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
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
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
@Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "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.
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
@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.
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.
re:CoolCatSorry, "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,or3)remove them from California,
or4)relinquish them to a police/sheriff's department, or5)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)
Crazy postions on gin violence will result on more crazy people with excess
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.
"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.
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...
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.
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.
@ 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
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
Google California Demands All SKSRifles Be Turned InGoogle
john lott obama guns
Missouri HOUSE BILL NO. 545
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
I googled each topic and they do check out. DN won't accept the links in
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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
@dougDo 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
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.
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
@truthFunny 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?
@idelYou 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.
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.
Truth: pardon our skepticism. Cite where and when these things became
Blue, break out Google and search "gun confiscation New Orleans". Even
paranoid people have enemies.
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...
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
Re EMajorMy 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.
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.
@Cool Cat CosmoYou 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.
@cool catall 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?
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!)
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.
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?
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.
Re Atl134How 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.
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.
Responsible newspapers do not spread unfounded fear and hyteria, even on their
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!!!
Merciful goodness. One more poor soul duped by the NRA's nonsense and fear
@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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
Express your opinion. But don't just make stuff up. This is black
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.
Ban mass child killing assault weapons from general circulation? Sounds good to
me. Stop the slaughter!