't know how you all read the words "expanded background checks" or "background checks on all purchases" and think access to guns will be completely removed. That doesn't make any sense unless you're someone who would fail a background check...

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 10, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    Guns can indeed make a family or a person safer, but for this to happen, people need to learn and follow the rules of gun safety. Doing this is not hard, but you need to do it.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 10, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    If guns didn't exist, home invaders would probably use axes, knives or baseball bats. Since guns do exist home invaders are quite likely to be incapicated or killed before they can do the individual or family harm.

    If guns didn't exist, people who attack schools would use swords or knives as they do in China, or they would throw acid in the face of girls why try to attend school or use bombs as they do in the middle east.

    In America, if guns didn't exist, what would people use? Run cars into crowds of people? stab people with knives? Hack people with swords? Beat people to death with base ball bats?

    Who knows?

    What is known is that a gun is an equalizer, allowing even the weakest woman or even child to successfully defend themselves against a stronger experienced brutal attacker. Take guns away and this puts weaker people and all people at greater risk.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 10, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    All right russel I would like to see some evidance to support either of your claims about Obama . There are "scare tactics" then there are lies., which one is your claims?

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    The DNews regularly exercises editorial control on comments that "cross the line". It's about time they do the same for letters. This entry so far stretches the bounds of "truth" that it totally erases the line between fact and fiction. Who approved it?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 10, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    Express your opinion. But don't just make stuff up. This is black helicopter stuff.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    I am used to letters-to-the-editor in this newspaper containing distortions of the truth and outright lies, but his letter absolutely takes the cake.

    The letter writer's assertion that public firearms confiscations have occurred anywhere, or that President Obama supports future confiscations, is beyond absurd.

    It reveals how disconnected from reality a significant portion of the population has become.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    March 10, 2013 3:10 a.m.

    Ban mass child killing assault weapons from general circulation? Sounds good to me. Stop the slaughter!